Talk:Ministry of Commerce & Labour Budget Adjustment Resolution (657)

Commerce and Labour Expenditures Act, 654 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/02/2023 6:23 PM

Tabled by von Zeppelin, MGA, CKA, as an independent member's bill. In order to save the Republic from default, the following changes are being made in the laws concerning the Ministry of Commerce and Labour. Voting is currently set for the 16th of august https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Commerce_and_Labour_Expenditures_Act,_654 The Kodiak Republic Wiki Commerce and Labour Expenditures Act, 654 In order to save the Republic from default, the following changes are being made in the laws concerning the Ministry of Commerce and Labour. ACTIONED on ## month ####, ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain.

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/02/2023 6:24 PM

@Assembly Member debate is now open on the Commerce and Labour Expenditures Act, 654 Jonn Stevens (DPPK)

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 08/02/2023 6:25 PM

Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 08/02/2023 6:26 PM I am against section 1.3 of this bill, for I believe that if any funding should be reduced in the Mining & Energy Expansion act it should not be the renewable energy subsidies, but the mining subsidies which are a far greater expense. Additionally, the repeal of the Business Competition Act would abolish the Anti-Monopoly Commission, which helps safeguard the economy by help to prevent the formation controlling monopolies. For those reasons, I am heavily against this bill in its current form.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/02/2023 10:38 PM First of all, I want to thank everyone who participates in this discussion in one way or another. So, start. I will answer objections on each item separately. With regard to paragraph 1.3. Green energy has a small financial return (if it has it at all). If we were in a more favorable financial situation, I would be happy to welcome the development of green energy. But we have a serious burden of public debt, so this will not happen yet. Please note that the cancellation of paragraph 1.3 will not lead to total pollution, since environmental standards are not contained in it, but only monetary expenses. Therefore, it is more rational to reduce costs

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/02/2023 10:48 PM Not the entire Competition Law is being repealed, but only Article 2.3. To understand the absurdity of this article, I will explain: thanks to it, the administrative unit finances itself without our knowledge, although it already has funding for administrative needs from the article above. The repeal of this article only removes bureaucratic self-enrichment.

Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 08/02/2023 10:51 PM That section is the amount authorized for the grants authorized in Article 2.1 of that Bill.

Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 08/02/2023 10:51 PM Then why not also reduce the size of the mining subsides as well?

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/02/2023 10:55 PM I am obviously in favour of reducing expenditures but I am unsure if removing all subsidies for raw resource extraction a good move long term. In my rough draft planning document, budget parity was achieved with only a 50% reduction. I also believe that KISRA is an important part of maintaining our economic technological parity globally. I am hesitant to remove science funding.

Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 08/02/2023 10:56 PM I am against fully removing funding from nearly anything, reducing the expenditures can be achieve by downscaling the funding while not fully cancelling it.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/02/2023 10:56 PM I am lastly concerned about the total repeal of the Competition Act, especially with no replacement for the Arbitration courts or the anti-monopoly legislation? Reducing business grants in a time of budget crisis, sure, but axing the monopoly ban?

Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 08/02/2023 10:58 PM That is actually a fault of mine, I misread the text of the bill when making my initial opinion and I apologize for making false hyperbolic statements on that note. It is only Section 2.3 of the Competition Act that is slated for repeal by this bill, not the full thing.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/02/2023 10:59 PM Ah, I see. The proposal is minimalist, but perhaps to the detriment of ease of understanding Ok, I will need to take a moment to re-orient my understanding I'll return with a coffee I do also want the specific commentary from the Minister of Commerce and Labour @Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP]

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/03/2023 7:53 AM OOC: Thanks for the ping, I definitel want to weigh in. Bear with me Kodiak! Abnormally busy week with more hours put into work than usual. I'll review and respond in full friday night or saturday AU time. Sorry!

Avakael — 08/03/2023 10:36 AM I'm reluctant to support this act, unless it can be explicitly demonstrated that the financial gains from these grants are less than what we spend.

Klaus Mikaelson — 08/03/2023 11:22 AM can the author explain the reasoning behind the reduction mentioned in article 1.2?

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/04/2023 5:28 AM I'll be brief. To restate my arguments, we have an imbalance in the economy: the research sector feels acceptable, and the real sector is at the bottom. For the most effective development, there must be a balance. My Ministry sees a way out of the crisis in cutting some expenses, and investing the freed money to create a highly competitive sector of the economy. And the profit should be sent back to the places where the money was taken from.

Now closer to Article 1.2. Research grants have a certain impact on the development of science and technology, but this is clearly not the only source of funding. Therefore, having fulfilled Article 1.2, we mostly preserve the scientific potential, but temporarily slow down the development of this industry. This is the general logic.

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/05/2023 7:22 AM (OOC: Apologies for delay RL)

I'll summarise my thoughts quickly and will be happy to discuss in full.

1.1 - Section 2.3 in the The Business Competition Act (Inter) is repealed.

The repeal of section 2.3 is dangerous, at a time when confidence in the Kodiak economy, business, and indeed an exodus of business that has been building up in the last 5 (?) years. Firstly, this removes all funding for financing any aid - the BBC cannot loan money they do not have. I agree that expenditure needs to be reigned in but this is essentially blunt force removal. I would advocate for a reduction and not a full removal considering economic conditions undoutably means that many businesses of all sizes in our current economy would cease to exist, and this is before taking into account businesses opting to leave the Kodiak economy of their own free will. The removal of all funding would send a message that we do not care for business growth, and would largely decrease confidence in the Kodiak economy when we should be aiming to regain this.

1.2 - The financing of the Technology and Innovation Grants Act (635) is reduced from 400 million Florins per quartile in Section 1.3 to 100 million Florins per quarter.

Technology investment is generally a boon to productivity, innovation, and GDP growth particularly if it keeps us on par or exceeding other nations. I would be hesitant on this funding being slashed to 1/4 of what it is. I would prefer this is not reduced, but if it were to be reduced it would need to be gradual as the reach of a large drop in funding (400 million per year is what this would provide, compared to 1.6 billion per year) would mean many projects, investments would be untenable.

Remember that an agency such as KISRA does not fund projects 'just for fun', rather they fund important projects that promise to have positive effects on the advancement of science and technology for all facets of Kodiak, which comes with knock on effects for economic growth and adoption of new technologies.

1.3 - Section 1.4 in the Mining & Energy Expansion Act is repealed.

As a growth industry, renewable is an important part of the future. It is true that the return on investment is not immediate. We should be careful about not investing here entirely. Of course, it would be my Ministry's responsibility to explore other options. Should be noteworthy that the current expenditure here is a small drop compared to many other expense areas.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/07/2023 2:41 AM @Assembly President I want to transfer the authorship of this bill to @Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] .

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/07/2023 2:42 AM

Ok then if there are no objections authorship is officially transferred to @Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP]

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/08/2023 2:42 AM Mr President ( @Jonn Stevens (DPPK) ), thank you for your patience. Please replace the current proposal with the following https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Ministry_of_Commerce_%26_Labour_Budget_Adjustment_Resolution_(657)

Noting that I am changing from an Act to a Resolution since the Ministry's aim is to adjust the existing Commerce & Labour budget. (OOC: Also clerically was easier due to title changes etc).

As a way of explanation, I think it goes without saying that in our current debt and economic crisis, we risk financial collapse if we do not reduce expenditures across each Ministry. However, as many of my portfolios policies are designed to bolster the economy in various ways, I have opted to spread the burden of expenditure cuts across the portfolio as reasonably as possible in order to avoid drastic changes that might end up damaging the economy more which is counter to our objectives.

To summarise by numbers - the resolution proposes a large expenditure saving of ~1 .003 billion/quarter, or ~4.012 billion annually, that is spread across policies rather than cutting funding completely. Reducing the Ministry's total spend from 20.96 billion to 16.94 billion, out of the total whole of government expenditure of 195.6 billion.

I'll of course be available to take any questions the General Assembly wishes to put forward, on behalf of the cabinet and ministry. The Kodiak Republic Wiki Ministry of Commerce & Labour Budget Adjustment Resolution (657) Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/09/2023 1:16 AM

I apologize I didn’t get to this sooner I will replace it post haste

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/09/2023 1:18 PM

it has been replaced Jonn Stevens (DPPK)

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 08/09/2023 1:18 PM

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/10/2023 5:20 AM Thank you @Assembly President !

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/10/2023 7:54 PM Would the Minister @Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] like to outline the major changes for the Assembly?

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/11/2023 1:39 AM do any of the @Assembly Member have any comments on this new proposal?

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 08/11/2023 2:11 AM None.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 08/11/2023 2:47 AM I don't Spiritualandia — 08/11/2023 3:45 PM cool ig

Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 08/12/2023 9:08 AM At the request of the Chancellor I'll outline a bit more about the major changes.

The original proposal was written at a time prior to more information being available, which of course would not have been available to the original author, as he did not hold the Commerce and Labour portfolio at the time.

Rather than completely remove funding, for example from funding for loans and business grants, and renewable energy, and severely reducing technology funding - the Ministry has opted for a more spread approach across the portfolio.

As a result reducing funding at a lesser level across in the Business Competition Act, Regional Development and Agriculture, Reconstruction Incentive, and the Mining and Energy Subsidies ensures that these important economy boosting programs continue at a reasonable enough capacity to continue doing their good works.

The monetary result is that the new proposal actually saves more money in the overall government budget, but avoids severely damaging aforementioned important economy boosting programs.

As before, I am happy to answer any questions the assembly may have. I have high hopes that as we reign in the budget, we will see financial recovery on the horizon and we may again invest in our citizens. Since there has been no more comments since I introduced the proposal on the 8th, might I motion we hold a vote prior to the current set date of the 16th of August? Maybe the start of the week at the latest?

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/13/2023 12:20 AM I agree. I motion to set the vote for Monday 14 Aug.

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/13/2023 12:21 AM

Ok if their are no objections (and someone would second the members motion) the date will be changed to the 14th

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 08/13/2023 2:26 AM I second the motion

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/13/2023 2:26 AM

If there are no objections the vote will begin on the 14th

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/14/2023 3:30 PM

@Assembly Member Voting is now open for the Ministry of Commerce and Labour Budget Adjustment Resolution of 657

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 08/14/2023 5:45 PM There seems to be an error on the role allowed to vote @Assembly President

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/14/2023 6:03 PM

Hmm I must have clicked assembly president instead of assembly member No problem I can just redo the poll in a sec (Currently in the car it will be open when I get home)

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 08/14/2023 7:30 PM I didn't have any issues with my vote Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 08/14/2023 7:30 PM Same here

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/14/2023 7:31 PM

Hmm let me try again real quick EasyPoll BOT

— 08/14/2023 7:33 PM

Question Do you approve of The Ministry of Commerce and Labour Budget Adjustment Resolution of 657

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [11 • 79%] 🇧 ░░░░░░░░░░ [0 • 0%] 🇨 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [3 • 21%] 14 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (11 days ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 41307886 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/14/2023 7:34 PM

@Assembly Member something weird was happening with the last poll please vote again Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 08/18/2023 9:27 AM

@Assembly Member with a margin of 11 Aye 0 Nay and 3 Abstaining this act is declared passed