Talk:The State Enterprise and General Communications Resolution, 652
From The Kodiak Republic Wiki
Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/21/2023 10:03 AM
Tabled by W. Magnus Ward, MGA, NUP, as a government-sponsored bill. The State Enterprise and General Communications Resolution, 652
A resolution to redirect efforts of State Utilities to leave a 'public services' environment and instead compete in an enterprise environment. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_State_Enterprise_and_General_Communications_Resolution,_652 Proposed by W. Magnus Ward, MGA, NUP. Voting is presently set for 4 April 2023 The Kodiak Republic Wiki The State Enterprise and General Communications Resolution, 652 A resolution to redirect efforts of State Utilities to leave a 'public services' environment and instead compete in an enterprise environment. ACTIONED on ## MONTH ####, with ## Aye, ## Nay, and ## Abstain. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/21/2023 10:03 AM
@Assembly Member Discussion is now opened. Klaus Mikaelson
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 03/21/2023 10:03 AM
👑[FED] Anarchic States👑 — 03/21/2023 10:03 AM didnt ask but ok Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/21/2023 10:04 AM
I look forward to comments from those Assembly members with something of substance to contribute to the discussion on this proposal. Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 03/21/2023 10:05 AM It is in my opinion that this bill is in dire need considering our struggling economy; making our state run agencies competitive is the first step towards a more healthy economy. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/21/2023 10:26 AM This is a amazing bill and much needed in these times it has my full support! W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/21/2023 5:42 PM I just wanted to say as the author that I feel that to foster a competitive business environment requires us to ensure equitable access to water, power, postage, and telecommunications. However, these are investments also into our future. Our state-run enterprises should be able to support themselves just as any business should. By paying good wages, demanding market rates, and participating in research and development. This bill does that. I am proud to work with the KWP to ensure that we may both remove the burden of supporting these businesses from the state expenditures as well as allow these enterprises to attract good talent and provide better services. The returns on this investment for the government will mean that we may better support our schools, hospitals, and infrastructure projects without being tied down into propping up subsidised access to utilities. The savings for our people should come from the economy of scale and - not from a higher tax rate. Alfonso Sadurin — 03/21/2023 6:37 PM Sell our public companies, it's the only way we can recover. After selling them, we can free up a lot of space in the budget to reduce deficit. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/21/2023 6:38 PM it would be irresponsible to sell an appreciating asset which may provide long-term income. - especially one which lowers overhead for small and medium businesses Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 03/21/2023 7:29 PM Full support. This is needed to balance the budget and to establish a national postal service Alfonso Sadurin — 03/21/2023 8:15 PM That I can support Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 03/22/2023 5:26 AM It is pretty clear that I, in my capacity as Chancellor, support this bill given my sponsorship so that the GA can debate the merits and, as I will recommend, vote to pass this act.
The advantages of our state run enterprises being self sustainable and profitable are clear - the burden on tax payers is reduced, and given the state run nature of the enterprise, the goals of these organisations shall continue to be aimed at serving the people, whether that be through utilities, or even the postal service. It also gives the GA, and government power to assist in harder times should it be needed. Finally, as has been mentioned already, the ROI of these enterprises will go straight back to the people. It is my hope that future generations to come will benefit greatly from this arrangement, as we transition to more sustainable state organisations, with further reinvestment back into Kodiak. Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 03/22/2023 7:25 AM I am in most part, in favour of this bill, with the exception of the Kodiak State Postal Service Act, as I am of the belief that something as crucial as a Postal service should not be Mandated to be run profitably as this could mean that areas that are too remote or not profitable enough to service will not see benefit from this service which is meant to serve then. von Zeppelin [FED] — 03/22/2023 7:41 AM I will share my thoughts on this bill. Obviously, we need to change something in our income-expenditure system. Perhaps no one will have any objections to this.
The bill tries to solve market problems with the help of, who would have thought, market methods. And oddly enough, from a market point of view, this is quite logical: enterprises are needed only to create profits and, as a by-product, to double demand.
But here's the bad luck. More precisely, two bad luck.
The state and companies have different goals: the first wants to double demand, the second profit. And when a situation arises, as with us, when state-owned enterprises, a conflict arises. Either the enterprises are not working for profit, or the state is not working to double the services of citizens.
According to this bill, we reject the first, accepting the second. That is, we are turning from a state into a company, which in my opinion is terrible.
And here is the second problem. Building state-owned enterprises on the basis of profits will lead to higher prices. And now the question is: where will our poor fellow citizens find the money to buy new goods and services? Certainly not out of thin air. The most likely option is that we will launch a printing press to give people money. And what happens when money that is not secured with goods gets into the economy? Right! Inflation. And it, in turn, will simply destroy the capital of the middle class, which, due to its prevalence in Kodiak, will evaporate our economy. Maybe I'm exaggerating somewhere, and downplaying somewhere, but in any case, the trend is as I described it.
What do I suggest? I will write in the next message. von Zeppelin [FED] — 03/22/2023 8:01 AM Although my way of solving the problem is far from ideal, but it is relatively workable, besides, I am open to discussion.
So that the members of the assembly can understand my thoughts, I will remind you of a very interesting, but often forgotten property of money. Money, as you know, is a "universal equivalent", an intermediary between the seller and the buyer. But, as with any poslednik, there is a small catch. The State has the exclusive right to issue money and change its value. If desired, you can both devalue all bank and not only deposits, and make the owners of money super-rich. By changing the value of money, you can stop factories, or you can confuse an industrial paradise. Frauds with money reach the point that it is possible to forcibly demand a currency exchange.
But then why does everyone use money? Because it's very convenient. And the state does not always need to have property in the economy in order to radically change it over and over again.
Why don't we create more such intermediaries, for example, in the transport sector? In communications? In trade? Such state-wide intermediaries in the form of companies will work effectively, because they will not be direct opponents of other companies. This should work like the central bank and other banks: the central bank, by virtue of both the state and a little separated from direct intervention, does not work for profit, but for services, while retaining many of the advantages of the company.
Therefore, I will still vote for the bill, but I will insist on the creation of sectoral ministries that will become a kind of "central banks" for their industries. But this is about talking about another bill, which I will start working on soon. Alfonso Sadurin — 03/22/2023 6:36 PM Maybe we could maintain service on those non-profitable areas and let the profitable areas subsidize it I would like to maintain state companies as much as I can, but we have a gaping hole in the budget that must be closed. When times are tough, we need to make measures to ensure the viability of our state in the long run. Closing the gap while continuously investing in our future would be a much better course for everyone. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/22/2023 6:39 PM Yes, while if it is preferable I can write into the bill an obligation for services in rural areas, the intent is that as a state enterprise, there would be the obligation that profitable urban offices would subsidise less profitable rural offices. Alfonso Sadurin — 03/22/2023 6:54 PM I would like to live in a world where we could subsidize everything or make everything accessible all at once. However, we have a government reeling from the devastation of a war, a small economy whose bauxite resources aren't generating enough resources to ensure that everyone that ideal. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/23/2023 1:50 PM
any further discussion or thoughts? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/25/2023 7:17 AM Given the silence of nearly 24 hours and what appears to be generally unanimous approval, I would like to request a vote Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 03/25/2023 8:18 AM Seconded Emile(DPPK) — 03/25/2023 8:23 AM I second that Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/25/2023 11:50 AM
A vote will be opened later today EasyPoll BOT
— 03/25/2023 7:49 PM
Question Do you support the State Enterprise and General Communications Resolution?
Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain
Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [15 • 71%] 🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 🇨 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [4 • 19%] 21 users voted
- alarm_clock: Poll already ended (3 days ago)
- spy: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 60cae66e Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/25/2023 7:49 PM
@Assembly Member Voting is now opened! Klaus Mikaelson OP
— Yesterday at 11:12 AM
With 15 votes in favor, 2 against and 4 abstaining from the vote, this bill is declared passed, and will be archived in 24 hours