NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi all,

I'm looking to improve my economy, and I don't want to choose an option in an issue that will make my economy get worse. Some issues don't deal with it at all, but the ones that do that aren't obvious are difficult. Examples: Outsourcing an Outrage, and the auto industry one. Which options do I choose to help, and not hurt, the economy? Thanks.

Hmmm...

Legalize gambling.
Give huge government handouts to the auto industry.
Illegalize white-collar unions.
Lower taxes.
Legalize outsourcing.

That good for a start? Try those options.

~The Libertarian Concordance of Czardas~
NS Issue Answerer

Hmmm...

Legalize gambling.
Give huge government handouts to the auto industry.
Illegalize white-collar unions.
Lower taxes.
Legalize outsourcing.

That good for a start? Try those options.

~The Libertarian Concordance of Czardas~
NS Issue Answerer
(I want to improve my economy too) Can you tell me what the titles of those issues are, so I can keep a look out for them?

Child Casino Shock/Gambling Interests Offer High Stakes
Reclaim The Streets! (not, I think, Auto Industry Struggles Against Foreign Imports)
Suits In Protest
Social Inequality Reaching Embarrassing Levels, and many others
Outsourcing An Outrage, Say Demonstrators

These are some examples. In general, try to think about the effects of each options. Czardas's 4th example raises a good point. Many issues contain options to lower taxes which - generally, and for better or for worse - improves the economy. Many issues seem to have an economic effect.

Give huge government handouts to the auto industry.

OK, so I got the issue, haven't decided yet, and I am confused at wich Option I choose that applies to government handouts to the auto industry. Should I choose Option 2:
The only thing people are sick of is long-haried idiots riding their bicycles at two miles an hour on major thoroughfares," says commited motorist Billy-Bob King. "People shouldn't be able to protest like this. The government needs to crack down on them.

Or should I choose Option 3:
The Automotive Manufacturers Association, meanwhile, has called for government support. "It is clear that we need to boost the level the automobile support in this country. This protest this morning is a clear indication of...um...anyway, we need more government funds."

Wich option is it that is compatible for you said in my quote? I haven't answered my issue yet until I have an answer.
Please reply to this Czardas - or Greunberg -, thanks!

Choose option 3, as option 2 has no mention of government funds for the auto industry.

Choose option 3, as option 2 has no mention of government funds for the auto industry.
thanks, I'ma go answer the issue now

Reclaim The Streets! (not, I think, Auto Industry Struggles Against Foreign Imports)
One of the options on that one raises your economy, but I actually forgot which one it was.... #1, maybe?

Also, try option #1 of "Women Demand Equal Opportunities". It raises both civil rights and economy IME: civil rights because women will get the same jobs as men, and economy because with more women working the economy improves (I guess).

One of the options on that one raises your economy, but I actually forgot which one it was.... #1, maybe?

I chose option 3, that Pamir said, it raised my economy from Strong to Very Strong.

I chose option 3, that Pamir said, it raised my economy from Strong to Very Strong.
No, I meant the other one, "Auto Industry Struggles Against Foreign Imports".

I'll try it out on a non-essential puppet sometime or other, I guess.

(god!, you all must be irratated when I ask for what options to choose in an issue, aren't ya? sorry though)
Anyways, once again, I need another issue help. The Uranium Mining (my major industry) Strike! I am feared that either option I choose, my economy will worsen. Or which is the better choice, because both pratically say that they both raise the economy or something like that.

Here are the options that I have no idea what to choose:

Option 1
"We are the backbone of this country, and we demand a fair wage rise!" says union leader Gregory Clinton. "I don't think a 20% increase over two years is too much to ask. Unless the government forces employers to give us our due, we'll shut this whole industry down! Let's see how well The Helghan Empire's economy manages without any Uranium Mining, huh?"

Option 2
"We pay our employees very generous wages," says employer representative Hope Silk. "Especially when you consider that without us, they'd be OUT ON THE STREET. Hear that, you scumbags? OUT ON THE STREET! Anyway, my point is, if you cave in, you make our entire industry uncompetitive. You can't do that in the global marketplace. It'll hurt the whole country. The best solution, economically speaking, would be to relax industrial laws and allow us to fire troublemakers on the spot."

I know previously, that Czardas said nothing about this to help the economy, but the problem is, I think that if I choose one option, it will hurt my economy if I don't choose the other, and vice versa. I want to know if this has anything to do with my economy first, if it doesn't, tell me and I'll dismiss it.

I'd recommend Option 2. It looks like it's giving more rights to employers and less to employees, which will increase economic freedom, and generally increased economic freedom in turn increases your economy.

I'd recommend Option 2. It looks like it's giving more rights to employers and less to employees, which will increase economic freedom, and generally increased economic freedom in turn increases your economy.
I hope you're right about it increasing economy.

It still appears to be "Very Strong", and the update passed already for most people (read: me), so I think you're ok.

Note, as you get bigger it takes more issues to change you rating, the same applies as you get higher on the economy/civil rights/political rights ratings.

An while I'm at it, which one of these will improve my civil rights?

1. "It's a simple matter really," says left-wing activist and former rock star Konrad Johnson, "Sometimes when you're voting, all the options suck. Why then should people be forced to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two, or even three or four evils? Adding 'None of the Above' to the ballot would ensure that the people have a choice at all times, even if that choice is to reject the choices they have been given!"


2. "Adding 'None of the Above' to the ballot makes absolutely no sense," contributes conservative political pundit Bianca Thiesen. "Those who want to run for office have already put their names on the ballot, and if none of those options suits the voter, that's just too bad. Instead, we ought to prevent this sort of problem and limit the number of options. Sure, less people can run, but that will eliminate costly runoff elections completely!"

Neither will have any bearing on civil rights. #1 will increase political freedoms and #2 will decrease them.

Also...when you're a large nation it isn't all that slow to change. With just one issue I raised my economy from Basket Case to Reasonable, and with two more from Reasonable to Very Strong. ;)

Now I'm waiting for another one to get it up to where it really belongs—somewhere in the vicinity of "Powerhouse" to "Frightening"... I'm tired of nations discounting me because my economy just happens to be weaker than theirs.

What issues did you get, that you are supposed to go from Very Strong to Powerhouse (or Frightening)?

Which one do you guys think would increase my economy:

1. Roxanne Steele, secretary of commerce, recommends you ignore these commies. "Free enterprise means not having to succumb to unions, and the world has enough unions already."
[Accept]

2. Charles Rubin, secretary of labor, advises you to adjust laws to allow white-collar unions. "It only makes sense that all of the workers in our nation have equal opportunity to benefit from the advantages of collective bargaining."
[Accept]

3. "Get these people out of the street!" advises Miranda Washington, local police chief. "They're blocking traffic, and making it impossible for the common man to drive to the megamall!"
[Accept]

4. Finally, Right Reverend Chastity du Pont proclaims, "The downtrodden are suffering at the hands of the MAN, and these wealthy upper shelf vice presidents are asking to make the rich richer and the poor poorer! The only reason the common worker needs a union is to be able to fight against the oppression of these slave drivers! It's ludicrous that these greedy scrooges are asking for even MORE money! Send them packing and raise taxes on the wealthy to bring more equality to our nation!"
[Accept]

I'm inclined to pick #1, but #3 puts up a good case...

What issues did you get, that you are supposed to go from Very Strong to Powerhouse (or Frightening)?
The one that got me from Basket Case to Reasonable was Option 1 of "Suits in Protest". Then Option 3 of "Reclaim the Streets!" got me to Very Strong. From Very Strong to Powerhouse, I'd suggest either one; beyond "Powerhouse" or "All-Consuming" the going gets harder. By the time the economy is that good, there isn't much that can improve it. However, "Reclaim the Streets!" generally works; also, Option 2 of the telemarketers issue and Option 2 of "Outsourcing an Outrage, Say Demonstrators" also work.

I can't think of any others, but I'm sure there are more. Oh, and Option 1 of "Women Demand Equal Opportunities" got me from All-Consuming to Frightening on one nation.

TSS—#1, definitely. #3 also might work, but #1 is proven.

TSS—#1, definitely. #3 also might work, but #1 is proven.
Yes, thoughts so, I think that was the one that got me to frightening, but i wanted to see what happened to others.

Oh, and if this helps, one of my oldest puppets—now with almost 2 billion population—just got from All-Consuming to Frightening with Option 3 of the issue "Aging Concerns in @@NAME@@", which raises the pension age to 95, thus providing more workers and stimulating the economy at the cost of civil rights (Some to Few).

Which one do you guys think would increase my economy:

1. Roxanne Steele, secretary of commerce, recommends you ignore these commies. "Free enterprise means not having to succumb to unions, and the world has enough unions already."
[Accept]

2. Charles Rubin, secretary of labor, advises you to adjust laws to allow white-collar unions. "It only makes sense that all of the workers in our nation have equal opportunity to benefit from the advantages of collective bargaining."
[Accept]

3. "Get these people out of the street!" advises Miranda Washington, local police chief. "They're blocking traffic, and making it impossible for the common man to drive to the megamall!"
[Accept]

4. Finally, Right Reverend Chastity du Pont proclaims, "The downtrodden are suffering at the hands of the MAN, and these wealthy upper shelf vice presidents are asking to make the rich richer and the poor poorer! The only reason the common worker needs a union is to be able to fight against the oppression of these slave drivers! It's ludicrous that these greedy scrooges are asking for even MORE money! Send them packing and raise taxes on the wealthy to bring more equality to our nation!"
[Accept]

I'm inclined to pick #1, but #3 puts up a good case...
Czardas said this way earlier on this thread. He said to illegalize white-collor unions. I'm not sure wich Option to choose, including that I don't know what illegalizing white-collar... mean. Czardas you wanna take it from here?

Czardas said this way earlier on this thread. He said to illegalize white-collor unions. I'm not sure wich Option to choose, including that I don't know what illegalizing white-collar... mean. Czardas you wanna take it from here?
Option 1 illegalizes white-collar unions. (One way you can tell what issues increase and decrease your economy is by looking at who says them. This option comes from the Minister of Commerce, which is a pretty good hint that unless your MoC is actually a traitor seeking to overthrow the country in favor of Lower Maxtopia or something, it's going to benefit business in particular and the economy in general.)

I can also help with this, as I used some issues to get my economy up from "very strong" to "Frightening".

I can also help with this, as I used some issues to get my economy up from "very strong" to "Frightening".
Me too, actually... on several nations. On one I actually got from "Reasonable" to "Frightening" in several days.

Yipee! My nation economy went from Very Strong to Powerhouse!

And my economy went up by 2.5 trillion with one issue! (~46 trillion to ~48 trillion), YAY me and my 50% military budget!

Speaking of military, I really wanna get that higher from 47% to at least 52% with some military funding issues.

Speaking of military, I really wanna get that higher from 47% to at least 52% with some military funding issues.
Looking for a military budget more like mine (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Banduria), eh? :p I don't need any more issues to increase the economy, but I wouldn't mind increasing military spending. I'm at a piddling 30% now. Fah!(Although the 22% I pay into my corporations gives me their militaries, too, so it isn't that bad. I need to divert the money from education or something.)

8.9 trillion on defense! That's like nearly 9 times as much as the entire real world!

But behold! (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Santa%20Barbara) the mighty cash cow military-industrial complex.

Anyway, back on topic: just to let you know, there are apparently a few issues which can hike your tax rate from a "no income tax" to "100%" within a day or two. Even if your nation has been around for years and has all that issue inertia that makes most large NS's resistant to sudden issue stat changes.

I don't know what issues they are - other than the obvious - but apparently they exist and you best look out for them cuz they do put a hurtin' on the economy.

One of them is the "outlaw capitalism" issue, IIRC (obviously)... that also brings your economy to "Imploded" no matter where it's at beforehand. Of course, if you want a 100% tax rate—some people do for some reason—you should start out your nation with that issue, and then build it up until it gets to a reasonable level (like somewhere between All-Consuming and Frightening).

And $131 trillion...I guess, with a population of 6 billion, and thus an army of about 200-300 million...you'd need it. :p

Looking for a military budget more like mine (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Banduria), eh? :p
My military is higher buddy. ;) I tell you that my defence has increased from 47%to 48%, when I got the issue Military Increase in Demand (or that's what I think the title was) yesterday. But it should've at least went from 47% to 50%.

(On Topic)
Speaking of issues, I have another issue that I really have no idea of what to choose. This issue is The Helghan Empire's Underclass Drowning in Debt.

In response to an increasing number of people falling into debt and declaring bankruptcy, activists are arguing that the government should take a stronger role in protecting its citizens from loosely regulated lending firms and in helping its citizens pay off or cancel their debts.

Option 1:
Gregory Christmas, head of consumer watchdog 'Debt-Busters' urges the government to enact new laws. "We've got middle and lower class families falling victim to predatory financial institutions and plunging into debts they can never hope to repay. The government must pass legislation restricting things like interest rates to stem the tide of people losing their property to these sharks, and take an active role reviewing all loan repayment terms."

Option 2:
"That's just not going far enough!" cries newspaper columnist, Beth Bush. "The government must eliminate the shackles of debt from our good nation once and for all! What we need are vast reforms of the welfare system then we can provide these poor, downtrodden souls with money and housing, so they don't need to take out such huge loans in the first place!

Option 3:
"They're irresponsible with their money and yet they're the victims? Call me crazy but borrowing money and not paying it back isn't debt, it's theft!" scoffs Violet Falopian, representitive of one of The Helghan Empire's largest lending firms. "What we really need is the power to send these parasites to debtor prisons, where they can work off the money they owe through hard manual labour."

I want my economy raised higher, but they all seem like they both have good affect on my economy, and then they seem to have a bad affect on the economy.

Not being a member of UN seems also to help improve your economy, or is that not correct?

One of them is the "outlaw capitalism" issue, IIRC (obviously)... that also brings your economy to "Imploded" no matter where it's at beforehand. Of course, if you want a 100% tax rate—some people do for some reason—you should start out your nation with that issue, and then build it up until it gets to a reasonable level (like somewhere between All-Consuming and Frightening).

When I first got the issue for capitalism, I outlawed it because I thought it would change my current government to a Capitalism government, I was wrong. It was really an economy type. So I outlawed it and went to imploded, then increased to Good. Outlawed Gambling, went to Basket Case, but pulled through back to good. But now I am a Powerhouse, thanks to this thread, and I mean to become more capitalistic by increasing my economy higher, so I can get the Capitalism issue and make it a law for my economy.

My military is higher buddy. ;) I tell you that my defence has increased from 47%to 48%, when I got the issue Military Increase in Demand (or that's what I think the title was) yesterday. But it should've at least went from 47% to 50%.
You have a higher percentage, but I spend more than your whole GDP on national defense. And I'm only at 30%. ;) As soon as I get a military increasing issue it'll go up, too.


I want my economy raised higher, but they all seem like they both have good affect on my economy, and then they seem to have a bad affect on the economy.
Option 1 or 3 will be the best for your economy, although I don't think they have too much of an effect either way.

Not being a member of UN seems also to help improve your economy, or is that not correct?
I'm incline to agree. I'll have to examine it, but my economy's been booming due to current lack of UN resolutions, after being stucked at Imploded for over a month nearly constantly due to the UN's consistent meddling. I'm considering resigning so I don't have to deal with annoiyiing resolutioins again...

I'm incline to agree. I'll have to examine it, but my economy's been booming at the current lack of UN resolutions, after being stucked at Imploded for over a month nearly constantly due to the UN. I'm considering resigning..
Lack of resolutions decrease your economy? That's stupid! Resign my friend! Save your economy!!

Lack of resolutions decrease your economy? That's stupid! Resign my friend! Save your economy!!
ROFL!
Lack of resolutions BOOST my economy. May have worded that wrong :D

I'm incline to agree. I'll have to examine it, but my economy's been booming due to current lack of UN resolutions, after being stucked at Imploded for over a month nearly constantly due to the UN's consistent meddling. I'm considering resigning so I don't have to deal with annoiyiing resolutioins again...
That, or you've been making more pro-economy decisions...

The nation is experiencing a severe shortage of sporting events, the automotive industry soaks up huge government handouts, 'The Anti-Government Hour' is a popular programme on many of Rolatia's radio stations, and smoking is banned in public areas. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is moderate. Rolatia's national animal is the eagle, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the generi.In bold I've highlighted the result for Option 3 of "Reclaim the Streets!", one of the biggest economy boosters around. No wonder you're doing well. And I've been in the UN all my time on NS, and since I started my economy has increased from about "Basket Case" to "Very Strong". :rolleyes:

Option 1 or 3 will be the best for your economy, although I don't think they have too much of an effect either way.
Option 1 or 3? Hmm...I don't know yet. Czardas, shall you have the final say?

Option 1 or 3? Hmm...I don't know yet. Czardas, shall you have the final say?
Option 3 will probably be the best. It basically will lead to the enslavement of the poor, which means more production at a lower cost, and thus a better economy.

That's my say. ;)

~The Libertarian Concordance of Czardas~
Answerer of Issues; He Who Has The Final Say

I'd recommend Option 2. It looks like it's giving more rights to employers and less to employees, which will increase economic freedom, and generally increased economic freedom in turn increases your economy.

Choosing 1 will LOWER you economy. Trust me on that. Because everyone would strike if they knew one group would get their way.(At least that's what the effects say)

Thanks Czardas and TLA. ;) Gonna answer the issue now.

Choosing 1 will LOWER you economy. Trust me on that. Because everyone would strike if they knew one group would get their way.(At least that's what the effects say)
Yes, I know. 1 lowers it, 2 raises it. That's what I said. ;)

1. "Do we really have to listen to these nutcases?" asks real estate developer, Jonathon Cogswell. "The fact of the matter is that nature is BORING. Give us permission to build on the greenbelt and you'll have pink hotels, boutiques, and swinging hot spots that'll be the envy of the region and draw tourists from all around! We can always transplant a few trees and put them in a tree museum to keep the tree-huggers happy. The Silver Sky stands to make a lot of money from this! Think about it for a moment!"

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.

2. "I agree with my colleague here, but he doesn't go far enough," says Jack Hendrikson, a city planner. "These protestors are standing in the path of progress. It slows the growth of our economy and harms my portfolio - er - the future of our nation, I mean. It's unpatriotic and we should increase police funding to deal with these troublemakers. Then we wouldn't have to worry about greenbelts or any other nonsense about keeping the 'environment' safe. Think about it for a moment!"
[Accept]

3. "I can't believe what I'm hearing!" exclaims environmental activist Clint Clinton. "Tree museums? Police funding? Don't it always seem to be the case that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone? We're talking about natural treasures and you're talking about destroying them. Is there anything that you can build that can really be better than nature? We should put a stop to all encroachment into natural areas. Think about it for a moment!"
[Accept]

Which one you guys think? I'm gonna change it to option 2, but I don't really want to hurt my civil rights cause that would drop my government rating, and my economy, so I'm gonna stay with #1.

Yes, I know. 1 lowers it, 2 raises it. That's what I said. ;)
Wait! Are you saying I should've picked Option 2 than 3?? Please reply quickly before the issue disappears!

Wait! Are you saying I should've picked Option 2 than 3?? Please reply quickly before the issue disappears!
I think they're talking about a different issue.

That, or you've been making more pro-economy decisions...

In bold I've highlighted the result for Option 3 of "Reclaim the Streets!", one of the biggest economy boosters around. No wonder you're doing well. And I've been in the UN all my time on NS, and since I started my economy has increased from about "Basket Case" to "Very Strong". :rolleyes:

Hmm, iI remember that but my economy crashed twice when it was just starting to recover from Imploded before after DISMISSING issues. Does dismissing have a bad economic effect?

I think they're talking about a different issue.
Nope. TLA was talking to me about the issue, having my economy lower. Czardas talked to him about that.

This issue seems to be regarding to my economy with schools.

Affirmative Action
After a recent high-profile case of a minority student being refused admission to a traditional, prestigous college, civil rights activists, conservatives, and teachers are up in arms about affirmative action and ethnic equality in education.

Option 1:
"This is just another attempt to discriminate against people of color," declares civil-rights activist, former TV commentator and unabashed publicity speaker Johann Rubin. "If people are disadvantaged in their upbringing they they should be given an 'equal' chance to succeed in college."

Option 2:
"The affirmative action programs aren't necessary at all." Rejoins conservative speaker and hair care product salesman Samuel Broadside. "If you really want to treat everyone equally, as you claim, how can you support special treatment for a few so-called minority groups? Besides, it would cost even more money to enforce."

Option 3:
"I think you are both looney," says Roxanne Chicago, professor of liberal arts at The Helghan Empire National University. "All education should be open to everyone regardless of their grades in high school, economic status or academic prowess. Free college education should be available to every citizen of The Helghan Empire, no matter what the cost!"

Please anybody reply quickly!!! I accidently pressed the Accept Button on an Option while Copying Text!!!!!

This issue affects civil rights and education funding, not the economy. Pick whichever you prefer. (#3 raises taxes.)

I have no idea wich Option legalizes Outsourcing. Can somebody tell me wich option legalizes outsourcing in Outsourcing an Outrage, Say Demonstators?

Option 1:
"This is unacceptable!" decrees George W. Chicago, outspoken representative of the National Union of Telephone-based Salesmen. "Sixteen call-centres round the country have already closed because they found they could get cheaper workers in some country no-one's ever heard of! If businesses are allowed to pack up shop and ship jobs out to other countries, our own people will be unemployed and out on the streets. The government must ban this evil corporate practice immediately!"

Option 2:
"Nonsense!" scoffs Klaus Dredd, manager of human resources at Ekin, a popular sportswear company. "Outsourcing jobs to where the labour is cheap means we can slash costs. That means we can have lower prices for the good consumers - uh - citizens of The Helghan Empire. There's plenty of other jobs besides factory-working you know, and with the influx of cheaper products they really shouldn't have anything to complain about."

Option 3:
"The only reason that companies are so unwilling to stay here is because of the constricting regulations," says Stephanie Wall, a ridiculously wealthy businessman. "Everytime my company tries to make a decision, we run up against about a million laws forbidding us from our ventures. Since when has making money been a crime? Allow more economic freedom and companies will be simply flocking to this country. The workers will suffer a bit from losing minimum wage laws, of course, but that's progress for you."

Option 2 does. It's proven to help your economy...most of the time.

Although, maybe I should wait for Czarda to have the "final say"... :p

Option 2? Alright, I'm going to answer it now.

You could try Option 3 as well.

And Banduria, it's Czardas, not Czarda. :p

Dammit! My economy didn't raise at all, it says that my unemployment rate skyrockets and companies are laving my nation for cheaper work. I hope I get the issue soon again.

The Issue

The increasingly militant Animal Liberation Front struck again last night, freeing dozens of chickens bound for delicious snack packs.
The Debate

1. "These nuts have got to be stopped," demands concerned consumer Beth Thiesen. "They need to face the fact people want snack packs, no matter how many innocent chickens must be sacrificed. Besides, chickens would do the same to us if they had the chance."
[Accept]

2. "These Liberationists are highlighting an important issue," pleads Al Dredd. "Too often, animals are put through needless cruelty, just to make their flesh taste a little more deliciously succulent. I'm sure we could ban the more horrific abuses without putting too much of a dent in our national obesity figures. Couldn't we?"
[Accept]

3. "Animals have feelings too!" yelled protestor Steffan Jefferson, before being set upon by hungry passers-by. "Free the animals! Ban meat-eating!"
[Accept]

4. Economist Samuel Fellow has an alternative. "You don't need to take away the people's right to choose. You just need to build the costs of animal suffering into the price. A tax on meat-eating, in proportion to the amount of cruelty involved, would do the trick. Plus think of the benefit for the national coffers! Of course, poor people wouldn't be able to afford meat, but that's just more incentive for them to get jobs."

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.

Does this issue affect the economy?

I doubt it does. But if I were you, I'd choose Option 1, just in case if it does.

I doubt it does. But if I were you, I'd choose Option 1, just in case if it does.
I have now chosen option 1, now I just have to see what happens. This was on a puppet currently with a Thriving economy

I think that one affects more political and economic freedoms than the economy itself.

I like this thread!

I like this thread!
same here

Well, option 1 on the aforementioned region brought my economy from Thriving to Powerhouse so...

...IIRC (obviously)...

Call me a n00b, but what does IIRC mean?

Cheers! :)

Call me a n00b, but what does IIRC mean?

Cheers! :)
"If I Recall Correctly".

Ok cool... Thanks... For a split second I thought there was an economic world of IRC roleplay that I had yet to discover! :)

Heres another one: For the record
Auto Industry Struggles Against Foreign Imports

The Issue
Cheap, foreign-made cars are becoming increasingly popular, causing concern in United Earthlings's automobile manufacturing industry.

The Debate
1. "Unless this government does something, United Earthlings won't have an auto industry for much longer," says auto industry union boss Johann Chicago, in a rare public appearance alongside management. "These foreign companies employ people for a few Peoples Credits a day. The only way to level the playing field is to raise tariffs. The government would make more money, too, so it's win-win."

2. "For once, I agree with my grubby colleague here," says General Chassis CEO Dave du Pont. "Although I have to say, tariffs aren't the only answer. A more effective solution would be to abolish minimum wage laws. Now that would level the playing field. And we'd be able to employ more--argh, let go of my throat!"

3. "I think we need to face facts," says noted economist and chat-show regular Beth Wong. "We live in a global economy now, and automobile manufacturing just isn't United Earthlings's strong suit. There's no point taking money from taxpayers in order to line the pockets of a few greedy workers and corrupt managers in a doomed industry. Let the market takes its--argh, let go of my throat!"

The Government Position
The government has yet to formalize a position on this issue.

I thought I get your opinion before I decided. #2 sounds like the best option- I don't really want them to hurt my civil rights but hey whats a little civil rights compared to a better economy. So tell me which one you think is best.

It looks like #2 raises economic freedom and thus helps the economy, so I'd recommend that.

Yeah.

The Helghan Empire's Underclass Drowning in Debt

In response to an increasing number of people falling into debt and declaring bankruptcy, activists are arguing that the government should take a stronger role in protecting its citizens from loosely regulated lending firms and in helping its citizens pay off or cancel their debts.

Option 1
Aaron Winters, head of consumer watchdog 'Debt-Busters' urges the government to enact new laws. "We've got middle and lower class families falling victim to predatory financial institutions and plunging into debts they can never hope to repay. The government must pass legislation restricting things like interest rates to stem the tide of people losing their property to these sharks, and take an active role reviewing all loan repayment terms."

Option 2
"That's just not going far enough!" cries newspaper columnist, Pip Gutenberg. "The government must eliminate the shackles of debt from our good nation once and for all! What we need are vast reforms of the welfare system then we can provide these poor, downtrodden souls with money and housing, so they don't need to take out such huge loans in the first place!

Option 3
"They're irresponsible with their money and yet they're the victims? Call me crazy but borrowing money and not paying it back isn't debt, it's theft!" scoffs May Falopian, representitive of one of The Helghan Empire's largest lending firms. "What we really need is the power to send these parasites to debtor prisons, where they can work off the money they owe through hard manual labour."

bump

Hey need your help! how would you vote on the following issue to get the economy up? I remember vaguely that voting for option 1 (for the big companies) did not make any difference to my GDP per capita, I wonder if option 2 works?

ALSO, since my economy has hit "frightening" category and the the GDP at approximately 42,000 -- i can't seem to get it up anymore. Anyone know if there is a "limit" at how high you can go? Or is the UN membership making it so? (since presumably, you have to pay taxes to the UN, and taxes keeps the economy down)


The CEO of ABC software, hardware, and electronic headwear giant Microcosm, Inc. has been brought before the Supreme Court for violation of antitrust laws.

The Debate
"These allegations are absolutely ludicrous!" shouts Microcosm CEO Klaus Thiesen from out the window of his 90-foot stretch limo. "Just because rival companies are incapable of producing products as brilliant as mine is no reason to punish ME! I say it's high time we abolish these idiotic antitrust laws and give big business the freedom to serve the public better. After all, I'm in this business for the people!"
[Accept]


"Microcosm must be shut down immediately," argues CEO of Computers, Computers, Computers! Roxanne Barry from out the window of his clunky, exhaust-choked used car. "I can't get a foothold to compete in the market because those bigwigs in Microcosm have that foothold by the throat! It's high time the government stepped in and helped out the little man, and the best way to do that is to shut down the big, oppressive, corporate gurus in Microcosm and beyond."
[Accept]


"Verily, I say unto thee, none of this would have happened wouldst thou not have stopped the problem before thou didst start it," argues Brother Abraham Silk of the Silentvoice Amish community from out the window of his horse-drawn carriage. "We must doest as the Lord commandeth and abolishest the evils of computers and the Internet entirely. Only whenst we harken unto the Lord's commandments mayeth we truly be spiritually blessed."
[Accept]

That's tough to decide. I would just dismiss it if I were you.

Damn this one is a b****!


Military Budgets Up For Approval

The Issue
The various branches of The Helghan Empire's military brought their budget petitions to your attention and, as usual, they are all asking for widespread increases over the rest of the military departments.

The Debate
"Clearly the army requires the greatest increase in funds this year," says Field Marshal Billy Thiesen. "After all, wars were never won by air or sea and in this dangerous world we must be able to protect the interests of The Helghan Empire. Currently our men get hand-me-down weapons, rations I wouldn't feed a pig - the army is increasingly looking like a bad career option and we can't have that. If we're going to get recruits, we need more funding to support our brave lads in their duty."


"Hah! It's the Navy who needs the money, mate," says Grand Admiral Chastity Frederickson. "The army and the police forces can protect us domestically, but can they protect us from having our foreign trade cut off? Can they protect us from terrorists and pirates? How are the soldiers going to get to the enemy's borders? Swim? I think not. Fund us, the Navy, the true protectors of The Helghan Empire!"


"Despite the statements of my colleagues," says Gregory Shiomi, Marshal of the Air Force. "The Air Force requires more money than these men playing around with boats. We are increasingly seeing terrorists taking to the air, and more ships or guns are not going to stop that. Our people will only be safe when the Air Force has the power it needs to defend us - and for that we need more funding and more government support for industries geared towards the development of new aircraft."


"You're all thinking too small!" exclaims Calvin Hendrikson, an avid Star Wars fan. "What we need is more research into the possibilities of space weapons! Big laser cannon and satellites with complete annihilation power! And cool spaceships! Boom! Rat-a-tata! Bang! Bang! It'll be expensive, sure, but think of the power! THE POWER!"


"It's simply not good enough!" wails Prudence Gutenberg, the Minister of Defence. "It's not about the money - it's the manpower. Not enough people by far are signing up! All we seem to be getting nowadays are drunks and people who volunteered for a dare. The current conscription laws need to be either more strictly enforced or drastically rewritten. What I propose is a universal draft: everyone capable of pulling a trigger should become a part of the Army, Navy or Air Force. Only in this way can we ensure the dominance of The Helghan Empire in the region."


"The military is a stain on the peace-loving nature of our nation!" cries Miranda McGuffin, while sporting a Rastifarian hat. "People should be allowed to choose what they do for a living! Conscription is wrong and I don't see why our tax Helghast Dollars should go to such a despicable cause! The money should be going to more important places - like our pockets!"

I want a very strong, healthy and vast army. And I am currently prepared to choose Option 1 or 5, but Option 6 has a point. I have a $0.00 Consumption, and since I knew that's a bad thing, I really want to raise it by lowering taxes. But I don't wanna pass up the chance, to choose the one I want, and wait for it again. But I need a better Consumption...but without "staining" my military budget and power. PLEASE HELP!

i would go for the last one,
1) more people in the workforce = good for the economy.
2) less tax = people feel richer = more spending = good for the economy.

Then again, it will affect defense related industries. But I doubt the issue-author meant it this way. :)

edit= by the way, how do i check my consumption?

:groans:
The benefits are good. But I don't want anything to dent my defense capabilties. I guess I'll just go for my other option. I'll choose another option in another issue that lower's taxes later.

BTW, if you go onto Thirdgeek (nseconomy.thirdgeek.com), type in your nation name, under the Unemployment Rate, it will show Consumption.
Here are your stats:
http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Silentvoice

Your Consumption is $147,320,019,000,000.00

Hi. I am not so sure about these two.

The Issue

A group of transport analysts have suggested that a charge of five Oranges a day for vehicle access to Orange Smithereens's most congested inner-cities during peak hours is the only way to solve their ever-growing traffic problem.
The Debate

1. "Similar schemes have been very effective elsewhere," says Violet Shiomi, Orange Smithereens's most infamous traffic warden. "It's common sense that the best way to curb dangerously high demand is to raise the price of the supply - or, as in this case, to create a price. Charging citizens to go into more congested areas could, combined with the improvements to public transport it will finance, actually make people choose public transport over their cars. I don't see why people shouldn't pay tax for a little less traffic on our roads."
[Accept]

2. "These tolls are a preposterous idea," argues road lobbyist, Anne-Marie Hanover. "Public transport will never replace the car - I don't want to be forced to share my space with a bunch of malodorous working-class people on my way to work. Not that I would be, because I could afford the charge, but really, it's the principle of the matter! The only solution is to expand urban road networks. True, some pavements and green spots would have to go, but those pedestrians should be able to put up with that if they're to expect Orange Smithereens to be part of the modern world."
[Accept]

3. "Allowing cars to scoot around and pollute our cities was a bad idea in the first place," says Lars Fellow, a famous environmentalist. "The solution is to restrict private transport to main roads and motorways whilst funding a major urban public transport scheme. Our buses and undergrounds could be the envy of the world! Yes, the car companies will suffer a little, and yes, there'll be a bit more tax, but wouldn't it be worth it for a bit of fresh air and safe streets for the children?"
[Accept]

The Issue

Divers from a local scuba club have discovered an enormous underwater gold deposit that could be worth billions of Oranges in one of Orange Smithereens's lakes. It has also caused a huge debate over who should be allowed to plunder the goods.
The Debate

1. Pip Thiesen, a cabinet member, would like the government to seize the deposit. "This is an excellent time to boost Orange Smithereens's economy and increase our foreign trade with other countries! Who cares about the people that discovered the deposit? They've done their country a great favor and should let us have the money!"
[Accept]

2. Sue-Ann Dodinas, a civil rights activist, vehemently disagrees. "The deposit was found by private citizens and it should be their choice of what to do with the gold. If the government goes around stealing what is rightfully ours, then I shudder to think I live in such a corrupt country. These people discovered the gold, it's now their time to get rich! Nevermind the fact they were diving in a lake on government property!"
[Accept]

3. "We should do what now?" Environmentalist Aaron Jones exclaims. "Do you have any idea how damaging it would be to the environment to mine the gold under that lake? Think of all the aquatic life that would be disrupted or destroyed! Think of how an otherwise pristine lake view would be ruined! Forget the gold and keep those money-grubbing pigs away from nature!"
[Accept]

I'm thinking 2 for the first and 1 for the second, but I'm not certain of the second one.

Honestly, every time I choose one on the second issue, I never see anything happening.

What exactly does Consumption mean? As in, what is it?

Consumption is the money your citizens make, excluding taxes.
Here's an example, I have a 100% tax rate (though, I'm looking to decrease it a little), therefore, I have $0.00 Consumption - all the money my people make goes to the state.
A 0% tax rate let's people keep all their earnings in yearly payment.

The Issue

The death of 108 year old Supreme Court Justice Bianca Trax has created an opening on the bench. Below are the possible nominees.
The Debate

1. Charles Mombota, the Former CEO of The Candrian Empire Products, says "I have long sat by and watched our government vicously attack the big businesses in this country. The government has no right to control businesses and I will adopt that position in all of my judgements."
[Accept]

2. Reverend Akira Wong is nominee #2. The Reverend says "I am sick and tired of the liberals in this country ruining our family values. Every day they assault our basic sense of decency. You must vote for me to keep our families safe. Think of the children!"
[Accept]

3. Gay Activist and former Senator Pip Wong is nominee #3. "Our people aren't happy, we need more freedom, we need more civil rights. We must keep the government out of the bedroom. We must respect peoples right to privacy and remember that personal relations are just that, personal."
[Accept]

4. Environmental Activist Melbourne Jones argues, "Our government has been constantly violating Mother Earth and her rights, all our politicians talk about are civil rights, civil rights this, civil rights that, blah blah blah, we aren't important, what is important is the Earth!"
[Accept]

5. The last nominee is the retired Five Star General Buy du Pont. "We are ridiculed throughout the international community for our low quality weaponry, our police and military numbers are not sufficient. Our military must be protected from both constitutional and civilian oversight. They should be given money, and a free hand."
[Accept]

6. Finally, a tomato flies by your head flung by an angry protester. "We want to elect our own judges! This is a democracy! More power to the people! We don't want a lapdog! Separation of Powers! Get the government out of the judicial system!" He chucks another tomato at you before security escorts him out of your private office.
[Accept]

Okay, this one is bugging me. Both 1 and 6 seem to allow increases in $$$ (6 because more freedoms= more money), and so I'm stumped. Should I just go with 1?

Just go with 1, but I don't think you need anymore money with the look of your Frightening economy.

Consumption is the money your citizens make, excluding taxes.
Here's an example, I have a 100% tax rate (though, I'm looking to decrease it a little), therefore, I have $0.00 Consumption - all the money my people make goes to the state.
A 0% tax rate let's people keep all their earnings in yearly payment.Ah, that's good to know, thanks.

Also, what is government waste?

That, I don't understand either.

I have a general idea, but I'm not sure.

on auto industry struggle against forgien imports, what should i choose

option 1

Unless this government does something, Luke Rodrigues won't have an auto industry for much longer," says auto industry union boss May Hamilton, in a rare public appearance alongside management. "These foreign companies employ people for a few Dollers a day. The only way to level the playing field is to raise tariffs. The government would make more money, too, so it's win-win."

option 2

For once, I agree with my grubby colleague here," says General Chassis CEO Freddy Hendrikson. "Although I have to say, tariffs aren't the only answer. A more effective solution would be to abolish minimum wage laws. Now that would level the playing field. And we'd be able to employ more--argh, let go of my throat!"

option 3

"I think we need to face facts," says noted economist and chat-show regular Anne-Marie Shiomi. "We live in a global economy now, and automobile manufacturing just isn't Luke Rodrigues's strong suit. There's no point taking money from taxpayers in order to line the pockets of a few greedy workers and corrupt managers in a doomed industry. Let the market takes its--argh, let go of my throat!"

2 always raises my economy.

The Issue

The women of Liberal United States are demanding an end to wage discrimination in the workplace.
The Debate

1. "The government must put a stop to businesses discriminating against women when they apply for a job!" chants Faith Winters, a ferocious supporter of women's rights. "Did you know that on average men in Liberal United States earn four times the amount that women do for doing the same job?! For too long has the female race been discriminated against in our society due to their sex! We demand equal wages, equal opportunities, and equal respect for women and we demand them now!"
[Accept]

2. "Hey, my business is treading a thin enough profit margin as it is," complains George W. McAlpin, CEO of Heavy Lifting Incorporated. "Women just aren't as good as men at certain jobs, it's a probably proven fact! Take firefighting - if you were dying from smoke inhalation and collapsed on the floor unable to move, who would you prefer to attempt to rescue you? A man with superior muscular strength or some weakling female? Go on, you decide. Let the businesses decide what they pay and who they pay it to - after all, the economy depends on us."
[Accept]

3. "Hah! Our society is getting far too soft!" rages Buy Dodinas, a staunch male chauvinist. "Whatever happened to the days when a man could go back home to find his good lady wife with his tea ready and his slippers warm? I've heard that some men even have to cook and clean for themselves! Let us return to the days when it was just the men who went out to bring home the bacon! A brand new golden age!"
[Accept]

4. "Personally I think things went wrong as soon as women got labelled as the 'fairer' sex," interrupts Catherine Gratwick, author of the best-selling novel 'Gynaecocracy For Beginners'. "We're strong, we're willing - and we're just plain better than men. See what a state the world is in when they're in charge? I propose that all the men should stay home and be househusbands whilst the women go out to work and earn the wage packet!"
[Accept]

Choose Option 1. More rights = More money = Better economy.

Say, wasn't this supposed to be in the Gameplay Forum?

Ah, that's good to know, thanks.

Also, what is government waste?

I could be wrong, but I think it's the money that your government can't account for. Like the army can't account for a couple trillion dollars if I remember right, your NS nation cannot account for x number of currency units in spending.

I would guess the lower this number the better.

Is this an economic issue?

The Issue

In response to an increasing number of people falling into debt and declaring bankruptcy, activists are arguing that the government should take a stronger role in protecting its citizens from loosely regulated lending firms and in helping its citizens pay off or cancel their debts.
The Debate

1. Colin Jones, head of consumer watchdog 'Debt-Busters' urges the government to enact new laws: "We've got middle and lower class families falling victim to predatory financial institutions and plunging into debts they can never hope to repay. The government must pass legislation restricting things like interest rates to stem the tide of people losing their property to these sharks, and take an active role reviewing all loan repayment terms."
[Accept]

2. "That's just not going far enough!" cries newspaper columnist, George W. Rifkin. "The government must eliminate the shackles of debt from our good nation once and for all! What we need are vast reforms of the welfare system then we can provide these poor, downtrodden souls with money and housing, so they don't need to take out such huge loans in the first place!
[Accept]

3. "They're irresponsible with their money and yet they're the victims? Call me crazy but borrowing money and not paying it back isn't debt, it's theft!" scoffs Billy-Bob Rubin, representitive of one of Darkaan's largest lending firms. "What we really need is the power to send these parasites to debtor prisons, where they can work off the money they owe through hard manual labour."
[Accept]

Is this an economic issue?

The Issue

In response to an increasing number of people falling into debt and declaring bankruptcy, activists are arguing that the government should take a stronger role in protecting its citizens from loosely regulated lending firms and in helping its citizens pay off or cancel their debts.
The Debate

1. Colin Jones, head of consumer watchdog 'Debt-Busters' urges the government to enact new laws: "We've got middle and lower class families falling victim to predatory financial institutions and plunging into debts they can never hope to repay. The government must pass legislation restricting things like interest rates to stem the tide of people losing their property to these sharks, and take an active role reviewing all loan repayment terms."
[Accept]

2. "That's just not going far enough!" cries newspaper columnist, George W. Rifkin. "The government must eliminate the shackles of debt from our good nation once and for all! What we need are vast reforms of the welfare system then we can provide these poor, downtrodden souls with money and housing, so they don't need to take out such huge loans in the first place!
[Accept]

3. "They're irresponsible with their money and yet they're the victims? Call me crazy but borrowing money and not paying it back isn't debt, it's theft!" scoffs Billy-Bob Rubin, representitive of one of Darkaan's largest lending firms. "What we really need is the power to send these parasites to debtor prisons, where they can work off the money they owe through hard manual labour."
[Accept]

Yes just chose option 3 to improve your economy.

The Issue

Amidst a growing level of unemployment, thousands of workers have been fired and then replaced by automatic systems. They have petitioned you to intervene.
The Debate

1. "It's just sickening! Do you know how long it took most of us to get a decent, 'stable' job?" shouts Hope Hanover, president of the York Island Labour Alliance, before dramatically sweeping your personal belongings off your desk. "And now we're losing our livelihoods to robots so that while our families starve, the corporations get even richer! Don't let the capitalist pigs blind you! This practice must be banned!"
[Accept]

2. "Hey, I've got a job to keep up too, you know," says Aaron Steele, a factory manager. "If I don't think of new ways of keeping costs down, the investors will go elsewhere. It's my neck on the line as much as anyone else's, even if I do have much more money. Besides, it's business, and no-one ought to be able to say who - or what - I can hire."
[Accept]

3. "This could be resolved if instead of replacing workers with machines, we added machines to workers!" enthuses Peggy O'Bannon, CEO of Mondas Ltd. "By replacing the body parts with stronger, better, metal prostheses, we can make the best industrial workers - literally - in the world! Imagine a shelver who can shift whole crates with just one arm! One finger! So let's hear no more of this deplorable 'replacing workers with machines' idea and look to the future!"
[Accept]

4. "You can't allow that!" gasps Billy-Bob McGuffin, a manual labourer. "If that happens, only the people with cyber limbs will get jobs! And the corporations will contract you into having the surgery if you want to have one! No thank you! We should go back to the grass roots of industry when all the machines weren't computerised and workers were the salt of the earth! Then maybe we'd see a bit more appreciation! And cash!"
[Accept]

I'd like to know which to choose on that same issue please.

Well? Which choice?!

I would have thought 2 or 3.