Southern Senate Debate Debating Thread

[HomestarSB9]

To make things easier, I will split this up.

Individual Questions:
> To North Carolina Yankee: In your opening statement you stated that you only support government intervention in the economy to preserve or restore competition. Could you expand on this?

Well to begin with, I am not talking about the safety net and other supporting mechanism like the health care subsidy contained within the Reforming and Regionalizing Public Health Care Act. I had a paragraph about this but decided to cut it for length reasons so I realize that I should have revised section about monopolies to clarify this point and so I am doing so now. When it comes to that though, I would rather give people say food stamps and then let them go into a private enterprise grocery store, then to try and distribute government rations or some such mess, which some on the right have taken to as a means to cut gov't spending, in spite of it being a socialist type food distribution scheme that takes business away from private grocery stores. The idea that they would trust government to run a food distribution scheme while decrying the ability of the government to do almost anything, is rather contradictory.

I think the biggest threat to democracy and to stability and growth of the economy comes from monopolization of power. This also applies to corporations and when a single entity is so powerful that it can dominate a sector, it can dictate prices and then it can buy off even the government or push policies that work to entrench this monopoly. Those are instances where we should prioritize the good of the competitiveness of the market as opposed to the "free" aspect of the market, and by free I mean free of gov't intervention.

The benefits of the market comes from two things, one is the downward pressures on prices and two the upward pressure on quality of the productive and the quality of the customer service. The market also creates incentives to bring new ideas and new products and developments to the table that improve quality of life and general well being.

However when the market gets stifled by actors both public and private, it harms these beneficial aspects. The government could be the monopolistic force if you get into the business of nationalization. Likewise the private sector can be the monopolistic force itself. Government can also be complicit in private sector monopolies, a good example being the effect of complex and costly regulations, which stifle small business and put them at a disadvantage compared to the large corporations that can hire the fancy attorneys, lobbyists and consultants that can get them out of it. The same thing occurs in relation to the tax code as well. So the government has to be mindful of its own actions and on any given policy choice ask the question thus this ad unnecessary complexity and does it benefit large corporations at the expense of small ones. In those situations we should opt to aid the small business.

However when a situation arises where you have a severe threat to the economy, like say with too big to fail banks, I think their should be a system where the government to split up those entities while also making sure that taxpayers aren't left on the hook for the mistakes made by investment bankers. I have long supported the creation of a fund paid for by fees charged to the investment banks, that would then be used to guard against systemic collapse. I think we have become far too accepting of this culture of bigger and better and larger companies in the name of complete perfection on market efficiency and in the process we have lost sight of why we prefer the free market to anything else, because it gives the opportunity to say no and go to a competitor. There is power in that, and when you have monopolies, it shuts down that natural limiting factor.

To summarize, I think we should be more willing to break up monopolies to prevent their concentration of wealth and power and to preserve a choice on the market, as well as to carefully approach tax and regulatory policy so as to make sure we are not aiding in the concentration of wealth and power.

I disagree, I believe that the government should stay out of the banks, unless of course, they're going to collapse in on themselves, in that case, the government should seize their assets, and use those assets to pay off our deficit, the same thing should happen with monopolies that are crashing, such as Kmart, once they go, the government should take all their assets and pay off the deficit.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To make things easier, I will split this up.

Individual Questions:
> To North Carolina Yankee: In your opening statement you stated that you only support government intervention in the economy to preserve or restore competition. Could you expand on this?

Well to begin with, I am not talking about the safety net and other supporting mechanism like the health care subsidy contained within the Reforming and Regionalizing Public Health Care Act. I had a paragraph about this but decided to cut it for length reasons so I realize that I should have revised section about monopolies to clarify this point and so I am doing so now. When it comes to that though, I would rather give people say food stamps and then let them go into a private enterprise grocery store, then to try and distribute government rations or some such mess, which some on the right have taken to as a means to cut gov't spending, in spite of it being a socialist type food distribution scheme that takes business away from private grocery stores. The idea that they would trust government to run a food distribution scheme while decrying the ability of the government to do almost anything, is rather contradictory.

I think the biggest threat to democracy and to stability and growth of the economy comes from monopolization of power. This also applies to corporations and when a single entity is so powerful that it can dominate a sector, it can dictate prices and then it can buy off even the government or push policies that work to entrench this monopoly. Those are instances where we should prioritize the good of the competitiveness of the market as opposed to the "free" aspect of the market, and by free I mean free of gov't intervention.

The benefits of the market comes from two things, one is the downward pressures on prices and two the upward pressure on quality of the productive and the quality of the customer service. The market also creates incentives to bring new ideas and new products and developments to the table that improve quality of life and general well being.

However when the market gets stifled by actors both public and private, it harms these beneficial aspects. The government could be the monopolistic force if you get into the business of nationalization. Likewise the private sector can be the monopolistic force itself. Government can also be complicit in private sector monopolies, a good example being the effect of complex and costly regulations, which stifle small business and put them at a disadvantage compared to the large corporations that can hire the fancy attorneys, lobbyists and consultants that can get them out of it. The same thing occurs in relation to the tax code as well. So the government has to be mindful of its own actions and on any given policy choice ask the question thus this ad unnecessary complexity and does it benefit large corporations at the expense of small ones. In those situations we should opt to aid the small business.

However when a situation arises where you have a severe threat to the economy, like say with too big to fail banks, I think their should be a system where the government to split up those entities while also making sure that taxpayers aren't left on the hook for the mistakes made by investment bankers. I have long supported the creation of a fund paid for by fees charged to the investment banks, that would then be used to guard against systemic collapse. I think we have become far too accepting of this culture of bigger and better and larger companies in the name of complete perfection on market efficiency and in the process we have lost sight of why we prefer the free market to anything else, because it gives the opportunity to say no and go to a competitor. There is power in that, and when you have monopolies, it shuts down that natural limiting factor.

To summarize, I think we should be more willing to break up monopolies to prevent their concentration of wealth and power and to preserve a choice on the market, as well as to carefully approach tax and regulatory policy so as to make sure we are not aiding in the concentration of wealth and power.

I disagree, I believe that the government should stay out of the banks, unless of course, they're going to collapse in on themselves, in that case, the government should seize their assets, and use those assets to pay off our deficit, the same thing should happen with monopolies that are crashing, such as Kmart, once they go, the government should take all their assets and pay off the deficit.

So let me get this straight, we let chaos reign in the banking world, then when things are the most unstable, in the midst of the a systemic collapse of the financial sector, we then intervene and take all the assets to pay off the debt?

The problem with this my good friend is that it is the road to economic devastation and ruin. The problem with the banking sector is too much risk. You don't not solve a problem of risk by turning the federal government into the agent of even greater risk. The banking sector is different, you cannot deregulate the banking sector to the extent you can other industries because you run the risk of problems like we had in 2008. You have to regulate excess and you have to ensure that the shareholders and ceo's aren't bailed out for their mistake.

On the other hand you have to stabilize the financial markets and ensure that the collapse of a few bad actors doesn't ripple its way through to the small business on main street, who again is the number one creator of jobs. That is why I suggested a fund be created paid for by the investment banks so that you could stabilize the sector, with 1) not diving in to tax payer dollars and 2) not reward the bad actors with golden parachutes.

Also K-mart is not a monopoly, it has always faced competition.

Finally on the matter of failing companies, if you steal the assets of companies heading to bankruptcy that means that the people who lent money to that company on the good faith that they would be repaid will get completely hosed. This will cause a severe reduction in lending and this severe reduction will curtail ability of companies to hire, expand and invest. The fear it will happen again will dictate behavior. Again the government cannot be the agent of chaos.

As someone who was in high school when the Great Recession happened, I can tell you it was not housing that directly tanked the economy. It was the credit crunch that followed in its wake. By the time the big banks started collapsing we were already in recession, it had started in Dec 2007. The housing sector tanked in 2006. It was the credit crunch in mid 2007 that triggered the recession. Such a radical proposal as this suggestion would lead to a government induced credit crunch and would cause a deep recession.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abortion. I am pro-life and I believe abortion to be an issue where, even while moving towards banning it would probably not be achievable in he near future, it is something that we can find ways to reduce the number of abortions from happening in the first place. These include access to contraceptives, expanded adoption and safe surrender laws. I am most certainly against late term and partial birth abortion and most regions have banned abortion or have had efforts to do so around the 20 week mark. I am very much supportive of the regions staking out their own approaches in this regard and it has historically been one that has generated a large amount of activity at the regional level and therefore I would oppose attempts to push forward with a constitutional amendment for game activity reasons, be it to ban it or to allow it for that matter.

I disagree, while I am against late-term and partial birth abortions, I wouldn't oppose a constitutional amendment to allow it. I don't believe any government should tell anyone how to live their lives.

In mid to late 2013, we had a region that passed a restrictive ban on abortions. There was then a subsequent push to legalize all abortions at the federal level via a Constitutional amendment. That amendment was blocked by myself and three others, including two pro-choice Senators who recognized the positive effects the debate had for the region.

It had two close elections and then it had a very close referendum at which point the people of the region overturned the law by two votes. These elections had high turnout, people were engaged because it mattered.

If we want the regions to succeed we have to make sure there are issues where people passionately disagree so that there is engagement and participation at the regional level. The push towards solving these issues federally, for whatever philosophical or convenience based justification has the effect of shutting these debates down, this activity down and this competitiveness down.

For the health of the game, it is important that we guard against the concentration of power and authority, whether sought or unsought. in the hands of the Centralized Government complex (lol Ike ftw!).

[HomestarSB9]

I'd like to close this debate by stating that if you vote for me, even if you don't vote for me, I will be a Senator for everyone.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will close this debate by saying that I sought this Senate seat because I thought we were heading down a bad path, a path of complacency and malaise. A path were people saw inactivity and threw up their hands in frustration and hopelessness. After all, incompetence and inactivity preclude action, it is a direct disappointment to the very people who elected us for the purpose to do a job. It may not be overt suppressing of the vote, but it is the suppressing of the voice that the people gave to us with their votes.

I am here to say, that there is hope and that there is always something that can be done. As Senator I will continue to fight for the interests of all Southerners, regardless of party. I will continue the lines of communication I have established between myself and the Southern Governor/Speaker. I will continue to call out and hold people accountable in the Senate regardless of party, just as I will continue fight for the equal protections and minority rights under the constitution that I have long championed.

We have many critical issues before us. We have to work get a budget done and we have to come together to get a peace deal accomplish in Korea. Beyond that we need to do more in the areas of mental health, financial accountability and reform and we need to modernize and expand health care delivery. We need to make sure that we are not wasting money while seeking to support our troops in harms way. Lastly, we need to quit tilting the scales in favor of big business over small business and big federal government over regional government.

Thanks for your tuning in and thanks to both Thumb for hosting this debate and to Homestar for participating. When we communicate with each other and when we engage on the issues we become stronger as a game and I would like to especially thank Homestar for running in this election and  contributing to game by doing so.

I very much would love to earn your vote on December 14th.

[thumb21]

Thank you candidates for your concluding statements and your participation in this debate! Good luck in the election!

This concludes the debate, if you have any comments, go to the commentary thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=307654.0