SB 115-28 Atlasian Steel Act (Tabled)

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm strongly supportive of this act. We need to nationalize more industries.

So you favor this, railroad nationalization, and as much nationalization as is possible yet you oppose lockdowns? How can you expect the government to act appropriately under the honor system when we have all seen the excesses of authoritarian states in the past and present all over the world? Division of economic and political power is what is needed to secure and protect the rights of the people. Private monopoly power and state monopoly power are twin dangers and threats to liberty.

What does nationalisation have to do with lockdowns. Both aren't even remotely linked.

Secondly, nationalization doesn't have anything to do with authoritarian states. Railroads are nationalized in Belgium and many other European nations. Are they authoritarian.

Essential industries important for the survival and welfare of our nation have to be nationalized, that includes energy, that includes public transport, that includes healthcare, education and prisons.

Plain and simple. If government controls everything "essential" if democracy ends in a country the people have no immediate recourse. Decades of struggle until the state collapses under its own weight and tens of millions are dead is not a viable strategy which was of course Eastern Europe's only option in the last century. As long as it remains wholly possible for democracy and individual rights to be turned back by any government, no matter the legislative and constitutional hurdles, we cannot have full-scale nationalization. I'm not opposed to the government entering various markets to encourage competition, along with cracking down on monopolies, but the government should not have a majority or total stake in the vast majority of markets nor should it achieve such through nationalization of already private businesses. Nationalization is also fundamentally anti-Atlasian and anti-liberty since it goes against the idea of private property and the sanctity of such since the sale of private property is forced, at the government rate, under nationalization. More actors in the market, including the government in some cases, will also encourage consumer choice, competition, reduced costs, efficiency, and technological innovations. Nationalization or monopoly is like expecting one to have all the answers instead of knowing that one cannot have all the answers and that thus a team generally works better and produces a finer, more advanced product. Many items have been the creation of one but highly developed projects are group efforts. Finally, if the government, for example, cannot afford to pay at the highest private wage in an industry, at least for some workers, then ingenuity and development will suffer.

You act as you're trying to be consumer friendly but we're talking here about the "steel industry". Have you ever gone to a grocery shop or whatever shop to buy raw amounts of steel? The only consumers here are other companies specializing in manufacturing industries, among a lot of those - most, if not all - are in fact privately owned industries.

So by definition, by nationalizing steel (if we don't nationalizing manufacturing industries as well), there is no monopoly at all.

Applies to NCY's argument of "are we going to nationalize Nike etc. as well". It's not helpful if we generalize all industries, it is important to know about what kind of industry we are talking about. And no-one has said anything about nationalizing those.

I even doubt there is much of a privately owned steel industry in Atlasia, given all those jobs probably are already gone to low income countries, because they are cheaper to employ than atlasian labour forces.

The result is higher amount of unemployed people, in particular for people without high school education, higher crime rates, higher degree of homelessness, increased drug trafficking and demand, more stigmatization/hate towards immigrants and more of a strain on the national budget and in particular expenses to maintaining the welfare state.

Nationalizing our steel industry will not contribute to anything to your highly out of proportion concerns, and will revitalize our economy and increase our GDP.

Do you know what a monopoly is? A government monopoly in any industry reduces competition and thus efficiency and technological advancement since government wages often can't keep pace at least at the highest levels with what the private market can offer. The steel industry also is connected to many other industries so pretending that it has nothing to do with the people so it can't be a (state) monopoly is a strange argument.

It is connected to many other industries, which so far are all privatised. As i've said, you're not going to a shop to buy raw steel for yourself.

For the steel industry, there is no need for competition and more importantly there is still competition in other countries.

You all also don't seem to object privately owned monopolies.

To suggest that I have ever supported or not opposed monopolies is total historical revisionism. To suggest that any industry, also, is "done" in terms of technological advancement so it can be nationalized doesn't make sense. Can't steel always become cheaper and stronger?

Truthful answer: "no".

There is no such thing as "eternal growth". At a certain point you're bound to hit a cap.



But as an F.Y.I. that's currently with privatisation not the case as well.

[West_Midlander]

As the author of this bill, I will respond to the neoliberal nonsense posted above shortly.

If you think opposing nationalization across the board is neoliberalism, I don't know what to tell you. This bill is opposed by Peace Party members and noted non-neoliberals Christian Man and Scott, not to mention the non-neoliberal Federalist Party Senators and Yankee.

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers"

Refusing to acknowledge the failures of the “Free Market” and burying our heads in the sand as to its consequences is a common thread of neoliberals, yes. There’s a very simple choice before the Senate; The Status Quo, which has seen a decline in our industry, our steel jobs, and the communities which they support, or they can pursue change. The government can step in do it’s job: correct the errors and violence of the so-called Free Market, which has made the steel industry one of its many victims. I’ve heard no concrete alternative presented, rather that we shouldn’t dare to do anything to protect Atlasian industry, because that would be “radical”, “centralism”, “anti-liberty”, or “authoritarian”. This claptrap aside, one must do nothing more than ask themselves: Who do you trust to exert influence and authority over the commanding heights of the economy? The private monopoly capital bosses who are accountable to none, or the elected government of this Republic, which answers to and works for the people. This is fundamentally putting our industry in the hands of the people.

In addition, I would briefly add that nationalization of our steel is a matter of national security. We’ve just faced a great assault on our union, an attempt to destroy and usurp the constitution: War was a very real possibility. In the event that another future secessionist movement sparks violence, and attempts to leave the union do we want to leave vast quantities of Atlasian steel lying around for seizing by a rebellious government? I think not. With full control over our steel, that will not be a concern. When voting on this bill, Senators must consider how much safer this will make Atlasia.

I suppose Scott is an Ayn Rand stand-in for opposing this? Yankee has also addressed your POV but you seemingly ignore that to retread what has been already addressed and confronted.

[West_Midlander]

Laki,

You are pointing to a graph of steel production by country. Please stop straw-manning. It is unbecoming of a sitting Senator. Again, my point was that steel can become more technologically sophisticated likely in perpetuity, not that steel production will increase infinitely which is a bizarre suggestion.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

As the author of this bill, I will respond to the neoliberal nonsense posted above shortly.

If you think opposing nationalization across the board is neoliberalism, I don't know what to tell you. This bill is opposed by Peace Party members and noted non-neoliberals Christian Man and Scott, not to mention the non-neoliberal Federalist Party Senators and Yankee.

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers"

Refusing to acknowledge the failures of the “Free Market” and burying our heads in the sand as to its consequences is a common thread of neoliberals, yes. There’s a very simple choice before the Senate; The Status Quo, which has seen a decline in our industry, our steel jobs, and the communities which they support, or they can pursue change. The government can step in do it’s job: correct the errors and violence of the so-called Free Market, which has made the steel industry one of its many victims. I’ve heard no concrete alternative presented, rather that we shouldn’t dare to do anything to protect Atlasian industry, because that would be “radical”, “centralism”, “anti-liberty”, or “authoritarian”. This claptrap aside, one must do nothing more than ask themselves: Who do you trust to exert influence and authority over the commanding heights of the economy? The private monopoly capital bosses who are accountable to none, or the elected government of this Republic, which answers to and works for the people. This is fundamentally putting our industry in the hands of the people.

In addition, I would briefly add that nationalization of our steel is a matter of national security. We’ve just faced a great assault on our union, an attempt to destroy and usurp the constitution: War was a very real possibility. In the event that another future secessionist movement sparks violence, and attempts to leave the union do we want to leave vast quantities of Atlasian steel lying around for seizing by a rebellious government? I think not. With full control over our steel, that will not be a concern. When voting on this bill, Senators must consider how much safer this will make Atlasia.

I suppose Scott is an Ayn Rand stand-in for opposing this? Yankee has also addressed your POV but you seemingly ignore that to retread what has been already addressed and confronted.

Scott opposes it for different reasons you do. He thinks it is a bad investment and offers other solutions to solve with the problem (or promises to do so). You oppose it for different reasons, like nationalization being ethically wrong or being a stepping stone towards a dictatorship and it being bad for customers which I all have said is simply not true.

Scott supposedly is of the opinion that domestic steel is done, has failed and cannot be saved and that this is why the government cannot help revitalize the steel industry. That's a completely different reason of why he opposes it than why you do. This doesn't make him an Ayn Rand-like one.

But I would appreciate if you stop referring to Scott or the user who recced a post Christian Man in making a conclusion of how Peace Party thinks over the issue. We have 7 (officially 8 but i'm excluding R) senators.

[West_Midlander]

As the author of this bill, I will respond to the neoliberal nonsense posted above shortly.

If you think opposing nationalization across the board is neoliberalism, I don't know what to tell you. This bill is opposed by Peace Party members and noted non-neoliberals Christian Man and Scott, not to mention the non-neoliberal Federalist Party Senators and Yankee.

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers"

Refusing to acknowledge the failures of the “Free Market” and burying our heads in the sand as to its consequences is a common thread of neoliberals, yes. There’s a very simple choice before the Senate; The Status Quo, which has seen a decline in our industry, our steel jobs, and the communities which they support, or they can pursue change. The government can step in do it’s job: correct the errors and violence of the so-called Free Market, which has made the steel industry one of its many victims. I’ve heard no concrete alternative presented, rather that we shouldn’t dare to do anything to protect Atlasian industry, because that would be “radical”, “centralism”, “anti-liberty”, or “authoritarian”. This claptrap aside, one must do nothing more than ask themselves: Who do you trust to exert influence and authority over the commanding heights of the economy? The private monopoly capital bosses who are accountable to none, or the elected government of this Republic, which answers to and works for the people. This is fundamentally putting our industry in the hands of the people.

In addition, I would briefly add that nationalization of our steel is a matter of national security. We’ve just faced a great assault on our union, an attempt to destroy and usurp the constitution: War was a very real possibility. In the event that another future secessionist movement sparks violence, and attempts to leave the union do we want to leave vast quantities of Atlasian steel lying around for seizing by a rebellious government? I think not. With full control over our steel, that will not be a concern. When voting on this bill, Senators must consider how much safer this will make Atlasia.

I suppose Scott is an Ayn Rand stand-in for opposing this? Yankee has also addressed your POV but you seemingly ignore that to retread what has been already addressed and confronted.

Scott opposes it for different reasons you do. He thinks it is a bad investment and offers other solutions to solve with the problem (or promises to do so). You oppose it for different reasons, like nationalization being ethically wrong or being a stepping stone towards a dictatorship and it being bad for customers which I all have said is simply not true.

Scott supposedly is of the opinion that domestic steel is done, has failed and cannot be saved and that this is why the government cannot help revitalize the steel industry. That's a completely different reason of why he opposes it than why you do. This doesn't make him an Ayn Rand-like one.

But I would appreciate if you stop referring to Scott or the user who recced a post Christian Man in making a conclusion of how Peace Party thinks over the issue. We have 7 (officially 8 but i'm excluding R) senators.

As I have said now twice, I only mentioned then to show the bill's opponents are not just neoliberals who don't get it. I never said Scott opposed it for the same exact reasons I did, did I? Where did I say this?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If Trump really wants to save American steel, he'd nationalize it

But it would solve the central problem the steel industry faces. No tariff, no matter how high, will reverse China’s domination of the steel industry and put U.S. steel companies onto long-term stable footing. Trying to fix the problem with trade policy creates needless complications and global tensions, all for the sake of a relatively small—though strategically vital—industry. Nationalization, in effect, sidesteps this problem altogether by eliminating the need to turn a profit. If Trump is committed to turning around the steel industry, nationalization is his best option.

This is, admittedly, not a free market solution—and critics, including much of Trump’s own party, will likely recoil at the notion. But the truth is that the free market has already failed the basic metals industry, failing to generate prices that reflect the true long-term social value of the industry. In fact, there’s no such thing as a free market for steel. Internationally, steel production is shot through with political interventions by foreign governments such as China. In the U.S., steel companies are stuck in a cycle of requiring more and more government protection just to buy them another few months or years. In other words, the industry is already totally dependent on the U.S. government to stay alive.

Laki,

You are pointing to a graph of steel production by country. Please stop straw-manning. It is unbecoming of a sitting Senator. Again, my point was that steel can become more technologically sophisticated likely in perpetuity, not that steel production will increase infinitely which is a bizarre suggestion.

It's extremely relevant as China's ascending to top producer of steel (not necessarily a country that has privatized the steel industry) is the main reason why Atlasian steel plummetted. You deem it off as "straw-manning". It's the very essence of this bill and the problem with the steel production.

Private industries have had the chance to proof that steel can become more technologically sophisticated. They have failed.

Refusing to nationalize the steel industry will only help China.

And helping China is much more pro-communist than nationalizing steel, especially since keeping unemployment low and keeping jobs in Atlasia would only contribute to our economy thriving.

[West_Midlander]

If Trump really wants to save American steel, he'd nationalize it

But it would solve the central problem the steel industry faces. No tariff, no matter how high, will reverse China’s domination of the steel industry and put U.S. steel companies onto long-term stable footing. Trying to fix the problem with trade policy creates needless complications and global tensions, all for the sake of a relatively small—though strategically vital—industry. Nationalization, in effect, sidesteps this problem altogether by eliminating the need to turn a profit. If Trump is committed to turning around the steel industry, nationalization is his best option.

This is, admittedly, not a free market solution—and critics, including much of Trump’s own party, will likely recoil at the notion. But the truth is that the free market has already failed the basic metals industry, failing to generate prices that reflect the true long-term social value of the industry. In fact, there’s no such thing as a free market for steel. Internationally, steel production is shot through with political interventions by foreign governments such as China. In the U.S., steel companies are stuck in a cycle of requiring more and more government protection just to buy them another few months or years. In other words, the industry is already totally dependent on the U.S. government to stay alive.

Laki,

You are pointing to a graph of steel production by country. Please stop straw-manning. It is unbecoming of a sitting Senator. Again, my point was that steel can become more technologically sophisticated likely in perpetuity, not that steel production will increase infinitely which is a bizarre suggestion.

It's extremely relevant as China's ascending to top producer of steel (not necessarily a country that has privatized the steel industry) is the main reason why Atlasian steel plummetted. You deem it off as "straw-manning". It's the very essence of this bill and the problem with the steel production.

Private industries have had the chance to proof that steel can become more technologically sophisticated. They have failed.

Refusing to nationalize the steel industry will only help China.

And helping China is much more pro-communist than nationalizing steel, especially since keeping unemployment low and keeping jobs in Atlasia would only contribute to our economy thriving.

I don't agree and what you have cited as proof it an opinion article, no?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If Trump really wants to save American steel, he'd nationalize it

But it would solve the central problem the steel industry faces. No tariff, no matter how high, will reverse China’s domination of the steel industry and put U.S. steel companies onto long-term stable footing. Trying to fix the problem with trade policy creates needless complications and global tensions, all for the sake of a relatively small—though strategically vital—industry. Nationalization, in effect, sidesteps this problem altogether by eliminating the need to turn a profit. If Trump is committed to turning around the steel industry, nationalization is his best option.

This is, admittedly, not a free market solution—and critics, including much of Trump’s own party, will likely recoil at the notion. But the truth is that the free market has already failed the basic metals industry, failing to generate prices that reflect the true long-term social value of the industry. In fact, there’s no such thing as a free market for steel. Internationally, steel production is shot through with political interventions by foreign governments such as China. In the U.S., steel companies are stuck in a cycle of requiring more and more government protection just to buy them another few months or years. In other words, the industry is already totally dependent on the U.S. government to stay alive.

Laki,

You are pointing to a graph of steel production by country. Please stop straw-manning. It is unbecoming of a sitting Senator. Again, my point was that steel can become more technologically sophisticated likely in perpetuity, not that steel production will increase infinitely which is a bizarre suggestion.

It's extremely relevant as China's ascending to top producer of steel (not necessarily a country that has privatized the steel industry) is the main reason why Atlasian steel plummetted. You deem it off as "straw-manning". It's the very essence of this bill and the problem with the steel production.

Private industries have had the chance to proof that steel can become more technologically sophisticated. They have failed.

Refusing to nationalize the steel industry will only help China.

And helping China is much more pro-communist than nationalizing steel, especially since keeping unemployment low and keeping jobs in Atlasia would only contribute to our economy thriving.

I don't agree and what you have cited as proof it an opinion article, no?

Everything you say is an opinion as well, and an opinion I strongly disagree with, and a lot of your opinion is factually incorrect.

This opinion from the article might help you explain why i think the way i think.

And it doesn't make me a communist unless you believe Politico is a communist magazine that advocates for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Maybe you don't see the fact that China almost has a monopoly over the global steel industry as a problem, and with it, many working class jobs disappearing to low income countries.

[Utah Neolib]

24 hours to object to my amendment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As the author of this bill, I will respond to the neoliberal nonsense posted above shortly.

If you think opposing nationalization across the board is neoliberalism, I don't know what to tell you. This bill is opposed by Peace Party members and noted non-neoliberals Christian Man and Scott, not to mention the non-neoliberal Federalist Party Senators and Yankee.

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers"

Refusing to acknowledge the failures of the “Free Market” and burying our heads in the sand as to its consequences is a common thread of neoliberals, yes. There’s a very simple choice before the Senate; The Status Quo, which has seen a decline in our industry, our steel jobs, and the communities which they support, or they can pursue change. The government can step in do it’s job: correct the errors and violence of the so-called Free Market, which has made the steel industry one of its many victims. I’ve heard no concrete alternative presented, rather that we shouldn’t dare to do anything to protect Atlasian industry, because that would be “radical”, “centralism”, “anti-liberty”, or “authoritarian”. This claptrap aside, one must do nothing more than ask themselves: Who do you trust to exert influence and authority over the commanding heights of the economy? The private monopoly capital bosses who are accountable to none, or the elected government of this Republic, which answers to and works for the people. This is fundamentally putting our industry in the hands of the people.

In addition, I would briefly add that nationalization of our steel is a matter of national security. We’ve just faced a great assault on our union, an attempt to destroy and usurp the constitution: War was a very real possibility. In the event that another future secessionist movement sparks violence, and attempts to leave the union do we want to leave vast quantities of Atlasian steel lying around for seizing by a rebellious government? I think not. With full control over our steel, that will not be a concern. When voting on this bill, Senators must consider how much safer this will make Atlasia.

I suppose Scott is an Ayn Rand stand-in for opposing this? Yankee has also addressed your POV but you seemingly ignore that to retread what has been already addressed and confronted.

Scott opposes it for different reasons you do. He thinks it is a bad investment and offers other solutions to solve with the problem (or promises to do so). You oppose it for different reasons, like nationalization being ethically wrong or being a stepping stone towards a dictatorship and it being bad for customers which I all have said is simply not true.

Scott supposedly is of the opinion that domestic steel is done, has failed and cannot be saved and that this is why the government cannot help revitalize the steel industry. That's a completely different reason of why he opposes it than why you do. This doesn't make him an Ayn Rand-like one.

But I would appreciate if you stop referring to Scott or the user who recced a post Christian Man in making a conclusion of how Peace Party thinks over the issue. We have 7 (officially 8 but i'm excluding R) senators.

I never said steel "cannot be saved," I said that there's no evidence nationalization would work or not end up costing tens of billions of dollars.

And Chinese steel, honestly, sucks:

American steel manufacturers are held to a set of standards created by organizations like The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) that determine the appropriate chemistry mixes for different types of steel. These standards are intended as a safety precaution to ensure the right quality of metal is being used for the right product.

Companies in China are producing steel at a faster rate, flooding the market and dropping prices. It is produced at a rapid rate and it is not held up to the same quality standards as American steel. There are anti-dumping laws in place by the World Trade Organization to prevent foreign companies from exporting, or “dumping,” goods to the United States at either prices too far below the domestic price or when they flood the market with an excess quantity that is beyond the normal competition. This situation has lead to trade wars headlined by tariffs between the United States and China.

[...]

A good example of Chinese steel quality issues leading to potential danger is the Oakland Bay Bridge in San Francisco, California. The lower quality of the foreign steel was discovered in 2013 when a seismic test led to the discovery of 32 faulty rods that had to be replaced; they had been corroding in a large pool of water. This is especially problematic since the bridge practically connects two major fault lines, one of which was the cause of the big earthquake in 1989. A metallurgist testified that the Chinese steel was poor quality, and prone to embrittlement, which is why the rods cracked; during construction 750 panels cracked during welding and had to be replaced.

There have been a large number of reports of Chinese steel quality issues. Between 2011 and 2012 eight bridges in China, using Chinese steel, collapsed. In 2008 an earthquake struck the Sichuan province, and in one steel school that was poorly built, 700 children were crushed to death.

China's steel industry isn't doing better because they produce better steel, it is because they're violating WTO anti-dumping policies by flooding the market with a cheap, inferior product. I'm not at all opposed to government investing in steel. In fact, we passed a law requiring that all public infrastructure projects use non-imported steel. I view this as a trade issue, and China's membership in the WTO doesn't help when they're not playing by the same rules.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

24 hours to object to my amendment.

Objecting

[LAKISYLVANIA]

A vote on the UNL amendment starts. Senators, please vote aye, nay or abstain

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Nay

[Utah Neolib]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye.

Good amendment which significantly improves the bill. Senator Utah Neolib once again proves he is one of the chamber's most level-headed.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Aye.

Good amendment which significantly improves the bill. Senator Utah Neolib once again proves he is one of the chamber's most level-headed.

Well i'm willing to compromise as well, esp. if senators are willing to back the compromise. I know it's going to be hard to pass the OG bill, so my compromise is, i agree to UNL's amendment, we pass it and we pass the RAILS act, as it is right now.

This would elavate concerns over state monopoly of the steel market, so I believe there should be no reason to vote against the act if UNL's amendment passes, even if I personally had rather had the original act to pass in its full form.

I hope the senate - and you as well - is willing to accept that compromise. And I hope you appreciate this move.

[Sirius_]

Abstain

[Vice President Christian Man]

May I suggest an alternative in which businesses are democratized or at least workers are allowed ownership of production? I just oppose nationalization because it can be just as destructive as privatization at least in practice.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

May I suggest an alternative in which businesses are democratized or at least workers are allowed ownership of production? I just oppose nationalization because it can be just as destructive as privatization at least in practice.

Yes you're allowed to suggest an alternative, if you offer an amendment, i'll put it up to a vote.

[Joseph Cao]

Aye on UNL's amendment.

[Vice President Christian Man]

[

]
AN ACT
To democratize the steel industry; amended from Senator Utah Neolib's amendment

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Quote
Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Atlasian Steel Act.

Section 2. Democratization

1. All steel manufacturers are brought into collective ownership immediately upon passage of this act and shall be placed under the control of an Atlasian Steel Authority.

2. The establishment of the DFW (Democracy for Workers) shall be established in order to establish the right of unionization, as well as to create a democratic workplace in which workers have a direct say on profit, spending, promotions, etc.

4. The government of the DFW shall be cooperative, operating in a similar manner to businesses within Lincoln under the Consumer Protection Act. Former or current workers can be elected by regions to represent their businesses.  This will essentially reform the Board of Directors to prohibit those who are not invovled with Atlasia Steel.

5. The labor directors, consumer directors, and security and environment directors shall be elected by the workers although the president has the authority to allow the EPA and/or NSA to become involved in cases of extreme corruption, economic mismanagement, and/or violence.

6. The term of a Board director shall be four years. [/s] [/s]

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Aye on Neolib's amendment

[West_Midlander]

Object to the CM amendment