Proposition to Establish a Government Budget

[King]

There are so many bills that have spending and taxing that we should try to form a budget for realistic puposes. I don't know how we would do it though.

[Platypus]

my major problem with this is that it would make us all a bit entrenched in the government, when the main purpose is politics. That said, ity would also make it more realistic, and politicians more responsible with election pledges.On balance...i'm on the fence.

[The Duke]

Perahps if we take the current budget as a starting point, make changes as we see fit, and have the GM tell us what our deficit or surplus is based on our decisions and the state of the economies growth.

[Niles Caulder]

I personally like the idea on a lot of levels.

My biggest concern is in knowing how the vast potential for overcomplexity of budget detail is going to be contained.  Senator Hughento is quite correct that playing around witha periodic $2 trillion could suck everyone's attention dry.

Systems modeling and game theory are interests of mine.  Having the fewest number of variables reproduce the highest degree of 'realism' is the ideal goal of a game ontology.

The benchmark example (on public retail shelves) is Sid Meir's Civilization series: one's financial resources are invested in technological research, military strength, popular happiness, or civil improvements...any of which can augment the others directly.

In our case, we have these very important constraints in dealing with the federal budget of a superpower:

Our Senate is composed of 10, the Executive Branch (when fully manned) is composed of 5-6, who're responsible for all federal policy.

Our fantasy government members are busy folks with real lives, who aren't able to invest daily attention to policy minutia.

Our forum is also composed of the idealistic to a relatively large degree, the enjoyment of fantasy politics is in getting to be much more honest, much less compromising, and have that be much more successful than it would be in the real world.  I think that chance to change the world in a heroic fashion is important to preserve.  The more grounded/gaming-detailed a $2 trillion budget gets, the less suspension of disbelief is possible.

With these thoughts in mind, I'd be interested in anyone's ideas about how to make dealing with periodic budgets something that'll fit with the government's population and work ethic, and won't detract from the fun of being elected to begin with.

I'm excited to be a part of a system that people feel good about.  I think perhaps there's room for a strong Secretary of the Treasury in such a system as well.

[Akno21]

I think this would be a good way to get the Cabinet members more involved, frankly.

[Bono]

Bump.
This idea rocks.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Bump.
This idea rocks.

I, of course, agree.  Damn, I'm going to have a lot of homework to do if I get confirmed.

Don't know what I'd do without Excel...

[King]

It would be great to FINALLY see something happening at the treasury department. Its been out to lunch for months...

[ilikeverin]

$1Googol into education, and I shall be pleased

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

$1Googol into education, and I shall be pleased

This is technically feasible, but only if you're willing to spend $75 quintillion for a loaf of bread.

[ilikeverin]

$1Googol into education, and I shall be pleased

This is technically feasible, but only if you're willing to spend $75 quintillion for a loaf of bread.

Inflation is fun.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

$1Googol into education, and I shall be pleased

This is technically feasible, but only if you're willing to spend $75 quintillion for a loaf of bread.

Inflation is fun.

The Treasury Department respectfully takes a contrarian viewpoint.

[Bono]

$1Googol into education, and I shall be pleased

This is technically feasible, but only if you're willing to spend $75 quintillion for a loaf of bread.

Inflation is fun.

The Treasury Department respectfully takes a contrarian viewpoint.

Will you takes us back to the gold-standart then?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

$1Googol into education, and I shall be pleased

This is technically feasible, but only if you're willing to spend $75 quintillion for a loaf of bread.

Inflation is fun.

The Treasury Department respectfully takes a contrarian viewpoint.

Will you takes us back to the gold-standart then?

This treasury secretary believes in a floating currency, as the monetary crises of the 1890s, 1900s, and the Great Depression are a sobering historical lesson of the perils of currency inelasticity.

Strict monetary discipline is a must, however, and the Department puts its full faith and trust in the independent Atlas Reserve Board to assure that inflation remains at nominal levels.

EDIT: I should clarify myself in saying that I don't believe the gold standard actually caused the Great Depression; however, politicians' stubborn adherence to it was like throwing gasoline on a fire.  Had currency been allowed to float, an increased money supply would have eased a lot of the ills of the 1930s.