GM Discussion Thread

[ilikeverin]

I thought the response given to the LGBT bill was quite credible.  It's a good deed, yes, but it's an extremely far-reaching bill that restricts trade with many important trading partners.

[Brandon H]

I'm going to respond to respond to events as I see they happen. Every person here has their own views. So my views happen to be right leaning. So far I don't believe I have had anything far fetched happen. How do you think the credit card companies would respond? "We're glad the Senate put limits on the interest rates we can charge." As far as Atlasians go, I'm not the most knowledgeable guy on foreign countries, but I feel I'm definitely one of the more knowledgeable people in terms on economics. Ahmadinejad may have not been the best choice to include in there, so I used some one else, Kuwait, which was specifically mentioned as one of the free trade acts we have that would be specifically affected by that bill.

[MaxQue]

It's a good deed, yes, but it's an extremely far-reaching bill that restricts trade with many important trading partners.

Countries affected by that are not important trading partners.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It's a good deed, yes, but it's an extremely far-reaching bill that restricts trade with many important trading partners.

Countries affected by that are not important trading partners.

Yeah because we definitely do not use Kuwaiti oil or any Arab oil at all.  The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

[MaxQue]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

[DownWithTheLeft]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

[MaxQue]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

Gay marriage is not relevant to this debate. I don't see how stopping free trade with countries who are dumping their cheap labor products here, while we are not able to sell more Atlasian products in that country, since the population is too poor to buy them is a problem.

For countries prohibiting free speech and with poor working conditions, we all know than there is a major problem to fix before.

[Purple State]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

[ilikeverin]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

In other words, we've now severed trade ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia...

[Purple State]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

In other words, we've now severed trade ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia...

We didn't severe trade, but we don't have free trade, per se. Also, the hope is that these nations would reform once they feel the impact of this.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Cutting free trade agreements doesn't mean cutting off trade, guys, don't buy into that silly misconception.

[ilikeverin]

Cutting free trade agreements doesn't mean cutting off trade, guys, don't buy into that silly misconception.

Sorry, I've tried to skirt the line and use vocabulary that is in line with this; I apologize if it looks like I'm not understanding that.  But I still think it's silly to be breaking agreements left and right.  This is a topic which requires negotiations, not blanket declarations.

[Purple State]

Cutting free trade agreements doesn't mean cutting off trade, guys, don't buy into that silly misconception.

Sorry, I've tried to skirt the line and use vocabulary that is in line with this; I apologize if it looks like I'm not understanding that.  But I still think it's silly to be breaking agreements left and right.  This is a topic which requires negotiations, not blanket declarations.

That was actually my hope in adding the words "at the discretion of the SoEA." I rejected simply revoking all those FTAs, instead having the SoEA work with other nations before simply removing the agreements. I am sad to see that was not the case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cutting free trade agreements doesn't mean cutting off trade, guys, don't buy into that silly misconception.

Sorry, I've tried to skirt the line and use vocabulary that is in line with this; I apologize if it looks like I'm not understanding that.  But I still think it's silly to be breaking agreements left and right.  This is a topic which requires negotiations, not blanket declarations.

That was actually my hope in adding the words "at the discretion of the SoEA." I rejected simply revoking all those FTAs, instead having the SoEA work with other nations before simply removing the agreements. I am sad to see that was not the case.

Did you honestly expect anything else out of the one of the most protectionist people in the last Senate?

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

In other words, we've now severed trade ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia...

Great so years of progress in relations with Egypt and movement towards democracy there and in Afghanistan, and Pakistan has just been potentially thrown out the window for feel good legislation that will "hopefully" lead these countries to not continue to criminalise homosexual behavior.

Cutting free trade agreements doesn't mean cutting off trade, guys, don't buy into that silly misconception.

Wait a minute, so you expect countries that are governed by sharia law or a modified version of it to throw off 1,000 years of Religious influence in one a moment because of a slight change in our trade relationship. I would argue even cutting off trade wouldn't motivate them to do this, but to just slightly tweak our trade relationship is definately not going to achieve the desired results. Liberalization comes in steps first Democracy, then Individual Freedoms for the majority for of the populiation and then finally freedom for all the population. You are trying to compel Fundamentialist countries to skip from Democracy which has yet to be fully excepted and all the subsequent steps to excepting a specific group and thus putting the whole process of liberalization at risk in those countries. You will be lucky if Gays aren't being burned at the stake or stoned to death in mass extermination efforts, a week from now, in these countries, because of this.

[Purple State]

I think your little "worst case scenario" bit is getting somewhat overdrawn at this point. Sure you can use it for some things, but the likelihood of the sort of doomsday scenario you just outlined is slim to non-existent. I warn against the use of these sort of fear mongering tactics to promote your agenda.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think your little "worst case scenario" bit is getting somewhat overdrawn at this point. Sure you can use it for some things, but the likelihood of the sort of doomsday scenario you just outlined is slim to non-existent. I warn against the use of these sort of fear mongering tactics to promote your agenda.

What happen to avoiding public confrontations. I admit it, I over did it on the last sentence, but I think the rest of it is fairly reasonable, and you will soon realise, that I am not like this on all things.

[MaxQue]

Great so years of progress in relations with Egypt and movement towards democracy there and in Afghanistan, and Pakistan has just been potentially thrown out the window for feel good legislation that will "hopefully" lead these countries to not continue to criminalise homosexual behavior.

This have no effect on those three countries! We never had free trade agreements with them!

[SPC]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

In other words, we've now severed trade ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia...

We didn't severe trade, but we don't have free trade, per se. Also, the hope is that these nations would reform once they feel the impact of this.

If Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. put trade restrictions on us for not criminalizing homosexuality, do you think that we would "reform"?

[Purple State]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

In other words, we've now severed trade ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia...

We didn't severe trade, but we don't have free trade, per se. Also, the hope is that these nations would reform once they feel the impact of this.

If Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. put trade restrictions on us for not criminalizing homosexuality, do you think that we would "reform"?

Do you think we would feel the economic impact the same way they will?

Also, please cite for me the exact restrictions we have placed on trade with these nations as a result of the actions of the SoEA.

[Vepres]

Brandon, could you give us a general idea of the budgetary situation? Just estimates, and how the stimulus in the senate might affect it, as that should be a major part of the debate in my opinion.

[Purple State]

Brandon, could you give us a general idea of the budgetary situation? Just estimates, and how the stimulus in the senate might affect it, as that should be a major part of the debate in my opinion.

That is a good idea. Perhaps some preemptive analyses for the Senate so we can figure out how to improve pending legislation, rather than finding out later that passed legislation screwed up.

[Brandon H]

Brandon, could you give us a general idea of the budgetary situation? Just estimates, and how the stimulus in the senate might affect it, as that should be a major part of the debate in my opinion.

I haven't done anything with the budget yet.

As far the stimulus: It will have a positive affect on the market at least in the short term, but it will also result in an increase of currency in circulation, resulting in a decrease in the value of the dollar, meaning everything will cost more. The decrease in the value of the dollar won't happen right away. Once it does happen, the dollars that were put into the economy would be weaker. (The dollars in people's savings would also be weaker.)

I'm basing this on the fact that money used to fund the stimulus would come from the Federal Reserve. If the funding would come from someplace else, than things would be different. I haven't done any work on a budget, but most likely we are at a deficit, and this type of bill would increase the deficit.

[Vepres]

A tumbleweed rolls through the GM news thread...

[Brandon H]

I was working on an update last night. I plan on posting later today.

[Vepres]

Now who would decide how to pay for this bill? I assume the President.