-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Sir, I take no issue with the poor or your humble orgins. I meant to be friendly, not condescending. I Merely asked how you planned to pay for all of your social reforms, a question which still remains awnserless. I am of the opinion that the worst thing to do in a depression is raise costs on factory owners, and that all one can do is ease the ill effeccts of said depression. All markets go through "boom and bust" cycles, and unless you plan to eliminate the markets they will occur. This is true regardless of whether one is a socialist or the Chair of Howard Industries.
Well, Mr. Davis, I believe the answer is obvious; he will tax the American people into oblivion (which would do wonders, if his goal is to end the market entirely). He will begin with the richest men (such as myself, Mr. Howard, Mr. Khur, Mr. Rockefellar, et. al), and when we are no longer around, he will begin taxing the poor. But not to worry, the government will give them everything they need! They give 100% and are given 100%! There may not be innovation or progress, but there will be security (except for the fact that the men at the top will get payed more, and the soldiers will have to be payed, and the social programmes, but let's try not to think about that and accept his idea as perfect!)
Richard Orleans
Born 1850
Owner of the United Fruit Company and one of the ‘Great Monopolists’, he entered politics after ‘the hiccup’ and campaigned restlessly for the cutting of taxes, no matter what the cost may be, he thinks Cameron’s system of public welfare is a farce and a burden on the economy. He argues the past 30 years of growth have been only hindered by successive interventionist governments, and puts the success down to people like Khur and Rockefeller. He does however argue for a strong military and thinks the US should be the policeman of the Americas, being particularly hostile to the rise of the UPCA. Unlike almost all other American elites he argues for the establishment of colonies overseas, saying it’s the only way for the American economy to be sustainable and continue to dominate the European powers, he thinks granting Cuba and the Philippines their independence was a complete mistake.
((So close Mikeboy, so close... your foreign policy, no, but your economic ideas, I can get behind...))
Mr. Orleans, can't you see that our interventionist, imperialist foreign policy, combined with the past farcical economic 'policies' of late, have been the root of our problems. If we returned to peaceful coexistence and trade relations with all nations, free our markets, and show we will protect our interests (we're not asking a lot, just live and trade in peace, but cross us, and you'll regret it!), we would be in a much better situation.
Mr. Orleans, can't you see that our interventionist, imperialist foreign policy, combined with the past farcical economic 'policies' of late, have been the root of our problems. If we returned to peaceful coexistence and trade relations with all nations, free our markets, and show we will protect our interests (we're not asking a lot, just live and trade in peace, but cross us, and you'll regret it!), we would be in a much better situation.
The New Economy:
The New Economy will be a completely new revolutionary system aimed to get America out of this crisis and make sure we never have one again. It will involve the State creating jobs to strengthen our infrastructure and financing it by taxing those responsible for this situation. Those Economic Criminals who play with other people's livelihood will not get away unpunished. They will pay back every little penny they stole from the American people through a new bold progressive taxation plan. In The New Economy everyone will bare responsibility for their actions. The New Economy promotes equality. In the New Economy the State will work for the Working Man to help him get a job when needed, and help him support his family when he can't. The State will work as the Good Samaritan did in the Good Book, it will make sure there are fish and bread for everyone. The New Economy will be an American economy, where American industry work with American raw materials, and American goods are sold in the stores. The State will also heavily back industry to stop critical production from going bankrupt and thus saving thousands of jobs.
Vote Jimmy, vote for the New Economy!!
The New Economy will be a completely new revolutionary system aimed to get America out of this crisis and make sure we never have one again. It will involve the State creating jobs to strengthen our infrastructure and financing it by taxing those responsible for this situation. Those Economic Criminals who play with other people's livelihood will not get away unpunished. They will pay back every little penny they stole from the American people through a new bold progressive taxation plan. In The New Economy everyone will bare responsibility for their actions. The New Economy promotes equality. In the New Economy the State will work for the Working Man to help him get a job when needed, and help him support his family when he can't. The State will work as the Good Samaritan did in the Good Book, it will make sure there are fish and bread for everyone. The New Economy will be an American economy, where American industry work with American raw materials, and American goods are sold in the stores. The State will also heavily back industry to stop critical production from going bankrupt and thus saving thousands of jobs.
Vote Jimmy, vote for the New Economy!!
I support Mr. Lee Davis in his nominee, as he clearly led the country as it should have during his presidency, and only fell out of grace by a mere work of chance. He deserves to fix the problem.
((BBB, I'm seriously starting to get annoyed at some of these characters. Almost all of them have no faults and have never failed at anything. And everyone seems to be a self-made man willing to pay the cost of government themselves out of their own pockets. Can you please put an end to this? Not only is it patently unrealistic, but it make the game essentially unenjoyable when we could basically solve the worlds problems by just letting these "self-made man" characters run the country and pay for it themselves out of the goodness of their heart.))
Mr. Davis, I have said where I will take it from, the rich. A slight increase in tax and lowering of military costs by bringing our boys home and ending our overseas commitments. Sure, there may be deficits to contend with, sure the wealthy will be angry at being held responsible for this collapse of speculation, but the bottom line is, I will be putting money into the hands of the working-men which they will then spend on all the basic necessities of life, by spending this money the money gets back to the industries themselves and primes the pump for demand, forcing them to hire more employees who can then buy more. Once we have fixed the problem of immediate demand and getting out of the crisis, I shall then go about the process of negotiating possible regulations on the financial sector which will help prevent future speculative booms and busts from ever being able to attain such grandiose proportions.
Mr. Davis, I have said where I will take it from, the rich. A slight increase in tax and lowering of military costs by bringing our boys home and ending our overseas commitments. Sure, there may be deficits to contend with, sure the wealthy will be angry at being held responsible for this collapse of speculation, but the bottom line is, I will be putting money into the hands of the working-men which they will then spend on all the basic necessities of life, by spending this money the money gets back to the industries themselves and primes the pump for demand, forcing them to hire more employees who can then buy more. Once we have fixed the problem of immediate demand and getting out of the crisis, I shall then go about the process of negotiating possible regulations on the financial sector which will help prevent future speculative booms and busts from ever being able to attain such grandiose proportions.
Last edited:
I am sorry, Mr. Garrett, I do not mean that you are the sole person who made this mess. But you must accept it was businessman's gambling that caused the crash. That is undeniable.
And I do not suggest to abolish the stock market on the basis of this one disaster. I say we should abolish this, because, under the system we have and you say we should keep, this is bound to happen again.
Also, Mr. Garrett, I would like to ask how you earn the money you get. Do you sweat for it, like ninety percent of this country does?
Let me ask another question, in Norfolk Shipping Company, how many people who earn less than you, which of course is the entire company, works less hard than you?
A Fair Deal
If you choose to vote me into the White house in January, these are my commitments to you:
First, budget surplus will always, without exception, mean tax cuts for workers. Second, budget surpluses will always mean tax rises for businessman. The tax on businessman will be a percentage of the profit your business makes. There are two reasons for taxing the poor a different amount than the rich. The first is that one of them earns it's pay through it's own blood, sweat and tears, and the other earns it's money through other people's blood, sweat and tears. Second, one can afford to pay more of it's money to the government, and the other is starving as it is. I think we all know which is which.
Third, any troops stationed abroad will return home within the year. Yes, within the year. Our boys have been in the Philipines too long, and the people who put them there have nothing, nothing at all to show for it. It is a disgrace to this great country that this has carried on for so long.
Fourth, any unemployment, and I mean any, for farmers of bueracrats or labourers, will be stopped by the building of a factory nearby. And this factory will be built by the government, and owned by the government, but the government will not get a single cent from it. Any money the factories make will be divided between the workers in the factory. Some will get more than others, becuase they work for more hours or do harder jobs. The Constitution says all men were created equal, but in a world where people get ten times as much money for doi ng less work, no kne can be equal.
Fifth, I will stop businessman playing with your jobs and wages as if they were toys. The stock markets will be banned. People's livelihoods matter. They are not dice to be thrown, or pawns on a chessboard. They are important.
Sixth, for those who employ themselves: You would earn your pay (which would have to be the same as you paid your other workers for that job, and you would not be allowed to employ yourself for a job and no one else, to prevent fraud) for which you would be taxed as a worker, and the profits of the company, for which you would be taxed as an owner. Obviously, to employ yourself, you would need government check-ups to make sure you actually are doing the work.
If you choose to vote me into the White house in January, these are my commitments to you:
First, budget surplus will always, without exception, mean tax cuts for workers. Second, budget surpluses will always mean tax rises for businessman. The tax on businessman will be a percentage of the profit your business makes. There are two reasons for taxing the poor a different amount than the rich. The first is that one of them earns it's pay through it's own blood, sweat and tears, and the other earns it's money through other people's blood, sweat and tears. Second, one can afford to pay more of it's money to the government, and the other is starving as it is. I think we all know which is which.
Third, any troops stationed abroad will return home within the year. Yes, within the year. Our boys have been in the Philipines too long, and the people who put them there have nothing, nothing at all to show for it. It is a disgrace to this great country that this has carried on for so long.
Fourth, any unemployment, and I mean any, for farmers of bueracrats or labourers, will be stopped by the building of a factory nearby. And this factory will be built by the government, and owned by the government, but the government will not get a single cent from it. Any money the factories make will be divided between the workers in the factory. Some will get more than others, becuase they work for more hours or do harder jobs. The Constitution says all men were created equal, but in a world where people get ten times as much money for doi ng less work, no kne can be equal.
Fifth, I will stop businessman playing with your jobs and wages as if they were toys. The stock markets will be banned. People's livelihoods matter. They are not dice to be thrown, or pawns on a chessboard. They are important.
Sixth, for those who employ themselves: You would earn your pay (which would have to be the same as you paid your other workers for that job, and you would not be allowed to employ yourself for a job and no one else, to prevent fraud) for which you would be taxed as a worker, and the profits of the company, for which you would be taxed as an owner. Obviously, to employ yourself, you would need government check-ups to make sure you actually are doing the work.
Last edited:
As a still independent Congressman, I would like a pose a question to all the candidates, particularly our leftist friends:
I own a small business. When I say small, of course, I mean compared to JKW or Howard Industries or UFC. Until somewhat recently, when I made my jump into politics, I worked actively within my own company. I worked just as hard as any of my employees, and in fact I might posit harder than some. I pay perfectly fair wages, and have had to cut some jobs as a result of the slackening market, not because I feel like rolling in more money. I make a modest profit, certainly enough to live, but possibly not enough to do so if half my income is taken to go to the "ailing workers", who, I might remind you, I am paying. Now, why should I support a party, or a candidate, that would destroy my livelihood? Why should I not continue to support ACP candidates for President, and caucus with them in Congress?
I own a small business. When I say small, of course, I mean compared to JKW or Howard Industries or UFC. Until somewhat recently, when I made my jump into politics, I worked actively within my own company. I worked just as hard as any of my employees, and in fact I might posit harder than some. I pay perfectly fair wages, and have had to cut some jobs as a result of the slackening market, not because I feel like rolling in more money. I make a modest profit, certainly enough to live, but possibly not enough to do so if half my income is taken to go to the "ailing workers", who, I might remind you, I am paying. Now, why should I support a party, or a candidate, that would destroy my livelihood? Why should I not continue to support ACP candidates for President, and caucus with them in Congress?
Mr. Carter, could please explain to us what work you did, and what work your employees did?
Former President Daniel Vallejo has departed for Manila, where the Philippine government has offered him a position as military adviser for their young navy.
((New character will be coming soon. I think it's high time that I played a socialist leaning politician.))
Infobox which forgets to mention the whole "military adviser" and then "Secretary of War (Republic of the Philippines)" bits because I got lazy while editing it:
((New character will be coming soon. I think it's high time that I played a socialist leaning politician.))
I run a shipping and trading company. Or rather, ran. My close friend runs it for me now, I am merely the owner. I was a deckhand when I was young, but I managed to con my way into captaining a vessel during the War Between the States. The owner didn't even know, and I befriended the captains of his other vessels. When he fled to Cuba with the rest of the Confederate government-in-exile, we considered his ownership and control of the vessels forfeit. For the sake of not needing to be independent operators, we chose to combine forces instead. I, er, persuaded the other captains to let me helm our venture (of five ships). I spent many long days and nights negotiating pay with the New York longshoremen, and securing contracts for our very small company, all while still captaining my own vessel much of that time. It wasn't easy, but I made it work. Our workers are primarily longshoremen and shipboard crew. We've now made arrangements with longshoremen in most ports we expect to enter, and have a formal agreement with the unionized ones in New York. Shipboard crew's pay is determined by their particular captain, per voyage.
((I feel like building a little bit of backstory for my character right now - he's flawed, and I think it'll be more fun that way. Also I'm still operating under the assumption LUPA managed to form itself in the 1860s - my story sort of requires it.))
So you feel that society owes you, entitles you, to the profit of their labor? You feel like you have an unimpeachable right to a livelihood derived from their product rather than your own labor; and your defense for that position is the fact that you pay them?
What do you pay them with? Do you hire them the way I would hire house painters, with money I made through my own trade, or is what you pay them merely a portion of the profit of your company? The profits derived, at least in large part, from those employees.
It never ceases to amaze me how men such as yourself can act like it is an act of charity or some kind of fair bargain to be taking a portion of the working man's produce and call it you "paying" them! They're paying you. Your position, your employment as a manager and man of business, is dependent on their labor. You require them far more than they require you, they literally employ YOU. You would have no purpose in life were it not to "manage" the product that they create.
But they created it - they should get to decide for themselves whether they would rather their labor union manage their product, or a government that represents their interests manage their product. How would either be less desirable than allowing a self-appointed - or rather capitalist State appointed - bureaucrat such as yourself steal as much of their property as he, that is you, see fit?
Well, Mr. Carter, that means you are both a worker and a capitalist. You would earn a captain's pay (which would have to be the same as you paid your other captains) for which you would be taxed as a worker, and the profits of the company, for which you would be taxed as an owner. Obviously, to employ yourself, you would need government check-ups to make sure you actually are doing the work.
Now, of course, you would purely be taxed as an owner, simply because you no longer work for the company.
Last edited:
Roger that blindgoose. I won't outright ban shows of generosity, but tone them down significantly. Remember roleplay.
If you are a major player in one of the big monopolies, (Biggest to "smallest": Standard Oil, Jamous-Khur/Howard Industries, United Fruit Company, American Railroad Company), then you cannot offer aid. The big companies are consolidating market superiority in the chaos, not acting as a charity.
If you are a major player in one of the big monopolies, (Biggest to "smallest": Standard Oil, Jamous-Khur/Howard Industries, United Fruit Company, American Railroad Company), then you cannot offer aid. The big companies are consolidating market superiority in the chaos, not acting as a charity.
Or that wasteful bureaucracy of two separate types of taxation and corruptable, bribeable employment inspectors could be replaced by initiating a profit-sharing scheme so that the employees are able to retain a percentage of the profits they generate. Companies already report their profits in their tax returns, so it would require no additional bureaucracy to simply compare the tax returns of the employees and the companies and make sure they are getting their shares.
Profit-sharing and a seat for employees' representative(s) on the board. Those are moderate steps towards a less larcenous society.
In terms of additional social reforms, I would suggest that given the need to stimulate growth we focus on pensions and healthcare (which are the more economically beneficial reforms in game, whereas safety and work day mostly just hurt economically while lowering dissent. With pensions and healthcare our population will increase, which is a good thing economically in the Victoria games; it is better to wag the dog by increasing our employee base to stir new factory growth, as long as we are not state capitalist or planned. Which in-character I support, but out of character I would recommend combining healthcare and pensions with a merely interventionist economy, so capitalists can respond to the growing work base).
Profit-sharing and a seat for employees' representative(s) on the board. Those are moderate steps towards a less larcenous society.
In terms of additional social reforms, I would suggest that given the need to stimulate growth we focus on pensions and healthcare (which are the more economically beneficial reforms in game, whereas safety and work day mostly just hurt economically while lowering dissent. With pensions and healthcare our population will increase, which is a good thing economically in the Victoria games; it is better to wag the dog by increasing our employee base to stir new factory growth, as long as we are not state capitalist or planned. Which in-character I support, but out of character I would recommend combining healthcare and pensions with a merely interventionist economy, so capitalists can respond to the growing work base).