• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The coming of Powell means that for the first time ever the Enewaldists and the Paper Hats could well be on the same side.

I believe in the free movement of labour. The only way to prevent people choosing where they want to live is the active stance of a state against immigration and movement of its own citizens, something that is part of every totalitarian system.
The more workers we have offering their supply of labour to the labour market, the more competitive it will become, thus further increasing the benefit of the consumer. Only monopolies that make extraordinary profits under current lack of fair and competitive labour markets stand to lose from the entrance of new immigrants into our society. (let the fat unions cry)
 
I believe in the free movement of labour. The only way to prevent people choosing where they want to live is the active stance of a state against immigration and movement of its own citizens, something that is part of every totalitarian system.
The more workers we have offering their supply of labour to the labour market, the more competitive it will become, thus further increasing the benefit of the consumer. Only monopolies that make extraordinary profits under current lack of fair and competitive labour markets stand to lose from the entrance of new immigrants into our society. (let the fat unions cry)

However, if the labour market is too competitive the consumer will suffer as well. Remember, the consumers only benefit if they can afford to participate in the market, and diluting wages too much will price many out.

I wholeheartedly support an open policy on immigration, but I believe it also requires a sustainable minimum wage which protects workers from exploitation.
 
I believe in the free movement of labour. The only way to prevent people choosing where they want to live is the active stance of a state against immigration and movement of its own citizens, something that is part of every totalitarian system.
The more workers we have offering their supply of labour to the labour market, the more competitive it will become, thus further increasing the benefit of the consumer. Only monopolies that make extraordinary profits under current lack of fair and competitive labour markets stand to lose from the entrance of new immigrants into our society. (let the fat unions cry)

Enewald, either you vote for a guy who's going to introduce monetarist policies or three/four other guys who are going to pursue the post-war Keynesian collectivist consensus. Don't make me laugh.
 
Let's not forget a written, codified, and entrenched constitution. It's about time we allowed ourself as much modern governance as we left our former colonies with.

We don't need a constitution. We've managed alright without one for nearly 1000 years. :)
 
Capital Punishment
Abortion
Lords Reform
English Devolution
Land Value Taxation
Establish an Electoral Commission
Extend powers devolved
Attempt European Integration Again (if it fails, pursue Commonwealth Economic Area)
Condemn Iraqi government and Kuwaiti government but defend Kuwait while pressuring them to respect human rights
Make one division available to UN for peacekeeping operations
Modernise railways
Anti-Pollution Measures
Convert some state owned industries into mutuals

-the state has no right to kill
-everyone can choose for their own body
-Away with Lords
-Towards a more free and equal confederation of commonwealths, yes
-Only tax land if you cut taxes in other areas, otherwise no extra taxes, the fewer the better
-Is it really needed? We risk giving too much power to the state, and via state to the ruling party that can use it to manipulate elections
-?
-embrace the winds of globalization, more free trade with everyone
-let the UN handle it, and make sure that the Iraqis pay for stealing British property.
-Why not, as long as they actually defend peace, and do not support active violent action
-The private sector can handle railways (don't they have nowadays some clever way to manage the railways? neither public, nor profit seeking?)
-Make the rights of ownership clear, that is the best way to handle pollution.
-Mutuals might be better than them being run by corrupt bureaucrats, but also try to have as many as possible of them run by private enterprises. State capitalism is very inefficient.
 
We don't need a constitution. We've managed alright without one for nearly 1000 years. :)

I think, for once, I must register my disagreement with my right honourable friend. There are a great many practice's from 1000 years ago which we could quote that would be entirely inappropriate for our modern society - and tradition as a justification merely breeds complacency.

If this country is to truly he a forward facing, progressive society, then a codified constitution is both desirable and essential.
 
-the state has no right to kill
-everyone can choose for their own body
-Away with Lords
-Towards a more free and equal confederation of commonwealths, yes
-Only tax land if you cut taxes in other areas, otherwise no extra taxes, the fewer the better
-Is it really needed? We risk giving too much power to the state, and via state to the ruling party that can use it to manipulate elections
-?
-embrace the winds of globalization, more free trade with everyone
-let the UN handle it, and make sure that the Iraqis pay for stealing British property.
-Why not, as long as they actually defend peace, and do not support active violent action
-The private sector can handle railways (don't they have nowadays some clever way to manage the railways? neither public, nor profit seeking?)
-Make the rights of ownership clear, that is the best way to handle pollution.
-Mutuals might be better than them being run by corrupt bureaucrats, but also try to have as many as possible of them run by private enterprises. State capitalism is very inefficient.

He's voting Liberal, what about you? :p
 
I think, for once, I must register my disagreement with my right honourable friend. There are a great many practice's from 1000 years ago which no me could quote that would be entirely inappropriate for our modern society - and tradition as a justification merely breeds complacency.

If this country is to truly he a forward facing, progressive society, then a codified constitution is both desirable and essential.

We have the Bill of Rights, which was basically just a "restatement" of our supposed "ancient constitution", and has been amended over the years to be more appropriate to our society. I don't wish to suggest that we should just be happy with Anglo Saxon law, but seeing as many of our rights are codified in laws anyway, I don't think it would be necessary to just restate them in iur document.
 
However, if the labour market is too competitive the consumer will suffer as well. Remember, the consumers only benefit if they can afford to participate in the market, and diluting wages too much will price many out.

I wholeheartedly support an open policy on immigration, but I believe it also requires a sustainable minimum wage which protects workers from exploitation.

Competition is always in the best interest of the customer. Minimum wages prohibit free competition, and the higher wages are paid by consumers, who have to restrict their consumption, or switch to consuming other cheaper products. That is why more and more people switch away from domestic goods to buying cheaper exports.
Every acting human being can participate in the market and earn as much wage as they supply the market with their labour is worth for.
Minimum wages also hurt people who are unemployed because the worth of their labour is under the minimum wage. Employers cannot hire them, pay some arbitrary minimum wage and stay on the markets without going bankrupt.
Therefore open immigration and competitive wages with no discrimination allowed, no monopolies and no monopsonies should be allowed to cause mischief for the common man.

Enewald, either you vote for a guy who's going to introduce monetarist policies or three/four other guys who are going to pursue the post-war Keynesian collectivist consensus. Don't make me laugh.

Do you really expect me to embrace some pseudosocialist policies that only exist to allow states to spent more than they can by legitimizing printing of money, inflation, that only serves to destroy the savings of private individuals? Seriously dude. :p
 
One major issue: USSR can veto everything. Not only are they opposed to democracy and peace, they are also the sworn enemies to the democratic, free and capitalist world. So it will be difficult to send out peacekeeping forces when it will benefit us and not them.

And you mention Indonesia, do you think USSR would like an intervention there? Or in Korea? Of course not, they want to the world to be communist and under their influence. Geopolitica man, that scrap that entire idea.

Well this is true. However, there will be places where UN intervention could be possible - particularly in the case of civil wars if both NATO and the Soviets mutually agree not to try to bring the country in question into their sphere of influence once the civil war ends.
 
We have the Bill of Rights, which was basically just a "restatement" of our supposed "ancient constitution", and has been amended over the years to be more appropriate to our society. I don't wish to suggest that we should just be happy with Anglo Saxon law, but seeing as many of our rights are codified in laws anyway, I don't think it would be necessary to just restate them in iur document.

No habeas corpus for the enemies of the proletariat? ;)

It would be about time that Britain abandon its feudal laws and embrace modern civilizations by crafting a constitution defining the freedom of individual from the oppression of the state. The whole concept of the constitution is to have specific rules that prevent arbitrary governing and oppression of the citizens, surely you can see the benefits of having one?
The liberty of the individual must prevail, or else we are all doomed.
 
Do you really expect me to embrace some pseudosocialist policies that only exist to allow states to spent more than they can by legitimizing printing of money, inflation, that only serves to destroy the savings of private individuals? Seriously dude. :p

Given that the alternative is outright Marxism? Yes, yes I do. :p
 
Competition is always in the best interest of the customer. Minimum wages prohibit free competition, and the higher wages are paid by consumers, who have to restrict their consumption, or switch to consuming other cheaper products. That is why more and more people switch away from domestic goods to buying cheaper exports.
Every acting human being can participate in the market and earn as much wage as they supply the market with their labour is worth for.
Minimum wages also hurt people who are unemployed because the worth of their labour is under the minimum wage. Employers cannot hire them, pay some arbitrary minimum wage and stay on the markets without going bankrupt.
Therefore open immigration and competitive wages with no discrimination allowed, no monopolies and no monopsonies should be allowed to cause mischief for the common man.

On the contrary, minimum wage laws protect the consumer from having to subsidise flawed business models (which are only profitable thanks to paying employees less than they need to survive) through a welfare system paid by their taxes.
 
That is like asking me whether I want to be blinded, castrated or amputated... oh so many excellent choices, how can I ever choose! :eek: :p
Pick all three! :D
 
In his defence, we have a veto too. :)

That helps much if USSR is vetoing UN involvement in Indonesia and Kuwait-Iraq. What will happen is that USSR, USA, UK and France veto everytime it is in the opposing blocs best interest or not in their interest.
 
That is like asking me whether I want to be blinded, castrated or amputated... oh so many excellent choices, how can I ever choose! :eek: :p

Oh come on, it's like being asked whether you want to be blinded, castrated or tickled by feathers for a few minutes.
 
On the contrary, minimum wage laws protect the consumer from having to subsidise flawed business models (which are only profitable thanks to paying employees less than they need to survive) through a welfare system paid by their taxes.

Why would anyone want to subsidize loss making industries? The sector will make losses if it cannot meet the demand of the consumers, if they cannot produce good enough services that are demanded on the market. Those enterprises that cannot compete on the market are bound to go under. Such is life. You try, you either succeed or fail. Then if you fail, you might try something else on next attempt. No enterprise lasts forever.
No need to throw taxpayers money to unprofitable capitalists who cannot stand on their own.

Minimum wages protect the consumer in no way, as they are paid by the consumer who pay higher prices for the now more expensive goods. If the prices were not high due to minimum wages, they could consume more, which would mean greater benefit for them. The firms could also produce more, as demand is higher due to lower prices. They could hire more people. The now hired people can now consume more because they are no more unemployed. The increased consumption fuels the growth, further decreasing unemployment and bringing greater benefits to everyone involved in the process. Who is suffering?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.