Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» We're all fine here, thanks. How are you? (Community thread for everything.)
Today at 2:10 pm by ZeroCool

» Turn 1-1068
Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:01 pm by wolfking2k

» Turn 12-1067
Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:05 pm by Spartanmario

» Player Houses
Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:08 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Koth Meeting
Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:07 am by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Chelsey Wright: hiring a lawyer
Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:54 pm by RorytheRomulan

» Tyranny Coupon 50%
Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:46 pm by TheUltimateParadoxs

» Warlords II: Turn Four - Departure of a Hero
Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:52 pm by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Greedfall, new game by Spiders: teaser trailer
Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:16 am by RorytheRomulan

You are not connected. Please login or register

Issue - Inter-Region and International Trade (Argument Page)

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

This is the forum that we are going to use to tall things out and gauge opinions on Tarrifs and Trade.

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:No it doesn't. Because Eastport doesn't have all the say, and Southport doesn't have all the say. Instead, they together would have 50+1, but what makes you think priorities of Eastport and Southport are the same? What makes you think they'll vote in unison?
You also neglect the fact that Eastport-Southport majority in the matter is not effective political tool, as it affects all the other regions. However, if tariffs are decided by an equal vote, they are a targeted weapon against Southport and Eastport.

Also, who do tariffs affect most? Eastport and Southport. Because they don't only affect their industry and their agriculture, but also their trade. Just like agricultural policy affects all the regions, but Plainsdale is still affected most.

As for the argument that trade is special because it "weakens Echain" (which is debatable, but let's not go there), then why should Eastport and Southport focus on it? Why even have trade?
If tariffs are decided by an equal vote, my regional government will take steps towards changing the region's focus.



I expect you will vote in unison, because your economies are similar, your industries aren't that large, (combined your two regions have the same industry as Plainsdale) and you will likely view increasing trade as your priority.


It is an even more effective political tool. You will have power over all the regions. You can pit us against each other to get the best concessions possible.

Because export is important in bringing in money, we also require many imported goods, including those necessary for our industry. Trade is important and I would never argue in and of itself weakens Echain. It is when imported goods are cheaper than domestic goods that issues arise.

If that is what you decide, so be it. Other regions will pick up the slack, we will not be strongarmed into agreeing with you.

View user profile
First, it is our legal opinion that the power to set tariffs rests with the Regions.
That being said, we are also reasonable, and see the good in a nationally set tariffs.

So, with the knowledge that taxation of trade disproportionately directly affects specific Regions, and yet some unity is beneficial, we have this final proposal.

A Bureau for International Trade will be established. It will decide minimal total tariffs (i.e. Regions will still be able to set them hire) and minimal sectional tariffs.
In this Bureau, votes of the Regions will be distributed thus:
1) Two largest Regions by trade value will each have 20% of the votes
2) Two Regions behind them in value of trade will each have 10% of the votes
3) The rest of the Regions will each have 8% of the votes
These percentages are subject to renegotiation if the number of Regions changes.

This ensures that Regions most affected will have appropriate say in the matter while also making them dependent on consent of other Regions.

We also have an alternative solution, and that is to have an equal vote, but the decision would have to be consensual - tariff would have to receive all 9 votes.

EDIT: Damn Math! I calculated the last category wrong. They have 8%, not 6% Wink



Last edited by Felix Clary zu Osegg on Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
1 largest by trade, 1 largest by industry should have the 20%.

View user profile
Only trade is directly affected by tariffs. Other sectors of the economy are affected indirectly, and predicting impact of tariffs on them is impossible. What about this change:
1) Two largest Regions by trade value will each have 20% of the votes
2) One Region chosen by chance will have 20% of the votes (this Region is chosen before each tariff change session; one Region cannot have 20% twice in a row; this Region cannot be in the first category)
3) The rest of the Regions will each have 6,66% of the votes

View user profile
The exact nature of what impact a tariff will have is hard to evaluate, but in the broadest sense we know exactly the mechanisms and what is likely to happen.

OOC:We also have a tie in second highest trade value, with oth Lurem and Southport having 6.

View user profile
Although the economies of Eastport and Southport will be most directly affected by changes in sheer numerical circumstances, any changes in trade and in tariffs will be felt by the Echaini population and its industry at large. Denying the people in the hinterlands a say in these important economical matters reeks of profiteering and monopolism. As the representative of a third of the people who these measures will affect, I must insist on a more equal division of votes!

View user profile
I prepared a table with some methods for distribution of votes in the bureau, based either on Trade and Industry scores, or adding in population as well.
Both are acceptable for me, but I favour the one using industry and trade exclusively, because predicting indirect impact of tariffs on economy is hard enough, impact on people is outright impossible.

View user profile
I would argue that population and economy are two sides of the same coin, as it's the people at large who will, in the end, foot the bill or reap the benefits of tariff legislation. I would therefore favour the latter model. I find either one model more acceptable than any previous proposal, though, and would therefore like to defer to my other fellow governors.

View user profile
Will these votes change over time? Industry and Trade will increase in the regions over time and these numbers should change with that.

View user profile
"Let's Be Gamey Then"
*eyes roll into the back of my head* We have stats for a reason and it's perfectly justifiable for these particular stats to be known to our characters.

Of the two proposed changes I prefer the 1IND:3TRD proposal.

View user profile
Tariffs in my proposal would be negotiated yearly, and vote spread would be updated just before the negotiations take place.

View user profile
I would like to say the Lurem gets the same amount of Trade as Southport(OOC: look at the stats sheet) and we are being left out of this. Felix? I understand you are a politician now, but that doesn't mean you have to neglect simple facts in order to establish deals with your counter parts. Very Happy

View user profile
Governor Grifenknight wrote:I would like to say the Lurem gets the same amount of Trade as Southport(OOC: look at the stats sheet) and we are being left out of this.  Felix?  I understand you are a politician now, but that doesn't mean you have to neglect simple facts in order to establish deals with your counter parts. Very Happy

If you go up, you can see the latest iteration, which is a table which takes into consideration raw stats for industry and trade, and uses those to determine the amount of votes.

I am currently working on a budgeting act, and will include tariffs into it.

View user profile
I understand, but I am just responding to the fact that you neglected us earlier in the argument. I'm just stating that it was either due to your lack of knowledge or due to possible dealing with a governor of Southport. Either way, you forgot us.
OOC: My IC will probably trust your opinions less in the future.

View user profile
Governor Grifenknight wrote:I understand, but I am just responding to the fact that you neglected us earlier in the argument.  I'm just stating that it was either due to your lack of knowledge or due to possible dealing with a governor of Southport.  Either way, you forgot us.
OOC:  My IC will probably trust your opinions less in the future.


A dealing with me?. I have not talked to the good Governor in private ONCE.

View user profile
OOC: It doesnt matter if you did or didnt, the way Felix was putting you two in the position of power was enough for me. Very Happy

IC: And how can we prove that? Even if you didn't, Felix forgot simple facts in order to place his region above the rest and that is something I cannot forgive lightly.

View user profile
Historically, Southport and Eastport were the dominant trade harbours by a large margin, and I was coming from this position. I've not concerned myself with the economies of other Regions, as I am preoccupied with Eastport itself, and I underestimated how much the Occupation ravaged those Regions who did not seek to work together with the Japanese.

And I wasn't in any secret communication with any Governor concerning anything else but bilateral trade. As proof, see that Governor Steele voiced his support for the Council deciding tariffs with an equal vote initially, and wasn't heard from again until your accusation, Governor Knight.

View user profile
Historically, we were a loose federation under a king, but does that matter? No. What matter is the now and that Lurem is similar to Southport as a trade power, but you continued to place them on a higher pedestal...
This discussion is meaningless. We have already figured out how to vote and none of this matters anyways.

View user profile

Act Proposal


I've drafted the National Finances Act.
This act sees to clarify Regional and National authority in respect to financial policy, and establish clear rules for the construction of the National Budget.
It includes chapters on taxation powers, on tariffs, on budgets and on how to decide regional contribution towards joint national finances.

I present it here, since it was this debate which inspired me to pen this proposal, and because I find it counter-productive to make legislation piece-by-piece.

View user profile
1) Your start at article II instead of article I.
2) What is your reasoning behind the ausgleich?
3) What classifies as a crisis?

View user profile
1) Fixed
3) Intentionally vague. To define it is impossible, so someone needs to say "I think we're in a crisis" and if others agree, we're in a crisis.

2) Specify what exactly is unclear. We need to somehow decide how to pay for national agenda. I'll briefly list some ideas and why I don't like them.
  • Statistics - what to choose? Industry? Trade? Population?
  • Permanent ratio - things change, and a Region that's poor can become rich and vice versa
  • Based on levied taxes - penalises Regions with higher taxation

So, what to choose? I favour a political approach. Each Region can propose their own due, they can make their point using statistics, their income, their non-monetary contribution - whatever.
It is more flexible and more fair.

View user profile
Why 2 to 10 years specifically? Is there a reason for excluding annual renegotiation?

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:Why 2 to 10 years specifically? Is there a reason for excluding annual renegotiation?

Well, the process does take 3 months in order to be properly rigorous, and doing it yearly would mean that the Council would spend quarter of its term just by making Ausgleich. For situations such as ours, when we don't have time for a proper Ausgleich, we can make provisional budgets. Which is also good because right now we have to have the ability to react quickly to events; Ausgleich can come at a more stable time.

View user profile
Ah, I see. That was my worry. At this time I feel we need a large degree of flexibility, if provisional budgets can be established instead I feel a lot more at ease.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum