Join the new world

Let this be a response to the rabid partisan attacks coming from Cottus Arci, as well as any concerns that the sane population of Canada might have about Norsefire’s economic policies. I would like to apologize for the length of this article; I feel that Canada’s economic future is best dealt with in-depth discussion, not through single-sentence snide comments.

First off, I’ll discuss the most important economic change: government trainers. For reasons I discussed in my previous article, the private sector simply cannot be relied on to train the new players coming into Canada at unprecedented rates. The case for government intervention is clear-cut and very few disagree with it. Norsefire plans to place trainers in the four sectors most in need of relief: Weapons, gifts, housing, and moving.

Now the question on most people’s minds right now is what is the cost of such a program? Well, there is the one-time cost of setting up the companies which will total a maximum of 160 GOLD. This seems like a large amount of money, and it is. However, there is very little we can do to reduce it. CSD plans to sell off a worthwhile, if defunct, government program (the weapons stockpile) in order to balance out the cost. This kind of plan certainly looks very good on paper but in practice it reduces the ability of the government to serve and protect its people. Currently, there are no government programs of which we can safely divest ourselves to turn a profit.

Another plan by the CSD involves contracting private companies to do the work of government trainers. This is, the observant reader will note, more or less exactly the same as what we have already been doing: giving grants to private companies to reimburse them for losses incurred while training new players. Sure, they have increased the funding and narrowed its range, but they’re essentially putting a new coat of paint on a failed policy and trying to sell it to the public as something new. Even if this program does, in fact, work (something I consider unlikely) it will possess none of the advantages of government-run trainers. Sure, it initially would cost us less but the per annum costs would be the same (or slightly higher, most likely) and we would lose the amount of oversight and control over our spending we are given by running the trainers ourselves. This plan (should it even work, which is not a given) looks better right now but in the long run it fails to serve our population as well as government-owned trainers.

So, I feel I have established that 160 GOLD is a necessary cost for a necessary government program. Will spending this money hurt us in some way? Almost certainly not. Sure, we might have a bit less to invest in the currency market, but the profits we fail to gain are potential money, not hard cash. Also, it is well worth noting that we are not simply throwing 160 GOLD down the drain, never to be seen again. The companies themselves have an inherent value and we can count them among the assets of our treasury. If our treasury finds itself in such dire straits that we are in need of every dollar we can find, the companies can be sold to recoup the initial investment. So that is what this 160 GOLD should be treated as, not an outright expense (as CSD seems to think it is) but a worthwhile investment in the training of our citizens.

With the start-up costs dealt with, I’ll now discuss the maintenance costs in detail. Unlike CSD, Norsefire has not set an exact budget for training, and this is for a very good reason. The cost of maintaining the program depends on the number of players we are called upon to train so setting a flat cost (as CSD has done) is highly dishonest unless we know exactly how many players we will employ in the next month. There is simply no way to know the number of players we will train because eCanada’s population does not increase in a regular fashion. So instead of giving a flat cost for the program (because no such thing can exist) I will go behind the numbers and show you the amount it will cost us for each player, a figure that actually means something.

Now the salary structure of the trainers will be like this (this has changed since my last article on the subject but the cost remains the same): a player with a production skill of 1 will receive a salary of $2 and a player with a production skill of 2 will be paid $3. Additionally, a bonus of $3 will be given on Sunday to any worker with 100% daily presence. The cost, then, for training a player with 100% presence is $46 and simply $40 for a player with a lower presence. This is justified by the fact that we need new players to have as high a presence as possible. If we simply let low presence slide, we lose much more than we are spending now.

A player trained from a skill of 1 to a skill of 3 will produce on average 77 productivity. In gifts it is $35.03, in weapons it is $54.36, in moving it is $47.43, in housing it is $42.77. All of these figures were found using today’s lowest market prices for these items. It is clear from looking at the figures that we will suffer notable losses from gifts training but we should be able to make that back from weapons and moving. It is also worth noting that the private sector is likely to be competing with us for employees in both of the two profitable areas and we should make no effort to “steal” these employees from privately owned companies. Trainers are there to simply pick up the slack, not compete.

Speaking of competition, getting rid of grants is going to have very adverse effects on Q1 privately owned companies. As I have shown above, a Q1 company in gifts or housing will incur losses by employing workers with skills below 3. For workers with higher skills, Q1 companies will be forced to fight with higher quality companies for employees. This is a fight they are likely to lose because they cannot match the salaries of the upgraded companies. The conclusion of this is that in many sectors Q1 companies will be driven out of business due to the government’s policies.

Any government that would stand by and let this happen (as the CSD seems willing to do) is one that has ultimately failed its constituents. Norsefire plans to remedy the harm done and give these companies a leg up to the next level through an interest-free loan for the cost of upgrading. Ultimately this is a very good move all round because higher-quality companies greatly strengthen Canada’s economy and we prevent Q1 companies from being driven out of business.

Now, Cottus Arci has expressed great surprise that we would be generous enough to offer these loans without claiming interest. There are two points that I would like to raise here. The problem that Q1 companies will face comes about because of our minimum wage and the fact that we will no longer offer training grants. This is to say that the problem is generated by the government. It is my belief that if the government causes a problem it is the government’s duty to solve it with as little inconvenience as possible to the public. After all, the purpose of government is to serve the people.

The second reason which makes interest-free loans justifiable is that the money in the treasury is, when all is said and done, the property of the public. The National Bank of Canada is here to serve the Canadian public, not rob it. Why should we charge the public interest on its own money?

While I am on this topic, what is the problem with giving interest-free loans? The treasury does not serve the public if money is simply left to lie there doing nothing. Through loans, the money is invested in the welfare of the Canadian economy and eventually improves the condition of every citizen. This is a practice we want to encourage and placing interest rates discourages it.

Cottus asks “Also, what if several Q3 companies decide to upgrade to Q4?” as if it is some sort of nightmare scenario. Well, my answer would be to rejoice and offer them any help they need. More Q4 companies will greatly strengthen Canada’s economy and if interest-free loans play some role in encouraging more managers to upgrade their companies then I will consider this a massive success. Sure, the government doesn’t turn a direct profit (and why should it?), but a strengthened economy is good for everyone.

Now let me turn to Cottus Arci’s decidedly moronic suggestion that Norsefire will somehow cut the minimum wage without proposing such an action in congress. Nowhere in the plan did it say that we planned to do such a thing. As Cottus himself notes, Augustus Baldwin has great record of getting things done in congress so why would Cottus choose to believe that this issue would not be handled democratically? I honestly have no idea and I am also confused as to how the minimum wage might be reduced without having it put to a congressional vote. Let me clear up any confusion that may remain: If Norsefire wins this election the minimum wage will be reduced to $2 through a vote in congress. Canada’s two largest parties both support this reduction so I would be absolutely astounded if the minimum wage is not reduced in the next month.

Investment: This is, according to Cottus Arci, Norsefire’s great failure. “Why?” you might ask. The answer: because of a simple honest mistake.
Initially, our plan promised that we would double the size of our treasury. This is not the case and that promise should not have been included. In this I bear some of the blame as I missed it when I edited the plan. This is not by any means proof that the Norsefire party’s leadership is inexperienced. It is, however, proof that we are human. Yes the plan was released with an inherent mistake, but it was a long document and such a mistake can easily get lost in there.

In fact, Norsefire is not alone in releasing a long platform with a mistake in it. If you go and look as the CSD’s platform you will notice that the first comment is from me pointing out that their budget for government trainers is off by $1500, an amount which they claim to save the Canadian public. I note this not to show that CSD’s leadership is inexperienced, incapable of simple arithmetic, or somehow attempting to defraud the public; I mention it to demonstrate that any platform is susceptible to having mistakes in it. When Cottus Arci’s biggest critique of our policy has to do with an honest mistake, he has clearly moved beyond reasonable review and is simply playing gotcha politics.

Let me now turn to the substance of investment in foreign currencies. As I have said before, our treasury is a waste if we let the money in it sit around doing nothing. The money should be in constant motion and circulation, increasing its worth at every opportunity. A 10% increase in the value of the treasury over the course of a month seems a reasonable estimate to me, if the person in charge of this program knows what they are doing. This amount would be more than enough to pay for the cost of forming companies (which is, as I said before, an investment, not a real cost because we retain the value of the money spent) as well as our other government programs. Even if we succumb to despair and place our estimates at a 5% increase we will still be able to fund the creation of our trainers (a necessary investment).

And what is the alternative to all of this? There are no benefits to not investing in the currency market. To borrow a phrase, Cottus Arci and the other nattering nabobs of negativity may think it is not worth our time to increase the value of the treasury and use their pessimistic projections to prevent us from doing so but I fail to see any reasonable alternative.

Inflation is actually a very complex issue and it is irresponsible to brush it aside as a no-brainer issue. I don’t intend to make this article longer and difficult to understand and go into complexities, but suffice to say that the Austrian Theory does not apply to eRepublik which means that the cause and effect of printing money is hard to follow. However, the value of the currency is something most Canadians will be concerned about so Norsefire took the time to assure the public that new currency would not be printed on our watch. Providing such assurances is hardly “filler policy”.

Cottus Arci also seems to find the National Lottery idea incomplete. This was, in fact, noted in the introduction to our platform and I will now proceed to fill in the details. The National Lottery Gaming Corporation (NLGC) will be run in the fashion of the most successful lottery to date: the Charlottetown lottery. Half of the proceeds will go to local government and the other half will be given to a winner. As to the division of the funds, this is the sort of duty that would ideally fall to a council of mayors. After all, the mayors would have the best idea of how much funding they need for their gifting programs. The NLGC will not be subsidized by the government (that was an improper choice of word; yes, a mistake).

The final economic policy is a process for investigating and reporting unfair business practices that can hurt managers, employees, and customers. Cottus Arci brushes this off as unnecessary but I am left with the question: How can anyone possibly oppose having people keep an eye out for unethical practices? Seriously, there is no possible harm that could result from the creation of such a bureau but there is certainly potential gain. The worst that could happen is that we find no unethical practices, which is actually quite a good result. More likely, though, is the possibility that at some point we will uncover some sort of malfeasance that is hurting the Canadian public and put a stop to it. Even the chance of this kind of outcome means that the program is worth implementing. This kind of idea gives Canadians more security in their economy and provides an extra safeguard if something bad should happen. How could anyone object to greater economic security?

Also, and seemingly without a trace of irony, Cottus Arci calls Norsefire members hypocrites for opposing a similar policy which he devised, and then proceeds to call this policy (which I remind the reader is similar to one he himself devised) both “needless” and “senseless”. Really? Has it come to a point where the opposition is judging our policies not based on merit but based on who proposes them?

To (finally) wrap this up, Norsefire has come up with a series of coherent, effective economic policies. As I have shown above, none of these are nearly as bad as our opposition makes them out to be and possess a number of benefits over CSDs policies. Together, they pave a sound path towards Canada’s bright future.