Join the new world

The following is a syndicated column by Socialist Freedom Party member Arjay Phoenician's newspaper, Grain of Sand.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While we play the game of eRepublik in eRepublik, it is impossible to not bring real-world knowledge and theories into the game. We all have our personal biases, we walked in on Day One (for me, it vas Day 556) with given mindsets as to how politics and economics work, and we use this place as a template for proving them right or wrong.

Yesterday, Congress passed a slashing of the import tax for grain, from 30% to 1%. The vote vas 27-16, and in the debate room, discussion was lively.

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, whether you’re a free-trade kind of fellow or a protectionist, there is one question that begs to be asked.

Why go so abruptly from one extreme to another? Why go from yesterday’s tax of 30%, a completely protectionist move to discourage foreign competition, to today’s 1%, throwing the doors wide open? Why go so quickly from white to black, stopping nowhere to examine the grays? What compels the eUS Congress to do a complete 180 in their economic policy, the day after President Scrabman wins re-election?

I’d like to say I can keep an open mind concerning economic theory. Personally, I am for high tariffs, and Congress’s role is not to assist foreign entrepreneurs or cater to the philosophy of capitalism, but to ensure the prosperity of American businesses and American workers. The eUS is the largest economy in the world, with the largest population—foreign companies would be fools to not find ways to take advantage of such a market. In the process, such companies would be taking eUS dollars out of our economy, glutting our markets with cheap goods, undercutting American businesses, driving wages down, and eventually forcing citizens to flee the eUS for opportunities elsewhere. Think globally, act locally, that’s my mantra concerning economics.

While I don’t agree with the counter-arguments concerning free trade, I do understand the logic. Everyone potentially benefits from the broadening of trade and competition. Citizens are given more choices at the marketplace. Companies are forced to be more aggressive and efficient, and such companies would be able to pay better wages. It’s not a philosophy I adhere to, but I see where proponents of capitalism are going.

The problem is not in whether the capitalists or the protectionists are correct. The problem is the sudden and extreme change of course, from completely protectionist to completely open, enacted by a single bill in Congress.

In the debate room, I found what LexLuthor1 (USWP-KS) said on the subject rather troubling and self-serving: “I own two RM companies and would be in favor of lowering tariffs. If it does not work we can always raise them again.” Later in the debates, he reiterated his flippant attitude toward taxation, “…this is not RL and if it does fail we can change this back with no major harm done.”

Yes, this is a game, but it thrives and grows only when newbies get past that first week of starvation and not being able to do a whole lot with themselves. Perhaps the Senator has forgotten his first week here—he’s been here all of 53 days, such events are apparently a long forgotten episode. For the one who sticks it out, how many others quit in frustration? The population of eRepublik hovers around 145,000, how many of those are abandoned profiles? I’m glad the Senator has prospered in this game, I wish him and his companies continued success, but should this measure be proven a mistake, I’m sure he could take the hit better than a Level 2 newbie making a dollar a day and using the whole thing to buy food.

Congress is playing a dangerous game when it flips taxation on and off like a light switch. Senators with such carefree notions do not belong in Congress, because it is a negligent attitude in the consideration of one’s constituents. It is evidence of a lack of principle, to vote yes so easily at first, then casually say OOPS MY BAD in the future when he votes the other way.

Were Congress committed to lowering the import tax, prudence should have been their guide. A calculated and gradual cut, as Senator Longbaugh (USWP-HI) suggested, could have been the smarter move. As he stated in debate, “There's no need to go to 1%. Foreign companies would look at that and it would increase trade. However, those same companies would likely be just as interested in importing goods and RM if we knocked the tax rate down to, say 6% like John Havesham suggested.” Such a measured cut would keep the fly-by-night foreign competition away, yet be low enough to attract serious investors, investors with proven track records, not just get-rich-quick schemes.

For me, even 6% is too drastic a cut from 30%. If ve insist on cutting tariffs, a cut to 10% would have been a viser move, giving the government more control over the flow of foreign competition, a pertinent trickle as opposed to throwing caution to the wind and opening the floodgates right away.

Smart economic policy evolves. It doesn’t bounce whimsically from one extreme to another. Senators who want to be taken seriously stand on principle, not flutter in the wind, voting whichever way it blows at a given time. Should it be necessary to vote against one’s values, bend, but don’t break.

Citizens on either side of the political spectrum should be concerned with such schizophrenic measures coming from Congress.