Pre-bill: 'National Gold Reserve'

Shiber · January 11, 2003, 14:55

As soon as the small wonder Wall Street is built, we'd need a treasury of 1,000 gold or more to make maximum use of it. I suggest that we define the last 1,000 gold in the treasury as a national gold reserve, and order the government by law to keep at least 1,000 gold in the reserve at all times, with the exclusion of emergencies, defined by the president, where some of the national gold reserve needs to be spent.

Panzer32 · January 11, 2003, 15:11

Why would you make it legal? If the government knows what is good for our civilization (as they are supposed to), would they not keep this 1000 gold reserve because they want to? Then there would not be legal battles and stuff if they deem it to be an 'emergency'.

Kuciwalker · January 11, 2003, 15:22

I think this is a good idea.

Isn't the maximum gold you can get from Wall Street 50 gpt?

Thud · January 11, 2003, 15:23

Because the Senate has the power to deal with budget issues and we're power hungry. Also, the cabinet is spend-happy. It seems to be the law.

EDIT: Yes, skywalkerm, I was under the impression that we would have to maintain it at 500 gp. I may be wrong.

Kuciwalker · January 11, 2003, 15:32

It's 5%, not 10%. So to get the 50 gpt, we would have to have 1000. I was just wondering what the max was.

Panzer32 · January 11, 2003, 15:41

max is 50 gpt; at 1000 gold.

Kloreep · January 11, 2003, 15:56

I guess this means no city rushes for a while.

But it'll be worth it.

Shiber · January 11, 2003, 16:12

Confirmed.

Shiber · January 11, 2003, 16:14

Kloreep, we intend to move the slider to 0% next turn, before ToE is completed, in order not to waste beakers on a tech that we'd get anyway.

Kuciwalker · January 11, 2003, 16:23

That's happy.

ManicStarSeed · January 11, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
As soon as the small wonder Wall Street is built, we'd need a treasury of 1,000 gold or more to make maximum use of it. I suggest that we define the last 1,000 gold in the treasury as a national gold reserve, and order the government by law to keep at least 1,000 gold in the reserve at all times, with the exclusion of emergencies, defined by the president, where some of the national gold reserve needs to be spent.

I think this would make a wonderful bill.

I do have a few mods I would make for final bill form.....

Quote:

defined by the president, where some of the national gold reserve needs to be spent.

I would put it.... " as defined by the president, who may spend from the national gold reserve as the situation dictates"

Either way it rocks and I would support it

(BTW.... Post soon as the new FAM, you will not be able to submit the bill.)

Mss

Kuciwalker · January 11, 2003, 16:26

Unfortunately, any Senate Bill can override this bill by allocating funds to something.

E_T · January 11, 2003, 17:52

Question, at what point in the build Wall Street build will this bill take effect. the monies only need to be available when WS is built, but can be built up while it's being built. Unless a GL is used for the build.

E_T

roadcage · January 11, 2003, 17:58

Another bad unnecessarily restrictive bill. You better plan on over 2/3rds vote for it is hard to imagine an executive that would not VETO this.

Shiber · January 11, 2003, 18:04

Restrictive? Why?
In terms of law, it changes nothing. The president is already in charge of allocating funds. If he wishes, he can allocate funds from the reserve, only now he has to declare an emergency when he does that, which would take half a minute of his time.
A good president would not reduce our treasury below 1,000 gold after we have built Wall Street unless he has good reasons, and for those reasons he can declare an emergency.

To sum up, the only difference is that the president will have to provide a reason for any spendings that will take us below 1,000 gold. He doesn't need to be right, or convincing, he just has to have a reason.

Panag · January 11, 2003, 18:55

hi ,

1000 should be the absolute minimum , however it might be wise to set the goal for at least 2500 and more in the future , we shall need some money in case of an emergency and for the intel agency , .....

and this should go in the COL

have a nice day

Panzer32 · January 11, 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Another bad unnecessarily restrictive bill. You better plan on over 2/3rds vote for it is hard to imagine an executive that would not VETO this.

Tell it like it is, Roadcage!!!

Quote:

and this should go in the COL

No it shouldn't. Period.

Hypothetical question: What if we had say 1296 gold. There is a factory in somewhere that would cost 300 gold to rush, that many people want rushed. Now, does the president declare an emergency? Or does he break the law by reducing our income by 1 (or maybe 0) that turn? How about if he wanted to rush a bank that would end up netting us more gold than if we didn't rush it and got the max 50gpt?

I believe this bill is way too restrictive. The president has a choice in these cases to either declare an emergency (which is stupid because its not), or not do these beneficial rushes.

Do not post this bill!!!

BTW, is anyone else annoyed at the number of either useless or conflicting senate bills?

roadcage · January 11, 2003, 20:55

Quote:

BTW, is anyone else annoyed at the number of either useless or conflicting senate bills?

not that it is happening, but that it is happening in public.

Even more disturbing, is we have many folks out there who instead of trying to identify what we want to happen and then design a system to make it possible, insist on drafting catchy spur of the moment bills and amendments.

edit insert
para above is actually directed at another thread but my juices got flowing a wee bit too strong here
/edit

We have a saying " Making sausage is a lot like making legislation, neither should be watched"

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

Jonny · January 12, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Panzer32
I believe this bill is way too restrictive. The president has a choice in these cases to either declare an emergency (which is stupid because its not), or not do these beneficial rushes.[/B]

Do not post this bill!!!

I agree. This bill is too restrictive.

This bill =

Kuciwalker · January 12, 2003, 11:36

[rant]Panag, no, we should not. There is no advantage to having more than 1000 gold (in terms of interest). Please read a thread (and the manual) before spamming it.[/rant]

Shiber · January 12, 2003, 11:54

I'm convinced. This bill is too restrictive, as well as needless, because we can count on the president being responsible enough not to waste too much potential income.

Panag · January 12, 2003, 14:22

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
[rant]Panag, no, we should not. There is no advantage to having more than 1000 gold (in terms of interest). Please read a thread (and the manual) before spamming it.[/rant]

hi ,

why dont you do that , .....

and maybe you can watch your language a bit before you post , .... there is no need to it , ...

have a nice day

Panag · January 12, 2003, 14:25

hi ,

the reason we should have more then one thousand is very simple , one the one thousand we cant use because it would not get us the fifthy gold of intrest , so that leaves one thousand and five hundred for emergency rushes or spy missions , ..... we can only get better with this

we can also build it up gradually over a period of lets say ten turns or more , ....

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · January 12, 2003, 15:44

*sigh*

Meshelic · January 12, 2003, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

the reason we should have more then one thousand is very simple , one the one thousand we cant use because it would not get us the fifthy gold of intrest , so that leaves one thousand and five hundred for emergency rushes or spy missions , ..... we can only get better with this

we can also build it up gradually over a period of lets say ten turns or more , ....

have a nice day

Concerning keeping a minimum of 1000 lytons in our treasury at all times, I figured (like probably most people here) that any money BEYOND that 1000 lytons is money free for spending on rush-builds, etc.

Skywalker wasn't trying to be insulting, panag, there's no reason to get defensive. I'll only say that your statement was an expansion on common-knowledge, and didn't really provide anyone any insight.

Think of it this way, if we keep 1000 lytons in our Treasury at ALL TIMES, and do not spend past it, then wouldn't it be right to assume that we have to built up our profits?

Saving up to 10000 lytons or what you suggested would NOT affect the Wall Street. Besides, WHO WOULDN'T want us to build up our spending money?

Your comments just state the obvious way to obviously.
And I mean no offense by that, but don't you see how some people can get a little aggravated when you constantly state the obvious?

Meshelic

Kuciwalker · January 12, 2003, 17:54

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · January 12, 2003, 17:55

:P

WhiteBandit · January 12, 2003, 18:17

Come on guys. The signal to noise ratio as of late has just been absolutely horrendous. We've had to wade through so much crap it's just absurd.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
[rant]Panag, no, we should not. There is no advantage to having more than 1000 gold (in terms of interest). Please read a thread (and the manual) before spamming it.[/rant]

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
*sigh*

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
have a nice day

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
:P

Note: Skywalker, I'm not necessarily putting you down, but I don't think the pot should call the kettle black.

Let's move on guys. We've had enough bickering as of late.

Meshelic · January 12, 2003, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by WhiteBandit
Come on guys. The signal to noise ratio as of late has just been absolutely horrendous. We've had to wade through so much crap it's just absurd.

Note: Skywalker, I'm not necessarily putting you down, but I don't think the pot should call the kettle black.

Let's move on guys. We've had enough bickering as of late.

Here here!

*Applause for WB*

Panag · January 13, 2003, 08:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic

Concerning keeping a minimum of 1000 lytons in our treasury at all times, I figured (like probably most people here) that any money BEYOND that 1000 lytons is money free for spending on rush-builds, etc.

Skywalker wasn't trying to be insulting, panag, there's no reason to get defensive. I'll only say that your statement was an expansion on common-knowledge, and didn't really provide anyone any insight.

Think of it this way, if we keep 1000 lytons in our Treasury at ALL TIMES, and do not spend past it, then wouldn't it be right to assume that we have to built up our profits?

Saving up to 10000 lytons or what you suggested would NOT affect the Wall Street. Besides, WHO WOULDN'T want us to build up our spending money?

Your comments just state the obvious way to obviously.
And I mean no offense by that, but don't you see how some people can get a little aggravated when you constantly state the obvious?

Meshelic

hi ,

why not keep 2500 , we get 50 GPT from the first 1000 , the remaining 1500 we keep on the side for case of national emergency , ..... everything above should be used for spy mission , buildings , etc , ....

is that so hard to understand , ......

have a nice day