«12. . .92939495969798. . .116117»
We hereby implore all WA registered nations to vote FOR the Security Council Resolution page=UN_view_proposal/id=humansanity_1613341259, Liberate The Embassy as soon as it comes up for vote. We also request 
Eutania endorse the proposal, though by the time this message is read it will likely be approved.
The Embassy was an open region which had the ambitious goal of being a crossroads and friend of all regions. As of this time yesterday they had embassies with over 3,500 regions, including with Scandinavia. They were raided by an agglomeration of nations and are being dismantled presently. For more information on the raid check 
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=498513.
Again we urge all WA nations to vote FOR the WA security council proposal, once is it available, and request that our delegate Eutania endorses the measure.
Hey. I'm new here.
Iznogoud, Ultra Grandia Sebastia, Wutar Katari, Samast, and 2 othersCassinia, and Norrbotten county
Welcome to Scandinavia.
Ultra Grandia Sebastia and Kokerainenia
Hoi ye fellow Nordics. I'm more of the old style Nordics tho
Heil og sæl!
Does corporate welfare work?
Wth is that?
I think it depends on the context, it shouldn't be too bloated and it should be designed to push for a certain behavior such as tax breaks for investments in renewable energy. Of course corporations will tend to lobby for the gov' bailing failing businesses that have no reason to exist anymore at the expense of the common taxpayer, aka "Privatizing profits and socializing losses". But on the other hand the government should prevent strategic and important sectors such as the defense industry, energy or flagship industries from closing or be bought by foreigners.
Basically the gov' giving money to corporations, literally welfare but for corps.
Say the government is entirely uprooted and removed. All environmental and safety regulations on business are removed. If a corporation wanted to set up business there, would they theoretically fund their own police and education? If they want a safe working place, they would pay for police stations themselves. If they want educated workers, they would have to pay for colleges themselves. If they wanted healthy workers, they would have to pay for hospitals themselves.
Ah cheers
Reminds me of this
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/730/
Hello all, hope you're all having a good weekend. Just published my latest Factbook on one of my favourite foods!😋Enjoy!
Traditionally consisting of potatoes, onions, and any kind of chopped or minced meat such as sausage, ham or meatballs, diced and then pan fried, it is often served with a fried egg, pickled beetroot slices, sour pickled gherkin slices, capers and sometimes ketchup or brown sauce.The dish was originally made from leftovers of past meals but now it is far more common to prepare pytt i panna from prime ingredients. Frozen pytt i panna of many varieties can be bought in almost every Ultra Grandia Sebastian, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Finnish supermarket. Many variants of the dish exist, including vegetarian and vegan dishes.
Pytt i panna is often abbreviated to pytt, especially when referring to variants such as oxpytt (pytt i panna made with beef) or krögarpytt ("inn master's pytt", made with more finely diced potatoes and beef).
Biff Greta – skiljer sig främst genom att köttet smaksätts med senap.
Biff Rydberg – görs på råstekt potatis och kött av hög kvalitet. Serveras med rå äggula.
Kycklingpytt – köttet består uteslutande av tärnad kyckling.
Laxpytt – köttet ersätts av tärnad lax.
Vegetarisk pytt – köttet ersätts av tärnade rotfrukter, tofu, halloumi, svamp eller Quorn.
Trädgårdspytt – en vegetarisk pytt med tärnad potatis, tärnade rotfrukter som t.ex. morötter, rotselleri, palsternacka och lök samt kryddad med timjan och rosmarin. Den lämpar sig även som tillbehör till andra maträtter.
Krögarpytt – en finskuren/småtärnad variant av pytt, där köttet uteslutande plägar vara oxkött.
Ioavollr, Muspellheim, Talvanya, and Svenska-Britannia
Sounds nice af
Corporate welfare is a complex topic and deserves a much better rundown than we in Ioavollr are able to provide. The outcomes of corporate welfare are dictated by a several variables, the most important (in our opinion) being the alternate use of funds, the goals of government assistance, and the incentive structure.
Alternate use of funds is straightforward: if public effort and funds are spent on corporate welfare that could be used to realize goals in a more direct manner, the system may not be ideal.
Goals of government assistance are quite varied in welfare schemes and can range from propping up industries vital to the greater economy, ensuring strategic manufacturing capability, job creation, tipping of economic trade asymmetry, and plain old corruption. The goals of welfare dictate the measurability of success; ensuring strategic manufacturing capability, for example, needs not have any downstream economic effects, and indeed several previously critical strategic industries were abandoned as technology made them obsolete.
Incentive structures are equally varied, and dictate the probability that such a scheme will successfully result in the goals outlined by government. Simple incentive structures, buying goods at a Hard Peg price, for instance, ensures that the underlying mechanics of market economics and production remain intact. Without discretionary purchasing power linked to quality control, however, this can result in floods of low quality goods. Incentive structures unrelated to production, such as direct payments regardless of production or no-strings-attached-bailouts to failing companies, can result in a skewing of corporate or market interests, undesired production consequences, and a lack of accurate risk-assessment.
Regardless of spending costs, goals, and incentives, corporate welfare also has to compete with different forms of government intervention: direct payments to consumers, partial or full government ownership of the means of production, regulatory oversight, and so on. Overall, in our novice opinion, corporate welfare schemes are most likely to be successful when they are limited in scope, clearly linked to production, and come with a government benefit independent of corporate success. Strategic reserves are the clearest example of such a scheme.
That is one possible outcome, as Eutania elucidated in the link. Poor outcomes are also rife throughout history. When there are no competing power structures of public and corporate interests, a de facto absolute dictatorship is formed. Our very own 
Belgian congo is a reference to one of the worst mergers of private and public interests in history. Brazilian rubber barons are another horrifying example. Generally when there is no independent body which vies for the lives of workers, one has to hope they live in a benevolent dictatorship, and not any other kind.
Hi guys I wrote my first factbook.
Pls enjoy it.
:)
I ACCIDENTALLY CANCELLED MY THEOCRACY POLICY NOOOO
The reconstruction of an Embassy in The Embassy has begun
I just ate that 10 minutes ago :)
Oh nice !! What did yours have in it? 😋
How does your nation handle the coronavirus pandemic?
«12. . .92939495969798. . .116117»
Advertisement
