 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
ManicStarSeed
|
 |
of my banana plantation
Jun 2002 time: 21:25
|
|
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
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002 time: 07:25
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
roadcage
|
 |
Minneapolis Kansas
Nov 2001 time: 23:25
|
|
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)
Last edited by roadcage on 12-01-2003 at 06:02
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002 time: 07:25
|
|
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.
Last edited by Shiber on 12-01-2003 at 21:18
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Meshelic
|
 |
Bringer of Peace, Destroyer of Worlds
Sep 2002 time: 21:25
|
|
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
|
|
|  |
 |
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000 time: 07:25
|
|
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
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|