1. Education: Make it free for poor upto certain age, give free lunches to entice them to come to school. Force parents to save anually money for kids college by some law.. and if the kid dosent go to college he dosent get that money and parents can go on honeymoon with that money which.

2. Economic: That depends.. basically concentrate economic policies for development of rural areas and give incentives to startups and new businesses..

3. Energy: Go nuclear all out.. install as many nuclear plants as you can.. no dams, they kill fish.

4. Enviromental: Against deforestation.. rest is all ok.. spew chemicals, smoke, shit.. trees will take care of all of this.

5. Foreign: Unconditional support to Iran, team up with China and Russia to sanction USA.

6. Health: Dont care, let people die..

7. Monetory: Move all foreign reserves from USD to Euro.. persuade or dupe UK into believing Pound could be next international currency if they lobby in right way..

8. Law: Death for rape and child molestation.

9. Social: Death for people trying to convert others into their own relegion.. like Christian missionaries have their mission to convert others to christianity..

10. Urban: Open everything to private companies.. roads, sewer, water .. dole out contracts by reverse bidding in public.

Energy Policy:

I would nationalize all oil reserves. The government would incorporate a state oil company which owns all oil reserves. This is how the system would work..

-> Private oil drilling/exploration companies would be paid the prevailing market price per barrel for the oil they drill out of the ground by the state oil company.

-> Private refineries would buy the crude oil from the state oil company at a wholesale price.

-> Private distribution companies would get the finished products out to the market just as they do now.

-> 49% of the state oil company would be sold on the open stock market. The price per share would be an indicator of the present price per barrel paid to the drilling companies, and the price paid on the wholesale market by refineries.

-> All profits from the state oil company would be invested into a state fund specifically for investment in alternative energy solutions.

----------------

At no time would the state oil company actually take physical possession of the crude. The principle behind it is that energy is not just a commodity, but because it plays such a decisive role in society, it should be owned by society and not by private companies. Additionally, the final goal of government policy would be to gradually decrease oil consumption while gradually increasing alternative energy consumption. Also, the industry would not be nationalized. Only the commodity would be owned by the government.

EXPECTED EFFECT: Speculative takeover of the market would be substantially reduced. The government would have a much more stringent control on the prevailing oil and gasoline prices by the valuation of the state oil company. Thus, lower prices for consumers. In the event of a speculative takeover of the oil securities, the company could threaten to split its shares or add more shares to dilute the value of the securities, thus putting pressure on the market to sell its overvalued shares. If that doesn't work, then the company makes good on its threat, and dilutes the value of its shares by whatever certain percentage.

___________________

1. Education policy
School vouchers. Students/parents will take care of the rest themselves.

2. Economic policy
Free trade. Deregulate/privatize, in as many areas as possible.

3. Energy policy
Nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, it's all about the mix. Where nuclear is really important.

Also, tax carbon dioxide pollution (and other bad pollutions) as hell to make sure consumers who buy "dirty" energy get to pay for their environmental costs, not everyone else. Of course given this one, my first one will take care of itself by the market.

4. Environmental Policy
Tax the bad things, the market will take care of the rest.

5. Foreign policy
Ehm, this is really hard to sum up in 3 sentences. But try not to intervene too much, except in exceptional cases (like Sudan...). Human rights issues are important to emphasize. So is security, but invading Iraq does not make anyone more secure (Afghanistan is perfectly fine though).

6. Health policy
Publicly funded, but with privatly run hospitals. Hospital patient vouchers is a good idea, and so are "hospitals on private contract" (a public hospital ran by a private firm on a 15 year contract or whatever).

7. Monetary policy
Independent central bank which is to keep inflation low. As a prime minister I should keep the fuck out of there

8. Public policy in law
I'd try to legalize as much as possible

9. Social policy
Everyone should be allowed to have a decent life. Some protection if you get fired, and some basic welfare if you don't have a job. However, society should always demand something in return, like some effort from the recipients (such as applying for jobs, cleaning parks, or whatever). Also everyone should get health care, and up to high school education for free. I could accept tuition based unis if that is also based on some kind of student loan/grants plan by the state, so that everyone can afford to go to uni.

10. Urban policy
More skyscrapers in Stockholm

First, your entire plan is a huge violation of the constitution. the government must provide just compensation for taking of property.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Energy Policy: I would nationalize all oil reserves. The government would incorporate a state oil company which owns all oil reserves. This is how the system would work.. -> Private oil drilling/exploration companies would be paid the prevailing market price per barrel for the oil they drill out of the ground by the state oil company.

the government can not establish a true market rate by itself. you need other willing participants.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton -> 49% of the state oil company would be sold on the open stock market. The price per share would be an indicator of the present price per barrel paid to the drilling companies, and the price paid on the wholesale market by refineries.

that's wrong. the price per share would not indicate the present price per barrel; rather, the price per share would be determined by the discounted cash flows. i don't know if you were suggesting that the stock price would somehow indicate the market value of the oil, but if that's the case that is absolutely wrong. stock value is determined by the expected cash flows (or asset values of the company). you need to know the value of the cash flows before you can value the company.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton -> All profits from the state oil company would be invested into a state fund specifically for investment in alternative energy solutions.

we have a system called taxation that does the same exact thing with much fewer hoops and which does not violate the constitution.

----------------

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton At no time would the state oil company actually take physical possession of the crude. The principle behind it is that energy is not just a commodity, but because it plays such a decisive role in society, it should be owned by society and not by private companies. Additionally, the final goal of government policy would be to gradually decrease oil consumption while gradually increasing alternative energy consumption. Also, the industry would not be nationalized. Only the commodity would be owned by the government.

if the government is taking profits from oil consumption this policy would fail under this system. Once a government has a steady flow of income it does not want to see that income reduced, despite the fact that the money would go to alternative energy projects. once that stream of income is gone, where will the money come from to fund additional alt energy projects?

you should probably also know that much of the oil producing land in the US was owned by private citizens and the federal government. big corporations had to pay to acquire the land.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Aug-05-2008 at 20:49

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew 1. Education policy School vouchers. Students/parents will take care of the rest themselves. 2. Economic policy Free trade. Deregulate/privatize, in as many areas as possible. 3. Energy policy Nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, it's all about the mix. Where nuclear is really important. Also, tax carbon dioxide pollution (and other bad pollutions) as hell to make sure consumers who buy "dirty" energy get to pay for their environmental costs, not everyone else. Of course given this one, my first one will take care of itself by the market. 4. Environmental Policy Tax the bad things, the market will take care of the rest. 5. Foreign policy Ehm, this is really hard to sum up in 3 sentences. But try not to intervene too much, except in exceptional cases (like Sudan...). Human rights issues are important to emphasize. So is security, but invading Iraq does not make anyone more secure (Afghanistan is perfectly fine though). 6. Health policy Publicly funded, but with privatly run hospitals. Hospital patient vouchers is a good idea, and so are "hospitals on private contract" (a public hospital ran by a private firm on a 15 year contract or whatever). 7. Monetary policy Independent central bank which is to keep inflation low. As a prime minister I should keep the fuck out of there 8. Public policy in law I'd try to legalize as much as possible 9. Social policy Everyone should be allowed to have a decent life. Some protection if you get fired, and some basic welfare if you don't have a job. However, society should always demand something in return, like some effort from the recipients (such as applying for jobs, cleaning parks, or whatever). Also everyone should get health care, and up to high school education for free. I could accept tuition based unis if that is also based on some kind of student loan/grants plan by the state, so that everyone can afford to go to uni. 10. Urban policy More skyscrapers in Stockholm

i could not have made a better policy myself, minus the skyscrapers in stockholm.

#1-10

Laissez faire and non-intervention.

I would reduce federal power and leave decisions to the state and city governments whenever possible. Put a security fence around our northern and southern borders to keep out drug traffickers, criminals, and terrorists...but otherwise allow unlimited legal immigration (with required background checks, etc). Drop all sanctions against Cuba, Iran, etc. Abolish barriers to trade and travel with all nations. End the war on drugs, but impose extremely harsh penalties for those driving under the influence of alcohol or other hard drugs (this should be a felony IMO). Reduce our military presence by 90% in each of the 70 countries where are troops are currently stationed. Cut the corporate tax rate to 0% to encourage businesses to come to the USA and remain here. Go to a flat tax of around 15% on all income earned above $10k a year. For monetary policy, remove the fed's dual mandate of maintaining economic growth + fighting inflation. It's focus should be purely on maintaining the value of the currency.

That's about it.

1. Education policy
Support direct job/area based training from a young age. While I'd remove support of "life style choice" style degrees. Moving support (money) around to suit the market conditions. In fact I would consider giving companies the money to pay for children who they choose (i.e. getting interviewed, rather than just handed cash as happens here now).

Effectively making sure that that which benefits the country would be supported and a competitive and effective attitude is created from the start.

2. Economic policy
In the UK I'd institute an oil fund. And would tax to the hilt the oil companies. If it depressed oil company interest fair enough that oil will be worth more later.

I would transfer money into MAJOR investment in train infrastructure which would be a key enabler in removing reliance on carbon generating modes of transport. I'd make it cheap and very fast. This would cut the reliance on short distance air travel (would lose taxes on that ok, but then there is more money in peoples pockets).

3. Energy policy
I'd drive towards nuclear and tidal/wave power. Large scale renewable projects rather than small scale and distributed networks. And the oil taxes detailed above.

4. Environmental Policy
Drive towards public transport being so cheap that using anything else seems wasteful. And the train investment detailed above also.

5. Foreign policy
I'd draw the focus back somewhat I'd (harsh as it sounds) cut aid budgets. And I would drive for a tighter europe to multiply the force that can be brought to bear. This would mean that we would cede control but the alternative is unthinkable.

6. Health policy
Keep the NHS as is but remove targets and "bean counting" (this actually costs a fortune). And use the Scottish needs based approach rather than the English/Welsh target/market approach.

But provide dental cover for all.

7. Monetary policy
This is independent in the UK. But I'd restrict foreign ownership is important companies.

8. Public policy in law
Make people responsible for their actions. Jail shouldn't a holiday camp either, why should troops get worse conditions than prisoners? If someone proves them self unable to abide by the law then they should stop getting chances and be locked up long term (i.e. 3 strikes and you're out).

And I'd have a hit them hard and hit them young policy. It's the only way to change the culture.

9. Social policy
Again make people responsible for their actions. If they need support they will get it, but they will have to work for it. That is if you are on benefits you'll be working for them or not get them.

10. Urban policy
I would disperse government away from the center. Here everything has its headquarters in London at a huge premium with no real reason for it and huge associated costs.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 First, your entire plan is a huge violation of the constitution. the government must provide just compensation for taking of property.

It does provided just compensation for the commodity which is drilled. No land is taken.

quote:

the government can not establish a true market rate by itself. you need other willing participants.

Correct, which is why the free trade of government-sponsored oil securities would be encouraged.

quote:

that's wrong. the price per share would not indicate the present price per barrel; rather, the price per share would be determined by the discounted cash flows. i don't know if you were suggesting that the stock price would somehow indicate the market value of the oil, but if that's the case that is absolutely wrong. stock value is determined by the expected cash flows (or asset values of the company). you need to know the value of the cash flows before you can value the company.

Discounted cash flows? I don't think so. The majority of transactions are done by traders who couldn't give two sh*ts about discounted cash flows. The securities would be backed by crude oil commodity, so traders aren't trading for the value of the company, they are trading for the underlying asset which would be crude oil.

quote:

we have a system called taxation that does the same exact thing with much fewer hoops and which does not violate the constitution.

The system of taxation is unsustainable because the government spends much more than it gets in taxation. Additionally, tax payers do not decide how their taxes are spent, so I don't believe taxes paid by energy companies today are going towards an alternative energy fund.

quote:

if the government is taking profits from oil consumption this policy would fail under this system. Once a government has a steady flow of income it does not want to see that income reduced, despite the fact that the money would go to alternative energy projects. once that stream of income is gone, where will the money come from to fund additional alt energy projects?

You forgot one thing. The government is at the mercy of the will of the people. People today are pissed off about high gas prices. One of the primary issues the government is deliberating about is LOWERING GAS PRICES. If the government were to ignore consumer angst of high gas prices, two things would happen. First, the government would be voted out of office. Second, high gas prices would result in an economic slowdown and higher inflation. So it is the government's own interest to maintain a stable oil price for the nation, and prevent the unjustified rampant run-up in oil prices.

quote:

you should probably also know that much of the oil producing land in the US was owned by private citizens and the federal government. big corporations had to pay to acquire the land.

As I said, the state oil company would not take possession of anyone's land.

___________________

Kryp, land that is rich in oil deposits is incredibly expensive, and those companies paid it precisely because it had oil in it. Why else would they by sand dunes in the middle of a Texas desert? The oil underground was factored into the millions of $$ they paid per acre. So when you confiscate their rights to the oil, you are violating their property rights.

And I really think any confiscation or taxation of oil companies is unnecessary anyway. We don't need government to fund alternative energy. The market is doing that already. There is LOTS of money to be made for the first company to develop a cheap alternative to oil, and there is already something of a space race going on among private businesses to develop next-gen fuel cells and super efficient solar panels for homes. The first company to invent a hybrid car that gets 50mpg and costs less than 15k will make hundreds of billions of dollars. There is a HUGE profit incentive to develop alternative fuels, and there is no need for government to get involved. Private industry will innovate if government gets out of the way.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It does provided just compensation for the commodity which is drilled. No land is taken.

there is a thing called mineral rights in property. the minerals are part of the property. taking the oil from the property is taking part of the property.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Discounted cash flows? I don't think so. The majority of transactions are done by traders who couldn't give two sh*ts about discounted cash flows. The securities would be backed by crude oil commodity, so traders aren't trading for the value of the company, they are trading for the underlying asset which would be crude oil.

as i said, securities (companies) are valued based on either discounted cash flows or assets values. you can't derive the expense of a company (the market price at which the government company will purchase the oil from drillers) by the stock value. that just makes no sense at all.

EDIT: traders absolutely care about DCF. A traders jobs is to earn a profit on a deviation from that value. traders aren't just buying securities because it's the cool thing to do - and if they do that trader won't be employed very long.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The system of taxation is unsustainable because the government spends much more than it gets in taxation. Additionally, tax payers do not decide how their taxes are spent, so I don't believe taxes paid by energy companies today are going towards an alternative energy fund.

how would this be different. a government controlled entity could do the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton As I said, the state oil company would not take possession of anyone's land.

the oil rights are part of the persons land.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Aug-05-2008 at 23:04

In the UK we grant licences hence:

quote:

Licensing The rights to all oil and gas in Great Britain and its territorial sea have belonged to the Crown since the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. The same Act gave the Government the exclusive right to grant licences to explore for and exploit these resources. Separate legislation applies similar provisions to Northern Ireland. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 extended the licensing powers of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 to the UKCS. The effect of these Acts is that exploration for and production of oil in the UK and on the UKCS can only be undertaken under the terms of licences issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. During a licensing round companies - generally working together in consortia - apply for the licences on offer. If a consortium's application is successful, one of the consortium companies (generally the company with the largest interest in a field) takes responsibility for operating the field under the control of a joint operating committee of all the licensees. The detailed field development and production programmes put forward after the licences have been awarded have to be approved by the DTI.