NationStates

{Invalid for nations that do not subsidize businesses. Invalid for socialist nations. }

After news broke out that Boing, a major corporation that was heavily subsidized by the @@NAME@@ government, is on the brink of bankruptcy after heavily investing into bouncy runways, both men in black, men in suits, and men in pajamas have jumped into your office to discuss this explosive dilemma:

Choice 1: "Quite frankly, I do believe, truly believe, and let me tell you when I believe in something it has to be pretty darn believable because frankly I'm smart, so smart you can't even imagine and y'know people often come up to me to tell me how smart I am," says Donald Bezos, CEO of Boing, "and to be honest with you, and I'm being completely honest here, we need more money. You need to subsidize my business even more, after all we do so many things. So many things... People come up to me and say wow Mr. Bezos you do so many things. The people of @@NAME@@ wish to be a part of your company and you employ my grandma, my grandpa, my son, me, my daughter, my sister, my aunt, my brother, my..." his speech begins to muffle as you feel yourself slipping into a coma.

Effect 1: Bureaucratic double dealing makes Boing's profits hit the ceiling.


Choice 2: "HEY EVERYONE @@RANDOMNAME@@ FROM RICOCHET COURSE HERE BACK WITH ANOTHER VIDEO!!!!!" "TODAY WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE TOP 10 THINGS THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING WRONG!!" @@HE@@ pauses his video recording. "Hey bro, you should really stop doing this whole artificially increasing economic activity thing. Stick with the free market and cut all of that corporate welfare completely while giving us all a well deserved tax break or something. Yeah the economy might crash or something but that's only in the short-term. Like in the long term, it will be more efficient and more importantly much more sustainable. @@RANDOMNAME@@ hesitantly turning the video back on, "NUMBER ONE, BUSINE..."

Effect 2: Startups are riskier to invest in than it is to invest into popular cryptocurrency Puppycoin.


Choice 3: Your mom quietly hops into your office. "Sweetie maybe you should just subsidize small businesses and businesses that are good for the environment instead of these unsustainable risk-taking corporations or something. That way we might be creating more jobs and saving the environment at the same time." She giggles suspiciously while taking a 100 @@CURRENCY@@ bill from your wallet and putting a plate of cookies and a glass of milk on your desk.

Effect 3: Clam Oil's popular defense that they are environmentally friendly is "I think therefore I am."


Choice 4: An old grumpy man wearing a heavy fur coat and mittens pops up from underneath your desk. Taking a shot of Brancalandian vodka he says, "Maybe you should nationalize all these big corporations. The top one percent will be abolished and small businesses would still be able to exist. Spare change?"

Effect 4: Mom and Pop shops that make 1 @@CURRENCY@@ more than the government limit become government property.


Choice 5: You begin to wonder if your mom slipped something to you when suddenly a puppy jumps from the ceiling of your office. "Why don't we just divert alllll of that business subsidization into all of your other government programs. That way we can spend less money on business and more on other things like defense, police, medicine, schools, welfare, or some other stuff if you want."

Effect 5: Fat cats are unusually underweight nowadays.

Where are your effect lines?

Tinhampton wrote:Where are your effect lines?

On it! Sorry!

There are some fun bits in here, but I am not convinced that it holds together as a coherent whole.

Is this a dilemma that you could see confronting a real world national leader? Do all the options actually address the issue at hand? If you're Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau and someone tells you that a major corporation in your country is on the brink of bankruptcy, do you rethink your whole economic policy, or do you stay focused on that one corporation? I think you would stay more focused on that specific corporation, especially in a case like this where the corporation was mismanaged.

"BOING", "bouncy runways"... Love it!

USS Monitor wrote:There are some fun bits in here, but I am not convinced that it holds together as a coherent whole.

Is this a dilemma that you could see confronting a real world national leader? Do all the options actually address the issue at hand? If you're Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau and someone tells you that a major corporation in your country is on the brink of bankruptcy, do you rethink your whole economic policy, or do you stay focused on that one corporation? I think you would stay more focused on that specific corporation, especially in a case like this where the corporation was mismanaged.

Thank you!

Bears Armed wrote:"BOING", "bouncy runways"... Love it!

Hahaha thank you!

Change the validity to "Invalid for socialist nations". It's way cleaner.

Drew Durrnil wrote:Change the validity to "Invalid for socialist nations". It's way cleaner.

Thank you!

Why was this company recieving such heavy subsidise in the first place?