Reforms of Education and pension plan

[HarveyKingdoms]

To increase efficiency and save expenses, reduce the chance of child and elder abuse, reduce the chance of corrupted on Education, Childcare and Elderly Services, the following reforms are advocated.

Part One
Decentralized Autonomous Management System:
All Parents, students, teachers and volunteers are invited to participate in voting to jointly decide school rules and various major decisions and then organize students to implement school management under the guidance of teachers and volunteers.

System management: anyone can provide proposal, discuss and vote through the open source blockchain mobile application, all proposal will randomly invite 99 current online users to participate in the evaluation through voting (prevent a decision-making committee composed of a small group of people from monopolizing decision-making power) , anyone can provide suggestion to improve it.

Benefits:
1. Save the cost of salary of management team,
2. Reduce opportunities for officials to shield each other from common corruption and child abuse.
3. Enhance students' independent thinking, awareness of the rule of law, teamwork and management skills.

Part Two
1. Setup the Mutual Aid Base for the Elderly and Children that integrates nurseries, boarding schools, nursing homes, shelters for the disabled, apprenticeship hospitals and modern agricultural bases, facilitate the integration of resources to save the land and expenses. [/list]

2. Setup the Social Contribution Points System to encourage all recipients (include their family member and Volunteer) to look after each other, caring for young children, farming (adopting AI in Organic Farming to Improve Food Security and efficiency) and maintain the public area, all recipients will be allocated different levels of housing, food and medical services according to their social contribution points, senior class students are responsible for guiding junior class students.

3. Compulsory military training since kindergarten, cultivate students' ability to survive in the wild, self-care ability, medical work and strong perseverance.
Let students get used to high-intensity exercise and a balanced diet since childhood, and strengthen the labor ability, mental strength, body resistance and healthy vitality. Reduce medical expenses and various social crises.

4. Co-organize apprenticeship courses with corporations and charity hospitals to cultivate students' diverse skills from primary school, including 3D graphic and programming for the construction of metaverse.

5. Attract children to self-study through gamified intelligent metaverse apps to complete college courses; introduce training courses on memory improvement, psychology, financial ability, interpersonal communication and sexual skills to enhance everyone's affinity, expression ability, learning ability and influence, more adaptable to future social needs.

Benefits:
1. All parents will no longer need to place time and money (supported by Mutual Fund) in caring for children and the elderly, which will help improve the overall productivity, sense of security and happiness index for all.
2. Let group of elderly live with children of different ages, let them feel younger, no longer lonely, have more people to take care of each other and reduce the chance of them being bullied by the staff and domestic violence.
3. Encourage Child and Elderly take care each others, can save >80% salary expenses, cultivate the good habit of students of helping others from an early age, let all recipient have a sustenance in their lives.

Part Three
All People's Mutual Fund
Setup the Education, Venture Capital and Pension Mutual Fund that owned and managed by all people.

Details:
1. All shareholders make decision together, apply seed capital for projects and provide idea via the Decentralized Autonomous Management System.

2. Central bank will buy the 100 years zero rate bonds that issued by the fund, and will serve as the basis for money printing, all people share the loss caused by inflation as their investment.
The Fund will invest on the Research and Entrepreneurship Projects, support currency value and reduce inflation by supporting the real economy and artificial intelligence automated production lines to increase production capacity and push GDP.

3. The fund will invest on "Mutual Aid Base for the Elderly and Children" (and other projects proposed by shareholders and government), all sponsored students (and projects) are responsible for repaying the principal in installments within 30 years, and share 5% of their lifetime income and assets to the fund (sponsored projects share >50% of their net profit to the fund).

Benefits:
1. Everyone is also more focused on help to nurturing talent, sponsoring children, supporting research and entrepreneurs because they have a share of dividends via the fund.
2. The educational curriculum is decided by all the people to prevent the dictator's brainwashing education.
3. Increased passive income for all nationals.


Pls help on correct errors, thx a lot!


IN fact that, I wanna summit below proposal for all countries to improve their political, just WA dont accept that, English not my mother language, pls help on correct below proposal too, thx a lot!
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1704607
Pls propose it to your government, lets make the world better together, thx a lot!

[Tinhampton]

Why did you submit and campaign for this proposal before drafting it on the forums, firstly?

Why ought we to grant better "housing, food and medical services" to individuals who have higher "social contribution points?" Real estate and food, at least, are freely distributed on the market in many countries; if you have enough money, regardless of your social contribution/Sesame Credit/ESG/whatever score, the odds are that you can buy yourself a double bacon cheeseburger or a semi-detached suburban house.

Part One of your proposal requires that all new school rules be enacted with the support of ninety-nine randomly-selected "currently online users." This prevents individuals with no access to a smartphone, even if they have a sincere interest in school governance, from taking part in the rulemaking process - while bad, malicious, or ambivalent actors from other countries can vote on new rules because they have been "randomly invite[d]."

Why do you want "Compulsory military training since kindergarten," even for nations with no military (such as IRL Costa Rica)?

Why do you believe that "gamified intelligent metaverse apps" should be prioritised by the World Assembly over all other forms of "self-study?" And why do you want to "introduce training courses on... sexual skills" when such courses are highly likely to be inappropriate?

Central banks in nations with independent monetary policies (such as the United Kingdom, United States, China, India, Russia and Australia IRL) can issue their own currency at will. Why do you want to mandate that such central banks only be allowed to engage in "money printing" if they "buy the 100 years zero rate bonds that issued by the fund?"

[Kessig Wolf Run]

I highly disagree with the notion of housing the elderly and children together and letting them "take care of each other." I'm not sure the level of care many in those two groups would need has been fully considered? Children simply cannot tend to the needs of their elders the way this proposal seems to be asking them to do.

Also the social contribution thing is slightly problematic as well. Allocating housing, food, and even MEDICAL care based on how much one contributes to society? What about disabled people that simply cannot contribute in the ways outlined within? That poses a serious issue of accessibility.

And then there's the matter of this statement: "The educational curriculum is decided by all the people to prevent the dictator's brainwashing education." This almost seems to imply that the leaders of all nations are dictatorial, which is simply untrue due to the various ways nations are led. Perhaps I am misinterpreting that, but it does seem a strangely harsh thing to say.

All that aside, there are a great many provisions in this proposal that simply do not make sense or are reaching too far, from my point of view.

[Makko Oko]

Emperor Conall Solis is given personal word on this proposal and he then comes storming into the committee meeting room and shouts "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE US OF BRAINWASHING! THIS IS PURE SLANDER! OUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT STAND FOR A PROPOSAL THAT SLANDERS OUR GOOD NAME, AND OUR EMPIRE, IN SUCH A WAY" and he then storms out of the room with everybody staring at the door with a "what the hell" look

[HarveyKingdoms]

Why did you submit and campaign for this proposal before drafting it on the forums, firstly?
Just started playing this game and didn't notice this square. Because someone suggested that we should consult more people here to help correct some mistakes, so I put the plan here for everyone to discuss.


Why ought we to grant better "housing, food and medical services" to individuals who have higher "social contribution points?" Real estate and food, at least, are freely distributed on the market in many countries; if you have enough money, regardless of your social contribution/Sesame Credit/ESG/whatever score, the odds are that you can buy yourself a double bacon cheeseburger or a semi-detached suburban house.
Using the social contribution point system as the scoring standard (which can be regarded as a substitute for cash), various benefits such as free housing, food and medical care are allocated. People with low scoring standards represent low contributions (less donations/unwillingness to be a volunteer/less taxpayer), so they can only enjoy the most basic services; the higher the score, the higher quality services they enjoy, which means more work and more rewards The principle is quite reasonable, right?

Part One of your proposal requires that all new school rules be enacted with the support of ninety-nine randomly-selected "currently online users." This prevents individuals with no access to a smartphone, even if they have a sincere interest in school governance, from taking part in the rulemaking process - while bad, malicious, or ambivalent actors from other countries can vote on new rules because they have been "randomly invite[d]."
The system will only allow those who have been identified on campus to vote, and all students will also receive government-distributed tablets as learning, communication and voting devices.

Why do you want "Compulsory military training since kindergarten," even for nations with no military (such as IRL Costa Rica)?
I actually meant mostly military-style training/high-intensity physical training. In terms of military training, it mainly trains students in survival skills such as emergency evacuation, first aid, and field survival (different training courses are available for different ages), rather than really training kindergarten students and elementary school students to operate cannons, tanks, and planes. .Many students now have very weak willpower. This is related to their long-term living habits being too pampered, so it is more beneficial for them to grow up to cultivate students' strong will through military-style training since childhood.

Why do you believe that "gamified intelligent metaverse apps" should be prioritised by the World Assembly over all other forms of "self-study?" And why do you want to "introduce training courses on... sexual skills" when such courses are highly likely to be inappropriate?
Most students are very interested in playing video games and can play for more than ten hours a day without getting bored, but asking them to study would rather die... So why not put the courses they need to learn directly into the game? Wouldn't this be more effective?

As for the introduction of other courses related to interpersonal relationships and communication (including physical contact and how to please the opposite sex), it is because many people lack the relevant basic knowledge, which leads to problems in dealing with people. To be successful in the future world, it will require more Strong communication skills.


Central banks in nations with independent monetary policies (such as the United Kingdom, United States, China, India, Russia and Australia IRL) can issue their own currency at will. Why do you want to mandate that such central banks only be allowed to engage in "money printing" if they "buy the 100 years zero rate bonds that issued by the fund?"

The modern central bank issues currency (a type of debt), in addition to the currency of other countries (credit/debt of other countries), usually with the debt of domestic financial institutions as a guarantee, and related financial institutions for hedging, usually tend to be Low-interest loans from the rich and large corporations have led to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This is because the inflation caused by the issuance of currency is shared by all the people, but the low-interest credit brought by the newly issued currency can only be enjoyed by the wealthy. This is extremely unfair and a form of robbing the poor and helping the rich. system.

My idea is that the central bank can also subscribe for the bonds of the National Fund (the people are the shareholders of the fund, and the fund is the borrower) as the basic collateral for the issuance of currency, and the newly issued currency is first allocated to the venture capital of the national common stock. Funds are preferentially used to support grassroots people's entrepreneurship (enterprises will provide returns after making profits), support students' further education (students will provide returns after graduation), urban development, technology research and infrastructure projects...etc. Because the fund is extremely diversified and its risks are extremely diversified, it has the ability to strive for the lowest financing cost for all people. In this plan, all the people share the losses caused by inflation and the profits brought by low-interest financing, which is quite fair and reasonable.

My native language is not English and I use Google Translate, so some words may not be translated correctly. For example, the central bank issues currency, which was literally translated as printing money before. Other example, militarized training is translated into military training (also because of the limited number of WA words, I cannot explain too much detailed course content).But I guess most readers can understand what I mean.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We oppose any military training obligation on children, especially against their explicit will. Even moreso when the skills taught may not be beneficial skills to expend time and money teaching."

[HarveyKingdoms]

I highly disagree with the notion of housing the elderly and children together and letting them "take care of each other." I'm not sure the level of care many in those two groups would need has been fully considered? Children simply cannot tend to the needs of their elders the way this proposal seems to be asking them to do.
Both student and elderly need training step by step,

Also the social contribution thing is slightly problematic as well. Allocating housing, food, and even MEDICAL care based on how much one contributes to society? What about disabled people that simply cannot contribute in the ways outlined within? That poses a serious issue of accessibility.
Cant too details because the proposal of WA limited to 5000 words, pls see my answer to Tinhampton


And then there's the matter of this statement: "The educational curriculum is decided by all the people to prevent the dictator's brainwashing education." This almost seems to imply that the leaders of all nations are dictatorial, which is simply untrue due to the various ways nations are led. Perhaps I am misinterpreting that, but it does seem a strangely harsh thing to say.
Just talking about preventing students from being brainwashed by dictators, never saying that all leaders in all countries must also be dictators (maybe the predecessor was, maybe the next, who knows? In my opinion, the current left-leaning thinking in the United States is very serious. The so-called political correctness is to deprive the people of the basic freedom of speech and human rights.).


All that aside, there are a great many provisions in this proposal that simply do not make sense or are reaching too far, from my point of view.

Due to the word limit of WA proposal standard, and my native language is not English, I use Google Translate, so it is difficult to express in detail, and it may be misunderstood. Its better you can point out which part dont make sense or reaching too far, thx a lot!

[Tinhampton]

My questions are in normal face. Harvey's are in bold. This is his stylistic decision, not mine - although I've taken the liberty to better format his quoting so it doesn't look like his boldface was part of my original line of questioning. Anyway...

Why did you submit and campaign for this proposal before drafting it on the forums, firstly?

Just started playing this game and didn't notice this square. Because someone suggested that we should consult more people here to help correct some mistakes, so I put the plan here for everyone to discuss.

Sure.

Why ought we to grant better "housing, food and medical services" to individuals who have higher "social contribution points?" Real estate and food, at least, are freely distributed on the market in many countries; if you have enough money, regardless of your social contribution/Sesame Credit/ESG/whatever score, the odds are that you can buy yourself a double bacon cheeseburger or a semi-detached suburban house.

Using the social contribution point system as the scoring standard (which can be regarded as a substitute for cash), various benefits such as free housing, food and medical care are allocated. People with low scoring standards represent low contributions (less donations/unwillingness to be a volunteer/less taxpayer), so they can only enjoy the most basic services; the higher the score, the higher quality services they enjoy, which means more work and more rewards The principle is quite reasonable, right?

No, it isn't. To be clear: If this resolution is enacted as written, Tinhampton will automatically assign 10,000 social contribution points to all Tinhamptonian inhabitants which cannot be transferred between individuals, accrue interest, or be added or removed to.

Nowhere in the real world uses "social contribution point[s] as a substitute for cash." Even if they did, imagine John, a man with 1,200 SCPs. John lives in a home which can only be resided in by people with more than 1,180 SCPs. One day, John drives past a major car accident instead of helping the victims, and loses 50 SCPs. John no longer has enough SCPs to live in his house. John's friend, Sarah, has 800 SCPs. She helped the victims, but only earned 25 SCPs and so cannot swap houses with John. (Assume that all houses are currently occupied and more cannot be immediately built to satisfy John's new requirements. Nobody else has gained or lost any SCPs, and their houses are not at risk.) Where will John live?

Part One of your proposal requires that all new school rules be enacted with the support of ninety-nine randomly-selected "currently online users." This prevents individuals with no access to a smartphone, even if they have a sincere interest in school governance, from taking part in the rulemaking process - while bad, malicious, or ambivalent actors from other countries can vote on new rules because they have been "randomly invite[d]."

The system will only allow those who have been identified on campus to vote, and all students will also receive government-distributed tablets as learning, communication and voting devices.

You never make either of these points clear in your draft. You do not suggest procedures for rule creation in schools with less than 99 members. Nor do you make clear until Part Three that the Decentralized Autonomous Management System can be used in non-school contexts.

Why do you want "Compulsory military training since kindergarten," even for nations with no military (such as IRL Costa Rica)?

I actually meant mostly military-style training/high-intensity physical training. In terms of military training, it mainly trains students in survival skills such as emergency evacuation, first aid, and field survival (different training courses are available for different ages), rather than really training kindergarten students and elementary school students to operate cannons, tanks, and planes. .Many students now have very weak willpower. This is related to their long-term living habits being too pampered, so it is more beneficial for them to grow up to cultivate students' strong will through military-style training since childhood.

Then you should emphasise that the training focuses on "survival skills," not that it is "military training" or even "militarized training."

Why do you believe that "gamified intelligent metaverse apps" should be prioritised by the World Assembly over all other forms of "self-study?" And why do you want to "introduce training courses on... sexual skills" when such courses are highly likely to be inappropriate?

Most students are very interested in playing video games and can play for more than ten hours a day without getting bored, but asking them to study would rather die... So why not put the courses they need to learn directly into the game? Wouldn't this be more effective?

As for the introduction of other courses related to interpersonal relationships and communication (including physical contact and how to please the opposite sex), it is because many people lack the relevant basic knowledge, which leads to problems in dealing with people. To be successful in the future world, it will require more Strong communication skills.

Not all children will learn best through use of a "gamified intelligent metaverse app" - or, if I'm thinking about this correctly, Second Life or PlayStation Home but for schools. (The visual/aural/kinaestethic learner paradigm was ruled to be junk science in 2014, around the time my daughter was in school, but the principle that different people best learn differently remains.) If you want to teach "more Strong communication skills," then teach them - don't try and shoehorn in a course about How To Have Sex into your game instead.

Central banks in nations with independent monetary policies (such as the United Kingdom, United States, China, India, Russia and Australia IRL) can issue their own currency at will. Why do you want to mandate that such central banks only be allowed to engage in "money printing" if they "buy the 100 years zero rate bonds that issued by the fund?"

The modern central bank issues currency (a type of debt), in addition to the currency of other countries (credit/debt of other countries), usually with the debt of domestic financial institutions as a guarantee, and related financial institutions for hedging, usually tend to be Low-interest loans from the rich and large corporations have led to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This is because the inflation caused by the issuance of currency is shared by all the people, but the low-interest credit brought by the newly issued currency can only be enjoyed by the wealthy. This is extremely unfair and a form of robbing the poor and helping the rich. system.

My idea is that the central bank can also subscribe for the bonds of the National Fund (the people are the shareholders of the fund, and the fund is the borrower) as the basic collateral for the issuance of currency, and the newly issued currency is first allocated to the venture capital of the national common stock. Funds are preferentially used to support grassroots people's entrepreneurship (enterprises will provide returns after making profits), support students' further education (students will provide returns after graduation), urban development, technology research and infrastructure projects...etc. Because the fund is extremely diversified and its risks are extremely diversified, it has the ability to strive for the lowest financing cost for all people. In this plan, all the people share the losses caused by inflation and the profits brought by low-interest financing, which is quite fair and reasonable.

So you want the printing of money to be guaranteed by a commonly-held bond that earns zero interest, but which will invest in the Mutual Aid Base and other projects, instead of "Low-interest loans from the rich and large corporations"?

Also, why do you want "all sponsored students" to "share 5% of their lifetime income and assets to the fund?" Why can they not just contribute as much or as little as they want, especially given that everybody must a bit of the fund? And how can a student earn sponsorship?

My native language is not English and I use Google Translate, so some words may not be translated correctly. For example, the central bank issues currency, which was literally translated as printing money before. Other example, militarized training is translated into military training (also because of the limited number of WA words, I cannot explain too much detailed course content).But I guess most readers can understand what I mean.

So that explains my confusion about what "the basis for money printing" is, then - thanks

[Outer Sparta]

Not a good attempt, full of filler, and don't have a good grasp on the topic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The modern central bank issues currency (a type of debt), in addition to the currency of other countries (credit/debt of other countries), usually with the debt of domestic financial institutions as a guarantee, and related financial institutions for hedging, usually tend to be Low-interest loans from the rich and large corporations have led to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This is because the inflation caused by the issuance of currency is shared by all the people, but the low-interest credit brought by the newly issued currency can only be enjoyed by the wealthy. This is extremely unfair and a form of robbing the poor and helping the rich. system.

My idea is that the central bank can also subscribe for the bonds of the National Fund (the people are the shareholders of the fund, and the fund is the borrower) as the basic collateral for the issuance of currency, and the newly issued currency is first allocated to the venture capital of the national common stock. Funds are preferentially used to support grassroots people's entrepreneurship (enterprises will provide returns after making profits), support students' further education (students will provide returns after graduation), urban development, technology research and infrastructure projects...etc. Because the fund is extremely diversified and its risks are extremely diversified, it has the ability to strive for the lowest financing cost for all people. In this plan, all the people share the losses caused by inflation and the profits brought by low-interest financing, which is quite fair and reasonable.

Central banks don't issue debt as currency. They issue fiat currency which is backed by nothing. There are no guarantees and there are no limitations to issuance on credit or other things. Your proposal has the bank issue bonds (that nobody would buy) in exchange for currency (that nobody would give up) to monetise debt (that you don't mention) to pay for things (that are better paid for by taxation).

[HarveyKingdoms]

[quote=Harvey]Dont know how to set quote and how to format

My questions are in normal face. Harvey's are in bold. This is his stylistic decision, not mine - although I've taken the liberty to better format his quoting so it doesn't look like his boldface was part of my original line of questioning. Anyway...

Just started playing this game and didn't notice this square. Because someone suggested that we should consult more people here to help correct some mistakes, so I put the plan here for everyone to discuss.

Sure.

Why ought we to grant better "housing, food and medical services" to individuals who have higher "social contribution points?" Real estate and food, at least, are freely distributed on the market in many countries; if you have enough money, regardless of your social contribution/Sesame Credit/ESG/whatever score, the odds are that you can buy yourself a double bacon cheeseburger or a semi-detached suburban house.

Using the social contribution point system as the scoring standard (which can be regarded as a substitute for cash), various benefits such as free housing, food and medical care are allocated. People with low scoring standards represent low contributions (less donations/unwillingness to be a volunteer/less taxpayer), so they can only enjoy the most basic services; the higher the score, the higher quality services they enjoy, which means more work and more rewards The principle is quite reasonable, right?

No, it isn't. To be clear: If this resolution is enacted as written, Tinhampton will automatically assign 10,000 social contribution points to all Tinhamptonian inhabitants which cannot be transferred between individuals, accrue interest, or be added or removed to.

Nowhere in the real world uses "social contribution point[s] as a substitute for cash." Even if they did, imagine John, a man with 1,200 SCPs. John lives in a home which can only be resided in by people with more than 1,180 SCPs. One day, John drives past a major car accident instead of helping the victims, and loses 50 SCPs. John no longer has enough SCPs to live in his house. John's friend, Sarah, has 800 SCPs. She helped the victims, but only earned 25 SCPs and so cannot swap houses with John. (Assume that all houses are currently occupied and more cannot be immediately built to satisfy John's new requirements. Nobody else has gained or lost any SCPs, and their houses are not at risk.) Where will John live?

The social contribution point system is a "level concept", for example, the top 20% of people are defined as A level, enjoying the highest level of welfare (referring to the priority to enjoy more beautiful public housing units, more choices of food, better access to higher education and medical services); and even the worst grade E (the lowest 20% of the population) can still be allocated a qualifying level of public housing (if they need it), medical and food benefits; of course, in fact I'm referring here to the benefits that subsidized people enjoy in subsidized boarding schools or free nursing homes, and those who are fully self-funded are of course free to enjoy private market services of their choice (their wealth at their disposal, is They contribute to society with their hard work and wisdom/received through trade). The significance of establishing a social contribution point system is another way to encourage everyone to help each other and do more volunteer work (another supplement to free market trading).Still dont know how to use quote...so still use [b ]

Part One of your proposal requires that all new school rules be enacted with the support of ninety-nine randomly-selected "currently online users." This prevents individuals with no access to a smartphone, even if they have a sincere interest in school governance, from taking part in the rulemaking process - while bad, malicious, or ambivalent actors from other countries can vote on new rules because they have been "randomly invite[d]."

The system will only allow those who have been identified on campus to vote, and all students will also receive government-distributed tablets as learning, communication and voting devices.

You never make either of these points clear in your draft. You do not suggest procedures for rule creation in schools with less than 99 members. Nor do you make clear until Part Three that the Decentralized Autonomous Management System can be used in non-school contexts.

Reply= This system can be applied in many places, such as the fact that I originally recommended this system for Twitter's speech control (99 users who were randomly invited to participate in evaluating whether some questionable speech really needs to be blocked; as to why It is set at 99 because if the number of people is too small, it may not be objective and fair, and if there are too many people, there may be no users who can understand the relevant language and are online and have time to invite relevant users to participate in the evaluation; of course, it is not necessarily 99. name, which can be defined as 0.1% of the platform’s simultaneous online users but the number is between 9-99, etc.). Different schools set up different groups and only accept votes from members of the school (the so-called members include parents of all students, former students of the school, volunteers of the school, and the elderly living in the school's attached nursing home). Because the WA limit can only write a proposal of 5000 words, it cannot be written in too much detail.

Why do you want "Compulsory military training since kindergarten," even for nations with no military (such as IRL Costa Rica)?

I actually meant mostly military-style training/high-intensity physical training. In terms of military training, it mainly trains students in survival skills such as emergency evacuation, first aid, and field survival (different training courses are available for different ages), rather than really training kindergarten students and elementary school students to operate cannons, tanks, and planes. .Many students now have very weak willpower. This is related to their long-term living habits being too pampered, so it is more beneficial for them to grow up to cultivate students' strong will through military-style training since childhood.

Then you should emphasise that the training focuses on "survival skills," not that it is "military training" or even "militarized training."

Reply=That's why I put the proposal here, hoping someone can help fix the grammatical errors in Google Translate. The way I check for errors is just to translate from Chinese to English, and then re-translate from English to Chinese again to see if the two translations result in similar content, but this method still seems to have many grammatical errors (this is my limited English proficiency , cannot be analyzed).

On the other hand, the designer of this game is too lazy, and should introduce the Wiki method into the WA proposal writing system, directly let all readers discuss below the relevant plan, and directly ask all readers to help correct it (refer to the wiki method)；In fact that, in my conception, the Decentralized Management system , the part of which I mentioned on proposal and vote is to refer to the editing method of [WA proposal game + Wiki like edit], so as to facilitate the public to propose proposals, and also to facilitate the public to assist in revision and discussion, and then Formal public vote.

Why do you believe that "gamified intelligent metaverse apps" should be prioritised by the World Assembly over all other forms of "self-study?" And why do you want to "introduce training courses on... sexual skills" when such courses are highly likely to be inappropriate?

Most students are very interested in playing video games and can play for more than ten hours a day without getting bored, but asking them to study would rather die... So why not put the courses they need to learn directly into the game? Wouldn't this be more effective?

As for the introduction of other courses related to interpersonal relationships and communication (including physical contact and how to please the opposite sex), it is because many people lack the relevant basic knowledge, which leads to problems in dealing with people. To be successful in the future world, it will require more Strong communication skills.

Not all children will learn best through use of a "gamified intelligent metaverse app" - or, if I'm thinking about this correctly, Second Life or PlayStation Home but for schools. (The visual/aural/kinaestethic learner paradigm was ruled to be junk science in 2014, around the time my daughter was in school, but the principle that different people best learn differently remains.) If you want to teach "more Strong communication skills," then teach them - don't try and shoehorn in a course about How To Have Sex into your game instead.

Reply=The reasoning behind this scheme is a bit complicated. In fact, it is because of the recent advocacy of political correctness in the United States. I mean the excessive propaganda of "prohibition of discrimination against homosexuality", which has the effect of hypnotizing and brainwashing homosexuality. Therefore, I propose to introduce "sex skills education" into the education of the new generation. ”, the purpose is actually to instill correct sexual concepts in children during adolescence and reduce their exposure to homosexuality (and related ethos), which are always based on congenital genetic defects or mental problems; Homosexuals should be discriminated against, which is equivalent to that we should not discriminate against cancer patients, because each of us also has the opportunity to have cancer cells and lesions. This is also because WA has a word limit, and cannot introduce other articles in the proposal (because the article URL is also included in the word limit), so I did not explain in detail, but only said to strengthen students' communication skills (this includes body language, and sexual skills are one of the body language used to communicate between lovers).
And the education I refer to in my proposal includes university education. During this period, many students are already adults, and some courses in my proposal are actually aimed at adult students (you have to pull in kindergarten students. Say, I have no choice, because of the word limit, it is unlikely that I will also write down the students of different ages for each course).

Central banks in nations with independent monetary policies (such as the United Kingdom, United States, China, India, Russia and Australia IRL) can issue their own currency at will. Why do you want to mandate that such central banks only be allowed to engage in "money printing" if they "buy the 100 years zero rate bonds that issued by the fund?"

The modern central bank issues currency (a type of debt), in addition to the currency of other countries (credit/debt of other countries), usually with the debt of domestic financial institutions as a guarantee, and related financial institutions for hedging, usually tend to be Low-interest loans from the rich and large corporations have led to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This is because the inflation caused by the issuance of currency is shared by all the people, but the low-interest credit brought by the newly issued currency can only be enjoyed by the wealthy. This is extremely unfair and a form of robbing the poor and helping the rich. system.

My idea is that the central bank can also subscribe for the bonds of the National Fund (the people are the shareholders of the fund, and the fund is the borrower) as the basic collateral for the issuance of currency, and the newly issued currency is first allocated to the venture capital of the national common stock. Funds are preferentially used to support grassroots people's entrepreneurship (enterprises will provide returns after making profits), support students' further education (students will provide returns after graduation), urban development, technology research and infrastructure projects...etc. Because the fund is extremely diversified and its risks are extremely diversified, it has the ability to strive for the lowest financing cost for all people. In this plan, all the people share the losses caused by inflation and the profits brought by low-interest financing, which is quite fair and reasonable.

So you want the printing of money to be guaranteed by a commonly-held bond that earns zero interest, but which will invest in the Mutual Aid Base and other projects, instead of "Low-interest loans from the rich and large corporations"?

Reply=This is a better solution to [save the economic crisis + reduce long-term inflation in the future + reduce the gap between rich and poor + break monopoly + increase domestic real enterprises]. In this concept, most of the new money supply added by the central bank will be used first to provide long-term loans to "all people's investment mutual funds", and then through the fund deposits into the bank's reserve deposits and then indirectly (in the traditional financial system) Loans to other people and the Corp. This allows all people to share part of the interest income through the fund to subsidize the loss of all people "inflation caused by the increase of the money supply by the central bank". I put forward the real purpose of this proposal here. In fact, I want to remind some politicians who also play this game (to their friends/good citizens who will take the initiative to provide opinions to the political party) that this method can be used to solve the economic crisis and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, (And by the way, to promote a decentralized real democracy) to gain more popular support.


Also, why do you want "all sponsored students" to "share 5% of their lifetime income and assets to the fund?" Why can they not just contribute as much or as little as they want, especially given that everybody must a bit of the fund? And how can a student earn sponsorship?

Reply=The current education subsidy policies of most national governments are unfair. They use taxpayers (the wealth of the public) to subsidize a small group of high-quality students to obtain higher education and help that small group of students to achieve higher future income. In fact, others did not benefit directly from it. And the dividend system I set up is to require all students receiving compulsory education to not only return the principal in installments, but also share a portion of their income to give everyone a share of the fund as dividends, so that everyone will also be rewarded because of Investing in educating talents to benefit (actually it just helps to balance the wealth gap, it can also be regarded as a kind of "tax" used to balance the wealth gap, of course it would be better to package it with "investment and return"), which will also encourage More people pay attention to education and talent cultivation, because everyone also participates in the dividend.

My native language is not English and I use Google Translate, so some words may not be translated correctly. For example, the central bank issues currency, which was literally translated as printing money before. Other example, militarized training is translated into military training (also because of the limited number of WA words, I cannot explain too much detailed course content).But I guess most readers can understand what I mean.

So that explains my confusion about what "the basis for money printing" is, then - thanks [/quote]

All the above replies are still translated by Google, so the words may not convey the meaning.The purpose of putting up the proposal is to hope that you can help correct grammar mistakes, simplify some unnecessary words, and add some necessary explanations (to avoid misunderstandings for readers)
Thx a lot!

[HarveyKingdoms]

The modern central bank issues currency (a type of debt), in addition to the currency of other countries (credit/debt of other countries), usually with the debt of domestic financial institutions as a guarantee, and related financial institutions for hedging, usually tend to be Low-interest loans from the rich and large corporations have led to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This is because the inflation caused by the issuance of currency is shared by all the people, but the low-interest credit brought by the newly issued currency can only be enjoyed by the wealthy. This is extremely unfair and a form of robbing the poor and helping the rich. system.

My idea is that the central bank can also subscribe for the bonds of the National Fund (the people are the shareholders of the fund, and the fund is the borrower) as the basic collateral for the issuance of currency, and the newly issued currency is first allocated to the venture capital of the national common stock. Funds are preferentially used to support grassroots people's entrepreneurship (enterprises will provide returns after making profits), support students' further education (students will provide returns after graduation), urban development, technology research and infrastructure projects...etc. Because the fund is extremely diversified and its risks are extremely diversified, it has the ability to strive for the lowest financing cost for all people. In this plan, all the people share the losses caused by inflation and the profits brought by low-interest financing, which is quite fair and reasonable.

Central banks don't issue debt as currency. They issue fiat currency which is backed by nothing. There are no guarantees and there are no limitations to issuance on credit or other things. Your proposal has the bank issue bonds (that nobody would buy) in exchange for currency (that nobody would give up) to monetise debt (that you don't mention) to pay for things (that are better paid for by taxation).

Reply=The increase in the money supply by the Fed is used to purchase bonds (debt) issued by other institutions (including government debt + corporate bonds + bank bills), so that the Fed's balance sheet can balance its payments, and it also prevents them from overspendingon issue currency.

In this way, if the government increases its debt, it will reduce the future benefits of taxpayers (and increase the tax pressure); the Fed buys corporate bonds and bank bills, and most of the cheap credit actually goes to large corporations and the wealthy class, and they It is not really used to develop the real economy as the Fed expects, but is usually used to speculate on stocks and real estate, resulting in a lot of money flowing into real estate, which indirectly pushes up the housing cost of the real economy and the people, and accelerates the rich and the poor gap!

That's why I have to propose this method to fix the problem! (Suggest the Federal Reserve to give priority to subscribing for the zero-interest long-term bonds of "funds in which all the people also own shares", as one of the policies to stabilize the long-term money supply, decrease the gap and also used to solve the economic crisis)

[HarveyKingdoms]

Not a good attempt, full of filler, and don't have a good grasp on the topic.

Please provide useful help instead of being a keyboard warrior who only talks shit like the CCP's 50 cents

[Kessig Wolf Run]

I highly disagree with the notion of housing the elderly and children together and letting them "take care of each other." I'm not sure the level of care many in those two groups would need has been fully considered? Children simply cannot tend to the needs of their elders the way this proposal seems to be asking them to do.
Both student and elderly need training step by step,

Also the social contribution thing is slightly problematic as well. Allocating housing, food, and even MEDICAL care based on how much one contributes to society? What about disabled people that simply cannot contribute in the ways outlined within? That poses a serious issue of accessibility.
Cant too details because the proposal of WA limited to 5000 words, pls see my answer to Tinhampton


And then there's the matter of this statement: "The educational curriculum is decided by all the people to prevent the dictator's brainwashing education." This almost seems to imply that the leaders of all nations are dictatorial, which is simply untrue due to the various ways nations are led. Perhaps I am misinterpreting that, but it does seem a strangely harsh thing to say.
Just talking about preventing students from being brainwashed by dictators, never saying that all leaders in all countries must also be dictators (maybe the predecessor was, maybe the next, who knows? In my opinion, the current left-leaning thinking in the United States is very serious. The so-called political correctness is to deprive the people of the basic freedom of speech and human rights.).


All that aside, there are a great many provisions in this proposal that simply do not make sense or are reaching too far, from my point of view.

Due to the word limit of WA proposal standard, and my native language is not English, I use Google Translate, so it is difficult to express in detail, and it may be misunderstood. Its better you can point out which part dont make sense or reaching too far, thx a lot!

Oh, no. I understood the language. It was the actual provisions that make no sense to me. Opposed.

[The Orwell Society]

Not a good attempt, full of filler, and don't have a good grasp on the topic.

Please provide useful help instead of being a keyboard warrior who only talks shit like the CCP's 50 cents

Jezus


Anyway, opposed. Saying why would just be repeating what others have already said.

And you all please spoiler or snip all these long posts and replies, it takes more than a minute to scroll down to get to the bottom and we aren't even ten posts away from the next page…

[HarveyKingdoms]

Due to the word limit of WA proposal standard, and my native language is not English, I use Google Translate, so it is difficult to express in detail, and it may be misunderstood. Its better you can point out which part dont make sense or reaching too far, thx a lot!

Oh, no. I understood the language. It was the actual provisions that make no sense to me. Opposed.

Thats mean you still dont understand the true meaning, so Opposed. Otherwise, if you have better idea, pls suggest here. Dont just key something meaningless here.

[Juansonia]

Since it will take a long time to respond to your points, I'll explain how to use the quote tag.

Code: Select all

[quote]This Is An Example of a quote.[/quote]


renders as

This Is An Example of a quote.

Code: Select all

[quote="The Blu Spy from TF2"]He could be you. He could be me. He could even be- [/quote]


renders as

He could be you. He could be me. He could even be-

If you press the "quote" button next to a post, it formats their entire post into a quote from that user.

[Kessig Wolf Run]

Oh. This here.

Nowhere in the real world uses "social contribution point[s] as a substitute for cash." Even if they did, imagine John, a man with 1,200 SCPs. John lives in a home which can only be resided in by people with more than 1,180 SCPs. One day, John drives past a major car accident instead of helping the victims, and loses 50 SCPs. John no longer has enough SCPs to live in his house. John's friend, Sarah, has 800 SCPs. She helped the victims, but only earned 25 SCPs and so cannot swap houses with John. (Assume that all houses are currently occupied and more cannot be immediately built to satisfy John's new requirements. Nobody else has gained or lost any SCPs, and their houses are not at risk.) Where will John live?

I will add to this. And what if the people driving by are unable to assist? Take David for example. David is on his way to the hospital with his wife, who is in labor and in distress. David, by the logic in the proposal, loses points for not helping. Caroline is also driving by. Caroline is an amputee and one of her arms is prosthetic and not high-tech so is not as useful in helping others out of the wreck. Caroline loses points because she cannot help. I won't even begin to start on how untrained bystanders may actually be more harmful to such a situation. What if it isn't just a major car wreck, and also involves a wrecked truck carrying something like Caesium-137, extremely radioactive powder? Could one really expect unprotected bystanders to intervene and risk their lives in order to keep their points? Mine are poor examples, and I'm sure more situations exist, but we cannot expect everyone around us to halt their lives and help if something goes wrong.

Opposed on more than just that, but once again, opposed.

EDITED because I misread who posted that and did not double check. my bad.

[Kessig Wolf Run]

Oh, no. I understood the language. It was the actual provisions that make no sense to me. Opposed.

Thats mean you still dont understand the true meaning, so Opposed. Otherwise, if you have better idea, pls suggest here. Dont just key something meaningless here.

Okay, no. I understood the meaning. I am saying that they do not make sense because a great many of them are too widely reaching and incredibly difficult to implement, as well as likely being more harmful in the long run. I am not "keying something meaningless."

[Tinhampton]

Again - bold (or the paragraphs that start with "Reply") is Harvey, not-bold is me.

No, it isn't. To be clear: If this resolution is enacted as written, Tinhampton will automatically assign 10,000 social contribution points to all Tinhamptonian inhabitants which cannot be transferred between individuals, accrue interest, or be added or removed to.

Nowhere in the real world uses "social contribution point[s] as a substitute for cash." Even if they did, imagine John, a man with 1,200 SCPs. John lives in a home which can only be resided in by people with more than 1,180 SCPs. One day, John drives past a major car accident instead of helping the victims, and loses 50 SCPs. John no longer has enough SCPs to live in his house. John's friend, Sarah, has 800 SCPs. She helped the victims, but only earned 25 SCPs and so cannot swap houses with John. (Assume that all houses are currently occupied and more cannot be immediately built to satisfy John's new requirements. Nobody else has gained or lost any SCPs, and their houses are not at risk.) Where will John live?

The social contribution point system is a "level concept", for example, the top 20% of people are defined as A level, enjoying the highest level of welfare (referring to the priority to enjoy more beautiful public housing units, more choices of food, better access to higher education and medical services); and even the worst grade E (the lowest 20% of the population) can still be allocated a qualifying level of public housing (if they need it), medical and food benefits; of course, in fact I'm referring here to the benefits that subsidized people enjoy in subsidized boarding schools or free nursing homes, and those who are fully self-funded are of course free to enjoy private market services of their choice (their wealth at their disposal, is They contribute to society with their hard work and wisdom/received through trade). The significance of establishing a social contribution point system is another way to encourage everyone to help each other and do more volunteer work (another supplement to free market trading).

Please clarify that "The social contribution point system is a "level concept"" in your proposal. If you cannot, I question the wisdom of leaving it in your proposal. (I still would even if you are able to explain this in your proposal, because of my principles, but this is just a general guideline - just applied to this particular case.)

You say that "a social contribution point system is another way to encourage everyone to help each other and do more volunteer work." Why do you believe that this system is so conducive to "volunteer work" as to deserve promotion over all other systems (such as the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme for under-25s, which is popular in the United Kingdom, the country where I live in the real world)?

Your proposed level system answers my John and Sarah question: John (who was an A-level citizen, for example's sake) just swaps houses with Peter, who was the B-level citizen with the highest social contribution score before the car crash.

You never make either of these points clear in your draft. You do not suggest procedures for rule creation in schools with less than 99 members. Nor do you make clear until Part Three that the Decentralized Autonomous Management System can be used in non-school contexts.

Reply= This system can be applied in many places, such as the fact that I originally recommended this system for Twitter's speech control (99 users who were randomly invited to participate in evaluating whether some questionable speech really needs to be blocked; as to why It is set at 99 because if the number of people is too small, it may not be objective and fair, and if there are too many people, there may be no users who can understand the relevant language and are online and have time to invite relevant users to participate in the evaluation; of course, it is not necessarily 99. name, which can be defined as 0.1% of the platform’s simultaneous online users but the number is between 9-99, etc.). Different schools set up different groups and only accept votes from members of the school (the so-called members include parents of all students, former students of the school, volunteers of the school, and the elderly living in the school's attached nursing home). Because the WA limit can only write a proposal of 5000 words, it cannot be written in too much detail.

Why not just say that schools must take the views of all students, teachers, and parents, or even simply all stakeholders, into account when creating new school rules? Why do you believe that the Decentralized Autonomous Management System, rather than any other system of participatory governance - or even just participatory governance in general - should be implemented by the WA? And why do you include an entire section about your system's application to schools when you already refer to it in Part Three, which would surely be a more logical place to explain how it works?

Then you should emphasise that the training focuses on "survival skills," not that it is "military training" or even "militarized training."

Reply=That's why I put the proposal here, hoping someone can help fix the grammatical errors in Google Translate. The way I check for errors is just to translate from Chinese to English, and then re-translate from English to Chinese again to see if the two translations result in similar content, but this method still seems to have many grammatical errors (this is my limited English proficiency , cannot be analyzed).

Always happy to help!

On the other hand, the designer of this game is too lazy, and should introduce the Wiki method into the WA proposal writing system, directly let all readers discuss below the relevant plan, and directly ask all readers to help correct it (refer to the wiki method)；In fact that, in my conception, the Decentralized Management system , the part of which I mentioned on proposal and vote is to refer to the editing method of [WA proposal game + Wiki like edit], so as to facilitate the public to propose proposals, and also to facilitate the public to assist in revision and discussion, and then Formal public vote.

The forums are an adequate platform to allow "all readers discuss below the relevant plan, and directly ask all readers to help correct it." Once you have implemented their feedback, you can bring your proposal to a "Formal public vote" by campaigning.

Not all children will learn best through use of a "gamified intelligent metaverse app" - or, if I'm thinking about this correctly, Second Life or PlayStation Home but for schools. (The visual/aural/kinaestethic learner paradigm was ruled to be junk science in 2014, around the time my daughter was in school, but the principle that different people best learn differently remains.) If you want to teach "more Strong communication skills," then teach them - don't try and shoehorn in a course about How To Have Sex into your game instead.

Reply=The reasoning behind this scheme is a bit complicated. In fact, it is because of the recent advocacy of political correctness in the United States. I mean the excessive propaganda of "prohibition of discrimination against homosexuality", which has the effect of hypnotizing and brainwashing homosexuality. Therefore, I propose to introduce "sex skills education" into the education of the new generation. ”, the purpose is actually to instill correct sexual concepts in children during adolescence and reduce their exposure to homosexuality (and related ethos), which are always based on congenital genetic defects or mental problems; Homosexuals should be discriminated against, which is equivalent to that we should not discriminate against cancer patients, because each of us also has the opportunity to have cancer cells and lesions. This is also because WA has a word limit, and cannot introduce other articles in the proposal (because the article URL is also included in the word limit), so I did not explain in detail, but only said to strengthen students' communication skills (this includes body language, and sexual skills are one of the body language used to communicate between lovers).
And the education I refer to in my proposal includes university education. During this period, many students are already adults, and some courses in my proposal are actually aimed at adult students (you have to pull in kindergarten students. Say, I have no choice, because of the word limit, it is unlikely that I will also write down the students of different ages for each course).

I am extremely sceptical of your intentions here - if you are correct (and I don't believe you are; this is me being generous), then all students who do not have "congenital genetic defects or mental problems" will not be homosexual and your proposed "sex skills education" will do nothing to promote "correct sexual concepts" or "reduce... exposure to homosexuality." The famous law that was passed in Florida only prohibits discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for certain students, for example, rather than targeting "the excessive propaganda of "prohibition of discrimination against homosexuality", which has the effect of hypnotizing and brainwashing homosexuality."

Also, you cannot include any "article URL" in your proposals because it would violate the rule on real-world references, which will make your proposal illegal.

So you want the printing of money to be guaranteed by a commonly-held bond that earns zero interest, but which will invest in the Mutual Aid Base and other projects, instead of "Low-interest loans from the rich and large corporations"?

Reply=This is a better solution to [save the economic crisis + reduce long-term inflation in the future + reduce the gap between rich and poor + break monopoly + increase domestic real enterprises]. In this concept, most of the new money supply added by the central bank will be used first to provide long-term loans to "all people's investment mutual funds", and then through the fund deposits into the bank's reserve deposits and then indirectly (in the traditional financial system) Loans to other people and the Corp. This allows all people to share part of the interest income through the fund to subsidize the loss of all people "inflation caused by the increase of the money supply by the central bank". I put forward the real purpose of this proposal here. In fact, I want to remind some politicians who also play this game (to their friends/good citizens who will take the initiative to provide opinions to the political party) that this method can be used to solve the economic crisis and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, (And by the way, to promote a decentralized real democracy) to gain more popular support.

You say that the All People's Mutual Fund "will invest on the Research and Entrepreneurship Projects," including ""Mutual Aid Base for the Elderly and Children" (and other projects proposed by shareholders and government)." By doing so, you say that it will also "support currency value and reduce inflation by supporting the real economy and artificial intelligence automated production lines to increase production capacity and push GDP."

I have three questions.
1. Why will the All People's Mutual Fund's investments support "the real economy and artificial intelligence automated production lines," and how will they "increase production capacity and improve GDP?"
2. Why do you believe that the Fund will "reduce long-term inflation in the future + reduce the gap between rich and poor + break monopoly?"
3. What is this "a better solution" than?

Also, why do you want "all sponsored students" to "share 5% of their lifetime income and assets to the fund?" Why can they not just contribute as much or as little as they want, especially given that everybody must a bit of the fund? And how can a student earn sponsorship?

Reply=The current education subsidy policies of most national governments are unfair. They use taxpayers (the wealth of the public) to subsidize a small group of high-quality students to obtain higher education and help that small group of students to achieve higher future income. In fact, others did not benefit directly from it. And the dividend system I set up is to require all students receiving compulsory education to not only return the principal in installments, but also share a portion of their income to give everyone a share of the fund as dividends, so that everyone will also be rewarded because of Investing in educating talents to benefit (actually it just helps to balance the wealth gap, it can also be regarded as a kind of "tax" used to balance the wealth gap, of course it would be better to package it with "investment and return"), which will also encourage More people pay attention to education and talent cultivation, because everyone also participates in the dividend.

If you're being educated for free, there are no loans to pay back by definition. Do you want to impose an income tax and a wealth tax on "all students receiving compulsory education" - also known as everybody? There is a resolution called WA General Fund that bans the WA from requiring member states to impose a tax on every one of their inhabitants.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Central banks don't issue debt as currency. They issue fiat currency which is backed by nothing. There are no guarantees and there are no limitations to issuance on credit or other things. Your proposal has the bank issue bonds (that nobody would buy) in exchange for currency (that nobody would give up) to monetise debt (that you don't mention) to pay for things (that are better paid for by taxation).

Reply=The increase in the money supply by the Fed is used to purchase bonds (debt) issued by other institutions (including government debt + corporate bonds + bank bills), so that the Fed's balance sheet can balance its payments, and it also prevents them from overspendingon issue currency.

In this way, if the government increases its debt, it will reduce the future benefits of taxpayers (and increase the tax pressure); the Fed buys corporate bonds and bank bills, and most of the cheap credit actually goes to large corporations and the wealthy class, and they It is not really used to develop the real economy as the Fed expects, but is usually used to speculate on stocks and real estate, resulting in a lot of money flowing into real estate, which indirectly pushes up the housing cost of the real economy and the people, and accelerates the rich and the poor gap!

That's why I have to propose this method to fix the problem! (Suggest the Federal Reserve to give priority to subscribing for the zero-interest long-term bonds of "funds in which all the people also own shares", as one of the policies to stabilize the long-term money supply, decrease the gap and also used to solve the economic crisis)

This response is fractally wrong or, generously, misleading at least at multiple levels.

The specific open market operations done by the Federal Reserve are not the only way one can create money. It is a specific mechanism which the Federal Reserve does to sterilise its money creation processes. One should not confuse practice with necessity. But beyond that, it's pretty intuitive that quantitative easing (alternatively called large scale asset purchases) positively affected the economy once you consider general equilibrium effects. Eg Montecino & Epstein 2015 and Lenza & Slacalek 2018.

But beyond QE, the proposed mechanism to "solve" the non-existent problem would actually exacerbate the harms which you claim, if your causal mechanism held. "Funds in which all people own shares", if taken to mean broad-based index funds, are commonly known to be held mostly by richer people in retirement accounts. The actual people who are poor do not earn enough money to forego consumption and make asset market purchases. Your impacts also do not follow: printing money to make asset purchases does not stabilise the money supply at all. The implied impact that we want a stable money supply also bites into the harms of bad monetary policy, making it something we wouldn't want in the first place.

---

I have three questions.
1. Why will the All People's Mutual Fund's investments support "the real economy and artificial intelligence automated production lines," and how will they "increase production capacity and improve GDP?"
2. Why do you believe that the Fund will "reduce long-term inflation in the future + reduce the gap between rich and poor + break monopoly?"
3. What is this "a better solution" than?

I imagine that in the author's mind, the mutual fund you have to donate to – in real terms at least, the language is unclear whether you have to donate nominal money or whether it will be taken from you by inflation – will act as some kind of superhuman venture capital fund that will build fully-automated gay space communism. Doing so would expand aggregate supply, reducing price levels (causing deflation or at least disinflation; the latter is bad though). I'll leave it to you to form an opinion as to whether that is plausible.

[Outer Sparta]

Not a good attempt, full of filler, and don't have a good grasp on the topic.

Please provide useful help instead of being a keyboard warrior who only talks shit like the CCP's 50 cents

Oh, so anyone opposed to your crappy proposal (which you obviously don't take criticism to kindly) is apparently a "50-cent army person from the CCP?" That's a new one.

If you want more substantial criticism, you seem to have this all over the place, don't stick to any one topic, and it's generally way too broad and unenforceable to ever be effective law. I'm not even sure what education and pension reform you plan on undertaking.

[Kessig Wolf Run]

Whoa, hold up now.

The reasoning behind this scheme is a bit complicated. In fact, it is because of the recent advocacy of political correctness in the United States. I mean the excessive propaganda of "prohibition of discrimination against homosexuality", which has the effect of hypnotizing and brainwashing homosexuality. Therefore, I propose to introduce "sex skills education" into the education of the new generation. ”, the purpose is actually to instill correct sexual concepts in children during adolescence and reduce their exposure to homosexuality (and related ethos), which are always based on congenital genetic defects or mental problems; Homosexuals should be discriminated against, which is equivalent to that we should not discriminate against cancer patients, because each of us also has the opportunity to have cancer cells and lesions. This is also because WA has a word limit, and cannot introduce other articles in the proposal (because the article URL is also included in the word limit), so I did not explain in detail, but only said to strengthen students' communication skills (this includes body language, and sexual skills are one of the body language used to communicate between lovers).
And the education I refer to in my proposal includes university education. During this period, many students are already adults, and some courses in my proposal are actually aimed at adult students (you have to pull in kindergarten students. Say, I have no choice, because of the word limit, it is unlikely that I will also write down the students of different ages for each course).

Let's break this down a little.

"I mean the excessive propaganda of "prohibition of discrimination against homosexuality", which has the effect of hypnotizing and brainwashing homosexuality."
Firstly, you cannot "brain-wash" someone to be gay. That isn't how it works.
"the purpose is actually to instill correct sexual concepts"
"Correct sexual concepts"? I don't really think there is such a thing unless you mean proper use of consent and safe sexual practices (protection, BC, etc). There is no "correct" sexuality either.
"reduce their exposure to homosexuality (and related ethos), which are always based on congenital genetic defects or mental problems"
This part bothers me severely. Are you... legitimately implying that all gay people are mentally ill? That being gay is a birth defect? That's... I don't even know where to start with that.
"Homosexuals should be discriminated against"
I sincerely hope this is a typo or mistranslation.

"This is also because WA has a word limit, and cannot introduce other articles in the proposal"
While this is a fair point, you can't just use the forum to dump all the parts you cannot include in the proposal. If it isn't written in the proposal, it cannot be taken as part of it, if you understand me. That is not how proposals work.

[Goobergunchia]

The reasoning behind this scheme is a bit complicated. In fact, it is because of the recent advocacy of political correctness in the United States. I mean the excessive propaganda of "prohibition of discrimination against homosexuality", which has the effect of hypnotizing and brainwashing homosexuality. Therefore, I propose to introduce "sex skills education" into the education of the new generation. ”, the purpose is actually to instill correct sexual concepts in children during adolescence and reduce their exposure to homosexuality (and related ethos), which are always based on congenital genetic defects or mental problems; Homosexuals should be discriminated against, which is equivalent to that we should not discriminate against cancer patients, because each of us also has the opportunity to have cancer cells and lesions. This is also because WA has a word limit, and cannot introduce other articles in the proposal (because the article URL is also included in the word limit), so I did not explain in detail, but only said to strengthen students' communication skills (this includes body language, and sexual skills are one of the body language used to communicate between lovers).

Please provide useful help instead of being a keyboard warrior who only talks shit like the CCP's 50 cents

"All homosexuals are physically or mentally ill" is trolling. The "keyboard warrior" comment, delivered OOC, is flaming. Knock it off.

Goobergunchia
Game Moderator

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Reply=The reasoning behind this scheme is a bit complicated. In fact, it is because of the recent advocacy of political correctness in the United States. I mean the excessive propaganda of "prohibition of discrimination against homosexuality", which has the effect of hypnotizing and brainwashing homosexuality. Therefore, I propose to introduce "sex skills education" into the education of the new generation. ”, the purpose is actually to instill correct sexual concepts in children during adolescence and reduce their exposure to homosexuality (and related ethos), which are always based on congenital genetic defects or mental problems; Homosexuals should be discriminated against, which is equivalent to that we should not discriminate against cancer patients, because each of us also has the opportunity to have cancer cells and lesions.

OOC: Nonsense aside (as a supporter of The Gay Agenda™), see GA#91, GA#457, and GA#603