Advertisement
by Bears Armed » Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:26 am
by Havendes Forvenson » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:02 am
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:08 am
Havendes Forvenson wrote:The Tax of Havendes Forvenson is interested as to how this does not already overlap with local laws regarding the counterfeiting of currency, even if the currency in question is local or not.
As for the possible use of counterfeit currency to destabilise other Nations, Havendes Forvenson believes that this would be covered under local anti-smuggling and counterfeiting laws.
Overall the Tax of Havendes Forvenson see limited use in this resolution and will not support it.
by Bears Armed » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:59 am
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:41 am
Bears Armed wrote:How about an exemption for when the nations concerned are actually at war with each other? It seems rather silly that nations actively trying to kill each other's troops and [maybeso] to bomb each other's cities wouldn't be allowed to try destabilising each other's currencies too...
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:04 am
Hakio wrote:"Sujabi!" Sia Hedishi exclaims in Haki, "Excellent, you do not know how wonderful it is for me to finally see something professional again in this Assembly! This is a really well written draft that I wholeheartedly support. The only stumble I can find on this first draft that stands out to me is the lack of a definition for the crime of 'counterfeiting', which I would recommend adding in a thorough and thought out manner. Other than that, well done. You have made my day."
Flamels Stone wrote:''I find it wonderful that you gave it a go ambassador! And this is beautifully written and clear(at least for me). I have no objections and see no mistakes, but I am new to this so my opinion doesn't hold much value.''''I know I need to include non-state businesses instead of just member states in Clause 1, but I'm finding the wording somewhat illusive.''
''Again, I mention my (lack of) experience but I'll try to help in this matter. How about a sub-clause referring to non-members?''
1. Member states are henceforth required to outlaw the counterfeiting of foreign currency, or the direct support of such, with the intention of releasing it as legal tender into the market to devalue or otherwise defraud another member state.
1.a) All nations are strongly urged to do as/what member states are required to do in clause 1. (compact)
1.a) All nations are strongly urged to outlaw the counterfeiting of foreign currency, or the direct support of such, with the intention of releasing it as legal tender into the market to devalue or otherwise defraud another member state. (extensive)
[OOC:Maybe I missunderstood what you meant on the quote, if so correct me. Also, i don't know what you mean with preambulatory clauses, i shall research on the matter.]
[EDIT/OOC:Done...can't help alot but i think a few things should be changed in the existing ones:
Recognizing the negative impact of counterfeit currency operations on(member states)nations;<--ends with ;
If your going to mention non-members on the 1st clause ,the preambulatory clauses should include them, i believe.
Realizing such actions not only degrade value of and trust in currency within nations, but also obstruct free trade and damage relations between(national)economic partners,<--ends with ,
They should both end with the same ponctuation.
As always ,corrections are always welcome]
by Defwa » Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:19 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Bears Armed wrote:How about an exemption for when the nations concerned are actually at war with each other? It seems rather silly that nations actively trying to kill each other's troops and [maybeso] to bomb each other's cities wouldn't be allowed to try destabilising each other's currencies too...
"As hesitant as I am to allow it, I can honestly see no compelling counter-argument on that front. Existing in a declared state of war, which is little more then an overt statement to destroy as much of the enemy's national sovereignty as possible, at least informs other nations well enough for them to prepare. Such is a different creature entirely from destabilizing a nation during peacetime. Alright, such an exception can be added in the next draft."
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:17 am
Defwa wrote:I would be concerned about those with shared currencies uninvolved in whatever war and the potential disproportionate impact on civilians.
That said, in my own draft, a state of war allows nations to bombard civilians with large debris from orbit so I guess I can't really justify restricting economic warfare.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:02 am
Defwa wrote:I would be concerned about those with shared currencies uninvolved in whatever war and the potential disproportionate impact on civilians.
That said, in my own draft, a state of war allows nations to bombard civilians with large debris from orbit so I guess I can't really justify restricting economic warfare.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:00 pm
by Flamels Stone » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:50 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:48 pm
Flamels Stone wrote:I have two concerns:
Should it be specified that nations which don't have physical curency(E.G.:digital only currency) are not afected by this proposal(or maybe they are, correct me if wrong).
Is this within the caracter limit?(I don't actualy know how many caracters are allowed, it just looks "big")
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:56 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:1. Except in the case of declared war, member states are henceforth required to outlaw the counterfeiting of foreign currency with the intention of releasing it as legal tender into the market to devalue currency or otherwise defraud another member state.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:29 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:48 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"The added term "or otherwise defraud" comes into play in such an instance, ambassador. Theoretically, producing any unbacked banknote and using it defrauds somebody. Unless said Megawampum was officially backed by the Brog...Brogdi...the other government, you'd still be defrauding somebody, ultimately the Brog-something government, as theirs are the resources ultimately backing such a note. I realize the example is rather paper currency-centric, but it's the simplest example available, currently. Does that absolve your concern?"
? ?1. Except in the case of declared war, member states are henceforth required to outlaw the counterfeiting of foreign currency [full stop]
by Wrapper » Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:15 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:the presence of the words following "foreign currency" make it seem like there's some imagined loophole that it's your intent to keep open.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:03 pm
Wrapper wrote:We the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper don't understand why, in the case of declared war, it shouldn't be illegal to counterfeit the opponent's money. Dealing with the aftereffects of war is bad enough on civilians, and now you want to legally devalue their currency as well? Help me understand why we should allow this, Ambassador.
OOC: Just for fun I looked up some past instances of counterfeiting during wartime. Found some interesting tidbits about wartime counterfeiting by the British (American Revolution), the Nazis (WWII) and the US (Vietnam). Learn something new every day!Sierra Lyricalia wrote:the presence of the words following "foreign currency" make it seem like there's some imagined loophole that it's your intent to keep open.
Actually, as we read it, such wording would exempt the foreign production of items that can be used in a barter system-based economy. Make all the chewing gum you want, Ambassador, and spend it in our country, please!
by Wrapper » Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:24 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"As for your concern about wartime, Ari, I can't see much reason not to ban it. Post-conflict, it's easy to change the currency enough to stop the fakes from circulating (OOC: Great Britian and the German counterfeits from WWII spring to mind), and is but one weapon in a vast arsenal of economic options. It's rather like banning a 30-30 caliber round from war and leaving all other variants of .30 caliber and 7.62mm rounds untouched. Since it has some strategic value, I'm inclined to leave it unless I can be sufficiently swayed."
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:27 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Wrapper wrote:...as we read it, such wording would exempt the foreign production of items that can be used in a barter system-based economy. Make all the chewing gum you want, Ambassador, and spend it in our country, please!
"The Wads have the right of it, Ambassador Zakalwe, and put it better then I could have. I feel that stockpiling counterfeits is of limited use unless kept absolutely, completely secret, and has no real impact in the mean time, as well as being less then cost-effective.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:19 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:27 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
That addresses that, then. It might be useful to add "computers" or "design or programming equipment" or an "of whatever kind" to Paragraph 5, to encompass the forging of electronic currency such as ByteCoins, and/or to make clear that counterfeiters' design and imaging tools are also subject to confiscation, and not just the dies, mills, hammers, and printing presses.
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Another thought occurred to me, Mr. Bell: is the Secretariat likely to implement this as a Free Trade proposal? I was under the impression that category is reserved exclusively for resolutions that reduce regulations; while this introduces regulations and prohibits an entire class of (destructive, detrimental, and deficient ethically, but still) economic activity. I agree that its overall effect will be to benefit economies of nations in particular and of the world/multiverse at large in general; but it doesn't technically slash tariffs or repress labor movements or cut discretionary spending. Since the gnomes still believe the old bankers' lie that regulation is per se antagonistic to economic health, and not its sine qua non, this resolution might be more in line (from a strictly technical perspective) with International Security / Mild, or (stretching) Political Stability.
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
by Bears Armed » Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:58 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Another thought occurred to me, Mr. Bell: is the Secretariat likely to implement this as a Free Trade proposal? I was under the impression that category is reserved exclusively for resolutions that reduce regulations;
by Balenderg » Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:21 pm
by Wrapper » Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:30 am
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:33 am
Balenderg wrote:Wait, I tried to make something like this awhile back, and you (and a bunch of other people) shot it down and said it was an awful idea from the start!
Link: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=309242&hilit=Counterfeit
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement