[Draft] On International Currency

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

"How exactly would this affect those with alternative forms of currency? The Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems have adopted two forms of currency; Credits, which are used in base commerce and trade, and Maza. Maza is not a currency one trades for grain or starship fuel, but for intangible services and spiritual matters. One might gift a medicine man with Maza for assistance with a spiritual journey, or a clan chief for taking special consideration for a troubled family member in conflict with the clan laws, though one never charges Maza." Standing Feather looked horrified at the prospect, and Black Eagle nodded emphatically.

"If you are gifting Maza, it isn't a transaction. It's be at best a donation. At any rate, I don't see how something never used to buy anything could be considered a currency."

"This proposal would require an exchange rate between this World Assembly currency and our Maza, which would be a travesty for our spiritual beliefs."

"And why exactly would that be a travesty? Plus, as mentioned, I wouldn't consider Maza a currency."

"It is our national currency, and despite not being charged, is still used as an exchange for particular spiritual services. Much like tipping is not illegal, but a social taboo for many, failure to offer Maza is a great social taboo for us. It is treated and meets the specifications, for all purposes, as a currency, regardless of what you perceive it to be."

[Excidium Planetis]

"If you are gifting Maza, it isn't a transaction. It's be at best a donation. At any rate, I don't see how something never used to buy anything could be considered a currency."


"And why exactly would that be a travesty? Plus, as mentioned, I wouldn't consider Maza a currency."

"It is our national currency, and despite not being charged, is still used as an exchange for particular spiritual services. Much like tipping is not illegal, but a social taboo for many, failure to offer Maza is a great social taboo for us. It is treated and meets the specifications, for all purposes, as a currency, regardless of what you perceive it to be."

"Ambassador, the word 'currency' has meaning. Currency is 'a system of money in general use in a particular country'. Maza, by your own admission, is not in general use. It is not used for food or starship fuel or uranium mining equipment, but only for spiritual services, and thus is not in general use. For the same reason that Warp Drive-thru's Buy One Get One Free coupons are not currency despite being exchanged for burgers, your Maza is not a currency despite being exchanged for spiritual services."

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

"It is our national currency, and despite not being charged, is still used as an exchange for particular spiritual services. Much like tipping is not illegal, but a social taboo for many, failure to offer Maza is a great social taboo for us. It is treated and meets the specifications, for all purposes, as a currency, regardless of what you perceive it to be."

"Ambassador, the word 'currency' has meaning. Currency is 'a system of money in general use in a particular country'. Maza, by your own admission, is not in general use. It is not used for food or starship fuel or uranium mining equipment, but only for spiritual services, and thus is not in general use. For the same reason that Warp Drive-thru's Buy One Get One Free coupons are not currency despite being exchanged for burgers, your Maza is not a currency despite being exchanged for spiritual services."

"Maza is for intangible services. Legal assistance, for example, is intangible, yet compensation is paid for it in most nations such as ours. It is currency, it is used as currency, albeit a specific kind, and your, frankly poorly considered resolution reduces what is to us a sacred exchange to base commerce. Your insistence that our currency is somehow not currency is not only insulting, it is flat out incorrect." Black Eagle replies venomously. "The spiritual examples were just that: examples, though examples of legal services were offered. Now, would you like to try again in a somewhat less insulting manner, or will we have to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about?"


Standing Feather lays a calming hand on Black Eagle's shoulder, "Peace, grandson. Ambassador, my grandson is correct. While Maza has a spiritual component, it is used for intangible services such as certain medical and legal services. Our chiefs are the lawmakers in our tribes, and serve a position most akin to a mediator and judge in disputes. For this, they are compensated in Maza. Unless you wish to exclude currency used to compensate lawyers, lawmakers, psychologists and therapists, and priests, our Maza is just as much a currency as any other. Black Eagle is also correct that claiming our currency system is not a legitimate currency system because it is different than yours is very insulting. Certainly, the Cheyenne and Arapaho wouldn't claim your money is not money because it lacks the same cultural significance as our own, and if we did, you would likely perceive that as a challenge to your legitimacy as a nation."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Ambassador, the word 'currency' has meaning. Currency is 'a system of money in general use in a particular country'. Maza, by your own admission, is not in general use. It is not used for food or starship fuel or uranium mining equipment, but only for spiritual services, and thus is not in general use. For the same reason that Warp Drive-thru's Buy One Get One Free coupons are not currency despite being exchanged for burgers, your Maza is not a currency despite being exchanged for spiritual services."

"Maza is for intangible services. Legal assistance, for example, is intangible, yet compensation is paid for it in most nations such as ours. It is currency, it is used as currency, albeit a specific kind, and your, frankly poorly considered resolution reduces what is to us a sacred exchange to base commerce. Your insistence that our currency is somehow not currency is not only insulting, it is flat out incorrect." Black Eagle replies venomously. "The spiritual examples were just that: examples, though examples of legal services were offered. Now, would you like to try again in a somewhat less insulting manner, or will we have to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about?"


Standing Feather lays a calming hand on Black Eagle's shoulder, "Peace, grandson. Ambassador, my grandson is correct. While Maza has a spiritual component, it is used for intangible services such as certain medical and legal services. Our chiefs are the lawmakers in our tribes, and serve a position most akin to a mediator and judge in disputes. For this, they are compensated in Maza. Unless you wish to exclude currency used to compensate lawyers, lawmakers, psychologists and therapists, and priests, our Maza is just as much a currency as any other. Black Eagle is also correct that claiming our currency system is not a legitimate currency system because it is different than yours is very insulting. Certainly, the Cheyenne and Arapaho wouldn't claim your money is not money because it lacks the same cultural significance as our own, and if we did, you would likely perceive that as a challenge to your legitimacy as a nation."

"With all due respect, Ambassador Standing Feather, I did not call your 'currency' not a currency because of its use in buying non-tangible services, nor because it is different than mine. I called it not a currency because it fails to meet the definition of currency. As stated, currency is a system of money in general use. Because your Maza is limited to only non-tangible services, and it is not in general use, that is, it is not general-purpose, Maza thus cannot, by definition, be a currency. It has nothing to do with cultural significance an everything to do with what currency actually is. Naming something a currency doesn't make it one.

"To use an example: Many nations issue food stamps. These are usually used to purchase food, although I have heard of other things being purchased with them as well. However, food stamps are not currency, because they are not in general use. They are limited in what they can be exchanged for.

"I would not perceive it as a challenge to my nation's legitimacy if you called the Excidian Credit not a currency. I would perceive it as you lacking a basic understanding of vocabulary."

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

"With all due respect, Ambassador Standing Feather, I did not call your 'currency' not a currency because of its use in buying non-tangible services, nor because it is different than mine. I called it not a currency because it fails to meet the definition of currency. As stated, currency is a system of money in general use. Because your Maza is limited to only non-tangible services, and it is not in general use, that is, it is not general-purpose, Maza thus cannot, by definition, be a currency. It has nothing to do with cultural significance an everything to do with what currency actually is. Naming something a currency doesn't make it one.

"To use an example: Many nations issue food stamps. These are usually used to purchase food, although I have heard of other things being purchased with them as well. However, food stamps are not currency, because they are not in general use. They are limited in what they can be exchanged for.

"Funny, ambassador, by that definition, anything of value that can be sufficiently traded for goods would be a currency, regardless of government issue or regulation. Last I checked, the actual definition of currency had little to do with it's general purpose use, but a medium of exchange. I suppose if you wanted to rewrite the dictionary, you could force the word to mean something it doesn't mean, but I hear that that's pretty poor form here.

"Maza is not currency because we call it that, Maza is currency because it is a medium of exchange. Furthering your inane requirements for a currency, our credits, which cannot purchase you a wide variety of necessary but intangible services in our community, is also not money, as it fails to fulfill certain functions. This opens up several issues, the first being that you've now required that governments like my own accept currency for which there exists no exchange, both of our examples being insufficient for your purposes. This, of course, seriously damages economies, something the voters will not like if it happens to be publicized after submission.

"Secondly, if all that is required to exempt one's currency from this resolution, provided you tie IS acceptance to a necessary exchange rate, is to have one's currency unable to perform literally all available monetary tasks in a society, then nations would be able to exploit that weakness to avoid utilizing the IS. If you do not add establishment of an exchange rate as a prerequisite to acceptance of the IS, then you have a situation as outlined above: a damaged economic model where one is forced to accept worthless money."

"I would not perceive it as a challenge to my nation's legitimacy if you called the Excidian Credit not a currency. I would perceive it as you lacking a basic understanding of vocabulary."

"Forgive this old Indian's poor grasp on your civilized vocabulary, but by your definition of general-purpose:

general-purpose
[jen-er-uh l-pur-puh s]
adjective
1.
useful in many ways; not limited in use or function:
a good general-purpose dictionary.

"It doesn't require universal function, simply useful in many ways. To use only the second part of that definition would invalidate anything with any sort of limitation. Maza is useful in many ways. By your own definition, it is general-purpose, or in general use. So, we can go back to your tactic of ignoring actual uses of words, which I find puzzling, or you can admit that Maza is, in fact, a currency. Which brings me back to my first point: how on earth will spiritually worthless IS exchange with Maza?"

[Excidium Planetis]

"With all due respect, Ambassador Standing Feather, I did not call your 'currency' not a currency because of its use in buying non-tangible services, nor because it is different than mine. I called it not a currency because it fails to meet the definition of currency. As stated, currency is a system of money in general use. Because your Maza is limited to only non-tangible services, and it is not in general use, that is, it is not general-purpose, Maza thus cannot, by definition, be a currency. It has nothing to do with cultural significance an everything to do with what currency actually is. Naming something a currency doesn't make it one.

"To use an example: Many nations issue food stamps. These are usually used to purchase food, although I have heard of other things being purchased with them as well. However, food stamps are not currency, because they are not in general use. They are limited in what they can be exchanged for.

"Funny, ambassador, by that definition, anything of value that can be sufficiently traded for goods would be a currency, regardless of government issue or regulation. Last I checked, the actual definition of currency had little to do with it's general purpose use, but a medium of exchange. I suppose if you wanted to rewrite the dictionary, you could force the word to mean something it doesn't mean, but I hear that that's pretty poor form here.

"Maza is not currency because we call it that, Maza is currency because it is a medium of exchange.

"The term 'medium of exchange' also has a definition: 'An intermediary instrument used to facilitate the sale, purchase or trade of goods between parties'. Your Maza cannot be used to facilitate the sale, purchase, or trade of goods, and thus is not a medium of exchange. It is not a currency either!

"And I see you've rather conveniently neglected to address the issue of mediums of exchange... Such as foodstamps and coupons previously mentioned, that are not currencies. They can be used to facilitate the sale, purchase, or trade of goods, and are not currency. Why? Because currency must be general use. A secondary definition of currency is 'the fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use'. General use is implied by the word currency."

"Furthering your inane requirements for a currency, our credits, which cannot purchase you a wide variety of necessary but intangible services in our community, is also not money, as it fails to fulfill certain functions."

" I have no doubt your Credits are money, but whether they are currency is debatable. The two are not actually synonyms. Money refers to coins or notes, which are often used as currency but not necessarily so.

"Now, your Credits are certainly a medium of exchange. They can be used to facilitate trade of goods. But whether or not they have GE eral use is questionable. I would argue that as a medium of exchange (facilitating trade) they have general use, unless there are some goods that cannot be purchased with Credits. As long as all goods can be purchased with Credits, they are a general use medium of exchange."

"This opens up several issues, the first being that you've now required that governments like my own accept currency for which there exists no exchange, both of our examples being insufficient for your purposes."

"Indeed not. No nation is required to have a currency. If yours does not have one, they do not need to have a currency, nor do they need to accept IS, as the resolution clearly states IS must be accepted in all transaction where a national currency is accepted, and you would have no national currency accepted in any transaction."

"Secondly, if all that is required to exempt one's currency from this resolution, provided you tie IS acceptance to a necessary exchange rate, is to have one's currency unable to perform literally all available monetary tasks in a society,

" Not all available tasks, just all trade of goods."

then nations would be able to exploit that weakness to avoid utilizing the IS.

"Why would you want to do that?"

"I would not perceive it as a challenge to my nation's legitimacy if you called the Excidian Credit not a currency. I would perceive it as you lacking a basic understanding of vocabulary."

"Forgive this old Indian's poor grasp on your civilized vocabulary, but by your definition of general-purpose:

general-purpose
[jen-er-uh l-pur-puh s]
adjective
1.
useful in many ways; not limited in use or function:
a good general-purpose dictionary.

"It doesn't require universal function, simply useful in many ways. To use only the second part of that definition would invalidate anything with any sort of limitation. Maza is useful in many ways. By your own definition, it is general-purpose, or in general use. So, we can go back to your tactic of ignoring actual uses of words, which I find puzzling, or you can admit that Maza is, in fact, a currency. Which brings me back to my first point: how on earth will spiritually worthless IS exchange with Maza?"

"First of all, as pointed out, Maza cannot be a currency because it isn't a medium of exchange.

"Second, it is arguable that it is 'useful in many ways'. Purchasing spiritual services or legal counsel is hardly 'many ways', and the first is not considered 'useful' by a great many citizens in a great many WA nations."

[Potted Plants United]

"The term 'medium of exchange' also has a definition: 'An intermediary instrument used to facilitate the sale, purchase or trade of goods between parties'. Your Maza cannot be used to facilitate the sale, purchase, or trade of goods, and thus is not a medium of exchange. It is not a currency either!"

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"You would, with your definitions, also exclude our currency, the Fractal Leaf. Our fractal leaves are our only tangible currency, but each is a singular masterpiece, perfectly preserved for only a given time, unless placed in stasis or other form of storage that prevents the image from fading as the leaf dies. We gift our currency in a manner very similar to Maza, for services we place extraordinary value on, or simply because an individual has earned our gratitude.

The oxygen generated in photosynthesis by our selves that have been dedicated to the task, is released into the ventilation system of this building, and is what pays our office rent, electric and water needs, would you call oxygen a currency?

Our Araraukarian friends have given us land area on their soil to grow products that we hope to one day sell commercially; we repay them by helping them preserve and revive plant species that have all but gone extinct in their country. What would you count as currency in that transaction? The seeds we produce artificially for other plant species?

If one day we do start commercial sales, the proceedings from those will go directly to the General Fund as our donations to the WA. What currency will those¹ be counted in, then? You also completely ignore the fact that there are many nations that do not use a hard currency at all, but exist entirely on bartering, or trading services, or honor, or any other system that does not fit your rigid definitions. Will you be forcing them to choose a currency² just to be compliant with this?"

OOC:
¹The storefront prices would be in NSD because that's how storefronts work. That doesn't mean that NSD exists as a universal currency in the IC world of WA.

²Which is what would likely make this illegal for metagaming and is one reason why "no universal currency" rule exists.

Purchasing spiritual services or legal counsel is hardly 'many ways', and the first is not considered 'useful' by a great many citizens in a great many WA nations."

OOC: Lol, care to back that up? At least OOCly churches seem to be doing well, monetarily. I don't think people would give them money if they didn't think they were useful to them somehow.

OOC EDIT: Only just noticed this one now for some reason.

"Indeed not. No nation is required to have a currency. If yours does not have one, they do not need to have a currency, nor do they need to accept IS, as the resolution clearly states IS must be accepted in all transaction where a national currency is accepted, and you would have no national currency accepted in any transaction."

Ah, so, optional. Illegal, then. Especially if you tie it to the GF, which even nations with no currencies manage to pay their dues to. PPU's IC explanation for them doing that without using their factual currency has been offsetting their costs (and then some) with the oxygen they generate for WAHQ uses. I'm sure other currencyless nations have their IC explanations too.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: It's hard to see how the optionality issue can be solved without the currency becoming a mandatory universal currency which would also be illegal. And that leaves aside the exchange rate issue which I still can't get my head around.

I can also see other practical problems. Like, how would the GAO issue this currency? What happens when the full amount is already issued but, say, someone is due interest on an IS deposit in a bank? What happens when the value of the general fund fluctuates from year to year? Do the GAO gnomes head out and seize and destroy IS currency in circulation or on deposit in order to bring the total value back in line with half of the general fund or just reduce the value of each unit of IS in circulation? If it's reduce the value of what's in circulation, it's hard to see how the arse just doesn't fall out of it: if the value of each individual unit can be arbitrarily cut, then people will not want to deal in it or hold it at all due to potential losses.

I also can't see how a currency can hold any value when it is not supported by a central bank with control of monetary policy. Regarding fiscal policy and its effects on the value of currency, the euro is already a cautionary tale of a one size fits all currency with a central bank in control of monetary policy but without a central political power in control of fiscal policy.

And all that leaves aside the additional costs to businesses of having to accept the damn thing. Of course there is nothing in the proposal that says they must offer a fair exchange rate, and they could just charge multiples of the actual exchange rate to cover them for the hassle of having to accept it all: EG let's say the rate is B£10 = IS1. Joe goes into the shop and buys a widget that is priced at B£10. He only has ISs in his pocket so he pays with them. The shopkeeper charges him double: IS2. There's diddly squat Jo can do about it other than walking away without his widget. This is after all exactly what banks do: IE they cover their costs by buying and selling forex at rates above or below the actual rate.

I really, really can't see this ever getting off the ground. Even if it is legal, it is too much of an imposition on member states and far too much interference in national economies. Ofc it is also a contradiction of the forgotten resolution but that's likely irrelevant now!

Of course I would also love to see some economist parse through the proposal and the various issues raised in the thread and give an opinion as to just how feasible the whole thing is.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

First of all, I see a lot of problems with this resolution. However, I see the intent of the resolution and I think it can be adjusted to actually work.

Do we need an "International Currency?" ... Probably not.
Do we need a "Reserve Currency?" ... We might, rabbit, we might.

A reserve currency (or anchor currency) is a currency that is held in significant quantities by governments and institutions as part of their foreign exchange reserves. The reserve currency is commonly used in international transactions and often considered a hard currency or safe-haven currency.

If we have a non national reserve currency should it be fiat? ... HELL NO.

DEFINITION of 'Fiat Money' Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but is not backed by a physical commodity. The value of fiat money is derived from the relationship between supply and demand rather than the value of the material that the money is made of.

Yes, nations can have fiat currency because they can tax people to get that value back. In fact, the abundance of fiat currency, which causes inflation is sometimes known as a stealth tax. But we can't do that as the World Assembly (well we shouldn't do that, this is at a level of argument that might just be ignored). So the "Reserve Currency" needs to be a reserve in the fullest sense of the word, back by hard assets.

Once this is done, everything falls into the rules. If we take the odd fantasy place of the Real World, people in England don't particularly care that their international transactions for oil is done in US Dollars; they just pay for it with British Pounds like any other commodity. (Mind you it has a major impact on the US Dollar, since it is a fiat currency based on supply and demand but the WA itself has no "economy" and if it is not fiat then the use of the currency as reserve doesn't change the economic nature of the currency itself since it is valued on hard assets.)

[Excidium Planetis]

"The term 'medium of exchange' also has a definition: 'An intermediary instrument used to facilitate the sale, purchase or trade of goods between parties'. Your Maza cannot be used to facilitate the sale, purchase, or trade of goods, and thus is not a medium of exchange. It is not a currency either!"

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"You would, with your definitions, also exclude our currency, the Fractal Leaf. Our fractal leaves are our only tangible currency, but each is a singular masterpiece, perfectly preserved for only a given time, unless placed in stasis or other form of storage that prevents the image from fading as the leaf dies. We gift our currency in a manner very similar to Maza, for services we place extraordinary value on, or simply because an individual has earned our gratitude.

The oxygen generated in photosynthesis by our selves that have been dedicated to the task, is released into the ventilation system of this building, and is what pays our office rent, electric and water needs, would you call oxygen a currency?

Our Araraukarian friends have given us land area on their soil to grow products that we hope to one day sell commercially; we repay them by helping them preserve and revive plant species that have all but gone extinct in their country. What would you count as currency in that transaction? The seeds we produce artificially for other plant species?

If one day we do start commercial sales, the proceedings from those will go directly to the General Fund as our donations to the WA. What currency will those¹ be counted in, then? You also completely ignore the fact that there are many nations that do not use a hard currency at all, but exist entirely on bartering, or trading services, or honor, or any other system that does not fit your rigid definitions. Will you be forcing them to choose a currency² just to be compliant with this?"

"Well, obviously Potted Plants lack the ability to read proposals."

OOC:
¹The storefront prices would be in NSD because that's how storefronts work. That doesn't mean that NSD exists as a universal currency in the IC world of WA.

²Which is what would likely make this illegal for metagaming and is one reason why "no universal currency" rule exists.

OOC: No, like, seriously, what are you talking about? This proposal doesn't mention NSD, doesn't mention storefronts, and sure as hell doesn't metagame. Do you see any references to the game? Anything that would force players to do something OOC?

Purchasing spiritual services or legal counsel is hardly 'many ways', and the first is not considered 'useful' by a great many citizens in a great many WA nations."

OOC: Lol, care to back that up? At least OOCly churches seem to be doing well, monetarily. I don't think people would give them money if they didn't think they were useful to them somehow.

Real life =/= WA nations. And at any rate, there are a great deal of WA nations with no regard for religion or paying for spiritual services.

OOC EDIT: Only just noticed this one now for some reason.

"Indeed not. No nation is required to have a currency. If yours does not have one, they do not need to have a currency, nor do they need to accept IS, as the resolution clearly states IS must be accepted in all transaction where a national currency is accepted, and you would have no national currency accepted in any transaction."

Ah, so, optional. Illegal, then. Especially if you tie it to the GF, which even nations with no currencies manage to pay their dues to. PPU's IC explanation for them doing that without using their factual currency has been offsetting their costs (and then some) with the oxygen they generate for WAHQ uses. I'm sure other currencyless nations have their IC explanations too.

No, it isn't illegal for optionality. First of all, thus proposal establishes (non-optional) the International Standard, requires (non-optional) the GAO to issue currency, and mandates (non-optional) that the World Assembly accept IS.

Furthermore, for all nations that use a national currency (IE: Most nations), they are required (non-optional) to accept IS in all transactions.

Saying the proposal is optional because not all nations have currencies is ridiculous. You might as well say SPA was optional because not all nations have humans.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: EP, you're being just over-the-top with the rudeness. Its pretty far beyond snark. Give it a rest, will ya, or somebody might decide to campaign against this in protest.

Edit: maybe I'm reading too much into it and everything is fine, but it seems a bit aggressively rude.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: It's hard to see how the optionality issue can be solved without the currency becoming a mandatory universal currency which would also be illegal.

Uh, the resolution is not optional but still allows nations to issue their own currencies?

And that leaves aside the exchange rate issue which I still can't get my head around.

Bears Armed had a rather great idea for how exchange rates would be decided. Since the IS is based on the value of the General Fund, and the GAO must have some way of comparing every currency dumped into the General Fund in order to be able to use those funds, the GAO should already have the ability to compare every currency to each other, and then base the IS on the collective value of the General Fund...

That sounds really confusing, actually. You get the idea, right?

I can also see other practical problems. Like, how would the GAO issue this currency?

Already in the proposal:

The GAO shall establish currency exchanges in member nations requesting them, and on WA property, which shall be the sole method of distribution of IS into circulation.

What happens when the full amount is already issued but, say, someone is due interest on an IS deposit in a bank?

The bank goes bankrupt? I don't know. What happena in real life when a bank owes interest but doesn't have the money to pay it?

What happens when the value of the general fund fluctuates from year to year?

The value of the IS fluctuates. Like most currencies.

Do the GAO gnomes head out and seize and destroy IS currency in circulation or on deposit in order to bring the total value back in line with half of the general fund or just reduce the value of each unit of IS in circulation?

The value is reduced.

[/quote]If it's reduce the value of what's in circulation, it's hard to see how the arse just doesn't fall out of it: if the value of each individual unit can be arbitrarily cut, then people will not want to deal in it or hold it at all due to potential losses.[/quote]
The value of any fiat currency can be arbitrarily cut. The government just needs to print more money and therefore cause inflation.

I also can't see how a currency can hold any value when it is not supported by a central bank with control of monetary policy.

The GAO has control of the monetary policy...sort of. They are limited by the value of the General Fund, which is in direct control of the individual donating nations.

Regarding fiscal policy and its effects on the value of currency, the euro is already a cautionary tale of a one size fits all currency with a central bank in control of monetary policy but without a central political power in control of fiscal policy.

So if people don't like the IS, then why would they use it? If they fear drops in value, wouldn't citizens and merchants switch to using their own national currencies?

The advantage IS has over the Euro is that the Euro forces Eurozone nations to use the Euro and nothing but the Euro. This proposal forces nations to accept (but not necessarily use) the IS, but still allows the use of national currencies.

And all that leaves aside the additional costs to businesses of having to accept the damn thing.

And that leaves aside the lowered costs of not having to exchange currencies of a million foreign nations, when the IS allows nations to only ever have to use two when dealing with WA nations: their own, and IS.

Of course there is nothing in the proposal that says they must offer a fair exchange rate, and they could just charge multiples of the actual exchange rate to cover them for the hassle of having to accept it all: EG let's say the rate is B£10 = IS1. Joe goes into the shop and buys a widget that is priced at B£10. He only has ISs in his pocket so he pays with them. The shopkeeper charges him double: IS2. There's diddly squat Jo can do about it other than walking away without his widget. This is after all exactly what banks do: IE they cover their costs by buying and selling forex at rates above or below the actual rate.

Good point. I don't see what to do about that though. I could mandate that businesses must charge the equivalent IS cost as the local currency cost, but then businesses would have to know the current value of the IS in comparison to their local currency 24/7.

I really, really can't see this ever getting off the ground. Even if it is legal, it is too much of an imposition on member states and far too much interference in national economies.

Funny, Bears Armed suggested I change it to Mild.
Which is it, Mild or too much of an imposition? It can't be both.

Ofc it is also a contradiction of the forgotten resolution but that's likely irrelevant now!

What resolution?

Of course I would also love to see some economist parse through the proposal and the various issues raised in the thread and give an opinion as to just how feasible the whole thing is.

If you know one, please get them over here.

[Bananaistan]

<snip>

Re: the value issues. So what's going to happen is that the total value of all IS in issue is limited to a set amount. Let's say, the bank that's due to pay interest has plenty of funds on hand and their balance sheet is just fine. The issue is that when the bank credits their customer with interest, they are creating money. In this case the bank has to pay their customer their interest. They do so. From your replies, it's clear that now the value of IS has to remain pegged to the value of half of the general fund. Therefore, the value of each unit of IS has now been reduced. This is going to happen time and again throughout the WA.

Now, we also have the issue that if the value of the general fund falls, the value of each IS in circulation also falls. Although the proposal doesn't state it, your replies are that the value of each unit falls in this situation or in a situation where money is "created" by banks or forgotten about by people who have it in their pocket. Therefore, there is no floating exchange rate once the GAO has issued a substantial amount of the currency.

For illustration purposes, let's say that half the general fund is NSD5bn when the proposal kicks in. Let's say the exchange rate had been NSD1 = IS1. The GAO prints their money and it's all some how ended up in circulation. Let's say all banks have to issue interest on their IS accounts to a total of IS100m. Prior to this transaction, the exchange rate is NSD1 = IS1 so there is a total amount of IS in circulation and on deposit of IS5,000,000,000. Now the banks credit their customers with their interest. The total amount of IS in circulation and on deposit now becomes IS5,100,000,000. However, the total value of all IS is linked to half the general fund, and thay value is still NSD5bn. Now all of a sudden, completely independently of the markets, the exchange rate has changed to NSD1 = IS1.02 (IE NSD5bn = IS5.1bn). How can anyone have any confidence in this currency when it suddenly falls in this way?

The same sudden independent-of-the-markets fall will happen whenever the value of the general fund falls.

Already in the proposal:

The GAO shall establish currency exchanges in member nations requesting them, and on WA property, which shall be the sole method of distribution of IS into circulation.

But no member state is obliged to request them. What happens if no one does request a currency exchange?

The value of any fiat currency can be arbitrarily cut. The government just needs to print more money and therefore cause inflation.
...
The GAO has control of the monetary policy...sort of. They are limited by the value of the General Fund, which is in direct control of the individual donating nations.

Hmm, the GAO is not a government though, nor is it even a central bank per this proposal. It will have some characteristics of a central bank but not all. It will be able to issue this currency and set it's initial value. That's it. Thereafter all it can do is keep a tot of it and keep reducing its value as the number of units in circulation and on deposit grows, or anytime the value of the general fund drops. It won't have any control over interest rates which is a key area in which RL central banks control their currencies. It doesn't keep a reserve deposit from all banks within its area, which RL central banks do (EG all US banks are obliged to lodge 10% of their deposits with the federal reserve). It has no authority to make loans to banks.

And given that the GAO won't really have control of monetary policy, unlike the ECB and the Euro, and that fiscal policy is definitely going nowhere near the GAO, so all it can do is print this money. Which will continually fall in value. I can't see how anyone would want to use it! No individual would want to have it in their pocket when the next day the GAO will suddenly announce that it's dropped in value.

And that leaves aside the lowered costs of not having to exchange currencies of a million foreign nations, when the IS allows nations to only ever have to use two when dealing with WA nations: their own, and IS.

Ah come on. You are stating that every single individual and trader in the WA must accept this currency in all transactions. The vast majority of transactions do not currently involve foreign currency. There is no saving for the citizen selling his junk at a car boot sale, there is no saving for the Mom and Pop hardware store, there is no saving for the High Street clothes retailer. There is no saving for virtually everyone accept a few multinationals, tourists and the odd time anyone does an international transaction.

And ofc, as we've demonstrated that the value is doomed to perpetually fall, no one is going to want to use it anyway. So all we have is a great big unnecessary cost to businesses where everyone was already prefectly happy using local currency already.

Funny, Bears Armed suggested I change it to Mild.
Which is it, Mild or too much of an imposition? It can't be both.

I don't really care what the fluff at the top says and what impact that it has on stats. I only judge a proposal on what it says. Yours says that every single individual, business, group, organisation, government, bank, etc, etc, in every single WA member state must accept this currency in all transactions. I'll leave it to yourself to judge the scope!

Ofc it is also a contradiction of the forgotten resolution but that's likely irrelevant now!

What resolution?

NEF:

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations.

It's hard to see how there's a an extreme hazard that you are correcting here. And I'm sure you will accept that mandating that everyone must accept a particular currency if someone gives it to them, is a regulation of commerce.

Of course I would also love to see some economist parse through the proposal and the various issues raised in the thread and give an opinion as to just how feasible the whole thing is.

If you know one, please get them over here.

Unfortunately I don't!

[Excidium Planetis]

<snip>

Re: the value issues. So what's going to happen is that the total value of all IS in issue is limited to a set amount. Let's say, the bank that's due to pay interest has plenty of funds on hand and their balance sheet is just fine. The issue is that when the bank credits their customer with interest, they are creating money. In this case the bank has to pay their customer their interest. They do so. From your replies, it's clear that now the value of IS has to remain pegged to the value of half of the general fund. Therefore, the value of each unit of IS has now been reduced. This is going to happen time and again throughout the WA.

OOC (still):
Okay, a few things to consider:
1) Why must the bank lay the interest in IS? Because IS is fully exchangeable with the national currency, couldn't the bank pay interest in the national currency?
2) Even supposing the banks must pay in IS and there is no more IS in circulation, how can the banks pay money they neither possess nor have power to create? Can you give something you don't have either physically or on paper?
3) Even supposing that these banks must pay interest in IS and can somehow create new IS in their customers' accounts that has never physically existed or been issued, how do you suggest we fix this problem?

Now, we also have the issue that if the value of the general fund falls, the value of each IS in circulation also falls. Although the proposal doesn't state it, your replies are that the value of each unit falls in this situation or in a situation where money is "created" by banks or forgotten about by people who have it in their pocket. Therefore, there is no floating exchange rate once the GAO has issued a substantial amount of the currency.

For illustration purposes, let's say that half the general fund is NSD5bn when the proposal kicks in. Let's say the exchange rate had been NSD1 = IS1. The GAO prints their money and it's all some how ended up in circulation. Let's say all banks have to issue interest on their IS accounts to a total of IS100m. Prior to this transaction, the exchange rate is NSD1 = IS1 so there is a total amount of IS in circulation and on deposit of IS5,000,000,000. Now the banks credit their customers with their interest. The total amount of IS in circulation and on deposit now becomes IS5,100,000,000. However, the total value of all IS is linked to half the general fund, and thay value is still NSD5bn. Now all of a sudden, completely independently of the markets, the exchange rate has changed to NSD1 = IS1.02 (IE NSD5bn = IS5.1bn). How can anyone have any confidence in this currency when it suddenly falls in this way?

How can anyone have any confidence in banks that issue currency they have no power to issue?
Also, see above.

The same sudden independent-of-the-markets fall will happen whenever the value of the general fund falls.

Already in the proposal:

But no member state is obliged to request them. What happens if no one does request a currency exchange?

Then the only exchanges will be on WA Property, as stated.

The value of any fiat currency can be arbitrarily cut. The government just needs to print more money and therefore cause inflation.
...
The GAO has control of the monetary policy...sort of. They are limited by the value of the General Fund, which is in direct control of the individual donating nations.

Hmm, the GAO is not a government though, nor is it even a central bank per this proposal. It will have some characteristics of a central bank but not all. It will be able to issue this currency and set it's initial value. That's it. Thereafter all it can do is keep a tot of it and keep reducing its value as the number of units in circulation and on deposit grows, or anytime the value of the general fund drops. It won't have any control over interest rates which is a key area in which RL central banks control their currencies. It doesn't keep a reserve deposit from all banks within its area, which RL central banks do (EG all US banks are obliged to lodge 10% of their deposits with the federal reserve). It has no authority to make loans to banks.

And given that the GAO won't really have control of monetary policy, unlike the ECB and the Euro, and that fiscal policy is definitely going nowhere near the GAO, so all it can do is print this money. Which will continually fall in value. I can't see how anyone would want to use it! No individual would want to have it in their pocket when the next day the GAO will suddenly announce that it's dropped in value.

The IS will not continually drop in value. Logically, as the economies of WA nations improve slowly but steadily year after year (as a universe wide depression seems unlikely, and economies usually tend to improve over time), the contributions to the General Fund will increase annually. This increased value of the General Fund means an increase in the value of issued IS.

Furthermore, if the GAO slows the rate at which IS is put into circulation, the value of the IS might increase as IS in circulation is damaged and destroyed, removing it from circulation.

A slow decrease in the amount of IS in circulation combined with an increase in the value of the General Fund will certainly mean increased value of the IS.

Plus, you are forgetting the value of the General Fund is based on the value of national currencies in the General Fund. If a significant number of national currencies increase in value, the General Fund will also increase in value as the currencies it possesses go up in value. This will, of course, bump the value of the IS.

And that leaves aside the lowered costs of not having to exchange currencies of a million foreign nations, when the IS allows nations to only ever have to use two when dealing with WA nations: their own, and IS.

Ah come on. You are stating that every single individual and trader in the WA must accept this currency in all transactions. The vast majority of transactions do not currently involve foreign currency. There is no saving for the citizen selling his junk at a car boot sale, there is no saving for the Mom and Pop hardware store, there is no saving for the High Street clothes retailer. There is no saving for virtually everyone accept a few multinationals, tourists and the odd time anyone does an international transaction.

Yes. This resolution is designed to assist in international trade, not in domestic trade. In what scenario would an international currency boost the economies of local businesses?

I'll give you one: The foreign import car dealership down the street saves because the cost of International trade went down. These savings lead to lower prices for the vehicles the dealership sells. Your citizens benefit from the IS even though they don't use it. Everyone wins. Well, except your local raw resource production companies.

And ofc, as we've demonstrated that the value is doomed to perpetually fall, no one is going to want to use it anyway. So all we have is a great big unnecessary cost to businesses where everyone was already prefectly happy using local currency already.

See above and above the above.

Funny, Bears Armed suggested I change it to Mild.
Which is it, Mild or too much of an imposition? It can't be both.

I don't really care what the fluff at the top says and what impact that it has on stats. I only judge a proposal on what it says. Yours says that every single individual, business, group, organisation, government, bank, etc, etc, in every single WA member state must accept this currency in all transactions. I'll leave it to yourself to judge the scope!

Bears suggested changing it to Mild because of what the proposal said. So I have at least one player saying this resolution does almost nothing, and another saying it does too much. Which is it?

What resolution?

NEF:

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations.

It's hard to see how there's a an extreme hazard that you are correcting here. And I'm sure you will accept that mandating that everyone must accept a particular currency if someone gives it to them, is a regulation of commerce.

Ah, but NEF doesn't say "regulated", it says "restricted". I don't see how this restricts commerce. Commerce can still continue, and can still be done without the IS. It isn't like making nations accept IS as currency stops commerce.

[Bananaistan]

OOC (still):
Okay, a few things to consider:
1) Why must the bank lay the interest in IS? Because IS is fully exchangeable with the national currency, couldn't the bank pay interest in the national currency?

That's not how it works. If I have, say, a sterling account in an Irish bank, it pays interest into that account in sterling. They can do whatever chicanery is necessary behind the scenes but ultimately I am able to withdraw the total sterling amount after the interest has been credited. They don't open a separate account for me for the interest to accumulate in euro.

2) Even supposing the banks must pay in IS and there is no more IS in circulation, how can the banks pay money they neither possess nor have power to create? Can you give something you don't have either physically or on paper?

This is how banking works. Banks are ultimately responsible for money creation as they add money on a screen to people's accounts and take it away from others. Throw in multiple banks, millions of individuals and businesses making deposits and taking out loans, and you have a great big pile of money creation, the only restriction on which is the local central bank’s reserve requirement. (Perhaps have a look at this link for a detailed description of just how banks create money: http://www.colorado.edu/economics/cours ... -main.html.

3) Even supposing that these banks must pay interest in IS and can somehow create new IS in their customers' accounts that has never physically existed or been issued, how do you suggest we fix this problem?

I think that the more we drill down into the issues, the more likely it becomes that the proposal will be unworkable. WA resolutions with their 3500 character limit are not the place to deal with technical economic issues. In the past I have stated this: my opposition to CD’s double taxation proposal was based on the same principle.

How can anyone have any confidence in banks that issue currency they have no power to issue?
Also, see above.

See above: this is what banks do all the time.

Then the only exchanges will be on WA Property, as stated.

So it’s back to optionality really. No one is obliged to use the currency, member states are not obliged to facilitate its use, and nobody can get their hands on it unless there’s a local WA office.

The IS will not continually drop in value. Logically, as the economies of WA nations improve slowly but steadily year after year (as a universe wide depression seems unlikely, and economies usually tend to improve over time), the contributions to the General Fund will increase annually. This increased value of the General Fund means an increase in the value of issued IS.

Furthermore, if the GAO slows the rate at which IS is put into circulation, the value of the IS might increase as IS in circulation is damaged and destroyed, removing it from circulation.

A slow decrease in the amount of IS in circulation combined with an increase in the value of the General Fund will certainly mean increased value of the IS.

Plus, you are forgetting the value of the General Fund is based on the value of national currencies in the General Fund. If a significant number of national currencies increase in value, the General Fund will also increase in value as the currencies it possesses go up in value. This will, of course, bump the value of the IS.

See above in relation to reserve requirements and how banking actually works. IRL there is no practical upper limit on, say, the US dollar or the Euro.

With this proposal there is a clear and definitive upper limit: half of the value of the general fund. Unless you restrict banks’ ability to take deposits in IS and issue loans in it, the simple economic fact is that the number of IS units on deposit and in circulation will multiply. But at all times, the total value of all IS cannot exceed half of the value of the general fund. Thus it is an inescapable fact that the value of individual units of IS will fall as the number of units increase through normal everyday banking practices.

Yes. This resolution is designed to assist in international trade, not in domestic trade. In what scenario would an international currency boost the economies of local businesses?

I'll give you one: The foreign import car dealership down the street saves because the cost of International trade went down. These savings lead to lower prices for the vehicles the dealership sells. Your citizens benefit from the IS even though they don't use it. Everyone wins. Well, except your local raw resource production companies.

In the absence of universal adoption of the currency which cannot be enforced by the WA, this doesn’t happen. At some point somewhere, somebody has to bear the cost of exchange. Ultimately this cost will be passed on the consumer.

In your example, the car dealer may well have plenty of customers paying in the local currency. If he exclusively pays his suppliers in IS, he bears the cost of exchange from the local currency in which some of his customers pay him, in order to pay his suppliers in IS. Let’s say he buys the cars directly from the foreign manufacturer located in another member state. The manufacturer has to accept payment in IS under the proposal. Now that manufacturer may or may not pay his suppliers in IS. If he does, he will be paying it to some businesses who want to deal only in the foreign currency, some who, like the car dealer, only want to deal in IS, and others who want to deal in both currencies.

The point is that at every point in the chain where money changes hands, there is a potential exchange cost as someone will end up with IS on hand when they don’t want it.

The only way to avoid exchange costs at some point in the chain is to make IS mandatory. And this cannot be done with the rules as they are, and I wouldn’t expect that it would be palatable to the voters even if it could be done.

Bears suggested changing it to Mild because of what the proposal said. So I have at least one player saying this resolution does almost nothing, and another saying it does too much. Which is it?

I have given my opinion. I’m not a mod so I can’t give you a ruling

Ah, but NEF doesn't say "regulated", it says "restricted". I don't see how this restricts commerce. Commerce can still continue, and can still be done without the IS. It isn't like making nations accept IS as currency stops commerce.

You are taking away choice from businesses (and people) and regulating that they must accept a particular currency if offered it. I think that’s a restriction of commerce (and ultimately an illegality under the no universal currencies rule). If they had the option of accepting IS, I’d say it wouldn’t be a restriction.

[Bears Armed]

(This is an entirely OOC post.)

I need to read the latest comments before posting in detail, and there are some points where EP's explanations differ from how I thought that this was supposed to work. I won't be able to get here tomorrow, so expect my next post to arrive on either Saturday or Sunday...

Please bear in mind that I'm not entirely convinced of this proposal's "necessity" myself, but I got interested in trying to make it work and to do so in a way that would be acceptable IC to the Bears.

Now, two comments addressed specifically to EP:
1/ You ask why I think that defining the term ‘WA General Fund’ in [(& for the purpose of) this resolution would be advisable even though the fund is already used by various other resolutions that don’t contain definitions?
Those other resolutions use the General Fund for funding, but presumably the WA would still have some kind of ‘general fund[s]’ for that purpose even if the actual ‘WA General Fund’ resolution were ever repealed. However as this resolution would use the Fund’s value to define the value of its new currency, instead, I thought that it would be advisable to make it clear exactly which value was being used for that purpose.
2/ Also, please can we replace your suggested label of ‘International Standard’ with an alternative name whose acronym doesn’t remind me of a RL terrorist/jihadist organisation?

And one general comment: Those of you who object to this proposal, there's a major loophole that everybody's been overlooking so far...
^_^

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC (still):
Okay, a few things to consider:
1) Why must the bank lay the interest in IS? Because IS is fully exchangeable with the national currency, couldn't the bank pay interest in the national currency?

That's not how it works. If I have, say, a sterling account in an Irish bank, it pays interest into that account in sterling. They can do whatever chicanery is necessary behind the scenes but ultimately I am able to withdraw the total sterling amount after the interest has been credited. They don't open a separate account for me for the interest to accumulate in euro.

Hmmm... I'll have to think about this.
Now, to use a real life example, what happens if I deposit 100 Euros in a US bank, and the bank lacks the 10 Euros I need in interest, what does the US bank do? If they create more Euros to pay me, doesn't that mean US banks have direct control over the Euro's monetary policy? Could a US bank set interest rates at 1,000% and thus give out millions of more Euros than there are in existence, deflating the currency?

2) Even supposing the banks must pay in IS and there is no more IS in circulation, how can the banks pay money they neither possess nor have power to create? Can you give something you don't have either physically or on paper?

This is how banking works. Banks are ultimately responsible for money creation as they add money on a screen to people's accounts and take it away from others. Throw in multiple banks, millions of individuals and businesses making deposits and taking out loans, and you have a great big pile of money creation, the only restriction on which is the local central bank’s reserve requirement. (Perhaps have a look at this link for a detailed description of just how banks create money: http://www.colorado.edu/economics/cours ... -main.html.

Saving accounts interests were not mentioned at all in that... Page?
Anyways, the creation of money described there is the increase in a bank's accounts by loaning out deposits and having the loan money deposited.

It's a lot of math Voodoo, but ultimately there is no more currency in circulation in the end... Only an increase in the account numbers.

Let's simpify from the millions in the example to much lower numbers. Let's also ignore interest rates, since their example did not include interest.

You have 10 shekels. You deposit all 10 in 'Murica Bank. 'Murica bank now owes you 10 shekels, but has 10 shekels. 'Murica Banks loans 9 shekels to me, and keeps 1 in reserve. I pay Jim 9 shekels. Jim deposits the shekels in 'Murica Bank.

Now, in the beginning there were 10 shekels. There still are, but now the bank has them and not you. In the beginning, you had 10 shekels, and you still technically do, but don't physically have them. In the beginning, the bank had no shekels, and still doesn't. They physically have 10 shekels, but they owe you 10 and owe Jim 9, which is 19, but I owe them 9, so everything balances out. Presumably there are at least 9other shekels in the world that I can earn (washing cars, perhaps) and use to pay back the bank. This leaves the bank with 19 shekels and 19 shekels worth of liability, which is still 0. I have 0 shekels, which is what I started with. You have 10 shekels, which is what you started with. Jim has 9 shekels, which is more than the 0 Jim had originally, but since the washed-car people are now out a total of 9 shekels, it easy to see where the money came from. Everything still balances out.

But what if there were no more shekels for me to earn by washing cars? Well, then, there are two options:
1) I earn the 9 shekels I need to pay back the bank from either Jom or you. After all, you can withdraw shekels from the bank to pay me, and then I pay the bank. Let's say I earn 5 from you and 4 from Jim. I end up with 0 shekels after paying the bank back, the bank ends up with 10 shekels, and needs to pay you back 5 and Jim back 5, so the bank still has 0 shekels. Jim has 5 shekels, which is 5 more than at the start, but those 5 came from you, obviously, as you now have 5 shekels. Everything is still the same.
2) I cannot pay the bank and go bankrupt. The bank bank therefore cannot pay both you and Jim, as it has only 10 shekels but owes 19. It goes bankrupt too, after paying you and Jim 5 shekels each. Now I have nothing and the bank has nothing, same as the start. Jim has 5, which is more than at the start, but you have only 5, less than you started with, so the total supply of shekels is still the same.

Now, undoubtedly the math becomes more complicated with interest thrown in, and with more parties, and more money. But I would think the same principle holds up in a larger, more complex scenario as in this simple example: the total supply of money does not increase. Only the amount of money in the bank's accounts increases.

3) Even supposing that these banks must pay interest in IS and can somehow create new IS in their customers' accounts that has never physically existed or been issued, how do you suggest we fix this problem?

I think that the more we drill down into the issues, the more likely it becomes that the proposal will be unworkable. WA resolutions with their 3500 character limit are not the place to deal with technical economic issues. In the past I have stated this: my opposition to CD’s double taxation proposal was based on the same principle.

No resolution is unworkable in my opinion. There are some that are simply illegal (WA Army proposals, for instance) and others that shpuld just not be passed (NAPA repeals, for example).
But for anything else, 3500 characters is more than enough to make it work.
Do you have an actual idea to fix that problem, or are you going to just say it can't be fixed?

How can anyone have any confidence in banks that issue currency they have no power to issue?
Also, see above.

See above: this is what banks do all the time.

The banks aren't issuing currency. They are lending out currency they have possession of. That doesn't increase the amount of currency in circulation. As above.

Then the only exchanges will be on WA Property, as stated.

So it’s back to optionality really. No one is obliged to use the currency, member states are not obliged to facilitate its use, and nobody can get their hands on it unless there’s a local WA office.

No, it isn't optional because
A) the WA is required (non-optional) to set up exchanges.
B) Arguing that it is optionality because theoretically no nations could have currency and thus would not need to accept IS and theoretically no nations could request WA exchanges is the same as Arguing SPA was optionality because theoretically all nations could be entirely non-human. There will be at least one nation using a national currency, and that nation is required (non-optional) to accept IS.

The IS will not continually drop in value. Logically, as the economies of WA nations improve slowly but steadily year after year (as a universe wide depression seems unlikely, and economies usually tend to improve over time), the contributions to the General Fund will increase annually. This increased value of the General Fund means an increase in the value of issued IS.

Furthermore, if the GAO slows the rate at which IS is put into circulation, the value of the IS might increase as IS in circulation is damaged and destroyed, removing it from circulation.

A slow decrease in the amount of IS in circulation combined with an increase in the value of the General Fund will certainly mean increased value of the IS.

Plus, you are forgetting the value of the General Fund is based on the value of national currencies in the General Fund. If a significant number of national currencies increase in value, the General Fund will also increase in value as the currencies it possesses go up in value. This will, of course, bump the value of the IS.

See above in relation to reserve requirements and how banking actually works. IRL there is no practical upper limit on, say, the US dollar or the Euro.

With this proposal there is a clear and definitive upper limit: half of the value of the general fund. Unless you restrict banks’ ability to take deposits in IS and issue loans in it, the simple economic fact is that the number of IS units on deposit and in circulation will multiply. But at all times, the total value of all IS cannot exceed half of the value of the general fund. Thus it is an inescapable fact that the value of individual units of IS will fall as the number of units increase through normal everyday banking practices.

There is no upper limit for the IS either... The General Find has no upper limit on value, and as the General Fund increases in value, the IS can also increase in value.

And as stated, the number of IS in circulation can easily fall.

Yes. This resolution is designed to assist in international trade, not in domestic trade. In what scenario would an international currency boost the economies of local businesses?

I'll give you one: The foreign import car dealership down the street saves because the cost of International trade went down. These savings lead to lower prices for the vehicles the dealership sells. Your citizens benefit from the IS even though they don't use it. Everyone wins. Well, except your local raw resource production companies.

In the absence of universal adoption of the currency which cannot be enforced by the WA, this doesn’t happen. At some point somewhere, somebody has to bear the cost of exchange. Ultimately this cost will be passed on the consumer.

In your example, the car dealer may well have plenty of customers paying in the local currency. If he exclusively pays his suppliers in IS, he bears the cost of exchange from the local currency in which some of his customers pay him, in order to pay his suppliers in IS. Let’s say he buys the cars directly from the foreign manufacturer located in another member state. The manufacturer has to accept payment in IS under the proposal. Now that manufacturer may or may not pay his suppliers in IS. If he does, he will be paying it to some businesses who want to deal only in the foreign currency, some who, like the car dealer, only want to deal in IS, and others who want to deal in both currencies.

The point is that at every point in the chain where money changes hands, there is a potential exchange cost as someone will end up with IS on hand when they don’t want it.

The only way to avoid exchange costs at some point in the chain is to make IS mandatory. And this cannot be done with the rules as they are, and I wouldn’t expect that it would be palatable to the voters even if it could be done.

Someone will bear the cost somewhere along the chain... But look at how many businesses could potentially save by utilizing IS. I think the savings in international trade more than makes up for the losses of a few individuals and business that do not want to use IS, especially since those individuals benefit from the lower cost of international trade indirectly.

Bears suggested changing it to Mild because of what the proposal said. So I have at least one player saying this resolution does almost nothing, and another saying it does too much. Which is it?

I have given my opinion. I’m not a mod so I can’t give you a ruling

Well, until the mods get back to me we are stuck.

Ah, but NEF doesn't say "regulated", it says "restricted". I don't see how this restricts commerce. Commerce can still continue, and can still be done without the IS. It isn't like making nations accept IS as currency stops commerce.

You are taking away choice from businesses (and people) and regulating that they must accept a particular currency if offered it. I think that’s a restriction of commerce.

Taking away their choice to do what? To refuse to accept IS? They didn't have that choice in the first place, since there was no IS to refuse to accept, so the net number of choices remains the same.
Taking away their choice to accept only the national currency? That doesn't restrict commerce. Their choice to refuse to do commerce with non-national currency is a restriction of commerce. Forcing foreigners to use the local curreency is a restriction of commerce. This proposal removes restrictions on commerce by forcing nations whonuse currency to accept payment in an international currency.

(and ultimately an illegality under the no universal currencies rule)

There is no universal currencies rule. There is a Game Mechanics (Or was it Metagaming?) rule, which specifies universal currencies as an example. But there is no rule against universal currencies specifically. Also, until a moderator gives a ruling, I stand by my insistence that this proposal is not illegal.

[Excidium Planetis]

(This is an entirely OOC post.)

I need to read the latest comments before posting in detail, and there are some points where EP's explanations differ from how I thought that this was supposed to work. I won't be able to get here tomorrow, so expect my next post to arrive on either Saturday or Sunday...

I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Please bear in mind

Pun intended?

that I'm not entirely convinced of this proposal's "necessity" myself, but I got interested in trying to make it work and to do so in a way that would be acceptable IC to the Bears.

"Bears can be counted on for reasonable arguments even when there are none"?

I think my goal here is to try and get something that few think would work (and as far as I know, no one has ever done) and get it to work. Even if the proposal fails at vote, I'll consider it a success. I'm willing to spend as long as it takes to reach a conclusion.

Now, two comments addressed specifically to EP:
1/ You ask why I think that defining the term ‘WA General Fund’ in [(& for the purpose of) this resolution would be advisable even though the fund is already used by various other resolutions that don’t contain definitions?
Those other resolutions use the General Fund for funding, but presumably the WA would still have some kind of ‘general fund[s]’ for that purpose even if the actual ‘WA General Fund’ resolution were ever repealed. However as this resolution would use the Fund’s value to define the value of its new currency, instead, I thought that it would be advisable to make it clear exactly which value was being used for that purpose.

Okay. I'll try to work on that later.

2/ Also, please can we replace your suggested label of ‘International Standard’ with an alternative name whose acronym doesn’t remind me of a RL terrorist/jihadist organisation?

Damn. There goes my plan to change the currency to International Reserve Allowances.

But I've grown quite fond of the IS. Do you have a suggested replacement name?

And one general comment: Those of you who object to this proposal, there's a major loophole that everybody's been overlooking so far...
^_^

I can see at least one loophole, but I'm not sure if yours is the one I'm seeing.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I am reluctant to continue to debate an international currency with someone who describes concepts such as the monetary base and money supply as "voodoo maths".

Also, I am reluctant to debate a proposal which I believe will likely end up being illegal. It would be well worth everyone's time is we got a firm ruling on just what the "no universal currency" example/rule/whatever is it actually disallows.

But I'll plough on anyway! (Prolly for the last time prior to a ruling)

That's not how it works. If I have, say, a sterling account in an Irish bank, it pays interest into that account in sterling. They can do whatever chicanery is necessary behind the scenes but ultimately I am able to withdraw the total sterling amount after the interest has been credited. They don't open a separate account for me for the interest to accumulate in euro.

Hmmm... I'll have to think about this.
Now, to use a real life example, what happens if I deposit 100 Euros in a US bank, and the bank lacks the 10 Euros I need in interest, what does the US bank do? If they create more Euros to pay me, doesn't that mean US banks have direct control over the Euro's monetary policy? Could a US bank set interest rates at 1,000% and thus give out millions of more Euros than there are in existence, deflating the currency?

Theoretically yes they could. For example, IRL there is such a thing as “Eurodollars” which are USD deposits in banks outside the USA. The federal reserve has no control over these dollars. Of course any bank giving out 1000% interest would be bankrupt fairly quickly.

This is how banking works. Banks are ultimately responsible for money creation as they add money on a screen to people's accounts and take it away from others. Throw in multiple banks, millions of individuals and businesses making deposits and taking out loans, and you have a great big pile of money creation, the only restriction on which is the local central bank’s reserve requirement. (Perhaps have a look at this link for a detailed description of just how banks create money: http://www.colorado.edu/economics/cours ... -main.html.

Saving accounts interests were not mentioned at all in that... Page?

It actually does mention interest but does not include it in the workings. Nevertheless, the point is that banks do in fact create money: the money supply is a multiple of the monetary base.

Anyways, the creation of money described there is the increase in a bank's accounts by loaning out deposits and having the loan money deposited.

It's a lot of math Voodoo, but ultimately there is no more currency in circulation in the end... Only an increase in the account numbers.

Well currency in circulation is a separate concept to the money supply. Looking at your shekels example, I would assume that your aim is that the monetary base must equal half of the value of the general fund? However, this is not what your proposal states. It says that the total value must not exceed half the value of the general fund. It doesn’t comment on just what the total value is supposed to be? Is it the monetary base, or is it one of the Ms used IRL to value money supply.

In any case. your example with the shekels doesn’t reflect RL.. I would recommend that you look up monetary base and money supply. It is an accepted fact that RL currencies’ amount in circulation is dwarfed by the money supply. For example, in September 2015, the dollar M2 value was $12 trillion. At the same time the currency in circulation was $1.39 trillion.

I think that the more we drill down into the issues, the more likely it becomes that the proposal will be unworkable. WA resolutions with their 3500 character limit are not the place to deal with technical economic issues. In the past I have stated this: my opposition to CD’s double taxation proposal was based on the same principle.

No resolution is unworkable in my opinion. There are some that are simply illegal (WA Army proposals, for instance) and others that shpuld just not be passed (NAPA repeals, for example).
But for anything else, 3500 characters is more than enough to make it work.
Do you have an actual idea to fix that problem, or are you going to just say it can't be fixed?

It can’t be fixed.

See above: this is what banks do all the time.

The banks aren't issuing currency. They are lending out currency they have possession of. That doesn't increase the amount of currency in circulation. As above.

While they may not be issuing hard currency, they are always creating money and going far further than, merely lending out currency they are in possession of. This relates backs to the monetary base, money supply and the money multiplier and so on referred to above and in the link.

So it’s back to optionality really. No one is obliged to use the currency, member states are not obliged to facilitate its use, and nobody can get their hands on it unless there’s a local WA office.

No, it isn't optional because
A) the WA is required (non-optional) to set up exchanges.
B) Arguing that it is optionality because theoretically no nations could have currency and thus would not need to accept IS and theoretically no nations could request WA exchanges is the same as Arguing SPA was optionality because theoretically all nations could be entirely non-human. There will be at least one nation using a national currency, and that nation is required (non-optional) to accept IS.

And yet nobody is obliged to use the currency.

See above in relation to reserve requirements and how banking actually works. IRL there is no practical upper limit on, say, the US dollar or the Euro.

With this proposal there is a clear and definitive upper limit: half of the value of the general fund. Unless you restrict banks’ ability to take deposits in IS and issue loans in it, the simple economic fact is that the number of IS units on deposit and in circulation will multiply. But at all times, the total value of all IS cannot exceed half of the value of the general fund. Thus it is an inescapable fact that the value of individual units of IS will fall as the number of units increase through normal everyday banking practices.

There is no upper limit for the IS either... The General Find has no upper limit on value, and as the General Fund increases in value, the IS can also increase in value.

Eh, yeah there is. At any given time the “total value of International Standards cannot exceed half the annual total value of the General Fund.” That’s a limit if I ever saw one!

In the absence of universal adoption of the currency which cannot be enforced by the WA, this doesn’t happen. At some point somewhere, somebody has to bear the cost of exchange. Ultimately this cost will be passed on the consumer.

In your example, the car dealer may well have plenty of customers paying in the local currency. If he exclusively pays his suppliers in IS, he bears the cost of exchange from the local currency in which some of his customers pay him, in order to pay his suppliers in IS. Let’s say he buys the cars directly from the foreign manufacturer located in another member state. The manufacturer has to accept payment in IS under the proposal. Now that manufacturer may or may not pay his suppliers in IS. If he does, he will be paying it to some businesses who want to deal only in the foreign currency, some who, like the car dealer, only want to deal in IS, and others who want to deal in both currencies.

The point is that at every point in the chain where money changes hands, there is a potential exchange cost as someone will end up with IS on hand when they don’t want it.

The only way to avoid exchange costs at some point in the chain is to make IS mandatory. And this cannot be done with the rules as they are, and I wouldn’t expect that it would be palatable to the voters even if it could be done.

Someone will bear the cost somewhere along the chain... But look at how many businesses could potentially save by utilizing IS. I think the savings in international trade more than makes up for the losses of a few individuals and business that do not want to use IS, especially since those individuals benefit from the lower cost of international trade indirectly.

Except, if the proposal text will be corrected to reflect your wishes, every single person in the WA will be required to accept it. It’s not just businesses, it’s everyone. And then they have to go through the hassle of changing it into their local currency.

And I don’t accept that the cost will be made up. Businesses who already trade internationally will already be dealing with multiple currencies. Unless they’re poxed lucky that everyone they deal with decides to use IS, they will still have to deal with multiple currencies.

I have given my opinion. I’m not a mod so I can’t give you a ruling

Well, until the mods get back to me we are stuck.

You are taking away choice from businesses (and people) and regulating that they must accept a particular currency if offered it. I think that’s a restriction of commerce.

Taking away their choice to do what? To refuse to accept IS? They didn't have that choice in the first place, since there was no IS to refuse to accept, so the net number of choices remains the same.
Taking away their choice to accept only the national currency? That doesn't restrict commerce. Their choice to refuse to do commerce with non-national currency is a restriction of commerce. Forcing foreigners to use the local curreency is a restriction of commerce. This proposal removes restrictions on commerce by forcing nations whonuse currency to accept payment in an international currency.

“The net choices remain.” Come off it. Before this proposal they all just used the local currency. Now they have to use two currencies if someone rocks up with IS. Forcing business to do anything other than generate profit is a restriction on commerce.

And sure lets finish IC.

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan remains opposed. We refuse to accept any currency circulating in Bananaistan which we cannot control. ATM we have ultimate control of our own currency, and theoretically we could restrict how our residents avail of foreign currency arrangements, particularly where such arrangements are conducted onshore. We have, de jure, at least, 100% control of our monetary policy. We cannot accept a situation in future where part of the economic activity in the state could be conducted in a currency over which we have no direct control and which we wouldn't even have the indirect control measure of just banning it available. This would be too much of a dilution of our control over own monetary policy."

- Ted Horwood.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Apologies for double post but I also wanted to comment on this.

I think my goal here is to try and get something that few think would work (and as far as I know, no one has ever done) and get it to work. Even if the proposal fails at vote, I'll consider it a success. I'm willing to spend as long as it takes to reach a conclusion.

I think this is fair enough and an admirable aim. I hope my "objections" help in refining what you're about even if I think it's futile. I certainly know a bit more about the subject now than I did a few weeks ago.

[Araraukar]

OOC post in which I comment on various snippets as I encounter them.

"Well, obviously Potted Plants lack the ability to read proposals."

You realize PPU is me, and that I deploy it's IC reality just to make a point in debates?

OOC:
¹The storefront prices would be in NSD because that's how storefronts work. That doesn't mean that NSD exists as a universal currency in the IC world of WA.

²Which is what would likely make this illegal for metagaming and is one reason why "no universal currency" rule exists.

No, like, seriously, what are you talking about? This proposal doesn't mention NSD, doesn't mention storefronts, and sure as hell doesn't metagame. Do you see any references to the game? Anything that would force players to do something OOC?

*sigh* The numbers correspond to IC commentary, and give my OOCly explanations of said points of the in-character roleplay. I mark everything OOC with "OOC", but bloody hell, just the text colour should be a big clue!

And at any rate, there are a great deal of WA nations with no regard for religion or paying for spiritual services.

Funny, in my experience it's about half and half. Plenty of peeps who aren't too religious in real life RP their nations as having a major religion, and then there are the... fanatics that use their RL convictions as an excuse to "roleplay". You see them come out of the woodworks every time abortion is mentioned in an AT VOTE proposal.

No, it isn't illegal for optionality. First of all, thus proposal establishes (non-optional) the International Standard, requires (non-optional) the GAO to issue currency, and mandates (non-optional) that the World Assembly accept IS.

Furthermore, for all nations that use a national currency (IE: Most nations), they are required (non-optional) to accept IS in all transactions.

So, enlighten me, how is that NOT the same as "creating a universal currency"?

Saying the proposal is optional because not all nations have currencies is ridiculous. You might as well say SPA was optional because not all nations have humans.

Well, it's an extant resolution. Its legitimacy can't even be used as a repeal argument, since it passed. Your proposal is still just a proposal, and I'd say humans are much more common in WA nations' roleplayed realities than international non-optional currencies. (I live in the €urozone and I have very little good to say about it other than the different coins are fun to collect.)

The bank goes bankrupt? I don't know. What happena in real life when a bank owes interest but doesn't have the money to pay it?

Except the "bank" in question is the General Fund. You'd be bankrupting the WA.

So if people don't like the IS, then why would they use it?

Funny, didn't you just use italics to spell out to me how they're required to? Or, if it still is optional, then what are you actually accomplishing, except spawning another useless bureaucracy thing for WA? Seriously, the way you're wanting to use the GF for this, you're literally spending the member nations' money on something they're better off not using.

And that leaves aside the lowered costs of not having to exchange currencies of a million foreign nations, when the IS allows nations to only ever have to use two when dealing with WA nations: their own, and IS.

Why would they exchange currencies with 21,925 other nations (hardly millions) in the first place? Wouldn't currency at all be needed only in international transactions, which usually take place between just 2 parties? Also, do you read what you write?

This proposal forces nations to accept (but not necessarily use)

How can you both require nations to accept the existence of IS (every time I type that, this is what my brain reads it as [basically Finnish equivalent of Daily Mail]) but not use it in transactions? What if one nation wants to use IS and the other doesn't?

Which is it, Mild or too much of an imposition? It can't be both.

Why not? After all, it's both mandatory and optional at the same time.

Then the only exchanges will be on WA Property, as stated.

Would like a shovel to dig a little deeper hole for this proposal? You're making it more and more convoluted, for... what? One-upping the mods on creating a universal currency despite the rule that says you can't?

Logically, as the economies of WA nations improve slowly but steadily year after year

Ok, yeah, I know NS =/= RL, but what the hell do you base that on? If anything, their economies will keep worsening, thanks to WA requiring more "donations" to General Fund to pay for fluff like this.

Also the claims later on that "RL banks could make up tons of foreign currencies if they wanted" doesn't hold water, since technically every single person on Earth could legally require their bank to pay out in physical currency the whole balance of their account (specific savings account rules not withstanding for this particular issue). It's one of the reasons why RL nations HAVE gold and silver and whatnot, to base their currency on. And yes, I know most are past their "balance" on that, exactly because banks keep creating more of it. But usually nations do have bureaucracy to stop one bank going berserk and creating more than the bank actually has.

tl;dr Haven't we learned anything from the RL financial troubles? Let's not open that can of worms in the WA roleplay world.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC post in which I comment on various snippets as I encounter them.

"Well, obviously Potted Plants lack the ability to read proposals."

You realize PPU is me, and that I deploy it's IC reality just to make a point in debates?

No, but that wouldn't have changed anything if I did. Every IC point you brought up was already addressed or showed a complete lack of understanding of the proposal text.

No, like, seriously, what are you talking about? This proposal doesn't mention NSD, doesn't mention storefronts, and sure as hell doesn't metagame. Do you see any references to the game? Anything that would force players to do something OOC?

*sigh* The numbers correspond to IC commentary, and give my OOCly explanations of said points of the in-character roleplay. I mark everything OOC with "OOC", but bloody hell, just the text colour should be a big clue!

I'm not an idiot. I know what OOC comments on IC text are. What I don't understand is what NSD has to do with anything, or why you feel the need to point out Metagaming violations I've already addressed: This resolution affects nothing the real players do, it can't be metagaming.

And at any rate, there are a great deal of WA nations with no regard for religion or paying for spiritual services.

Funny, in my experience it's about half and half.

50% is a great deal of nations.

No, it isn't illegal for optionality. First of all, thus proposal establishes (non-optional) the International Standard, requires (non-optional) the GAO to issue currency, and mandates (non-optional) that the World Assembly accept IS.

Furthermore, for all nations that use a national currency (IE: Most nations), they are required (non-optional) to accept IS in all transactions.

So, enlighten me, how is that NOT the same as "creating a universal currency"?

Because not every nation is required to use it! How can it be universal if not every nation is required to use it?

Saying the proposal is optional because not all nations have currencies is ridiculous. You might as well say SPA was optional because not all nations have humans.

Well, it's an extant resolution. Its legitimacy can't even be used as a repeal argument, since it passed.

My point is that SPA was not optional despite only applying to some nations. Neither is this proposal optional despite only applying to some nations.

There is a difference between not applying to every nation and being optional, which you don't seem to understand.

The bank goes bankrupt? I don't know. What happena in real life when a bank owes interest but doesn't have the money to pay it?

Except the "bank" in question is the General Fund. You'd be bankrupting the WA.

No, because the General Fund can't issue interest! The proposal text clearly says exchanges are the only way the WA can issue currency!

So if people don't like the IS, then why would they use it?

Funny, didn't you just use italics to spell out to me how they're required to

No. I said nations (not people, the WA cannot legislate to individuals) are required to accept the currency. People cannot be required to use it.

Or, if it still is optional, then what are you actually accomplishing, except spawning another useless bureaucracy thing for WA? Seriously, the way you're wanting to use the GF for this, you're literally spending the member nations' money on something they're better off not using.

Read all the above points and the proposal again.

And that leaves aside the lowered costs of not having to exchange currencies of a million foreign nations, when the IS allows nations to only ever have to use two when dealing with WA nations: their own, and IS.

Why would they exchange currencies with 21,925 other nations (hardly millions) in the first place?

Because they engage in international trade and there isn't currently an international currency nations are required to accept?

Wouldn't currency at all be needed only in international transactions, which usually take place between just 2 parties?

Yes, but nations (and businesses) don't trade with just one nation. They usually trade with dozens, if not hundreds of nations. That's a whole lot more than two currencies.

Also, do you read what you write?

Yes, but apparently you don't.

This proposal forces nations to accept (but not necessarily use)

How can you both require nations to accept the existence of IS (every time I type that, this is what my brain reads it as [basically Finnish equivalent of Daily Mail]) but not use it in transactions?

Because, as stated numerous times, if someone tries to use IS, then it must be accepted by WA members required to accept it, but the proposal never forces people to actually use it, and can't, because WA resolutions can only affect nations, not individuals. The WA can't force people to use the IS, it can only force nations to require the acceptance of IS.

What if one nation wants to use IS and the other doesn't?

Then if the second nation has a national currency, they are required to accept the other nation's IS as legal tender, but they do not have to use it themselves.

Which is it, Mild or too much of an imposition? It can't be both.

Why not? After all, it's both mandatory and optional at the same time.

It isn't optional. I'm tired of saying this.

Then the only exchanges will be on WA Property, as stated.

Would like a shovel to dig a little deeper hole for this proposal? You're making it more and more convoluted, for... what?

More convoluted how? What could be more simple than "The WA makes exchanges on its own property and in any nation requesting one"?

One-upping the mods on creating a universal currency despite the rule that says you can't?

There is no rule that says you can't create a universal currency.

Logically, as the economies of WA nations improve slowly but steadily year after year

Ok, yeah, I know NS =/= RL, but what the hell do you base that on? If anything, their economies will keep worsening, thanks to WA requiring more "donations" to General Fund to pay for fluff like this.

The fact that NS nations tend to develop better economies over time (socialist nations may have a harder time doing this, but it is possible, and as nation size grows so does the economy in the world of NationStats) and I'd bet most nations do not roleplay financial collapse.

Not to mention if NS economies all worsened, the General Fund would decrease, leading to less IS issued, making it a self-correcting problem.

Also the claims later on that "RL banks could make up tons of foreign currencies if they wanted" doesn't hold water, since technically every single person on Earth could legally require their bank to pay out in physical currency the whole balance of their account (specific savings account rules not withstanding for this particular issue). It's one of the reasons why RL nations HAVE gold and silver and whatnot, to base their currency on. And yes, I know most are past their "balance" on that, exactly because banks keep creating more of it. But usually nations do have bureaucracy to stop one bank going berserk and creating more than the bank actually has.

I'm going to be honest, I have no idea how this is relevant to the proposal.

tl;dr Haven't we learned anything from the RL financial troubles? Let's not open that can of worms in the WA roleplay world.

We've already established that there is really no good RL precedent for this, so how are we supposed to learn anything from RL?

[Separatist Peoples]

Furthermore, for all nations that use a national currency (IE: Most nations), they are required (non-optional) to accept IS in all transactions.

Because not every nation is required to use it! How can it be universal if not every nation is required to use it?

OOC: Huh?

[Araraukar]

I'm not an idiot. I know what OOC comments on IC text are. What I don't understand is what NSD has to do with anything, or why you feel the need to point out Metagaming violations I've already addressed: This resolution affects nothing the real players do, it can't be metagaming.

OOC: *sigh* Okay, once more from the top... The OOC references were making a point about MY in-character comments, to clarify what I meant. And the whole thing was written as a reply to you blowing up over the "non-currency currency" thing. Very little to do with your proposal, just an in-character reaction to your reaction on someone else's roleplay.

*snipped off a lot of shouting*

OOC: Look, I don't know what anthill you're sitting on that's making you so aggressive, but it's not helping your cause at all. Snark is one thing, and I can deal with some shouting before I complain to the mods, but I'm not the only person you've been yelling at. I suggest taking a step back from the computer, some deep breaths, maybe a relaxing exercise, and less caffeine.

[Excidium Planetis]

Furthermore, for all nations that use a national currency (IE: Most nations), they are required (non-optional) to accept IS in all transactions.

Because not every nation is required to use it! How can it be universal if not every nation is required to use it?

OOC: Huh?

*sigh*
All nations that use national currency are required (non-optional) to accept IS.
Not all nations have national currency. Those that do not have a national currency are not required to accept it.

Thus,because not all nations are required to accept it, it cannot be universal.

I'm not an idiot. I know what OOC comments on IC text are. What I don't understand is what NSD has to do with anything, or why you feel the need to point out Metagaming violations I've already addressed: This resolution affects nothing the real players do, it can't be metagaming.

OOC: *sigh* Okay, once more from the top... The OOC references were making a point about MY in-character comments, to clarify what I meant. And the whole thing was written as a reply to you blowing up over the "non-currency currency" thing. Very little to do with your proposal, just an in-character reaction to your reaction on someone else's roleplay.

Your IC point had nothing to do with NSD, and once again, how is your clarification relevant to the proposal text (or even the argument at all) when it mentions NSD, which was never mentioned in the proposal and only mentioned in my arguments to demonstrate how having one international currency facilitates trade? How is your clarification relevant when it mentions metagaming, which my proposal does not do?

*snipped off a lot of shouting*

OOC: Look, I don't know what anthill you're sitting on that's making you so aggressive, but it's not helping your cause at all.

I'm not aggressive. I'm exasperated, which is something else.

Snark is one thing, and I can deal with some shouting before I complain to the mods, but I'm not the only person you've been yelling at.

I haven't yelled at anyone. My last post had only 3 exclamation points and OOC was the only word in all caps. That was out of a total of 34 sentences, so I think it is fair to say by all measurable internet standards, the vast majority of my sentences were said at a normal "volume".