NationStates

Posted: **Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:53 am**

Wealthatonia wrote:
Covenstone wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you come by this skill naturally?

It's deliberate. But still, my point stands, how do you suffer from a turtle stampede?

in the same way you suffer from any other kind of stampede - it's not that hard. And I do not appreciate you making light of one of the most catastrophic events of our history. the loss of life was truly horrific and the scars of that dark, dark day still live in our collective memory to this very day.

Also I have questions :-

Is your entire country underground? Because if an asteroid wipes out all of your citizens then having a capital won't really help all that much because everyone will be dead.
what if there's a fire? Or a flood? or a plague? You are all in a cave and unless it's a massive cave presumably in close quarters so if there is a plague you'll all catch it and die.
if your entire populace is wiped out, would that make you happy?

Posted: **Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:23 am**

Covenstone wrote:*snip about cave dwellers*

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:07 pm**

Covenstone wrote:
Wealthatonia wrote:
It's deliberate. But still, my point stands, how do you suffer from a turtle stampede?

in the same way you suffer from any other kind of stampede - it's not that hard. And I do not appreciate you making light of one of the most catastrophic events of our history. the loss of life was truly horrific and the scars of that dark, dark day still live in our collective memory to this very day.

Also I have questions :-

Is your entire country underground? Because if an asteroid wipes out all of your citizens then having a capital won't really help all that much because everyone will be dead.
what if there's a fire? Or a flood? or a plague? You are all in a cave and unless it's a massive cave presumably in close quarters so if there is a plague you'll all catch it and die.
if your entire populace is wiped out, would that make you happy?

*Ambassador Rockefeller can only laugh at the other ambassador explaining how a turtle stampede is catastrophic* "Man, I'm glad I still have two years in my term before the next election, otherwise I'd be gone right here.

Citizens who are at the middle class and above have the option of living underground or in our best cities. The poor get to choose between the desert region and the flood plains.

We wouldn't mind the poor being wiped out. But the other more valuable citizens would be tragic

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:43 pm**

Wealthatonia wrote:
Covenstone wrote:
in the same way you suffer from any other kind of stampede - it's not that hard. And I do not appreciate you making light of one of the most catastrophic events of our history. the loss of life was truly horrific and the scars of that dark, dark day still live in our collective memory to this very day.

Also I have questions :-

Is your entire country underground? Because if an asteroid wipes out all of your citizens then having a capital won't really help all that much because everyone will be dead.
what if there's a fire? Or a flood? or a plague? You are all in a cave and unless it's a massive cave presumably in close quarters so if there is a plague you'll all catch it and die.
if your entire populace is wiped out, would that make you happy?

*Ambassador Rockefeller can only laugh at the other ambassador explaining how a turtle stampede is catastrophic* "Man, I'm glad I still have two years in my term before the next election, otherwise I'd be gone right here.

Citizens who are at the middle class and above have the option of living underground or in our best cities. The poor get to choose between the desert region and the flood plains.

We wouldn't mind the poor being wiped out. But the other more valuable citizens would be tragic

Whiskers sighs. "Oh lord, you really are like this. Ambassador. PLEASE. Explain why any WA member should be forced to have trade barriers eliminated."

Posted: **Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:29 am**

Kitzerland wrote:Whiskers sighs. "Oh lord, you really are like this. Ambassador. PLEASE. Explain why any WA member should be forced to have trade barriers eliminated."

I'll take this one actually. We believe that eliminating this barrier provides two main benefits: it will allow governments to raise more money to fund their own projects to be able to help their citizens and those nations where citizens are fiancially invested in the well-being of another nation are less likely to go to war.

Posted: **Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:34 am**

United Federated States of Omega wrote:
Kitzerland wrote:Whiskers sighs. "Oh lord, you really are like this. Ambassador. PLEASE. Explain why any WA member should be forced to have trade barriers eliminated."

I'll take this one actually. We believe that eliminating this barrier provides two main benefits: it will allow governments to raise more money to fund their own projects to be able to help their citizens and those nations where citizens are fiancially invested in the well-being of another nation are less likely to go to war.

"I understand that it could have economic benefits, but why should it be mandatory for every nation?"

Posted: **Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:58 pm**

Kitzerland wrote:
United Federated States of Omega wrote:I'll take this one actually. We believe that eliminating this barrier provides two main benefits: it will allow governments to raise more money to fund their own projects to be able to help their citizens and those nations where citizens are fiancially invested in the well-being of another nation are less likely to go to war.

"I understand that it could have economic benefits, but why should it be mandatory for every nation?"

The World Assembly encourages nations to be open with each other and to trade, so why not make the markets open as well?

Posted: **Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:29 pm**

Wealthatonia wrote:The World Assembly encourages nations to be open with each other and to trade, so why not make the markets open as well?

And see, my friend. That is the fault in your argument. The World Assembly is charged with ensuring good diplomatic relations, allowing to be, in your words, open with each other. Whatever that means, I would argue that it stops at diplomacy. Open markets is not the objective of the World Assembly.

Posted: **Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:16 pm**

United Federated States of Omega wrote:
Kitzerland wrote:Whiskers sighs. "Oh lord, you really are like this. Ambassador. PLEASE. Explain why any WA member should be forced to have trade barriers eliminated."

I'll take this one actually. We believe that eliminating this barrier provides two main benefits: it will allow governments to raise more money to fund their own projects to be able to help their citizens and those nations where citizens are fiancially invested in the well-being of another nation are less likely to go to war.

unless one nation causes the collapse of another's stock exchange. then I see war breaking out pretty damn quickly.

Posted: **Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:01 pm**

United Federated States of Omega admits that all they see this as an opportunity for their citizens to gain more wealth. United Federated States of Omega has never given an actual reason why states should be forced to open their markets to foreign investors, other then money.

Posted: **Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:45 pm**

Covenstone wrote:
United Federated States of Omega wrote:I'll take this one actually. We believe that eliminating this barrier provides two main benefits: it will allow governments to raise more money to fund their own projects to be able to help their citizens and those nations where citizens are fiancially invested in the well-being of another nation are less likely to go to war.

unless one nation causes the collapse of another's stock exchange. then I see war breaking out pretty damn quickly.

If a nation invests in another's stock market? why would they want that nation's stock to collapse? they'd lose their money

Posted: **Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:47 pm**

Wealthatonia wrote:If a nation invests in another's stock market? why would they want that nation's stock to collapse? they'd lose their money

Wars are often a net loss of money for a nation as well, yet wars keep happening. Sometimes the greater good of one nation causes it to act against the interests of another nation, even if it resulted in some form of loss for the first nation. These are clearly matters in which you lack any experience, ambassador, but then you're new here. You'll learn to think as a nasty bastard¹ soon enough.

Posted: **Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:24 am**

Wealthatonia wrote:
Covenstone wrote:
unless one nation causes the collapse of another's stock exchange. then I see war breaking out pretty damn quickly.

If a nation invests in another's stock market? why would they want that nation's stock to collapse? they'd lose their money

i didn't mean they'd do it on purpose. but if nation A invests in nation B, then nation A (for some other reason) suffers a catastrophic collapse of their markets, and takes down nation B's stock market because of that, nation B might be a tad miffed and pissed off and seething with the kind of rage and anger that leads of all out war.

it happens.

Posted: **Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:38 am**

Jarish Inyo wrote:United Federated States of Omega admits that all they see this as an opportunity for their citizens to gain more wealth. United Federated States of Omega has never given an actual reason why states should be forced to open their markets to foreign investors, other then money.

Did you miss the whole part about nations that invest in each other generally have better diplomatic relations? I thought I made that part pretty clear. And better diplomatic relations can lead to environmental agreements, human rights agreements, and even agreements to help forge a stronger peace.

Posted: **Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:44 am**

United Federated States of Omega wrote:And better diplomatic relations can lead to environmental agreements, human rights agreements, and even agreements to help forge a stronger peace.

OOC: *looks at Russia and China* Yeah, totally true... in some alternate universe.

Also the point still stands that if a nation can cause an economic collapse and most likely resulting civil unrest in another nation, with which it's about to go to war, that's still a tactical advantage and a chance that all nations aren't willing to take.

Posted: **Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:59 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: *looks at Russia and China* Yeah, totally true... in some alternate universe.

Also the point still stands that if a nation can cause an economic collapse and most likely resulting civil unrest in another nation, with which it's about to go to war, that's still a tactical advantage and a chance that all nations aren't willing to take.

Wait, so are you implying that nations will not partake in economic agreements for the sole purpose of not giving enemies the tactical advantage? Also, free trade transcends government involvement, I would think.

Posted: **Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:00 pm**

Marzicon wrote:Wait, so are you implying that nations will not partake in economic agreements for the sole purpose of not giving enemies the tactical advantage?

That's one solid argument that makes sense. Others would include not wanting to become the playthings of richer countries or be at the whims of some pompous rich dude that bought his way to presidency¹ and happens to have a grudge he won't mind losing someone else's money to repay.

Also, free trade transcends government involvement, I would think.

That's the issue right there.

Posted: **Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:38 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Marzicon wrote:Wait, so are you implying that nations will not partake in economic agreements for the sole purpose of not giving enemies the tactical advantage?

That's one solid argument that makes sense. Others would include not wanting to become the playthings of richer countries or be at the whims of some pompous rich dude that bought his way to presidency¹ and happens to have a grudge he won't mind losing someone else's money to repay.

Well, that's self interest for you. I would think there's more to monetary policy than just a 'tactical advantage'. People want more money, and this sector of the economy that would be created would unarguably bring more money to the people and to communities, unless of course these people have no control over their incomes. If that's the case, than the government would see it in its best interest in being a part of this sector. So what if a guy buys his/her way to the presidency, there is no way that any person would perform such a high-risk maneuver on a country or organization that he/she has a grudge against when they're bound to lose money so that the country could burn to the ground or become puppets to him/her, as you imply.

Also, free trade transcends government involvement, I would think.

That's the issue right there.

How is that an issue? Markets and government can go together, but free trade is a capitalistic approach, and therefore cannot be corrupted by government involvement. I'd argue for personal and economic freedom in this case, but who knows what other countries will think of this draft. I'd agree with you that this draft will come off as brash and standoffish to a lot of other nations and regions.

Posted: **Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:25 pm**

United Federated States of Omega wrote:
Jarish Inyo wrote:United Federated States of Omega admits that all they see this as an opportunity for their citizens to gain more wealth. United Federated States of Omega has never given an actual reason why states should be forced to open their markets to foreign investors, other then money.

Did you miss the whole part about nations that invest in each other generally have better diplomatic relations? I thought I made that part pretty clear. And better diplomatic relations can lead to environmental agreements, human rights agreements, and even agreements to help forge a stronger peace.

Not necessary. Nations do not need to have any diplomatic relationships to invest in another nation's markets. Nor do investments lead to environmental agreements, human rights agreements, and even agreements to help forge a stronger peace. Nations can turn other nations into puppet states by investing and controlling said nation's economy. Or even a very successful company or business person can do the same,

So, again, why force nations that have no desire to open their markets to do so?

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:54 am**

Fellow ambassadors, debate at this point appears to be repetitive with no new points being brought up. As such, barring any legal or new arguments we will look at submitting this later this weekend.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:37 am**

United Federated States of Omega wrote:Fellow ambassadors, debate at this point appears to be repetitive with no new points being brought up. As such, barring any legal or new arguments we will look at submitting this later this weekend.

Whiskers chuckles. "Perhaps if you were to answer those older points, someone would bring up new ones."

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:59 am**

Kitzerland wrote:
United Federated States of Omega wrote:Fellow ambassadors, debate at this point appears to be repetitive with no new points being brought up. As such, barring any legal or new arguments we will look at submitting this later this weekend.

Whiskers chuckles. "Perhaps if you were to answer those older points, someone would bring up new ones."

IC: I really don't think that's a problem.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:31 pm**

Wealthatonia wrote:
Kitzerland wrote:Whiskers chuckles. "Perhaps if you were to answer those older points, someone would bring up new ones."

IC: I really don't think that's a problem.

Of course it is a problem. Refusing to answer them means that either the author has no response to them or ignoring them because the answers do not support their argument for this proposal.

And the refusal to explain why nations should be forced to open their markets is suspect.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:07 pm**

Jarish Inyo wrote:
Wealthatonia wrote:
IC: I really don't think that's a problem.

Of course it is a problem. Refusing to answer them means that either the author has no response to them or ignoring them because the answers do not support their argument for this proposal.

And the refusal to explain why nations should be forced to open their markets is suspect.

I have answered all of the points I have seen.
The answer as to why nations that don't want to must open their markets is simple: we must acknowledge that if they don't want their markets open up they will fall behind. This falling back in economics is rather concerning as this will lead to many people being in poverty and many people needing more help from their government. This proposal will allow governments to raise more money allowing them to do good more good for their people. We are forcing nations to do something that is good for them. Yes, I do no y'all continue to note that countries may manipulate other economies and this is a legitimate concern, however, we are allowing nations a lot of freedom in determining their regulations and as long citizens can get on the exchanges, nations may feel free to institute limits to what foreigners can do including what percentage of a company's stocks they can own. Regulate how you want, but know by opening your markets you will be able to do more good.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:34 pm**

OOC: The good thing is that there's a huge loophole, so as long as that's there, I'm not too fussed about opposing this.

However, do you need to define bonds when the only place you use it is in the definition of a security? Just merge the definitions.

EDIT: If you thought it was only good for nations to open their stock market for outsiders, then wouldn't it follow that the reasonable nations already have done so, and the "non-reasonable" (from your point of view) nations wouldn't do it anyway, no matter what you put in the proposal. Thus making the proposal entirely unnecessary.

NationStates

[PASSED] Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment