[ABANDONED] Bankers Not Cooperating!

[Wallowis]

Description:
In response to a recent policy implemented that would lower the wealth of the central bank, the bank has refused to comply with the policy implemented. In response, parts of the military have decided to force the bank's hand and take control of the central bank to implement the changes.

Invalid for nations that have a free market

Option 1:
"You have to let us do this!" General @@NAME@@ insists. "The bank is refusing to cooperate, it is our job to make them listen to the government! If we don't, we will return to our capitalist ways, and, and, the communist utopia will be crushed! We must initiate the coup! If you don't support us, then maybe you are also in need of being overthrown, not just the bank...are you a capitalist pig?"
fallout: the military frequently launches government-approved coups against anyone that they dislike, including the government.

Option 2:
"We have no choice but to listen to him!" Your advisor whispers. "We may not wish to do this, but it is necessary to remain in power! Besides, we could always lower military budget in the future after this...we could take some of the money from the bank and use it to lower the power of the military! We must think in the long term!"
fallout: the military and government are constantly plotting to overthrow the other.

Option 3:
"This nation is not what it used to be!" Claims one of your bankers. "You cannot let this become a militant dictatorship! Rollback the economic policy, don't enforce it! If you do, we can guarantee you our support in any upcoming...conflict with the military." He adds in a low voice.
fallout: the bank gets away with everything.

Option 4: "He isn't going far enough! We should revert all economic policies and start from scratch!" Says another one of your bankers. "Face it, socialism is getting old. We need to evolve, we need to adopt capitalism. Trust me on this. The military won't retaliate at all. Why would they?" He says, laughing the thought off.
fallout: the nation has rolled back all economic policies and the military has resigned in protest.

Option 5: "We need to compromise!" Says one of your calmer advisors. "How about we hold a referendum on this policy? Then this will be resolved once and for all, and no one could protest to the outcome, surely?"
fallout: referendums are called for every minor law or policy.

[Wallowis]

Any feedback?

[Untecna]

Any feedback?

Proper formatting for random names and such, for one thing.

[Wallowis]

Any feedback?

Proper formatting for random names and such, for one thing.

Done

[Sensorland]

Hmm, we already have an issue about the independence of the central bank, #717: Cheques And Balances. I'm not convinced this issue is sufficiently distinct.

[Outer Sparta]

Hmm, we already have an issue about the independence of the central bank, #717: Cheques And Balances. I'm not convinced this issue is sufficiently distinct.

Agreed. The premise just isn't unique enough.

[Wallowis]

Hmm, we already have an issue about the independence of the central bank, #717: Cheques And Balances. I'm not convinced this issue is sufficiently distinct.

Agreed. The premise just isn't unique enough.

Hmm, we already have an issue about the independence of the central bank, #717: Cheques And Balances. I'm not convinced this issue is sufficiently distinct.

I see your point, but the military is completely unpresent from that one. Yes, both our issues address similar topics, but take completely different approaches. I still think this is independent enough, but if you could think of ways to make it more distinct I'd be happy to consider implementing them!

[Candensia]

I agree the issue somewhat resembles #717. But, I also think this issue is vague. The writing sounds like an NS issue, but the feel is slightly off.

It's as if I've stepped into a meeting slightly late, and everyone is arguing about *something*, but I have no idea what that *something* is, or why everyone arguing about it. I need context.

I'd find myself saying:

"What are we debating?"
"What has triggered this debate?"
"Why is this debate important?"

OP, ask yourself these sorts of questions when reading your description. If you can't easily come up with an answer, then the text may be too vague.

[Wallowis]

I agree the issue somewhat resembles #717. But, I also think this issue is vague. The writing sounds like an NS issue, but the feel is slightly off.

It's as if I've stepped into a meeting slightly late, and everyone is arguing about *something*, but I have no idea what that *something* is, or why everyone arguing about it. I need context.

I'd find myself saying:

"What are we debating?"
"What has triggered this debate?"
"Why is this debate important?"

OP, ask yourself these sorts of questions when reading your description. If you can't easily come up with an answer, then the text may be too vague.

Thank you for the feedback!

[Brezzia]

Description:
In response to a recent policy implemented that would lower the wealth of the central bank, the bank has refused to comply with the policy implemented.

Central Banks are public institutions and follow government policies. They do not make profit like private bank. They care about the national economy, not their own wealth (which depends from national economy because they're public institutions).

In response, parts of the military have decided to force the bank's hand and take control of the central bank to implement the changes.

I don't think military would be involved. Government can just change the Bank general director.

Invalid for nations that have a free market

Free market countries have Central Banks too. Furthermore, the fact that the Bank do not follow government policies for its own wealth is something that a private bank would do (so, it's not gonna happen in a socialist economy).

We must initiate the coup!

Coups are addressed to government, not other institutions (the latter use is journalistic sensationalism).

Option 2:

Its consequence is similar to option 1 because the "coup" against the Central Bank will happen.

If you do, we can guarantee you our support in any upcoming...conflict with the military.

It's difficult to understand how bankers can be oppose coup leaders. They could just decide to fund them or not.

We should revert all economic policies and start from scratch!" Says another one of your bankers. "Face it, socialism is getting old. We need to evolve, we need to adopt capitalism.

Capitalist countries have economic policies too. And from a socialist POV, becoming capitalist from a socialist economy is not an "evolution" but a "regression".

Option 5:

Very generic (it could be the last option of every issues). The option is similar to one of an issue about referendums.

[Wallowis]

Description:
In response to a recent policy implemented that would lower the wealth of the central bank, the bank has refused to comply with the policy implemented.

Central Banks are public institutions and follow government policies. They do not make profit like private bank. They care about the national economy, not their own wealth (which depends from national economy because they're public institutions).

Okay, hmm, I suppose I could fix that somehow.

In response, parts of the military have decided to force the bank's hand and take control of the central bank to implement the changes.

I don't think military would be involved. Government can just change the Bank general director.

Then maybe Ill make the issue only availale to those with low military spending? Or high patriotism. And make it more clear that the Bank General director and the rest of the bank is refusing to step down, also making the issue only available to low government size/authoritarianism countries.

Invalid for nations that have a free market

Free market countries have Central Banks too. Furthermore, the fact that the Bank do not follow government policies for its own wealth is something that a private bank would do (so, it's not gonna happen in a socialist economy).

Still, this issue has many references to socialism so ill keep the invalidation.

We must initiate the coup!

Coups are addressed to government, not other institutions (the latter use is journalistic sensationalism).

Okay, ill change the term used.

Option 2:

Its consequence is similar to option 1 because the "coup" against the Central Bank will happen.

Still, surely encouraging the deposing and just not doing anything about it are different enough?

If you do, we can guarantee you our support in any upcoming...conflict with the military.

It's difficult to understand how bankers can be oppose coup leaders. They could just decide to fund them or not.

Fair enough, but surely the banker could also fund the government or something? Support is vague enough for it to stay, I think.

We should revert all economic policies and start from scratch!" Says another one of your bankers. "Face it, socialism is getting old. We need to evolve, we need to adopt capitalism.

Capitalist countries have economic policies too. And from a socialist POV, becoming capitalist from a socialist economy is not an "evolution" but a "regression".

Ofc capitalist countries also have economic policies, he was suggesting STARTING OVER. You completely misunderstood what I meant here. And the banker is capitalist as you can see by him calling socialism old.

Option 5:

Very generic (it could be the last option of every issues). The option is similar to one of an issue about referendums.

Fair enough so I suppose I should remove it.

[Electrum]

Description:
In response to a recent policy implemented that would lower the wealth of the central bank, the bank has refused to comply with the policy implemented. In response, parts of the military have decided to force the bank's hand and take control of the central bank to implement the changes.

Sorry but the premise is unsalvageable on multiple fronts.

What policy? The Central Bank typically acts as the banker for the government alongside other responsibilities (most notably monetary policy setting). Why would the government implement anything that will lower its own ‘wealth’?

Furthermore, when the leader mandates something or the government implements a policy on NationStates then the assumption is that it gets carried out. And if people don’t do what I (the leader) would want them to do then I would fire them and hire someone who can, no military necessary. I suggest looking at drafting a new issue on an area you’re more familiar with and follow the advice above about making the premise clear.

[Australian rePublic]

Why in the fuck would any country actively go out of the way to lower the wealth of their own central bank? That doesn't make any sense

[Wallowis]

Why in the fuck would any country actively go out of the way to lower the wealth of their own central bank? That doesn't make any sense

I never said they did? There are many ways a country can lower its own wealth deliberately in order to fix problems. Maybe they wanted to burn money to try and fix hyperinflation?

[Golgothastan]

I wrote an issue similar to this, which was accepted. I don't think this issue is really different enough, or makes any sense, given "lower the wealth of the central bank" is a meaningless phrase.

[Australian rePublic]

Next question- Option 2 doesn't make sense. Why would you reduce the military budget after knowing how much the military could help you. That's like selling the goose who lays the golden eggs after learning the value of the golden eggs

[Wallowis]

Yeah this is cancelled