[DRAFT] NEW PROPOSAL REGULATION FINANCIAL SYSTEM

[Republic Denmark]

I have some objections to your proposal.

Cognizant: of the risks associated an unregulated financial system in the member states

The risks being?

B. Forbids member nations to deregulate the financial system that could cause major risks for the world economy and could destroy the financial system.

How deregulation would destroy the financial system? Also, are you forcing nations to keep regulations? What about libertarian regions?

If the member nations (especially for socialistic and state industry states) want to opt-out this resolution it is possible by putting own laws in effect to regulate the financial system.

I repeat, what about libertarian nations?

C. Directs a World Assembly Stability Mechanism (WASM) to grant the safety of the financial system by the following measures:
1. The WASM will audit the financial sector of the member states;
2. The WASM will test the banks and insurance companies if they are solvent enough;
3. The WASM will do stress tests to ensure if the economy is failing the banking system is liquid and solvent enough to overcome the trouble.

And if the nations violate these, what will happen?

D. Tasks: the WASM with securing and safeguard the financial system and to eliminate the possibilities of a bank run that could cause major problems in the trust between banks and the people.

Through regulation? You are asking for a banking black market.

E. Further tasks: The WASM will do research reports and will contribute to the safety of the financial sector.

Sure, you'll contribute to the safety of financial sector since there'll be no banks anymore. Unless a banking black market surges.

F. Directives:
1. The amount of debt is restricted. Consumers can’t lend more money then 4 times there total salary a year;
2. The banks need to have 12% of their equity in cash to remain liquid if it comes to a run on the bank. If a bank fails to achieve this it could lend from the central bank;
3. Insurance companies and banks needed to have a license that they may sell their financial products;
4. Employees in the financial sector need special certificates about the financial products;
5. Insurance companies need a solvency rate of 150% or more to overcome major risks on insurance products. (This means the insurance company can pay 1,5 times their liabilities on a normal level without an enormous raise of claims caused by weather, fire or other circumstances);
6. Customers need to be well informed by the banks and insurance companies. This will solve problems that the banks and insurance companies sell products that are not in the interest of the customer.

1. So you are blocking the will of citizens and stopping debt leveraging, therefore slowing growth. Jesus Christ.

2. So you are basically saying: "OK your solvency rate needs to be at least 12%, but if you go bankrupt don't worry, we will bail you out". That's how Too Big To Fail banks surge.

3. Now you are reducing competition and creating higher prices and worse quality for insurance and banking sector.

4. Now you are definitely wanting to break banking sector apart. Is this becoming a Big Brother?

5. Basically no new insurance company will surge anymore, unless you give them loans. Oops, that's how financial crisis happen.

6. That already happens.

Overall, your proposal wants to kill finance sector to say "Hey! We ain't having more financial bubbles!". No wonder why, since there are no banks and insurance corporations anymore.

If this was the case why most banks and Insurance companies in the Northern Europe doesn't face these problems? Because its working just fine. So your arguments are invalid. I don't discuss with you if you only think you are the one who us right because you say so. If these regalutions where really that bad Europe hadn't put this resolution in affect. The economy is recovering last years also and the sector has bever been so stable. Even some of the banks are more stable the the american ones.

[Republic Denmark]

I have some objections to your proposal.

Cognizant: of the risks associated an unregulated financial system in the member states

The risks being?

B. Forbids member nations to deregulate the financial system that could cause major risks for the world economy and could destroy the financial system.

How deregulation would destroy the financial system? Also, are you forcing nations to keep regulations? What about libertarian regions?

If the member nations (especially for socialistic and state industry states) want to opt-out this resolution it is possible by putting own laws in effect to regulate the financial system.

I repeat, what about libertarian nations?

C. Directs a World Assembly Stability Mechanism (WASM) to grant the safety of the financial system by the following measures:
1. The WASM will audit the financial sector of the member states;
2. The WASM will test the banks and insurance companies if they are solvent enough;
3. The WASM will do stress tests to ensure if the economy is failing the banking system is liquid and solvent enough to overcome the trouble.

And if the nations violate these, what will happen?

D. Tasks: the WASM with securing and safeguard the financial system and to eliminate the possibilities of a bank run that could cause major problems in the trust between banks and the people.

Through regulation? You are asking for a banking black market.

E. Further tasks: The WASM will do research reports and will contribute to the safety of the financial sector.

Sure, you'll contribute to the safety of financial sector since there'll be no banks anymore. Unless a banking black market surges.

F. Directives:
1. The amount of debt is restricted. Consumers can’t lend more money then 4 times there total salary a year;
2. The banks need to have 12% of their equity in cash to remain liquid if it comes to a run on the bank. If a bank fails to achieve this it could lend from the central bank;
3. Insurance companies and banks needed to have a license that they may sell their financial products;
4. Employees in the financial sector need special certificates about the financial products;
5. Insurance companies need a solvency rate of 150% or more to overcome major risks on insurance products. (This means the insurance company can pay 1,5 times their liabilities on a normal level without an enormous raise of claims caused by weather, fire or other circumstances);
6. Customers need to be well informed by the banks and insurance companies. This will solve problems that the banks and insurance companies sell products that are not in the interest of the customer.

1. So you are blocking the will of citizens and stopping debt leveraging, therefore slowing growth. Jesus Christ.

2. So you are basically saying: "OK your solvency rate needs to be at least 12%, but if you go bankrupt don't worry, we will bail you out". That's how Too Big To Fail banks surge.

3. Now you are reducing competition and creating higher prices and worse quality for insurance and banking sector.

4. Now you are definitely wanting to break banking sector apart. Is this becoming a Big Brother?

5. Basically no new insurance company will surge anymore, unless you give them loans. Oops, that's how financial crisis happen.

6. That already happens.

Overall, your proposal wants to kill finance sector to say "Hey! We ain't having more financial bubbles!". No wonder why, since there are no banks and insurance corporations anymore.

If you really think this will all happen then why are the banks in the Netherlands even more healthier with even more stricter regulations then this and the financial sector is even doing fine. Look at those regulations. I know this regulations because I work at an Insurance company in the Netherlands.

[Great Minarchistan]

If this was the case why most banks and Insurance companies in the Northern Europe doesn't face these problems? Because its working just fine. So your arguments are invalid. I don't discuss with you if you only think you are the one who us right because you say so. If these regalutions where really that bad Europe hadn't put this resolution in affect. The economy is recovering last years also and the sector has bever been so stable. Even some of the banks are more stable the the american ones.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/ ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/ ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/netherl ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland ... ate-sector

Except by Norway (petrostate) and Finland, all the countries that could be included in your "Northern Europe" definition are with the banks stagnated or failing. Same goes for insurance, as most people in Europe are wanting to rent rather than own a home now. Doesn't sound that healthy huh? Specially noticing Deutsche Bank is on the brink of failure, so is Monti dei Paschi and BNP Paribas, three of the biggest European banks. Things aren't so healthy, huh? Here is Eurozone as a whole, so you can see the current situation. Loans are stagnated/falling since 2008, that with a trillionaire stimulus and extra government regulation. Also, I wonder if you slept over the last 9 years, because Eurozone is still "recuperating" since 2008, those being results from an interventionist stance that you want to implement here.

If you really think this will all happen then why are the banks in the Netherlands even more healthier with even more stricter regulations then this and the financial sector is even doing fine. Look at those regulations. I know this regulations because I work at an Insurance company in the Netherlands.

Blah blah blah "All this work because I work in the sector". So what? I suppose you either don't check facts or you aren't aware of the situation Netherlands is facing.

[Republic Denmark]

If this was the case why most banks and Insurance companies in the Northern Europe doesn't face these problems? Because its working just fine. So your arguments are invalid. I don't discuss with you if you only think you are the one who us right because you say so. If these regalutions where really that bad Europe hadn't put this resolution in affect. The economy is recovering last years also and the sector has bever been so stable. Even some of the banks are more stable the the american ones.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/ ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/ ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/netherl ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland ... ate-sector

Except by Norway (petrostate) and Finland, all the countries that could be included in your "Northern Europe" definition are with the banks stagnated or failing. Same goes for insurance, as most people in Europe are wanting to rent rather than own a home now. Doesn't sound that healthy huh? Specially noticing Deutsche Bank is on the brink of failure, so is Monti dei Paschi and BNP Paribas, three of the biggest European banks. Things aren't so healthy, huh? Here is Eurozone as a whole, so you can see the current situation. Loans are stagnated/falling since 2008, that with a trillionaire stimulus and extra government regulation. Also, I wonder if you slept over the last 9 years, because Eurozone is still "recuperating" since 2008, those being results from an interventionist stance that you want to implement here.

If you really think this will all happen then why are the banks in the Netherlands even more healthier with even more stricter regulations then this and the financial sector is even doing fine. Look at those regulations. I know this regulations because I work at an Insurance company in the Netherlands.

Blah blah blah "All this work because I work in the sector". So what? I suppose you either don't check facts or you aren't aware of the situation Netherlands is facing.

Blablablabla you clearly don't know why these problems has occured. I am not discuss this anymore with you.

[Great Minarchistan]

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/ ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/ ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/netherl ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany ... ate-sector

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland ... ate-sector

Except by Norway (petrostate) and Finland, all the countries that could be included in your "Northern Europe" definition are with the banks stagnated or failing. Same goes for insurance, as most people in Europe are wanting to rent rather than own a home now. Doesn't sound that healthy huh? Specially noticing Deutsche Bank is on the brink of failure, so is Monti dei Paschi and BNP Paribas, three of the biggest European banks. Things aren't so healthy, huh? Here is Eurozone as a whole, so you can see the current situation. Loans are stagnated/falling since 2008, that with a trillionaire stimulus and extra government regulation. Also, I wonder if you slept over the last 9 years, because Eurozone is still "recuperating" since 2008, those being results from an interventionist stance that you want to implement here.



Blah blah blah "All this work because I work in the sector". So what? I suppose you either don't check facts or you aren't aware of the situation Netherlands is facing.

Blablablabla you clearly don't know why these problems has occured. I am not discuss this anymore with you.

If I don't know why they happened, why don't you teach me why instead of retreat? You are clearly showing you've got no argument basis to answer my questions. Good luck with your proposal.

[Republic Denmark]

Blablablabla you clearly don't know why these problems has occured. I am not discuss this anymore with you.

If I don't know why they happened, why don't you teach me why instead of retreat? You are clearly showing you've got no argument basis to answer my questions. Good luck with your proposal.

I have enough arguments. Don't want to use my time on you when you start Everytime offensive. So you are not worth the time for me.

[Great Minarchistan]

If I don't know why they happened, why don't you teach me why instead of retreat? You are clearly showing you've got no argument basis to answer my questions. Good luck with your proposal.

I have enough arguments. Don't want to use my time on you when you start Everytime offensive. So you are not worth the time for me.

You have enough arguments but won't show the arsenal because I'll be hurt. Awwww how pacifist of you. Mind showing a bit of your arguments?

[Neo Libertalius]

Blablablabla you clearly don't know why these problems has occured. I am not discuss this anymore with you.

Not very good debate skills to be honest. Besides that, you refused to answer their question about libertarian regions and we disagree with this on principle anyway. If this reaches quorum (doubtful, it's too risky), we will not be voting for it.

[Republic Denmark]

Blablablabla you clearly don't know why these problems has occured. I am not discuss this anymore with you.

Not very good debate skills to be honest. Besides that, you refused to answer their question about libertarian regions and we disagree with this on principle anyway. If this reaches quorum (doubtful, it's too risky), we will not be voting for it.

I didn't want to answer his qeustions because he started first Everytime offensive. And its not to riskt this regulation if it was why did the European Union do such matters? Even the people wanted regulation.

[Great Minarchistan]

Not very good debate skills to be honest. Besides that, you refused to answer their question about libertarian regions and we disagree with this on principle anyway. If this reaches quorum (doubtful, it's too risky), we will not be voting for it.

I didn't want to answer his qeustions because he started first Everytime offensive. And its not to riskt this regulation if it was why did the European Union do such matters? Even the people wanted regulation.

So you classify hard answering questions offensive? And do you represent 340 million to say everyone wanted regulation? Those regulations led to the bankruptcy of several business, and the consequent mass unemployment. Answering you, EU was crazy trying to get a solution to solve their crisis. Instead of take the hard long way, they chose easy keynesianism and here we are.

[Frisbeeteria]

Picking on this post not because it's a problem, simply because it's somewhat representative:

Answering you, EU was crazy trying to get a solution to solve their crisis. Instead of take the hard long way, they chose easy keynesianism and here we are.

You folks need to get this discussion back on the World Assembly track. I recognize that certain elements of Real World economics are necessary in order to make this discussion relevant, but you're drifting into more of a NSG-type argument. Keep it focused on the WA with every post, please.

Blablablabla you clearly don't know why these problems has occured. I am not discuss this anymore with you.

If you're simply going to dismiss arguments rather than addressing them, your proposal stands little or no chance of gaining support. If you can't convince forum critics, how do you expect to address the WA as a whole?

Frsibeeteria,
Senior Game Moderator

[Republic Denmark]

I didn't want to answer his qeustions because he started first Everytime offensive. And its not to riskt this regulation if it was why did the European Union do such matters? Even the people wanted regulation.

So you classify hard answering questions offensive? And do you represent 340 million to say everyone wanted regulation? Those regulations led to the bankruptcy of several business, and the consequent mass unemployment. Answering you, EU was crazy trying to get a solution to solve their crisis. Instead of take the hard long way, they chose easy keynesianism and here we are.

The unemployment and failing bussinesses where causes because of the credit crunch, a corrupted financial system and a debt crisis in Greece, spain Ireland, Portugal and Iceland. Not because of the regulation of the system that is implemented after the crisis to overcome this problem and that it will never happen again. Easy keynesianism is only used since last year when they started to buying bondsband Pumping money in the system. Europe choose the long hard way. They saved the banking system and then regulated it. Even America had done it not that strict as the European rules but they have done it with the dodd-frank act. So if regulation is so bad why is the income inequality in America much higher, much more people are unemployed and then the real Numbers based on participation, the debt in America is much higher, more people has lost their homes and the amount banks has fallen by merge them to make them even a bigger risk for the economy (thank you America for deragulation). Even Franklin d roosevelt said back then in the 30s that the financial system is a big risk for the economy if you don't regulate it and if you make banks and Insurance companies to large.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not because of the regulation of the system that is implemented after the crisis to overcome this problem and that it will never happen again.

It will happen again. This is because depositors will always want higher returns and any level of competition will force companies to give them those higher returns. The question is not 'How do we prevent financial crises', it is 'How do we make the next one less harmful'. Your 'regulations' don't do that.

Easy keynesianism is only used since last year when they started to buying bondsband Pumping money in the system. Europe choose the long hard way. They saved the banking system and then regulated it. Even America had done it not that strict as the European rules but they have done it with the dodd-frank act.

The current large-scale asset purchases (also known as quantitative easing, but LSAP is much clearer) entail the central bank purchasing large amounts of assets from private firms. This is not Keynesianism. This is a strange form of new monetarism. It has been done entirely because there has been no will by governments to actually support aggregate demand and do anything to counteract the liquidity trap in which most economies are currently trapped.

So if regulation is so bad why is the income inequality in America much higher, much more people are unemployed and then the real Numbers based on participation, the debt in America is much higher, more people has lost their homes and the amount banks has fallen by merge them to make them even a bigger risk for the economy (thank you America for deragulation). Even Franklin d roosevelt said back then in the 30s that the financial system is a big risk for the economy if you don't regulate it and if you make banks and Insurance companies to large.

As I already said, a macroeconomic competitive equilibrium produces an allocative outcome which is Pareto optimal.

[Republic Denmark]

Not because of the regulation of the system that is implemented after the crisis to overcome this problem and that it will never happen again.

It will happen again. This is because depositors will always want higher returns and any level of competition will force companies to give them those higher returns. The question is not 'How do we prevent financial crises', it is 'How do we make the next one less harmful'. Your 'regulations' don't do that.

Easy keynesianism is only used since last year when they started to buying bondsband Pumping money in the system. Europe choose the long hard way. They saved the banking system and then regulated it. Even America had done it not that strict as the European rules but they have done it with the dodd-frank act.

The current large-scale asset purchases (also known as quantitative easing, but LSAP is much clearer) entail the central bank purchasing large amounts of assets from private firms. This is not Keynesianism. This is a strange form of new monetarism. It has been done entirely because there has been no will by governments to actually support aggregate demand and do anything to counteract the liquidity trap in which most economies are currently trapped.

So if regulation is so bad why is the income inequality in America much higher, much more people are unemployed and then the real Numbers based on participation, the debt in America is much higher, more people has lost their homes and the amount banks has fallen by merge them to make them even a bigger risk for the economy (thank you America for deragulation). Even Franklin d roosevelt said back then in the 30s that the financial system is a big risk for the economy if you don't regulate it and if you make banks and Insurance companies to large.

As I already said, a macroeconomic competitive equilibrium produces an allocative outcome which is Pareto optimal.

If you don't regulate the system it will cause big risks for the economy. The system was regulated before. The risks and also one of the causes of the credit crunch was merging investment banks with consumer banks. This made the institutions much more powerfull and they take much higher risks. When the interest rates where lie and they are low again they lend out to much money without controlling if consumers could pay it. If you regulate it in this way you are preventing those risks. First you have a little pain but after it the financial sector is much healthier. And in some places it seems to work at this moment allready. Ultra there are still problems but they are mostly causes by innefficienf systems and a huge debt in the south that us hurting the european economy its not caused by the regulation. For example the real estate market in Germany and the Netherlands are allready booming again.

[Great Minarchistan]

So if regulation is so bad why is the income inequality in America much higher, much more people are unemployed and then the real Numbers based on participation, the debt in America is much higher, more people has lost their homes and the amount banks has fallen by merge them to make them even a bigger risk for the economy (thank you America for deragulation). Even Franklin d roosevelt said back then in the 30s that the financial system is a big risk for the economy if you don't regulate it and if you make banks and Insurance companies to large.

U.S. Gini Index: 45
Eurozone Gini Index: 30

Not a big deal. Now let's hang over unemployment:

U.S. Unemployment rate: 4%
Eurozone Unemployment rate: 10%

Debt:

U.S. Debt: 100%
Eurozone Debt: 90%

Overall, you better check facts before say US is way worse than Eurozone.

Even Franklin d roosevelt said back then in the 30s that the financial system is a big risk for the economy if you don't regulate it and if you make banks and Insurance companies to large.

1. FDR made Great Depression take 10 years instead of the 18 months of 1921 Depression.

2. Government guarantees corporations, something called corporatism. That's what creates Too Big To Fail businesses. Stop to complain about deregulation when you don't really have a point to defend it.

3. I still want my answer relating libertarian nations within this system.

[Great Minarchistan]

If you don't regulate the system it will cause big risks for the economy. The system was regulated before. The risks and also one of the causes of the credit crunch was merging investment banks with consumer banks. This made the institutions much more powerfull and they take much higher risks. When the interest rates where lie and they are low again they lend out to much money without controlling if consumers could pay it. If you regulate it in this way you are preventing those risks. First you have a little pain but after it the financial sector is much healthier. And in some places it seems to work at this moment allready. Ultra there are still problems but they are mostly causes by innefficienf systems and a huge debt in the south that us hurting the european economy its not caused by the regulation. For example the real estate market in Germany and the Netherlands are allready booming again.

1. Regulation caused 2002-2008 bubble and 2009-2017 bubble. I've mentioned eight solid facts to prove my argument. Meanwhile the only thing you've been saying until now is "regulation is good because deregulation is bad (?)"

2. Until now I didn't see the good results regulation brought to U.S. and Eurozone. Show me some statistics that comprove that, please.

3. Bet 50 grand this bud will say economy is too deregulated when this actual bubble bursts, yet he affirmed the inverse.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you don't regulate the system it will cause big risks for the economy. The system was regulated before. The risks and also one of the causes of the credit crunch was merging investment banks with consumer banks. This made the institutions much more powerfull and they take much higher risks.

No, it hasn't. It has made them larger. Greater scale has not created higher levels of risk-taking. Rather, the time-inconsistency issue having to do with central bank decision-making has much more to do with risky behaviour, along with demands for higher rates of return on equity, than regulation. Regulations don't solve the issue of banking crises, they simply alleviate the impacts thereof. The Economist published an interesting article on the topic in 2014.

When the interest rates where lie and they are low again they lend out to much money without controlling if consumers could pay it.

This is how financial institutions work. You capitalise on interest rate spreads so that the cash flow in any period from long-run lending is higher than the cash flow requirements imposed by short-run liabilities. Not doing so makes all financial institutions insolvent.

If you regulate it in this way you are preventing those risks.

No, you aren't. All equity requirements do is try to reduce the final impact of risk-taking. It does nothing to actually lead to lower risk-taking. The only way you get lower risk-taking is to make the market demand lower risk-taking.

First you have a little pain but after it the financial sector is much healthier.

It isn't. And Europe certainly isn't where it is getting better.

[Polarisium]

You want to create this WASM, which is an international organization. And it will actively interfere in the economies of all member-states? Is that wise? Imagine the fuss all the banks/industry/commerce/etc will have to break through to just work. One thing is an international law that member-countries must abide by when managing their economies, and completely another when you create an international organization that will poke its nose into thousands of economies.

Sorry, I just think that creating a mega-bureaucratic machine, that will meddle with my economy is a bad idea. Maybe I got your project wrong, if so, please correct me.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: this seems to violate the Optionality rule.

[Great Minarchistan]

You want to create this WASM, which is an international organization. And it will actively interfere in the economies of all member-states? Is that wise? Imagine the fuss all the banks/industry/commerce/etc will have to break through to just work. One thing is an international law that member-countries must abide by when managing their economies, and completely another when you create an international organization that will poke its nose into thousands of economies.

Sorry, I just think that creating a mega-bureaucratic machine, that will meddle with my economy is a bad idea. Maybe I got your project wrong, if so, please correct me.

You got it damn right. This guy has been praising mass regulation since his first post here.

[Separatist Peoples]

You want to create this WASM, which is an international organization. And it will actively interfere in the economies of all member-states? Is that wise? Imagine the fuss all the banks/industry/commerce/etc will have to break through to just work. One thing is an international law that member-countries must abide by when managing their economies, and completely another when you create an international organization that will poke its nose into thousands of economies.

Sorry, I just think that creating a mega-bureaucratic machine, that will meddle with my economy is a bad idea. Maybe I got your project wrong, if so, please correct me.

You got it damn right. This guy has been praising mass regulation since his first post here.

"There isn't anything inherently wrong with regulation, ambassador. Especially when it is to the benefit of the global community."

[Polarisium]

You got it damn right. This guy has been praising mass regulation since his first post here.

"There isn't anything inherently wrong with regulation, ambassador. Especially when it is to the benefit of the global community."

You are correct, however, is an international organization an option here? The WASM is bound to become an organization with hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats, which will do their job with speed of a pregnant slug.

Imagine someone, who runs a bank.

You have to obey your native laws, suffer audits from your national government agencies etc. Now there is a machine as big as your entire government, that will come to you and demand reports. Then they will take your reports and disappear, and you will have to wait for their decision whether your bank must be closed or not. Meanwhile your investors are gettjng worried as well for exactly the same reasons. In the end, five month later, you recieve an ok paper from the WASM, but your bank is closed, because all your investors withdrew their money to another bank. Damn.

I believe that regulation from a state government is enough, there is no need for international regulation. That's just insane.

[Great Minarchistan]

You got it damn right. This guy has been praising mass regulation since his first post here.

"There isn't anything inherently wrong with regulation, ambassador. Especially when it is to the benefit of the global community."

> Regulation is good

Where do you live, may I ask?

[Separatist Peoples]

"There isn't anything inherently wrong with regulation, ambassador. Especially when it is to the benefit of the global community."

You are correct, however, is an international organization an option here? The WASM is bound to become an organization with hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats, which will do their job with speed of a pregnant slug.

Imagine someone, who runs a bank.

You have to obey your native laws, suffer audits from your national government agencies etc. Now there is a machine as big as your entire government, that will come to you and demand reports. Then they will take your reports and disappear, and you will have to wait for their decision whether your bank must be closed or not. Meanwhile your investors are gettjng worried as well for exactly the same reasons. In the end, five month later, ypu recieve an ok paper from the WASM, but your bank is closed, because all your jnvestors withdrew their money to another bank. Damn.

I believe that regulation from a state government is enough, there is no need for international regulation. That's just insane.

"Don't condescend to me, boy, I've been working at the World Assembly for years. I know, probably better than most of the ambassadors present at the moment, how swamp-like the bureaucracy here is. Though, with my luck, an old timer will waltz back in. As bad as it is, the World Assembly, in order to survive, necessarily must function at faster than a snail's pace, or it would have imploded under it's own weight. That hasn't happened.

"Any successful nation would have records prepared for their own use. It's a simple matter of turning them over. Operations don't cease entirely during an audit. Moreover, regulation, especially of international industry, seek to facilitate and encourage transactions, not hinder them. That's their point. Anything that seeks to restrict industry does so in the name of a greater benefit, such as the restrictions against child labor. International regulation isn't an industry-destroying boogieman, ambassador, it's a necessity of globalization."

"There isn't anything inherently wrong with regulation, ambassador. Especially when it is to the benefit of the global community."

> Regulation is good

Where do you live, may I ask?

"I said regulation isn't inherently wrong, ambassador. Get it right? Ostensibly, I live in the Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples, though I am, er, lodged here at the World Assembly Headquarters."

[Kitzerland]

You got it damn right. This guy has been praising mass regulation since his first post here.

"There isn't anything inherently wrong with regulation, ambassador. Especially when it is to the benefit of the global community."

"Indeed, but such would be a gross overreach of the WA's power. Tasking a committee with observing everything about the financial sector (To a certain extent. You've got to allow for hyperbole) would result in a large penalty to efficiency. Also, I just like saying gross overreach."