[DRAFT] NEW PROPOSAL REGULATION FINANCIAL SYSTEM

[Separatist Peoples]

"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."

"In this case, ambassador, you are correct. The suggestion was that all regulation, regardless of construction or intent, was a negative. This is wholly untrue."

[Polarisium]

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. 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."

I believe that the first part of the reply is irrelevant. But I appologize if I sounded condescending.

To the relevant part.

That is all fine and well, but is there any evidence of globalization here, as in NationStates, outside of the regions?

Furthermore, an international finantial, or rather economic overseer is not a tool of globalization, it's more of a tool of rapid globalization. Even now in the real world countries don't unify their economies, and this organization is just a step from total unification.


About data. Then what is the point of this organization? Each competent government has its own relevant structure that deals with finantial regulation, that processes the data and gives results. Governments act on these results. What's the point in international oversight? You don't trust member-nations to manage their own economies?

[Separatist Peoples]

I believe that the first part of the reply is irrelevant. But I appologize if I sounded condescending.

Bell rolls his eyes.

To the relevant part.

That is all fine and well, but is there any evidence of globalization here, as in NationStates, outside of the regions?

"Ambassador, you are standing in the campus for an international organization that houses tens of thousands of representatives, that passes international law, and that generally facilitates and regulates supranational interactions. How could you claim that there isn't evidence of globalization in the world?"

OOC: Nationstates is presumed to be analogous to the current world in terms of technology and inter-connectivity of nations. Even if your nation isn't, most are pretty globalized.

Furthermore, an international finantial, or rather economic overseer is not a tool of globalization, it's more of a tool of rapid globalization. Even now in the real world countries don't unify their economies, and this organization is just a step from total unification.

"Ambassador, I'm not sure why you need to qualify "real world countries". We're all real here. This seeks to stabilize the global banking industry. It does so poorly, and I hardly support the proposal, but that doesn't mean international regulation is inherently wrong or bad, especially when it seeks to protect your nation from the follies of others."

About data. Then what is the point of this organization? Each competent government has its own relevant structure that deals with finantial regulation, that processes the data and gives results. Governments act on these results. What's the point in international oversight? You don't trust member-nations to manage their own economies?

"Because individual nations making dangerous or reckless policy moves with their banking industry, or individual banks overborrowing or overlending, could potentially damage other nations' economies. Without oversight, there is nothing your nation could to to protect itself from damage to the global economy by other nations. The same reasoning applies to international regulation of war crimes, environmental policy, diplomacy, and free trade."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Any successful nation would have records prepared for their own use.

PARSONS: This isn't necessarily the case. For example, many different nations in Europe (OOC: the region) have different financial regulations which monitor very different criteria and variables that come to somewhat similar conclusions at different targeted criteria. Vis-à-vis banking, many decide to monitor their interbank lending rates. Others decide to monitor non-borrowed reserves. We happen to be one of the latter. But the kind of information which some international agency wants is not always going to be the kind of information which that agency can find from the data already present.

---

This was submitted? And with an entire opt-out clause, no less. Is this going to be another repeat of the tactics surrounding that proposal two years ago about some ridiculous electrical smart grid?

[Polarisium]

I believe that the first part of the reply is irrelevant. But I appologize if I sounded condescending.

Bell rolls his eyes.

To the relevant part.

That is all fine and well, but is there any evidence of globalization here, as in NationStates, outside of the regions?

"Ambassador, you are standing in the campus for an international organization that houses tens of thousands of representatives, that passes international law, and that generally facilitates and regulates supranational interactions. How could you claim that there isn't evidence of globalization in the world?"

OOC: Nationstates is presumed to be analogous to the current world in terms of technology and inter-connectivity of nations. Even if your nation isn't, most are pretty globalized.

Furthermore, an international finantial, or rather economic overseer is not a tool of globalization, it's more of a tool of rapid globalization. Even now in the real world countries don't unify their economies, and this organization is just a step from total unification.

"Ambassador, I'm not sure why you need to qualify "real world countries". We're all real here. This seeks to stabilize the global banking industry. It does so poorly, and I hardly support the proposal, but that doesn't mean international regulation is inherently wrong or bad, especially when it seeks to protect your nation from the follies of others."

About data. Then what is the point of this organization? Each competent government has its own relevant structure that deals with finantial regulation, that processes the data and gives results. Governments act on these results. What's the point in international oversight? You don't trust member-nations to manage their own economies?

"Because individual nations making dangerous or reckless policy moves with their banking industry, or individual banks overborrowing or overlending, could potentially damage other nations' economies. Without oversight, there is nothing your nation could to to protect itself from damage to the global economy by other nations. The same reasoning applies to international regulation of war crimes, environmental policy, diplomacy, and free trade."

I must make something very clear. I am not against international oversight: an international law is acceptable, an international organization which will rutinely poke its nose around my country, however, isn't. Which brings us to the very beginnning of this discussion. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This remains illegal for optionality. (Well, at least that, I didn't bother to read further than that.)

The author should make a Getting Help Request to ask for it being pulled off the submissions list. If you get too many black marks for submitting illegal proposals, your account will be banned from the WA for a year.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

-dusting off her soap box and adorning her fine speaking robes, A. Meridian prepares to weigh in on the controversial proposal before the WA-
The Honorable and Considered, A Meridian, House of Solus Gardens, The Ambassador of the United Royal Islands:
The regulations here are grossly unrealistic and directly harmful to my nation. As a nation which lack the gross excesses of the financial services industries endemic to many other nations, we have taken to handling the functions of consumer banks and insurance through a division of the central bank itself. All citizens of the islands have accouns with this national deposit bank, and may of their choosing obtain lines of credit based upon established rates, and loan availability. We control against loss by establishing loan caps, and have a robust public debate on the interest rates for new loans which are established for each fiscal quarter. The requirements here would require then that my government keep in reserve a full 2/3 of the money supply of our nation in order to protect against loss, despite currently having fully adequate systems already. We feel that these reserve requirements would cripple our economy by removing the flexibility of our central bank in controlling the available loans, and hoarding prescious money away from use.
The provisions about consumer loans are concerning. By my reading we would be prevented in issuing loans for things which would exceed 4 years earnings of the borrower, though that in not currently very clear. IF correct, this unnecessarily prevents us from lending mortgages which regularly are 5-10 years worth based on current property values. This also eliminates the common practice of century loans (multiples of 100), which we regularly use inlieu of bailouts to prop-up institutions or industries which are only suffering a temporary decline.Most recently our paper industry was going through a decline due to massive forest fires, and consequently many companies took on these loans which have extremely long pay back times and thus low payments. This practice prevents the unwise and often excessive practice of bail-outs and instead establishes ties between companies and their national responsibilities.
We feel others have addressed the partial optionality of this resolution, however it among the issues with the conception of the bill make it impossible to support this unneccary intrusion into our nations financial affairs. Of which we mange just fine, thank you very much. We oppose the resolution on these basis.