[PASSED] Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment

[Bakhton]

"We tentatively approve."

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

Built upon the presumption that we are talking about western liberal democracies, then you have to first prove two things. One, you need to prove that voters are rational and will vote in favour of their economic interests without complete knowledge of those actual interests. I don't think this actually occurs, since voters have next to no direct costs from indulging in counterfactual fantasies that have been proven time and time again, creating a collective action problem in the creation of policy. Two, you need to show that beneficiaries of protectionism, which are likely to have out-sized control over government policy, since (1) to have protectionist measures requires at least some minimal level of political capital and (2) will gain from increased subsidies compared to non-protected industries, will not work create structural barriers to trade reform.

After you prove those things, you then need to prove that this argument is good for both debate and the General Assembly. This argument can be applied to literally any policy proposal with assumption of a infinite time horizon and a consequentialist framework which does not discount future utility. Next up on Ara's anti-GA conspiracy: We don't need to ban genocide! Every reasonable nation has already done so and the unreasonable ones would not listen anyway! We don't need to protect civil rights! Every reasonable nation has already done so! We don't need to defend the weak, poor, or marginalised. We don't need to protect the weakest in society, they will eventually do it themselves.

However that is, foremost, this section of the debate is primarily exclusionary to most people on the forum, which do not delve into the intersections of philosophy, debate theory, and public policy. Such a discussion prevents most people from accessing the debate, reducing participation. Furthermore, since this argument can be applied to derail practically every thread into a repeat of this block here, the inability to access this debate makes it hard for new authors to defend their proposals, reducing participation, access, and activity in the General Assembly. As a self-described GA regular, you have an obligation to support the GA community as a whole, since you derive your power and knowledge from it. Acting in a matter that dismantles it and prevents it from growing creates direct and implicit costs. Consequences deriving from that action, means that action fails to uphold that obligation to the community.

On top of that, the use of the inevitability argument in this context requires an affirmative obligation to prove that: (1) categorically, there are no nations which will not act under this policy and (2) proof of its inevitability. You must prove the first before even considering the latter, because if there are nations which will not take action, then it does not matter whether or not it is inevitable. The problem exists today. Present utility outweighs future utility and we have an obligation to act. Then, you must prove that it is in fact inevitable, which you simply haven't done.

[Araraukar]

Built upon the presumption that we are talking about western liberal democracies,

OOC: We're not. We're talking about the WA. At least I am, since the proposal was made for NSWA rather than RLUN.

Next up on Ara's anti-GA conspiracy

Sometimes I wonder why I keep telling GA newbies that you might be worth listening to.

We don't need to ban genocide!

Three words for you: Convention Against Genocide.

Every reasonable nation has already done so and the unreasonable ones would not listen anyway!

Since you're mocking that, you're saying that all nations always do as mandated by resolutions? That runs counter your previous claims when you were trying to get that metagaming resolution of yours passed:

I agree with Auralia's position on the topic of mandatory compliance in a role-play setting. It's massively unrealistic.

though I would say that this assumption that compliance is mandatory and will always happen is utterly ridiculous and serves no purpose other than simply restricting the realm of roleplay.

One would also assume they would cooperate if they are WA members. This, however, does not mean that they literally cannot not cooperate, however.

We don't need to protect civil rights!

You might've somehow missed it in this crusade of yours, but I've always argued that CoCR should have far more weight than it is now given. It protects civil rights, in my opinion more strongly than most others'.

Every reasonable nation has already done so! We don't need to defend the weak, poor, or marginalised. We don't need to protect the weakest in society, they will eventually do it themselves.

And freeing up stock exchange for foreigners will do that exactly how?

---

OOC to author, not IA: The point is, try as you might, you can't make a resolution that nations could not be non-compliant with.

[Covenstone]

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.

But surely that is built on the assumption that opening the market is a good thing. If this foreign investment (and market manipulation) causes a massive crash and leaves the country poor, destitute and in a depression the likes of which even the goddess hasn't seen then I am not certain that that is going to be a good thing for the country. Indeed I think it will make them fall behind faster than they would if they hadn't opened their market in the first place.

And even if it is not malicious and nefarious intent that causes this, rather just mismanagement or external forces beyond the wit of woman, it could still lead to disaster.

Which means, I think I have to side with the nation of Jarish Inyo, in that forcing me to open my currently non-existent stock markets and so on to outside predators is not something I can accept, because it just strikes me as far too huge a risk. You think it is a good think, I think it is dangerous. And money is not the be all and end all of society. Money is just a tool, there are plenty of other tools we can use.

[United Federated States of Omega]

currently non-existent stock markets

If you don't have a stock exchange this won't affect you. Just saying.

[Covenstone]

currently non-existent stock markets

If you don't have a stock exchange this won't affect you. Just saying.

But as I have been told in other debates, I should think of others as well, and not just how something will affect me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: We're not. We're talking about the WA. At least I am, since the proposal was made for NSWA rather than RLUN.

So I had a bet, which was that you would drop the other argument in favour of a bad semantic distinction that is unresponsive to the second part of the argument. I just won a dollar. If you hadn't, I would have lost 20.

Three words for you: Convention Against Genocide.

This doesn't address anything which I raised. Why is it the case that the inevitability argument does not also apply to this proposal? You haven't done any work to substantiate the use of the inevitability argument.

Every reasonable nation has already done so and the unreasonable ones would not listen anyway!

Since you're mocking that, you're saying that all nations always do as mandated by resolutions? That runs counter your previous claims when you were trying to get that metagaming resolution of yours passed:

I agree with Auralia's position on the topic of mandatory compliance in a role-play setting. It's massively unrealistic.

though I would say that this assumption that compliance is mandatory and will always happen is utterly ridiculous and serves no purpose other than simply restricting the realm of roleplay.

One would also assume they would cooperate if they are WA members. This, however, does not mean that they literally cannot not cooperate, however.

You don't have a link between this to the argument made. Furthermore, it doesn't address my actual argument, which has to do with the use of inevitability arguments in of themselves. If you want to argue that I believe that reasonable nations would have already done so, then I direct you to the two arguments I presented at the top. The nuance has flown over your head.

Every reasonable nation has already done so! We don't need to defend the weak, poor, or marginalised. We don't need to protect the weakest in society, they will eventually do it themselves.

And freeing up stock exchange for foreigners will do that exactly how?

My argument isn't about the proposal. It is about the fact that your argument is invalid, faultily premised, and bad for discourse in the GA, not to mention that there is no response to any of the arguments which I raised on your argument.

[Araraukar]

So I had a bet, which was that you would drop the other argument in favour of a bad semantic distinction that is unresponsive to the second part of the argument. I just won a dollar.

OOC: Don't make me remove you from the Christmas card list.

In any case, I've long since learned that I can't have a sensible conversation with you, nevermind a debate. So I've stopped trying. Better for my blood pressure that way.

However, since you have an unhealthy obsession with proving me wrong at every turn, I'd like to point out that...

Built upon the presumption that we are talking about western liberal democracies, then you have to first prove two things.

...you made a presumption (which, interestingly, also means "arrogant behaviour") aka presumed aka assumed ("assuming something to be true (without proof)" is used to define presuming) that "we are talking about western liberal democracies", which I corrected:

OOC: We're not. We're talking about the WA. At least I am, since the proposal was made for NSWA rather than RLUN.

You can talk about western liberal democracies all you want. I was talking about NSWA. When you use "we" when responding to my quoted post, you are including me (unless you've gone for the royal "we", in which case I really can't help you), which in this case was a false presumption. You may (not) have noticed that on this thread I keep arguing on behalf of insular nations, such as PPU, or Tinfect, or possibly even Excidium Planetis (based on his posts on the "not letting all jobs being oursourced" issue - which I'm sure you'll correct me with the right thread name and some proper economics term for it), not on behalf of "western liberal democracies", which I can only assume to be a RL reference.

This doesn't address anything which I raised.

No, it doesn't. Re-read my first response to you in this post.

Why is it the case that the inevitability argument does not also apply to this proposal? You haven't done any work to substantiate the use of the inevitability argument.

Hey, if it was up to me, we'd do a hard reset on WA. Then you'd see a lot more arguing from me against the necessity of any such resolution that goes against the reasonable nation theory. I tend to try to be consistent, but also realistic about what can or can't be successfully opposed.

You don't have a link between this to the argument made.

Did you or did you not post...

Every reasonable nation has already done so and the unreasonable ones would not listen anyway!

...^this?

The nuance has flown over your head.

More likely I just don't care much about what you say these days. It tends to be insulting or economics class stuff. Sometimes both. I'm even now humoring you with answers just because I find your indignation (whether or not you actually feel that way, I imagine your posts being read by an indignant person speaking the Queen's English with very clear pronunciation) funny. ^_^

My argument isn't about the proposal.

I had gathered as much.

It is about the fact that your argument is invalid, faultily premised, and bad for discourse in the GA

Luv you too, IA.

---

OOC: Heh, only just now noticed this:

As a self-described GA regular, you have an obligation to support the GA community as a whole, since you derive your power and knowledge from it.

I didn't realize I had any power.

I'm not in the GenSec, I'm not a regional delegate, I'm just someone who has talking cats and carnivorous bats and moving plants running around here. If that gives me power, then this forum is a very strange place indeed.

---

OOC to author: Do you have to mandate clause 2? Couldn't it be a recommendation? Yes, you might need to lower the strength, but it would make pretty much all the opposition disappear.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC to author: Do you have to mandate clause 2? Couldn't it be a recommendation? Yes, you might need to lower the strength, but it would make pretty much all the opposition disappear.

OOC: I'd personally request that the author make Clause Two a, well, request.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'd personally request that the author make Clause Two a, well, request.

OOC: And some people think I am mean!

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I'd personally request that the author make Clause Two a, well, request.

OOC: And some people think I am mean!

OOC: Very well. Just politely beg member states in Clause Two. Problem solved.

[United Federated States of Omega]

OOC to author: Do you have to mandate clause 2? Couldn't it be a recommendation? Yes, you might need to lower the strength, but it would make pretty much all the opposition disappear.

OOC: I would be worried that I would get a legality challenge on Committee Only.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC to author: Do you have to mandate clause 2? Couldn't it be a recommendation? Yes, you might need to lower the strength, but it would make pretty much all the opposition disappear.

OOC: I would be worried that I would get a legality challenge on Committee Only.

Nations cannot avoid being recommended to do something. It isn't illegal.

[United Federated States of Omega]

We have made clause two a recommendation and we changed the strength to mild.

[Araraukar]

We have made clause two a recommendation and we changed the strength to mild.

OOC: I have no trouble with it now, except that recommending needs two M's in it.

Though 2.b. might want an addition of adding breakers of international laws on the list of banned peeps. I'm sure you don't want to allow terrorist funders and war criminals to be allowed on the financing market. Unless the subclause's current language already does that, I'll leave that for others to decide (so don't edit it yet).

[Covenstone]

We have made clause two a recommendation and we changed the strength to mild.

OOC: I have no trouble with it now, except that recommending needs two M's in it.

Though 2.b. might want an addition of adding breakers of international laws on the list of banned peeps. I'm sure you don't want to allow terrorist funders and war criminals to be allowed on the financing market. Unless the subclause's current language already does that, I'll leave that for others to decide (so don't edit it yet).

<ooc>Isn't terrorism and funding thereof already covered by something? So that would cascade into this?</ooc>

[Imperium Anglorum]

<ooc>Isn't terrorism and funding thereof already covered by something? So that would cascade into this?</ooc>

(1) Minor duplication has always been permissible. (2) Even if it duplicates, this wouldn't apply to that, because that affects member nations, without touching on relevant implications with an international stock exchange, since there was no such exchange at the time.

[Covenstone]

<ooc>Isn't terrorism and funding thereof already covered by something? So that would cascade into this?</ooc>

(1) Minor duplication has always been permissible. (2) Even if it duplicates, this wouldn't apply to that, because that affects member nations, without touching on relevant implications with an international stock exchange, since there was no such exchange at the time.

Oh goddess no - I wasn't suggesting there was duplication. I was just suggesting that the proposal wouldn't need editing to specifically bar people funding terrorism or the like, because funding terrorism is already a crime so the clause that allows people to forbid criminals from trading should cover terrorism since terrorism is already covered as a crime.....

I swear that made more sense in my head.

[United Federated States of Omega]

(1) Minor duplication has always been permissible. (2) Even if it duplicates, this wouldn't apply to that, because that affects member nations, without touching on relevant implications with an international stock exchange, since there was no such exchange at the time.

Oh goddess no - I wasn't suggesting there was duplication. I was just suggesting that the proposal wouldn't need editing to specifically bar people funding terrorism or the like, because funding terrorism is already a crime so the clause that allows people to forbid criminals from trading should cover terrorism since terrorism is already covered as a crime.....

I swear that made more sense in my head.

What if I added that that clause can be waived if an individual or group has violated international laws?

[Araraukar]

What if I added that that clause can be waived if an individual or group has violated international laws?

OOC: That would probably be the most solid edit, as it would encompass everything from slavery to terrorism to war crimes and so on.

[United Federated States of Omega]

What if I added that that clause can be waived if an individual or group has violated international laws?

OOC: That would probably be the most solid edit, as it would encompass everything from slavery to terrorism to war crimes and so on.

OOC: Done

[Araraukar]

OOC: Done

OOC: It reads "individual law" instead of "international law".

[The Allied States of New York]

This is a good idea since it would improve the economy of countries all over the world and lift billions of people out of poverty. This would also ensure that securities are traded fairly.

[United Federated States of Omega]

OOC: Done

OOC: It reads "individual law" instead of "international law".

OOC: Okay done for real this time.

[Araraukar]

This is a good idea since it would improve the economy of countries all over the world and lift billions of people out of poverty.

Nonsense. The corporations that trade on the stock market are almost always in the stranglehold of capitalists, who only care about how much money they can make off of the business. They don't care about workers' rights or foreign economies. To them impossibly low wages would be a good thing! After all, anything you need to pay to your employees is out of your profit margin.

This would also ensure that securities are traded fairly.

Exactly how do you get that out of what the resolution says?

OOC: Janis is officially back from hunting down Wallenburg's animated paperwork monster. She may or may have caused a lot of fire damage while doing so...