[DEFEATED] Repeal: Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment

[Uan aa Boa]

Repeal: Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal Resolution: GA#401

General Assembly Resolution #401 “Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Assembly,

Affirms that when it passes resolutions on economic matters these should be based on sound understanding and theory.

Believes that in view of the potentially devastating consequences of market bubbles it is irresponsible to encourage governments or corporations to borrow beyond their means.

Makes the following observations on trade in securities and currencies.
a) Governments and corporations can raise capital by issuing bonds. In doing so, they undertake to repay the capital, plus interest, in the future. The amount of capital that can be raised in this way is determined by the market's assessment of the risk of default.
b) Corporations can raise capital through the issue of stocks. In doing so they confer part ownership of the company on the purchasers of the stocks and undertake to pay them a part of their future profits. The amount of capital that can be raised in this way depends on the market's assessment of the likely value of these future payments.
c) The interconnection of stock exchanges can sometimes allow a crisis in one nation to damage market confidence, and hence the value of securities, in other nations.
d) A foreign power owning enough of a government's bonds can, by selling them all at once, force down their value and thereby harm that nation's economy by reducing the government's ability to raise capital.
e) Currency trading is fundamentally different. While the purchaser of shares or bonds buys the right to receive payments in the future, the purchaser of currency receives their purchase immediately. Currency trading is therefore not concerned with investment in the same way.

The Assembly therefore

1. Notes that in the light of (a) and (b) GA #401's claim that "foreign investment provides a way for corporations and governments to raise more funds than may have been previously available to them" is false. The amount of capital a government or corporation can safely raise is determined by its economic status. The WA cannot increase this economic status by means of legislation. Attempting to increase the amount of capital that can be raised through securities without regard for the limits imposed by the free market is dangerous to the economy.

2. Takes the view that because of (c) and (d) a government deciding whether or not to permit foreign investment must consider risks as well as potential benefits, making a uniform recommendation to all WA members inappropriate.

3. Is perplexed, in view of (e), by GA #401's inclusion of provisions for currency exchanges since these have no relevance to the investment that GA #401 claims to be about.

4. Regards a new committee regulating all currency exchanges in member nations as inefficient and problematic, since many nations will already have had regulations against bias and rate fixing. It was unjustified to infringe their sovereignty because of a lack of regulation in other nations.

5. Concludes that GA #401 fails to achieve its stated objective, impedes the proper operation of markets and exhibits a lack of economic understanding that reflects poorly on the Assembly.

6. Repeals GA #401 "Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment".

Repeal: Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal Resolution: GA#401

General Assembly Resolution #401 “Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,
Makes the following observations on trade in securities and currencies.
a) The vast majority of nations have a national debt incurred through the release of government bonds. Most bonds traded through stock exchanges are owned by pension funds and other investment schemes subscribed to by individual citizens. In general, therefore, when they are involved in security trading nations borrow and citizens invest.
b) Nations and companies can raise capital through the issue of bonds. In doing so, they undertake to repay the capital, plus interest, in the future. The amount of capital that can be raised in this way is determined by the market's assessment of the risk of default.
c) Companies can raise capital through the issue of shares. In doing so they confer part ownership of the company on the purchasers of the shares and undertake to pay them a part of their future profits. The amount of capital that can be raised in this way depends on the market's assessment of the likely value of these future payments.
d) Stock exchanges are not a free for all but are open only to registered brokers which, for reasons of legal protection, are in almost all cases companies rather than individuals.
e) Currency trading is fundamentally different. While the purchase of shares or bonds buys the right to receive payments in the future, the purchaser of currency receives their purchase here and now. Currency trading is therefore not concerned with investment in the same way.
f) The interconnection of stock exchanges can sometimes allow a crisis in one nation to damage market confidence, and hence the value of securities, in other nations.

Notes that GA#401's claim that "nations which have invested in the economies of other nations are less likely to enter an armed conflict" makes no sense because nations borrow rather than invest.

Notes that GA#401's claim that "foreign investment provides a way for corporations and governments to raise more funds than may have been previously available to them" is false because what can be raised is determined by the market's confidence in the corporation or government making the anticipated future payments. Corporations and governments cannot raise more funds simply because there are more potential investors. The amount of capital that can be raised is not something the WA can control through legislation and encouraging nations and corporations to borrow beyond their means could be extremely dangerous.

Notes that GA#401's recommendation that "stock exchanges... be open to the citizens of any World Assembly member state" is literally nonsensical since stock exchanges are not open to citizens.

Acknowledges that there may be good reasons for a nation to permit foreign investment by means of its stock exchanges, but because this also brings risks it is something nations should decide based on their particular circumstances. A uniform recommendation to all WA member nations is not appropriate.

Is perplexed at the inclusion of provisions for currency exchanges since these have no relevance to the investment that GA#401 claims to be about.

Regards a new committee charged with regulating all currency exchanges in member nations as inefficient and problematic, since many nations will already have regulations against bias and rate fixing, leaving them now trying to implement two different systems simultaneously.

In light of these considerations repeals GA#401 "Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment".

Repeal: Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal Resolution: GA#401

General Assembly Resolution #401 “Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Believing that unnecessary bureaucracy risks damaging the reputation of this august body,

Concerned that the target resolution accomplishes no more than the making of a single recommendation to permit foreign investment, and wastefully creates an entire new commission to little useful effect,

Aware that the publication of guidelines on security trading (a) is a short term project that does not justify the establishment of a long term committee and (b) would be more appropriately tasked to the long established World Assembly Trade Commission,

Confident that the majority of nations in which currencies are traded will already have robust legislation to prevent bias and exchange rate manipulation,

Believing that imposing a new regulator on all member nations, which in most cases will either duplicate or conflict with the nation's existing regulatory system, to be a hugely inefficient way of dealing with the minority that lack such laws,

Aspiring to better use of resources and a higher standard of legislation than that represented by the target resolution,

Hereby repeals GA#401 “Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment”.

Repeal: Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#401

General Assembly Resolution #401 “Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Believing that unnecessary bureaucracy risks damaging the reputation of this august body,

Concerned that the target resolution accomplishes no more than the making of a single recommendation (clause 2) and wastefully creates an entire new commission to no useful effect,

Aware that this commission’s primary purpose of producing a single model set of regulations (clause 3) fails to take into account the diversity of laws, customs and practices across the many nations in which trade in securities takes place,

Confident that nations in which currencies are traded will already have robust legislation to prevent bias and exchange rate manipulation, rendering the commission’s secondary purpose (clause 4) wholly redundant,

Mindful that in many member nations trading in securities and currency is not permitted, leaving the target resolution an insensitive one-size-fits-all measure of the type previously repealed (e.g. GA#396),

Certain that it makes little sense to simultaneously assert the right of member nations to decide their own practice (clause 5) and recommend that they don't (clause 2),

Aspiring to a higher standard of legislation than that represented by the target resolution,

Hereby repeals GA#401 “Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment”.

I'm aware that a proposal to repeal this resolution has already been submitted, but it's author didn't create a drafting thread and I believe that proposal to be weak and this one to be better.

This is my nation's first attempt at resolution writing, so criticism is especially welcome.

Edited to add OOC: I am concerned that GA#401 may, in gameplay terms, have difficulties with the Ideological Ban Rule, since its implementation has had statistical effects on nations in which private enterprise is illegal than can only reasonably be interpreted as the introduction of security trading, in effect making it impossible to ban such practices as many socialists would seek to do. I am aware, however, (a) that the proposal cannot discuss game mechanics (b) that this issue is not with the text of the GA#401, which only makes recommendations about markets where they exist, but with the way it has been implemented in the game.

[Covenstone]

Believing that unnecessary bureaucracy risks damaging the reputation of this august body,

That depends on what you think the reputation is, of course.

Concerned that the target resolution accomplishes no more than the making of a single recommendation (clause 2) and wastefully creates an entire new commission to no useful effect,

This committee monitors the transactions of tens of thousands of stock and currency exchanges. I am not convinced that that can be described as "no useful effect." In fact, compared to some of the other committees that have been created, I would say that it does quite a lot.

And your next complaint contradicts this completely!!

Aware that this commission’s primary purpose of producing a single model set of regulations (clause 3) fails to take into account the diversity of laws, customs and practices across the many nations in which trade in securities takes place,

Firstly, given that you previously said this commission basically does nothing, why are you now saying it creates a model of laws? To me, that sounds like it is doing something.

Secondly, The WA (a body for which you would appear to have much respect) lives to create single sets of rules that apply to every country in its power. Why should this be any different?

Confident that nations in which currencies are traded will already have robust legislation to prevent bias and exchange rate manipulation, rendering the commission’s secondary purpose (clause 4) wholly redundant,

I think you over estimate countries that are described as "corrupt dictatorships."

Mindful that in many member nations trading in securities and currency is not permitted, leaving the target resolution an insensitive one-size-fits-all measure of the type previously repealed (e.g. GA#396),

*shrug* If you pass a resolution that requires ships to conform to certain rules, can you repeal it because one nation in The WA doesn't have any boats? No.

Certain that it makes little sense to simultaneously assert the right of member nations to decide their own practice (clause 5) and recommend that they don't (clause 2),

I can recommend you don't stick your face in a vat of sulphuric acid, and yet still accept that it is your right to do it and have no right to stop you.

I can recommend that you don't poke the giant, man eating lion with a stick, and yet still accept that it is your right to do it and have no right to stop you.

I can recommend that you don't put your hand in a blender...... well - you get the idea.


Suffice to say, I am not convinced your arguments for repeal hold water. (Much like hand wouldn't after you put it in the blender.)

[Aclion]

Concerned that the target resolution accomplishes no more than the making of a single recommendation (clause 2) and wastefully creates an entire new commission to no useful effect,

This committee monitors the transactions of tens of thousands of stock and currency exchanges. I am not convinced that that can be described as "no useful effect." In fact, compared to some of the other committees that have been created, I would say that it does quite a lot.

And your next complaint contradicts this completely!!

Aware that this commission’s primary purpose of producing a single model set of regulations (clause 3) fails to take into account the diversity of laws, customs and practices across the many nations in which trade in securities takes place,

Firstly, given that you previously said this commission basically does nothing, why are you now saying it creates a model of laws? To me, that sounds like it is doing something.

While it creates a model of laws nations are under no obligation to follow that model. The only thing that the ISEC "does" that nations are obligated to abide by is in clause 4. "regulate the exchanges on which currencies are traded to prevent artificial manipulation of the exchange rate and to ensure that these exchanges operate without bias toward the citizens of any one nation." and half of that; "ensure that these exchanges operate without bias toward the citizens of any one nation." is already covered by CoCR and R&D.

That aside; when you remove the parts of the regulation related to the committee all you get is a recommendation that is covered by CoCR(as interpreted by Gensec); that nations not discriminate on the basis of nationality in their exchanges.

[Uan aa Boa]

Aware that this commission’s primary purpose of producing a single model set of regulations (clause 3) fails to take into account the diversity of laws, customs and practices across the many nations in which trade in securities takes place,

Firstly, given that you previously said this commission basically does nothing, why are you now saying it creates a model of laws? To me, that sounds like it is doing something.

Secondly, The WA (a body for which you would appear to have much respect) lives to create single sets of rules that apply to every country in its power. Why should this be any different?

Mindful that in many member nations trading in securities and currency is not permitted, leaving the target resolution an insensitive one-size-fits-all measure of the type previously repealed (e.g. GA#396),

*shrug* If you pass a resolution that requires ships to conform to certain rules, can you repeal it because one nation in The WA doesn't have any boats? No.

Certain that it makes little sense to simultaneously assert the right of member nations to decide their own practice (clause 5) and recommend that they don't (clause 2),

I can recommend you don't stick your face in a vat of sulphuric acid, and yet still accept that it is your right to do it and have no right to stop you.

These are all valid points, which I will redraft with the hope of taking account of.

This committee monitors the transactions of tens of thousands of stock and currency exchanges. I am not convinced that that can be described as "no useful effect." In fact, compared to some of the other committees that have been created, I would say that it does quite a lot.

And your next complaint contradicts this completely!!

I'm not suggesting that the committee would be idle, just that it's work would not be useful. It's stated primary purpose is to produce, maintain and publish a set of guidelines. Accepting your point that the WA is all about enforcing uniform standards across the diversity of nations, I can't see that once a set of guidelines is produced, maintaining it is going to fill the time of a committee for the foreseeable future.

The second stated purpose is the regulation of currency exchanges (not stock exchanges as you suggest above) to prevent national bias and rate manipulation. I maintain that the work of this committee would needlessly duplicate the legal systems of member nations, and this is discussed below.

I don't accept that it's a defence of a redundant committee to say that other committees are even more redundant. They shouldn't be, but they can't all be dealt with at once. As it says on the sign above the door, one resolution at a time.

Confident that nations in which currencies are traded will already have robust legislation to prevent bias and exchange rate manipulation, rendering the commission’s secondary purpose (clause 4) wholly redundant,

I think you over estimate countries that are described as "corrupt dictatorships."

Don't judge a book by its cover! We're lovely once you get to know us. I'd like to think that my nation is putting the hot and the hip back into psychotic dictatorship.

Seriously though, by this logic the WA should have a committee regulating every single thing that should be outlawed, and probably already is in most nations. This is unnecessary bureaucracy on a massive scale.

As Aclion has been pointing out for some time, this resolution does very little. It could achieve everything it does far more efficiently if it just said: The WA hereby (a) recommends all nations with stock exchanges allow foreign nations and companies to trade on them, (b) tasks the most relevant already established committee with producing guidelines on security trading regulations and (c) requires member nations to legislate against exchange rate fixing and bias in currency exchanges.

The fact that it's so much longer and brings into existence a committee that does this so much less efficiently is exactly the kind of unnecessary bureaucracy we can well do without.

Nonetheless, I thank you for your input and will redraft in the light of it.

[United Federated States of Omega]

Mr. Xavier walks in and sees what is going on and just before he leaves says "the model regulations are there to help newer exchanges get started so they are not lawless places where practices like insider trading run wild. Also, I don't think we can trust nations to always implement laws that would prohibit bias and manipulation in currency exchanges." With that, he left and had one of his aides stay and watch in case anything else happened.

[Uan aa Boa]

My draft proposal has now been substantially rewritten.

[Uan aa Boa]

I'm uncertain as to whether the silence is a good or bad sign, but at this stage I'm going to submit and see what happens.

[United Federated States of Omega]

One more thing: the ISEC does not only write the model code of regulations but it also maintains it. This is not a short-term task, it is a long-term task requiring the ISEC to remain vigilant and informed about how to regulate newer forms of securities, bonds, and ETFs.

Edit: also the WATC is also meant to arbitrate disputes not implement regulations. GAR 26 which established the WATC was also repealed so doing what you had suggested would have required reviving that commission.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm uncertain as to whether the silence is a good or bad sign,

It would be a neutral sign. People have things to do outside of NS.

[Uan aa Boa]

One more thing: the ISEC does not only write the model code of regulations but it also maintains it. This is not a short-term task, it is a long-term task requiring the ISEC to remain vigilant and informed about how to regulate newer forms of securities, bonds, and ETFs.

It's too minor a task to require a dedicated committee and could be more efficiently allocated to an existing body.

Edit: also the WATC is also meant to arbitrate disputes not implement regulations. GAR 26 which established the WATC was also repealed so doing what you had suggested would have required reviving that commission.

It has responsibilities under the non-repealed GA#208, so I presume it exists.

[United Federated States of Omega]

The problem I have with using the WATC for this is that it is supposed to be a mediating body and not a regulatory one. That is why I established a new regulatory body instead of using the WATC. Also, the ISEC focus on investment and exchange of currencies not the trading of goods and services like the WATC does. Having the WATC do this would not be anything like the intended mission of the WATC as such I saw the need for a new organization. Also, that argument was never made during the initial debate so I have to question why we are just now hearing it.

[Uan aa Boa]

That didn't look likely to reach quorum in it's present form, so I've withdrawn it for further consideration. I'm thinking over the WATC issue. Any further input is very welcome in the meantime.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I'll take a look at the weekend, when I've got more time available.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I'll take a look at the weekend, when I've got more time available.

But this weekend is double XP weekend!

[Araraukar]

But this weekend is double XP weekend!

OOC: And you're exp-wasting time by writing stuff here¹. Get back in the game.

¹Yes, I know, so am I, but decided to eat first before logging into RS...

[Aclion]

That didn't look likely to reach quorum in it's present form, so I've withdrawn it for further consideration. I'm thinking over the WATC issue. Any further input is very welcome in the meantime.

For a start change the font size to the default

[Ransium]

But this weekend is double XP weekend!

OOC: And you're exp-wasting time by writing stuff here¹. Get back in the game.

¹Yes, I know, so am I, but decided to eat first before logging into RS...

I happen to know that the author submitted this proposal (far too early) the first time because they were frustrated with the lack of substantive feedback they were getting so I'm hopping in addition to off-topic banter you guys will (perhaps after double XP weekend) also post substantive feedback on the proposal.

[Araraukar]

also post substantive feedback on the proposal.

OOC: Eh, I might not have time for proper fact-checking during this weekend a lot, but right now the massive font size used makes it hard to give it a quick look over. *shrug*

[Uan aa Boa]

Third, and much altered, draft posted in the OP. This still needs polishing and it may be too long (do spaces and code count toward the character limit) but I hope it's moving in the right direction.

[Bears Armed]

(do spaces and code count toward the character limit)

OOC: Spaces do, not sure offpaw about code.

[Covenstone]

I still think my main problem with the repeal is that the primary clause of the resolution is (from a certain point of view) optional. Covenstone, under the resolution, is not required to open its stock exchange to foreign trading. So if we do not want foreign nations trading on our stock exchange, we don't have to let them.

And under the said resolution we can also prohibit specific nations should we so desire.

The other two clauses appear to exist that, should we open up our exchanges to the big, wide world, we are required to do it fairly and equally, and this committee (ISEC?) provide some guidelines because, as newcomers to the world, Covenstone might want some advice and guidance and might want to take it from a neutral party, as opposed to from a nation that wants to screw us with our pants on.

Which means over all I cannot actually see a single, valid reason to repeal the resolution. It doesn't force me to do anything, and should I decide to do it, it provides me with the help and assistance I need.

So while there might be nothing wrong with the repeal as it stands, I just don't see the purpose of it, and can't think of a single reason to support it.

[Araraukar]

Repeal: Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment

Category: Repeal Resolution: GA#401

General Assembly Resolution #401 “Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,
Makes the following observations on trade in securities and currencies.
a) The vast majority of nations have a national debt incurred through the release of government bonds. Most bonds traded through stock exchanges are owned by pension funds and other investment schemes subscribed to by individual citizens. In general, therefore, when they are involved in security trading nations borrow and citizens invest.
b) Nations and companies can raise capital through the issue of bonds. In doing so, they undertake to repay the capital, plus interest, in the future. The amount of capital that can be raised in this way is determined by the market's assessment of the risk of default.
c) Companies can raise capital through the issue of shares. In doing so they confer part ownership of the company on the purchasers of the shares and undertake to pay them a part of their future profits. The amount of capital that can be raised in this way depends on the market's assessment of the likely value of these future payments.
d) Stock exchanges are not a free for all but are open only to registered brokers which, for reasons of legal protection, are in almost all cases companies rather than individuals.
e) Currency trading is fundamentally different. While the purchase of shares or bonds buys the right to receive payments in the future, the purchaser of currency receives their purchase here and now. Currency trading is therefore not concerned with investment in the same way.
f) The interconnection of stock exchanges can sometimes allow a crisis in one nation to damage market confidence, and hence the value of securities, in other nations.

Notes that GA#401's claim that "nations which have invested in the economies of other nations are less likely to enter an armed conflict" makes no sense because nations borrow rather than invest.

Notes that GA#401's claim that "foreign investment provides a way for corporations and governments to raise more funds than may have been previously available to them" is false because what can be raised is determined by the market's confidence in the corporation or government making the anticipated future payments. Corporations and governments cannot raise more funds simply because there are more potential investors. The amount of capital that can be raised is not something the WA can control through legislation and encouraging nations and corporations to borrow beyond their means could be extremely dangerous.

Notes that GA#401's recommendation that "stock exchanges... be open to the citizens of any World Assembly member state" is literally nonsensical since stock exchanges are not open to citizens.

Acknowledges that there may be good reasons for a nation to permit foreign investment by means of its stock exchanges, but because this also brings risks it is something nations should decide based on their particular circumstances. A uniform recommendation to all WA member nations is not appropriate.

Is perplexed at the inclusion of provisions for currency exchanges since these have no relevance to the investment that GA#401 claims to be about.

Regards a new committee charged with regulating all currency exchanges in member nations as inefficient and problematic, since many nations will already have regulations against bias and rate fixing, leaving them now trying to implement two different systems simultaneously.

In light of these considerations repeals GA#401 "Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment".

OOC post.

Not a true vivisection and I originally meant to put this in TG, but then figured that you'd probably be answering to many of the points, so that's better to be done on the forum where everyone can see it.

Your observation a) seems to be entirely based on Real Life. That will get objections. You'll also save in length if you make "The vast majority" to instead read "Many". Keep saying "many" instead of "most" all through the proposal. That will help cut down on objections.

Observation b) basically describes currency (for nations) and gift cards (for companies). It also seems to be a completely useless observation, unless you intended to agree with that particular definition of the repeal's target.

Observation c) also seems entirely useless, especially as the target resolution doesn't mention "shares" at all.

Observation d) seems to be another RL-based one, and also probably not true in all cases even in RL. Certainly hasn't been in the past. (And these days is in any case done by computers that can almost be said to be sentient.) Additionally, the target resolution doesn't claim stock exchanges were free-for-all.

Observation e) should be a clause of its own, not a random observation.

Observation f) should be combined with the next clause.

And that next clause seems to clash with your observation a), since in that you say nations release bonds and thus incur debt, whereas in this clause you say they borrow. Borrowing money from international banks tends to be in my experience the main way that nations incur debt.

As for the next clause... I don't quite understand what you're trying to say (also, you probably should be addressing the target resolution's points in the order they're presented in the resolution). How "raising more funds due to there being more potential investors" doesn't work? I mean, seriously, aren't you aware of the crowdfunding scheme? That operates on the same basic principle. Also, the wording you're objecting to is only used in a preamble clause.

And the next one (this would be easier if you'd numbered your clauses) again seems to be entirely RL-based. You're basically saying both that WA should bug off from telling nations how to handle their stock exchanges and telling nations their stock exchanges cannot be open to individual people. Rather hypocritical.

Your acknowledgement clause proves that you didn't follow or read the drafting debate for the target. It was at first a mandate, which got a lot of opposition. Changing it to a recommendation basically eliminated opposition. I can recommend to you that you jump off a cliff. You can choose to ignore the recommendation. That's how it works with WA recommending stuff and nations choosing to either act or not act as recommended.

Your perplexion clause is what you should be focusing on, as it was a weird addition to the rest of the text of the target resolution.

I'm not quite certain what your beef is with the committee in general either? Shouldn't you be more concerned that it is solely in charge of regulating the currency trade along some guidelines not known to mere mortals (or WA nations)?

[Uan aa Boa]

Which means over all I cannot actually see a single, valid reason to repeal the resolution. It doesn't force me to do anything, and should I decide to do it, it provides me with the help and assistance I need.

So while there might be nothing wrong with the repeal as it stands, I just don't see the purpose of it, and can't think of a single reason to support it.

Many thanks for your input - it's greatly appreciated. I'd respond to that in two ways. Firstly, suppose there were to be a resolution that recommended you take up knitting, although you didn't have to, and offered you a book of patterns. Everything you say about GA #401 would be true of this resolution too. It's a matter of preference, but I think if we want the GA to have some integrity resolutions should have a positive reason for being there rather than being seen as valid because they're harmless.

The second, and more important, consideration is that GA #401 actually isn't harmless, it's bad economics. Its author didn't just wake up one morning thinking it would be great if stock exchanges were accessible to foreign investors. It's aimed at achieving two stated goals - that armed conflict will be less likely and that governments and corporations will be able to raise more capital. My main argument is that the resolution is based on a lack of economic understanding and can't achieve those goals. Again, I don't think we should have resolutions that exhibit bad economics left on the statute book because the best that can be said for them is that they're optional and ineffective. Promoting governments and corporations borrowing more than market constraints currently allow based on a poor understanding is dangerous, and the irony of this allegedly free trade resolution is that it doesn't accept that verdict of the free market.

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC post.

Many thanks for all of this, and also for your telegram. I can't go point for point with all of it on the forum, but it will certainly be helping to clarify and tidy up the next draft.

Your observation a) seems to be entirely based on Real Life. That will get objections.

Yes, that could be difficult. I figured that if the resolution currently at vote can state that smoking causes cancer, which is obviously something we know from real life, and not from NationStates, then I should be OK. It may be that stock exchanges in NS behave in a totally different way to real life ones but we can't really know that. Other things being equal, shouldn't we presume that the things that happen in a simulation game will simulate real life?

... especially as the target resolution doesn't mention "shares" at all.

Good point. I'll match my terminology to the language of the resolution.

Borrowing money from international banks tends to be in my experience the main way that nations incur debt.

I'll look closely at your many/most point. I agree that governments borrow from banks, but that's outside the scope of GA #401 which argues that allowing foreign investment on stock exchanges will increase a government or corporations borrowing power. This latter claim is false, and that's my main focus.

As for the next clause... I don't quite understand what you're trying to say (also, you probably should be addressing the target resolution's points in the order they're presented in the resolution). How "raising more funds due to there being more potential investors" doesn't work? I mean, seriously, aren't you aware of the crowdfunding scheme? That operates on the same basic principle. Also, the wording you're objecting to is only used in a preamble clause.

This is my main point, so I'll need to make it stand out and read more clearly. This isn't about crowd funding any more than it's about borrowing from banks. Let's restrict ourselves to what happens on stock exchanges, because GA #401 claims that if their stocks/bonds are offered to more people than governments/corporations will be able to raise more capital. This is false. A strong upper limit is placed on the value and borrowing power of a government/corporation by the free market's evaluation of its economic strength. GA #401 is an attempt to avoid that limit, and as such it's bad economics. I can't introduce real life examples, but you know plenty of recent cases where disaster ensued because governments/corporations were able to borrow excessively.

And yes, the point is in a preamble clause of GA #401. As I said to Covenstone, however, the action the resolution effects is a means to an end and those two preamble clauses are the statement of the end. The fact that the resolution doesn't, in fact, contribute to achieving its intended goal is a significant thing.

[Covenstone]

Which means over all I cannot actually see a single, valid reason to repeal the resolution. It doesn't force me to do anything, and should I decide to do it, it provides me with the help and assistance I need.

So while there might be nothing wrong with the repeal as it stands, I just don't see the purpose of it, and can't think of a single reason to support it.

Many thanks for your input - it's greatly appreciated. I'd respond to that in two ways. Firstly, suppose there were to be a resolution that recommended you take up knitting, although you didn't have to, and offered you a book of patterns. Everything you say about GA #401 would be true of this resolution too. It's a matter of preference, but I think if we want the GA to have some integrity resolutions should have a positive reason for being there rather than being seen as valid because they're harmless.

The second, and more important, consideration is that GA #401 actually isn't harmless, it's bad economics. Its author didn't just wake up one morning thinking it would be great if stock exchanges were accessible to foreign investors. It's aimed at achieving two stated goals - that armed conflict will be less likely and that governments and corporations will be able to raise more capital. My main argument is that the resolution is based on a lack of economic understanding and can't achieve those goals. Again, I don't think we should have resolutions that exhibit bad economics left on the statute book because the best that can be said for them is that they're optional and ineffective. Promoting governments and corporations borrowing more than market constraints currently allow based on a poor understanding is dangerous, and the irony of this allegedly free trade resolution is that it doesn't accept that verdict of the free market.

I look at it another way.

Firstly : there is nothing that requires me to write proposals for The World Assembly. Although I am a member, it is not a requirement for me to write and submit proposals. However, if I do desire to write and submit one (which I might in the future, because who knows where the road will lead us? Only a fool would dare say! But if you let me love you, be sure I'm gonna love you..... wait. I think I might be getting off topic here!) If I am going to submit one, there are guidelines out there for writing and submitting them, as well as a set of codified rules. And if you break these rules, then a group of pre-appointed lawyers (for want of a better phrase) can kick you out (again, for want of a better phrase.)

Second : I am not sure I entirely disagree about the economic side of things, but on the other hand having foreign investment might not be that bad a thing. Who knows where the road will lead us? (But lets not go down that road again!)

My point is, I don't think that this is dangerous, harmful or likely to ruin my country, and even though I have been here for five minutes (relatively speaking) I am already sick of seeing proposals enacted in to law and repealed less than a gnat's willy later. So, unless a resolution is going to cause a civil war the likes of which The Goddess has never seen, there is going to have to be a very, very good reason for it to be repealed.