[DRAFT] Preventing Financial Crises

[Imperium Anglorum]

It merely permits the sale of base assets. (And in before 'capitalist!!', there were and are markets in socialist countries.)

[Falcania]

It merely permits the sale of base assets. (And in before 'capitalist!!', there were and are markets in socialist countries.)

Indeed there have been, but in anarcho-syndicalist nations with democratically-planned economies there probably isn't.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You just described a market by another word. Permitting the sale of something is not a high burden. Moreover, if you have objections to that, you should really look through the Passed Resolutions because that ship already sailed

[Falcania]

You just described a market by another word. Permitting the sale of something is not a high burden. Moreover, if you have objections to that, you should really look through the Passed Resolutions because that ship already sailed

I'm not objecting, merely raising concerns. Can you provide clarity on the term "base assets" ?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's defined in section 1 (an edit was just made though, to that definition).

[Falcania]

So, basically, bonds?

[Imperium Anglorum]

So, basically, bonds?

That's a subset, yes.

[Falcania]

I suppose it doesn't have to be an exhaustive list because new financial instruments are invented all the time. I am interested as to why coupon-paying instruments are singled out, unless this is more of a semantic issue and we're talking about all financial instruments that pay the credit-holder a sum of annual interest?

[Imperium Anglorum]

That too is a subset. There could be multiple different payment periods.

[Falcania]

So in principle someone less familiar with financial terms could replace clause one with the following:

"Member nations shall allow the sale of secured and unsecured financial instruments that pay interest to the holder, i.e. "base assets", to the Credit Securitisation Facility and other public investors. Member nations may make reasonable purchasing rules on those base assets unless they affect the Facility."

And the legislation would be functionally the same?

I ask because the precise terminology is not always universal between even nations using the same languages and I want to make sure we're clear at the very foundation of the legislation what a "base asset" constitutes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I've edited the language taking into account some of those suggestions above. I know I can write jargon-y language (years of training in doing that will do that to you), and it's good to have another voice to say 'hold on, you can fix that'.

[Falcania]

Right, someone is gonna say it. Mandating that member states are obligated to permit the sale of financial instruments that bear interest, could be construed as an affront to theocratic nations that follow a religion that proscribes usury. Is this a thing that needs worrying about or a sufficiently fringe case?

[Wallenburg]

I've edited the language taking into account some of those suggestions above. I know I can write jargon-y language (years of training in doing that will do that to you), and it's good to have another voice to say 'hold on, you can fix that'.

People have been telling you that throughout the thread and you've been ignoring all of them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Position has been and always has been that if you can find a statement which says the same thing more simply, I will be happy to put it in the resolution.

Falcania: The same thing we say to people who hate RF – don't get one.

[Falcania]

Position has been and always has been that if you can find a statement which says the same thing more simply, I will be happy to put it in the resolution.

Falcania: The same thing we say to people who hate RF – don't get one.

RF?

[Wallenburg]

Position has been and always has been that if you can find a statement which says the same thing more simply, I will be happy to put it in the resolution.

Falcania: The same thing we say to people who hate RF – don't get one.

RF?

Reproductive Freedoms, which guarantees the individual's right to an abortion.

[The Traansval]

"While it is commendable a goal to prevent financial crisis, the Traansval feels that this bill is far too overreaching. Economic policy should be left to individual nations, and this current bill requires too much and is, in the opinion of the Traansval, infringing on National Sovereignty. Therefore we would vote against this motion."

[United Republic Empire]

I might be willing to support it - might. Although I can understand most (about 90% of the "Fancy" words that require a great deal of knowledge unbenounced to our adolescent voters) of the scholarly text, I too must look a few words up.

Constructive Suggestions:

Maybe define a few of the more cultivated words that everyone seems to be inquiring the definition of. (aka dumb it down a bit - like I just did with this sentence)

Educate the masses on your proposal and how everything works - bring them up to your level of "je ne sais quoi"
{Je ne sais quoi is in the dictionary as :an indefinable, elusive quality, especially a pleasing one}

Also like Sierra suggested on also making the other thing match the securities thingamajig.

[Falcania]

"While it is commendable a goal to prevent financial crisis, the Traansval feels that this bill is far too overreaching. Economic policy should be left to individual nations, and this current bill requires too much and is, in the opinion of the Traansval, infringing on National Sovereignty. Therefore we would vote against this motion."

I'm a big fan of national sovereignty but finance tends to be more than a merely domestic issue given the scale of international financial trade. When one trading nation suffers a financial crisis, it has consequences far outside that nation's borders, so it's not an overreach of the World Assembly (in my view) to try and keep that in check.

[United Republic Empire]

Does GAR #94 already cover what's in this proposal

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

[Merni]

OOC: Not that it matters, but the "Credit Securitisation Facility" is mentioned in the first clause but created in the second, which I find somewhat annoying.

[The Traansval]

"While it is commendable a goal to prevent financial crisis, the Traansval feels that this bill is far too overreaching. Economic policy should be left to individual nations, and this current bill requires too much and is, in the opinion of the Traansval, infringing on National Sovereignty. Therefore we would vote against this motion."

I'm a big fan of national sovereignty but finance tends to be more than a merely domestic issue given the scale of international financial trade. When one trading nation suffers a financial crisis, it has consequences far outside that nation's borders, so it's not an overreach of the World Assembly (in my view) to try and keep that in check.

"That is true, which is why the Traansval would support perhaps an altered measure, just one that doesn't infring on National Soverignty. There are ways to help prevent Finanical Crisises without forcing nations to do certain economic policies; perhaps the bill could be made option or a advisory/regulatory agency could be established under International control to help nations. Either way, as it currently stands this bill is far too invasive to be acceptable to the people of the United Republics."

EDIT: "Additionally, we find that this bill is not needed as all of these concerns are address in GAR #94, as pointed out by the United Republic Empire representative, which works towards the same goal and provides similar services without infringing on National Soverignty and requiring nations to adopt certain economic policies. This is much preferable to this proposal and is already adopted, meaning that we have no need for this current one. The Traansval stays against this proposal."

[Battlion]

I'm a big fan of national sovereignty but finance tends to be more than a merely domestic issue given the scale of international financial trade. When one trading nation suffers a financial crisis, it has consequences far outside that nation's borders, so it's not an overreach of the World Assembly (in my view) to try and keep that in check.

"That is true, which is why the Traansval would support perhaps an altered measure, just one that doesn't infring on National Soverignty. There are ways to help prevent Finanical Crisises without forcing nations to do certain economic policies; perhaps the bill could be made option or a advisory/regulatory agency could be established under International control to help nations. Either way, as it currently stands this bill is far too invasive to be acceptable to the people of the United Republics."

EDIT: "Additionally, we find that this bill is not needed as all of these concerns are address in GAR #94, as pointed out by the United Republic Empire representative, which works towards the same goal and provides similar services without infringing on National Soverignty and requiring nations to adopt certain economic policies. This is much preferable to this proposal and is already adopted, meaning that we have no need for this current one. The Traansval stays against this proposal."

If you think it isn’t needed, you could launch a legality challenge if you chose to do so?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Legality challenges are about the rules pinned at the top of the thread. There is no rule about something being 'unneeded'. However, there is one about Duplication. If you think this duplicates that other resolution, then you should make a legality challenge.

[The Traansval]

I don't believe its a duplication, its obviously not as the two have extremely different wording and provisions, simply the intent and goal are the same with differing methods. I'm just saying that this proposal is too invasive to National Soverignty while also there exists this already adopted proposal which addressed international financial crisises which doesn't infring on national soverignty.