NationStates

Full support.

Despite the few terminology words used in finance like tranche and base assets, I support.

Bump bump.

IC: "Wallenburg's economy is more than diverse enough to stave off runaway delinquency on loan payments, and we hardly represent the largest or most diverse economy among the many member nations of the World Assembly. If you fail to strike the preambulatory claim to the contrary before submission of your proposal, my office will reluctantly put forward a legality challenge against it."

OOC: This still needs to be translated into English. I had to look up several terms (and more than once failed to produce any valuable definition or explanation of your jargonistic language) just to understand the preamble. I will not spend hours reading your proposal just to understand what it does. Translate it or I will vote against this.

Also, it's called a liquidity crisis, not an illiquidity crisis.

Wallenburg wrote:IC: "Wallenburg's economy is more than diverse enough to stave off runaway delinquency on loan payments,

This is just godmodding. Next, I'll say that in my nation, nobody dies.

Wallenburg wrote:Also, it's called a liquidity crisis, not an illiquidity crisis.

Both terms are attested to in the literature. Look what I found in a few seconds of searching.

http://www.ipe.ro/rjef/rjef1_17/rjef1_2017p128-149.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=1558485
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/do ... K/download

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:IC: "Wallenburg's economy is more than diverse enough to stave off runaway delinquency on loan payments,

This is just godmodding. Next, I'll say that in my nation, nobody dies.

OOC: Not even remotely. It's absurd to claim that a national economy, no matter how large and how diversified, will inevitably crumble under the weight of unpaid loans, while (presumably) asserting that international economies are inherently immune from such issues, regardless of how small or homogeneous they are.

"We are in full support of this. An inability to liquidate assets could lead to financial ruin, and we in fact stand firmly against investments and funds that are not able to be liquidated with any remote ease. Or too easily, for that matter, so we are thankful article 3 and in particular 3c is in place.

However, I do believe that article 1 in somewhat out-of-place, mentioning the Facility before its creation is even established in article 2.
I am sure that this is only a mild concern and not a problem, but I believed it was a point to raise.

My biggest concern, however, is the implication this would have on socialist and communist nations that do not have stock markets.
This proposal, as explained in article 1, mandates that member nations without stock markets must allow the sale of secured financial products.
In all honesty, I have yet to investigate all of the archives, but it was another point I wanted to raise. Everything else looks well thought out and well-written, however."

OOC: I genuinely was about to jump in on the "this is unintelligible jargon" myself until I realized that a lot of this is somehow terminology I understand.
Except tranche. According to google, tranche is a noun and not a verb, meaning "a portion of something", so I'm very confuzzled. >_>

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: If you fail to strike the preambulatory claim to the contrary before submission of your proposal, my office will reluctantly put forward a legality challenge against it."

OOC: Do not do that. it will be rejected.

Wallenburg wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:This is just godmodding. Next, I'll say that in my nation, nobody dies.

OOC: Not even remotely. It's absurd to claim that a national economy, no matter how large and how diversified, will inevitably crumble under the weight of unpaid loans, while (presumably) asserting that international economies are inherently immune from such issues, regardless of how small or homogeneous they are.

OOC: It's not absurd. This literally happened in the United States during the 2007-2008 financial crisis. High delinquency rates on mortgages led to a rapid devaluation of mortgage-backed securities. Because almost all banks were so reliant on mortgage-backed securities, when their value disintegrated, they experienced a liquidity crisis. No economy is too big to avoid a liquidity crisis. That's just not realistic.

And a liquidity crisis is not just being deep in the hole financially. Some economies, like the United States, can bear overwhelming debt without experiencing any significant negative consequences. A liquidity crisis happens when there is no money to liquidate an asset. So if a bank has tons of financial instruments that for whatever reason lose their value suddenly, that bank, which may be deeply interconnected with the national or international economy, either fails or needs to get liquidity from the government. Its unpaid loans are not the problem.

Banana noted something important, I thought. I didn't in fact authorise the facility to audit filers. It requires that authority and will be given it when I get around to editing the draft.

On the matter of Wally and his wilful ignorance of finance, I don't have much of a response other than stop being wilfully ignorant. This isn't that hard, and can really be explained to a reasonable degree in any basic macroeconomics or finance class. Whole books for mass media have been written on the topic. Read one. You might even learn something of import to public policy.

Jutsa wrote:OOC: I genuinely was about to jump in on the "this is unintelligible jargon" myself until I realized that a lot of this is somehow terminology I understand.
Except tranche. According to google, tranche is a noun and not a verb, meaning "a portion of something", so I'm very confuzzled. >_>

For purposes here tranche should be read to retain its original French meaning as a form of the verb "trancher" meaning "to cut into portions" roughly speaking. For once, I actually think IA would be on solid ground to state context should have made that reasonably clear, even if I usually detest his pompous insistence that we should all by experts on English financial jargon.

Sciongrad wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: If you fail to strike the preambulatory claim to the contrary before submission of your proposal, my office will reluctantly put forward a legality challenge against it."

OOC: Do not do that. it will be rejected.

OOC: By you, perhaps. Less antagonistic members may prove receptive.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Not even remotely. It's absurd to claim that a national economy, no matter how large and how diversified, will inevitably crumble under the weight of unpaid loans, while (presumably) asserting that international economies are inherently immune from such issues, regardless of how small or homogeneous they are.

OOC: It's not absurd. This literally happened in the United States during the 2007-2008 financial crisis. High delinquency rates on mortgages led to a rapid devaluation of mortgage-backed securities. Because almost all banks were so reliant on mortgage-backed securities, when their value disintegrated, they experienced a liquidity crisis. No economy is too big to avoid a liquidity crisis. That's just not realistic.

OOC: And everyone who knows anything about the subprime mortgage crisis knows that relaxed lending standards allowed mortgage lenders to start selling to unqualified buyers en masse, even through 2006 as delinquency on those subprime mortgages spiked. Those subprime loans moved up the securitization chain, and so did the delinquency on their loans. Any serious person, economist or not, recognizes that higher lending standards from the start, or even a regulatory response in 2006, would have minimized the subsequent crisis or eliminated it altogether. So yes, it is absolutely absurd to insist that national economies and the states that regulate them simply cannot avoid a liquidity crisis.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Banana noted something important, I thought. I didn't in fact authorise the facility to audit filers. It requires that authority and will be given it when I get around to editing the draft.

On the matter of Wally and his wilful ignorance of finance, I don't have much of a response other than stop being wilfully ignorant. This isn't that hard, and can really be explained to a reasonable degree in any basic macroeconomics or finance class. Whole books for mass media have been written on the topic. Read one. You might even learn something of import to public policy.

Seeing as I've done far more research than this proposal deserves, while you make absurd claims about the ability of nations to maintain stable markets, it really strikes me as laughable that you would call me willfully ignorant.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: And everyone who knows anything about the subprime mortgage crisis knows that relaxed lending standards allowed mortgage lenders to start selling to unqualified buyers en masse, even through 2006 as delinquency on those subprime mortgages spiked. Those subprime loans moved up the securitization chain, and so did the delinquency on their loans. Any serious person, economist or not, recognizes that higher lending standards from the start, or even a regulatory response in 2006, would have minimized the subsequent crisis or eliminated it altogether. So yes, it is absolutely absurd to insist that national economies and the states that regulate them simply cannot avoid a liquidity crisis.

OOC: The question is not whether or not it is possible to avoid liquidity crises. It obviously is, and this proposal takes as its fundamental assumption that there are ways of preventing liquidity crises. The question is whether it is realistic for large, diverse economies to experience liquidity crises — it is. Your argument also makes the faulty assumption that any liquidity crisis can be prevented by a government that has adopted the proper policies. But one needs only to look to Europe to see how a liquidity crisis in one country can create a liquidity crunch in others. In other words, liquidity crises can have exogenous causes that a large, economically diverse country cannot prevent. The sovereign debt crises in Spain and Italy — the fourth and third largest economies in continental Europe — were sparked by the sovereign debt crisis in Greece. Many countries with very responsible banking and fiscal policies suffered liquidity crises because of exogenous factors. You can't godmod your way out of economic crises. With due respect, while it's clear you have done good research on this topic, you don't know more about macroeconomics than IA.

Sciongrad wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: And everyone who knows anything about the subprime mortgage crisis knows that relaxed lending standards allowed mortgage lenders to start selling to unqualified buyers en masse, even through 2006 as delinquency on those subprime mortgages spiked. Those subprime loans moved up the securitization chain, and so did the delinquency on their loans. Any serious person, economist or not, recognizes that higher lending standards from the start, or even a regulatory response in 2006, would have minimized the subsequent crisis or eliminated it altogether. So yes, it is absolutely absurd to insist that national economies and the states that regulate them simply cannot avoid a liquidity crisis.

OOC: The question is not whether or not it is possible to avoid liquidity crises. It obviously is, and this proposal takes as its fundamental assumption that there are ways of preventing liquidity crises.

OOC: If that isn't the question you want to argue about, don't argue about it. If you agree with me that national economies are capable of avoiding liquidity crises, then you have absolutely no reason to be arguing with me.

The question is whether it is realistic for large, diverse economies to experience liquidity crises — it is. Your argument also makes the faulty assumption that any liquidity crisis can be prevented by a government that has adopted the proper policies. But one needs only to look to Europe to see how a liquidity crisis in one country can create a liquidity crunch in others. In other words, liquidity crises can have exogenous causes that a large, economically diverse country cannot prevent. The sovereign debt crises in Spain and Italy — the fourth and third largest economies in continental Europe — were sparked by the sovereign debt crisis in Greece. Many countries with very responsible banking and fiscal policies suffered liquidity crises because of exogenous factors. You can't godmod your way out of economic crises.

OOC: I never argued that there exist no nations that experience liquidity crises despite the size and diversity of the economy, so this whole chunk of your post is rather irrelevant. I should also note that illiquidity of certain assets is not the only reason why national economies may experience crises. RPing as a nation that can responsibly manage its economy to a degree that a liquidity crisis is very unlikely is in no way RPing as a nation whose economy experiences no difficulties whatsoever. Stop pretending otherwise.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: If that isn't the question you want to argue about, don't argue about it. If you agree with me that national economies are capable of avoiding liquidity crises, then you have absolutely no reason to be arguing with me.

OOC: National economies are not by themselves capable of preventing all liquidity crises. That is the entire point of the rest of this post, which you conveniently dismissed out of hand.

OOC: I never argued that there exist no nations that experience liquidity crises despite the size and diversity of the economy, so this whole chunk of your post is rather irrelevant. I should also note that illiquidity of certain assets is not the only reason why national economies may experience crises. RPing as a nation that can responsibly manage its economy to a degree that a liquidity crisis is very unlikely is in no way RPing as a nation whose economy experiences no difficulties whatsoever. Stop pretending otherwise.

OOC: Are you not arguing that a single nation can always stop a liquidity crisis if it has the right policies? Are you not objecting to the claim that "a single nation's assets lack the diversity to stop highly correlated movement in default rates"? If you are, then this chunk is extremely relevant. It demonstrates that it does not matter what your policies are because a state cannot account for exogenous factors like bad policies in other states. You can't RP as a country that just doesn't experience liquidity crises because no single state can always stop them.

And I can categorically confirm that your challenge will be rejected. There is no rule that prevents authors from making false or outlandish claims in the preamble.

Out of character: I've been skimming this thread for a wee while now. I will have to agree with Sciongrad on this one, re: can't avoid crisis unless the owner of the hypothetical nation RP their nation as closed nation (and if that's the case it'd be unrealistic to be able to claim to have a thriving and competitive finance industry. I'm not sure whether this has been said but this was basic macroeconomic lesson from first year (ECON141 Principles of Macroeconomics). That said, In-character wise my government dislike this proposal because... if passed it would ruin one of my major future RP plans (unless I RP myself as not following passed WA resolutions, but that wouldn't be fun!)

Edit: OOC-wise I really like this proposal. I hope I've not offended anyone with this post (if I do my apologies). Thank you

Ambassador Nego drops his copy of the proposal in a nearby trash can. "Well, ambassador. I'd vote, If I could fucking read what I was voting on." "But, since I can't, no vote for you."

"Woah, watch your language, ambassador! This is a formal setting with formal people in stuffy suits. You wouldn't want to make them more uncomfortable than they already are, would you?

Come to think of it, my advice also applies to the proposal. But I firmly believe that law-makers and economic nerds alike will be able to at least interpret the script within an acceptable degree of accuracy."

*Takes the copy out of the trash can.*

Kowani wrote:Ambassador Nego drops his copy of the proposal in a nearby trash can. "Well, ambassador. I'd vote, If I could fucking read what I was voting on." "But, since I can't, no vote for you."

“The proposal is fine; I don’t understand the amount of rage at what is now a fairly sensible proposal to address a quite complex topic. The WA shouldn’t be prohibited from addressing specialist problems that the layperson can’t fully understand, that is why politicians and ambassadors exist - to inform the populace of what a law actually does.

If any of the vocabulary in the proposal isn’t known to a delagation, a simple search online should suffice, and a dictionary for anyone who doesn’t have access to the prior resource. Furthermore, it’s possible to work out rather accurately what this proposal without knowing what half the words mean, solely from context.”

Kowani wrote:Ambassador Nego drops his copy of the proposal in a nearby trash can. "Well, ambassador. I'd vote, If I could fucking read what I was voting on." "But, since I can't, no vote for you."

OOC: The growing strain of anti-intellectualism in the GA is worrisome.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ambassador Nego drops his copy of the proposal in a nearby trash can. "Well, ambassador. I'd vote, If I could fucking read what I was voting on." "But, since I can't, no vote for you."

OOC: The growing strain of anti-intellectualism in the GA is worrisome.

OOC: Nobody should have to spend a year taking university courses in economics to understand what this proposal says.

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: The growing strain of anti-intellectualism in the GA is worrisome.

OOC: Nobody should have to spend a year taking university courses in economics to understand what this proposal says.

Ooc: I've never taken an econ course at any level. I understand it fine. Either I'm uncommonly intelligent, or it isn't that hard

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Nobody should have to spend a year taking university courses in economics to understand what this proposal says.

Ooc: I've never taken an econ course at any level. I understand it fine. Either I'm uncommonly intelligent, or it isn't that hard

OOC: Seeing as people are not born with an innate knowledge of economic jargon and theory, I find that incredibly hard to believe.

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: The growing strain of anti-intellectualism in the GA is worrisome.

OOC: Nobody should have to spend a year taking university courses in economics to understand what this proposal says.

OOC: My "expertise" in economics comes from soaking up a very few highly basic core concepts from a parent who did stuff in the field for a living plus reading a few years of extremely entry-level socialist (and, like, Matt Taibbi) reporting on the 2008 crash and its various causes and symptoms. Besides that, I'm a humanities guy and would be lost in a lot of the courses you're alleging are necessary for understanding. But this isn't that bad. Yes, some of these concepts are ones you don't find on the front page of a newspaper, but it doesn't take that long to figure them out. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect resolutions to be written so that most players can understand them, but I also don't think this breaches that standard, at least in its current state. This ain't Candyland; we're simulating international law. Properly done, this is kind of a complex affair. If you have to do a little research, well, so do the authors of most halfway decent proposals. This isn't appreciably different.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Seeing as people are not born with an innate knowledge of economic jargon and theory, I find that incredibly hard to believe.

It's not impossible. After all, we have access to the largest repository of human knowledge: the internet. After reading up a bit on these terms, I feel like I have a good grasp on this proposal. I have to say, I support it a lot. It goes a long way to preventing the economy from "freezing up" if you will, and I'm glad to see others caring about the financial world.

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: I've never taken an econ course at any level. I understand it fine. Either I'm uncommonly intelligent, or it isn't that hard

OOC: Seeing as people are not born with an innate knowledge of economic jargon and theory, I find that incredibly hard to believe.

OOC: Or, I've taken the time to look up terms I didn't understand and applied them to the draft, thus learning what the draft means.

Again, either I'm uncommonly intelligent, or it's really not that hard.