NationStates

What a well-written, clear and sensible proposal! It would have my support if it achieves quorum.

I honestly don't know what is overly complicated about this. After 2008, I thought more people would have taken a modicum of interest in bonds, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), rating agencies and liquidity crises. The key argument is pretty much that securitizing debt increases market liquidity with the caveats that strongly correlated assets (such as junk mortgage bonds in the United States) are not packaged together and tranched as low risk and that the securitization process is appropriately disclosed to stakeholders. It also seems like a very good idea to create a liquidity support programme, since nations are in general vulnerable to liquidity risk whether they'd admit to it or not.

Naboompu wrote:What a well-written, clear and sensible proposal! It would have my support if it achieves quorum.

I honestly don't know what is overly complicated about this. After 2008, I thought more people would have taken a modicum of interest in bonds, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), rating agencies and liquidity crises. The key argument is pretty much that securitizing debt increases market liquidity with the caveats that strongly correlated assets (such as junk mortgage bonds in the United States) are not packaged together and tranched as low risk and that the securitization process is appropriately disclosed to stakeholders. It also seems like a very good idea to create a liquidity support programme, since nations are in general vulnerable to liquidity risk whether they'd admit to it or not.

You realize that the average NSer is a high schooler, and that there are many of us who’s first language isn’t English. For those of us like that, or those who fall into both categories, or don’t have the time to become economics scholars, this is a terrible resolution, regardless of its merits, because we can’t read it. And before someone else jumps in with “hurr durr, just use a dictionary lol”, a lot of people don’t have the time or ability to be economists. The choice to judge this proposal’s effectiveness is...somewhat hard, because it’s written in a way designed to be as obfuscating as possible.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

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.

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.

I've already discussed that. I'm not spending my entire evening thumbing through dictionaries and encyclopedias to entertain IA's ego.

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote: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.

I've already discussed that. I'm not spending my entire evening thumbing through dictionaries and encyclopedias to entertain IA's ego.

OOC: Then the only thing standing between you and comprehension...is you. Which really takes the culpability right off of IA.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I've already discussed that. I'm not spending my entire evening thumbing through dictionaries and encyclopedias to entertain IA's ego.

OOC: Then the only thing standing between you and comprehension...is you. Which really takes the culpability right off of IA.

OOC: That is a fascinating, absurd twist of logic. Props to you for surprising me there.

Kowani wrote:

Naboompu wrote:What a well-written, clear and sensible proposal! It would have my support if it achieves quorum.

I honestly don't know what is overly complicated about this. After 2008, I thought more people would have taken a modicum of interest in bonds, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), rating agencies and liquidity crises. The key argument is pretty much that securitizing debt increases market liquidity with the caveats that strongly correlated assets (such as junk mortgage bonds in the United States) are not packaged together and tranched as low risk and that the securitization process is appropriately disclosed to stakeholders. It also seems like a very good idea to create a liquidity support programme, since nations are in general vulnerable to liquidity risk whether they'd admit to it or not.

You realize that the average NSer is a high schooler, and that there are many of us who’s first language isn’t English. For those of us like that, or those who fall into both categories, or don’t have the time to become economics scholars, this is a terrible resolution, regardless of its merits, because we can’t read it. And before someone else jumps in with “hurr durr, just use a dictionary lol”, a lot of people don’t have the time or ability to be economists. The choice to judge this proposal’s effectiveness is...somewhat hard, because it’s written in a way designed to be as obfuscating as possible.

Sure, I get it. I understood effectively zilch about economics in high school and have learned two languages as a non-native speaker. I've been there and done that, and so I sympathize. I'm certainly not saying it's easy; reading ability and learning in general is like interest in that it compounds over time after hundred to thousands of hours of concerted effort. But just because one topic (in this case, finance) is perhaps less accessible to many than other topics, does not mean it is without purpose or that it should be artificially simplified. Should we really dismiss something out of hand, because it is currently incomprehensible to some or rather take a concerted effort to fill in the gaps in our knowledge instead? Legislating either to the masses or a small minority is in general a fundamentally bad idea. In my opinion, this proposal was made as simple as fundamentally possible, but no simpler, was accessible to an informed observer and so struck the right balance.

Naboompu wrote:Should we really dismiss something out of hand, because it is currently incomprehensible

Allow thoratic pages in waiving sticky courage, festive lakes post likewise.

Wallenburg wrote:

Naboompu wrote:Should we really dismiss something out of hand, because it is currently incomprehensible

Allow thoratic pages in waiving sticky courage, festive lakes post likewise.

Hilarious, but hopefully you understood what I was trying to getting at. I really don't want to burrow further down that rabbit hole.

I'm unsure why anyone would say that this proposal is unclear.

What is trying to be solved are three things, two of which were central to the financial crisis a decade ago: (1) the financialisation of emergent assets (in the case of the 2007 financial crisis: home equity) and (2) (a) the emergence of opaque instruments which could not readily be evaluated and (b) the unintentional ignorance of highly correlated movement in default rates of those instruments and assets. Those two problems are more-or-less solved in the first few sections, increasing market transparency and breadth to reduce default rate correlation in the event of an exogenous shock. The third problem, having to do with liquidity support, is fundamentally about a lack of (a) transparency amongst financial institutions increasing counter-party risk and (b) credible guarantees under highly volatile and asymmetric markets. The entire latter half of the proposal deals with that in a credible manner.

What is above is exceedingly precise and comprehensive.

I have also edited in an enabling clause permitting the Facility to ensure the accuracy of financial filings.

IA has a reputation for using incomprehensible language in order to deliberately mislead and deceive delegates into furthering a hidden agenda, so much so that we nearly bought into Jocospor and the CCD's false narrative of the WA being commandeered by a "corrupt liberal elite". This was the case with Preventing the Execution of Innocents and is clearly the case here. Naturally, we remain suspicious of IA's motives. AGAINST.

OOC: People can't seem to decide whether Wallenburg is being anti-intellectual or whether IA is being elitist. I'm with Wallenburg on this one. This is absolutely ridiculous. It would REALLY help if IA defined each of these financial terms in the OP separately from the draft itself. I'll consider changing my vote if that happens.

New Bremerton wrote:IA has a reputation for using incomprehensible language in order to deliberately mislead and deceive delegates into furthering a hidden agenda, so much so that we nearly bought into Jocospor and the CCD's false narrative of the WA being commandeered by a "corrupt liberal elite". This was the case with Preventing the Execution of Innocents and is clearly the case here. Naturally, we remain suspicious of IA's motives. AGAINST.

OOC: People can't seem to decide whether Wallenburg is being anti-intellectual or whether IA is being elitist. I'm with Wallenburg on this one. This is absolutely ridiculous. It would REALLY help if IA defined each of these financial terms in the OP separately from the draft itself. I'll consider changing my vote if that happens.

OOC: I hemmed and hawed about posting at all because I'm looking forward to this crashing and burning.

FWIW I'm also with Wallenburg on this. There's no anti-intellectualism going on here. It's a reaction against the standard use of jargon to impress rather than to inform. Even IA's last post is full of the same pompous bs. But then it's typical of most economists desperately tying to pretend that their art is a science rather than guesswork given a veneer of respectability by the use of jargon and the odd mathematical formula into which they insert their guesses.

I'd also consider that it's not really that clever to use so much jargon and unclear language. Firstly, it might confound the voters whose reaction could easily be "I don't understand this shit, I'll vote against". Secondly, even if it passes, the specialised meaning of the jargon may not be the same as the ordinary meaning of the same words. So instead of having watertight legislation written in simple terms, you end up with a nebulous collection of words that people can interpret anyway they like.

I note that most of the specific jargon I complained about in the first page has been removed but I still feel that this is a simple concept and could easily be presented in far simpler terms which would enhance it's chances of passing.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:...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.

OOC: I'll add that I don't consider "most players can understand it" to imply "most players will immediately understand it without any effort." Of course, voters are always free to vote against for any reason or none at all...

Some changes.

"While we were not present for the majority of the arguments over language usage, in its current form, we understand plenty enough of the proposal to effectively analyze its contents. After analysis, this proposal has our support. It is true that language can and should be in a specific yet comprehensible form; however, we have determined that making the world a slightly better place would ultimately be more impactful."

OOC:
Still no support until you write it in a way that isn't utterly fucking incoherent.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Still no support until you write it in a way that isn't utterly fucking incoherent.

OOC: Seconded.

New Bremerton wrote:

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Still no support until you write it in a way that isn't utterly fucking incoherent.

OOC: Seconded.

OOC: Thirded. (Is that a word in English?)

Still support

Tinfect, considering that you don't know (or didn't know, at the time of posting this draft) what liquidity is, I don't think it's possible to describe a liquidity control mechanism in such a manner that you would support it, especially when you also espouse unempirical and profoundly destructive economic beliefs which belie many established facts of economic growth, practice, and behaviour.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Tinfect, considering that you don't know (or didn't know, at the time of posting this draft) what liquidity is, I don't think it's possible to describe a liquidity control mechanism in such a manner that you would support it, especially when you also espouse unempirical and profoundly destructive economic beliefs which belie many established facts of economic growth, practice, and behaviour.

OOC:
This, coming from the guy whose economics have forced countless people into poverty and inhumane working conditions.

See? I can spout off random insults too! It doesn't make it an argument!

Tinfect wrote:See? I can spout off random insults too! It doesn't make it an argument!

It's very relevant to your self-ascribed inability to understand the fundamentals of the proposal. If you want to discuss economic development, I would be happy to do so, but for threadjacking rules. Especially important for discussion is the tremendous improvement of living standards across the world over the last century and the triumph that is market liberalisation and the creation of inclusive institutions across much of the formerly poverty-stricken world.

See generally: Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Why Nations Fail (2012) (highly recommended); Oliver Williamson, The institutions and governance of economic development and reform, in Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics (1994).

I would also refer, for a general institutional and political economy effect: Ronald Coase, The institutional structure of production, 82 American Economic Rev 713 (1992); Daron Acemoglu, Oligarchic versus Democratic Societies, 6 J of the European Economic Association 1 (2008); Daron Acemoglu, Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution, 118 Quarterly J of Economics 1231 (2002) (talking about open institutions leading to industrialisation); Daron Acemoglu, Institutions and the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth, in Handbook of Economic Growth (2005).

Specifically on labour utilisation in export-oriented economies, see World Bank, World Development Report 1992 (1992); Jagdish Bhagwati, Export-promoting trade strategy: Issues and evidence, 3 World Bank Research Observer 27 (1988).

On trade and impacts on development, I am recommended to recommend Rudiger Dornbusch, The case for trade liberalisation in development countries, 6 J of Economic Perspectives 69 (1992) (in favour); Dani Rodrik, The limits of trade policy reform in development countries, 6 J of Economic Perspectives 87 (1992) (also dealing with the political economy of trade reform).

Imperium Anglorum wrote:It's very relevant to your self-ascribed inability to understand the fundamentals of the proposal.

OOC: Are you incapable of talking about economics in a language understood by all? My biochem professor at university always said that if you couldn't explain DNA regulation and hormonal signal cascades to your uneducated granny, you hadn't really understood the topic yourself.

But as for the contents (which are less incomprehensible now, so at least some improvements have been made) of the proposal - what exactly are you trying to sneak through now? A "Bank of WA"? All the "securitizing" (I honestly can't believe that's a real word) and "liquidity support" (even though that sounds more like some medical product to prevent dehydration) and "financial products" (whatever those are) makes it sound like that.

And where does it get the money to invest or loan or back things up? You talk about the committee (you can call it a facility, it's still a committee) having "net income" - where does it get the income? General Fund is mentioned only as a source in extreme need of money, so how is the committee usually supposed to be funded? Also, which financial system is "the financial system" in clause 3?

And finally, how is this not a committee-only violation? And probably category/AoE one too, given that "member nations shall allow the sale of "base assets" to public investors" is the only single thing to do with member nations. If memory serves, the AoEs require the minimum of "significant" effective strength of the proposal's language.

Thanks for reading the proposal. There was an oversight about fundraising, I've cleared that up. The scope of the quasi-SIFI exception is also unclear, and I've effected changes to that section.

Regarding a "Bank of the WA", there is no bank mechanism. In fact, if you look at the preamble of the original draft, you'll see the parenthetical "at least insofar as the Assembly is unwilling to exert direct control over a nation's monetary policy", which, given the few material changes since then, still holds succinctly. Moreover, there are no powers granted to control monetary policy, which, given the number of different currencies available to member nations, would be pointless anyway.

You should read the current committee rule.

Go in T-5 hours.

EDIT: lol did that not happen

I hope you'll excuse my ignorance as my background is in engineering, not finance, so I'm likely overlooking an obvious thing here. We like securitisation in the Free Kingdom, we like this legislation, but I simply cannot figure out how a non-capitalist society can possibly hope to comply with this legislation.