[PASSED] International Bankruptcy Protocol

[Araraukar]

OOC: Anyone know if the definition of bankruptcy in this proposal is the only existing definition of bankruptcy in extant WA law? Because if yes, then no objections as I don't need to get very creative to sidestep this one entirely...

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Anyone know if the definition of bankruptcy in this proposal is the only existing definition of bankruptcy in extant WA law? Because if yes, then no objections as I don't need to get very creative to sidestep this one entirely...

OOC: If you have a definition of bankruptcy that differs substantively with the one I included, you've a serious problem with debt alienation and consolidation, and your people are economically fucked.

Of course, if you had no intention of complying with a good faith interpretation, why post?

[Araraukar]

OOC: If you have a definition of bankruptcy that differs substantively with the one I included, you've a serious problem with debt alienation and consolidation, and your people are economically fucked.

OOC: Araraukarian economics in general is pretty weird, and bankruptcies aren't... well, not that they weren't a thing at all, so much as that they just don't happen. Privately-owned or run industry is pretty nonexistent beyond artesan hobbyists, and with utilities like water, electricity, internet, and living costs, basic clothes and food and all that actually being provided for free, there aren't going to be (m)any ways to end up in significant debt, nor much that a debtor could actually demand as payment.

Of course, if you had no intention of complying with a good faith interpretation, why post?

It's less about bad faith interpretation and more about wondering if I can just go N/A on it. Especially with clause 2's "nongovernmental debtor or creditor".

Although, now that I remember... This proposal is only about what happens after official bankruptcy claim has been filed (or whatever the English wording for that is) and approved/acknowledged, yes? As far as my brain is wiling to tackle any kind of Legalese today, that doesn't appear to be actually mentioned in the proposal.

Asking because in RL (over here at least) you can do a "debt settlement/agreement" thingy without needing to actually declare yourself bankrupt. It has less bureaucracy, and doesn't need court decisions (so it's cheaper too), and more or less just boils down to "you and your debtors agreeing on a payment plan". (It's a bit more formal than that and has serious repercussions if you don't follow the payment plan, but it's not the same as bankruptcy, which is several steps more serious and harder to achieve.)

[Jarish Inyo]

Opposed. Imperial law doesn’t permit foreign investment in Inyoian companies. Nor does our banking system has or supports loans in any form.

[Kenmoria]

Opposed. Imperial law doesn’t permit foreign investment in Inyoian companies. Nor does our banking system has or supports loans in any form.

(OOC: If your banking system has no loans of any form, it wouldn’t be affected by this bill at all, seeing as this proposal addresses what happens after bankruptcy has been filed. Although, if your banks don’t support any form of lending whatsoever, you’ll have much worse problems than fines from ACA.)

“This proposal looks like a very well-crafted piece of legislation - it has my full support.”

[Separatist Peoples]

Opposed. Imperial law doesn’t permit foreign investment in Inyoian companies. Nor does our banking system has or supports loans in any form.

"Ambassador, have you not realized I take your opposition for granted and ignore it? You waste your time notifying me of something I accept as axiomatic. Indeed, if you supported this, I would be extremely concerned about the quality of my work."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Claims you have a banking system. Also claims you don't have loans. Pick one. Stop wanking.

[Araraukar]

Opposed. Imperial law doesn’t permit foreign investment in Inyoian companies. Nor does our banking system has or supports loans in any form.

(OOC: If your banking system has no loans of any form, it wouldn’t be affected by this bill at all, seeing as this proposal addresses what happens after bankruptcy has been filed.)

OOC: Actually, not necessarily true, as you can end up in, say, gambling debt, without ever having taken out a bank loan. Or failing to pay normal bills and then failing to pay the collection agency's fees and so forth. Depends on the legal/financial system whether you end up being forced to declare bankruptcy, then, as I tried to explain earlier.

Claims you have a banking system. Also claims you don't have loans. Pick one. Stop wanking.

OOC: How on earth do loans follow from having banks? And don't give me an economics lesson, I'm very aware of how banks generate money in RL (and how that often causes inflation bubbles). What I mean is, if you have a state-owned banking system that's just a way for people to store their money in the bank/support digital monetary system in addition to physical currency, you don't really need the banks to be able to generate money from charging people for taking out loans.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: I don't usually pop around these sections anymore, but do you think there's a better way to express res judicata without having to use the words res judicata in the resolution?

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC: If your banking system has no loans of any form, it wouldn’t be affected by this bill at all, seeing as this proposal addresses what happens after bankruptcy has been filed.)

OOC: Actually, not necessarily true, as you can end up in, say, gambling debt, without ever having taken out a bank loan. Or failing to pay normal bills and then failing to pay the collection agency's fees and so forth. Depends on the legal/financial system whether you end up being forced to declare bankruptcy, then, as I tried to explain earlier.

Claims you have a banking system. Also claims you don't have loans. Pick one. Stop wanking.

OOC: How on earth do loans follow from having banks? And don't give me an economics lesson, I'm very aware of how banks generate money in RL (and how that often causes inflation bubbles). What I mean is, if you have a state-owned banking system that's just a way for people to store their money in the bank/support digital monetary system in addition to physical currency, you don't really need the banks to be able to generate money from charging people for taking out loans.

OOC: There isn't much point to a bank if it doesn't lend or invest with the money in it's client's accounts. Such a bank wouldn't generate interest. And businesses would have to be liquid for every transaction, which harms new business and hamstrings established business. It is incredibly unrealisitc to expect that any kind of society more advanced than Renaissance Europe and Asia would not have a banking system and corresponding debt. I submit that no reasonable nation, having seen the benefit of banking and the financial industry, would deliberately avoid such institutions. Nations with a financial industry would, almost inevitably, have stronger economies.

If you want to pretend nations can duck this because they don't have banks like most nations, that is all well and good. But I'm not going to bend my draft into a pretzel for a form of roleplay that is not representative of the overwhelming majority. Consider this me invoking the Reasonable Nation theory.

OOC: I don't usually pop around these sections anymore, but do you think there's a better way to express res judicata without having to use the words res judicata in the resolution?

OOC: Regrettably, there are no such terms that are not equally precise, concise, and not steeped in colloquialism.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: How on earth do loans follow from having banks? And don't give me an economics lesson, I'm very aware of how banks generate money in RL (and how that often causes inflation bubbles). What I mean is, if you have a state-owned banking system that's just a way for people to store their money in the bank/support digital monetary system in addition to physical currency, you don't really need the banks to be able to generate money from charging people for taking out loans.

Three main points of contention here:

1. Do loans follow from financial intermediaries?
2. Is it in fact the case that banks 'create' money and cause 'inflation' bubbles?
3. What does a world without credit look like?

Well, I'll address 2 first, because that's the most pernicious. 'Inflation' bubbles aren't a thing. What you're probably talking about are credit bubbles, which are usually caused by lax lending practices accompanied by low interest rates. Banks 'create' (I hate this word) money (also a bad word, rather, what we should be talking about are media of exchange, especially in the light of 19th century banknotes) by lending. Their function here is a matter of monetary policy, is well understood, and can be quite precisely controlled by a central bank.

Loans do follow from financial intermediation. Financial intermediation is, abstractly, the process of turning liabilities into assets. Also at this altitude, what financial intermediaries do is really getting buying power to people who need it, in return for a stream of buying power in the future. That is, in the end, what a loan really is: buying power now for buying power tomorrow (I'd write money, but that distracts, since money isn't real). Insofar as you have people who need buying power now and do not have it, you need financial intermediation. Claims that people will have all the buying power they need are effectively the same as claiming that you have post-scarcity economy (and insofar as there is not infinite space in prime locations, there cannot be such a thing).

Credit is central to growth of an economy. Since it turns out that new enterprises need money and things to start up. And they have to get it from other people. Consider the alternative, where bank deposits are not used. They effectively leave the economy. This has a number of effects: (1) deflation from non-circulation, which I don't entirely believe is too large due to rational expectations, but there are some concerns, (2) all of a sudden, there is all this buying power that isn't being used to make anything, when it could be used to invest in new methods of production, new homes, financing, resource allocation, etc., (3) savings are comparatively disincentivised by not offering returns on them, (4) investments become risky due to a lack of diversification, and (5) all banks go bankrupt, because they need to have rate spread to cover their expenses.

Of course, you can avoid 5 by imposing what is effectively a tax on savings, insofar as you charge people to put their money in vaults. But that would be stupid. Or, you could impose taxation, which you then use to pay for those expenses. Which just happens to be ... charging people to put their money in a vault. And that is really just the same thing.

[Araraukar]

OOC: There isn't much point to a bank if it doesn't lend or invest with the money in it's client's accounts.

OOC: Other than, you know, like I already said, to be somewhere to store your money that isn't in your mattress, plus enabling digital currency?

If you want to pretend nations can duck this because they don't have banks like most nations, that is all well and good.

Well, now that you put it that way, some past tech/far-future tech nations actually probably wouldn't have banks. But that was never my point. My point was that banks existing does not automatically mean that bank loans existed, when the bank isn't actually seeking to profit off of its customers.

Consider this me invoking the Reasonable Nation theory.

Oh I never said that wouldn't apply, just that there are reasonable RP reasons for why certain aspects wouldn't require even creative compliance to allow people to ignore this. Same with brankruptcy not being a thing (while debt resettlements and debt forgiveness/being paid by the state, were), because bankruptcy is a very specific narrow legal thing.

Of course, you can avoid 5 by imposing what is effectively a tax on savings, insofar as you charge people to put their money in vaults. But that would be stupid. Or, you could impose taxation, which you then use to pay for those expenses. Which just happens to be ... charging people to put their money in a vault. And that is really just the same thing.

Same to you as to SP above; having someplace to store your money + having access to digital currency is worth it.

In addition to which I'd like to point out that is very much a thing in Real Life right now, with deposits under certain limit getting no interest, while you still have to pay a monthly fee to have your bank account, so I really don't see how that could not be a thing in RP worlds.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: since the only opposition to this is based on opposition to banks and lending, are there other concerns or should I wind up the ol' rubber bands?

[Araraukar]

Ooc: since the only opposition to this is based on opposition to banks and lending, are there other concerns or should I wind up the ol' rubber bands?

OOC: For the record, I'm not opposing it, just pointing out that it doesn't cover all related situations, even RL ones. The bits about banks and loans came into it mainly due to claims that anything else was impossible or unreasonable.

So wind away, but not too tightly so they don't snap. ^_^

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: El Bumpo. Thats Spanish for Bump.

[Wallenburg]

This would unacceptably violate the financial customs of the Sister Republics of Wallenburg. In Wallenburg, those who cannot repay their debts are required to surrender a portion of flesh equal to the weight of their debt. We will not allow foreigners to hold themselves above our customs while operating in our territory.

[Separatist Peoples]

This would unacceptably violate the financial customs of the Sister Republics of Wallenburg. In Wallenburg, those who cannot repay their debts are required to surrender a portion of flesh equal to the weight of their debt. We will not allow foreigners to hold themselves above our customs while operating in our territory.

Bell blinks. "You know very well I wont accommodate for that."

[Wallenburg]

This would unacceptably violate the financial customs of the Sister Republics of Wallenburg. In Wallenburg, those who cannot repay their debts are required to surrender a portion of flesh equal to the weight of their debt. We will not allow foreigners to hold themselves above our customs while operating in our territory.

Bell blinks. "You know very well I wont accommodate for that."

Gerald enters the room, draped in little more than a ragged pelt skirt and brandishing a large but unwieldy stick. "Ral no like small man. Ral club man for not respect Og."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bump

[Falcania]

I fear I once again present a tricky problem; Clause 2 defines a foreign representative as an agent of a nongovernmental debtor or creditor. To what extent would this legislation apply to a representative of a creditor when that creditor is a for-profit lending bank subsidiary to the corporate authority that does, in fact, govern a nation?

[Separatist Peoples]

I fear I once again present a tricky problem; Clause 2 defines a foreign representative as an agent of a nongovernmental debtor or creditor. To what extent would this legislation apply to a representative of a creditor when that creditor is a for-profit lending bank subsidiary to the corporate authority that does, in fact, govern a nation?

"Nationalized banks bearing the imprimatur of national governments should get priority for the same reason that national governments seeking taxes should get priority: that money isn't private, it's public, and generally necessary for the function of the state. I've a lot of respect for the sovereign powers of a government, and wouldn't want to step on any toes with regard to that."

[Falcania]

I fear I once again present a tricky problem; Clause 2 defines a foreign representative as an agent of a nongovernmental debtor or creditor. To what extent would this legislation apply to a representative of a creditor when that creditor is a for-profit lending bank subsidiary to the corporate authority that does, in fact, govern a nation?

"Nationalized banks bearing the imprimatur of national governments should get priority for the same reason that national governments seeking taxes should get priority: that money isn't private, it's public, and generally necessary for the function of the state. I've a lot of respect for the sovereign powers of a government, and wouldn't want to step on any toes with regard to that."

That's very interesting, and beneficial to the Free Kingdom.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bump. This is an interesting and complex issue, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the process I'm outlining. I only ask that you read through the FAQ before asking, since a lot of the basic information is there.

[Lord Dominator]

Dee wanders back into the debating room, having found several posters desperately asking for anyone to debate something, anything in increasingly slurred handwriting

"My somewhat sincere apologies ambassador..." Dee looks closely at one of the most legible posters "...Bell for not doing my utmost to do my solemn duty of whatever the cipher we do here.

Aaaanyways, suppose I can take a crack at this mumbo-jumbo."

Dee grabs a copy of the draft, squints, and reads it and the FAQ several times thoroughly.

"Interesting stuff at least. I don't spy anything mandating nations have or allow bankruptcy in their own borders, unless defining it there is supposed to be that, is that intentional?
Also, the opening of clause 5 there looks a lot like something that could be rolled into clause 4 there, with some tacking on at the end or something.

Member states may enforce a time limit on the number of separate bankruptcy comity claims a court may enforce for a debtor.

Finally, I basically get everything else in here, but what the flarf-narbler is this supposed to mean?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Interesting stuff at least. I don't spy anything mandating nations have or allow bankruptcy in their own borders, unless defining it there is supposed to be that, is that intentional?

"Correct. If a nation has no bankruptcy law, then there is no comity to extend on their behalf. Its the wild west, so to speak."

Also, the opening of clause 5 there looks a lot like something that could be rolled into clause 4 there, with some tacking on at the end or something.

"I wanted to avoid an overlong paragraph, but I can look into combining them."

Finally, I basically get everything else in here, but what the flarf-narbler is this supposed to mean?"

"It permits nations to enforce a limit on the number of claims filed in a period of time. One large problem with bankruptcy law is the risk of people filing bankruptcy regularly to avoid paying on their debt. To battle this, many states will create a limit on how often one can file for bankruptcy. For the C.D.S.P., an individual seeking discharge of their debts can only do so once every seven years. This permits nations to enforce a similar limitation on comity claims, so that an individual cannot try to shield their foreign assets by filing for bankruptcy in many different jurisdictions in a short period of time. It protects the honest but unfortunate debtor, while opening the dishonest debtor to genuine creditor claims."