Advertisement
by Kenmoria » Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:37 am
by Araraukar » Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:38 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Marxist Germany » Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:04 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:31 pm
by Lusane » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:03 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: On mobile so can't do long writing, but are giftcards, mobile/computer games with any kind of ingame currency, not to mention microtransactions, and similar intentionally included in definitions? While non-corporated private banks are not?
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:05 pm
Lusane wrote:Non-corporated private banks would be covered under the definitions of this provision. Gift cards are credits issued by stores and establishments to be used at their establishment only, so it would not be covered by these provisions. Ingame currency is an object purchased with funds; a product, therefore would not be covered by these provisions.
Lusane wrote:DEFINES financial institutions as public or private, physical or electronically controlled corporations or government institutions, licensed or unlicensed...
by Lusane » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:06 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I will not be supporting this proposal. There are a significant number of laws which I posted in my response that have not been addressed which, I believe, create significant and fatal flaws that would harm any effective regulatory scheme as well as significantly reduce the sort of trade-offs which nations would be permitted to make with regard to banking regulation. That is to add on to the fact that the title refers to depository institutions and then the text regulates non-depository institutions.
by Lusane » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:08 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:"Why did you rush submitting this, Ambassador?"
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:13 pm
Lusane wrote:I have reviewed your laws and addressed your proposed edits. While I appreciate your thoughts on how the matter may affect the regulatory scheme, I simply don't agree with it. Further, when you state that the text regulates non-depository institutions, the only sort of regulation in that regard is when a non-depository institution has direct dealings with funds that are placed in a depository account, it seems to me you misunderstood that provision in its entirety.
Lusane wrote:DEFINES investment brokerages as public or private, physical or electronically controlled corporations or government institutions, licensed or unlicensed, according to regulations in the applicable member nation; in which qualifies under at least one of the following:
with a purpose to hold or invest consumer funds in any brokerage with the intent to accrue dividends.
with a purpose to hold or invest government funds in any brokerage with the intent to accrue dividends.
DEFINES lenders as public or private, physical or electronically controlled corporations or government institutions, licensed or unlicensed, according to regulations in the applicable member nation; in which qualifies under the following... issues collateralized credit products or loans in which a security interest in the form of currency is placed in a transactional account.
Lusane wrote:The title does not refer to a depository institution, it refers to depository standards.
by Lusane » Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:05 pm
by Ransium » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:06 pm
by United States of Americanas » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:21 pm
by Sildavialand » Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:41 pm
... ESTABLISHES the Depository Regulators Committee (“DRC”), a regulatory body under the World Assembly to supervise and render inspections and audits of member nation institutions for direct compliance with regulation for the protection of the consumer;
ESTABLISHES that the DRC shall have the jurisdiction, with reasonable evidence to enact disciplinary actions, fines, or closures of institutions if they are found in violation of the provisions of this Act on a situational basis...
by Sildavialand » Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:49 pm
United States of Americanas wrote:Voting in support of this as it’s just plain common sense. Financial institutions go insolvent and then the government has to bail out the consumers at taxpayer expense. Enough of that, it’s time for financial institutions to be held responsible for insuring all accounts.
by Jocospor » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:10 am
by Dirty Americans » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:31 am
Sildavialand wrote:Your argument would be reasonable... in the framework of a national, internal policy discussion.
But this is NationStates.There is not a unique economic, financial or organisational system, each nation having its own currency, private or public property systems and laws. Such a proposal would be appropriate in a Government RP framework, not in a multinational, worldwide body of sovereign nations.
by Araraukar » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:02 am
Lusane wrote:Non-corporated private banks would be covered under the definitions of this provision.
Gift cards are credits issued by stores and establishments to be used at their establishment only, so it would not be covered by these provisions.
Ingame currency is an object purchased with funds; a product, therefore would not be covered by these provisions.
Lusane wrote:OOC: Was no rush to submit, I made the edits that people proposed. I further spoke to a number of delegates who urged me to submit the proposal in the state of Draft #4. I did so.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:54 am
by Coconut Palm Island » Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:06 pm
News: King, Senators back bipartisan climate change initiative. | Heat wave possibly responsible for four-hour power outage in the capital, Largo Beach. | Senator under investigation for allegedly taking bribes found to be innocent, all major parties agree. |
by Azlaake » Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:25 pm
by Gudmund » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:48 pm
by Gonadez » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:33 am
by Kenmoria » Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:20 am
“I would encourage you to change your vote, ambassador, as this proposal, were it to become law, would bar future legislation on the subject, which could be less ambiguous. I would much rather have a concise piece of law than a nebulous one.”Coconut Palm Island wrote:The King of Coconut Palm Island has instructed our WA representative to vote for this resolution. While other nations have pointed out specific flaws in the language and loopholes that can be exploited, we trust the WA to enforce this in good faith. We agree with the spirit and intent of the provision, and our nation has regulations much heavier than the ones listed here, so we have no reason not to support.
by Creslonia » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:04 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement