NationStates

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:12 pm**

Financial and Economic Education
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational

The World Assembly,

Recognising its past actions in GA 80 "A Promotion of Basic Education" which establishes a requirement for member nations to give their citizens knowledge or awareness "of financial mathematics and concepts, currency and economics that is appropriate to the economy of their nation" and

Convinced that simply being aware of the existence of taxation and financial investments, as well as sources wherein one can find more information on those topics, is insufficient, hereby:

1. Defines "personal finance products" to mean products and services which an average inhabitant of a member nation could reasonably be expected to encounter in adult life which includes, in those nations where that is the case, but is not limited to, products or services which:
extend credit, service loans,
lease or purchase personal property,
engage in deposit-taking or investment activities,
provide payments and transaction services, including cheque or bill of exchange liquidation services,
analyse and disseminate customer report information for the purposes of evaluating creditworthiness,
collect against obligations made by any product mentioned in this section, and
all other products which that member nation defines as a personal finance product for the purposes of this resolution;
2. Requires member nations to truthfully educate all of their inhabitants on core personal finance topics, which shall include but is not limited to:
setting and managing a personal budget,
protection of their identity against possible identity theft,
the method and means of filing tax forms which those inhabitants can reasonably be expected to file,
management of personal savings or long-term investment accounts based on the best available evidence,
the means of establishing and evaluating personal finance products,
the existence and benefits of available preferential governmental schemes for certain purposes;
3. Further requires member nations to truthfully educate all of their inhabitants on general economic topics, which shall include but is not limited to:
the means of production in their society,
issues associated with those means of production,
their nation's fiscal state and determinants thereof,
the determinants of economic growth,
the causes and policy responses to economic downturns,
financial intermediation, rent-seeking behaviours,
public goods, collective action problems, and inflation.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:12 pm**

Formatting. I've noted errors in the placement of helping words in list formatting in section 2 that are inconsistent with UN resolution style guidelines. Errors are my own.

Campaign telegram. Except from my campaign telegram—

[...] In many countries around the world (OOC: Including the United States) there is no requirement for a high school graduate to understand something like credit card debt, student loans, mortgages, and other financial products. In fact, those schools do not even teach you how to file your taxes: something that I would think is important when you go to jail when you fail to pay them.

My proposal, below, fixes that. It would require member nations to educate their populations on how to budget their money, pay their taxes, save for the future, evaluate credit cards or their loans, and find help if they need it.

Why is this important? Well, first, it seems unfair for a nation to imprison citizens for failing to pay taxes without them knowing how to do so. While everyone may know that taxes exist, one cannot comply without knowing how to file them. Second, people need to know how to spend and borrow money. If they don't, it is easy for predatory lenders to prey on them, enter poverty, or get trapped in mortgages they did not know were so expensive (OOC: One of the causes of the 2007 Housing Crisis). And third, help is meaningless if people do not know how to get it when they need it.

This wouldn't be a problem if nations already did all these things. But it is clear that many nations do not. Financial illiteracy exists and has concrete harms for citizens. This is a problem people created, and people can fix it. [...]

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:34 pm**

"The second clause of Section 2 really deserves it's own resolution under Regulation/Consumer Protection, and should be removed to avoid any contradiction or duplication issues. Otherwise, we support this, and eagerly await to hear our fellow ambassadors protest that there are no personal budgets in their nation."

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:41 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The second clause of Section 2 really deserves it's own resolution under Regulation/Consumer Protection, and should be removed to avoid any contradiction or duplication issues. Otherwise, we support this, and eagerly await to hear our fellow ambassadors protest that there are no personal budgets in their nation."

"Exactly what I was thinking; the second clause of Section 2 would merit its own resolution and, regardless, needs to be more thoroughly defined/expanded upon. Otherwise, full support."

Edit: Also, regarding Section 2, Clause 1, should efficacy and integrity be compromised for the sake of simplicity? Meaning that, if a tax code, in its current state, allows for effective taxation, and any further simplification of said tax code would compromise its integrity, should simplification still be encouraged by the WA? To add context, lets say that a government currently has 7 tax brackets, but reducing the number to 5 would simplify the process for inhabitants. However, this would bring detriment to the integrity and efficacy in the government's finances and tax collection system, which runs best at 7 brackets. In that case should the WA encourage simplification. Perhaps a qualifier should be applied?

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:53 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The second clause of Section 2 really deserves it's own resolution under Regulation/Consumer Protection, and should be removed to avoid any contradiction or duplication issues. Otherwise, we support this, and eagerly await to hear our fellow ambassadors protest that there are no personal budgets in their nation."

I'm unclear whether an encouragement has any blocking effect, except for (as ruled), preventing people from blocking future legislation or doing the opposite thereof.

The clause is, pro postero,

Strongly urges member nations to simplify their tax codes, require the simplification of widely available personal finance instruments, and take other actions which reduce the cognitive burden associated with making and evaluating financial decisions.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:17 pm**

OOC: This is much better than the other draft on similar subject. Though I'd still like to know what "personal finance products" are?

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:26 pm**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: This is much better than the other draft on similar subject. Though I'd still like to know what "personal finance products" are?

OOC: In my understanding, they are any products available with the objective of assisting, informing, advising, etc. an individual with their personal finances; that being said, an official definition from the author would be much appreciated”

Edit: If my definition stands, which I doubt it will, shouldn't education also be extended to personal financial services?

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:01 pm**

Gebietersland wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: This is much better than the other draft on similar subject. Though I'd still like to know what "personal finance products" are?

“In my understanding, they are any products available with the objective of assisting, informing, advising, etc. an individual with their personal finances; that being said, an official definition from the author would be much appreciated”

OOC: I'm talking out-of-character, so you replying in-character doesn't make much sense. In any case, what are these mysterious products? I tried to get this same answer from the other draft's author and they couldn't provide one. I'm hoping IA is more informative.

Posted: **Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:19 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Gebietersland wrote:“In my understanding, they are any products available with the objective of assisting, informing, advising, etc. an individual with their personal finances; that being said, an official definition from the author would be much appreciated”

OOC: I'm talking out-of-character, so you replying in-character doesn't make much sense. In any case, what are these mysterious products? I tried to get this same answer from the other draft's author and they couldn't provide one. I'm hoping IA is more informative.

Fixed that OOC thing, still figuring things out.

For me, they're products such as software which help in organizing one's personal finances, or a guide on the effective management of a certain financial instrument. Stuff like that. Most people who invest use at least some of these products.

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 12:00 am**

OOC:
I seriously question the necessity of including education on investment; it's so utterly removed from the lives of the vast majority of people that the requirement of education in it is not merely unnecessary and unhelpful, but, I would argue, insulting.

I get that maybe it's just that everyone I've ever met in person is poor, but not even the rich side of the family that lives in an absurd, gated community and golf course, has anything to do with investing.

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 12:04 am**

OOC:

I have a feeling this is related to criticism of a previous proposal also relating to finance....

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 6:42 am**

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I seriously question the necessity of including education on investment; it's so utterly removed from the lives of the vast majority of people that the requirement of education in it is not merely unnecessary and unhelpful, but, I would argue, insulting.

I get that maybe it's just that everyone I've ever met in person is poor, but not even the rich side of the family that lives in an absurd, gated community and golf course, has anything to do with investing.

OOC: I'm gonna respond to this ICly, but in a general sense, so as not to presume that your ambassador is participating unless you make it clear. After all, I recall recently a lamentation of the lack of RP in GA drafting threads.

Bell leans back and stares at the ceiling. He seems to speak to nobody in particular, but thinks out loud.

"It strikes me that, should one perhaps question the need of educations on investments and financial instruments, one might consider that most purchases of real estate and contributions to any retirement program, however meager, is itself an investment of sorts, and that one might benefit from understanding the mechanisms inherent in that sort of transaction. Not to mention that understanding the basics of how banks use money is a useful tool to understand how the bank works and whether to use a bank. Even if one never invests themselves, one may make an intelligent and reasoned decision about not investing by having the information available. And may make better decisions about economic policy when voting for political candidates by virtue of understanding even a minor part of the financial sector. Nobody expects the common man to become a financial expert from such education, but knowledge is rarely harmful."

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 8:23 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: This is much better than the other draft on similar subject. Though I'd still like to know what "personal finance products" are?

Materials for cleaning one's money, maybeso?"

Hrrafe Redsmith,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 8:28 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Gebietersland wrote:“In my understanding, they are any products available with the objective of assisting, informing, advising, etc. an individual with their personal finances; that being said, an official definition from the author would be much appreciated”

OOC: I'm talking out-of-character, so you replying in-character doesn't make much sense. In any case, what are these mysterious products? I tried to get this same answer from the other draft's author and they couldn't provide one. I'm hoping IA is more informative.

I definitely could not provide a good answer. Should've done more research, in retrospect.

Regardless, I'll support this proposal.

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 10:10 am**

“You require member nations to educate ‘all’ of their inhabitants on these topics, which seems like a very broad idea. Not only are you including people who have come into the country after they have finished that nation’s age where formal schooling ends, you also include non-citizens. This doesn’t seem very fair.”

Posted: **Wed May 01, 2019 4:11 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:“You require member nations to educate ‘all’ of their inhabitants on these topics, which seems like a very broad idea. Not only are you including people who have come into the country after they have finished that nation’s age where formal schooling ends, you also include non-citizens. This doesn’t seem very fair.”

I'm unclear why only those persons who are lucky enough to be born as natural citizens of some certain country should be granted the privileges of being enlightened with the secret mysteries of personal finance. Increasing the impact of the lottery of birth, seems eminently unjust to me.

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: We made some edits.

Posted: **Thu May 02, 2019 1:19 am**

"We'd support a proposal requiring all vendors of such products (and perhaps WA delegations) to cut out jargon. In which case all this would be covered by "comprehensive literary skills"."

Posted: **Thu May 02, 2019 8:30 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“You require member nations to educate ‘all’ of their inhabitants on these topics, which seems like a very broad idea. Not only are you including people who have come into the country after they have finished that nation’s age where formal schooling ends, you also include non-citizens. This doesn’t seem very fair.”

I'm unclear why only those persons who are lucky enough to be born as natural citizens of some certain country should be granted the privileges of being enlightened with the secret mysteries of personal finance. Increasing the impact of the lottery of birth, seems eminently unjust to me.

(OOC: It is not impossible to research personal finance without it being the responsibility of government to provide education. Why should any nation have to provide for people who are not its citizens?)

Posted: **Thu May 02, 2019 12:20 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is not impossible to research personal finance without it being the responsibility of government to provide education. Why should any nation have to provide for people who are not its citizens?)

OOC: CoCR uses "inhabitants".

Posted: **Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is not impossible to research personal finance without it being the responsibility of government to provide education. Why should any nation have to provide for people who are not its citizens?)

OOC: CoCR uses "inhabitants".

(OOC: That makes sense, as a member nations shouldn’t be discriminating against anybody, citizen or not, without a compelling practical purpose. Also, the author seems to disagree.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'm unclear why only those persons who are lucky enough to be born as natural citizens of some certain country should be granted the privileges of being enlightened with the secret mysteries of personal finance. Increasing the impact of the lottery of birth, seems eminently unjust to me.

)

Posted: **Thu May 02, 2019 1:17 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: CoCR uses "inhabitants".

(OOC: That makes sense, as a member nations shouldn’t be discriminating against anybody, citizen or not, without a compelling practical purpose. Also, the author seems to disagree.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'm unclear why only those persons who are lucky enough to be born as natural citizens of some certain country should be granted the privileges of being enlightened with the secret mysteries of personal finance. Increasing the impact of the lottery of birth, seems eminently unjust to me.
)

OOC: I'm not sure how IA saying that discrimination based on nationality is unjust disagrees with CoCR saying that discrimination based on nationality is unjust and banned.

Not that IA will likely change it based on anything I suggest, but maybe using "residents" would fix the problem? Because someone who's a resident in a nation is definitely on the state's radar anyway and part of its responsibilities to the population.

Posted: **Thu May 02, 2019 1:27 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That makes sense, as a member nations shouldn’t be discriminating against anybody, citizen or not, without a compelling practical purpose. Also, the author seems to disagree.)

OOC: I'm not sure how IA saying that discrimination based on nationality is unjust disagrees with CoCR saying that discrimination based on nationality is unjust and banned.

Not that IA will likely change it based on anything I suggest, but maybe using "residents" would fix the problem? Because someone who's a resident in a nation is definitely on the state's radar anyway and part of its responsibilities to the population.

(OOC: Oh, I thought that you were making a point about ‘inhabitants’ implying citizenship because that is how CoCR is normally interpreted, not about discrimination based on citizenship. Sorry, I completely missed your point.)

Posted: **Thu May 02, 2019 3:20 pm**

Bananaistan wrote:"We'd support a proposal requiring all vendors of such products (and perhaps WA delegations) to cut out jargon. In which case all this would be covered by "comprehensive literary skills"."

See the now-removed original section 2, which Sep commented on in the third post on this thread.

Kenmoria wrote:... (inclusive of predecessors) a series of seemingly muddled claims and counterclaims ...

If you do not object to the proposal's education mandates more broadly, but rather, only specifically to the use of inhabitants... are you advocating then, that member nations should not have an obligation to educate their non-citizens? Re: Ara also in this thread, you are correct, inhabitants was selected due to its use in CoCR.

Kenmoria wrote:‘inhabitants’ implying citizenship because that is how CoCR is normally interpreted

But more specifically, regarding this claim here, with everything else snipped out:

A plain reading of the language would seem to suggest that every single inhabitant of all member nations is guaranteed equal treatment by the governments of member nations, not that the governments of member nations must provide equal treatment solely to the inhabitants of their nation. This becomes even more readily apparent when one considers section 1b, which specifically refers to inhabitants "that are currently present" in a member nation. The absence of such a qualifier in section 1c clearly suggests that the term inhabitant cannot convey that meaning on its own.

Based on the above, from paragraph 3 of [2017] GAS 3, inhabitants includes all persons who inhabit any member nation, not just citizens of the specific nation or even inhabitants of that nation. If you in fact believe that CoCR only applies to citizens, that is overly narrow.

Posted: **Thu May 02, 2019 9:56 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If you in fact believe that CoCR only applies to citizens, that is overly narrow.

OOC: Nor has that, to my knowledge, ever been the way "inhabitants" has been interpreted.

Posted: **Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:51 pm**

NationStates

[PASSED] Financial and Economic Education

[PASSED] Financial and Economic Education