[PASSED] Repeal "Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment"

[Goobergunchia]

The World Assembly,

Recognising that GA #401 establishes the International Securities and Exchange Commission (ISEC), and directs it to enact regulations on currency exchange in order to "prevent artificial manipulation of the exchange rate [and] ensure that [currency] exchanges operate without bias toward the citizens of any one nation",

Disheartened that the resolution fails to clearly delineate what regulations the ISEC would enact to further these goals,

Further noting that the resolution's ambiguity on what constitutes "artificial manipulation of the exchange rate" severely limits the ability of a member nation to engage in currency intervention operations, such as to stabilise its currency's exchange rate,

Baffled that the definitions on stocks, bonds, and securities in GA #401 are very poorly written, excluding such instruments as preferred stocks, pay-in-kind bonds, convertible bonds, and insurance-linked securities, and thus leaving the ISEC to offer inferior and potentially misleading recommendations to member nations in its "model code of securities regulations",

Repeals "Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment".

Co-author: Simone Republic.

Discuss.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Elaborate on what negative regulations could possibly arise as a result of this resolution?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Elaborate on what negative regulations could possibly arise as a result of this resolution?

"The target's ambiguity may very well result in inefficient policies being enacted with the goal of promoting so-called 'fairness' in currency exchange, while unduly harming the right to economic freedom."

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Imperium Anglorum]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Elaborate on what negative regulations could possibly arise as a result of this resolution?

"The target's ambiguity may very well result in inefficient policies being enacted with the goal of promoting so-called 'fairness' in currency exchange, while unduly harming the right to economic freedom."

C Marcius Blythe. Like what inefficient policies?

[Yxnadalsoxl]

Aggrieved that the resolution remains entirely silent on what regulations the ISEC may impose upon currency exchange,

Stating that such a consequential matter as regulation of currency exchange ought to be determined with specificity and precision, as well as the input of member nations, rather than left up to a committee to determine with no oversight,

Emphasising that the resolution imposes no other requirements of member nations apart from this nebulous authorisation for the ISEC

Respected Ambassador, for whatever my opinion is worth, I think GA#401 is a well-written legislation. It is also "short" (~2.500 chars). For all its shortness, it caused quite the controversy, garnering a low approval of 59.1%. Does the Ambassador think that a reasonable text could encompass everything GA#401 already legislated on and additionally use the remainder of ~2.500 chars. to describe ALL the minutiae you report you are concerned with, and not generate additional controversy, so it might reasonably be passed? I think it would be a titanic endeavor, to least.

(tl;dr) Wouldn't a companion resolution which fills the holes left by GA#401 be more rational?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Aggrieved that the resolution remains entirely silent on what regulations the ISEC may impose upon currency exchange,

Stating that such a consequential matter as regulation of currency exchange ought to be determined with specificity and precision, as well as the input of member nations, rather than left up to a committee to determine with no oversight,

Emphasising that the resolution imposes no other requirements of member nations apart from this nebulous authorisation for the ISEC

Respected Ambassador, for whatever my opinion is worth, I think GA#401 is a well-written legislation. It is also "short" (~2.500 chars). For all its shortness, it caused quite the controversy, garnering a low approval of 59.1%. Does the Ambassador think that a reasonable text could encompass everything GA#401 already legislated on and additionally use the remainder of ~2.500 chars. to describe ALL the minutiae you report you are concerned with, and not generate additional controversy, so it might reasonably be passed? I think it would be a titanic endeavor, to least.

(tl;dr) Wouldn't a companion resolution which fills the holes left by GA#401 be more rational?

"The sole active mandate of the target is the mandate on the ISEC. The resolution does not, anywhere else, bind member nations. Such a 'companion' resolution would likely render the target redundant, thus still inviting a repeal of the target."

"The target's ambiguity may very well result in inefficient policies being enacted with the goal of promoting so-called 'fairness' in currency exchange, while unduly harming the right to economic freedom."

C Marcius Blythe. Like what inefficient policies?

"Say some banks across different nations attempt to cooperate to alter the foreign exchange rate, so as to make themselves more profitable (Ooc: [1]). The centralised committee may very well fail to impose sufficient regulations to prevent such a situation, or tailor its regulations elsewhere as to fail to prevent the same. While centralised regulation is not in itself a problem, the matter still should be determined with at least input from member nations -- input which the target does not allow."

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[West Barack and East Obama]

"Say some banks across different nations attempt to cooperate to alter the foreign exchange rate, so as to make themselves more profitable. The centralised committee may very well fail to impose sufficient regulations to prevent such a situation, or tailor its regulations elsewhere as to fail to prevent the same. While centralised regulation is not in itself a problem, the matter still should be determined with at least input from member nations -- input which the target does not allow."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: What does the input of member nations even mean? Nothing in the resolution says that they can't be consulted when creating these regulations. And if you assume centralised authorities to be so woefully incompetent as to 'fail to impose sufficient regulations', then what makes 'input from member nations' so much more preferable?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Say some banks across different nations attempt to cooperate to alter the foreign exchange rate, so as to make themselves more profitable. The centralised committee may very well fail to impose sufficient regulations to prevent such a situation, or tailor its regulations elsewhere as to fail to prevent the same. While centralised regulation is not in itself a problem, the matter still should be determined with at least input from member nations -- input which the target does not allow."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: What does the input of member nations even mean? Nothing in the resolution says that they can't be consulted when creating these regulations. And if you assume centralised authorities to be so woefully incompetent as to 'fail to impose sufficient regulations', then what makes 'input from member nations' so much more preferable?

"Since when does the ISEC consult member nations in determining its regulations? During my tenure in the Ice World Assembly staff, neither Magecastle Embassy Building A5 nor The Ice States, during its brief World Assembly membership, have been consulted by the ISEC in determining its regulations. Nor have I seen any records of the ISEC having historically consulted either nation to determine these regulations."

"Further, the target is the only resolution in the entire body of World Assembly law which refers to the ISEC; and the target does nowhere authorise the ISEC to consult with member nations in determining these regulations. If the ISEC can consult with member nations, despite not being authorised to do so, then the WASP may be running searches for alien life and the WAESC is organising missions to remove forests in non-member nations."

"At some point, there needs to be an alternate reality created wherein the alternative facts you keep spouting, ambassador, can in fact be true."

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. Perhaps the Ambassador might find it the case that ISEC believed that your nation largely had nothing to contribute?

[West Barack and East Obama]

"Since when does the ISEC consult member nations in determining its regulations? During my tenure in the Ice World Assembly staff, neither Magecastle Embassy Building A5 nor The Ice States, during its brief World Assembly membership, have been consulted by the ISEC in determining its regulations. Nor have I seen any records of the ISEC having historically consulted either nation to determine these regulations."

"Further, the target is the only resolution in the entire body of World Assembly law which refers to the ISEC; and the target does nowhere authorise the ISEC to consult with member nations in determining these regulations. If the ISEC can consult with member nations, despite not being authorised to do so, then the WASP may be running searches for alien life and the WAESC is organising missions to remove forests in non-member nations."

"At some point, there needs to be an alternate reality created wherein the alternative facts you keep spouting, ambassador, can in fact be true."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: The fact that the target does not explicitly authorise 'consultation of every member nation' does not mean it doesn't happen at all. If you so believe that input from member nations is absolutely vital towards preventing 'inefficient policies', then this will be recognised by the ISEC and they will do so in order to fulfil their mandate to 'prevent artificial manipulation of the exchange rate and to ensure that these exchanges operate without bias toward the citizens of any one nation'. The target also doesn't say that ISEC committee members be knowledgeable in economics, does that mean that doesn't happen either? The target doesn't say that the ISEC publish its guidelines in readable language, does that mean that doesn't happen either? But I suppose this is all just alternative facts, all concocted in my fantasy world.

[Charode]

Suddenly, "Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus" by Frank Zappa begins playing as a comical amount of pyrotechnics introduce The Almighty God of All Creation, who walks up to the podium and says:
TAGoAC: Marceline the Vampire Queen is in my house.
He leaves. Marceline the Vampire Queen was, indeed, in his house. This frequently causes problems.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I support this proposal. I’m talking OOC for a moment, since there isn’t a good way to address this point in-character. GA #401 is boring. Leaving everything to a committee is logically the perfect answer to any problem, since committees do everything that they are tasked to do perfectly. However, this is not done, because it is not very exciting to have every resolution simply empower committees to take the appropriate actions in response to a given problem. That would just be dull. GA #401 does essentially this: shifting all the legislative work from interesting but occasionally flawed, responses from players, to flawless but unexciting, not to mention unknowable, responses from fictitious committees.

I do agree with earlier points raised that GA #401’s committe-implemented mandates could never be regarded as inefficient. Committees are never prone to inefficiency. Of course, even if they were, it would be impossible to argue in any depth that their mandates are inefficient, since nobody could ever know what these mandates are. However, this argument seems to have been removed, so it is a moot point.)

[Uan aa Boa]

I very much agree with Kenmoria here. There are too many badge-hunting proposals that effectively say
1. A lack of regulations is bad
2. Therefore let there be regulations
3. I have no idea what they should be

[Imperium Anglorum]

(OOC: I support this proposal. I’m talking OOC for a moment, since there isn’t a good way to address this point in-character. GA #401 is boring. Leaving everything to a committee is logically the perfect answer to any problem, since committees do everything that they are tasked to do perfectly. However, this is not done, because it is not very exciting to have every resolution simply empower committees to take the appropriate actions in response to a given problem. That would just be dull. GA #401 does essentially this: shifting all the legislative work from interesting but occasionally flawed, responses from players, to flawless but unexciting, not to mention unknowable, responses from fictitious committees.

I do agree with earlier points raised that GA #401’s committe-implemented mandates could never be regarded as inefficient. Committees are never prone to inefficiency. Of course, even if they were, it would be impossible to argue in any depth that their mandates are inefficient, since nobody could ever know what these mandates are. However, this argument seems to have been removed, so it is a moot point.)

I very much agree with Kenmoria here. There are too many badge-hunting proposals that effectively say
1. A lack of regulations is bad
2. Therefore let there be regulations
3. I have no idea what they should be

I largely agree with this as well. If the author were to make such arguments in the repeal text, I would probably support in principle.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: Does the updated draft address these concerns?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Aghast that the resolution remains entirely silent on what regulations the ISEC may impose upon currency exchange,

Probably untrue inasmuch as it says what goals those regulations are to be achieve etc.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Aghast that the resolution remains entirely silent on what regulations the ISEC may impose upon currency exchange,

Probably untrue inasmuch as it says what goals those regulations are to be achieve etc.

ooc: Should be fixed.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Bump.

[Uan aa Boa]

You've ignored clause 3 of the target, which "Establishes the International Securities and Exchange Commission (ISEC) to develop, maintain, and publish a model code of securities regulations, which may act as a guide for member state governments" So your first paragraph is only half true, mentioning one of the the two functions of the committee.

You then make 2 claims.
(a) the remit of ISEC with regard to currency exchanges is too vague
(b) member nations should legislate on these matters themselves

If you only made claim (b) then this would fail on the grounds of being nat sov only. The whole repeal therefore rests on (a).

ISEC is tasked with acting to prevent two specific outcomes - artificial exchange rate manipulation and exchanges operating with bias towards citizens of any one nation. You could critique the first of these, and ask whether it's really desirable to prevent governments from selling other currencies and buying their own with the goal of strengthening it, since governments often do just that without it being considered controversial.

The second is a sensible recommendation and not particularly vague or nebulous. If the same measure was written without the committee, and said that member nations were required to ensure their currency exchanges operated without bias, I don't think most readers would think that was unspecific.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

You've ignored clause 3 of the target, which "Establishes the International Securities and Exchange Commission (ISEC) to develop, maintain, and publish a model code of securities regulations, which may act as a guide for member state governments" So your first paragraph is only half true, mentioning one of the the two functions of the committee.

You then make 2 claims.
(a) the remit if ISEC is too vague
(b) member nations should legislate on these matters themselves

If you only made claim (b) then this would fail on the grounds of being nat sov only. The whole repeal therefore rests on (a).

ISEC is tasked with acting to prevent two specific outcomes - artificial exchange rate manipulation and exchanges operating with bias towards citizens of any one nation. You could critique the first of these, and ask whether it's really desirable to prevent governments from selling other currencies and buying their own with the goal of strengthening it, since governments often do just that without it being considered controversial. The second is a sensible recommendation and not particularly vague nebulous.

Ooc: I intend to mean that member nations should directly, but collectively -- rather than individually -- legislate on the subject via the World Assembly. I have attempted to make this clearer in the text.

I am aware that Section 3 exists. I have clarified in the first clause that Section 4 is only one of the ISEC's mandates.

I have added a clause regarding the potential prohibition on currency intervention operations.

[Simone Republic]

C Marcius Blythe. Perhaps the Ambassador might find it the case that ISEC believed that your nation largely had nothing to contribute?

Hear hear.

I have offered an alternative repeal coming from a more natsov perspective rather than from this resolution's perspective.

Alternative: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=527787

ISEC is tasked with acting to prevent two specific outcomes - artificial exchange rate manipulation and exchanges operating with bias towards citizens of any one nation. You could critique the first of these, and ask whether it's really desirable to prevent governments from selling other currencies and buying their own with the goal of strengthening it, since governments often do just that without it being considered controversial.

Switzerland has intervened to weaken its currency in 2011 and again in 2020, so I drafted my draft to argue it's bad both ways.

[ImperialRussia]

Lol

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

I have offered an alternative repeal coming from a more natsov perspective rather than from this resolution's perspective.

Alternative: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=527787

ISEC is tasked with acting to prevent two specific outcomes - artificial exchange rate manipulation and exchanges operating with bias towards citizens of any one nation. You could critique the first of these, and ask whether it's really desirable to prevent governments from selling other currencies and buying their own with the goal of strengthening it, since governments often do just that without it being considered controversial.

Switzerland has intervened to weaken its currency in 2011 and again in 2020, so I drafted my draft to argue it's bad both ways.

I created this thread for drafting my proposal, not advertising yours.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"This draft has been merged with the version authored by the Simonian mission, such that Simone Republic has been added as a co-author. Unless there is substantial feedback, we will have to presume that this repeal effort is indeed perfect and flawless."

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of the Ice States

[Bananaistan]

OOC: The repeal says:

Further noting that the resolution's ambiguity on what constitutes "artificial manipulation of the exchange rate" severely limits the ability of a member nation to engage in currency intervention operations, such as to stabilise its currency's exchange rate,

The target says:

Empowers the ISEC to regulate the exchanges on which currencies are traded to prevent artificial manipulation of the exchange rate and to ensure that these exchanges operate without bias toward the citizens of any one nation.

I'm struggling to follow this argument. How does this clause limit member states' actions exactly? Saying that the committee can do something does not seem to be a prohibition on member states doing something else.