NationStates

APPALLED: At the fact that business throughout the world has no regulations to stop corruption, theft and shady business deals.

ESTABLISHES: The Security and Exchange Commission

Its goals are as follows:
a. to enforce the regulations of this resolution.
b. to keep business everywhere a clean and uncorrupted practice available to all.

These will be the following new business regulations:

1. The chairman or majority owner of a company's stock (51% or higher) shall have complete authority over the company and all other stock holders including governments must get the consent of the chairman or majority owner before proceeding on ANYTHING.

2. If there is no owner who holds 51% stock or more then on a specific issue the stock holders will take a vote with their stocks they hold. Whichever proposal with the most votes will be that company's decision.

3. In the case of companies corruption of the following kind will not be tolerated:

a. bribing, which includes but is not limited too accepting money or gifts of value over $20.01 unless from a family member for a specific occasion.

b. having people do tasks for you so they can get in better standing with you.

4. Fraud is illegal. Fraud includes withdrawing the companies assets, selling its assets to another company, or declaring bankruptcy when it is not needed.

5. Any stockholder or CEO may not sell stock or merge the company with/to another company in which they hold stock.

6. When selling a company's assets the assets being sold must be sold AT LEAST at its value and nothing less.

7. When a company is merging the company must compensate the stockholders for their stocks at the last recorded market price.

8. If a company is closing due to bankruptcy it must compensate the stockholders at the market price of the stock BEFORE bankruptcy.

9. A nation MAY NOT nationalize its share of the company unless they own 100% of the stock in that company.

10. All nations whether it be in the WA or not must follow these regulations if they plan to do business on the global economy.

The Security and Exchange Commission has the right to interpret whether this resolution is being obeyed or not and has the right to cancel all transactions it sees as breaking the laws of this resolution.

What do you guys think about this?

Fail.

The WA deals with international issues, not national ones
and this right here attempts to impose the WA on NON Member nations:

10. All nations whether it be in the WA or not must follow these regulations if they plan to do business on the global economy.

Illegal

Cats Keep wrote:Fail.

The WA deals with international issues, not national ones
and this right here attempts to impose the WA on NON Member nations:

10. All nations whether it be in the WA or not must follow these regulations if they plan to do business on the global economy.

Illegal

Le sigh, looks like he ALREADY submitted this ILLEGAL proposal and under the WRONG category of Social Justice.

Also Illegal, idelogical as it is an attempt to destroy capitalism and large corporations.

Business Regulation
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kopania

Description:
APPALLED: At the fact that business throughout the world has no regulations to stop corruption, theft and shady business deals.

WRONG. The absence of prior WA legislation doesn't mean that there can't be/isn't already any national legislation...

ESTABLISHES: The Security and Exchange Commission

Its goals are as follows:
a. to enforce the regulations of this resolution.
b. to keep business everywhere a clean and uncorrupted practice available to all.

These will be the following new business regulations:

1. The chairman or majority owner of a company's stock (51% or higher) shall have complete authority over the company and all other stock holders including governments must get the consent of the chairman or majority owner before proceeding on ANYTHING.

Even, apparently matters that have nothing to do with that company? SILLY!

2. If there is no owner who holds 51% stock or more then on a specific issue the stock holders will take a vote with their stocks they hold. Whichever proposal with the most votes will be that company's decision.

3. In the case of companies corruption of the following kind will not be tolerated:

a. bribing, which includes but is not limited too accepting money or gifts of value over $20.01 unless from a family member for a specific occasion.

"$"?

b. having people do tasks for you so they can get in better standing with you.

4. Fraud is illegal. Fraud includes withdrawing the companies assets, selling its assets to another company,

So actually doing business is illegal?!?

or declaring bankruptcy when it is not needed.

5. Any stockholder or CEO may not sell stock or merge the company with/to another company in which they hold stock.

Even if that would be the only way of preventing its collapse?

6. When selling a company's assets the assets being sold must be sold AT LEAST at its value and nothing less.

7. When a company is merging the company must compensate the stockholders for their stocks at the last recorded market price.

Somebody doesn't understand how stocks work...

8. If a company is closing due to bankruptcy it must compensate the stockholders at the market price of the stock BEFORE bankruptcy.

Where should it get the money for this? And why should they have priority over any creditors that it might have?

9. A nation MAY NOT nationalize its share of the company unless they own 100% of the stock in that company.

This would arguably be an ideological ban... except for the loophole that 'eminent domain' would let them acquire those stocks if necessary anyway.

10. All nations whether it be in the WA or not must follow these regulations if they plan to do business on the global economy.

ILLEGAL

The Security and Exchange Commission has the right to interpret whether this resolution is being obeyed or not and has the right to cancel all transactions it sees as breaking the laws of this resolution.


Approvals: 5 (Surote, Earth Worshippers, Pusik XII, Todd McCloud, United Ohio and NKY)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 45 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 2 days, 17 hours

... and apart from the points that I've already raised, above, does it really fit the specified category?

Serbian_Soviet_Union wrote:Also Illegal, idelogical as it is an attempt to destroy capitalism and large corporations.

No it's not, putting restrictions on capitalism is not an attempt to destroy it.

Since true capitalism only exists in the absense of governmental control, anything mandating government control of the economy destroys capitalism.

Serbian_Soviet_Union wrote:Also Illegal, idelogical as it is an attempt to destroy capitalism and large corporations.

No. How does it destroy it? It just promotes fair business.

Also what category would this fall under if it was not "social justice". I didn't think it fit in advancement of industry. Anyways this promotes justice in the international business world.

Even if that would be the only way of preventing its collapse?

No if it was like ENRON when they did that crap.

Linux and the X wrote:Since true capitalism only exists in the absense of governmental control, anything mandating government control of the economy destroys capitalism.

No, you do know the US has "the Securities and Exchange" commission IRL. They make sure that fraud and other corrupt methods of business are dealt with swiftly. This only would make capitalism BETTER and safer for investors.

What is this "US" you speak of?

(OOC: The US isn't entirely capitalist)

Linux and the X wrote:What is this "US" you speak of?

(OOC: The US isn't entirely capitalist)

The United States of America (IRL) and how aren't they entirely capitalist?

Regrettably the ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg must oppose the proposal in its current form, but notes that international fraud needs to be tackled. The proposal is addressing too many areas from corruption to fraud and even touching on nationalization a bit: it is a good rule of thumb that a good proposal addresses a specific area.

To add to the above comments, this entire proposal is focussed entirely on one single way to run a business. Not all companies are publicly owned with stocks and CEOs and so on which this proposal seems to assume. Therefore not only is it illegal in many ways but it is also extremely narrow in focus against one particular type of business and is thus ultimately ineffective.

We have no hesitation in saying that we will not be supporting this proposal.