[DRAFT] THE SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITATIONS [CLOSED]

[Imperium Anglorum]

This scenario is what is being prohibited, which is why I am convinced you're misreading the proposal:
A is the investment division of MegaBank. B is the commercial part. Under the two clauses, if A dominates (Over 55%), A and B must be split.

What provision prohibits that? All I see from the first operative clause are provisions which would prohibit any financial institution from conducting any business in bank B unless banks B and R merge. When I read—

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS THUS FURTHER RESOLVED;

- that, henceforth, no investment; act, trade, advice or other related action, may be given or carried out at any financial institution within a Member Nation which, in the normal course of business,earns forty-five percent or more of its net income per fiscal year, from products, services, et.al located within the commercial banking sector.

- that henceforth, no commercial; act, trade, advice or other related action, may be given or carried out at any financial institution within a Member Nation which, in the normal course of business,earns forty-five percent or more of its net income per fiscal year, from products, services, et.al located within the investment banking sector.

I see (1) no activities can be carried out at any financial institution which earns more than 45 pc of its accounting profit from commercial banking and (2) no activities can be carried out at any financial institution which earns more than 45 pc of its accounting profit from investment banking.

That doesn't require a splitting of the two activities. If you split the activities, a pure commercial bank "R" would earn 100 pc of its accounting profit from commercial banking activities and be prohibited from doing any transactions. The sort of bad and overly broad Glass-Steagall regulations that you think happen, if actualised, would force every single institution out of business.

What the proposal catalyses is the dilution of the net income reported the consolidated position of a commercial bank... with non-commercial-bank activities.

[Attempted Socialism]

This scenario is what is being prohibited, which is why I am convinced you're misreading the proposal:
A is the investment division of MegaBank. B is the commercial part. Under the two clauses, if A dominates (Over 55%), A and B must be split.

What provision prohibits that? All I see from the first operative clause are provisions which would prohibit any financial institution from conducting any business in bank B unless banks B and R merge. When I read—

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS THUS FURTHER RESOLVED;

- that, henceforth, no investment; act, trade, advice or other related action, may be given or carried out at any financial institution within a Member Nation which, in the normal course of business,earns forty-five percent or more of its net income per fiscal year, from products, services, et.al located within the commercial banking sector.

- that henceforth, no commercial; act, trade, advice or other related action, may be given or carried out at any financial institution within a Member Nation which, in the normal course of business,earns forty-five percent or more of its net income per fiscal year, from products, services, et.al located within the investment banking sector.

I see (1) no activities can be carried out at any financial institution which earns more than 45 pc of its accounting profit from commercial banking and (2) no activities can be carried out at any financial institution which earns more than 45 pc of its accounting profit from investment banking.

Okay, I think I see where the issue is. In (1), no investment activities can be carried out, and in (2), no commercial can be carried out (Even though it's excessively clunky in wording): As I have underlined above, the clauses mirror each other in this regard. This in effect bans any overlap between commercial and investment banks that is not basically 45-45 (With 10% coming from... who knows where). Thus, a bank that is predominantly one or the other cannot transfer risks into the other sector, because it is disallowed from engaging in that other sector.

The purpose, as laid out by the OP, is to disentangle investment and commercial banking, not prohibit banks from earning above 90% of their profits from their primary enterprises. As I hope I have made clear, your original assessment is based on a misunderstanding of the text, though that is of course a separate point of criticism of the language used.
IIRC Glass-Steagal forbade any mixing of investment and commcercial banking enterprises? Such that one part of the bank could default without transferring the shock into the other part?

And just to reiterate, it's not because I'm for the proposal. I just think your criticism is based on a misreading of it.


Edit: And I know I messed up the percentages in the comment you quoted above. Like some Pokemons, I'm susceptible to confusion, which this draft provides plenty of.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can see where you're coming from. But, I don't see much of a difference between commercial activities and investment activities as activities given the definition at the top. They are different sectors of banking, but that is a specialised term which doesn't follow the idea that an investment is anything that accrues value. Insofar as the definition at the top fo the proposal applies, the word "investment" in "investment banking activities" no longer means what we expect it to mean. Instead, it means anything that accrues value.

However, if you take the meaning to be that (1) no investment activities can be carried out in 45+ pc net income commercial banking firm and (2) no commercial activities can be carried out in 45+ pc net income investment banking firm, where the terms refer to sectors, your advocacy would definitely be the case.

Regarding Glass-Steagall: the Banking Act of 1933 would have effectively prohibited the mixing of investment and commercial banking. The point of that is so, losses from the investment sector would not also directly force liabilities on the retail division. Such a structure can be criticised however, for significantly disadvantaging investment bank customers, because they have no recourse if the investment bank fails.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

INVESTMENT; an asset or item acquired with the goal of generating income or appreciation.

OOC Post:

I am sure IA will correct me if I am wrong, but this definition of investment seems amazingly, horrifically, flat out ridiculously over-inclusive. Using this definition, I do not know if I can name a single bank or credit union serving the general public that does not derive the majority of its income from investments so defined, even Islamic banks which cannot charge interest. Banks for which I am familiar (Credite Suisse, BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Navy Federal Credit Union, and, forgive my desire to vomit, Bank of America, all use interest bearing loans (mortgages, automobiles, personal loans, student loans where permitted/relevant) as their largest source of income. Issuing credit cards (or other lines of credit), and holding government securities (treasury bills or government bonds) as secondary reserves would also seem to qualify as an investment. It is not altogether clear that required reserves in a central bank that earn interest would not count (at least under what I think is the common understanding of the word asset) despite being literally required by law.

That is despite all of those activities being the domain of what (at least in France) would be the standard commercial banking industry (and I assume, thanks to the EU it is the same through most of Europe, and probably North America as well if only because our banking systems seem pretty compatible in general). Perhaps the author could use a more specific definition? Or a better solution might be to remove the clause altogether and define commercial and investment banking and then start drawing lines between them, instead of the present monstrosity that shows less financial literacy than I have (and I regularly cannot understand what IA thinks is basic finance).

[Attempted Socialism]

I can see where you're coming from. But, I don't see much of a difference between commercial activities and investment activities as activities given the definition at the top. They are different sectors of banking, but that is a specialised term which doesn't follow the idea that an investment is anything that accrues value. Insofar as the definition at the top fo the proposal applies, the word "investment" in "investment banking" no longer means what we expect it to mean. Instead, it means anything that accrues value.

I guess I skipped over that definition too fast. With that, most of the proposal becomes (Literally) nonsense.

However, if you take the meaning to be that (1) no investment activities can be carried out in 45+ pc net income commercial banking firm and (2) no commercial activities can be carried out in 45+ pc net income investment banking firm, where the terms refer to sectors, your advocacy would definitely be the case.

This was what I was getting at before, yes. If you read it with authorial intent in mind, that's clearly what was supposed to happen.

Regarding Glass-Steagall: the Banking Act of 1933 would have effectively prohibited the mixing of investment and commercial banking. The point of that is so, losses from the investment sector would not also directly force liabilities on the retail division. Such a structure can be criticised however, for significantly disadvantaging investment bank customers, because they have no recourse if the investment bank fails.

As a Bearded Marxist™, I'm heavily into disadvantaging investors. Here, though, I mostly drew on the superficial similarity in end-goal between Glass-Steagal and the draft at hand.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Are you going to fix the standardise the formatting with other proposals?)

[Araraukar]

INVESTMENT; an asset or item acquired with the goal of generating income or appreciation.

this definition of investment seems amazingly, horrifically, flat out ridiculously over-inclusive.

OOC: Owning a flat and renting it to others, definitely would count... but then those are actually called investment apartments (well, directly translated from Finnish).

[Liberimery]

this definition of investment seems amazingly, horrifically, flat out ridiculously over-inclusive.

OOC: Owning a flat and renting it to others, definitely would count... but then those are actually called investment apartments (well, directly translated from Finnish).

I mean has he even watched Shark Tank/Dragon’s Den/Aggressive Animal’s Abode (Show gets names differently depending on broadcast region). That’s how many businesses start, the owner pitches the concept of the product and projected revenue, an investor buys in with a certain price for stake, and when they are paid out for the options once the company grows, and the owner buys back the stake at the price of the percent of shares after the company opts out. Without this kind of investment, economies stagnate or fall apart.

OOC: I’m not aware of the term in American English. Usually apartments are multi-family dwellings and the landlord may own the complex of apartment units or is charging rent for a small portion of space in single family dwelling. The former is usually not a commercial operation and will use the rent to supplement income or pay off the mortgage of the house (in that case, the rent may pay monthly mortgage completely.).

[Imperium Anglorum]

Do you mean subletting?

[WayNeacTia]

As not to threadjack I.A.'s thread any further.

viewtopic.php?p=36218489#p36218489

Is mentioning delegates in any way shape of form metagaming or not? It is relevant to the legality of this draft.

To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."

Yet,

OOC: This was submitted, I've marked it illegal as follows:

Proposal basics (proposals must be written as the laws they become - the first sentence sets the whole up as a proposal); Metagaming ("bicameral nature of the World Assembly" and "Delegates" appear to be references to the Security Council and WA delegates - these cannot be mentioned in proposals)

"BE IT KNOWN; that this Proposal shall be submitted for the consideration of all Delegates, present in membership of the General Chamber of the World Assembly on this day SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2019, and shall henceforth be entitled as follows; “THE SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITATIONS ACT”."

Nowhere is the Security Council mentioned, and nowhere can it be inferred that the author is mentioning game side delegates, as opposed to in-character delegates. Unless of course supposition is now a reason to declare a proposal illegal?

[Liberimery]

As not to threadjack I.A.'s thread any further.

viewtopic.php?p=36218489#p36218489

To address this, the current GenSec consensus is that mentioning delegates is fine if it can be interpreted as referring to delegates as in the context "delegates to the United Nations today voted on..."

Yet,

OOC: This was submitted, I've marked it illegal as follows:

Nowhere is the Security Council mentioned, and nowhere can it be inferred that the author is mentioning game side delegates, as opposed to in-character delegates. Unless of course supposition is now a reason to declare a proposal illegal?

You are aware that one can edit their draft, especially when a Gensec tells them something is in the draft that makes it illegal. The Security Council was mentioned in the original posting of the proposals. I saw it. I saw it when Gensec posted that. As much as it pains me to say this, this time I have to say Gensec isn’t pulling rules out of their ass.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Original submission: http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/adri ... 567913770/

[WayNeacTia]

Original submission: http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/adri ... 567913770/

Thank you very much I.A. This is exactly what I was looking for.

OOC: This was submitted, I've marked it illegal as follows:

Proposal basics (proposals must be written as the laws they become - the first sentence sets the whole up as a proposal); Metagaming ("bicameral nature of the World Assembly" and "Delegates" appear to be references to the Security Council and WA delegates - these cannot be mentioned in proposals)

Usually we recommend much drafting. In this case I struggle to see any justification for the huge intrusion into normal banking and investment practices. I can't see this passing in any form. Please offer some sort of justification for these seemingly random limits and why someone shouldn't be entitled to sell 100% of something they own. I'd also suggest a complete rewording, simple English is your friend. Most people will look at this say it's nonsense without trying to parse through your unnecessarily obtuse wording.

Bananaistan please highlight for me in that proposal where the security council or the word "bicameral" even remotely appears.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Read IA's link. Ctrl+F is your friend.

[WayNeacTia]

I withdraw my complaint.

[Araraukar]

investment apartments (well, directly translated from Finnish).

OOC: I’m not aware of the term in American English. Usually apartments are multi-family dwellings and the landlord may own the complex of apartment units or is charging rent for a small portion of space in single family dwelling. The former is usually not a commercial operation and will use the rent to supplement income or pay off the mortgage of the house (in that case, the rent may pay monthly mortgage completely.).

OOC: "Apartment building" should really be "apartments building", as an apartment is one unit (a home) in the building. To my knowledge "apartment" is literally "a partment", meaning splitting bigger homes into smaller units to make it possible to have more homes (and thus more rent-payers) in the same building. Which happened around industrialization (timing varies from nation to nation), and when new buildings were built with smaller homes in them, they were still called apartments, despite not being split from larger units. British English often uses "flat", but in USA in my experience that refers to a much more specific thing than just any apartment. Or maybe times have changed from when I learned the difference 15 years ago...

The Finnish word for apartment/flat/living unit in a bigger building is "asunto", which would nuance-translate into "place you live in", and different kinds of asunto are usually referred to in terms of how many people are supposed to live in them, with "yksiö" ("onesie", basically) meaning single-person apartment, "kaksio" ("twosie") for two-person, "kolmio" ("threesie", not to be confused by "kolmio" for "triangle) for three, "neliö" ("foursie", not to be confused by "neliö" for "square") for four, and anything bigger is... well, unheard of, pretty much, in an apartment building. (And since bigger types usually have higher rents, you'll have apartment owners calling large yksiö a kaksio just to justify higher price. A typical yksiö is around 30 square metres, and it's more or less double that for a kaksio, but then it gets more complicated, because the jump from yksiö to kaksio usually includes a proper kitchen being added, with yksiö usually being a single room plus bathroom and kitchen "closet" (too small to take steps inside it).)

For example, my current place is 42 or 43 square metres (I forget which exactly), was marketed as "a large yksiö or small kaksio", has a bedroom and living room (and of course bathroom and a tiny entry hall with space to put your outdoors clothes in), and a kitchen corner separated by a counter from the rest of the living room (which setting I absolutely love and which was largely the reason I wanted it).

EDIT: Subletting would be having someone renting a single room in an apartment, usually but not always someone else having the proper rent contract with the apartment owner. Could have several renters with separate contracts, each paying their part of the whole rent.

Oh and Dragon's Den is called Leijonanluola over here, which directly translates to Lion's Cave.

[Liberimery]

OOC: The term "Flat" in American English usually means "smooth area surface" and isn't usually used as a noun at all. Apartment is used to describe just about any non-house situation... Or Condominium, which is owned like a house, but spaced like an apartment... I've never heard "Flat" used as it is in British English. To be fair, both Englishes are well aware of each other's weird turn of phrases, so that could be the reason and America is a pretty big place, and prone to it's own internal bizzare turn of phrases (like what do we call a carbonated beverage. Depending on the part of the country, it's either "soda", "pop", or "coke" (as a generic term. Asking for a coke and getting a Sprite, or a Mountain Dew (owned by Pepsi) or a Pepsi is perfectly expected), and usually its a war between Soda and Pop with Coke being a Kingmaker in the war.

[Adriatican]

ISEC already exists, see GA 401 or thereabouts. The GA canon says that gnomes are on it, not this chap who has self-proclaimed himself to be its head—just like how Bitely attempted to use his creation of the World Space Administration as a jumping-off point for a region by that name—but that's a separate matter.

There’s a lot to address in this thread, but first and foremost, I didn’t proclaim myself the head of anything, I was endorsed in my efforts by the author of the bill. So, how about you do some actual research before stealing valuable oxygen with your nonsense.

[Adriatican]

In actuality, and if you had read it, you’d see this entire resolution governs markets that fall under ISEC’s jurisdiction, and properly assumes that any all trading will result in an option finding its way into that jurisdiction.

This is gobbledygook, not because of its use of technical terms, but for its misuse of them. First, by setting up regulations and a certification structure, literally everything falls within the ISEC's jurisdiction. Second, options are instruments which are acquired with the goal of generating income. Generally one acquires an option either to protect against a downside risk or, perhaps, with long options, generally the expectation of appreciation. Third, it applies regulations on exchange on domestic exchanges, violating section 5 of GA 401.

---

SECURITIES; a fungible, negotiable financial instrument that holds some type of monetary value representing an ownership position in a publicly-traded corporation—via stock—a creditor relationship with a governmental body or a corporation—represented by owning that entity's bond—or rights to ownership as represented by an option.

This is gobbledygook. Stocks aren't bonds. Stocks are not creditor relationships (although one can set one up like a creditor relationship, e.g. US TARP and senior preferred stock). The fact of owning a corporation's bonds doesn't give ownership of that corporation. It may give you precedence in bankruptcy proceedings. That is meaningless vis-à-vis ownership. Options are neither stocks nor bonds: they are the option to purchase or sell something at a pre-negotiated price at some time in the future (or for American options, until some time in the future). A put option does not give one a right to ownership in as much as it gives one a right to transact on predefined terms.

You need to take a finance class.

I'd also recommend a review of how laws are formatted. Real world laws like the Financial Services Act 2012 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... 021_en.pdf are really long and formatted like this. World Assembly legislation is formatted generally in the predominant way that is plastered all over my signature and in the sticked Passed Resolutions thread at the top of this forum. UN resolutions too can be found online. What you have looks like it walked out of Exhibit A of Meads v Meads.

The definition of securities comes from the Bank of New York Mellon, one of the oldest banks in the United States. Ya gotta problem with their definition, take it up with them. You’ll excuse me if I consider them a more reputable source than you, however.

Also, the jurisdictional nuance of the Commission is the opinion of the Member, and as such, the Commission is not bound to adhere to it. Dually, until such time either an IC or OOC decision is made by the appropriate authority regarding the legality and appropriateness of an individual NS’er taking it upon themselves to RP a W.A organization, I will continue operating the ISEC as it has been structured and endorsed, and as W.A Charter mandates, the Member is bound to respect its authority or resign.

[The New Nordic Union]

The definition of securities comes from the Bank of New York Mellon, one of the oldest banks in the United States. Ya gotta problem with their definition, take it up with them. You’ll excuse me if I consider them a more reputable source than you, however.

OOC: In which case it is plagiarism and therefore this proposal is illegal.
Exact same definition can be found here, for example.

[Adriatican]

The definition of securities comes from the Bank of New York Mellon, one of the oldest banks in the United States. Ya gotta problem with their definition, take it up with them. You’ll excuse me if I consider them a more reputable source than you, however.

In which case it is plagiarism and therefore this proposal is illegal.
Exact same definition can be found here, for example.

Ah, so am I supposed to adhere to a strict, and unwritten, set of rules regarding the structure of my Resolutions (which would - if the strictness currently being applied to the totality of the Resolution is to be followed - prevent me from quoting and properly citing sources) or am I to quote and properly cite sources in order to avoid plagiarism (which - if the strictness currently being applied to the totality of the Resolution is to be followed - would violate the form I simply have to publish it in?

A paradox not of my making, and nonetheless in no short supply of stupidity.

[The New Nordic Union]

In which case it is plagiarism and therefore this proposal is illegal.
Exact same definition can be found here, for example.

Ah, so am I supposed to adhere to a strict, and unwritten, set of rules regarding the structure of my Resolutions (which would - if the strictness currently being applied to the totality of the Resolution is to be followed - prevent me from quoting and properly citing sources) or am I to quote and properly cite sources in order to avoid plagiarism (which - if the strictness currently being applied to the totality of the Resolution is to be followed - would violate the form I simply have to publish it in?

A paradox not of my making, and nonetheless in no short supply of stupidity.

OOC: It is rather inconsequential to me whether you regard this as a paradox; you could circumvent this problem altogether by using your own definition instead of copying one.

[Kenmoria]

This is gobbledygook, not because of its use of technical terms, but for its misuse of them. First, by setting up regulations and a certification structure, literally everything falls within the ISEC's jurisdiction. Second, options are instruments which are acquired with the goal of generating income. Generally one acquires an option either to protect against a downside risk or, perhaps, with long options, generally the expectation of appreciation. Third, it applies regulations on exchange on domestic exchanges, violating section 5 of GA 401.

---

SECURITIES; a fungible, negotiable financial instrument that holds some type of monetary value representing an ownership position in a publicly-traded corporation—via stock—a creditor relationship with a governmental body or a corporation—represented by owning that entity's bond—or rights to ownership as represented by an option.

This is gobbledygook. Stocks aren't bonds. Stocks are not creditor relationships (although one can set one up like a creditor relationship, e.g. US TARP and senior preferred stock). The fact of owning a corporation's bonds doesn't give ownership of that corporation. It may give you precedence in bankruptcy proceedings. That is meaningless vis-à-vis ownership. Options are neither stocks nor bonds: they are the option to purchase or sell something at a pre-negotiated price at some time in the future (or for American options, until some time in the future). A put option does not give one a right to ownership in as much as it gives one a right to transact on predefined terms.

You need to take a finance class.

I'd also recommend a review of how laws are formatted. Real world laws like the Financial Services Act 2012 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... 021_en.pdf are really long and formatted like this. World Assembly legislation is formatted generally in the predominant way that is plastered all over my signature and in the sticked Passed Resolutions thread at the top of this forum. UN resolutions too can be found online. What you have looks like it walked out of Exhibit A of Meads v Meads.

The definition of securities comes from the Bank of New York Mellon, one of the oldest banks in the United States. Ya gotta problem with their definition, take it up with them. You’ll excuse me if I consider them a more reputable source than you, however.

Also, the jurisdictional nuance of the Commission is the opinion of the Member, and as such, the Commission is not bound to adhere to it. Dually, until such time either an IC or OOC decision is made by the appropriate authority regarding the legality and appropriateness of an individual NS’er taking it upon themselves to RP a W.A organization, I will continue operating the ISEC as it has been structured and endorsed, and as W.A Charter mandates, the Member is bound to respect its authority or resign.

(OOC: As has been said previously, you can feel free to roleplay the organisation however you want, but it won’t affect how everyone else considers the organisation. Your roleplay is your roleplay, and has no affect on anyone else’s or the WA at large.

In which case it is plagiarism and therefore this proposal is illegal.
Exact same definition can be found here, for example.

Ah, so am I supposed to adhere to a strict, and unwritten, set of rules regarding the structure of my Resolutions (which would - if the strictness currently being applied to the totality of the Resolution is to be followed - prevent me from quoting and properly citing sources) or am I to quote and properly cite sources in order to avoid plagiarism (which - if the strictness currently being applied to the totality of the Resolution is to be followed - would violate the form I simply have to publish it in?

A paradox not of my making, and nonetheless in no short supply of stupidity.

Putting in a citation would break the RL reference rule, so you cannot quote at all from real life sources in a proposal.)

[Attempted Socialism]

ISEC already exists, see GA 401 or thereabouts. The GA canon says that gnomes are on it, not this chap who has self-proclaimed himself to be its head—just like how Bitely attempted to use his creation of the World Space Administration as a jumping-off point for a region by that name—but that's a separate matter.

There’s a lot to address in this thread, but first and foremost, I didn’t proclaim myself the head of anything, I was endorsed in my efforts by the author of the bill. So, how about you do some actual research before stealing valuable oxygen with your nonsense.

OOC: If you'd bothered to read the rules, you'd know this is only true in your own fantasy, and holds no water for the WA as a whole. Whatever you RP outside of the GA forum I don't care, but inside the GA something like this is godmode, which is crass and liable to get your claims ignored by default.
In other words: No, you're not the chair of ISEC, the WA organisation. You might be the chair of your own canon's ISEC, wherein things are named the same, but since this is not your RP thread, we don't have to follow along.

In which case it is plagiarism and therefore this proposal is illegal.
Exact same definition can be found here, for example.

Ah, so am I supposed to adhere to a strict, and unwritten, set of rules regarding the structure of my Resolutions (which would - if the strictness currently being applied to the totality of the Resolution is to be followed - prevent me from quoting and properly citing sources) or am I to quote and properly cite sources in order to avoid plagiarism (which - if the strictness currently being applied to the totality of the Resolution is to be followed - would violate the form I simply have to publish it in?

A paradox not of my making, and nonetheless in no short supply of stupidity.

You could read the rules on plagiarism (As well as the WA in general), that might solve your problems.

[Bananaistan]

ISEC already exists, see GA 401 or thereabouts. The GA canon says that gnomes are on it, not this chap who has self-proclaimed himself to be its head—just like how Bitely attempted to use his creation of the World Space Administration as a jumping-off point for a region by that name—but that's a separate matter.

There’s a lot to address in this thread, but first and foremost, I didn’t proclaim myself the head of anything, I was endorsed in my efforts by the author of the bill. So, how about you do some actual research before stealing valuable oxygen with your nonsense.

OOC: Your signature says "1st Chair of the International Securities and Exchange Commission (a W.A organization)". That's a self proclamation of being the head of something if I ever saw it. Regardless of what someone else said sometime once in some other forum, this does not and cannot apply in the GA. All committees are staffed ICly by incorruptible GA gnomes. Nothing you roleplay in your version of the committee will have any impact on anyone who does not also participate in your roleplay in that other forum.

I suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously here, you lose both the attitude and the signature.

Also, I'll take IA's word on economic and financial matters all day long over what some fella once wrote on the internet.