NationStates Jolt Archive

A new proposal now exists and I urge all of you to take a look at it. It concerns the develpoment of a World Bank to assist fledgling nations. I feel this is somewhat important and I once again urge you all to take a look at it. I'll do my best to answer any questions on the proposal.

Edit:
I recognize that people here are lazy. That's why they are here. So I have added the proposal in full here:

The Incorperated States of Castivo recognizes that developing nations do exist and need a standard for assistance. Therefore, we propose that a World Bank be develpoed, in order to assist develpoing nations financially while encouraging democratic ideals in the countries of operation. We recommend the Bank be put under full UN control, and that plans for the spending of loaned money be reviewed by the UN. We propose that for loans, at least half of the money be put towards welfare programs and class equality. If the nations fail to comply, then they shall be given a limited loan. Finally, we recommend the UN keep a tight watch on the program to prevent corruption, which would ruin the ideals of the Bank.

We urge all member-states of the UN to seriously consider this proposal.

Respectfully,
Superior Board of lawmakers, Castivo

i agree entirely. us smaller nations (as well as bigger nations) need some financial stability. i believe that in order to make this experience of Nation States more complete, there should be some sort of money system. it would be far more complex, but it would be better. so far people have been making up amounts of money (to my knowledge)

I will support this measure as delegate of Albany. Speaking of lazy, you send me the link to authorize it and I'll endorse it.

Here is the link to the proposal. I would give you the link to authorize it, but, well, I'm not a delegate. Which kinda puts a damper on that.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=45

Swell idea, donate huge amounts of money to pay for welfare programs in non-productive countries and call it a loan. Who is going to finance these "loans"? How are the recipients going to pay any of the money back, seeing as how it's going to be used for welfare rather than development?
Here's what will happen <just as in real life>: These "developing" (that's a euphemism meaning "not developing") nations will get neck deep in debt to foreigners and totally dependent on them. Then the foreigners can control them and bleed off any capital they might ever acquire. None of the debtor nations will have anything to show for the money, except more mouths to feed.

Swell idea, donate huge amounts of money to pay for welfare programs in non-productive countries and call it a loan. Who is going to finance these "loans"? How are the recipients going to pay any of the money back, seeing as how it's going to be used for welfare rather than development?

I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you. You wonder how these countries can repay us when the money is used for welfare, not development. May I remind you that welfare IS development? Over time, there is a large amount of money to be found in the export of human services. Larger nations that put little money into education often use people from other countries in their own programs. Not to mention, the welfare will give poor people more spending power, which helps the ecomomy of a government greatly. With regards to the forigen dependence, there's a reason that the Bank will be controlled by the UN, and why the loans won't be from any single nation.

The United States agree with Rational Self Interest. Though the intentions of the World Bank may be applaudable, the effects of its establishment is too vague to allow it to exist.

The availability of loans have the unpredictable ability of chaining small, developing nations in debt, causing these nations to end up worse than before as they attempt to divert their own local spending in an attempt to repay these loans in the long run. It is also against the interest of larger nations who may not wish to divert their own funds, for whatever reasons they may have. Though we may think of the world as a global village, one cannot deny that national sovereignty must be sustained, and the functions of this World Bank may undermine such sovereignty.

The United States of Davor believe that financial aid from their own regions should suffice, and so we stress that this proposal not gain any further support.

If welfare was development, the ghettos would be full of mansions.

We in The Grand Duchy of Borogravia Moldavi wholeheartedly agree with Rational Self Interest. A World Bank would do nothing for fledging countries except make them welfare states. A new nation with a small populus should have sufficient monthly income using the formula here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29122

Using this scale and MCI (monthly citizen income)*population*tax rate equals the nations monthly income.

A new nation of 5 million people with a reasonable economy will have a monthly income of 16 billion dollars...for such a small populus this should be ample for development unless they are in a war...in which case it should be the regions responsibility to protect it's citizens...not the world at large.

Please, for all of our sake's, don't generalize. What America calls its "welfare programs" are elaborate, bogged down versions of "give money to the poor and hope they don't buy crack". What I am suggesting is that the UN oversee the distribution of the money, so that it is divided appropriately.

But by whose definition of appropriate? What might be appropriate for one nation may not be the same thing for another b/c of differing govt types...stipulating that it has to be used for the overall good of the people is way too general...

Which is why the UN is in charge of it, and not any single nation. We leave this up to the democratic process.

So once Borogravia Moldavi has developed into a large prosperous country on it's on it will be petitioned by the UN (since it is a member) to make certain funds available to the World Bank for use in these "loans" without any actual say as to how the money is used? Or will the World Bank automatically be funded out of the current UN budget? Just how will it be funded? Also, if the countries that are given the loans do happen to make their regular payments (like in real life right?) who would be the recipient? The UN or the countries that contributed to the fund?

Are you familiar with the word, "Philanthropist"?

You shouldn't worry how your funds get spent. The UN will look for any socially-minded countries who would be willing to opt-in. Contributing nations should NOT have ANY say in how their money gets spent other than the usual suggestion. Individual countries can be corrupt, but we expect the UN not to be. That's why it exists. (Money goes back to the countries who are kind enough to donate). You don't have to opt-in, but remember, you were small once too.

You shouldn't worry how your funds get spent.

HAW HAW HAW HAW!!! "Don't worry, Ma'am, this is a great car, only had one owner and she only drove it to the bank on Sundays, no, that's not an oil puddle underneath it, that's, um, badger urine. Anyway, Ma'am, don't worry about spending your money on this beaut, you're in good hands with us!"

The Grand Duchy of Borogravia Moldavi is not a philanthropist nation. Charity is for the weak minded. Although we would not be opposed to the founding of a World Bank that is funded solely by unsolicited gifts. If an opt-out clause is not attached to the proposition we will vote against it. Compulsory is a word only used when we talk about our national elections. ablocare populus laboro

But, the nation getting the loan, which is already in financial difficulty, will have a huge national debt. This in turn will cause more strain on the nation's economy.

But, the nation getting the loan, which is already in financial difficulty, will have a huge national debt. This in turn will cause more strain on the nation's economy.

Sounds like the real world.

In response to all the posts that occured while I was away:

Rational self Intrest, in the example you use, the buyer expects something in return for its money. However, by definition, philanthropists do not. That the charitable nations even get paid back is remarkable enough.

For all those of you who made posts recently, I urge you to look at the entire debate. Some of your questions may have already been answered.

Great idea. Some small tin-pot dictatorship cons the UN into giving them money to build schools and hospitals. Then, the minute they've got the money, they spend it on lavish government palaces and weapons for their police force. Either that or on their military so they can scare their neighbours. The hard working citizens of Moistwarmfish built their great nation wthout handouts and so should everyone else.

What's next? An NS WTO?

Don't ever say the phrase "WTO" again.

People, PLEASE read the entire argument before posting. I don't really like answering questions that have already been answered. Especially if they were answered IN THE PROPOSAL.

The UN will review how the money is spent. Get that through your head.

Allow me once again to make an appeal to have all nations recognize that poor and developing nations do exist and something must be done to help them.

If anyone has any other questions, I would be more than happy to respond.

Read the entire debate before you do, however.

The Great Nation of Putergeeks supports this proposal.

Hello,

The Commonwealth of Fredomia supports this proposal in principle and does agree that such an initiative should be conducted through a world body (in this case the UN).

In terms of the language, however, I do not believe that the actual strucutre of the loan should be codified by the resolution. Surely individual circumstances would best determine how the funds should be allocated.

Secondly, you state that the allocated money would be loaned to applicable nations, would there be conditions for repayment and would there be interest charged on these loans. Just to revert back to the 'real world' for a second many developing nations are crippled by debt from such loans due to need to pay interest, as well as the actual loan principle. If we wish to create a truly assistive programs surely safeguards would be required.

Lastly, what would be the criteria required for eligibility?

Please note that The Commonwealth of Fredomia has endorsed this proposal, while we do have questions in regards to the proposal (as stated above) we believe it should be voted on by all UN members to discuss its merits.

Thanking you,

The Commonwealth of Fredomia

I do realize that none of your questions were answered in the original wording of the proposal.

I put a requierment of at least half the money going directly into welfare beacuse often times money from these loans (in the real world) is sent directly into the military, or directly into the governments pockets. The UN will require all countries applying for a loan to draft a plan of how the money is spent.

Although this was not in the proposal, I had in mind for repayment a simple plan with as little strain on the country as possible. I had in mind a method of direct repayment in a lump sum whenever the country can afford it, plus 10% of the original loan for every year they wait to pay it. This will encourage nations to fix their nations as soon as possible.

Finally, there is but one criteria for eligibility, and that is the draft of an economic plan to show how the money is spent.

Should the proposal not pass in its current wording, I will move quickly to draft a revised version.

The Most Serene Republic of the Arctic Banana does not support this proposal, no matter how noble it's cause is. The system proposed is an easily corruptable one, as any investigation by the U.N could be somehow tampered with in numerous ways. Such a thought will not do. His Most Enlightened One, however, applauds the concept and looks forward to more refined examples that would prevent such corruption of such an honorable cause.

- Hand of His Most Enlightened One

What do you mean by easily corruptible?

If by that you mean that the UN is corrupt, you shouldn't really be in it. If that's how you feel.

If you do think the UN is corrupt, I think I know why.

Look at the passed resolutions. Very few are free trade resolutions and there is only one increase in military spending resolution. The reason is rather obivious.

Left-wing countries are far more likely to stay in the UN if a resolution passes they do not like, out of respect for the democratic process. More capitilist countries will leave out of disgust, saving their own nation from the consecuences but in turn furthering the agenda of those left-wing countries.

Thus, dictatorships tend to hate the UN. But if they leave, it isn't exactly helping.

If it's some other reason, I'd be happy to answer any question.

Are you familiar with the word, "Philanthropist"?

You shouldn't worry how your funds get spent. The UN will look for any socially-minded countries who would be willing to opt-in. Contributing nations should NOT have ANY say in how their money gets spent other than the usual suggestion.

Why? It's their money that's being used, why shouldn't they get to dictate what it is used for?

And you will find that most philanthropists donate money to be used for a specific purpose.

Hello once again,

Surely the proposal of the World Bank is a step in the correct direction through providing support to developing nations.

While there may be disagreements or debate, rather, about the actual detail the current wording of the proposal is sufficient to be passed as is.

Should the World Bank proposal need to be refined further then additional proposals can be created with this in aim.

Having a world-wide body granting assistance to developing countries, despite disagreements on the actual detail is better than having nothing.

Ithuania,

While you are right, many philanthropists will donate their money for a specific purpose, in this case the method of donation is more complex. It would go from the nation to the UN to another nation. Although we would be happy to invite a contributing nation to participate in the revision of an economic plan in which their money will be used, we can't really go any farther beyond that.

[ooc:

Nations older than me may remember the original World Bank.

Lesson learnt? Most people will let the economic RP go hang and blow stuff up.]

For the umpteenth time, before the nation can be given a loan, the UN must review an economic plan drafted by the reciving nation. They will also oversee the application of the program. So no, they can't just blow stuff up.

I think I am going to support this proposal because you make such a good arguement for it.

While I appriciate the support, time is running out for this proposal and this thread seems to be painfully ignored. If the proposal does not pass in its current form, I shall draft a revision, so hold tight. This isn't quite over yet.

Time slowly ticks down on this proposal.

I urge you all to participate in this debate.

If I must, I will begin work on a revision.

Not much time remains on the proposal.

Act now, or act sunday when the revision will be submitted.