NationStates Jolt Archive

We at the Karnov II Foreign Affairs Office have created this proposal and would appreicate any and all endorsements of it. We beleive it will help the world economy out, while not hurting anything in exchange. A much better trade off than you recieve with most economic legislation. Please read and comment.

Thanks in advance.





Proposal:

To increase the capability to trade between other countries by creating a UN trade board comprised of UN member nations who oversee the movement of UN funds, negotiate first-time trades between nations, establish better market alliances, and oversee a new world stock exchange.

Breakdown:

The UN board would consist of 5% of the total UN nations that represent every political agenda and trade type present at the UN. Member would be voted in by nations of similar economic polices. A full UN vote would be used to eject nations who abuse their power.

The Board would oversee the transaction of UN funds for programs such as African Aids Crisis, Emergency Assistance, and Peace Keeping efforts to maximize efficiency and keep funds going toward a correct and moral target.

The Board would negotiate first time business between nations by offering a location for talks, while not forcing or pressing trade.

The Board would establish trade and market alliances between nations that would otherwise be opposed militarily. This effort should reduce minor conflicts and promote a more stable peace.

The Board would oversee a new world stock exchange that would be a place for nations of all types to exchange currency of different values fairly, and on a global scale. Also any business could register on the stock exchange but could not ever place a member on the board.

Effect:
Increased Global economy
Alliances through economics rather than warfare
World Stock exchange
UN board to oversee all transactions
International increase in negotiations.

We in Karnov II trust that you will all see the benifits of this world market, and will vote in favor of it.


Foriegn Affairs Office of Karnov II

I think that the idea is brilliant, and I will endorse it, but first i have 4 questions to ask;

1) How often would the Board Committe be changed?

2) Wouldn't it be possible for, during the election to decide membership, all of the nations to vote for themself or their ally as opposed to who they believe would actually be best for the board? I believe that 5% should be chosen randomly for each time the committee is changed, to avoid a corrupt election. Unfortunately politics can be very corrupt...

3) If this board is composed of certain select nations, what happens if the board has to oversee a trade talk or agreement or negotiation involving one of the countries who have been chosen to have representation in this board, or that country's declared ally, or declared enemy? I think that if a nation has representation in this board, that nation should not be allowed to participate in any affairs that involve its nation, declared ally, or declared enemy. The affairs must always be overseen by neutral nations to ensure that other diplomatic issues aren't involved.

4) Finally, how would the currency for socialist countries, such as the United Socialist States of Voroziniya, be converted to all other currencies? The Voroziniyan Bolshiev (our currency) is not exchanged among other citizens but is given directly to citizens from the government for their labor, and is directly returned to the government market for whatever the citizen needs, and for taxes. Therefore, to foreign governments and civilians socialist currency has no value. How would this be resolved?

I apologize for the questions, but I do not want to endorse anything potentially flawed. Once the questions are answered I will be more than happy to support this revelation for international trade.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

1) It would be reselected every 4 years.
2)That's a good idea really, and could easily be worked in during the long run. Perhaps the first time the voting would be held simply by region or perhaps by selection based on national view points. After that a whole UN vote could be used to decide on the voting future.
3)You hit it perfectly. Any nation that has a special interest in the boards decision will be excluded.
4)Simply by using goods as opposed to money. Socialist nations would be on the board of course, and could vote in all decisions that do not directly involve them(as with all nations). Also, that would be one benifit the socialist nations could not have, exchanging currency. It really isn't an all or nothing deal, nations take advantage of any features that would benifit them and would come to the Board voluntarily .

Any other questions are welcomed. Thanks for the reply.

Karnov II

The UN board would consist of 5% of the total UN nations that represent every political agenda and trade type present at the UN. Member would be voted in by nations of similar economic polices. A full UN vote would be used to eject nations who abuse their power.

Five percent of the UN (at today's membership level) is just over 1694 nations. The coordination of such a massive board would be an immense undertaking all on it's own, let alone housing it within an administrative campus. Assuming that every delegate would be allowed to voice his or her opinion on a decision, it would take years for even simple policy to pass.

Also, I see no mechanism to ensure a balanced number of nations from each political and economic background. This immediately opens up the ground for abuse, as capitalist nations in the majority might decide to enact legislation that would be considered punishing to non-capitalist countries. Yes, you could eject the trouble-makers, but that would simply swing power to those of opposite persuasion.

If I may, I reccomend that the number of delegates be trimmed to ten per each UN category of government. Nations would be allowed to vote for the delegate to represent their category on the board, as well as recall members who cease to represent their interests.

The Board would oversee the transaction of UN funds for programs such as African Aids Crisis, Emergency Assistance, and Peace Keeping efforts to maximize efficiency and keep funds going toward a correct and moral target.

Each UN Mission has its own financial oversight agency, and the disbursement of the general UN operating budget is controlled by the Secretariat. To open this to the ITB would be redundant, and also allow nations to play politics with aid money. Best to leave this out of the reach of the board.

The Board would negotiate first time business between nations by offering a location for talks, while not forcing or pressing trade.

The Board would establish trade and market alliances between nations that would otherwise be opposed militarily. This effort should reduce minor conflicts and promote a more stable peace.

These are both noteworthy ideas, provided the previously-raised concerns are dealt with. So long as the trade is fair, the world only seeks to benefit.

The Board would oversee a new world stock exchange that would be a place for nations of all types to exchange currency of different values fairly, and on a global scale. Also any business could register on the stock exchange but could not ever place a member on the board.

Such markets already exist, and operate rather efficiently. To add the UN to the mix would only muddle things, as repressive bureaucracy tends to do. The last thing we need is the UN to depress the world currency markets, given that trillions upon trillions of menks worth of transactions happen on a daily basis.

Ahem.

In closing, this draft is a good start. With a little polishing here and there, as well as commentary from other members, we could have some significant legislation on our hands.

If I may, I reccomend that the number of delegates be trimmed to ten per each UN category of government. Nations would be allowed to vote for the delegate to represent their category on the board, as well as recall members who cease to represent their interests.

That would still be too much. Not every category has a roughly equal amount, so this board would still cater to the interests of one or two categories, plus 10% of each U.N. category of government (with thousands of nations in each U.N. category) would send thousands of members. I think it would be better off to say that five nations representing every form of U.N. government be sent to this board.

As president of a country with a very fragile economy, I would benefit from this proposal and so would many others.

I suggest the most powerful countries in terms of economy should take up the post. Say about the 10 most economically developed country in the world.

Best regards,

Sebastian Pepperell
President of the Holy Republic of Seriphyn

There is NO NEED TO REGULATE THE RATIO OF SOCIALIST/CAPITALIST NATIONS IN THE BOARD, BECAUSE IT HAS NO EFFECT ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE! A socialist nation can trade with another socialist nation and have it overseen by a capitalist-dominated group and the transaction would go just as well and be just as well advised as if it were monitered by another socialist nation. Socialism and capitalism are policies for domestic economy, not international resource exchange.

Furthermore, it would be unfair if the 10 most powerful economic nations were in charge. First of all, there are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF UN MEMBERS.
Second of all, being economically powerful doesnt mean they are educated in economy, it could very well be luck or high natural resources.
Third of all, the position of most economically powerful nations will not change much in the course of 4 years, therefore it would be unfair to the developing nations (such as mine) who have not yet been in the board.
Finally, of the entire board were composed of economic superpowers, they probably would dismiss smaller issues with developing nations (such as mine) that an evenly-composed board would look into.

Finally I have a question: What will be the official name of this Board?

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya.

Although putting those 10 powerful countries may sound correct, it won't work. All nations need to be represented. Wether they are Democratic, Communist, Socialist, Anarchy, or Dictatorships. We don't want a beuracracy here, just a good meeting place of nations to work on all economic problems.




What will be the official name of this Board

The United Nations International Trade Board. or the I.T.B.

The members of this board arent advocating or taking strides for or representing certain political systems, they are simply specialists in international trade. I think it is necissary for all types of economies to be represented only because they could specialize in a certain economy and greatly help trade between nations of such economies, but equal representation is not necissary, only because it isn;t representation. It is an aid group. And the home countries of the members must have some kind of economic system which is really irrelevant.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

P.S. I was AGAINST the 10-powerful-nations idea
Does anyone read my messages?

I was adressing the post prior to yours

:)

That would still be too much. Not every category has a roughly equal amount, so this board would still cater to the interests of one or two categories, plus 10% of each U.N. category of government (with thousands of nations in each U.N. category) would send thousands of members. I think it would be better off to say that five nations representing every form of U.N. government be sent to this board.

You seem to have misread my statement. We support a board of ten (as in the number), not 10% (as in the percentage). That would effectively limit the board to the neighborhood of 100 nations, give or take depending on the current number of expelled/pending representatives. Ten capitalist democracies, ten socialist dictatorships, and so on.

Furthermore, it would be unfair if the 10 most powerful economic nations were in charge. First of all, there are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF UN MEMBERS.
Second of all, being economically powerful doesnt mean they are educated in economy, it could very well be luck or high natural resources.
Third of all, the position of most economically powerful nations will not change much in the course of 4 years, therefore it would be unfair to the developing nations (such as mine) who have not yet been in the board.
Finally, of the entire board were composed of economic superpowers, they probably would dismiss smaller issues with developing nations (such as mine) that an evenly-composed board would look into.

These issues become moot if the change my government has suggested is taken into consideration. Also, those of us in the chamber who have ears would appreciate it if you stopped yelling to prove a point. Effective words will do much more than unneccessary volume.

There is NO NEED TO REGULATE THE RATIO OF SOCIALIST/CAPITALIST NATIONS IN THE BOARD, BECAUSE IT HAS NO EFFECT ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE! A socialist nation can trade with another socialist nation and have it overseen by a capitalist-dominated group and the transaction would go just as well and be just as well advised as if it were monitered by another socialist nation. Socialism and capitalism are policies for domestic economy, not international resource exchange.

I would call into question the factual nature of this statement. It cannot be guaranteed that any nation, no matter which system of government they subscribe to, would be completely effecient in trade negotiation. Quite the contrary, in fact. Many nations exact unfair trade concessions from other nations when they're in a certain position of power, be it economic or militarily. Unfair trade benefits no one except the greedy, and dampens the world economy at the expense of the developing, geographically unlucky, and those with different economic policy.

Right, thanks to those to have already endorsed the proposal, and thanks to all who will.

:D

The fact is that although it is true that all nations can potentially nit be suitable for aiding such an agreement between two nations, that does not rebut my point. Socialism and capitalism are domestic trade policies, and there is no way to trade internationally in a socialist way. Socialists know that, and socialists know how to conduct such an international trade. There do not have to be an equal amount of gov'ts, because the Board is not a way to represent a gov't but simply to aid other nations in international trade. And they had to be born somewhere... so they had to have grown up in some irrelevant economic system.

And the ratio of 100:>33,000 is irrational. Keep in mind there will be thousands of international transactions going on at once.

And we especially do not need different political systems in this board. Not only because it is not a way to be represented but because politics have nothing, or very little, to do with economy.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Socialism and capitalism are domestic trade policies, and there is no way to trade internationally in a socialist way.

If socialism is total governmental economic control in the best interest of the people, then there is nothing that prohibits two socialist governments from exchanging goods when specialization makes such exchange economically profitable.

If socialism is a completely internal policy, then it would be necessary to have such nations on the board anyway, because they'll be the only ones who understand the system well enough to make trade recommendations on issues involving socialist nations.

And the ratio of 100:>33,000 is irrational. Keep in mind there will be thousands of international transactions going on at once.

True, thousands of transactions will be made every few minutes, but only the smallest fraction will be those of a nature that merit the involvement of the board. They need only act in an instance prescribed by the resolution, ie: initial trade agreements, trade between two hostile parties, etc. Furthemore, they only intervene when asked by the nations involved, slimming the number by even more.

And we especially do not need different political systems in this board. Not only because it is not a way to be represented but because politics have nothing, or very little, to do with economy.

Except for the part where politics decides what kind of economy a country will have. The laws that dicate how a company may do business are enacted via a political system, and a clear difference can be seen in the policy of liberal democracies versus fascist police states.

I still beleive that a strong mixture of domestic economic ideals, will in turn generate a better effect on global economic policies than a random assortment.

There's nothing random about this assortment. It's a calculated collection, giving equal voice to all political and economic persuasions. The closest to random you'd get with the board is what nation was on it, and even that, to a degree, is predictable.

Nations of different political and economic system will not be suggesting or influencing or edging any nation unto its political beliefs. The Board isn;t meant to be a Congress, it isn't for representation. It is to help all nations with international economy, and therefore I think that we should add that persuading or influencing a nation to adopt a system similar to the persuader/influencer's should be banned.

And if there is an "A"-type nation overseeing an agreement between a "B"-type nation and another "A"-type nation, it won't have any reason to give the "A"-type nation an advantage, simply for having a similar system. Not all similar systems necessarily look out for each other as brothers, surely there are democratic states in the world that the US remains neutral to. Another example is the fact that communist Yugoslavia remained neutral and neither joined the Warsaw pact with the USSR, nor NATO with the West.

Just an update on the resolution, it is moving nicely, we've made it to the top 3 pages, and we are getting roughly 10 more votes a day to approve it

:D