NationStates Jolt Archive

Many UN proposals are shot down by nations because they have no way to financially support what they are trying to do. So, I am writing a resolution to fix this problem.


International Currency

Proposal Type: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Hersfold (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=Hersfold)

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY:

NOTICING that trade can at times be hindered due to international exchange rates for currency;

SEEING that tourists to foreign countries can also be hindered or taken advantage of by exchange brokers, due to falsified reports and high fees;

HINDERED by its own lack of a budget with which to enforce its passed resolutions and improve the world;

SHALL ESTABLISH an International Currency, to be printed by the United Nations and its designated members. This currency shall be referred to as a UN Dollar, until such time that another name is voted upon, and shall be in equal value to one US Dollar at the time that this resolution is passed. This currency is to be distributed out between the member nations 6 months after the passing of this resolution, to allow for a sufficient number of bills to be printed. This currency is to be accepted alongside the official currencies of each member nation. A portion of the printed money will be returned to the UN headquarters, for a yearly budget of UN$20,000,000. This budget is to be used for enforcement of resolutions and the goals set forth by the UN Charter, and is not to be increased upon through member dues or fines. Said currency shall be printed in mints to be established by the UN in nations who hold the position of Forum or Game Moderator, or Administrator, and are UN members. When using UN dollars to trade with a non-UN member nation, the current exchange rates shall apply.

An example of a UN dollar bill can be found here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=55792

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS SHALL HEREBY ESTABLISH THIS CURRENCY AS ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES ABOVE.


I have attached the image of the bill below.

Please comment on this, especially if there are any things you see that need improvement. Just one thing: THIS MUST BE A FREE TRADE PROPOSAL. That is the only thing which cannot change here. Thanks for the help!

The United Federation of Hersfold
Founder of the UNEC
UN Member
Founder, Part123

We abhore this resolution due to the fact that our economy is powerfull already and that we like our currency because it helps to maintain our national identity. We will not support this resolution.

I'm not entirely sure it would be possible to give everyone than same currency.

I know from past discussions that it's never seemed desirable before.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I would reject this proposel as the currency is one of the unique things about a nation and it should stay that way

Printing money does not an economy make. The amount of work required to set up a currency that is accepted by all nations and actually holds value is astronomical, and there are simple economic realities that prevent this resolution from being desireable. First, you can't make people accept your currency if it has no value. When banking systems were originally established, the paper money held was redeemable for gold. The money was valuable because at any time, you could go to the bank and come back with a brick or two, depending on how much money you had. The UN has no means of backing up the value of it's currency, and thus it's only worth the paper it's printed on. Unless we're using gold paper, that's not going to be much.

Then we have the issue of limiting the budget of the UN to a paltry $20,000,000. The Des Moines Public School System of Des Moines, Iowa, has a larger budget than that, and they can't afford paper for printers in high school libraries. Making progress on any issue with such limited funds is simply impossible. The operating budget required to support the full-range of UN activities while mainting administrative facilities and support would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

This resolution would gut the UN in one fell swoop, all for the purpose of establishinga monetary system that is unneccesary at best, and worthless at worst. I urge the opposition to this resolution, and implore that if people wish to address the issue of United Nations funding, they do it through other means.

Wow. This went over a lot worse than I thought it would.

Polish Warriors and Ben Bagles: This proposal does not replace a national currency, but rather is accepted alongside the current one.


This currency is to be accepted alongside the official currencies of each member nation.


An example of this in the real world is US dollars in the Bahamas - they are accepted interchangably, even though the Bahamas have their own official currency. And this is to help improve your economy further, so I fail to see your objection there, Polish.

The Black New World: It wil take a lot of time to print all that out, but I did leave time for that to happen. The currency will be worthless until 6 months after the resolution passes, to allow for sufficent distribution. Do you think this needs to be longer?

Sophista: I'm not sure many countries in real life actually have enough gold or whatever to support their own currencies. I have heard this argument before, but it was dismissed for that same reason. Also, what value does the Euro have behind it? Is it pulling off of the wealth of the nations in the EU? If so, can this not do the same?

And I can change the budget to whatever seems reasonable. $20M was just an example.

Ok, anything else? Please, only post here if you have a comment about how this proposal could be improved, what is bad about it, or what is good about it. Do not just come in and say "This idea sucks and shouldn't be submitted!", and so forth. I know that no one above did this, but with the negative attitude I seem to be getting on this one, I believe that comment may be necessary.

Hmm. An interesting idea that doesn't deserve the criticism it's had, I think.

I believe - though I could be wrong - that Sophista's point about supporting currency with gold no longer holds true. I don't know what, if anything, the euro is backed with, but I do know that Britain moved off the gold standard decades ago and that if you march into the Bank of England and demand £5 worth of gold in exchange for your five-pound note then they'll just laugh at you. The US, I'm fairly sure, has nothing like enough gold to cover the massive quantities of dollars that it sends overseas.

The gold thing was only ever a fiction to give investors confidence, anyway; it seems to be the case now that currencies are backed by international currency speculators' confidence in national economies (a fragile beast at best) rather than anything so tangible as gold.

There have been two main objections to a single UN currency before this - firstly, that it's a game mechanics issue as you can't force nations to change their currency name to match the UN currency, and secondly that it strips nations of a great deal of control over their own economy. The first one doesn't hold true here, as this currency is intended to work alongside and not replace nations' existing currencies; as for the second... hmm, that needs some thought. There are plenty of other countries that effectively have a two-currency system - Cuba is one - but I'm not sure what the effects on the economy are.

The United Nations does not have the right to infringe on any country's sovereignty by suggesting an international currency to be put into place.

If the UN wants to fund resolutions properly, that needs to be a part of them - if they require it - when they are submitted.

Hackney, thank you for the support. As was said before on The North Pacific's offsite forum, where this was drafted, "fiat money" is all we have left these days.

And finally someone gets the point that this is not replacing a nation's currency.

As to the economy thing, I don't really see how this would affect it negatively. This was mainly suggested to help reduce the fuss about exchange rates in international trade. Nations would be able to use a single currency which both parties can use, and stil use their own currencies at home. Even tourists could benefit, as they could exchange their currency for UN money at a bank some where, and be able to use it in whichever UN country they feel like touring.

And Tuesday, about your concern, if the UN was not allowed to do this, Enodia would have said so when I asked if this idea was feasable. Also, about the UN, this is so that they can better enforce their resolutions. Right now, the UN has no money, and anything that must be funded must be drawn off UN members, which pisses people off, or be a charity fund, which will no get enough funds to do anything with. This last option is what I have had to do with my "UNEC" resolution in it's follow-up proposal. However, if the schools with actual budgets cannot afford to keep themselves in working order, how is a charity fund going to be able to get them anything more than boxes of Kleenexes? I feel that the UN needs some sort of funding. I have included in the draft the guidelines which have been in place from the beginning:

...set forth by the UN Charter, and is not to be increased upon through member dues or fines.

So the UN still cannot infringe on member's rights to be members. The budget here will not increase at all, except through possible donations.

Anyone else? BTW, please look at the image of the dollar as well. I have included some fine print on it which may be of interest.

And Tuesday, about your concern, if the UN was not allowed to do this, Enodia would have said so when I asked if this idea was feasable.

I never said the UN couldn't do this, I said it shouldn't, because we believe that it infringes on our nation's, and other nation's, sovereignty.

The Black New World: It wil take a lot of time to print all that out, but I did leave time for that to happen. The currency will be worthless until 6 months after the resolution passes, to allow for sufficent distribution. Do you think this needs to be longer?

I meant that we have a slot for currency that can't be altered by the UN (I think). I know it's another currency on top of our own but, well, it wouldn't get it's own pretty space on our homepage.

Now you can answer your critics but you don't seem to be persuading them. This is an interesting idea but aside from the 'because we don't have to exchange money our economy will be better' can you offer any more reasons why this is a good idea.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Why is the currency equal to 1 US Dollar?

Why is the currency named Dollar?

Decent explainations and reasons please.

Yes, how can it be equal to an amount that doesn’t exist?

And I think they should be called Barryons.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

This currency shall be referred to as a UN Dollar, until such time that another name is voted upon

I just called it a Dollar for ease of reference. If you have any suggestions, I am wide open.

The exchange rate is also for the same purpose. I know there is no United States of America here, and therefore US Dollar, but I have nothing better to compare it to. Unless you want me to compare it to my own currency, I have no other comparisons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you can answer your critics but you don't seem to be persuading them. This is an interesting idea but aside from the 'because we don't have to exchange money our economy will be better' can you offer any more reasons why this is a good idea.

The UN needs some sort of funding. There is no way it can possibly support all the new resolutions that are coming in. We are past the point, or at least very close to it, where we can think up new laws that do not duplicate or infringe on others. We are starting to begin forming organizations based in the UN, to do more work on the UN's main goal: "to improve the standard of the world." Without a UN budget, there will be no way to support all of these. How will those people working for these organizations get paid? This will be especially impossible once a "minimum wage" resolution gets passed. I have seen many suggestions for one, and have helped to draft several. Is the UN to go against it's own laws? The creation of charity groups in the UN, like the real-life UNICEF, while being a noble cause, may not be effective. Charity groups require acts of charity to work. With so many nations in NationStates with an income tax of 100%, how are people to earn enough money to give to others? These groups would need some sort of supplement from their roots in the UN. If the UN is to remain in efficient operation in NationStates, it needs some sort of funding. This resolution is trying to establish that funding.

Have I "persuaded" you yet?

Have I "persuaded" you yet?

I see the error of my ways.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

A new global currency should not be based on any existing currency in my opinion. Basing the value of the currency on the "US Dollar", will give the regions using this "US Dollar" (A currency wich is at the moment unknown to me by the way) an unfair advantage: The "US Dollar" using regions will have no trouble at all in recalculating prices. In other regions, the recalculating will be a whole lot more difficult, and will probably result in an extreme rise in prices. The same thing happened in an experiment by a number of scientist: They created a cimputer model of a fictional union called the "European Union", and inserted a global currency for that region. The result was a dramatic increase in prices and a collapsed economy for 60% of the area.

It would be unfair to regions not using this "US Dollar" to base the value of the new currency on the "US Dollar".

Instead, I propose to base the value of 1 item of the currency on the price of 1 kilogram of 24 karat (spelling?) gold on the exact moment of the implementation of the resolution. This will bring back the currency from something very abstract to what currency actually is: Something representing value of goods.

Basing the value of the new currency on the price of gold will also make it far more easy to convert the currency to current currencies being used: The price of gold in each currency is known on the moment the resolution is implemented, wich will also save a lot of extra calculating and thus time and money.

Sophista: I'm not sure many countries in real life actually have enough gold or whatever to support their own currencies. I have heard this argument before, but it was dismissed for that same reason. Also, what value does the Euro have behind it? Is it pulling off of the wealth of the nations in the EU? If so, can this not do the same?

And I can change the budget to whatever seems reasonable. $20M was just an example.

It is true that few nations still use the gold standard for currency, but the point illustrated is still intact. You need something to back your currency, be it confidence in the issuing body, or it's value in a tangible, worth-bearing good. What incentive do investors have to put their trust in the UN, which has no economy and no stock of liquid resources? Whereas the Euro can draw on the economic might of the nations in the EU, the UN has no equivilant. The UN has no operating budget, and no income. Everything the UN spends is by voluntary contribution, which means that this currency would have to be powered by those same donations. Who in their right mind would invest in a currency that could dry up at any moment depending on the mood of UN member nations? This question might have been dismissed before, but they were wrong then, too.

Because of this, the higher you set the UN budget, the more unstable the currency becomes. If spreading the wealth of the UN among $20,000,000 would be infeasible, imagine how worthless the currency would be if you had to spread it over $50,000,000,000,000?

The advantage of no more fuzzy exchange rates doesn't hold true. Since this currency is made to co-exist with current monies, there will still be some point along the way where people will have to exchange it. In non-UN nations especially, it would only be one more type of currency stock that would have to be tracked and adjusted for exchange rates.

Black New World: Thank you. :)

Hilversum Grandeur: That's a dang good idea. I do believe I will put that in the draft. Thank you very much.

Sophista:

Whereas the Euro can draw on the economic might of the nations in the EU...

Can't the UN do the same? With 33,702 member nations, surely enough can be drawn off to be able to create a new currency, no matter what mood they are in. 2,243 of those are Regional Delegates, and even that should be enough to do something with.

As to the point about converting between non-member nations, that is a point that the UN has no authority to fix. The smarta$$ response would of course be "Well then, make then join," but that is not possible or even wanted for everyone. This is the main flaw that cannot be fixed. It is written on the bill image that: "This currency may be exchanged for another currency at the current exchange rates if dealing with a non-UN member nation." If a moderator comes in and says that it is possible to make this be acceted in non-member nations, then I will fix this. Until that time, which is unlikely, this situation will have to remain. I'm sorry.

The new draft now reads:


International Currency

Proposal Type: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Hersfold (www.nationstates.net/cgi-in/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=Hersfold)

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY:

NOTICING that trade can at times be hindered due to international exchange rates for currency;

SEEING that tourists to foreign countries can also be hindered or taken advantage of by exchange brokers, due to falsified reports and high fees;

HINDERED by its own lack of a budget with which to enforce its passed resolutions and improve the world;

SHALL ESTABLISH an International Currency, to be printed by the United Nations and its designated members. This currency shall be referred to as a UN Barryon, until such time that another name is voted upon, and shall be in equal value to one kilogram of 24 karat gold at the time that this resolution is passed. This currency is to be distributed out between the member nations 6 months after the passing of this resolution, to allow for a sufficient number of bills to be printed. This currency is to be accepted alongside the official currencies of each member nation. A portion of the printed money will be returned to the UN headquarters, for a yearly budget of UNB 50,000,000. This budget is to be used for enforcement of resolutions and the goals set forth by the UN Charter, and is not to be increased upon through member dues or fines. Said currency shall be printed in mints to be established by the UN in nations who hold the position of Forum or Game Moderator, or Administrator, and are UN members. When using UN dollars to trade with a non-UN member nation, the current exchange rates shall apply.

An example of a UN dollar bill can be found here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=55792

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS SHALL HEREBY ESTABLISH THIS CURRENCY AS ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES ABOVE.


Changes are in Bold.

Can't the UN do the same?

No. It can't. Establishing the Euro as an official currency took a lot more than people signing a piece of paper and churning out bank notes. It's origins go back as far as 1969 when the Hague Summit of Heads of State and Government decided to make economic and monetary union an explicit goal of the Community and set up a high-level group to examine how to achieve this.

The direct result of this commision was the Werner Report, published in October 1970. The report suggested a three-stage plan for the unification of European financial markets, or "economic and monetary union" (EMU). The stages were as follows:

1. Reduction of the fluctuation margins between Member States’ currencies, broad guidelines for economic policy at Community level, co-ordination of budgetary policy, preparation of Treaty changes to facilitate later stages of EMU;

2. Integration of financial markets and banking systems to create free movement of capital, progressive elimination of exchange rate fluctuations, closer co-ordination of short-term economic policies and budgetary and fiscal measures;

3. Irrevocable fixing of exchange rates between participating national currencies, convergence of economic policies, establishment of a Community system of central banks.

(source: http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro/origins/werner_en.pdf (Werner Report))

The road to EMU hit an obstacle in 1971 when US President Richard Nixon single-handedly brought about the collapse of the Bretton Woods monteary system by ending the convertability of US currency into gold. This decision put an end to monetary exchange stability and brought about a new wave of instability in exchange markets.

It wasn't until Jacques Delors put out a report in 1989 that further solidified a plan for acheiving EMU. He also suggested a three-pronged approach. These three stages were as follows:

Stage One: Increased co-operation between central banks with relation to monetary policy, removal of obstacles to financial integration, monitoring of national economic policies, co-ordination of budgetary policy;

Stage Two: Preparatory stage for the final phase of EMU, establishment of the ESCB and progressive transfer of monetary policy to European institutions, narrowing of margins of fluctuation within exchange rate mechanism;

Stage Three: Fixing of exchange rates between national currencies and their replacement by a single European currency, responsibility for monetary policy would be transferred to the ESCB.

Most of the ideas set out in the Delors report later formed the basis for the EMU provisions agreed in the Maastricht Treaty. The text of the Delors Report can be found http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro/origins/delors_en.pdf
(here).

These stages were put into action through various European councils and commissions. In 1998 the European Central Bank was created, following the certifiaction of 11 European states as ready for monetary convergance. Conversion rates between the participating national currencies and the euro were irrevocably fixed in December of the same year, and became the official rates to be used for all conversions from national currencies to the euro. Since then, two states (Norway and Sweden, I believe) have rejected the euro as currency, while ten states have joined the EU and are currently in the process of figuring out how to adjust their currencies.

Now, if you made it through that history lesson intact, you'll see that this proposal does a whopping total of none of the steps necessary for successful economic and monetary union. Whereas Europe took just under 50 years to bring about this kind of change, your proposal simply dumps a lot of money into the market and says, "Hi, I'm the UN. Use my money."

This currency shall be referred to as a UN Barryon, until such time that another name is voted upon, and shall be in equal value to one kilogram of 24 karat gold at the time that this resolution is passed.

As of the time I post this reply, the cost of gold is $399.30 and ounce in US dollars. There are 35.273962 ounces in one kilogram. If we break out our handy calculators, that'd put the value of one UNB at $14,084.89 each. That's a pretty hefty value for currency. Now consider that we have to print enough bills to give all the currency markets of UN member nations sufficent front-load to actually make the currency workable. You're talking about fielding trillions of trillions of dollars worth of currency. Since the UN does not own trillions of trillions of dollars worth of gold, the currency would be worthless as of the second it was printed, and destablize the international currency market instantaneously.

The UN budget, set at 50,000,000UNB would equal $704,244,651,350 US, still billions short of an effective operating level. Nevermind that, though, because the entire world would be suffering as economies ground to a halt while exchange rates fluctuated out of control.

Again, I ask, how is it you can think this is a good idea?

Oh yeah. And you only changed "UN Dollar" to "UN Barryon" once in the proposal. It appears two other times in the text.

Doesn't the proposal conflict with game mechanics? If the proposal was passed, then all UN nations would be forced to have the same type of currency, and the mods/admins/whatever would have to alter the game to enforce it. Also, the currency exchange rate between UN nations would have to be exactly the same, but they really aren't. Sites like http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?region=[insert region name here] would have to be rewritten.

Sites like http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?region=[insert region name here] would have to be rewritten.

That's really not an important part of this debate, now, is it? ;)

Oy, don't vote for this.

And if it was voted on, I'd call it the:

UN Reserve Note or the UN Credit

I dunno...

No. It can't. Establishing the Euro as an official currency took a lot more than people signing a piece of paper and churning out bank notes. It's origins go back as far as 1969 when the Hague Summit of Heads of State and Government decided to make economic and monetary union an explicit goal of the Community and set up a high-level group to examine how to achieve this.

The direct result of this commision was the Werner Report, published in October 1970. The report suggested a three-stage plan for the unification of European financial markets, or "economic and monetary union" (EMU). The stages were as follows:

1. Reduction of the fluctuation margins between Member States’ currencies, broad guidelines for economic policy at Community level, co-ordination of budgetary policy, preparation of Treaty changes to facilitate later stages of EMU;

2. Integration of financial markets and banking systems to create free movement of capital, progressive elimination of exchange rate fluctuations, closer co-ordination of short-term economic policies and budgetary and fiscal measures;

3. Irrevocable fixing of exchange rates between participating national currencies, convergence of economic policies, establishment of a Community system of central banks.

(source: http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro/origins/werner_en.pdf (Werner Report))

The road to EMU hit an obstacle in 1971 when US President Richard Nixon single-handedly brought about the collapse of the Bretton Woods monteary system by ending the convertability of US currency into gold. This decision put an end to monetary exchange stability and brought about a new wave of instability in exchange markets.

It wasn't until Jacques Delors put out a report in 1989 that further solidified a plan for acheiving EMU. He also suggested a three-pronged approach. These three stages were as follows:

Stage One: Increased co-operation between central banks with relation to monetary policy, removal of obstacles to financial integration, monitoring of national economic policies, co-ordination of budgetary policy;

Stage Two: Preparatory stage for the final phase of EMU, establishment of the ESCB and progressive transfer of monetary policy to European institutions, narrowing of margins of fluctuation within exchange rate mechanism;

Stage Three: Fixing of exchange rates between national currencies and their replacement by a single European currency, responsibility for monetary policy would be transferred to the ESCB.

Most of the ideas set out in the Delors report later formed the basis for the EMU provisions agreed in the Maastricht Treaty. The text of the Delors Report can be found http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro/origins/delors_en.pdf
(here).

These stages were put into action through various European councils and commissions. In 1998 the European Central Bank was created, following the certifiaction of 11 European states as ready for monetary convergance. Conversion rates between the participating national currencies and the euro were irrevocably fixed in December of the same year, and became the official rates to be used for all conversions from national currencies to the euro. Since then, two states (Norway and Sweden, I believe) have rejected the euro as currency, while ten states have joined the EU and are currently in the process of figuring out how to adjust their currencies.

Now, if you made it through that history lesson intact, you'll see that this proposal does a whopping total of none of the steps necessary for successful economic and monetary union. Whereas Europe took just under 50 years to bring about this kind of change, your proposal simply dumps a lot of money into the market and says, "Hi, I'm the UN. Use my money."[quote]

lol.

Let's take this step by step allright? We haven't introduced any currency yet, we are just debating about the currency itself. Introducing it will be debated later on.

[quote]As of the time I post this reply, the cost of gold is $399.30 and ounce in US dollars. There are 35.273962 ounces in one kilogram. If we break out our handy calculators, that'd put the value of one UNB at $14,084.89 each. That's a pretty hefty value for currency. Now consider that we have to print enough bills to give all the currency markets of UN member nations sufficent front-load to actually make the currency workable. You're talking about fielding trillions of trillions of dollars worth of currency. Since the UN does not own trillions of trillions of dollars worth of gold, the currency would be worthless as of the second it was printed, and destablize the international currency market instantaneously.

Quite a point. Simple solution: 1 UNB equals 1 gram of gold. Problem solved right?

Yes, and while I like the idea of backing it with gold, the problem is that a kilo is too much for a " dollar " in my opinion and that the U.N. of course has no Fort Knox of its own ... ;)

And looking over the arguments of Sophista, I (and our delegate) pretty much agree.

The UN doesn't need a fort knox. Why should the UN store gold for this currency? We only set the value of 1 item the currency to be equal to that of 1 gram of 24 karat gold on the exact moment that the proposal is implemented.

Furthermore, I redesigned the currency.

We have neither a Secretary General or Treasurer.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

We reject the proposal for various reasons:
First of all, the world is to diverse and the economies to different to be put under one currency. There is no meachanism to stabilize it.
This would of course first need to be an economic union and that would mean the same economic system for all nations. And that is not going to happen.
That would of course destroy the diversity of Nation states and in that way undermine the game.
It should be left to any individual nation whether to join an monetary union through role play or not.

The UN doesn't need a fort knox. Why should the UN store gold for this currency? We only set the value of 1 item the currency to be equal to that of 1 gram of 24 karat gold on the exact moment that the proposal is implemented.

Furthermore, I redesigned the currency.

What I was trying to ... Sigh ... never-mind. I personally think this is something that would need to wait until N.S. 2 is rigged up one-day ...

I think what he was trying to say is that you can't wake up one morning, print money, and make it worth something.

If you are going to go with the gold idea in what country are we taking the value from. A country were gold is every ware won't value it as much as a place were there is no gold. [And if I recall my economic geology lessons correctly it also depends on the type of gold and it's rarity. For example Welsh gold is slightly more expensive because there is hardly any left in the ground]

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The UN doesn't need a fort knox. Why should the UN store gold for this currency? We only set the value of 1 item the currency to be equal to that of 1 gram of 24 karat gold on the exact moment that the proposal is implemented.

Furthermore, I redesigned the currency.

That's a heck of a lot better than mine. Thanks.

I was thinking that a Kilo would be too much as well, but without the actual prices right in front of me, I just typed it in. A gram, by Sophista's calculations, would still be over $140. One hundreth of a gram would probably be most effective ($1.41). While that is not a lot of gold, it makes the currency much more manageable.

We have neither a Secretary General or Treasurer.


That is no big deal. We can write up a clause for a Treasurer to be elected, and the Secretary General can just be [violet] or Max Barry or someone. (seems appropriate, anyway)

Doesn't the proposal conflict with game mechanics? If the proposal was passed, then all UN nations would be forced to have the same type of currency, and the mods/admins/whatever would have to alter the game to enforce it. Also, the currency exchange rate between UN nations would have to be exactly the same, but they really aren't. Sites like http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?region=[insert region name here] would have to be rewritten.

This is not a game mechanics issue, as each nation will still have it's own currency. I asked Enodia if this idea would work beforehand, and I recieved approval. It is not illegal in the eyes of the moderators.

As to you Sophista, I am really stumped. You have clearly done your homework, and I honestly have no way to refute it, other than to ask you to let it through in the spirit of role-play. But that would probably be about the same as asking Hitler to stop killing Jewish people in the name of moral decency, so I won't even bother. If you wish to take such a negative stand on my proposal, I have no way nor right to stop you. Good luck with your campaign.

And thank you for noting that I still needed to change it to Barryon in those two spots. I will do so.

And if it was voted on, I'd call it the:

UN Reserve Note or the UN Credit


Reasons?

That is no big deal. We can write up a clause for a Treasurer to be elected, and the Secretary General can just be [violet] or Max Barry or someone. (seems appropriate, anyway)

But a treasurer can't be elected without a change in game mechanics.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Why would the title mean a change in game mechanics? We can work this out completely outside of game mechanics.

Reasons?

Because it just sounds better.

Why would the title mean a change in game mechanics? We can work this out completely outside of game mechanics.

You could work it out through RP, in which case people who don't RP may not get a say, the treasurer won't represent us, and no one really has to listen to what the treasurer says.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Pessimist.


10 UNB:

You sound like my dyslexia support-woman-thingie

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

It doesn't matter what you set the value of the currency to be. It can be worth $0.10, it can be worth $10,000,000.00. The point is, without the necessary financial infrastructure and complete streamlining of every nation's financial markets, introducing such a proposal will disrupt global money markets, and thus cause the economies of the world to fall into chaos.

This seems to be a point that everyone is ignoring. You'll rename it a thousand times, you'll adjust the value a thousand times, but no one wants to stand up and say, "No Daniel, you're wrong. We can make this monumental shift in world monetary policy without putting the necessary support structures into place, and here's why." Until that question is answered, it is irresponsible for us to open the world to such a disaster all in the name of a pretty new bank note and easier exchange (which, by the way, won't happen.)

Agreed, Sophista. Further, anyone who wants to witness the folly of a body pegging its fiat money to another government's fiat money need only look at Argentina's economic collapse in '01-02. Fiat money is worth precisely what the market's faith in the issuing body says it's worth and no more. Yes, international monetary policy is gambling on faith! In broad-brush terms, it's faith in the government's ability to manage the economy efficiently. Or faith in the stability of the nation's economy itself, depending on which side of the aisle you're on.

Why the UN can't support a currency in this way is left as an exercise for the reader.

Also, we'd like a solid explanation of the benefits such a measure would bring before committing our support. Since we don't trade with capitalist nations and only trade with other nations on a non-monetary basis, this would be of zero value to East Hackney.

IRL the economic reforms necessary for the introduction of the Euro - particularly budget control and liberalisation of capital movement - have tended to force nations into a one-size-fits-all centre-right economic model which has proved damagingly inflexible. With all due respect, we would ask whether that is really Hersfold's intention.

That was not my intention at all, Hackney. The main reason for this proposal was to give the UN some form of funding to help enforce it's laws.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see now that this proposal will, if submitted, fail at the vote, if it even reaches that far.

Therefore, I, the President of The United Federation of Hersfold, formally and officially withdraw my intent to put forth the proposal "International Currency" to the UN and it's members.

I do apologize to those who were supporting this, and especially to Hilversum Grandeur, who spent his(? sorry if I'm wrong) time designing the 1 and 10 Barryon bills. I hope that in the future, this will be somehow possible, but for the time being, I will be apparently unable to successfully see it through to passing.

Respectfully,

The United Federation of Hersfold
UN Member
Founder of the UNEC
Founder, Part123
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Part123
Ambassador to The North Pacific
Part123 Administration

"Live Long and Prosper"

I'm not sure many countries in real life actually have enough gold or whatever to support their own currencies. I have heard this argument before, but it was dismissed for that same reason. Also, what value does the Euro have behind it? Is it pulling off of the wealth of the nations in the EU? If so, can this not do the same?
It's not so much pulling off the wealth of nations as it is the production capablility of nations. Continuing with the Euro as an example, it replaced the local currency. Consquently, the industrial strength and production of those nations give that currency value. The dollar is strong versus the yen when the international markets think that the country that prints dollars is fiscally stronger than the country that prints yen. It's all about perception and expectations.

A standalone international currency cannot stand without some backing. Whether it's seed corn, oil rights, gold, or automobile factories; something must be a visible barometer by which its strength can be measured. Printed paper with no backing (such as post WWII Deutschmarks) become no more valued than any other firestarter.

I realize this proposal has been withdrawn, but I didn't see anyone actually address the economic rationale of money. Just can't leave well enough alone.

Frisbeeteria, if you wish to continue this proposal in my stead, you may certainly do so - I have two other to deal with right now and do not have time to look up enough support for this one. However, you are right in your first paragraph - a lot of economics is simply guesswork and what additude people will take on it.

Frisbeeteria, if you wish to continue this proposal in my stead, you may certainly do so
Good lord, no! Since there isn't (and really can't be) a common platform on which to form our basis, an international currency won't work. My comments were purely academic.

Ok, I was just wondering.