NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This resolution is part of the
‘A pro-business resolution’ (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352950) scheme. As such, this will be a ‘free trade’ resolution.

This resolution has not yet been submitted. There will be a period where you can comment on this resolution and suggest improvements. For discussion on the fundamental need for a pro-business resolution or: go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352950)

Below you will find the draft text of the resolution. Thank you for your time.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman, new Knootian UN representative


The Virtual Market
The United Nations will oversee the creation, implementation and maintenance of a system of automated trading. This ‘Virtual Market’ will function like popular online auction websites, only it will be global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts. The speed of trading will be vastly increased and worldwide online market data will become available for free with a 15-minute delay. Automated trading programmes with advanced search algorithms can match demand with supply around the globe.

The Virtual Market can greatly simplify the huge flow of information about supply and demand in a world with trillions of people. Instead of facing the physical impossibility of manually gaining total information about all these products and services, a user only has to deal with a simplified set of problems that link the nation to the virtual market. This results in huge savings due to reduced bureaucracy and increased efficiency. It will hugely extend the range and scope on which enterprises can compete for contracts. Ideally, every enterprise competes for every contract offered, maximising competition and market forces.

National governments will have options to filter the Virtual Market for nations they embargo or impose tarrifs upon. The programme will include costs of trading regulations in prices and it will make such costs visible. Other filters will be developed for individual users who can, for example, search for ‘fair trade products only’ if they desire this.

The Virtual Market will be funded by fees based on the amount of connections in a nation. National governments can choose whether they want to pay these fees themselves directly, or relay the costs to those in their nation using their system. The rates of user fees (progressive or nominal) may be set by the national governments in any way they see fit as long as the total revenue of these fees is the average required for that nation.

Thread split.

Good. Lets start again with a clean sheet. Thanks for those who supported it so far in the split-off thread. I hope you will be able to find it again. :)

As this works alongside my proposal to take the UN Virtual, and increases access to markets, I'll support.

It is important to look at issues and proposals, not people, when discussing such things. This is politics, and politics makes for strange bedfellows on occasion.

Proposal should allow users to declare who pays shipping, to have a variety of "prepackaged" contracts for such, etc. Make it "point and click" international trade?

My first thought? Unnecessary. Is there really a big problem with the way trade is conducted now that you have to fix it? Well, if you can tell me why I'll think about it, but the answer is no. So, do you really need to overhaul the way business is conducted in as radical a manner as this? I don't think so.

Secondly, anything in electronic form is extremely vulnerable to hacker attacks. Even if you put all kinds of protections on it, well, what do you think hackers do all day? If they really wanted to bring it down, they'd hammer and hammer at it and it WILL be cracked, and with the importance of this system, the impact would be disastrous. And that's not even counting physical factors like power outages and people smashing the servers to bits with crowbars. Hell, you don't even need a crowbar, just water and all that circuitry goes bye-bye.

Basically, you're fixing something that isn't broken and introducing a huge vulnerability in the process.

To address the "mentioning real-world institutions" 'problem', just replace eBay with a line something like: "This ‘Virtual Market’ will function like popular online auction websites, only it will be global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts."

The Virtual Market
The United Nations will oversee the creation, implementation and maintenance of a system of automated trading. This ‘Virtual Market’ will function like E-bay,Hurry it up, change, change ! ( sounds of whip cracking )only it will be global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts.I like this, very, very, very free, free trade.The speed of trading will be vastly increased and worldwide online market data will become available for free with a 15-minute delay.I like this, information has been said to be the currency of democracy, but more appropriately here, more trade will get done while the sun is still up.Automated trading programmes with advanced search algorithms can match demand with supply around the globe.This is good, years ago in Quest magazine I did read about the idea of the 24 hour stock market trading, where computerised systems with pre-defined bidding limits could go on trading when it was impractical or not effective for humans to do so. I rather like this, Komokom history is mainly that of a society of merchants and raders. So this is kind of in our blood, so to speak. And before I forget, the technology and application of it is more then within our grasp.The Virtual Market can greatly simplify the huge flow of information about supply and demand in a world with trillions of people.D'accord.Instead of facing the physical impossibility of manually gaining total information about all these products and services, a user only has to deal with a simplified set of problems that link the nation to the virtual market.Da. I like this concept.This results in huge savings due to reduced bureaucracy and increased efficiency.And a corporate run nation like mine can appreciate that.It will hugely extend the range and scope on which enterprises can compete for contracts.Definately.Ideally, every enterprise competes for every contract offered, maximising competition and market forces.So ultimately, trade becomes a matter of who dares wins and careful application of data and analysis. But thas hardly anything new to the nature of modern trade .. except of course it gets done faster and " better " ...National governments will have options to filter the Virtual Market for nations they embargo or impose tarrifs upon.Good, so ultimately there is some regulation within borders by national governments. So hopefully the big old " MY NAT. SOV. ! WHO STOLE MORE OF MY NAT. SOV. ! BAD U.N. , BAD ! " won't be pulled out and thrown about as much as usual.The programme will include costs of trading regulations in prices and it will make such costs visible. Other filters will be developed for individual users who can, for example, search for ‘fair trade products only’ if they desire this.Presumably with any soft-ware development more and more tools will become available 1st party and 3rd party, people could set to search only for their own nations products and services, or those of allied states and territories or colonies.The Virtual Market will be funded by fees based on the amount of connections in a nation. National governments can choose whether they want to pay these fees themselves directly, or relay the costs to those in their nation using their system. The rates of user fees (progressive or nominal) may be set by the national governments in any way they see fit as long as the total revenue of these fees is the average required for that nation.Seems to be a sound payment plan.

In conclusion, I'd have to say, I'm all out, all for, this proposal. I like the theory, and I like the intent. I don't see it as in any way being a case of " don't fix what is not broken " rather I feel it to be certainly a case of " giving world and free trade an upgrade "

Knoot gets + 1 support for this proposal.

Okay, yes, I'm against free trade. But this proposal doesn't force it, so I'm not worried about that bit. But my concern about making something so important to the world economy in such a vulnerable form hasn't been addressed. Considering the problems my computer gives me, I hope you don't use Windows XP on that thing.

Yes vulnerability does seem to pose a serious problem. Perhaps there could be a set up where the information is not contained on a central server, but rather on all participating nations' servers. So if one nation's server was taken down, the other nations could continue to trade with each other. The other thing is, how would nations with totally nationalised industries (I mean in the sense of the USSR) participate? Would the government of that nation simply be listed on the market as another entity buying and selling things internationally?

Oh, one other thing - could non-UN nations participate if they paid their bills?

Edit to the proposal
I replaced "E-bay" with "popular online auction websites" as Hack suggested. This should solve that problem.

Other issues raised:
I thank Komokom for this support, and I think he explained sufficiently why this proposal is actually useful. :)

The issue of vunerability has been raised in original discussions, and indeed security will be very important. Like the internet, there will not just be one gigantic server running the whole world economy. That would be both very dangerous and very unstable. I am not even raising the issue of technical possibilities. Like the internet, the Virtual Market would have a decentralised structure with (for example) national servers or sub-national servers depending all on the size of the server and the number of users.

In planned economies, it would only make sense that there is one single buying point for international transactions. However I can imagine that even in a planned economy multiple [government] organisations will need to have acces to foreign goods. And within a planned economy, people might still buy stuff. In its most limited form (I am talking about very extreme societies here) there would be only one user 'authorised' to do international transactions. But this is simply a matter of programming the correct filters for a nation to suit its economic wishes.

EDIT: For the record, I do not believe the USSR in RL was *that* closed. There still were plenty of ways to get in goods and export liscences and such. And internally, people still got paid in the USSR and they still had to buy stuff.

As far as I care non-UN nations could participate, but this is not possible to put explicitly in the resolution for technical reasons [the effect of the resolution] but non-UN nations can always roleplay being part of the system, of course.

The "government" of HotRodia would like to present the Knootian Ambassador with a small sticker in the shape of a gold star for their fine efforts in the area of Free Trade.

^_^

Thank you. I like stickers. :)

I'm still not convinced that this is necessary, even if you wanted to promote free trade (and if it did, you bet I'd have tossed a shoe at you by now). To me, this is just a case of technology for the sake of technology - why have stored-value cards for payphones when coins do just fine?

If you propose to simply introduce it as another avenue for trade, then you wouldn't see me voting against it, though I might abstain on ideological grounds. But if you want to replace the entire system of commerce with this, then I'll be against it, because I'm not satisfied either that it's secure enough to entrust the whole global economy to; not only would the servers (even decentralised) be vulnerable to hacker attacks, armies, terrorists, temperature changes, power failures, magnets, trained attack beavers and water, the potential for fraud is huge.

I agree here - this has to be an optional system, perhaps with member nations and their industries being responsible for the security of the system within their nation. That, or you could charge a "use-fee" to be applied to increasing efficiency and security of the system.

I agree with the delegates of Kelssek and Vastiva. Make this clearly optional and I am less likely to recommend that my nation vote against the proposal. Ecopoeia is almost certainly going to steer well clear, so we are otherwise unaffected.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

In planned economies, it would only make sense that there is one single buying point for international transactions. However I can imagine that even in a planned economy multiple [government] organisations will need to have acces to foreign goods. And within a planned economy, people might still buy stuff. In its most limited form (I am talking about very extreme societies here) there would be only one user 'authorised' to do international transactions. But this is simply a matter of programming the correct filters for a nation to suit its economic wishes.

Ohhhhh, I thought you meant this was only to be for international transactions. Do you mean this to be used for almost anything any individual might want (e.g. a new TV for my home)? If it is to be used at home, there should also be the option for people to set filters at that level as well as nationally, so worried parents can stop their kids grabbing their credit card and buying what they might see as inappropriate items.

EDIT: Plus, I support the calls for this to be explicitly defined as voluntary.

Look... people... this is like the internet... only for buying stuff. Why anyone would oppose technological advances based on 'ideological reasons' is beyond me. Kelssek... is there any particular part of advantages as laid out by Komokom and me that you do not understand?

Saying in the resolution that the system is "optional" is totally redundant. Television, long-distance phone, the internet and radio are also "optional". But like television or phone this thing only works if you do it on a big scale and the infrastructure has to be there. Nowhere in this resolution does it say 'and all non-Virtual Market commerce shall be banned'. The system will prove itself though if it is given a chance and if people are given the option of getting a connection. Just as with such advances as, say, 'the bank account', it will simply be more convenient because you (esp. as a business)have MUCH more complete and easy-to-compare information about supply and demand. To provide an example: some people will still want to use letters instead of e-mail. This is the same thing. It is no argument to say "well, then we should not go and lay down cables for broad internet. Some people will want to use letters. "

The argument that we should not have the internet or do anything important with the internet because there are hackers is flawed reasoning. Likewise, it is flawed reasoning to imply that this system should not be used because there could possibly, hypotherically be some sort of security risk. There will be inherent security risks involved with any kind of monetary transfer (be it electronic or manual) This system will recieve a great deal of work before it is released. There can be all sorts of safeguards to ensure that people do not lose their money.

Regarding the "extra safe" user fee idea: the user fee as we discussed is supported to make the system very, very safe. If there would be an option to make it extra super-duper safe there is no reason to only use it at one particular place. Thats the thing with software. It will be safe. People already buy things over the internet and this system will harmonise that and vastly expand on technological possibilities that are already there. I do not know enough about computers and transfer ability to say anything sensible about the added value of firewalls or such on servers hosting the Virtual Market. But really, if you think about it the potential is there.

_Myopia_: yes. There is no reason why the system should only handle international transactions. Domestic transacytions might very well comprise a majority of all transactions in total. I can only speculate but I think that the people who will be the first users of the system will be primarily businesses (for business to business sales) because for them the whole "comparing of prices" and such is a huge issue in the first place. In other nations, like the DDR which is already highly informaton-technologyminded it will also be introduced to consumers directly at first. I still expect that people will want to pick up their groceries in a local supermarket though, but the entire chain leading to the supermarket could be done via the Virtual Market which would save a LOT on costs and would hugely improve efficiency. And smart supermarkets could introduce a system (like we have in our university library RL) where people pay in advance for their shopping or reserve certain groceries, thereby eliminating waiting lists and fiddling with coins. But again, that is all up to what the users whant to do with it and the system just provides possibilities

To deal with your other question: I think I already mentioned individual filters in the resolution itself because that is exactly the kind of thing wanted.

I think I already mentioned individual filters in the resolution itself because that is exactly the kind of thing wanted.

Oh, you did, but I read it as the availability of searching for only 1 type of product, rather than the kind of blocking filter that governments would be allowed to impose.

I was talking about both. Both are possible. National filters are unfortunately needed so standing trade policies can remain in effect. Individual filters are useful tools for customers. (A vegetarian filter. A fair-trade only filter. A filter of only products below $100. )

The government of Telidia have grave concerns regarding integrating the whole of the global economy into one system. The potential for abuse as the honorable member from Kelssek pointed out is a very serious concern. In order to make this system work it would mean massive global co-operation. It will also require all IT systems around the world to run under one cohesive protocol and on top of that any sub systems used by corporations and individuals alike. Can this type of project actually work? The scope to me seems unworkable because in the first instance all nations will have to agree on how the project will be handled and then executed. Obtaining global involvement to that detail I feel would be almost completely impossible.

Whilst I note the comment from the honorable member of Knootoss that this would work like the internet, I’d like to point out that from my point of view it would be nothing like the internet. Remember, the Internet as an entity, is not owned by anyone, it exists because individual networks are linked under a common protocol. The network is essentially maintained by millions of administrators around the world, each doing their own little bit. Also this network in itself is seen as way of selling goods and services, it is and never has been a system to do so. It has evolved that way and will of course continue to evolve in to other areas as we the users continue to push the frontiers of this entity.

What we talk about here would have to be a cohesive singular network for reasons of international security alone. The sheer size and complexity of operating this network is astounding and on top of that you have individual governmental bureaucracy. I also feel that developing a global unilateral system will in fact prove not be very flexible and could hinder the global economy more than actually helping it. The global market place evolves on an almost minute-by-minute basis and any software platform would never be able to keep abreast of this pace.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

The government of Telidia have grave concerns regarding integrating the whole of the global economy into one system. The potential for abuse as the honorable member from Kelssek pointed out is a very serious concern.
Please tell me. Do you have a bank account? Banks store trillions in your currency of virtual money and do transactions with it all the time. Countless transactions every day. Between bank accounts inside a bank, but also between banks. In fact, there is much more 'virtual' money in most developed nations then there is 'real' money. Why do you trust them?

(And again, it is not the *entire* global economy that we are talking about here.)


In order to make this system work it would mean massive global co-operation. It will also require all IT systems around the world to run under one cohesive protocol and on top of that any sub systems used by corporations and individuals alike. Can this type of project actually work?
*points to internet*
Yes.


The scope to me seems unworkable because in the first instance all nations will have to agree on how the project will be handled and then executed. Obtaining global involvement to that detail I feel would be almost completely impossible.
Well... no. Political approval is done by approving this resolution. The project itself is being handled, I figure, by some geekie multinational team of very bright developers who know a lot about how to prevent hackz0ring, or bank transfers, or making a shiny interface. Once you have a system running, you just need more servers. Perhaps nations will add some shiny settings to customise their filters and such, but the technology itself is not really that complicated. E-Bay works.


Whilst I note the comment from the honorable member of Knootoss that this would work like the internet, I’d like to point out that from my point of view it would be nothing like the internet. Remember, the Internet as an entity, is not owned by anyone, it exists because individual networks are linked under a common protocol. The network is essentially maintained by millions of administrators around the world, each doing their own little bit.
... and this will work along similar lines. Only the internet has flash movies and online books and pr0n and nationstates. This is just for buying. Simpler programming. It will not be completely 'owned' by anyone but there will be people maintaining it, just as there are people maintaining the internet without being responsible for every tiny bit of content.


Also this network in itself is seen as way of selling goods and services, it is and never has been a system to do so. It has evolved that way and will of course continue to evolve in to other areas as we the users continue to push the frontiers of this entity.
I am not completely sure that I understand your point here.
*points to E-bay* *points to online banking* *points to google* *marries the three in a hybrid way*

I am talking about pushing a tiny bit of that frontier NOW. Such a system will not work properly if there is no infratructure and if there is just one nation doing it. Think big. The effectiveness increases exponentially with the size of the Virtual Market.


What we talk about here would have to be a cohesive singular network for reasons of international security alone. The sheer size and complexity of operating this network is astounding and on top of that you have individual governmental burocracy. I also feel that developing a global unilateral system will in fact prove not be very flexible and could hinder the global economy more than actually helping it.

The internet was developed by one team, but in the end it has become very decentralised.

A different example (though not a programme I would like to compare it to) would be Windows. It does not take a planetary bureaucracy to write Windows Updates, even though there are a lot of users. In fact, it may take less people relatively because the technology for "making a sale when someone pushes the buy button" seems to me remarkably more simple then maintaining security for a complete operating system designed to run a computer. The possibilities for loopholes are much bigger. There would be some professional IT personell dedicated to keeping up security levels, but this might be a couple hundred people IMO at the most. Considering there are about 60 trillion people in NS, I think we can afford it.

This proposal will, if anything, reduce bureaucracy because transactions are being done electronically instead of with all kinds of paperwork. Just like filing your tax form via the web [which is what our Dutch tax service here does] is much easier. You only have to fill in fields instead of doing all the complicated calculations yourself because the national filters I spoke of can have presets.

Really... the transaction costs of this system are totally irrelevant compared to the benefits: close[r] to total information, much quicker comparing of options, really. If the entire NS UN economy would run 2,5% more efficiently (or even 0,5% more efficiënt) due to this system, it would be totally worth it. I think it would increase efficiency by MUCH, MUCH more.

I wonder where you get the idea from that it is not "flexible." Is the current way of international trade flexible? Think about it. If you want to get an overview of ALL the types of X-type electronic are for sale in region Y for price Z you would have to go and get information from all those countries in all those regions. Alternatively, you would have to rely on an expensive expert who is not omniscient either. Your quest would probably never be complete and because you do not have total information you settle for less (sactisfying) namely the product that is "sortof" good for your purposes. Who knows, someone else may sell a much better X-type electronic in region Y for the same price.


The global market place evolves on an almost minute-by-minute basis and any software platform would never be able to keep abreast of this pace.

Its not *one* sofware platform on one server but a lot of servers doing a lot of individual queries.

Try to remember that the Virtual Market does not have to keep track of everything, happening everywhere at any time. This is not possible in the current globalised economy anyway because too much things happen to make this humanly possible. It is not a stock market. The system would only have to cope [in terms of keeping track with evolving matters] with queries as they arise. Look at google. It searches 4.285.199.774 webpages at the time of this post, yet takes just 0,45 seconds for my search query for "product x", giving me 56.700 results. I built in the "fifteen minute delay" in my resolution as an attempt to keep it "realistic" even though technically it would not need to have to have such a big delay.

If you want to make a purchase decision, you can act on relatively new data. Without the system, checking global prices manually for ALL flatscreen television sets on the NS planet would be a helluva lot more expensive and would take a lot more time.

The Virtual Market
The United Nations will oversee the creation, implementation and maintenance of a system of automated trading. This ‘Virtual Market’ will function like popular online auction websites, only it will be global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts. The speed of trading will be vastly increased and worldwide online market data will become available for free with a 15-minute delay. Automated trading programmes with advanced search algorithms can match demand with supply around the globe.


But all we ask is one tiny addition to the proposal....



The Virtual Market
The United Nations will oversee the creation, implementation and maintenance of an optional system of automated trading. This ‘Virtual Market’ will function like popular online auction websites, only it will be global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts. The speed of trading will be vastly increased and worldwide online market data will become available for free with a 15-minute delay. Automated trading programmes with advanced search algorithms can match demand with supply around the globe.


Now, is that too much to ask?

The ideological grounds were that as a matter of principle, I would be against anything that increased free trade and that is what this certainly does. I do understand all the "advantages" - I just don't agree that they ARE advantages.

If you want to make a purchase decision, you can act on relatively new data. Without the system, checking global prices manually for ALL flatscreen television sets on the NS planet would be a helluva lot more expensive and would take a lot more time.

Listen, when I buy something, I consider a lot more than just price. Quality of the product, whether it's a brand name I trust, whether it's a company I trust, the reputation, previous experiences, all enter the equation. Very few people will order a TV set from a company on the other side of the world they haven't heard of before even if it's the cheapest.

As I was saying, I would be fine with it as long as it exists alongside the way business is done instead of replacing it. Many things sound good on paper, but flop in practice. If it really turns out to be a superior and easier way to do things, then it will supplant the current system. If it flops, we can still keep doing business as we have always done.

Vastiva: it would add a huge loophole for some unnamed people to claim "NOBODY IS UESING IT KNOOT UR TEH N00B IT IS OBTIONAL! LOL LUSER!" or "TIS SI NOT VOR EVARYONE SO IS AN INTARNATIONAL ORGANIZATION! CODING ERROR! DELETE IT MODS LOL!" still, I am willing to look at your request but I do not understand it.

Please define what you mean by "optional". It confuses me. What is the big problem for your government (/contracted private company / flavor of the month national group) to put down a small/medium sized server in your nation where anyone who wants to get connected can get connected? Its not as if that requires a whole lot of effort or expense. Server space would only need to be expanded if the number of users increases anyway.

There is a difference between
-I, personally (IRL or IC) would not be using the system.
-I believe many of our citizens would not be interested in using the system
-My government will BAN it!!! It is evil! So we will not be using it.
If "optional" becomes an excuse for UN nations banning it outright, I am against adding it to the resolution. That said, I am not at all saying all nations should force their citizens to use it.

Alright, how is this for an example:

I have in place trading contracts with Vaniya. These are done in person, as we "live" next to each other, and it is convenient to go back and forth and do this sort of dealing face-to-face.

As your proposal reads right now, I have to stop doing that and start using only the system you propose. This is a problem.

I LOVE that this gives access to international markets, and gives more product availability by several orders of magnitude. But I don't want to be forced into using only this means.

I would never suggest this. This is not what I want.

How do you read that in the proposal?

"That which is not forbidden is manditory".

It's not clearly stated, ergo can be read either way, and someone is going to jam it down my throat.

I like my jaunts to Vaniya! They have actual flowers there!

That is why I suggested the addition of two words in the opening paragraph.

Hmmm... okay. Well... I think its farfetched but since you are not the only one suggesting it I see your point. Must be a "you can do anything you like" Knootian attitude.

A change to the resolution reflecting your concerns will be made.

Still, the word "optional" bothers me a little since governments could use this as an excuse tot totally ban the thing OR saying the resolution does not universally apply and is therefore invalid.

Would adding this line somewhere help?
"Implementing the Virtual Market does not make other ways of trading illegal."

Ecopoeia is unlikely to touch the Virtual Market with a very large barge pole. You may notice that the UN categorises our economy as 'imploded'. Now, I acknowledge that we in the current government (such as it is) have the responsibility to address this enormous problem; if we don't, our compatriots will no doubt make us pay at the ballot box. We are choosing to stimulate economic recovery in a certain manner. No doubt we could use the VM to aid this but we choose not to on ideological grounds and, happily, the majority of Ecopoeians will back us for now.

The point is, it seems that as the proposal stands we will incur a (small?) cost in complying with a proposal that gains us nothing. We will still have to establish the necessary systems for the VM to be operational in Ecopoeia. I'll be honest here: we barely have an operational computer system in government. We are what many would describe as a 'third world' nation.

We have enough to worry about without throwing away precious resources on complying with this proposal. I would be very grateful if you would assuage my fears regarding compliance.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Still, the word "optional" bothers me a little since governments could use this as an excuse tot totally ban the thing OR saying the resolution does not universally apply and is therefore invalid.


Like I said, make it as supplementary to the current way of trading. If it works well and people prefer it, it becomes dominant. If the users don't like it and they all prefer the established way, it sinks. Or it becomes useful but not to the extent that it dominates, and it ends up kind of like how Amazon is today.

The nations who refuse to adopt the system because of the word "optional" aren't going to benefit from it anyway. And even if you make implementation mandatory, governments can discourage it by imposing prohibitive tariffs on imports using the system. Lots of loopholes no matter what, just slap on the word "optional" and save people some antagonisation.

Question: do you both intend to vote nay anyway because of your anti-technology ideology, optional or not?

It is a "supplementary" to the current way of trading in the sense that the normal way of trading will not be banned and it probably will continue to exist. What is it you do not understand about this?

Other question: would the Ecopoeian government legally ban the use of the Virtual Market by law to everyone in the nation, even if (as you implied by majority backing) a minority of the people in your nation would like to use it?

Question: do you both intend to vote nay anyway because of your anti-technology ideology, optional or not?
"Anti-technology"? Not true. At any rate, we're inclining towards abstaining.

It is a "supplementary" to the current way of trading in the sense that the normal way of trading will not be banned and it probably will continue to exist. What is it you do not understand about this?
Is it mandatory to establish the VM in my nation? Is there or is there not a significant cost in establishing the VM in my nation? If the answer to both of these questions is 'yes', then we may consider voting 'no' because it places an unnecessary financial burden on our already crippled economy.

Other question: would the Ecopoeian government legally ban the use of the Virtual Market by law to everyone in the nation, even if (as you implied by majority backing) a minority of the people in your nation would like to use it?
No. Provided that Ecopoeian-resident co-operatives, traders, etc. used the VM to trade in a manner that complies with Ecopoeia's Constitution, they would be free to use it. If required to, we will allocate the funds and resources necessary to establish the VM, even if our objections to the proposal are over-ruled.

This is why "optional" is a good idea - many nations economies cannot support it.

Question: do you both intend to vote nay anyway because of your anti-technology ideology, optional or not?

Uh, I don't know where you picked that up, but I'm not anti-technology. If I were, what the hell am I doing on the Internet? The ideology I am talking about is anti-free-trade.

And yes, I will vote against if it doesn't clearly state that implementation is optional.