NationStates Jolt Archive

The General Assembly of the United Nations

RECOGNIZING that short-term inter-currency transactions are a threat for a coherent national economic policy and have only speculation aims,

FOLLOWING the theory of economist James Tobin

DECIDE to create an international uniformed tax, called "Tobin Tax", in order to contain this evil practice.

The tax will be:

1) administrated by each UN Member over its own jurisdiction, even if the transaction is made with foreign currency.

2) applied to all purchases of financial instruments denominated in another currency-from currency and coin to equity securities.

3) fixed in the percentage of 1% of the capital moved by the transaction.

Countries could form currency areas within the Tobin tax would not apply, when the different currencies are tied to a key currency.

Problems:
1) which could be the right category?
2) I know that Tobin is a RL person, then he will be out on future version but, hey, this is a draft!

This is the original Tobin article about the tax:

http://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/506.html

Remove the real-world references, including going ahead and changing the title.

I noticed you managed to dodge the bullet of the UN directly taxing someone. The only resolution you might have a problem with is not a problem due to it being unable to legally cause a problem anyway. So, I would say to go ahead.

Remove the real-world references, including going ahead and changing the title.

I noticed you managed to dodge the bullet of the UN directly taxing someone. The only resolution you might have a problem with is not a problem due to it being unable to legally cause a problem anyway. So, I would say to go ahead.

As I had already written, Tobin will be out in the final draft. About the UN Taxation ban, this is not a UN Tax but a national tax, but internationally conformed. As I had talk with Fris, because as it is now it will not be in any category, I think that a redirection of the tax to national social programs (principally union trades) will be an excuse to put it in the social justice category.

Actually, I was refering to the National Systems of Tax resolution, which can be interpreted to (illegally) prevent the UN from passing any tax legislation or can be interpreted to (legally) do nothing.

The nearest I could think of is political stability (possibly) or social justice (possibly)
But DLE does have a point; the National system of tax could be interpreted to mean that the UN can't interfere with national taxation policies.

As for the title, I wouldn't worry too much. My entire nation is named for an RL Victorian economist; if we take the RL reference thing too far than there could be no such thing as Marxism, for example. Don't mention Tobin in the resolution, but you could say "Following the Tobinistic economic theory"

As for the title, I wouldn't worry too much. My entire nation is named for an RL Victorian economist; if we take the RL reference thing too far than there could be no such thing as Marxism, for example. Don't mention Tobin in the resolution, but you could say "Following the Tobinistic economic theory"
You can call your nation "Paris Hilton" for all we care, but UN proposals have a different standard. While the Tobin Tax concept may be "well known", I don't believe it is "widely known". If a UN reader has to search the web to understand a RL reference, that's too much. The author needs to explain the theory, not just reference it.

As for the title, I wouldn't worry too much. My entire nation is named for an RL Victorian economist; if we take the RL reference thing too far than there could be no such thing as Marxism, for example. Don't mention Tobin in the resolution, but you could say "Following the Tobinistic economic theory"
You can call your nation "Paris Hilton" for all we care, but UN proposals have a different standard.

While the Tobin Tax concept may be "well known", I don't believe it is "widely known". If a UN reader has to search the web to understand a RL reference, that's too much. The author needs to explain the theory, not just reference it.

The nearest I could think of is political stability (possibly) or social justice (possibly)
But DLE does have a point; the National system of tax could be interpreted to mean that the UN can't interfere with national taxation policies.

Actually, now that I read it, it seems pretty explicit.

we RESERVE the right for individual nations to determine ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘how much’ to tax--exclusively and independently (including, but not limited to, a nation’s tax model, tax exemptions, those who are taxed,tax rates, targeted taxation and all other choices regarding a nation's system of tax)

Actually, the word "reserve" is not explicit. Let's see what Merriam and Webster have to say.

Main Entry: 1re·serve
Pronunciation: ri-'z&rv
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·served; re·serv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French reserver, from Latin reservare, literally, to keep back, from re- + servare to keep -- more at CONSERVE
1 a : to hold in reserve : keep back <reserve grain for seed> b : to set aside (part of the consecrated elements) at the Eucharist for future use c : to retain or hold over to a future time or place : DEFER <reserve one's judgment on a plan> d : to make legal reservation of
2 : to set or have set aside or apart <reserve a hotel room>
synonym see KEEP
- re·serv·able /-'z&r-v&-b&l/ adjective

Main Entry: res·er·va·tion
Pronunciation: "re-z&r-'vA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : an act of reserving something: as a (1) : the act or fact of a grantor's reserving some newly created thing out of the thing granted (2) : the right or interest so reserved b : the setting of limiting conditions or withholding from complete exposition <answered without reservation> c : an arrangement to have something (as a hotel room) held for one's use; also : a promise, guarantee, or record of such engagement
2 a : a limiting condition <agreed, but with reservations> b : DOUBT, MISGIVING <had serious reservations about marriage>
3 : something reserved : as a : a tract of public land set aside (as for use by American Indians) b : an area in which hunting is not permitted; especially : one set aside as a secure breeding place
- res·er·va·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun

Under all definitions of the word, the UN can legally remove the right or parts of the right without repealing the resolution. The National Tax resolution is not worded well-enough to make its single action (which is, ironically, illegal by UN rules) binding. If the resolution had said "inalienable right," then the UN couldn't legally do anything to said right.

This could be the second draft, with the theory explained (I hope). What about put it on Free Trade? Actually, it make economies stronger...

The General Assembly of the United Nations

RECOGNIZING that short-term inter-currency transactions are a threat for a coherent national economic policy, because short-term movements of ingent capitals make national currencies too fluctuant,

FOLLOWING the theory of economist James Tobin, which said that an international uniformed tax can reduce the speculation profits and in this way contain the short-term inter-currency transaction practice; in order to redirect this capitals to the creation of real economic processes in each nation, instead to be only a mean to make non-economically useful profits,

DECIDE to create an international uniformed tax, called "Stability Tax".

The tax will be:

1) administrated by each UN Member over its own jurisdiction, even if the transaction is made with foreing currency;

2) applied to all purchases of financial instruments denominated in another currency-from currency and coin to equity securities;

3) fixed in the percentage of 1% of the capital moved by the transaction.

Countries could form currency areas within the Stability tax would not apply, when the different currencies are tied to a key currency: in this way commercial unions will be preserved by this resolution.

FOLLOWING the theory of economist James Tobin

Personally, I still think it's too far an RL reference; but (as I previously said) if you were to say "FOLLOWING the Tobinist economic theory", I think (I'm only guessing) that this would be okay.

I doubt that the Game Mods would disallow a resolution because it uses terms such as Marxism or Keynesian, but I would understand if they deleted one which mention Karl Marx or JM Keynes.

That's just a guess, mind you!

FOLLOWING the theory of economist James Tobin

Personally, I still think it's too far an RL reference; but (as I previously said) if you were to say "FOLLOWING the Tobinist economic theory", I think (I'm only guessing) that this would be okay.

I doubt that the Game Mods would disallow a resolution because it uses terms such as Marxism or Keynesian, but I would understand if they deleted one which mention Karl Marx or JM Keynes.

That's just a guess, mind you!

Then it will be of Free Trade, significant,

The General Assembly of the United Nations

RECOGNIZING that short-term inter-currency transactions are a threat for a coherent national economic policy, because short-term movements of ingent capitals make national currencies too fluctuant,

FOLLOWING the Tobinistic economic theory, which said that an international uniformed tax can reduce the speculation profits and in this way contain the short-term inter-currency transaction practice; in order to redirect this capitals to the creation of real economic processes in each nation, instead to be only a mean to make non-economically useful profits,

DECIDE to create an international uniformed tax, called "Stability Tax".

The tax will be:

1) administrated by each UN Member over its own jurisdiction, even if the transaction is made with foreing currency;

2) applied to all purchases of financial instruments denominated in another currency-from currency and coin to equity securities;

3) fixed in the percentage of 1% of the capital moved by the transaction.

Countries could form currency areas within the Stability tax would not apply, when the different currencies are tied to a key currency: in this way commercial unions will be preserved by this resolution.

This stability tax does nothing to actually create the stability you desire. Short term curency transfers have far less effect on exchange rates than government decisions (usually bad). It will penalise large corporations - a good thing you might think, but not necessarily so. IRL a tax like this would create a barrier to free trade and would ultimately cost the general poplation more money, either through reductions in wages or an increase in prices.

This stability tax does nothing to actually create the stability you desire. Short term curency transfers have far less effect on exchange rates than government decisions (usually bad). It will penalise large corporations - a good thing you might think, but not necessarily so. IRL a tax like this would create a barrier to free trade and would ultimately cost the general poplation more money, either through reductions in wages or an increase in prices.

General population can't make speculation games, and the movement of huge sums destabilize an entire national financial system, it seems, because they make banks with short-term debts, and the only way to contain them is to work on the interest rate of the national currency by central banks. Clearly the evil practice of the s-t speculation is not the only cause of bad economies, but surely it help them to be more bad.

Nope, sorry, against. Arbitrage is a wonderful method of economic war, and we are loathe to remove it from our arsenal.

Nope, sorry, against. Arbitrage is a wonderful method of economic war, and we are loathe to remove it from our arsenal.

Surely arbitrage is good, but a weak of regulation make economy not good, but bad. This is due by the impossibility of the creation of a perfect market, where investments are used to make industrial processes. Speculation system not make them, but only create capital from capital, which is reused in this system and not used to create more productivity in the countries. The creation of an uniformed tax will be used to deter it.

Surely arbitrage is good, but a weak of regulation make economy not good, but bad. This is due by the impossibility of the creation of a perfect market, where investments are used to make industrial processes. Speculation system not make them, but only create capital from capital, which is reused in this system and not used to create more productivity in the countries. The creation of an uniformed tax will be used to deter it.

We have absolutely no interest in anyone else's economy and find the tactic of "breaking" an economy to allow for more foreign (ie - our) investment perfectly valid. At that later stage, the other economy begins to correct and become stronger.

You seem to have the belief of "more productivity is good" - we disagree. There are only so many cars needed, only so many houses can be lived in, and how many Diet Cokes can you reasonably drink in a lifetime?

No, we are opposed, and remain opposed.

We have absolutely no interest in anyone else's economy and find the tactic of "breaking" an economy to allow for more foreign (ie - our) investment perfectly valid. At that later stage, the other economy begins to correct and become stronger.

You seem to have the belief of "more productivity is good" - we disagree. There are only so many cars needed, only so many houses can be lived in, and how many Diet Cokes can you reasonably drink in a lifetime?

No, we are opposed, and remain opposed.

You make a mistake, friend. More productivity is not only for national market. Actually, the entire moder economy is formed by national and international markets. If you are more productive, you can make more export and make your economy better.

I like this as it is (OoC: I remember Black Wednesday, which might explain why). If I were a delegate, you'd have my approval

You make a mistake, friend. More productivity is not only for national market. Actually, the entire moder economy is formed by national and international markets. If you are more productive, you can make more export and make your economy better.

We make no mistake.

You make many assumptions. Foremost, that productivity is only within national boundaries, and only that production is somehow "good".

Vastiva herself has actually seen a slowing of production-level jobs within the nation itself. And yet our GDP is rising at a fantastic rate. Why?

Because, bluntly, we cause other nations to do that sort of dangerous, physical, low-tech work for us. Vastiva has the high-tech production facilities, the information technology facilities - but mining, basic machinery, all sorts of "environmentally damaging" production is done by nations which are economically our serfs in the short term. As a result, the net production of the whole global economy is increasing - yet Vastiva's is remaining the same.

If this twerpish tax was passed, we would be forced not to operate as separate entities, with long-term positive benefits for our "economic slaves", but rather to take them over on a more 'visible' level, resulting in a growth in the size of Vastiva - but also a net loss in our GDP because of the absorbtion of such nations in fledgeling form.

Oh, yes, and we like making "capital from capital". Supercurrency is a wonderful thing, sayet Adam Smith. We agree with him.

In short, we see this tax as harmful to our national economy and - as Delegate - do not support it.

Simple question: how you can mantain high level of technology innovation without capitals? Without a strong regulation, your bussinnessmen (?) can export the capitals on other countries and you will stop the research.

Also you can bound the other countries to your currency, as the proposal said. In this way you are safe, no?

Actually, the word "reserve" is not explicit. Let's see what Merriam and Webster have to say.

Under all definitions of the word, the UN can legally remove the right or parts of the right without repealing the resolution. The National Tax resolution is not worded well-enough to make its single action (which is, ironically, illegal by UN rules) binding. If the resolution had said "inalienable right," then the UN couldn't legally do anything to said right.

I don't really see a reason that "reserves" isn't legally binding--or explicit. When a competition "reserves the right" not to award their prize, I'm unable to contest it. When there is likely to be change to a schedule or itenerary, I've often seen organizations "reserve the right" to change the schedule or itenerary without notice. I think "reserves" is on fairly firm semantic ground--in the sense of giving or retaining rights, especially. From (RL reference) Article X of the US constitution the phrase "reserves" to explicitly give rights to states (or to the people). I've never heard of Supreme Court Justices grousing over that article's wording.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.


And why do you think it's illegal to reserve rights for nations? I haven't seen anything to indicate that in the time I've been a nation and in the time I used to play this (before I went out of town for a month and lost my old nation). If you could reference a mod ruling of such, I'd appreciate it.

I don't really see a reason that "reserves" isn't legally binding--or explicit. When a competition "reserves the right" not to award their prize, I'm unable to contest it. When there is likely to be change to a schedule or itenerary, I've often seen organizations "reserve the right" to change the schedule or itenerary without notice. I think "reserves" is on fairly firm semantic ground--in the sense of giving or retaining rights, especially. From (RL reference) Article X of the US constitution the phrase "reserves" to explicitly give rights to states (or to the people). I've never heard of Supreme Court Justices grousing over that article's wording.

A big secret for you: The word itself includes a multitude of definitions to it, including the definition that amounts to effectively setting something aside. The multitude of definitions makes it so that interpretations of the word are possible, including interpretations that directly contradict what the author had in mind. Worse, in cases like this, multiple definitions fit the wording of the resolution without causing a meaning that amounts to gibberish, making it even harder to say that a particular definition is the correct one.

And why do you think it's illegal to reserve rights for nations? I haven't seen anything to indicate that in the time I've been a nation and in the time I used to play this (before I went out of town for a month and lost my old nation). If you could reference a mod ruling of such, I'd appreciate it.

This quote right here, from Hack's rules:

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

That is also what made the last taxation resolution be called illegal.