NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is for the discussion of the resolution up for vote now (or, at least, soon): The Microcredit Bazaar. I have made a new thread for this discussion because it was well-suggested that a poll be added. I hope to get the poll to work and I hope this thread and poll will be productive.

Here is the Proposal text:The Microcredit Bazaar
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade Strength: Mild Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING the United Nations’ stance against poverty and suffering,

TAKING NOTE, via the impoverished throughout the world, of the cyclical nature of poverty across generations, and of the detrimental effect of poverty among a people to the surrounding peoples, nations, etc.,

OBSERVING previous success of so called “microcredit” at enhancing the lives of people or peoples currently trapped by deprivation, as well as the society surrounding them and future generations among them,

DETERMINING that citizens in UN nations, who have the ability to participate in “microcredit” but do not, might trade more regularly and freely via “microcredit” (which the UN believes to have greater effect than many forms of humanitarian aid) if they had information regarding “microcredit” and assurance of its financial security and honesty,

DETERMINING FURTHER that the distribution of such information would help free the trade of microcredit and make it more economically feasible for microcredit transactions to occur:

1.DEFINES “microcredit” as a financial transaction, or the trade of loans for relatively small sums of money for the purpose of sustaining life and employment, the repayment of which is supported by local communities alongside the individual(s) who received the loan;

2.ESTABLISHES “The Microcredit Bazaar”, which will set up chapters in all interested member nations for the purpose of educating citizens in said member nations on microcredit and of securing, presenting, and overseeing reputable organizations by which those citizens can trade microcredit with the impoverished;

3.CHARGES “The Microcredit Bazaar” with verifying reputable microcredit organizations, managing queries for a 'Bazaar' chapter, ensuring just and honest distribution of loaned money, ensuring repayment of loans, ensuring the reimbursement of unpaid loans, facilitating educational literature concerning microcredit to member nations, as well as the distribution of that literature as arranged with individual national governments;

4.EMPOWERS “The Microcredit Bazaar” with the authority to negotiate with national governments the location, length of stay, and extensiveness in presentation of 'Bazaar' chapters within member nations;

5.ENCOURAGES UN citizens everywhere to invest in the impoverished through microcredit, and, specifically, to attend local 'Bazaar' chapters;

6.EXPRESSES its utmost gratitude to any who contribute to the abolition of poverty, be it through microcredit, at one of “The Microcredit Bazaar” chapters, or otherwise.


Approvals: 182

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!


Here is a link to the previous discussion (the proposal-submission thread):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435466&page=2

This thread will be bumped until Tuesday, when the resolution comes to vote, at which time I hope it will be stickied for official forum use.

The Cloud-Water Community pledges its support, though we regret that we cannot as yet guarantee our votes as Delegate of the ACA.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Yes, We, the Federal Apparat, support this. Microcredit has proven itself to be efficient in supporting cottage industry and other sources of revenue for the poor. It is certainly more efficuient than other methods.

Signed,
The Speaker

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is proud to support this original resolution, we are pretty sure it will help all nations to fight poverty

On the assumption that my office's take on this is correct and that this resolution is really about promoting and educating people on market loans and other options with which they can hopefully get started, my government will be happy to cast its vote in favour (tomorrow morning) for this resolution!

On the assumption that my office's take on this is correct and that this resolution is really about promoting and educating people on market loans and other options with which they can hopefully get started, my government will be happy to cast its vote in favour (tomorrow morning) for this resolution!
That definitely was my intent. I only hope my execution to that end is sound. If not, I hope this discussion will bring out any mistakes I made in the writing of the proposal.

Basically, a nice boost for the economy of member nations, and in addition doesn't require any particular new taxes. I like it! :)

I really can't see any reason to vote against this resolution.


It pretty much covers every ideologue.

This proposal looks reasonable, but in fact is a little more than a Trojan Horse effort to impose hardline neo-liberalism on poor countries. The following aspects concern me in particular:

1). If the definition of micro-credit is

"a financial transaction, or the trade of loans for relatively small sums of money for the purpose of sustaining life and employment, the repayment of which is supported by local communities alongside the individual(s) who received the loan"

Then what garantuees can be given that these loans will not be as difficult to pay back as larger loans might? Many problems in poorer nations require long term, substantial investment and micro-credit will simply provide a cosmetic patching up of the problem. Becuase it will not actually be enough to completely resolve the underlying issue, the result will be that more loans will be taken out in order to finance the continued work towards eliminating the communities problems. This means that in the end the result is the same, horrendous debts and you still have a broken water pump (for example).

2). The Microcredit Bazaar

"which will set up chapters in all interested member nations for the purpose of educating citizens in said member nations on microcredit and of securing, presenting, and overseeing reputable organizations by which those citizens can trade microcredit with the impoverished".

Define 'reputable' and furthermore, who would run these chapters, economists or the local communities; this section leaves too many open ended possibilities for exploitation.


3). “The Microcredit Bazaar” with verifying reputable microcredit organizations, managing queries for a 'Bazaar' chapter, ensuring just and honest distribution of loaned money, ensuring repayment of loans, ensuring the reimbursement of unpaid loans, facilitating educational literature concerning microcredit to member nations, as well as the distribution of that literature as arranged with individual national governments"

How would such a process be done equitably? What happens if one group takes over control of the chapter in question and demands extortionate repayment rates or furthers unreasonable business practices? Again, I am worried about potential abuse of the system.


4). EMPOWERS “The Microcredit Bazaar” with the authority to negotiate with national governments the location, length of stay, and extensiveness in presentation of 'Bazaar' chapters within member nations"

This frightens me, because it implies that the bazaar will operate almost as a super-trading bloc that could become open to abuse by its largest members. What happens if one group, following the possibility outlined above, seizes control of a chapter and compells un-reasonable or constricting conditions from the government with which it negotiates. How would this be avoided?

In conclusion, the idea is laudable, but the possibilities for abuse and failure are to high for us to endorse it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador of the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live fair-trade Compadria!

It pretty much covers every ideologue.
Actually, I think it's the ideologue which will most likely vote against it, because it's too sovereignty based. Ideologues like to enforce their viewpoint upon others. This resolution unanimously avoids that.

This proposal looks reasonable, but in fact is a little more than a Trojan Horse effort to impose hardline neo-liberalism on poor countries.
Well, I'd hardly categorize myself as a "neo-liberal", and I would definitely not classify this resolution as enforcing whatever ideological stint it holds (since having a bazaar in your nation is voluntary), but let's see what your concerns are.

1). If the definition of micro-credit is

"a financial transaction, or the trade of loans for relatively small sums of money for the purpose of sustaining life and employment, the repayment of which is supported by local communities alongside the individual(s) who received the loan"

Then what garantuees can be given that these loans will not be as difficult to pay back as larger loans might? Many problems in poorer nations require long term, substantial investment and micro-credit will simply provide a cosmetic patching up of the problem. Becuase it will not actually be enough to completely resolve the underlying issue, the result will be that more loans will be taken out in order to finance the continued work towards eliminating the communities problems. This means that in the end the result is the same, horrendous debts and you still have a broken water pump (for example).

Actually, microcredit, first off, goes to individuals, not nations. We are not trying to help poor nations, we're trying to help poor people. And, most importantly, microcredit is lent mainly to entrepreneurs, farmers, those who need supplies to create a product to sell for their livelihood. I understand microcredit, in RL, to be often under 50 USD. I feel, as does most of the RL western world, that microcredit is effective.

However, if your nation does not believe in microcredit it can simply not agree to have a bazaar chapter within its borders, and refuse to distribute literature regarding microcredit. Remember, this resolution will only provide information to citizens in nations that want it. If you don't want a bazaar chapter, you don't have to have on. And if your citizens don't want to invest in microcredit (whether your nation has a bazaar chapter or not), they don't have to. I'm not imposing my belief that microcredit is effective upon other nations.


2). The Microcredit Bazaar

"which will set up chapters in all interested member nations for the purpose of educating citizens in said member nations on microcredit and of securing, presenting, and overseeing reputable organizations by which those citizens can trade microcredit with the impoverished".

Define 'reputable' and furthermore, who would run these chapters, economists or the local communities; this section leaves too many open ended possibilities for exploitation.

Who would run these chapters? Probably UN officials. However, like it says later in the resolution, the nations have the right to negotiate how these things are done.

And, if your nation thinks the bazaar is exploiting people, etc. your nation isn't required to to have one.

3). “The Microcredit Bazaar” with verifying reputable microcredit organizations, managing queries for a 'Bazaar' chapter, ensuring just and honest distribution of loaned money, ensuring repayment of loans, ensuring the reimbursement of unpaid loans, facilitating educational literature concerning microcredit to member nations, as well as the distribution of that literature as arranged with individual national governments"

How would such a process be done equitably? What happens if one group takes over control of the chapter in question and demands extortionate repayment rates or furthers unreasonable business practices? Again, I am worried about potential abuse of the system.

First, the bazaar does not lend microcredit. It facilitates the lending of it, meaning that it's like...like a bazaar, or a mall. It doesn't actually sell anything itself, it just sets you up with individual lenders who sell things. It is impossible for the bazaar to "demand extortionate repayment rates or further unreasonable business practices" simply because it is not the bazaar which engages in business. It simply provides information and means about doing such business. It's helping your citizens who wish to invest in microcredit make an informed decision.

Plus, it is unlikely that individual microcredit lenders within the bazaar will have unreasonable business practices because the bazaar is there to police them. If one proves itself to be unreasonable, or irresponsible or downright corrupt, the bazaar will eject it from its line up faster than you can say "microcredit is your friend".

4). EMPOWERS “The Microcredit Bazaar” with the authority to negotiate with national governments the location, length of stay, and extensiveness in presentation of 'Bazaar' chapters within member nations"

This frightens me, because it implies that the bazaar will operate almost as a super-trading bloc that could become open to abuse by its largest members. What happens if one group, following the possibility outlined above, seizes control of a chapter and compells un-reasonable or constricting conditions from the government with which it negotiates. How would this be avoided?

I'm not sure where you're getting this "super-trading bloc" thing. The idea of a bazaar is to have a variety of shops. The bazaar is interested in providing citizens with the optimal conditions to invest in microcredit, so it is interested in allowing a large amount of competition. Again, the bazaar cannot be "seized" and it cannot engage in unfair business practices, since it does not actually engage in business. And lenders who do engage in unfair business practices would be ejected from the bazaar.

This section was put in to make certain that the UN and nations were on equal terms. Under some precedents, nations have the default authority, under others the UN has it. I didn't want this to become a "the bazaar told you it's going to have x people and y shops and take up z space, so you have to do it" thing. So, I want the nations and the UN to negotiate, on equal terms, how the bazaar chapter in that nation is set up.


I plead with you to reconsider your vote. The Microcredit Bazaar is just here to help your citizens find trustworthy lenders and, in the end, invest in the poor.

Greetings from the humble and new nation of Darvainia, our nation is very new to the U.N but we are interested in this issue, the issue of the microchip investments.

We have a question about the proposal however, and it is simply this:
Who pays for setting up these bazaars, are they and the literature made with funds form the U.N, the local nation, or will it all be setup by the private enterprise. And if our nation wants one of these bazaars or education centers set up, but would rather not have U.N officials run it, would we be allowed to hand that responsibility to a private enterprise in our own nation, this would certainly be our preference...

Greetings from the humble and new nation of Darvainia, our nation is very new to the U.N but we are interested in this issue, the issue of the microchip investments.

We have a question about the proposal however, and it is simply this:
Who pays for setting up these bazaars, are they and the literature made with funds form the U.N, the local nation, or will it all be setup by the private enterprise. And if our nation wants one of these bazaars or education centers set up, but would rather not have U.N officials run it, would we be allowed to hand that responsibility to a private enterprise in our own nation, this would certainly be our preference...


I agree

This seems like a very good idea, and Warwick will be casting it's vote for this resolution.

"a financial transaction, or the trade of loans for relatively small sums of money for the purpose of sustaining life and employment, the repayment of which is supported by local communities alongside the individual(s) who received the loan"

My government is under the impression that an example of a situtation in which a citizen might need such a loan would be for a medical procedure, perhaps wisdom teeth removal. It sounds crazy, but not everybody has money for such important operations, and when it happens having the money will certainly improve the quality of their life.

-Howie T. Katzman

I like it. My corporate buddies and I are already working on plans to start trading loans on the open market where we can make lots of money buying and seeling these "little" loans. i figure we can make a few hundred bucks on each $50 loan out there if we trade it enough.
We're all for it!!

Dysfunctional People

I'm relitivly new to this NationState thingy, but I think I still deserve somewhat of an opinion. I voted nay for the following reasons.
1- Hackers and people that are crooks could penatrate through software and obtain these 'microcredits'.
2- If we as humans now bring microcredits into our lives, won't we start to then allow TV's to control us? If you are puzzled at what I'm talking about, please read the book Bear V. Shark
3- If people did hack and steal these microcredits, I think that some of today's police forces are still unable to work or try to stop hackers on computors. I do realize that the FBI and CIA have teams on hackers, but what of places in secluded areas, like in the mountians or in Colorado? Hackers could camp there and steal many microcredits
This has been my first time ever posting one of these things, so please give me some feedback as well. My Nation State's name is Marfen

In light of Power-Hungry Chipmunks appeal, I have decided to reconsider my position and will now vote for this resolution.

Leonard Otterby

This proposal looks reasonable, but in fact is a little more than a Trojan Horse effort to impose hardline neo-liberalism on poor countries. The following aspects concern me in particular:

1). If the definition of micro-credit is

"a financial transaction, or the trade of loans for relatively small sums of money for the purpose of sustaining life and employment, the repayment of which is supported by local communities alongside the individual(s) who received the loan"

Then what garantuees can be given that these loans will not be as difficult to pay back as larger loans might? Many problems in poorer nations require long term, substantial investment and micro-credit will simply provide a cosmetic patching up of the problem. Becuase it will not actually be enough to completely resolve the underlying issue, the result will be that more loans will be taken out in order to finance the continued work towards eliminating the communities problems. This means that in the end the result is the same, horrendous debts and you still have a broken water pump (for example).

2). The Microcredit Bazaar

"which will set up chapters in all interested member nations for the purpose of educating citizens in said member nations on microcredit and of securing, presenting, and overseeing reputable organizations by which those citizens can trade microcredit with the impoverished".

Define 'reputable' and furthermore, who would run these chapters, economists or the local communities; this section leaves too many open ended possibilities for exploitation.


3). “The Microcredit Bazaar” with verifying reputable microcredit organizations, managing queries for a 'Bazaar' chapter, ensuring just and honest distribution of loaned money, ensuring repayment of loans, ensuring the reimbursement of unpaid loans, facilitating educational literature concerning microcredit to member nations, as well as the distribution of that literature as arranged with individual national governments"

How would such a process be done equitably? What happens if one group takes over control of the chapter in question and demands extortionate repayment rates or furthers unreasonable business practices? Again, I am worried about potential abuse of the system.


4). EMPOWERS “The Microcredit Bazaar” with the authority to negotiate with national governments the location, length of stay, and extensiveness in presentation of 'Bazaar' chapters within member nations"

This frightens me, because it implies that the bazaar will operate almost as a super-trading bloc that could become open to abuse by its largest members. What happens if one group, following the possibility outlined above, seizes control of a chapter and compells un-reasonable or constricting conditions from the government with which it negotiates. How would this be avoided?

In conclusion, the idea is laudable, but the possibilities for abuse and failure are to high for us to endorse it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador of the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live fair-trade Compadria!


The biggest problem with International aid is the simple fact that it rarely gets to the people that is was intended for.


Either through corruption or major public works (International Airport). Now granted infrastructure can be very important for economic growth BUT...


it doesn't help feed Zork and his five kids.


A developing nation needs both short and long term credit. And it's not just the government that needs credit...so do the people.

I believe this resolution will empower people in Developing Nations.

A bazaar is a good idea. So is little mom and pop hardware stores. Then comes along the super-powerful big box store in the neighborhood, undersells everyone until they're out of business, then charges whatever they want. Look what happend to little department stores, little food stores, etc etc etc.

I vote NO, but, it will pass just like every other resolution that comes along. Nothing is ever voted down, regardless of how stupid the idea is (and I'm not saying this one is stupid, but there have been several lately)

My nation is in support of this resolution to empower the economic systems of smaller nations to enable them to develop themselves in an economically efficent and balance way. We feel that while no plan or system is flawless, the benefits of this proposal out-weigh the potential dangers inherent to the system.

Xander
Friend.

I vote NO, but, it will pass just like every other resolution that comes along. Nothing is ever voted down, regardless of how stupid the idea is (and I'm not saying this one is stupid, but there have been several lately)

If you are basing your vote on this sort of ignorance, you might want to consider three things:

1) For a resolution to reach the UN it needs the support of at least 6% of the UN Delegates, meaning that resolutions that most of us would agree are poorly written rarely reach the UN Floor.

2) It is a matter of FACT that a number of UN resolutions and repeals have in fact failed. The following link is a color coded (for the reading impared) list of the vote outcome for all NationStates UN resolutions through the United Nations Security Act (#110):

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/Ressummary.pdf

17 resolutions have failed.
115 resolutions have been adopted (including 6 repeals)


*grumple* <--- hard to write want to just chat

3) When claiming that a string of resolutions is poor, you might want to seriously consider that not everybody agrees with that opinion ... a better way to convince people would be to actually point to specific things you don't like and avoid generic comments.

Our initial reaction to this proposal is quite positive, but Ausserland has no experience with microcredit. The Royal Cabinet is watching this debate with great interest. We hope to learn from it. At this point, we have one comment and two questions:

1) We are reminded of an old proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." We see the microcredit bazaars as teaching people how to obtain needed funds rather than depend on "humanitarian aid". Unfortunately, long and sad experience has shown that much "humanitarian aid" has ended up fattening the coffers of corrupt government officials rather than helping the intended recipients.

2) We have a question about two provisions (bolded) of this section:

"3.CHARGES 'The Microcredit Bazaar' with verifying reputable microcredit organizations, managing queries for a 'Bazaar' chapter, ensuring just and honest distribution of loaned money, ensuring repayment of loans, ensuring the reimbursement of unpaid loans, facilitating educational literature concerning microcredit to member nations, as well as the distribution of that literature as arranged with individual national governments;"

How would this "ensuring" be done?

3) Are we correct in assuming that, if a nation prefers to set up its own microcredit educational system independent of the UN organization, or already has one in place, the UN organization would make its literature available to that government to assist its effort?

We would very much appreciate response to these points by the proposer and others.

By request of the Ambassador:
Therese U. Martinena
Minister for Finance and Economic Affairs

My government believes this proposal will benefit the most needy, in a more substantial way than that of humanitarian aid. Therefore it is a good thing, and i will support it.

I have to vote against this "scheme" as it means that my countries good hard erned money goes to fund countries which will eventually become dependent on it and will never pay us back. Also it causes money to be spent on countries which do not abide by the UN's laws hence we could be funding leaders who seek a UN member states downfall, etc.

The Imperial Land of Findan firmly supports this resolution. It will help thrid world nations improve thier sattis, and it shall also help developed nations by not having to cancel debts of developing nations.

Sir Jonathon Smith
Findanian Ambassador to the United Nations and Regional Delagate for the region of Greater Cladonia

While I would like to think, that these countries would be able to re-pay loans, I feel that if you look at past financial situations, infinite debt is inevitable. Give me the option to donate money, in hopes of helping impovershed nations, and I will do so. But don't tell me that I will recieve my money back, because then we instill false hopes in my government, when the past teaches me, that I will never see that money again.

First, to preempt some misunderstandings I want to make some things clear. This resolution is only attempting to raise awareness of microcredit, and facilitate those who want to invest in it in actually investing in it. It does not force you to invest, or to even have a bazaar in your nation.

This resolution follows the simple idea that education leads to informed decision making. The resolution increase information for citizens in your nation (if you want it), which should give them more of an opportunity and ability to invest in microcredit if they desire. Basically, the resolution argues that if (1) there is more information and guarantee about various lenders of mirocredit and microcredit in general then (2) more investment in microcredit will occur. And that this would means (3) the effectiveness of money spent on poor nations would be greater (in theory).

Whether microcredit is better or worse for a citizen to invest in, in the end, this resolution is just focused on spreading information about it, which will allow your citizens to make better decisions about it. Voting For does not mean that you will have to donate any money to microcredit, nor will any of your citizens. In fact, voting yes, as I've said before, doesn't even mean you have to open a bazaar chapter in your nation.

I'm relitivly new to this NationState thingy, but I think I still deserve somewhat of an opinion. I voted nay for the following reasons.
1- Hackers and people that are crooks could penatrate through software and obtain these 'microcredits'.
2- If we as humans now bring microcredits into our lives, won't we start to then allow TV's to control us? If you are puzzled at what I'm talking about, please read the book Bear V. Shark
3- If people did hack and steal these microcredits, I think that some of today's police forces are still unable to work or try to stop hackers on computors. I do realize that the FBI and CIA have teams on hackers, but what of places in secluded areas, like in the mountians or in Colorado? Hackers could camp there and steal many microcredits
This has been my first time ever posting one of these things, so please give me some feedback as well. My Nation State's name is Marfen
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "microcredit". I mean micro-loans, rather than micro-bills. I'm talking about poor people borrowing small amounts of money, not computer money. The security of these loans is likely similar to those of larger loans.

I have to vote against this "scheme" as it means that my countries good hard erned money goes to fund countries which will eventually become dependent on it and will never pay us back. Also it causes money to be spent on countries which do not abide by the UN's laws hence we could be funding leaders who seek a UN member states downfall, etc.
Nope. Your country is not investing in microcredit. Your citizens, if you allow a bazaar chapter in your nations, will be investing in microcredit. If you have such distrust of microcredit, then don't allow a bazaar chapter in your nation. But don't let that distrust of microcredit hurt those of us who do want to increase investment in microcredit.

Our initial reaction to this proposal is quite positive, but Ausserland has no experience with microcredit. The Royal Cabinet is watching this debate with great interest. We hope to learn from it. At this point, we have one comment and two questions:

1) We are reminded of an old proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." We see the microcredit bazaars as teaching people how to obtain needed funds rather than depend on "humanitarian aid". Unfortunately, long and sad experience has shown that much "humanitarian aid" has ended up fattening the coffers of corrupt government officials rather than helping the intended recipients.

Which is why the bazaar is charged with investigating the effectiveness and security of the various lenders. I think the bazaar is the best chance that we have of weeding out the corrupt microcredit organizations and furthering the honest ones.

2) We have a question about two provisions (bolded) of this section:

"3.CHARGES 'The Microcredit Bazaar' with verifying reputable microcredit organizations, managing queries for a 'Bazaar' chapter, ensuring just and honest distribution of loaned money, ensuring repayment of loans, ensuring the reimbursement of unpaid loans, facilitating educational literature concerning microcredit to member nations, as well as the distribution of that literature as arranged with individual national governments;"

How would this "ensuring" be done?

Well, I'm not going to make any hard and fast rules, because I am not the Microcredit Bazaar. In the end the decisions of how to best fulfill this charge would up to the officials at the Microcredit Bazaar.

However, I have some preliminary for how this would be done. The "ensuring repayment of loans" could be executed by a) following up with the citizen who loaned the money; b) overseeing the repayment process of the lenders; or c) taking upon repayment duties itself, instead making the lender pay the Bazaar any money returned. "Ensuring the reimbursement of unpaid loans" is simply done by "insuring" the loans, and making certain that either the lender or the Bazaar reimburses the needed money to any citizen-loaner that loses money.

My idea those two charges in, is to make the repayment of the loans also a part of the oversight of the Bazaar over lenders. It can greatly increase the investment of citizens in microcredit if they can be assured that they will never lose money, be it by repayment from those they invested in, or the Bazaar or the lenders as overseen by the bazaar.

3) Are we correct in assuming that, if a nation prefers to set up its own microcredit educational system independent of the UN organization, or already has one in place, the UN organization would make its literature available to that government to assist its effort?

Yes. The literature is simply for the furtherment of information about microcredit, and is not necessarily attached to the Bazaar (I mean you don't have to have a Bazaar to receive literature). I could see the bazaar either supplying the nation with its generic literature, or crafting literature specifically for a UN nations independent, bazaar-like system--whichever (as decided by collaboration between the Bazaar and the individual nation), would best "facilitat[e] educational literature concerning microcredit to member nations".

While I would like to think, that these countries would be able to re-pay loans, I feel that if you look at past financial situations, infinite debt is inevitable. Give me the option to donate money, in hopes of helping impovershed nations, and I will do so. But don't tell me that I will recieve my money back, because then we instill false hopes in my government, when the past teaches me, that I will never see that money again.We aren't talking about countries repaying loans. We're talking about individuals and communities. And we aren't talking about countries donating money either.

The Bazaar is designed to serve individuals looking to invest in poor individuals. It doesn't make them invest, it just provides services for them to invest if they want to, and tries to educate them on microcredit in general.

If that seems like a bad deal to you, then vote For, and decide not to have a bazaar chapter in your nation. It's as simple as that.

A bazaar is a good idea. So is little mom and pop hardware stores. Then comes along the super-powerful big box store in the neighborhood, undersells everyone until they're out of business, then charges whatever they want. Look what happend to little department stores, little food stores, etc etc etc.That's because they're competing equally in a free market. The large retailer (ie. Wal-Mart) simply has more money than small retailers, and they run the small ones out of business.

The Bazaar is not a free market. There is no mandate in the Bazaar to allow for equal competition on all goods from lenders. There's no obligation for the Bazaar to do anything but "securing, presenting, and overseeing reputable organizations by which those citizens can trade microcredit". That means that if, in the name of ensuring competition (which would fall under "overseeing reputable organizations"), the Bazaar has to offer subsidies, and breaks to smaller lenders to allow them to compete, or restrict the goods of larger lenders so they do not swallow up "the little guy", the Bazaar will do it. The Bazaar is here to facilitate investment. Facilitating investment demands competition. Thus it is in the best interest (and in the mandate) of the Bazaar to maintain competition.

Believe me, the Bazaar will do everything in its power to make certain there are as many Wal-Mart's as there are Mom&Pop lenders at local bazaars.

In light of being more informed, the Republic of Libertaville and Allies, withdraw their vote Against, and Vote For.

The Republic of Libertaville realizes that it is not our job to decide which decisions our citizens can & cannot make. If they choose to donate their own hard-earned money, then that is their decision. Who is our government to infringe on their rights.

Slovakastania must announce its opposition to the bill. Microcrediting is likely to increase our insubstantial debts.

Slovakastania must announce its opposition to the bill. Microcrediting is likely to increase our insubstantial debts.
Basically, this is impossible. It is not your country which is involved in microcredit, your citizens are involved in it--and only if they want to be.

Let me lay out all the choices your nation and its citizens can individually make regarding the Microcredit Bazaar.

(1) INITIAL NATION: Do we want a bazaar chapter in our nation? Do we want to distribute the bazaar literature in our nation?

(2) NATION WITH BAZAAR CHAPTER: Where do we want it? How long do we want it to stay, or stay open? How do we want it to operate? How extensive do we want its operations to be?

(3) INDIVIDUAL IN A NATION WITH A BAZAAR CHAPTER: Do I invest in microcredit? How much do I invest in microcredit? Which lender do I invest through, and where/with whom do I want it to end up?
Your nation has a say in everything having to do with the bazaar chapter (whether it's in your nation at all, how extensive it is, etc.) and your citizens have the right to decide whether or not to invest in microcredit and how much to invest in it, and where.

Therefore, it is just about impossible for this to increase the debt your country is in. It might increase debt if you go way, way out of your way to make it do that. But there’s no real threat of increased debt.

Actually, since the resolution is a “free trade” resolution it helps UN nations’ economic stats. So it would seem to decrease debts for your country, in a certain way.

To the Politburo, this simply seems to be another means to impose debt on poorer nations. If we truly want these nations to develop, we should give them the means, free of charge.

People's Commissar Marcus Boar
Commissariat of Foreign Affairs

With all due respect to the people of Yugoamerica I must disagree, to hand someone money on a silverplatter is not only bad business, it is sending the wrong message. It is my belief that by giving people the ability to improve the own living, and helping them learn how to invest in loans, and teaching them to pay off their own debts we are helping them more than if we simply gave them the money on a silver platter. In either case my perception of proposal (unless I'm wrong) is that this is not for poorer nations as has been said many times, it is for all people, individuals who decide for themselves whether or not they want to take out these loans or not. In fact you as a nation still have a choice to reject these bazaars even if the proposal passes, so I beg you and all others opposed to reconsider your options, and be courteous in considering our options who would like to give our citizens the free choice and empowerment to make this investment, even if you respectfully decline to do so yourself. Thank you on behalf of the new and small nation of Darvainia.

To the Politburo, this simply seems to be another means to impose debt on poorer nations. If we truly want these nations to develop, we should give them the means, free of charge.

People's Commissar Marcus Boar
Commissariat of Foreign Affairs
In RL, microcredit seems to be working well. Here are some sites for some basic information on microcredit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit

http://www.gdrc.org/icm/what-is-ms.html

This site is a sort of a hub of many sites about microcredit:

http://www.gdrc.org/icm/

*TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS. REGARDING THE RESOLUTION AT VOTE, THE MICROCREDIT BAZAAR*


After reading this I sent a telegram to the leader of The Delapidated Retirement Home of Powerhungry Chipmunks asking him if this resolution is passed will it be mandatory to all UN member nations or do we have an option to use it or not. I also asked him if it is a form of welfare.

His response is as follows:

Mothy,

To answer your first question, no, this microcredit bazaar is not mandatory. The proposal forces no one into investing in microcredit, and doesn't even force member nations to have a 'bazaar' chapter within their borders.

To answer your second question, I don't really think of microcredit as a form of welfare. It's more like a loan, on a very small scale. Here's a website explaining the real-life phenomenon of microcredit.

http://www.gdrc.org/icm/what-is-ms.html

I tend to think of it more as economic trade with the poor, rather than humanitarian aid or welfare. I hope that answers your questions.

Thank you for your time,

Powerhungry Chipmunks



end of telegram


I then clicked on the link he gave me and this popped up:


So, what is "microcredit" ??

Hari Srinivas
Coordinator, Virtual Library on Microcredit

Much of the current interest in microcredit stems from the Microcredit Summit (2-4 February 1997), and the activities that went into organizing the event. The definition of microcredit that was adopted there was:

Microcredit (mI- Kro'kre-dit); noun; programmes extend small loans to very poor people for self-employment projects that generate income, allowing them to care for themselves and their families. - Microcredit Summit

Definitions differ, of course, from country to country. Some of the defining criteria used include-
size - loans are micro, or very small in size
target users - microentrepreneurs and low-income households
utilization - the use of funds - for income generation, and enterprise development, but also for community use (health/education) etc.
terms and conditions - most terms and conditions for microcredit loans are flexible and easy to understand, and suited to the local conditions of the community.

Microcredit is the extension of small loans to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans. It has proven an effective and popular measure in the ongoing struggle against poverty, enabling those without access to lending institutions to borrow at bank rates, and start small business.

The key implications of microcredit is in its name itself: 'micro'. A number of issues come to mind when 'micro' is considered: The small size of the loans made, small size of savings made, the smaller frequency of loans, shorter repayment periods and amounts, the micro/local level of activities, the community-based immediacy of microcredit etc. Hence microcredit is not the solution, but is a menu of options and enablements, that has to be put together, a la carte, based on local conditions and needs.

With the current explosion of interest on microcredit issues, several developmental objectives have come to be associated with the it, besides that of only "credit". Of particular importance is savings - as an end in itself, and as a guarantee for loans. Microcredit has been used as an 'inducer' in many other community development activities, used as an entry point in a community organizing programme and as an ingredient in larger education/training exercises.

An interesting stand is taken by the Virtual Library on Microcredit itself - it takes microcredit beyond the confines of 'money' and declares in its conceptual framework that -

"Microcredit" is as much about money as it is about information. With sustainability and non-dependence on external resources being key to the growth of microcredit programmes, the Homepage focuses on providing pertinent and timely information in the form of strategies, tools, ideas and guides, to grassroots and intermediary organizations, and at the same time, educating the larger public on broader issues related to microfinance and microcredit.



end of article


Thus I conclude that this resolution could only benefit us, for it will do good for those who choose to use it by increasing job opportunities for the poor, thus moving society forward. Also even if this is passed we can choose not to have our nation involved in microcredit thus not effecting those unwilling at all. I cannot fathom any possible reason not to vote for this resolution, for even if passed it only effects those who wish it to be so. The only result of voting against this would be hindering those who wish to take advantage of microcredit within their nation. So obviously I shall vote for this resolution at hand, for it is only sensible to do so.

I have done my part and now trust you to do yours,

Signed,


M

Emperor Mothy
Emperor of The Empire of Mothy, Region of Nirn

The Republic of Libertaville also understands that this in no way affects those, who do not want to be part of it. By voting this through, you give people the right to choose. Your not forcing yourself or anyone into anything, your just giving your citizens the right to choose.

In concordance with the Friends of Baker- a question.

-In a voluntary program, no nation is required to participate.

Would it be better to allow nations the ability to borrow, or have these poor ( b- to junk rated national credit score ) go find other sources to fund their nation and their business structure. It would be easier to accomodate this market, instead of forcing nations to go to the proverbial 'loan shark'. Whose terms do not have the same level of forgiveness.

Z.

[QUOTE=Powerhungry Chipmunks]That's because they're competing equally in a free market. The large retailer (ie. Wal-Mart) simply has more money than small retailers, and they run the small ones out of business.

Wal-Mart goes into small towns and does price comparisons. then they open up their store and sell it for a dollar less or so. Mom & Pop stores cant compete because they cant lower thier prices any more without a huge finacial loss and out of business they go. If a town refuses Wal-Mart, they get sued (it is happening in my Aunt and Uncles town right now).

I am voting no manly because this "microcredit" is taking away business from my banks. i think something of this nature would be fine on a larger scale. But for just individuals I think it is something my banks should be able to handle.

[QUOTE=Powerhungry Chipmunks]That's because they're competing equally in a free market. The large retailer (ie. Wal-Mart) simply has more money than small retailers, and they run the small ones out of business.

Wal-Mart goes into small towns and does price comparisons. then they open up their store and sell it for a dollar less or so. Mom & Pop stores cant compete because they cant lower thier prices any more without a huge finacial loss and out of business they go. If a town refuses Wal-Mart, they get sued (it is happening in my Aunt and Uncles town right now).

I am voting no manly because this "microcredit" is taking away business from my banks. i think something of this nature would be fine on a larger scale. But for just individuals I think it is something my banks should be able to handle.

I live in the UK and so can;t comment on Walmart's actions, but would guess that it is similar to the furore with Guardian readers over the success of Tesco against the halcyon days of massive variety of pesticide free GM-less foods. People tend to shop at Tesco and Walmart because they are cheap not because they are forced. If the people of your town really don;t want Walmart then they shouldn't shop there. As a consequence Walmart would leave. But it doesn;t because it is cheaper and almost certainly better than the mom and pop store.
Also what does 'if a town refuses' mean. refuses what?

Wal-Mart goes into small towns and does price comparisons. then they open up their store and sell it for a dollar less or so. Mom & Pop stores cant compete because they cant lower thier prices any more without a huge finacial loss and out of business they go. If a town refuses Wal-Mart, they get sued (it is happening in my Aunt and Uncles town right now).

I am voting no manly because this "microcredit" is taking away business from my banks. i think something of this nature would be fine on a larger scale. But for just individuals I think it is something my banks should be able to handle.

OOC: I'm glad to actually see concern for mom and pop businesses and to see a serious discussion on the business practices of WalMart (and yes, they do under cut local businesses).

IC:
I was under the impression that this resolution isn't about setting up banks, but setting up regulations and an education program (i.e. the bazaar) to encourage locals to go to their banks to get emergency loans.

Let's pretend I'm a single father of three, and my oldest daughter has impacted wisdom teeth. She is in great pain, but I don't have the money. The Microcredit bazaar might be around to tell me that I can apply for a small loan from a local bank to pay the dentist to remove her teeth.

The resolution does seem to have some implications on pay back mechanisms, but I'm of the impression that a local run bank will be much better equipped to handle these sorts of situtations than a large corporation like WalMart.

I live in the UK and so can;t comment on Walmart's actions, but would guess that it is similar to the furore with Guardian readers over the success of Tesco against the halcyon days of massive variety of pesticide free GM-less foods. People tend to shop at Tesco and Walmart because they are cheap not because they are forced. If the people of your town really don;t want Walmart then they shouldn't shop there. As a consequence Walmart would leave. But it doesn;t because it is cheaper and almost certainly better than the mom and pop store.
Also what does 'if a town refuses' mean. refuses what?


It is not that simple. walmart pays their employees minimum wage (hence keeping them in "poverty" which in turns makes walmart the only place they can afford to shop. and just because you can get something cheaper at walmart that does not make it better than mom and pop stores. what i mean by a town refusing walmart is this....my relatives live in a smaller sized town. walmart wants to put a store in their neighborhood. by doing so that will kill mom and pop stores as well as add more traffic. they do not want either in this town. so the town has banned together to keep walmart out. now the towns people are being sued by walmart for doing this. really what walmart is is a big bully that is aiding in keeping people poor (imho). walmart is a lose/lose situation.

they way i am reading things it seems that someone is going to come in and help with my education system (if i want it). but what if i only want financial help and not the education format. why do i need a "walmart" type company to give out individual loans? what does it benefit my country?

these people still have to pay the money back right? so is that going to put them in further dept? do they have to take out more loans to pay off another loan?

maybe i am reading it wrong i dunno......

[QUOTE=Powerhungry

Nope. Your country is not investing in microcredit. Your citizens, if you allow a bazaar chapter in your nations, will be investing in microcredit. If you have such distrust of microcredit, then don't allow a bazaar chapter in your nation. But don't let that distrust of microcredit hurt those of us who do want to increase investment in microcredit.
[/QUOTE]

Come again im having a bush moment i dont quite get what your saying??? My people whom i control like puppets will be able to invest behind my back, is that what you are saying?? Im not quite sure can you clarify?

(OOC: first of all walmart does not pay it's employees minimum wage, at least not all walmarts, my brother works at walmart and lives very comfortably, secondly walmart gives its employees great oppurtunities, people with little or no college education have risen up to become managers of one, two, sometimes five or six walmarts at a time and make even more than those whose parents were luck enough to afford sending their kids to college. Point is walmart is not ideal of the evil corporation you're looking for, stick with Enron it looks better)

IC: It's actually funny that everyone is using dental and medical procedures as an example as to how to use microcredit loans, because according to definitions our researchers have dug up that is not the sole purpose (though you could use it for that if you wanted I suppose). First off here is a definition from dictionary.com:

mi·cro·cred·it ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mkr-krdt)
n.
The business or policy of making microloans to impoverished entrepreneurs. Also called microlending.

Basically the loan, as far as we have examined it, is for small business owners either to invest in small business ventures or to borrow to pay off emergency expenses so they can avoid being shutdown right away, thus saving them from having a short-term crisis becoming a life-changing disaster, Powerhungry Chipmunks would know better than us I suppose, but that is what I understand them to be for.

any company you work for you can work your way up to the top if that is where you see yourself. around here, walmart is not that way. walmart is full of low income families or retired folks who dont want to make that much so they can keep their social security.

there are far more companies you can work for and get the same effect without putting other business out of business.


the more i read about microcredit the more i realize the it is a fancy name for cash advance stores. what will interest rates be? because normally they are very high for the poor and smaller businesses. which means they will become further in dept and the cycle starts all over. i guess as a business owner that would be what i would want to do. open up a microcredit store and i will be rolling in it. what happens if they loan cannot be paid back in the time allotted?

(to me) this is looking like a way to keep our poverty. cant have the rich without the poor. and if everyone we try to make everyone equal are we starting communism? (ok that might be far fetched but you get what i mean).

We, the People of the Community of Bienopolis vote a resounding "Hell Yeah" to the resolution proposed by the UN. Poverty shall "Lick Um".

Comrade B. Sleazy
The Community of Bienopolis

*TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS. REGARDING THE RESOLUTION AT VOTE, THE MICROCREDIT BAZAAR*


After reading this I sent a telegram to the leader of The Delapidated Retirement Home of Powerhungry Chipmunks asking him if this resolution is passed will it be mandatory to all UN member nations or do we have an option to use it or not. I also asked him if it is a form of welfare.

His response is as follows:

Mothy,

To answer your first question, no, this microcredit bazaar is not mandatory. The proposal forces no one into investing in microcredit, and doesn't even force member nations to have a 'bazaar' chapter within their borders.

To answer your second question, I don't really think of microcredit as a form of welfare. It's more like a loan, on a very small scale. Here's a website explaining the real-life phenomenon of microcredit.

http://www.gdrc.org/icm/what-is-ms.html

I tend to think of it more as economic trade with the poor, rather than humanitarian aid or welfare. I hope that answers your questions.

Thank you for your time,

Powerhungry Chipmunks



end of telegram


I then clicked on the link he gave me and this popped up:


So, what is "microcredit" ??

Hari Srinivas
Coordinator, Virtual Library on Microcredit

Much of the current interest in microcredit stems from the Microcredit Summit (2-4 February 1997), and the activities that went into organizing the event. The definition of microcredit that was adopted there was:

Microcredit (mI- Kro'kre-dit); noun; programmes extend small loans to very poor people for self-employment projects that generate income, allowing them to care for themselves and their families. - Microcredit Summit

Definitions differ, of course, from country to country. Some of the defining criteria used include-
size - loans are micro, or very small in size
target users - microentrepreneurs and low-income households
utilization - the use of funds - for income generation, and enterprise development, but also for community use (health/education) etc.
terms and conditions - most terms and conditions for microcredit loans are flexible and easy to understand, and suited to the local conditions of the community.

Microcredit is the extension of small loans to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans. It has proven an effective and popular measure in the ongoing struggle against poverty, enabling those without access to lending institutions to borrow at bank rates, and start small business.

The key implications of microcredit is in its name itself: 'micro'. A number of issues come to mind when 'micro' is considered: The small size of the loans made, small size of savings made, the smaller frequency of loans, shorter repayment periods and amounts, the micro/local level of activities, the community-based immediacy of microcredit etc. Hence microcredit is not the solution, but is a menu of options and enablements, that has to be put together, a la carte, based on local conditions and needs.

With the current explosion of interest on microcredit issues, several developmental objectives have come to be associated with the it, besides that of only "credit". Of particular importance is savings - as an end in itself, and as a guarantee for loans. Microcredit has been used as an 'inducer' in many other community development activities, used as an entry point in a community organizing programme and as an ingredient in larger education/training exercises.

An interesting stand is taken by the Virtual Library on Microcredit itself - it takes microcredit beyond the confines of 'money' and declares in its conceptual framework that -

"Microcredit" is as much about money as it is about information. With sustainability and non-dependence on external resources being key to the growth of microcredit programmes, the Homepage focuses on providing pertinent and timely information in the form of strategies, tools, ideas and guides, to grassroots and intermediary organizations, and at the same time, educating the larger public on broader issues related to microfinance and microcredit.



end of article


Thus I conclude that this resolution could only benefit us, for it will do good for those who choose to use it by increasing job opportunities for the poor, thus moving society forward. Also even if this is passed we can choose not to have our nation involved in microcredit thus not effecting those unwilling at all. I cannot fathom any possible reason not to vote for this resolution, for even if passed it only effects those who wish it to be so. The only result of voting against this would be hindering those who wish to take advantage of microcredit within their nation. So obviously I shall vote for this resolution at hand, for it is only sensible to do so.

I have done my part and now trust you to do yours,

Signed,


M

Emperor Mothy
Emperor of The Empire of Mothy, Region of Nirn


Thanks for this post Mothy. It saved me a lot of googling and reading by explaining what microcredit is in plain language. As someone whose knowledge of economics wouldn't cover a postage stamp, I found it very informative and helpful :).

As a result of what I've read, both in Mothy's post and the resolution itself, Waterana votes for this resolution.

I am voting against it, as I just don't think it will work in real life. Er, like in theory it's good but not in practice.

What kind of liberal crap is this?

OK, we are to consider that some nation, lets call them them the Cheap-Ass Commie state of Pot Smokers, runs across a third-world nation in desperate need of help.

The Cheap-Ass'es nation is then going to teach this poor helpless nation how to borrow money so that they can buy help. :rolleyes:

C'mon now, when I personnaly overthrew the giants running this nation, I found out that we were financially hurting. Going into debt would of killed us...But instead we all picked up our fishing poles and honestly got ourselves into a Capitalist Paradise (mind you not a liberal communistic mess ;) ).

So if you run across a nation in help...well one of the best CBLS sages once said "why don't you yourselves give them something to eat..." and help that nation--or if you are too cheap to do it yourself, ask your regional allies for help.

Please vote no and end indebtness

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

We, the Disputed Territories of Jumbo Paper Clips, are against this imperialist neo-liberal resolution. This resolution encourages nations to lower their amounts of true aid in order to give "microcredit." Microcredit goes directly to individuals, not societies. These individuals will be encouraged to follow the dictates of their imperialist master and their corporate lackeys, not the will of society. Foreign aid must not be given to individuals who lack the wisdom to use money properly. As a Third World nation, we feel that all nations with poverty are entitled to foreign aid. It is the global community's responsibility to look after its least privileged neighbors. This would only benefit a handful of people that will probably be granted money for the selfish interest of donor nation. If an individual can actually make money (profit) then they do not deserve aid. This is selfishness, it is not love. Compassion is when more fortunate countries give to people who do not "deserve" aid, because they would not be able to prosper without it. Microcredit also encourages childish individualism instead of community spirit. It encourages reckless consumerism and destructive competition instead of cooperation. Foreign aid MUST be given to ALL of society, not just lone individuals. The only organization in society that should receive this aid is the government of the nation. Governments are responsible to the people and have the ability to enforce unifying goals for all of society. In the spirit of community, we must stop this whole microcredit idea and give more foreign aid to the most unfortunate nations. Only then will all the world's people be freed from the chains of poverty, and the first world nation's people be absolved of the sin of selfishness and indifference.

IC: It's actually funny that everyone is using dental and medical procedures as an example as to how to use microcredit loans, because according to definitions our researchers have dug up that is not the sole purpose (though you could use it for that if you wanted I suppose). First off here is a definition from dictionary.com:

mi·cro·cred·it ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mkr-krdt)
n.
The business or policy of making microloans to impoverished entrepreneurs. Also called microlending.

Basically the loan, as far as we have examined it, is for small business owners either to invest in small business ventures or to borrow to pay off emergency expenses so they can avoid being shutdown right away, thus saving them from having a short-term crisis becoming a life-changing disaster, Powerhungry Chipmunks would know better than us I suppose, but that is what I understand them to be for.

Then I stand corrected and appreciate it. :) I was under the impression the loans could be taken for any reason and thought an emergency loan would fit under medical examples.

That said, would microcredit apply to cover business operating expenses in the event of a minor disaster, be it a medical problem for a key employee or other event not covered by insurance?

Greetings esteemed Leaders, Ambassadors, Representatives,

The Rogue Nation of Harmonious Dissent casts its vote in favor of this resolution. We applaud the notion of small loans going to the people and the authors wisdom in making it a choice.

I pledge my vote to my regional delegate in favor of this resolution.

The delegate from Jumbo Paper Clips is correct.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE WISHES OF THIRD WORLD NATIONS VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL!

We, the People's Republic of Plutocratica and founder of the region Group of 77 (in the real world the Group of 77 represents the voice of the Third World and under represented in the United Nations), would vote against this resolution. Microcredits discourage the social responsibility of rich nations to aid the development of their fellow nations and encourage "free trade and commerce," which is basically the propping up of corporate friendly businessmen into positions of power which may endorse policies that go against the will of society. We must place people over profits and "free trade and commerce." Development for society can only take place through the guidance of the 'visible hand' of the government, the representative of the wishes of the people. Our nation was witness to a terrible civil war where the forces of personal gain went against the selfless interest of society. The world should now realize that everyone is interconnected, we are an interdependent world. The weakness of any society hurts all others. Throughout history, societies have had social projects that enforced the idea of community amongst their members. Microcredit goes against this wisdom and places money in the hands of individual people who will not know the interest of the multitude. It would force societies to be at the whims of the market and multinational corporations. Instead of aiding society's culture, microcredit would only be rewarded to individuals that adopted Western ideas and standards. Instead of microcredit, the United Nations must adopt the position of increasing development aid to the most needy societies. Foreign aid must be geared towards governments which respond to the needs of all society so that development can come to all sections of society. Foreign aid should also be freed from requirements that restrict the people's sovereignty and force countries to adopt neo-liberal positions that go against the people's interest. Foreign aid should have less strings attached since those strings can quickly form into chains. Development can only come from getting enough investment to improve a nation’s economy. For nations like Plutocratica, the only social institution that bring about the labor capital, investment, and will to carry out development projects is the government that represents the people.

The delegate from Jumbo Paper Clips is correct.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE WISHES OF THIRD WORLD NATIONS VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL!

We, the People's Republic of Plutocratica and founder of the region Group of 77 (in the real world the Group of 77 represents the voice of the Third World and under represented in the United Nations), would vote against this resolution. Microcredits discourage the social responsibility of rich nations to aid the development of their fellow nations and encourage "free trade and commerce," which is basically the propping up of corporate friendly businessmen into positions of power which may endorse policies that go against the will of society. We must place people over profits and "free trade and commerce." Development for society can only take place through the guidance of the 'visible hand' of the government, the representative of the wishes of the people. Our nation was witness to a terrible civil war where the forces of personal gain went against the selfless interest of society. The world should now realize that everyone is interconnected, we are an interdependent world. The weakness of any society hurts all others. Throughout history, societies have had social projects that enforced the idea of community amongst their members. Microcredit goes against this wisdom and places money in the hands of individual people who will not know the interest of the multitude. It would force societies to be at the whims of the market and multinational corporations. Instead of aiding society's culture, microcredit would only be rewarded to individuals that adopted Western ideas and standards. Instead of microcredit, the United Nations must adopt the position of increasing development aid to the most needy societies. Foreign aid must be geared towards governments which respond to the needs of all society so that development can come to all sections of society. Foreign aid should also be freed from requirements that restrict the people's sovereignty and force countries to adopt neo-liberal positions that go against the people's interest. Foreign aid should have less strings attached since those strings can quickly form into chains. Development can only come from getting enough investment to improve a nation’s economy. For nations like Plutocratica, the only social institution that bring about the labor capital, investment, and will to carry out development projects is the government that represents the people.


you have a point.

The Supremacy of Arkadian Believes that this seems to be a way for ileagel transportation for wepons and narctoics. no once can make sure this is mis-used. We are forced to NOT support this resolution


Kridrick Reubus Akendal
Supremacy of Arkadian

The Supremacy of Arkadian Believes that this seems to be a way for ileagel transportation for wepons and narctoics. no once can make sure this is mis-used. We are forced to NOT support this resolution


Kridrick Reubus Akendal
Supremacy of Arkadian

We would ask the delegate from the Supremacy of Arkadian to explain the reasoning behind this rather astounding statement. Our law enforcement officials advise they are completely at a loss to understand it. They see no connection between a small-loan program and transportation of weapons and illegal drugs.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Greetings from Sinexium!!

I am new to Nation States, so I will keep this brief. I voted for this resolution because I believe it will help poor people in countries poor countries. In short, I think it may be the best we can do at this time.

I do, however, see some possible misuses by governments. For instance, if I have a bazaar in my country, and I am allowed to run it by myself, who is to say I won't find a way to misuse it. Perhaps I would give all the microloans to my friends. I don't really know how a single nation could hack into the loans, but I am sure it has that capability.

So, my question... who supplies the loan money, the individual nation or all the nations who have bizarres? What failsafes are in place to ensure the nations running the bizarres individually aren't using them incorrectly (education should help, but what about those who purposefully misuse the program). What failsafes are included to prevent the inhumane treatment of loan holders because of their inability to repay? If the UN is backing it, we should be able to ensure it is used ethically and humanely. Oh, and, yes, I do understand that I will not be forced to host a bizarre if I don't want to.

Thanks for listening.

The USS of Foerstistan has voted in favor of this resolution because we believe that we have a duty to help our fellow man on this great world of ours. We believe that we are first human beings, then we are members of our countries.

Haywood Xander
Chancellor of Foreign Affairs
United Socialist States of Foerstistan

Not that there is anything wrong with communisim and its principles. However at this point in time the Incorporated States Of Sororszag have voted in favour for this resolution. It is in our best interests at this time to help out our fellow nations/states and their members. It is also one of the foundations of our society to help others.

Miklos Vilmosh
Sororszag minister assigned to the UN

From the wiki article ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit[url]), we read what is meant by "loans to small businesses":Microcredit is the extension of small loans to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans. In developing countries especially, microcredit enables very poor people to engage in self-employment projects that generate income. Microcredit is the most important part of the microfinance field, which can comprise all other financial products such as micro-insurance, savings or other.
That's the way I've always envisioned microcredit mainly being used: helping the poor self-employed in getting started, in providing income for themselves. The first story I heard about microcredit was related to farming. A middle aged father of several children in west Africa needed a plow and some seeds to plant his crops, so he could support his family. He was loaned, maybe, 50 USD to buy a plow and seeds for his farm. He grew the crops, was able to feed his family, pay back the loan, and retain a revenue source for years to come (the plow). It's sort of like providing investment capital for a person to support his or herself.

-snip- I had no idea there was such a feeling of competition with "humanitarian aid". First, I'd like to point out that there is no real need for the two to be competing. Large chunks of money are typically donated to help large projects (infrastructure, modernization, large-scale economic protection, providing millions of kilograms of food to the hungry). Microcredit, in contrast, is focused mainly on poor individuals trying to support themselves.

"Humanitarian Aid" is needed, I feel. But Microcredit has a huge advantage when it comes to helping a poor father or mother support himself or herself, and his or her family:

1) It's focused on the loanee making money, since otherwise he'll have no way to pay back his loan. With donations, there's no incentive to invest the money wisely, or work for one's own living.

2) It doesn't pass through the money-soaking hands of poor governments, and, thus, is not really susceptible to corruption.

3) It's a revenue neutral investment for the micerocredit institutions, so in the end there is no gigantic one way price tag as there is for humanitarian aid donations, and there is plenty of money returned for the institution to loan again and again in the future.

So, my question... who supplies the loan money, the individual nation or all the nations who have bizarres? What failsafes are in place to ensure the nations running the bizarres individually aren't using them incorrectly (education should help, but what about those who purposefully misuse the program).
Even if national employees are used, I'm fairly certain the UN would retain oversight of the bazaar. I don't really think there's a risk of a national government using the bazaar to fund things, since it isn't the bazaar that gives out loans, but the microcredit institutions within the bazaar that do (which are independent of any nation or the UN).

The loan money is supplied by investors: by either the microcredit institutions, or individuals who feel a desire to invest.

What failsafes are included to prevent the inhumane treatment of loan holders because of their inability to repay? If the UN is backing it, we should be able to ensure it is used ethically and humanely.
The UN has kept oversight of the bazaar. If there are microcredit institutions there who mistreat loanees, the UN can force them out of the bazaar.

Then I stand corrected and appreciate it. I was under the impression the loans could be taken for any reason and thought an emergency loan would fit under medical examples.

That said, would microcredit apply to cover business operating expenses in the event of a minor disaster, be it a medical problem for a key employee or other event not covered by insurance?I think that how loans are taken out or why is largely up to the various microcredit institutions. Some may let you get a $35 loan for some sort of minor expense, and some might not. I guess the reason they focus on those the self-employed, is because they feel it the most likely shot at getting repaid. I honestly can't speak for what is and isn't laon-worthy.

Here's what the wiki article says:In 1976, Yunus founded the Grameen Bank to make loans to poor Bangladeshis. Since then the Grameen Bank has issued more than $5 billion in loans to some 4 million borrowers. To ensure repayment, the bank uses a system of "solidarity groups": small informal groups which apply together for loans and whose members act as co-guarantors of repayment and support one another's efforts at economic self-advancement. As it has grown, the Grameen Bank has also developed other systems of alternate credit that serve the poor. In addition to microcredit, it offers housing loans and well as financing for fisheries and irrigation projects, venture capital, textiles, and other activities, along with other banking services such as savings.

This is my understanding, that "microcredit" tends to specifically refer to the loaning to farmers and the self-employed to support themselves, while "microfinance" and these other services ("housing loans [as] well as financing for fisheries and irrigation projects, venture capital, textiles", etc.) are often offered side-by-side. Since it's the microcredit institution that the bazaar is promoting, these services would likely have educational material at the bazaar as well, as they'd likely be available from the institutions represented there.

sincehen has loaning money come out good in the end. Yeah, there are a few people who know how to balance a check book and stay out of debt, but most can't keep track. This is a death trap for the poor. It will only create a larger gap between the wealthy and lower class

I don't like what some of these last replies said. Other countries sending money to people who may not respect the rule of the Empire of The Over Cautious Duck? Count me out...

The Principality of Ausserland has just cast its vote in favor of this resolution. We believe it has great potential to help disadvantaged people better their economic circumstances, learn financial responsibility rather than being bogged down in dependence on handouts, and have occasion for enhanced pride and self-respect.

We have carefully read all the comments posted to date in this thread. We have seen absolutely nothing that would influence us in the slightest to vote against this measure.

The citizens of Ausserland believe strongly in giving people a hand, rather than a handout. We see this proposal as having excellent potential for doing just that, while fully respecting the rights of nations to manage their own internal affairs.

The Prince of Ausserland extends his personal thanks and commendation to the proposer of this measure and all those who have taken the time to carefully and intelligently read the proposal and have spoken out in its favor.

By Direction of His Royal Highness:
Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The People of the Community of Bienopolis request more information regarding the fate of loanees which do not make good with their repayments. What is in this provision that protects against an unnecessary and debilitating cycle of debt and/or other punishment that might come from a loan default.

The People of the Community of Bienopolis will be retracting it's "Yes" vote until these issues are satisfactorily addressed.

Comrade B. Sleazy
Head Axe Grinder
The Community of Bienopolis

This bill would make us richer countries richer and the poorer countries poorer its implementing the effects of capitalism to all countries even those countries which arnt capitalist. This is unfair as we the members of the UN strive to make the world a free and safe place for all who live in member states and (hopefully) rogue nations. VOTING FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS DAMNING THE WORLD TO POVERTY.

The People of the Community of Bienopolis request more information regarding the fate of loanees which do not make good with their repayments. What is in this provision that protects against an unnecessary and debilitating cycle of debt and/or other punishment that might come from a loan default.
That would be an issue for your nation and its local bazaar chapter to discuss. The Bazaar chapters will only house microcredit institutions you want them to. So, if certain institutions have practices regarding the collection of a loan that you don't like then you can refuse to allow them into your local chapter.

That is, of course, if your nation decides to have a bazaar chapter (it's not mandatory).


This bill would make us richer countries richer and the poorer countries poorer its implementing the effects of capitalism to all countries even those countries which arnt capitalist. This is unfair as we the members of the UN strive to make the world a free and safe place for all who live in member states and (hopefully) rogue nations. VOTING FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS DAMNING THE WORLD TO POVERTY.
Hardly. This resolution will have very little effect on how rich or poor countries are, rather it will decrease the income gap between rich and poor individuals.

Sure, there are good microcredit lenders and there are bad ones. Some will surely do some of the things you say and charge very predatory rates. However, since the lenders that are available at each bazaar are under yours and the bazaar's scrutiny--those lenders can be removed from bazaar chapters, and, in fact, these bazaars would help end those predatory lending policies.

If you vote against this resolution you're limiting information about microcredit (which is all this resolution attempts to do: educate the interested), which will increase the prominence of predatory lenders and unfair microcredit practices. How do you break up corporate scandal? Get the public involved and allow the government jurisdiction. Do you want to Help get rid of bad microcredit institutions? Then vote For.


I don't like what some of these last replies said. Other countries sending money to people who may not respect the rule of the Empire of The Over Cautious Duck? Count me out...
Then don't have a chapter in your nation. But that doesn't mean you should those interested in learning more about microcredit shouldn;t have the option to do so. I plead that you vote For, and just opt-out of having a Bazaar chapter in your nation

Having debated, considered, and thought over the whole idea, the Republic of United Jehania hereby declares its support for the UN Resolution in question. We hope that the establishment of a Microcredit Bazaar will aid in ending poverty. This Resolution has high hopes and potential.

Good Job! :D The Palentine whole-heartedly supports this proposal. This has worked in areas where it has been tried, and will work on an international scale. The best way to stop poverty is to give people incentive and ability to become entrepeneurs, no so called free handouts. This will teach responcibility, and financial knowlage to people. Those opposing this simple proposal seem to say to me, "Sorry country X, we know you are a soverign nation, but your people are too stupid and irresponcible. We know what is best. Take the damned handout and don't get uppity!" People need to understand being on the dole is the true destroyer of confidence and esteme. This will give the people in these countries a needed boost of both, plus the confidence it entails. Then as the counties improve themselves they can take their rightful place in the would stage and we can step back and turn over the reigns of power. And as one estemed member in this forum posted. It won't cause a raise in taxes :D

Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
Holy Empire of the Palentine

The Royal Family of the Great nation of The Holy Empire of Lutzemburg have decided to vote against the microcredit bazaar motion. This would hamper the commerce of individual nations and not allow sovernity.

HRH Prince Craig R. Lutz
Crowned Prince and Head of the Royal Family of Lutzemburg

It is my nations firm belief that credit organizations tend to do more good for the creditor then those taking out money. Such organizations exist to make money, and frequently increase the gap between rich and poor. True a certain few who are good with finacees can improve their own situations, but rarely do they ever wind up making more money then the organization they first borrowed from.

As a nation we hope that ourselves and all other nations will achieve finacial happyness, but we don't see this plan as being any better then other World Loan institutions that have often lead countries further into debt while proclaiming they were trying to get those countries out of debt. Be it from flaw in plan, or the greedy capitalistic nature of banking/loan corperations.

We know this must sound awfully ironic coming from a nation of consumers and big business, but we found in mimicing other economically thriving nations that we could get ourselves out of debt, despite certain consequences....

I wonder about how will this be implemented? My government already gives its citizens all the medical, economic and social support it needs but I do realize that other nations may need this type of service. How will I be able to decline the microcredit bizarre if the resolution still passes? I'm referring to the automatic implementation of passed resolutions in all member nations. If I can be convinced that I won't have foreign influence inside my nation's borders then I won't oppose this resolution.

I do have misgivings that the inevitable debt will cause a worldwide economical heirarchy. I see this as an attempt by the more powerful UN member nations to impose its will on already self sufficient but smaller nations that are still developing. I think that all member nations need to think carefully about this resolution. Do you want to allow even the potential possibility of being in debt to another nation or to the UN itself? I will not allow it to happen in my nation but I do recognize that there may be other nations that need outside economical support, even though it could result in an economic takeover of a nation in too much debt. If this measure passes, be very careful of how you set up the bizarre in your country. If you give too many concessions to whoever is running your nation's microcredit bizarre, you may wake up the following morning and find you no longer have control of your country or your people.

Also, think of how much value you would put on the development of your nation if you allow an outside influence to have an intregal role in your economy. Wouldn't you rather allow your citizens develop their nation themselves under your government's leadership? The more work you put into something the more value it has.

I applaud the spirit of the resolution but it is too intrusive, especially on developing nations. I will garner the support of my UN delegate for the resolution if I am given adequate reason to believe that I can refuse a Microcredit Bizarre to be set up in my nation, even though UN resolutions are automatically implemented in all member nations upon passage. As it stands, I cannot support this measure because of its intrusive nature.

I await a reply to my misgivings.
Sincerely,
The Right Honorable P. Quincy Talbot
Diplomatic Minister for External Affairs
The People's Republic of Blarney Con Carne

The delegate from Jumbo Paper Clips is correct.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE WISHES OF THIRD WORLD NATIONS VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL!

We, the People's Republic of Plutocratica and founder of the region Group of 77 (in the real world the Group of 77 represents the voice of the Third World and under represented in the United Nations), would vote against this resolution. Microcredits discourage the social responsibility of rich nations to aid the development of their fellow nations and encourage "free trade and commerce," which is basically the propping up of corporate friendly businessmen into positions of power which may endorse policies that go against the will of society. We must place people over profits and "free trade and commerce." Development for society can only take place through the guidance of the 'visible hand' of the government, the representative of the wishes of the people. Our nation was witness to a terrible civil war where the forces of personal gain went against the selfless interest of society. The world should now realize that everyone is interconnected, we are an interdependent world. The weakness of any society hurts all others. Throughout history, societies have had social projects that enforced the idea of community amongst their members. Microcredit goes against this wisdom and places money in the hands of individual people who will not know the interest of the multitude. It would force societies to be at the whims of the market and multinational corporations. Instead of aiding society's culture, microcredit would only be rewarded to individuals that adopted Western ideas and standards. Instead of microcredit, the United Nations must adopt the position of increasing development aid to the most needy societies. Foreign aid must be geared towards governments which respond to the needs of all society so that development can come to all sections of society. Foreign aid should also be freed from requirements that restrict the people's sovereignty and force countries to adopt neo-liberal positions that go against the people's interest. Foreign aid should have less strings attached since those strings can quickly form into chains. Development can only come from getting enough investment to improve a nation’s economy. For nations like Plutocratica, the only social institution that bring about the labor capital, investment, and will to carry out development projects is the government that represents the people.


Well spoken indeed! I invite you to read my response to this measure near the end of the thread.

The Right Honorable P. Quincy Talbot
Diplomatic Minister for External Affairs
The People's Republic of Blarney Con Carne

I applaud the spirit of the resolution but it is too intrusive, especially on developing nations. I will garner the support of my UN delegate for the resolution if I am given adequate reason to believe that I can refuse a Microcredit Bizarre to be set up in my nation, even though UN resolutions are automatically implemented in all member nations upon passage. As it stands, I cannot support this measure because of its intrusive nature.


We respectfully disagree that this resolution is intrusive upon the sovereignty of member nations. The resolution clearly states that the Microcredit Bazaar "will set up chapters in all interested member nations". [Italics mine.] If you don't feel this system would benefit your citizens, simply don't express an interest. If contacted, just say no.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

First, the bazaar does not lend microcredit. It facilitates the lending of it, meaning that it's like...like a bazaar, or a mall. It doesn't actually sell anything itself, it just sets you up with individual lenders who sell things. It is impossible for the bazaar to "demand extortionate repayment rates or further unreasonable business practices" simply because it is not the bazaar which engages in business. It simply provides information and means about doing such business. It's helping your citizens who wish to invest in microcredit make an informed decision.


But I see this so called BAZAAR will need funding thus where will they come from... Those who are lenders that want to use this process.. They may not directly effect the rates paid on these loans but indirectly they will effect the rates the lenders pay thus.... the cost rolls downhill to those who get these loans.. As more Bazaar are set up and more lenders come in the cost rises and somebody pays more someplace for it all... call it repayment of the loan or funding your Bazaar.. still somebody pays... and there is a possible chance of abuse here.

Then consider how will they bring in the 'Lenders' and insure they don't use this as a way to gain control in a region or nation through abuse of the process. Again we may not want it here and so don't have to have it but we deal with other nations who might elect to be taken in by this and those end up in trouble for any number of reason. This comes back to us as we lose trade arrangements with them because they in turn can't pay what they might owe us or their factory fail so they can't produce what we want from them....

As it stands, I cannot support this measure because of its intrusive nature.

That is like saying, "I cannot support this measure because it includes words." All resolutions can be said to be "intrusive", but my government holds the opinion that this resolution is actually very respectiful of domestic rule.

Can you back your opinion by pointing to some specific language in the resolution itself that you feel backs your statement?

Ya know, as a big business, i could jack up all my prices for things i supply to the "poor." which in turn causes them to take out more loans. so in a way, my business can become richer by taking more money from other countries via a middle man........i now do not need to use my profit to help my poor. others will do that for me..........hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

j/k i still fail to see the advantage of something the individual country should be equiped and be willing to do already. cant get a crack addict off crack by giving them more ;)

As representative of the democraic republic of Plantion I declare support for the latest proposal.It reflects our interests of a developing nation and would be seen as an asset to Plantion.People have the right to trade freely with their communties and national economy (Plantion supports this).And we believe Oversea trade is heathy for growth for a nation ,and interelation of religion and ethnic groups if all trade is fair and equal

I wonder about how will this be implemented? My government already gives its citizens all the medical, economic and social support it needs but I do realize that other nations may need this type of service. How will I be able to decline the microcredit bizarre if the resolution still passes? I'm referring to the automatic implementation of passed resolutions in all member nations. If I can be convinced that I won't have foreign influence inside my nation's borders then I won't oppose this resolution.

Yes, resolutions are "automatically implemented" after passed. But what they implement is entirely up to the language of the resolution. This resolution, clearly states that bazaar chapters will only be set up in "interested member nations". So, yes, the Microcredit Bazaar, not the national chapters, will be automatically implemented (or, in a manner of speaking, the option of having one is automatically implemented in all member nations), but it's forming of chapters in your nation is not automatically implemented and, as the resolution states, only occurs when your nation is interested in having one.

We respectfully disagree that this resolution is intrusive upon the sovereignty of member nations. The resolution clearly states that the Microcredit Bazaar "will set up chapters in all interested member nations". [Italics mine.] If you don't feel this system would benefit your citizens, simply don't express an interest. If contacted, just say no.

First, I haven't heard anything to convince me that participation will or will not be mandatory, since U. N. resolutions are AUTOMATICALLY enacted in ALL member nations. Who would run it? That's really the only thing I'm worried about as far as my nation is concerned. My nation doesn't need or want ANY outside influence, no matter how insignificant it claims to be, to set up shop in my country's social structure. That's what I'm talking about when I say this resolution is intrusive. I agree is isn't intrusive on the sovereignty of my nation but it does get the foot in the door for further and more significant "resolutions" concerning microcredit that could potentially directly affect how my government governs its people. If I allow a foreign run financial institution, U.N. sanctioned or not, to be established within my nation's borders, that creates a recipe for disaster.

The disaster recipe follows:

Bank established.
Local citizen apply for loans.
Local citizen defaults on loans.
(what then?)
Foreign run bank now has influence over local citizen.
If a significant amount of local citizens protest or become indebted to foreign run bank, the local gov't will have to address the issue. The local gov't can respond in three ways:

1. If local gov't decides to set fire to and burn the foreign run bank to the ground, much to the delight of its citizens, what's to stop them? And what's to stop the gov't of the foreign run bank to respond to such an act?

War is the result of the above scenario. Depending on the size of the militaries it could mean the destruction or military takeover of the local gov't.

2. If local gov't ignores the citizen's protest and there are enough very upset citizens, a possible revolution and anarchy could ensue.

3. The local gov't could agree to guarantee the loans to the foreign run bank, thereby putting the local gov't in debt to the foreign run bank. This takes the local gov't one step closer to an economic takeover by a foreign power (i.e. a puppet gov't). And what if the local gov't doesn't have the financial resources to do so? See option 1 or 2.

Second, if I allow my own government to run our own microcredit program, it will undermine my nation's efforts to create a free but controlled society that encourages leisure and discourages crimes against persons. My gov't would abolish all money altogether if it were possible. The entire end purpose of any person's life is exactly what my country is trying to create. A leisurely laid back society free from violence and war. For the part of my country's population that doesn't want to live in our version of utopia, they have the option to stay in gov't service, everybody wins.

The wording of the resolution was carefully designed to make it appear innocuous. But it also leaves it open for expanding to larger loans, etc., and that is where the real trouble can begin. I urge all nations to look at the long term and heed my words of warning. Don't allow the influence of a foreign power inside your borders. You will end up regretting it as you lose your country.

Yes, resolutions are "automatically implemented" after passed. But what they implement is entirely up to the language of the resolution. This resolution, clearly states that bazaar chapters will only be set up in "interested member nations". So, yes, the Microcredit Bazaar, not the national chapters, will be automatically implemented (or, in a manner of speaking, the option of having one is automatically implemented in all member nations), but it's forming of chapters in your nation is not automatically implemented and, as the resolution states, only occurs when your nation is interested in having one.

I understand what you are saying and ignore the first part of my last post concerning implentation in the first paragraph.

Am I to assume that the Microcredit Bizarre local chapter will be set up in each region's forum as an RPG? If so, that is a monstrous undertaking and I hope you or whoever is running the thing can stay on top of it.

The wording of the resolution was carefully designed to make it appear innocuous.

It is apparent to us that you are dead set against this resolution, and we have abandoned any hope of changing your mind. We respect your position, although we disagree with it. We do, however, wish to comment on the above sentence in your posting.

We take exception to your comment that the resolution was "carefully designed to appear innocuous." [Italics added.] That seems to us to impute some sort of evil ulterior motives to the drafter. We find this unfortunate and suggest a clarification is in order.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It is apparent to us that you are dead set against this resolution, and we have abandoned any hope of changing your mind. We respect your position, although we disagree with it. We do, however, wish to comment on the above sentence in your posting.

We take exception to your comment that the resolution was "carefully designed to appear innocuous." [Italics added.] That seems to us to impute some sort of evil ulterior motives to the drafter. We find this unfortunate and suggest a clarification is in order.

I have no proof that there is a conspiracy to set the groundwork for economic takeovers of developing countries but this resolution sets the groundwork for such a thing to occur even though it may not be the intention of the resolution's author. I dislike being the naysayer in this debate as the idea itself is a good one but I think the all U.N. member nations need to be aware of the possible downside of such a measure.

From the capital city of Macondo, the new island nation of Foltzica (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=foltzica) pledges its support in favor of this UN resolution. Microcredit is a superb way for underpriveleged economies to revive themselves by developmental growth from within. It also allows for the recipients of the grants to maintain their honor and dignity -- this isn't charity, it's a mini-loan.

I strongly urge any other fair-minded nations who believe in fair trade and growth of the world economy to vote in favor of this resolution.

:mad: Microcredit is only another way for the rich nations to enslave the poor!!!

It is not the worries of the Community of Bienopolis whether or not it will be the bazaar chapters sponsored by Bienopolis itself that will utilize these chapters wisely, to spread fair trade and lift all boats in the sea of humanity. What is of concern, still, to us is the effects of the shameless capitalists and fascists that will use these bazaar chapters to further enslave the populations of the poor nations, creating clients for their own material gain without concern or fidelity to the cause of ending human poverty and suffering.
How will UN member nations be able to respond to such abuses of the Microcredit Bazaar system by nations whose Bazaar chapters do not adhere to the tenets of common sense and fairnes, but who manipulate their leverage to the detriment of those we intend to lend a hand to? We cannot at this point give a vote on this resolution without suggesting that it be written into this resolution some sort of 'quota of decency' that member nations that do open Bazaar chapters must adhere to. We know the ways of the capitalist and we are familiar with their agenda. Giving them, as well as rogue militaristic kingdoms, an open trade avenue into vulnerable poor nations seems a recipe for later disaster. The Community of Bienopolis patiently awaits any members responses on these issues.

Comrade B. Sleazy
Head Axe Grinder
The Community of Bienopolis

Don't know if this is appropriate as I'm just visiting but, are your nations in such a state that if you were interested in such a program you could not establish a microcredit center without the intrusion of the United Nations? Why would you want to involve the international community in your economy and expose it to potential exploitation?

To those who are worring about defaults, its not as if Fourteen Week Freddy will come to collect(fourteen weeks? Yeah the minimum hospital stay after Freddy visits you). The policies will be established, as I understand by the lenders under supervision of the UN. Some of you people seem to have an irrational distrust of capitalism and the free market, as well as a belief that the poor cannot help themselves. Therepy may be needed. This resolution may not be 100% perfect, but it is better than most of the proposals to help the poor. The evil capitalist conservatives in the Palentine still whole-heartedly support this proposal, and nothing in this forum has changed our mind. His Imperial Majesty is very pleased about this and is looking forward to helping out. :D

Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Holy Empire of the Palentine
"Cry Havok! and Let Slip the Dogs of War!"

Am I to assume that the Microcredit Bizarre local chapter will be set up in each region's forum as an RPG? If so, that is a monstrous undertaking and I hope you or whoever is running the thing can stay on top of it.
Nope, there are no game mechanics changes that will occur (i.e. there will not be a button saying "Microcredit Bazaar" on your nation). Game mechanics wise, all UN nations' economies will get a boost (because it's a "free trade" resolution) and, well, nothing else will really happen. Compliance with UN resolutions and their effects are entirely role-played.

I imagine the Microcredit Bazaar to be role-played as a section in the UN building (not an embassy in your nation, but the central building). It might send out occasional inquiries to UN nations if they are interested in a bazaar chapter in their nation. But, other than that, there really isn't much that the Microcredit Bazaar will do on a regional or national level unless you ask it to do so.

To my estemed Collegue from Beinopolis. If the Palentine wanted to force our ways on another country and squeeze the bejabbers out of them ecomonically, we would march into the country in question and place our Jackbooted heel on their necks. We don't need this resolution as an excuse. Take a deep breath and have a popsicle.

"Cry Havok! and let slip the Dogs of War!"

Senator Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador

What is of concern, still, to us is the effects of the shameless capitalists and fascists that will use these bazaar chapters to further enslave the populations of the poor nations, creating clients for their own material gain without concern or fidelity to the cause of ending human poverty and suffering.
How will UN member nations be able to respond to such abuses of the Microcredit Bazaar system by nations whose Bazaar chapters do not adhere to the tenets of common sense and fairnes, but who manipulate their leverage to the detriment of those we intend to lend a hand to? We cannot at this point give a vote on this resolution without suggesting that it be written into this resolution some sort of 'quota of decency' that member nations that do open Bazaar chapters must adhere to. We know the ways of the capitalist and we are familiar with their agenda. Giving them, as well as rogue militaristic kingdoms, an open trade avenue into vulnerable poor nations seems a recipe for later disaster. The Community of Bienopolis patiently awaits any members responses on these issues.
Remember, that the Microcredit Bazaar is given equal footing with nations in the negotiations the particulars of a local bazaar chapter. That means that the Bazaar can make demands and concessions, and one of the demands (which will go into their implied and expressed mandate to microcredit's honesty) they can make is that nations not abuse the bazaar.

Also, I'm not sure I see how a capitalist nation can abuse this situation. The nations are neither lending nor deciding how the loan is collected or any other specifics. The Bazaar is for individuals to become educated about, receive loans from, and invest in microcredit institutions. There is the possibility of predatory lending in microcredit, from the microcredit institutions, which is why the Microcredit Bazaar retains oversight over the lenders who set up shops within it. But, the local chapters are not under the control of the national governments, ultimately (even if in negotiations it is agreed to employ local workers), they are under the control of the UN at all times, and the UN (The Microcredit Bazaar) has the responsibility and the power to eliminate predatory microcredit institutions from their line-up.

The People of the Community Bienopolis appreciate your addressing of these matters and hereby express our support for the resolution on the floor. Although we still hold reservations about the UN's abilities to define abuses and deal with them expeditiously, we see that, in the end, this resolution will do more to help the impoverished and downtrodden of the world than hurt them. May this be the beginning of the dying days of poverty and exploitation.

And to my esteemed colleage from Palentine, your barbaric machismo is an insult to all decent members of the human race. It pleases us to cooperate with you on making the Microcredit Bazaar a success, but understand that the suspicions cast upon capitalism and the "free market economy" are valid, since I can only see capitalists (not to be confused with capitalist nations)crippling this system if they go about their merry ways. Good day to you and may the mighty Orangutang not make his business on you.

Comrade B. Sleazy
Head Axe Grinder
The Community of Bienopolis.

Then don't have a chapter in your nation. But that doesn't mean you should those interested in learning more about microcredit shouldn;t have the option to do so. I plead that you vote For, and just opt-out of having a Bazaar chapter in your nation

Surely if they are interested in learning about such a scheme then they should do it off there own bat, and not wait for the UN to tell them to be interested. And even if we vote against it and win then countries wouldve been educated and theres nothing stopping them from starting theree own microcredit bazaar. This way your getting word out there but not forcing all UN members to have microcredit bazaars and fund them and support them.

This new resolution may have much in the way of popular support, but you need to remember that this is a step forward for globilization and free-trade, and that leads to corporations, which lead to fascism. One most also remember that these loans may provide temporary relief to the poor but what happens when interest rates make a full and total repayment impossible, and therefore create a greater gap between the upper and lower classes. This debt systems in the microcredit bazaar are simply not the way to go. It would be better if the governments simple payed for any operations that the populous would need so they can get surgery or whatever but not go into debt.

Good evening.

After following this debate, we are left without any further questions, nor do we have any objections to the proposed resolution. As such, we cast our vote in favour on behalf of both the Holy Empire of Gravlen and our beautiful region of Radix Lecti.

All Hail!

Lyn Thorsson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

I wish you could go to war with countries because i would sooo do so on some of the people who vote for this proposal just to show them how wrong they are.

Nope, there are no game mechanics changes that will occur (i.e. there will not be a button saying "Microcredit Bazaar" on your nation). Game mechanics wise, all UN nations' economies will get a boost (because it's a "free trade" resolution) and, well, nothing else will really happen. Compliance with UN resolutions and their effects are entirely role-played.

I imagine the Microcredit Bazaar to be role-played as a section in the UN building (not an embassy in your nation, but the central building). It might send out occasional inquiries to UN nations if they are interested in a bazaar chapter in their nation. But, other than that, there really isn't much that the Microcredit Bazaar will do on a regional or national level unless you ask it to do so.


Excellent explanation. Now, if you were to change the wording of the resolution to reflect that the U.N. will have total control over every aspect of the Microcredit Bizarre, and clarify that the only affects on the member countries will be an economic boost and have no additional ramifications, then I will wholeheartedly support your resolution. As your resolution is currently written, I still cannot support it. Reword it according to what you've just said and I will vote in favor of it. Otherwise, my vote against the measure stands.

Powerhungry: I haven't seen so many minds change in the course of a single U.N. debate, but your well-reasoned, convincing, civil arguments have certainly made the difference here. That said, I take this opportunity to note that our nation's corporate sponsors are very pleased with this proposal; a rare gem amidst all the well-intentioned fluff this august body usually produces. Not only does this proposal respect national sovereignty in nearly every respect, it encourages entrepreneurism and free markets, and opens valuable opportunities for investment in formerly untapped third-world markets. With your respect, I offer you my region's 12 delegate votes, and warm congratulations on an excellent discussion and this bill's very likely passage.

Right. Enough ass-kissing. We now turn to our North Pacific colleague:And to my esteemed colleage from Palentine, your barbaric machismo is an insult to all decent members of the human race. ... Good day to you and may the mighty Orangutang not make his business on you.Pardon us, but this is a rather stunning, and purely uncalled for, indictment to lodge in the course of an otherwise civil debate.but understand that the suspicions cast upon capitalism and the "free market economy" are valid, since I can only see capitalists (not to be confused with capitalist nations)crippling this system if they go about their merry ways.Sorry, but "I say it, therefore it is so" has never really been a token of acceptable logic for us.

The idea of the bazaar itself and educating the people to participate in it sounds like a good idea; however, despite the fact that it is not a business in itself, this movement would still require a large amount of funding. To spread the program would cost money. Educational materials, instructors, rent of places to use as "classrooms", pamphlets... however you choose to instruct people, it's going to cost some money. So my question is, where would these funds be coming from? Would it be payed for by taxes of participating nations only? What's the deal?

Subjected by the Self-Appointed Prime Minister of Barad-Du (Region: Middle Earth).

Don't know if this is appropriate as I'm just visiting but, are your nations in such a state that if you were interested in such a program you could not establish a microcredit center without the intrusion of the United Nations? Why would you want to involve the international community in your economy and expose it to potential exploitation?

Are you delegates seeing this,

Some non-UN member (Thor bless him) has seen this rule, laughed at how damn money hungry you liberal minded idiots are and scolded us. Now in reality this microcredit excrement will reach all over and instead of us putting these third world nations in debt, these nations will be attacted by even more relentluss loan sharks. :rolleyes:

And you know what else, now we will have to pass the "Pay off the loan shark resolution" when these nations get into debt up to their Generals. :gundge:

With great disgust for liberals trying to run the World,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Surely if they are interested in learning about such a scheme then they should do it off there own bat, and not wait for the UN to tell them to be interested. And even if we vote against it and win then countries wouldve been educated and theres nothing stopping them from starting theree own microcredit bazaar. This way your getting word out there but not forcing all UN members to have microcredit bazaars and fund them and support them.I completely disagree. The Microcredit Bazaar will be like Google.com: you have large levels of information stored in a free, central location. If you have to find your own information, it's more like randomly trying 'url's, which aren't guaranteed.

It's just an economy of time, if it's a harder effort or takes more time, fewer people will do it. If it's harder or takes longer to find your own information about microcredit and research reputable institutions then fewer will do it. Making it easier will open the opportunity up for more and more people. Consider Hotels. If you're left to your own devices, you'll be wading through the companies' ads and propaganda, hoping for an objective evaluation of the service. In the end, there's a relatively high-likelihood that you'll pick a hotel that might not entirely suit you, or at least turns out to be different than you imagine it to be.

If, however, you have a third party which assembles many hotels together, and offers objective guarantees on their services, etc. Wouldn't it be easier for you to make an informed decision? Just because people can find microcredit institutions on their own, doesn't mean that just leaving out to dry in doing it is the best method. The resolution is trying to increase use of microcredit and investment in it by increasing awareness. I really don't think there's much of a better way than that.

Excellent explanation. Now, if you were to change the wording of the resolution to reflect that the U.N. will have total control over every aspect of the Microcredit Bizarre, and clarify that the only affects on the member countries will be an economic boost and have no additional ramifications, then I will wholeheartedly support your resolution. As your resolution is currently written, I still cannot support it. Reword it according to what you've just said and I will vote in favor of it. Otherwise, my vote against the measure stands.
First, I can't reword the proposal. The text that was submitted over a week ago stands as the text until it is either voted in or rejected (in which case, then I could rewrite the proposal).

But second, there's no need for me to reword the proposal. I'll quote you the sections that I feel clearly demonstrate what I was just saying as already in the proposal. Here are the points I raised: 1. all UN nations' economies will get a boost (because it's a "free trade" resolution) 2. I imagine the Microcredit Bazaar to be role-played as a section in the UN building (not an embassy in your nation, but the central building). 3. It might send out occasional inquiries to UN nations if they are interested in a bazaar chapter in their nation.
And then is the thing you've specifically mentioned as not in the resolution 4. that the U.N. will have total control over every aspect of the Microcredit Bizarre

Now, here in resolution are these things already stated:

#1. "all UN nations' economies will get a boost (because it's a "free trade" resolution)"
The Microcredit Bazaar
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks
The fact that the resolution is "Fair Trade" determines this. The facts that this is an economic boost to nations and that other effects are roleplayed is just a part of the game, and doesn't need to be written in this resolution (it;'d be something like having to label every ball as "ball" before it could officially be recognized as a ball)

#2. "I imagine the Microcredit Bazaar to be role-played as a section in the UN building (not an embassy in your nation, but the central building)."
ESTABLISHES “The Microcredit Bazaar”, which will set up chapters in all interested member nationsThis is the basis of the idea that there would be a central Microcredit Bazaar: The fact that the establishment of "The Microcredit Bazaar" is separated entirely from the establishment of individual chapters indicates that the actual "Microcredit Bazaar" is not in local nations, but as some central location, presumably at UN headquarters.

#3 "It might send out occasional inquiries to UN nations if they are interested in a bazaar chapter in their nation."ESTABLISHES “The Microcredit Bazaar”, which will set up chapters in all interested member nationsAgain, only interested members have a chapter set up in their local nation. There are two main strategies for determining who's interested: passive and proactive. Passive would constitute sitting back and waiting for requests. Proactive involves the outgoing inquiry of interest to member nations. If there is enough passive interest, I doubt the Microcredit Bazaar will engage in proactive inquiring, as it would only over-work the Bazaar. But, then again, the whole idea of the Bazaar is the distribution of information, so maybe in the spirit of mass communication it would make certain that all UN nations had enough information to make an informed decision regarding having a Bazaar chapter. Either way has a case and some possibilities. It would be decided by the Bazaar should this resolution passes.

#4 "that the U.N. will have total control over every aspect of the Microcredit Bizarre"DETERMINING that citizens in UN nations, who have the ability to participate in “microcredit” but do not, might trade more regularly and freely via “microcredit” (which the UN believes to have greater effect than many forms of humanitarian aid) if they had information regarding “microcredit” and assurance of its financial security and honesty,
So the Microcredit Bazaar has an implied mandate to educate and to make "assurance[s] of financial security and honesty"
2.ESTABLISHES “The Microcredit Bazaar”, ... for the purpose of educating citizens in said member nations on microcredit and of securing, presenting, and overseeing reputable organizations by which those citizens can trade microcredit with the impoverished;
So the Microcredit has an explicit mandate to oversee the microcredit institutions who are doing business within the Bazaar's boundaries3.CHARGES “The Microcredit Bazaar” with verifying reputable microcredit organizations, managing queries for a 'Bazaar' chapter, ensuring just and honest distribution of loaned money, ensuring repayment of loans, ensuring the reimbursement of unpaid loans, facilitating educational literature concerning microcredit to member nations, as well as the distribution of that literature as arranged with individual national governments; Again, the Bazaar is charged with (and by default given the authority) to oversee various sections of microcredit goings-on. This even further illustrating the type of oversight authority this resolution grants the Bazaar under the "Quote B"4.EMPOWERS “The Microcredit Bazaar” with the authority to negotiate with national governments the location, length of stay, and extensiveness in presentation of 'Bazaar' chapters within member nations; So, nations and the Bazaar are on equal footing for what is presented, how, where, and for how long. The only other questions are "why" it is presented, which has already been answered by the preambulary clauses. Basically, I see no need to reword the resolution. Sure I might make a few little changes if I got the chance, but there's nothing not here that's needed for the Microcredit Bazaar to work in the way I said it would.

The idea of the bazaar itself and educating the people to participate in it sounds like a good idea; however, despite the fact that it is not a business in itself, this movement would still require a large amount of funding. To spread the program would cost money. Educational materials, instructors, rent of places to use as "classrooms", pamphlets... however you choose to instruct people, it's going to cost some money. So my question is, where would these funds be coming from? Would it be paid for by taxes of participating nations only? What's the deal?

Subjected by the Self-Appointed Prime Minister of Barad-Du (Region: Middle Earth).Well, that would probably be under negotiation between nation and Bazaar. The central Bazaar would be with UN money (which is the case for about 95% of all UN resolutions). But where money came from for local chapters would likely be determined in the negotiations between the Bazaar and UN nations.

Are you delegates seeing this,

Some non-UN member (Thor bless him) has seen this rule, laughed at how damn money hungry you liberal minded idiots are and scolded us. Now in reality this microcredit excrement will reach all over and instead of us putting these third world nations in debt, these nations will be attacted by even more relentluss loan sharks. :rolleyes:

And you know what else, now we will have to pass the "Pay off the loan shark resolution" when these nations get into debt up to their Generals. :gundge:
I won't lie. It is only with a fair amount of difficulty that I maintain repose and decorum in this reply. But, as I've mixed words with juvenile trolls on occasion (not always successfully), I know how to hold my uncouth tongue and only respond in civility.

No, there is no "putting in debt" of third world nations in this resolution. The trade of microcredit is specifically to individuals, not nations. And, besides that, the Microcredit Bazaar will help eliminate dishonest or inhumane microcredit institutions by not allowing them the audience that it gives more reputable organizations. "Loan sharks" will not be helped or present at Bazaar chapters. Period.

Second, there's the accusation that I'm a "liberal". At this, I must snicker (Mmm...Snickers...). In truth, I'm likely much more functionally conservative in my politics than you. I'm just realistically conservative, rather than stuck in the extreme ideological fixations of demagoguery. I believe that there should be small government and rampant economic liberty among a population. However I also recognize the need for government to support those who cannot support themselves. I like leaving most local decisions to the regional or local level (or in the case of the UN: leaving national decisions at the a national level), but I realize that there are paradigm shifts to be made for that--which are hard for young people to make--and that there are a multitude of ideas and initiatives which are fully appropriate at the international level (consider my own "The Nuclear Terrorism Act", "Reformed Literacy Initiative", "The Microcredit Bazaar"). Just because I'm not out there bombing abortion clinics, or labeling all media that don't parallel my point of view as "liberal", or preaching other extreme, naive courses of action, doesn't mean I'm not conservative in my politics.

It just means I'm a realist.

The resolution sounds workable in real life, but as far as the game goes, how would you set up or remove a microcredit bazaar in your country?

I'm voting against this resolution. This is a scheme to facilitate the establishment of international banking franchises in underdeveloped countries. An enormous wave of foreign competition would result in the closure of small national banks in poor countries. Rather than aiding economically fragile nation this proposal would damage what little independent business infrastructure they might have.

The biggest problem with International aid is the
A developing nation needs both short and long term credit. And it's not just the government that needs credit...so do the people.

I believe this resolution will empower people in Developing Nations.

Colleagues:

We concur with New Hamilton and others who have expressed their support of this excellent proposal. Yon Krew is proud to cast its vote in favor of the resolution. We commend Powerhungry Chipmunks for having initiated such a worthy a proposal.

Though I have many concerns about this proposal, overall I think it sounds like an idea worth trying. If not for that fact that it would be optional, I don't think I'd give my support. However, I think it offers hope to those who might otherwise be caught in a financial Catch 22. A word of caution to this measure: Participating nations should be cautious when instating such a program. If participating citizens are not made to proove that they grasp a thorough understanding of the micro-credit bazaar system, the entire operation could be in danger of collapse and potentially harm a nation's overall economy.

As a non-member I have no say in the voting of this matter. But I think it is a good idea. To the delegate from Powerhungry Chipmunks, you sound like more of a prgmatist(more comcerned about results, regardless of how to get there). That is good. More realists and pragmatists are needed. Theory is great, but you need results. That is why communism(as touted by Marx, Engels,and Lenin) will not work in the real world. It looks good on paper, but it never lives up to the hype, unless you like long lines and shortages.

The Republic of Valori sees no reason to not support this proposal.

If the proposal is voted through, it affects only the Nations who want to be part of the Microcredit Bazaar. If a Nation decides that they don't want to hold the Bazaar in their country, then they don't have to.

I see no reason in voting against it, because by doing so you limit the rights of other Nations.

Grand Civilia Island changes its mind, we like this resolution. However we aren't a UN nation. Could non-UN nations have a bazaar? What if we didn't want a UN bazaar? We are a very free market oriented nation and would like as little government intervention in a microcredit bazaar as possible. I am new to NS too so I don't understand what will happen when this passes. Will a room be made called the Central Microcredit Bazaar? Will people come in and represent loaners? Or will there be no effect on NS?

PS - We are in disgust at Plutocratica.

Grand Civilia Island changes its mind, we like this resolution. However we aren't a UN nation. Could non-UN nations have a bazaar? What if we didn't want a UN bazaar? We are a very free market oriented nation and would like as little government intervention in a microcredit bazaar as possible. I am new to NS too so I don't understand what will happen when this passes. Will a room be made called the Central Microcredit Bazaar? Will people come in and represent loaners? Or will there be no effect on NS?

PS - We are in disgust at Plutocratica.

Any decisions made in regards to the United Nations, have absoloutely nothing to do with Nations outside of the UN. So, I don't believe you could be involved with any of this, unless you joined the United Nations.

And everything is set-up and all United Nation governments standings on Economy, Political Freedoms, and Civil Rights are changed. As far as an actual room, well no, we just assume that they are being run unless a Nation wants to RP it all.

;) I won't lie.

Second, there's the accusation that I'm a "liberal". At this, I must snicker (Mmm...Snickers...). In truth, I'm likely much more functionally conservative in my politics than you. I'm just realistically conservative, rather than stuck in the extreme ideological fixations of demagoguery. I believe that there should be small government and rampant economic liberty among a population. However I also recognize the need for government to support those who cannot support themselves. I like leaving most local decisions to the regional or local level (or in the case of the UN: leaving national decisions at the a national level), but I realize that there are paradigm shifts to be made for that--which are hard for young people to make--and that there are a multitude of ideas and initiatives which are fully appropriate at the international level (consider my own "The Nuclear Terrorism Act", "Reformed Literacy Initiative", "The Microcredit Bazaar"). Just because I'm not out there bombing abortion clinics, or labeling all media that don't parallel my point of view as "liberal", or preaching other extreme, naive courses of action, doesn't mean I'm not conservative in my politics.

It just means I'm a realist.

Without playing "stop making fun of me:"

This last paragraph says it all. It would seem that as long as your government officials deem something as ok, then it must be ok...

NO, FOR THOR'S SAKE NO! First you are saying that you are not lending the nation, but rather individuals money? Come on now you know and I know that these individuals will be the centerpoint of the governments of these poverty stricken nations.

Second, you have already stated that you are not a liberal because you say so. Well that is a litmus test on true liberalism. Its kinda like the statement from the book Animal Farm, "all animals are created equal...Its just that some animals are more equal than others". So are you saying that it is alright for some pompous nations to lend to the poorer nation's dictatorships because you know what's right?

Give me a break and don't insult my intellegence

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand (because I'm not gulible)

What worries me most about this free trade agreement is it's impact on domestic economics. Will nations lose their manufacturing base in order to acquire cheaper goods? Will poor nations exploit their workers in order to crank out as many goods as possible?

No one has answered my previous post, so I'm putting these flashy emoticons in the hope that somebody will see it and answer.

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

How exactly would this bazaar work in the game?

No one has answered my previous post, so I'm putting these flashy emoticons in the hope that somebody will see it and answer.

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

How exactly would this bazaar work in the game?

You don't, just your rating in Economy, Civil Rights, and Political Rights is increased or decreased depending on how the Bazaar affects you.

Your just suppose to assume it's going on.

So then it's not really optional? The game would automatically assume that you have one of these bazaars in your country?

So then it's not really optional? The game would automatically assume that you have one of these bazaars in your country?

OOC: The bazaars don't really exist. Your economy standing just goes UP.

I know that they don't really exist, but would you have some say in the matter of whether or not your country had one in the game?

I know that they don't really exist, but would you have some say in the matter of whether or not your country had one in the game?

OOC:You can't have one in the Game, if they don't exist....

Naderomics of the independent region supports this proposal. Naderomics sees no reason as to why the resolution should not pass. Naderomics is open to the idea of intelligent debate though about the matter. In which one who is against the issue should explain why.

So the UN is like a model UN... you represent your NS country and its beliefs, but it really is just "paper." It doesn't effect game play. Or does it?

So the UN is like a model UN... you represent your NS country and its beliefs, but it really is just "paper." It doesn't effect game play. Or does it?
It changes your nations stats but that's about it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Second, you have already stated that you are not a liberal because you say so. Well that is a litmus test on true liberalism. Its kinda like the statement from the book Animal Farm, "all animals are created equal...Its just that some animals are more equal than others". So are you saying that it is alright for some pompous nations to lend to the poorer nation's dictatorships because you know what's right?
I'm not really understanding this. You appear to be mixing metaphors. In the first part of this you're saying that anyone who says "I'm not a liberal" is a liberal and in the other you're attacking my proposal. I don't see how the two are related. Perhaps you should connect these two a little more clearly before I respond to that point.
NO, FOR THOR'S SAKE NO! First you are saying that you are not lending the nation, but rather individuals money? Come on now you know and I know that these individuals will be the centerpoint of the governments of these poverty stricken nations.
What exactly are you saying? "individuals will be the centerpoint of [impoverished] governments"? I'm not sure what you mean by this: That governments will take away the loans from the individuals? That loaning to individuals increases national debt? That the government will apply for microcredit via individuals within the government? I think you need to explain this a little more thoroughly, too. Otherwise I'll likely respond under a misunderstanding as to what you mean and how you feel.

After extensive analysis and reading the debate on the matter, I conclude that...

This is a damn good resolution.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The Republic of Guiuan fully supports this proposal as a means to alleviate global poverty and promote peace and prosperity in our region.

;)

What exactly are you saying? "individuals will be the centerpoint of [impoverished] governments"? I'm not sure what you mean by this: That governments will take away the loans from the individuals? That loaning to individuals increases national debt? That the government will apply for microcredit via individuals within the government? I think you need to explain this a little more thoroughly, too. Otherwise I'll likely respond under a misunderstanding as to what you mean and how you feel.

Let me say this real easy,

Your comments prove that your nation is a SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP.

Why you ask...Because you decide when your businesses can profit and when they need to give money that they earned to people who don't want to work. And because YOU THINK THAT'S GREAT.

As for lending money to individuals in poverty stricken nations. If you want to keep blinders on and think that monies will go to anyone then I must change my opinion of you to DUMB SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP and wonder why nobody has declared war on you and taken your nation...but I digress...The people in these poverty stricken nations (that this corrupt proposal will reward loans to) are going to be the self-appointed leaders of said poverty stricken nations. If you actually don't believe this...Well I told you what my opinion has changed to.

Whenever a poverty stricken nation's leadership has been catered to the history books show that the leadership gets to become more corrupt and the citizentry becomes even more poverty stricken.

Believe it or not it is still the TRUTH,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

;)

Let me say this real easy,

Your comments prove that your nation is a SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP.

Why you ask...Because you decide when your businesses can profit and when they need to give money that they earned to people who don't want to work. And because YOU THINK THAT'S GREAT.

As for lending money to individuals in poverty stricken nations. If you want to keep blinders on and think that monies will go to anyone then I must change my opinion of you to DUMB SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP and wonder why nobody has declared war on you and taken your nation...but I digress...The people in these poverty stricken nations (that this corrupt proposal will reward loans to) are going to be the self-appointed leaders of said poverty stricken nations. If you actually don't believe this...Well I told you what my opinion has changed to.

Whenever a poverty stricken nation's leadership has been catered to the history books show that the leadership gets to become more corrupt and the citizentry becomes even more poverty stricken.

Believe it or not it is still the TRUTH,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

So you would call even a socialist dictatorship "liberal"? Intriguing.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Microcredit? WE DON'T NEED IT! People need sevices by the government, good appliance of the taxes... not microcredit. Allow a new industry to be tax-free for one year, for example... They won't need loans. If they do, let the banks give it, this will boost your own economy. When the tax-free period ends, they will have enought strengh to pay the taxes without going bankrupt... If the people have good payments, they won't need extra money. Specially if the government supply Health and Education. For what other reason will someone need microcredit? to have debits? I DISAGREE WITH THIS, totally.

P.S.: Sorry if I wrote something wrong, english is not my natural language...

Thanks for reading,
Rafael Marrega Rezende,
Representative of the Free Lands of Elastarracha.

It is definatly too late, but as I've said earlier I'm still voting against this bill.

Banking, be it local, or international, always makes money for the bankers. The ones giving out loans make more money then those recieving loans. The truly destitude would not be approved for a loan, as they wouldn't be able to pay interest. If those in charge of Microcredit didn't care if people could make payments, they'd be handing out money as charity and not as loans. Recieving a loan and making money off it is a hard process that few people can do, and few nations will be able to do. Even if they do start to make profits, there is little change between rich and poor unless they start out doing the lender or closing the gap. The lender will be able to increase the gap and make countries realtively poorer.

Tariffs protect developing economies. Many Carribean nations have taken out money via the world bank, only to wind up in more debt, the banking organizations take over more and more of these governments, in an attempt to "correct" their finacial situations. They cut down tarrifs and local industries lose out to exports, (For example many Carribean nations now import powdered milk from America because its cheaper then the milk that comes from their cows, as a result cattle herders that rose cattle for milk now lose business, in an attempt to make money they sell their cattle to McDonalds having to sell for less then what McDonalds would normally buy cattle at which is cheap due to a highly government subsidized practice of America, the profits of which made at McDonalds goes back to America, while now the locals are working at McDonalds for less then Americas min wage, or selling them beef at prices less then what Americans can sell them beef for).

To make things worse, World Banking organizations not only cut the tariffs, but start taking over, or highly influencing government spending. They make cuts to education, health care, public transportation/infrastructure and other areas which would help increase profit in a nation long term to save some money on the short term. Without the proper education, or medical care, they won't be able to get "white collar" upper division jobs, nor be able to live a healthy life. Without the proper education they won't even produce knowledgeble leaders that can help get them out of this cycle.

In closing, Microcredit seems no better then any World Banking Organization, which has done more to harm people in the name of helping them then direct war or conflict between a rich and poor nation ever would.

congrats

Let me say this real easy,

Your comments prove that your nation is a SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP.

Why you ask...Because you decide when your businesses can profit and when they need to give money that they earned to people who don't want to work. And because YOU THINK THAT'S GREAT.

This is unsubstantiated. In fact, I'm trying to do the opposite. I'm trying to promote voluntary investment in microcredit--which encourages the impoverished to work for themselves. In my opinion (and, seemingly, in accordance with the data I've seen), the more money put into microcredit institutions the less put into this "meritless donation" you seem to be pointing toward and marking as a characteristic of a "social dictatorship".
As for lending money to individuals in poverty stricken nations. If you want to keep blinders on and think that monies will go to anyone then I must change my opinion of you to DUMB SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP Of course the money will go to individuals. It's most probably going to be received by the individuals 99% of the time. It's a principle of capitalism.

Allow me to diagram the economics of corruption:

X = The value of a large amount of money
Y = the ethical or moral boundaries which must be crossed to obtain this money (the value of these morals or their likely enforcement)

If X > Y then corruption is likely to occur. If not, then the corruption is not profitable.

Stealing microcredit is not profitable enough to be corruptible. First, it consists entirely of loans. Loans must be paid back. If a corrupt government does not pay back these loans the microcredit institution will stop lending in that country, revenue ends. If the corrupt government decides to repay the loans, it has gained no money. Second, the loans are very, very small. In RL, I've often heard 20 USD and 50 USD as quotations. There is little profit in one theft. Large-scale theft must occur, and that large-scale theft, a a large venture, is just as unprofitable as before, because these are loans their stealing.

Lastly, national governments aren't even in play. These are not loans delivered to individuals through the government, but loans directed solely and exclusively at the impoverished individuals. If the government somehow strong arms those who receive loans into giving them the money, again, they reduce the likelihood that there will be more lent to their nation--killing off their revenue source (which, again, is very small revenue).

Now, if we were talking about international aid, it'd be a different story. These tend to be large chunks, directed at vague goals, and changing many hands. And, if a government corrupts upon the money, it is still as likely to receive more money (the reason the international aid is given in the first place is because there is poverty in the nation, and a corrupt government stealing all the "help" money means that that poverty is perpetuated).

The only logical possibility for corruption is in the microcredit institution. They administer the loans (so they automatically have access to the money) and have the large-scale means already in place to retrieve a profitable amount from the micro-loans. However, we must remember that the Microcredit Bazaar has the oversight, in fact, the mandate to weed out these microcredit institutions from its line-up. The microcredit institution, which is a sort of free-advertisement for microcredit institution, will make those microcredit institutions that run honest business more profitable than those that are corrupt. It will diminish the corruption, not enhance or further it.
[I] wonder why nobody has declared war on you and taken your nation...but I digress...
Because, for starters, my borders would be guarded against such an unwanted assault by my I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons (the things that are RPed as protecting me and all similarly deferent nations against non-consensual role-play).

Go ahead, declare war on me. Declare that you've taken my nation’s lands. I really want to see these cannons in action, again. They've been sitting unused since the last n00b thought he was smarter than everyone else.

The people in these poverty stricken nations (that this corrupt proposal will reward loans to) are going to be the self-appointed leaders of said poverty stricken nations. If you actually don't believe this...Well I told you what my opinion has changed to.
What? The corrupt government officials are going to apply for loans? I just mostly covered why that isn't likely to happen (it not being profitable, there being the whole "paying back" thing), but, I guess I should try to get you to withdraw from this position as well.

Most microcredit institutions' business models rely on them touting the effectiveness of microcredit, how it helps the average farmer trying to support himself. This need for reputation motivates microcredit institutions to oversee this aspect of their business. Long story short, it is in the interest of the microcredit institution to make certain that those that are loaned money are legitimate, and that they produce real farming results. This means you probably can't get a micro-loan with a P.O. box. You need to have a real, verifiable need, and would likely need to show inspectors the farm you’d be using and how you were going to repay the loan.

Second, the Bazaar has oversight with of microcredit institutions within its bounds. It can force the institutions using the Bazaar to use such verification measures even if the market does not (I don't mean force in that the Bazaar would be taking control of the business, but that it could refuse entry to any that didn't have such a practice).

Believe it or not it is still the TRUTH,
Well, it's already a long post, but I might as well add this coda (which is my understanding of "truth"): "Truth" is a function one's belief in something as truth. I suggest you study the work of the Sophists, of Aristotle's divergence from Plato's absolutism, and of Burke's identification of the abstract dramas we engage in every second of every day. At least, that would help you understand how I feel about "truth".

To summarize all that research I'll brief you on the Sophists. It could be said the Sophists were begun by travelers from Ancient Greece into Persia. When the travelers reached Persia they witnessed many different traditions and, in fact, found the Persians doing many things that the Greeks would find offensive or evil. They also found the Persians not observing what the Greeks found to be "righteous" or the way of the Gods. In Greece it was custom to compete in sports naked, it was thought divine. In Greece, obeisance was made to the gods, or bad things were believed to happen. In Persia, though, the entire belief system of the Greeks seemed to be entirely inapplicable, or at least unexplained-ly suspended (Persians did not compete naked in Olympics or offer sacrifice to the gods of Greece).

It could be said that then, the Sophists formed a theory. The theory: if everything thought good by every culture in the world were tossed into a big pile (Rugby, Poker, being naked in sports, etc.). And then each of those cultures were to remove from that pile everything which they found offensive, or at least had sever ambivalence towards, there'd be nothing left in the pile. Sophistry, the beginning of modern pluralism, was based on multiculturalism and the witnessing of people different from you.

That said, it became apparent to the Sophists that what was good and bad in a culture was entirely decided by their collective point of view. What is "truth" and "fiction" is not a constant or some absolute entity, but simply the result of your personal perceptions and beliefs (or, on a cultural level, the beliefs and perceptions of a culture). The Sophists then began "rhetoric" schools (though I believe they did not refer to them as "rhetoric" schools, as Aristotle, I think, was the first to refer to it "rhetoric"), in which they taught students to communicate effectively. They taught based on the principle that all points of view have valid arguments, and that all arguments, if persuasively conjured were plausible and could be considered by people as "truth".

Anyway, "truth" is not absolute, but is identified by the individual. Therefore, whether I believe it or not determines whether it is true for me.

The Holy Empire of Lutzemburg will acknowlege the decision of the United Nations and will go along with the Microcredit issue. We have voted against the issue but will follow the lead of the united nations.

Sincerely,
His Royal Highness Prince Craig R. Lutz
Head of the Royal Family of Lutzemburg
Chief Delegate to the United Nations
:headbang:

The Republic of Valori is extrememly happy that this bill was passed.

Congratulations, may it help all.

Our congratulations to Powerhungry Chipmunks on the passage of this fine resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yay.

My government would like to congratulate the people of Powerhungry Chipmunks for the adoption of yet another fine UN resolution and also express its appreciation of all nations, pro / con / neutral, that took part in the UN discussions.

We've updated the NSWiki entry for the Microcredit Bazaar (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Microcredit_Bazaar).

The NSWiki entry includes the resolution text, a brief summary of the proposal discussions, a summary of key points from the UN floor debate, and a short analysis of NationStates gameplay impacts.

Congratulations to Mr Yeoman and his colleagues. Although obliged to place our region's vote against the resolution, I was personally very pleased to see it pass.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN