NationStates Jolt Archive

this is a just a concept at this point, no draft or anything, just to toss some ideas around. the item in question: the UNSX or Nation States United Nations Stock Exchange. it would be under the Free Trade Catagory, for it is allowing citizens to own stocks outside their nation with out any extra fees that some might have, and it is also to help nations who are multi-national, or just getting to that stage, to build.

any thoughts, even harsh criticism (as long as there is an explination), is welcome.

[edit]
Rough draft available on post #21

Thread change: see thread Draft Proposal: International Stock Exchange (ISX)

a NSUN stock exchange only really affects nations who have international corporations.

if your country has a centralised or internal market and they don't export very much you're not likely to have an international corporation spring up there.

the very nature of corporations means that a stock market would be made up of those companies unless a government privatised its utilites (gas, water or electricty services) and tooks its chances in the international market.

if a nation didn't want to get involved they wouldn't have to be so it would please the natsovs (myself included) and keep the free marketeers happy as well.

if a nation didn't want to get involved they wouldn't have to be so it would please the natsovs (myself included) and keep the free marketeers happy as well.
thats what i thought too. this is more for multi-national corporations. on the other hand, it also allows people to access stocks that they couldnt before.

Hmm........

1) NSUNSX needs a better name.
2) Its creation could be through the NSUN, but its actual running I believe should be seperated from the UN - certainly I don't think its name should include the NSUN.
3) I think some of the more socialist/communist countries will want some capabilities such as preventing their citizens/companies from being a part of the stock exchange.

Hmm........

1) NSUNSX needs a better name.

NSUNSEX?

ISX would be better (international stock exchange). as it affects non-state owned companies, those in socialist countries should not be affected, and since it would be volentary, nothing would stop those governments 'encouraging' their private sector not to list

I can't see myself supporting this. The only way to make it palatable is to make it toothless. If you can make it toothless the ideas of the proposal aren’t important enough to merit UN intervention.

And, lets face it, even if you do say 'Encourages, you know for nations who want to' there is implication that this way is best. It's a nicer way of saying 'well if you are one of those people play somewhere else for a bit'. It's a way of implying 'one world'.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I can't see myself supporting this. The only way to make it palatable is to make it toothless. If you can make it toothless the ideas of the proposal aren’t important enough to merit UN intervention.

And, lets face it, even if you do say 'Encourages, you know for nations who want to' there is implication that this way is best. It's a nicer way of saying 'well if you are one of those people play somewhere else for a bit'. It's a way of implying 'one world'.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I would disagree. You are creating the infrastructure of an international stock exchange and inviting nations to participate in it. Even if it is totally toothless, you are providing an International Service to those that participate that wasn't there before. That isn't useless and certainly follows the beliefs of Free Trade.

I can't see myself supporting this. The only way to make it palatable is to make it toothless. If you can make it toothless the ideas of the proposal aren’t important enough to merit UN intervention.

And, lets face it, even if you do say 'Encourages, you know for nations who want to' there is implication that this way is best. It's a nicer way of saying 'well if you are one of those people play somewhere else for a bit'. It's a way of implying 'one world'.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
i think the difference here is that i was thinking of something that wasnt governmental. it isnt an amalgamation of stock exchanges, it is one created to reduce the red-tape and restrictions of being multi-national, whilst being mainly based in one country. i would give you an example using a RL company. recently, News Ltd. moved its HQ from Adelaide, South Australia, to Delaware, USA, so it could be listed on the NYSX, thus removing it, or at least limiting its capacity on the ASX. the way it would work in my concept, is that News Ltd. would still be able to be based in Adelaide, but listing it on an ISX would mean that it could be traded anyware without having to move or occur penalties/restrictions

I would disagree. You are creating the infrastructure of an international stock exchange and inviting nations to participate in it. Even if it is totally toothless, you are providing an International Service to those that participate that wasn't there before. That isn't useless and certainly follows the beliefs of Free Trade.

I'd agree with that: the creation of services that are necessarily international is a good legislative aim.

i am going to go through and craft this proposal tonight, to be posed tomorrow morning in this thread (AEDST)

Sounds like a very good idea.

I would make it optional for countries to join (to empty any NatSov arguments, as stated before). However, for countries that do opt in, I would make it compulsory to allow free access both to corporations and investors, as well as limiting the taxes on dividends & capital gains for such investments (to close possible loopholes, where countries allow funds to flow one way only).

Some restrictions on companies would be needed. For instance, minimum size and liquidity should be imposed, eventually with reference to previous quotation on national exchanges, to keep the market manageable. Also, I would forbid entry to companies which limit control rights of investors, by means such as golden shares, though this point is more debatable.

Along with the stock exchange, you would surely need to institute a parallel currency exchange to support it (as each country would be trading on a different currency). On this point, I would love to see a Tobin tax introduced (a very small tax on all international currency exchanges), to limit speculative trading on foreign currencies. That would clearly be illegal, under the UN taxation ban, if the tax was collected by the UN itself, but making the exchanges manage the tax as independent institutes might avoid it.

In rough terms, the problems this tax tries to reduce go like this:

1. Fragile nation A wants to keep interest rate low and exchange rate fixed during bad times. Large investor B spots this, borrows and sells massive amounts of its currency. The currency of A floods the market, but nobody wants it. A does not have enough foreign currency to buy it back, is forced to devalue currency. B buys back cheaper currency, pays back the loan, and makes a very nice profit, with the unfortunate side effect of screwing up A's economy. (RL Soros vs. Bank of England. Soros himself has defended that the tax would have helped, after making his fortune.)

2. Something bad happens in a country, or even somewhere else. Investors panic and withdraw investments, flooding the market with currency. (People like B take advantage and do the same.) Nobody wants it, etc. Something worse happens in the country. (RL Asia, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, etc.)

ooc:
:eek: Sorry for the long rant, I have strong views about this as you might have noticed... hope it is not too off-topic.

(Here he goes again...)

I disagree with the idea that an international stock exchange is mostly useful for multi-national corporations. The nature of activity and ownership are completely separable. If the total savings of a given country are outgrown by investment opportunities (as might happen frequently in countries with heavy taxation), large companies with purely domestic activity would still benefit from the possibility of external funding.

Simple example: Poor little Fonzoland discovered enormous mineral resources within its borders. Machinery and know-how to explore these resources cost H 3 million, while after taxes and consumption, only H 2 million remain of GNP. We have two options:
1 - Bye bye riches. Everything stays the same.
2 - Allow investors from other nations to own (part of) the mines. They get the profits, Fonzoland gets taxes, jobs, GDP growth, and technology spillovers.

Before you mention it, this example is hypothetical. We are capable of fully exploring our own vast mineral resources. Cooperation offers are gratefully declined, and invasion attempts will be repelled with force.

I would make it optional for countries to join
You can't make it optional to join. UN resolutions apply to all UN nations, and whether they like it or not, the framework for an exchange would be financed by each UN nation. Whether they choose to employ it or not is up to them, but that's not going to satisfy Sovereigntists. Use it or not, you still have to take the hit for it.

You can't make it optional to join. UN resolutions apply to all UN nations, and whether they like it or not, the framework for an exchange would be financed by each UN nation. Whether they choose to employ it or not is up to them, but that's not going to satisfy Sovereigntists. Use it or not, you still have to take the hit for it.

The stats hit sure...but the last two resolutions to have passed both presented essentially 'optional' scenarios. So, there would be nothing wrong with establishing a framework which countries/companies could invest in, along the lines of the UNSC, would there?

You can't make it optional to join. UN resolutions apply to all UN nations, and whether they like it or not, the framework for an exchange would be financed by each UN nation. Whether they choose to employ it or not is up to them, but that's not going to satisfy Sovereigntists. Use it or not, you still have to take the hit for it.

Hmmm... OK. The Business Education resolution had a clause that only applied to free-market states. Something like that would be legal, right? Or requiring governments to support applications by agents to use the exchange.

What about the Tobin tax, or any trading fees? That feels like a more sensitive issue to me. They could make the exchanges self sufficient, thereby reducing the hit to zero for non participants. (I am not talking about the stats change, just the financial impact.) Is it possible to create an institution which provides services for a fee, or is that considered taxing citizens directly?

You can't make it optional to join. UN resolutions apply to all UN nations, and whether they like it or not, the framework for an exchange would be financed by each UN nation. Whether they choose to employ it or not is up to them, but that's not going to satisfy Sovereigntists. Use it or not, you still have to take the hit for it.

Ah the joys of wording.

"CREATES the ISX blah blah blah blah

ENCOURAGES all nations to allow their companies to trade and citizens to invest on the ISX blah blah blah

MANDATES that any nation that permits any of its companies to trade or any of its citizens to invest on the ISX must allow all of its companies to trade and all of its citizens to invest on the ISX."

This effectively makes it optional, but various precedents show that this is legal.

Ah the joys of wording.

"CREATES the ISX blah blah blah blah

ENCOURAGES all nations to allow their companies to trade and citizens to invest on the ISX blah blah blah

MANDATES that any nation that permits any of its companies to trade or any of its citizens to invest on the ISX must allow all of its companies to trade and all of its citizens to invest on the ISX."

This effectively makes it optional, but various precedents show that this is legal.

Fonzoland loves lawyers. :)

I think it's interesting, but when it goes to business LAE favour "competition"
LAE will prefer a resolution regulating Stocks exchanges and urging or mandating many more co-ordination between them

The LAESX (LAE Stock Exchange) is a strictly regulated privately owned company. Does the UN will buy the LAESX? (where the UN will get the money to buy thousands of Stock Exchanges?) Or does the UN want to create a new stock exchange which will compete with the thousands already existing?

In RL most stock exchanges are private, and nowadays more and more as ASX (Australia), Euronext (Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, Paris),Deutsche Börse, NASDAQ and NYSE are even listed (quoted) themselves.

This economic sector is driven by an Important information technology revolution, we think it's better for innovations, to have several stock exchange competing with each others.

IN RL, the LIFFE (London International Financial Futures Exchange) has been bought by Euronext (Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, and Paris) because it did never undergo strong IT implementation.
The LSE (London Stock Exchange) want to be sold to Deutsche Börse or Euronext for same reasons.

I fully agree that quotation should be more easily available worldwide for company wanting it
(today in RL this is sometimes possible, many companies worldwide are listed on 2 markets, as these 2 Indian companies: Wipro (NYSE ans Mumbai Stock Exchange) or Infosys (NASDAQ and Mumbai Stock Exchange)


By the way an interesting proposition submitted today:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=currency

I think it's interesting, but when it goes to business LAE favour "competition"
LAE will prefer a resolution regulating Stocks exchanges and urging or mandating many more co-ordination between them

The LAESX (LAE Stock Exchange) is a strictly regulated privately owned company. Does the UN will buy the LAESX? (where the UN will get the money to buy thousands of Stock Exchanges?) Or does the UN want to create a new stock exchange which will compete with the thousands already existing?

In RL more and more stock exchange, as ASX (Australia), Euronext (Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, Paris) NASDAQ and NYSE, are private companies.

This economic sector is driven by an Important information technology revolution, we think it's better for innovations, to have several stock exchange competing with each others.

IN RL, the LIFFE (London International Financial Futures Exchange) has been bought by Euronext (Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, and Paris) because it did never undergo strong IT implementation.
The LSE (London Stock Exchange) want to be sold to Deutsche Börse or Euronext for same reasons.

I fully agree that quotation should be more easily available worldwide for company wanting it
(today in RL this is sometimes possible, many companies worldwide are listed on 2 markets, as these 2 Indian companies: Wipro (NYSE ans Mumbai Stock Exchange) or Infosys (NASDAQ and Mumbai Stock Exchange)

I don't know what TLA had in mind, but I would favour an additional market. National exchanges could be maintained as second markets, for comparably smaller companies, and I see no objections to allowing double quotation as you suggest.

The RL system, though it is mostly privately owned, is more of a group of monopolies (or monopolistic competition, if one is picky) than competitive. Even when companies are allowed to be quoted in a different market without geographical limitations, doing so would move them away from domestic "habitat traders." If I remember correctly, the foreign exchange market is a rather segmented duopoly.

The nature of these markets creates natural monopolies, so that private markets are always, as in LAE, strictly regulated to prevent abuse of market power. Seeing modern markets as strict information processing technologies, I think that any real power lies in the regulator anyway, so it would be a transfer from (willing) national authorities to the UN.

I would argue that encouraging the cooperation of thousands of stock markets, in the NS world, would never induce the same benefits as an organised, supranational market.

okay, this is an EXTREMELY rough draft

------------------------------------------------------------------------
catagory: Free Trade (i think)
strength: mild

Owing that many companies choose to have branches in more than one nation

Given thath the location of their head quarters can restrict their share trading options

This resolution calls for the establishment of the International Stock Exchange (ISX)

On the ISX,

a) a company can only list if it is multi-national, in that it has branches in more than one country. those that only operate in a single country cannot apply.

b) state owned corporations can only list if they are at least 25% publicly traded, and conform to point a

Stock will be traded equally, per currency exchange rates, but not including brokers fees

this resolution does not exempt corporations from the taxes, rules, etc. of nations in which they have branches. this also does not replace existing stock exchanges

the object of this resolution is so businesses have a bigger base in which they can draw funding, thus building employment and economies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

side note: this is aimed more at multi-national corporations than governments. any additions welcome. rephrasing of sections is welcome, but dont pick grammar and such as this is, as stated a rough draft.

I would argue that encouraging the cooperation of thousands of stock markets, in the NS world, would never induce the same benefits as an organised, supranational market.

Another idea is to open the border of the "stock exchange" market:
-by urging nation to allow foreign stock exchange compagnies (complying with UN regulation) to operate in their national market, and
-by allowing merger between "stock exchange companies" from differents nations, as Euronext in real life (Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, Paris)

We will then have less stock exchanges worldwide, they will be more international and we will have more competition.

Another idea is to open the border of the "stock exchange" market:
-by urging nation to allow foreign stock exchange compagnies (complying with UN regulation) to operate in their national market, and
-by allowing merger between "stock exchange companies" from differents nations, as Euronext in real life (Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, Paris)

We will then have less stock exchanges worldwide, they will be more international and we will have more competition.

I can see your point of a huge, publicly owned, bureaucratic market potentially becoming abusive. But I am still rather fond of the beast...

How about this: making your first point, while creating an IT system allowing traders (from interested nations) to access all markets simultaneously? OK, sounds heavy, but this is NS... we have wonderful tech!

Advantages:
- Nations which do not have a stock market would still be able to have their companies quoted if they wish (as long as one leader follows your first urging - I volunteer),
- Investors would be as happy as in my previous setup, having the whole world at their fingertips,
- Double listing would be unnecessary,
- Competition would be huge, as companies could freely choose their market and still access the same investors,
- National markets still get their fees.

Of course, exchanges could still merge if they wished to, but that would be no longer an issue of great importance.

Existing currency exchanges would need to be implemented as well, but that is more of the same. Finally, now that the fees are going to the private exchanges, the whole system would have to be financed by a Tobin tax :D

The Lynx Alliance: When you have time, it would be nice to know what you think of all this. ;)

the idea behind this is so multi-national corporations can be traded in many countries at once, without having to deal with the multitude of stock exchanges. whilst it would be established by the UN, it would pretty much run itself with no UN involvement. any company that operates in a single nation can list on that nation's stock exchange, and trust me, there are those out there, and those that operate in more than one country, if they choose, can be listed on the ISX so they can have a broader base of investors. this isnt a merger of SXs, it is a new entity


also... ATTENTION MODS: can you please change the title of this thread? it needs to be changed to Draft Proposal: International Stock Exchange (ISX)

I can see your point of a huge, publicly owned, bureaucratic market potentially becoming abusive. But I am still rather fond of the beast...

I think there are many stock exchange in the world today, no need to create one more, in particular a bureaucratic one.

if you create the ISX and if it can be international, then the UN should be fair and allow any other exchange (complying with UN regulation) to be international
Then do you think that ISX will get a significant market shere of the "stock exchange market" soon? ISX will be created from scratch and there are thousands of tsock market worldwide waiting for the opening of the market

I personnaly don't see the interest why the UN should create a business in a competitive market?

instead:
let's regulate stock markets
let's mandate co-ordination between stock exchanges
let's open the "stock exchange" market beyond borders and allow international mergers
let's create a single currency
let's implement a tobin tax

instead:
let's regulate stock markets
let's mandate co-ordination between stock exchanges
let's open the "stock exchange" market beyond borders and allow international mergers
let's create a single currency
let's implement a tobin tax

let's read the proposal rules:

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

I think there are many stock exchange in the world today, no need to create one more, in particular a bureaucratic one.

if you create the ISX and if it can be international, then the UN should be fair and allow any other exchange (complying with UN regulation) to be international
Then do you think that ISX will get a significant market shere of the "stock exchange market" soon? ISX will be created from scratch and there are thousands of tsock market worldwide waiting for the opening of the market

I personnaly don't see the interest why the UN should create a business in a competitive market?

instead:
let's regulate stock markets
let's mandate co-ordination between stock exchanges
let's open the "stock exchange" market beyond borders and allow international mergers
let's create a single currency
let's implement a tobin tax
first of all, your suggestion of a single currency is illegal, as pointed out. secondly, this is creating a main international stock exchange, which would gradually be an independent part of the UN, whilst maintaining the national stock exchanges as a secondary teir. also, allowing any other established SX to go international would defeat the purpose of setting this up, plus it wouldnt be an even playing field, like the ISX would be.

let's read the proposal rules:


ooops, you right
but maybe we can create a currency,w here nations are urger (not mandated) to join
these nations will change the name of their currency in their nation page, only if they want to

ooops, you right
but maybe we can create a currency,w here nations are urger (not mandated) to join
these nations will change the name of their currency in their nation page, only if they want to
the only problem there is that there will still be differences in exchange rates. for a single currency, the excange rate would have to be 1 = 1

ooops, you right
but maybe we can create a currency,w here nations are urger (not mandated) to join
these nations will change the name of their currency in their nation page, only if they want to

Tread carefully. I think Vastiva once had a UN standard dollar proposal deleted, though I don't know the exact wording of it. I suppose a comparison currency would be an interesting idea, though.

secondly, this is creating a main international stock exchange

I understand what you mean, but you want to deal with a market wich have already thousands of private actors, and want to create a new pleayer which will compete with them, so you have to allow the same rights for all of them than you will allow to ISX.
It means opening the market for ISX and for all others exchange (complying...)

So what let you think that not-yet-listed companies will choose ISX or already-listed-companies will move to ISX?

For example when 2 of the 3 indian giant IT services companies Wipro and Infosys wanted to be listed on an american exchange in addition to the Mumbay one, they had the choice: (NASDAQ vs NYSE)
Wipro choose the NYSE, Infosys choose NASDAQ


which would gradually be an independent part of the UN

Furthermore, who will be the owner of ISX? i understand it will be the UN, and then you plan in few years an IPO (share public offering) for ISX?

Tread carefully. I think Vastiva once had a UN standard dollar proposal deleted, though I don't know the exact wording of it. I suppose a comparison currency would be an interesting idea, though.

like the former system based on gold? or the ECU (European currency unit) the parent of the €

I understand what you mean, but you want to deal with a market wich have already thousands of private actors, and want to create a new pleayer which will compete with them, so you have to allow the same rights for all of them than you will allow to ISX.
It means opening the market for ISX and for all others exchange (complying...)

So what let you think that not-yet-listed companies will choose ISX or already-listed-companies will move to ISX?

For example when 2 of the 3 indian giant IT services companies Wipro and Infosys wanted to be listed on an american exchange in addition to the Mumbay one, they had the choice: (NASDAQ vs NYSE)
Wipro choose the NYSE, Infosys choose NASDAQ

have you actually read my intial draft? (see post #21)

have you actually read my intial draft? (see post #21)

yes, please, let me know if i misread you text
but what i answered is i think it's better to allow existing stock exchanges to do that, instead of creating one from scratch to do this

We can also allow "online broker" to give access to their customer share fom companies listed on all the world stock exchanges (while these acceess should include warnings that these companies are established in diferents nations, where financial regulations may not be the same and financial information may not be regulated in the same way that national companies)

this is a just a concept at this point, no draft or anything, just to toss some ideas around. the item in question: the UNSX or Nation States United Nations Stock Exchange. it would be under the Free Trade Catagory, for it is allowing citizens to own stocks outside their nation with out any extra fees that some might have, and it is also to help nations who are multi-national, or just getting to that stage, to build.

any thoughts, even harsh criticism (as long as there is an explination), is welcome.

[edit]
Rough draft available on post #21


I for one, am against schemes, scams and gambling of any type and that includes risk ventures. Therefore, there is no possible proposal that anyone could come up with to ever convince me to support the corrupt USSE, much less a UNSE, which has no business dictating to any country how each individuals savings shall be invested. I also oppose Free Trade, but do support Fair Trade. Good luck however, and have a great day!

I also oppose Free Trade, but do support Fair Trade. Good luck however, and have a great day!

You're in luck: this isn't a Free Trade proposal. (Although, we'd still be in agreement if it were, as I too support Fair Trade. Of course, I consider the removal of tariffs to be Fair.)

I for one, am against schemes, scams and gambling of any type and that includes risk ventures. Therefore, there is no possible proposal that anyone could come up with to ever convince me to support the corrupt USSE, much less a UNSE, which has no business dictating to any country how each individuals savings shall be invested. I also oppose Free Trade, but do support Fair Trade. Good luck however, and have a great day!
this isnt telling people how to invest their money, and it is more fair trade than free trade and it isnt a UNSE. by the way, read the rough draft before commenting.

okay, this is an EXTREMELY rough draft

------------------------------------------------------------------------
catagory: Free Trade (i think)
strength: mild

Owing that many companies choose to have branches in more than one nation

Given thath the location of their head quarters can restrict their share trading options

This resolution calls for the establishment of the International Stock Exchange (ISX)

On the ISX,

a) a company can only list if it is multi-national, in that it has branches in more than one country. those that only operate in a single country cannot apply.

b) state owned corporations can only list if they are at least 25% publicly traded, and conform to point a

Stock will be traded equally, per currency exchange rates, but not including brokers fees

this resolution does not exempt corporations from the taxes, rules, etc. of nations in which they have branches. this also does not replace existing stock exchanges

the object of this resolution is so businesses have a bigger base in which they can draw funding, thus building employment and economies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

side note: this is aimed more at multi-national corporations than governments. any additions welcome. rephrasing of sections is welcome, but dont pick grammar and such as this is, as stated a rough draft.


Based on your rough draft, I have no problem with it. Especially, since my nation has no stock exchange and no multi-national corporations, both of which are illegal here. My nation has an abundance of mom and pop stores, a 0% unemployment rate (thanks to my small business for all ownership program), and a 0% crime rate (thanks to my high-tech security islands). We would never trade our heavenly paradise for anything. Nothing better than good old isolationism! Good day!

You're in luck: this isn't a Free Trade proposal. (Although, we'd still be in agreement if it were, as I too support Fair Trade. Of course, I consider the removal of tariffs to be Fair.)

As do I! ;)

this isnt telling people how to invest their money, and it is more fair trade than free trade and it isnt a UNSE. by the way, read the rough draft before commenting.


I did, and this is how I read it! Why else would I want to waste time posting?

Based on your rough draft, I have no problem with it. Especially, since my nation has no stock exchange and no multi-national corporations, both of which are illegal here. My nation has an abundance of mom and pop stores, a 0% unemployment rate (thanks to my small business for all ownership program), and a 0% crime rate (thanks to my high-tech security islands). We would never trade our heavenly paradise for anything. Nothing better than good old isolationism! Good day!
as i have stated, this is aimed at multi-national corporations. if they are illegal in your country, you are not affected.

as i have stated, this is aimed at multi-national corporations. if they are illegal in your country, you are not affected.

Bingo! That is why I have wished you luck on it. Take care! :)

as i have stated, this is aimed at multi-national corporations. if they are illegal in your country, you are not affected.


ooops, right i didn't read with attention your text, LAE is a pro-business nation, but we think the world in which we live today is not very hard for multi-national corporations, nowadays multi-national corporations have absoltly no problem accessing financial markets; sorry no support from us here

LAE preffered Microcredit or the small business act

fair enough LAE. anyone else got any suggestions to add to the text?

fair enough LAE. anyone else got any suggestions to add to the text?

Yeah, I'd suggest 'not submitting it'. I honestly don't see the need for this. There are many stock exchanges: why is establishing a UN-based one preferable?

Yeah, I'd suggest 'not submitting it'. I honestly don't see the need for this. There are many stock exchanges: why is establishing a UN-based one preferable?
because it is an international one. instead of having many listings on many exchanges at varying prices, multi-national companies can have one listing on a national one giving access to various sections they didnt before due to local stock exchange rules.

because it is an international one. instead of having many listings on many exchanges at varying prices, multi-national companies can have one listing on a national one giving access to various sections they didnt before due to local stock exchange rules.


TLA, today you if you live in Australia it's possible to buy stocks in Canada, i agree it's difficult, but only because of national legislations and lack of co-ordination between stock exchange themselves and between stock-exchanges and brokers. Do you want the UN to create one airline company, one Movie legal online distribution system, one food supermarkets company ....

TLA, today you if you live in Australia it's possible to buy stocks in Canada, i agree it's difficult, but only because of national legislations and lack of co-ordination between stock exchange themselves and between stock-exchanges and brokers. Do you want he UN to create one airline company, one Movie legal online distribution system, one food supermarkets company ....
there is no comparison between this and what you are saying. this isnt just making it easier for people to buy shares, this is making it easier for companies to build, thus building economies and jobs.

there is no comparison between this and what you are saying. this isnt just making it easier for people to buy shares, this is making it easier for companies to build, thus building economies and jobs.


ok but don't you think the private sector will not be able to do it with adequate legislation?

not multi-national corporations. it is easier to free up the situation of people to buy shares and invest in companies then agree to a proposal that would have encouragements for business. also it is more cost effective for nations to let citizens invest than it is to subsidise

not multi-national corporations. it is easier to free up the situation of people to buy shares and invest in companies then agree to a proposal that would have encouragements for business. also it is more cost effective for nations to let citizens invest than it is to subsidise

what is the relation with the topic we wre debated?

If you notice, i never oppose your aims, but oppose your mean, and tried to give you some ideas

There are many private companies in the world, including companies ruling Stock exchanges, legislate in order you get what you want from them, but LAE will oppose you if you try to embark the UN in an strictly business area competing with private companies

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I don't understand what either of you are talking about. Could one, or both, of you, perhaps simply explain to the less share-savvy of us what this sort of international stock exchange would actually accomplish?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I don't understand what either of you are talking about. Could one, or both, of you, perhaps simply explain to the less share-savvy of us what this sort of international stock exchange would actually accomplish?


Sorry, i may have not been very clear

The position of LAE is we agree with the goals of this proposition, but we will fully oppose the creation of another stock-exchange by the UN competing with thousands of private stock exchange

We think it's possible for the UN to legislate in order existing privates stock exchange act in a manner wanted by UN

For example you, TLA and me, the three of us are connected to the internet and posting on the same forum; but i bet we don't have the same ISP (internet service provider); in order to be able to discuss together on the internet, the UN didn't have to create an ISP itself.

And it's even not a problem if companies are listed on 2 stock exchange, as i don't see any problem to have 2 airline companies flying from:
- Angel's Reach to and from Vagator
- Flurthwel to and from Vagator
- Flurthwel to and from Angel's Reach

we don't need either the UN to create an airline company

Here is the position of LAE

fair enough LAE. anyone else got any suggestions to add to the text?

From my early posts:

I would make it optional for countries to join (to empty any NatSov arguments, as stated before). However, *snip*

Some restrictions on companies would be needed. *snip*

Along with the stock exchange, you would surely need to institute a parallel currency exchange *snip*

I disagree with the idea that an international stock exchange is mostly useful for multi-national corporations. *snip*

Now, you don't have to agree with any of this for your proposal. But it would be awfully nice if you dropped a line stating your opinion about it.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I don't understand what either of you are talking about. Could one, or both, of you, perhaps simply explain to the less share-savvy of us what this sort of international stock exchange would actually accomplish?

In every country, there are people with ideas and people with funding for those ideas. Those are not necessarily the same, so financial markets exist for the second type to "sell" their funding to the first type (receiving payment in the form of a share of profits).

Now, in any given country, there might be more supply than demand for funding or ideas. RL US, EU, China, OPEC, Japan usually have more funds than investment opportunities. RL Eastern Europe, Africa, South America, Emerging Asian markets typically have more investment opportunities than funds.

If no international financial system is in place, some countries will not take all opportunities, while others will have funds to spare. An international financial system allows this market to clear, much like any free trade agreement in any other market.

Therefore, the ISX boosts the economies of both sides. Note that I made no reference to whether the companies are multinational or not, it is irrelevant to the argument.

okay, this is an EXTREMELY rough draft

------------------------------------------------------------------------
catagory: Free Trade (i think)
strength: mild

Owing that many companies choose to have branches in more than one nation

Given thath the location of their head quarters can restrict their share trading options

This resolution calls for the establishment of the International Stock Exchange (ISX)

On the ISX,

a) a company can only list if it is multi-national, in that it has branches in more than one country. those that only operate in a single country cannot apply.

b) state owned corporations can only list if they are at least 25% publicly traded, and conform to point a

Stock will be traded equally, per currency exchange rates, but not including brokers fees

this resolution does not exempt corporations from the taxes, rules, etc. of nations in which they have branches. this also does not replace existing stock exchanges

the object of this resolution is so businesses have a bigger base in which they can draw funding, thus building employment and economies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

side note: this is aimed more at multi-national corporations than governments. any additions welcome. rephrasing of sections is welcome, but dont pick grammar and such as this is, as stated a rough draft.

The whole problem with this is that the trading of commodities involves substaintial adjustments in order to function on an international market. One can be responsible for the trade of a service or good, that, whilst it may be rare in your own country can be in fact quite common elsewhere. The additional bureacracy is something the U.N. could do without. For once, I'm with the NatSov's here, this is something best left to individual nations.

Equally, the definition of public ownership is very confusing.

A better means to regulate international finanacial transactions would be:

a). To establish a code of conduct for international monetary affairs.

b). To establish a Tobin tax, that would limit opportunistic short-term speculation, to the potential detriment of a national economy.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

b). To establish a Tobin tax, that would limit opportunistic short-term speculation, to the potential detriment of a national economy.[/B]



As we have said in this thread, LAE is fully in favour of a tobin tax

But more exactly in favor of what we call "Balanced Tobin tax", where nations are in the same time urged to not increase the total ammount of tax, by decreasing for the same ammount their "Income Tax" or their "value added Tax" or whatever in order to keep before and after the same ratio:

total taxes / GDP

As we have said in this thread, LAE is fully in favour of a tobin tax

But more exactly in favor of what we call "Balanced Tobin tax", where nations are in the same time urged to not increase deficit nor the total ammount of tax by decreasing for the same ammount their "Income Tax" or their "value added Tax" or whatever in order to keep before and after the same ratio:

total taxes / GDP

That would, I wish to assure the honourable delegate of Love and Esterel, be the same line of thinking as Compadria's. I would like to note, additionally, that the tax should be used not purely as a correctional mechanism, but as a means to establish additional funding for regional economic development-maybe even a source of extra funding for the "U.N. Small Business Education".

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The suggestions of Ambassadors Otterby and Nero may well sway me from opposing this endeavour, should they be enacted.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The suggestions of Ambassadors Otterby and Nero may well sway me from opposing this endeavour, should they be enacted.



Thanks

LAE will favor a "balanced tobin tax" as we defined up
Also a Tobin tax can have 2 different approachs

LAE will favor the 1st one

1. taxation of every currency trades (taking placein a UN nation), including :futures, options, swaps, forwards and others forex derivatives whith one currency as underlying

2. taxation of every financial transactions (stocks, bonds, currency and derivatives)
2 point in this case
-we should repeal #128 Representation In Taxation first
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Representation_In_Taxation
i don't think it will be so much hard
i approved it at that time because i didn't think a tobin tax will be possible, but my mind is changing, and also because i prefer a tax tobin on currency only
- LAE will favor a tax tobin on currency only because, there is only 30 000 nations in the UN over 114 000 in the world, and i'm not sure that this will not have a damaging effect on the financial sector in our 30 000 UN members

in both case regulation should be added about transaction on the internet (or other networks) to avoid a tax tobin evasion, when UN citizen have a transaction on an non-Un-member platform, while located in a UN nation

I'm not sure it's possible to express in mere words how strongly we would oppose a repeal of Representation In Taxation. As such, we will instead resort to manly grunts. RAWR!

I'm not sure it's possible to express in mere words how strongly we would oppose a repeal of Representation In Taxation. As such, we will instead resort to manly grunts. RAWR!

if we repeal it we can then add all his substance in the new proposition, apart from the tobin tax:p

but anayway, LAE will favour the 1st tax tobin approach which doesn't need the repeal of #128:)

if we repeal it we can then add all his substance in the new proposition, apart from teh tobin tax

but anayway, LAE will favour the 1st tax tobin approach which doesn't need the repeal of #18

Ahem...perhaps I didn't make myself clear. RAWR!

Anyway, I oppose Tobin Tax measures, and as such do not believe I can usefully contribute further to this idea, which has twisted and devolved significantly from its primary intentions. I should add the "oh we can repeal it and then replace it" attitude of the delegate from L&E strikes me as extremely irresponsible.

I should add the "oh we can repeal it and then replace it" attitude of the delegate from L&E strikes me as extremely irresponsible.
:confused:

I oppose Tobin Tax measures, and as such do not believe I can usefully contribute further to this idea, which has twisted and devolved significantly from its primary intentions.

LAE introduced the concept of "Balanced Tobin Tax"

But more exactly in favor of what we call "Balanced Tobin tax", where nations are in the same time urged to not increase the total ammount of tax, by decreasing for the same ammount their "Income Tax" or their "value added Tax" or whatever in order to keep before and after the same ratio:

total taxes / GDP

What does that mean:
-the total amount (and % compared to the GDP) of taxes dont move in every nation
-this is just a small change about how the nation is taxed
-it's an opportunity to DECREASE income taxes or added value tax, without reducing government spending and without increasing government deficit
-in most nations, income, sales of products and services, selling of houses are taxed; so why the selling of financial products and currencies is so "untouchable" for not being taxed?

Don't you prefer to have selling of financial products or currencies taxed a very little bit to DECREASE income and vallue-added taxes?

first of all, i would call natsov on your concept before i would on an ISX. secondly, the ISX wouldnt remove national SXs, and it would be only for those companies that are multi-national, ie trancend borders

Fonzoland: unofficially, there is an exchange rate indicator (NSEcononmy, i think), and thats what i was basing the exchange rates on. i am unsure of the idea of establishing a currency exchange at the moment. the optionality part is the fact that it deals with only multi-national companies, not countries, and the restrictions are there (has to be in more than one country before listing), and that restriction is there subject to change before the final draft, depending on the feed back i get. to clarify the state-owned company situation, again, that is optional, but has to have at least 25% private ownership (that percentage could increase/decrease, depending on feedback as well) and also conform with the multi-national rule. this is why i am wanting feed back. is the country number and percentage okay? should it be higher? should it be lower? what else can i add to the guts? i know it is hard to get a balance, and others either dont share or understand my view or where i am comming from, but i am looking for constructive feedback at the moment so i can build on this and make it better.

first of all, i would call natsov on your concept before i would on an ISX. secondly, the ISX wouldnt remove national SXs, and it would be only for those companies that are multi-national, ie trancend borders

Fonzoland: unofficially, there is an exchange rate indicator (NSEcononmy, i think), and thats what i was basing the exchange rates on. i am unsure of the idea of establishing a currency exchange at the moment. the optionality part is the fact that it deals with only multi-national companies, not countries, and the restrictions are there (has to be in more than one country before listing), and that restriction is there subject to change before the final draft, depending on the feed back i get. to clarify the state-owned company situation, again, that is optional, but has to have at least 25% private ownership (that percentage could increase/decrease, depending on feedback as well) and also conform with the multi-national rule. this is why i am wanting feed back. is the country number and percentage okay? should it be higher? should it be lower? what else can i add to the guts? i know it is hard to get a balance, and others either dont share or understand my view or where i am comming from, but i am looking for constructive feedback at the moment so i can build on this and make it better.

TLA, plaese forgive me if ihave been rude in this thread, i don't want to prevent you to go, i was just debating with you, proposing you some others alternative for your goals, and just said why LAE will oppose ISX, i hope you are not upset about that

If you come from a communist nation without stock exchange (not many left in RL) i now really understand what you mean, but i'm pretty sure there are ohers possibility than the UN competing with private companies.

in RL, i actually come from Aus. i was just really trying to come up with something fair and hadnt been thought of before. i mean, we just implemented the SBC, why not have an ISX so multi-nationals can compete, and something regulated and not for profit, therefor eliminating biasness in trading. also, what i meant by brokers fees, i meant broker firms, not the ISX itself. just thought i would clarify that part

in RL, i actually come from Aus. i was just really trying to come up with something fair and hadnt been thought of before. i mean, we just implemented the SBC, why not have an ISX so multi-nationals can compete, and something regulated and not for profit, therefor eliminating biasness in trading. also, what i meant by brokers fees, i meant broker firms, not the ISX itself. just thought i would clarify that part

personnaly, i will think that to decrease broker fee, the best is to allow more competition, to encourages brokers to go online (with adequate security), to display in real time the book of order as:
http://test256.free.fr/book.jpg

okay, the point about the brokers fee was ment to be the price and dividends of the company would be equal across each nation, going by the currency exchange rates, but that price wouldnt include any brokers fees. maybe i should add a part about internet access to the ISX.... thanks good thinking

okay, the point about the brokers fee was ment to be the price and dividends of the company would be equal across each nation, going by the currency exchange rates, but that price wouldnt include any brokers fees. maybe i should add a part about internet access to the ISX.... thanks good thinking

TLA, aleady you wanted to engage the UN in something that will be created from scratch in order to compete in an 1st activity against existing private companies, now yo want the UN to compete in a second sector, against Brokerage firms, LAE will even be more against, sorry

Fonzoland: unofficially, there is an exchange rate indicator (NSEcononmy, i think), and thats what i was basing the exchange rates on. i am unsure of the idea of establishing a currency exchange at the moment. the optionality part is the fact that it deals with only multi-national companies, not countries, and the restrictions are there (has to be in more than one country before listing), and that restriction is there subject to change before the final draft, depending on the feed back i get. to clarify the state-owned company situation, again, that is optional, but has to have at least 25% private ownership (that percentage could increase/decrease, depending on feedback as well) and also conform with the multi-national rule. this is why i am wanting feed back. is the country number and percentage okay? should it be higher? should it be lower? what else can i add to the guts? i know it is hard to get a balance, and others either dont share or understand my view or where i am comming from, but i am looking for constructive feedback at the moment so i can build on this and make it better.

I pretty much summed up my views previously, but I will try to make them clearer.

1. I disagree with any favouring of multi-national companies, and would oppose the proposal on that alone. Arguments for equal treatement of all companies were presented earlier, in two occasions, and not debated thus far.

2. If you implement a system containing companies/traders of different nationalities, I assume each of them is receiving their financing/trading in different currencies. It is one thing to state that FX markets do exist, another thing altogether for an agent using currency A to interact in real time with another using currency B. Unless there is some (very fast) method for currencies to be converted, the obvious choice being into the original currency of the asset, the ISX would be unfeasible.

3. The restrictions I was proposing were purely in terms of size (total value of outstanding shares in the company), liquidity (average volume traded per period of time) and some uniformity in control rights (owners of the majority of shares being given control). I see no objection in governments having holdings in the company, as long as the remaining stocks satisfy these requirements. I oppose restriction on the basis of industry or of economic activity, as stated in 1.

4. Tobin tax: Tobin Tax is on currency only, taxation of other assets should be left to individual states, except when quotation is in an international market (which implies a currency transaction as stated earlier). My personal view is that it would be useful even if the money was spent on cheese and wine. ;) I do think a repeal of Representation In Taxation would be needed. I believe LAE's idea of a neutral implementation of the tax is commendable yet empty, as this Assembly has no power to restrict internal taxation rates: temporary neutrality could be freely corrected by later changes in taxation, and it might even be construed as a game mechanics proposal.

i have posted a second draft in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456481) (my reasons for changing stated at the bottom) but i will take your comments into account. i was wanting some input on other restrictions, and maybe you could suggest some figures or phrases to put in. also, i need help in nutting out the currency situation before i put anything else in about it. as stated, i have started a new thread. please post replies there

The government of St Edmund is interested in the prospect of an International Stock Exchange, but dubious about whether using a UN Resolution would be the best way of establishing one: To start with, this would presumably limit it to having branches in UN members only, and to dealing only in shares in companies that are registered in UN member nations, whereas much of our international trade is with countries that are outside of the UN...

as i have stated befor, the discussion on the ISX has moved to another thread, along with the first real draft. please post comments there