NationStates Jolt Archive

Midori and Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero, respectively Kirisubo deputy UN Ambassador and Love and esterel UN Ambassador, would like to introduce a new draft proposal:
Remittances and Tiny Deposits

Please let us know every comments, critics & suggestions you have.

PS: the 2 articles, where the whole idea comes from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4423383.stm
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5079324
An interesting graph:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41027000/gif/_41027192_remittances_203.gif
And a UK Remittances portal:
http://www.sendmoneyhome.org/

EDIT: Here is the final draft

-----
The United Nations,

-A- NOTING that remittances can be substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business development, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and community projects,

-B- REGRETTING that remittance services are sometimes not easily available or charge high commissions,

-C- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance, in order to save money for education, access to land or other property or to be protected from basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks,

-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations,

-E- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:

* "Remittance" as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker,

* "Secured tiny deposit" as a recorded and uncharged small sum of money entrusted to an organization/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,

* "Micro-insurance" as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks, in return for a small paid premium:


-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these international money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

-4- URGES members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profit organizations, banks, insurance companies or government agencies to offer these services;

-5- URGES members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----


Here is the 1st draft posted in this thread
-----
The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to family abroad

-B- AFFIRMING the importance of «microfinance», such as remittances, secured tiny deposits, microcredit and basic life and property micro-insurances for people living in poverty and for developing nations

-C- COMMENDING the goals and actions of the previous resolution #117 The Microcredit Bazaar and DESIRING to encourage the availability of the others aspect of microfinance

-D- NOTING that remittances are a very important source of revenues for many families in the world and, along with foreign direct investment and an important factor of development for developing nations

-E- DISTURBED that remittances are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,

-F- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits or basic life and property and micro-insurances, in order to save money or to be protected from theft or various incident.


-1- MANDATES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organisation, private banks and companies, post offices or in last ressort by national administrations; such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer.

-2- URGES all members to monitor these money transfers for eventual terrorism, fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal aims, while respecting privacy

-3- URGES all members to increase the access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by different means such as encouraging non-profits organisations and allowing incentives or tax breaks to private banks and insurance proving their commitments and in last ressort by being directly involved in such activities

-4- URGES all members to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [3], should the concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance goes bankrupt.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----

I'm very wary of this idea, and deeply concerned by the way it's being presented here.

Firstly, what's with -A- and -1-? Looks really odd. A. or 1) might be better. (I know that's minor.)

Second, there needs to be some major draftwork revisions.

Thirdly, content:

-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to family abroad
This doesn't make sense. What I think you're going for is this:

"DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution a remittance as a sum of money sent overseas by a worker to their family."

Sort of. But that doesn't begin to cover all the angles:
1. You haven't defined 'family', but, in any case, why should we merely restrict it to what I assume you mean by that?
2. You're not really explaining what the purpose of that is, and why it's advantageous (I know you'll say you do later on...you don't - and that needs to come first).
3. You're only defining 'remittance', which seems a little arbitrary, given this resolution covers various aspects of currency transfer. Why do you feel it not necessary to define 'microcredit', for example?

-B- AFFIRMING the importance of «microfinance», such as remittances, secured tiny deposits, microcredit and basic life and property micro-insurances for people living in poverty and for developing nations
Why?

You're saying they're good. Fine. How about I say:

"AFFIRMING the importance of rampant global neoliberalism for people living in poverty and for developing nations"

"AFFIRMING the importance of protectionist fiscal policies for people living in poverty and for developing nations"

"AFFIRMING the importance of cancer for people living in poverty and for developing nations"

"AFFIRMING the importance of being hit with sticks for people living in poverty and for developing nations"

Seems ridiculous? But honestly, I don't think many people will know a lot about this - I certainly don't - and I think you know that, as you provided links to news articles. You need to explain why these ideas will help people, and how: saying they're 'important' isn't enough. Legislation has to have a justification. "X is Y, therefore we should do Z"; "Because A=B, C=D". That sort of thing. This just leaves you saying they're important, but offering no explanation as to how.

Also: please don't use 'developing nations', unless there's a lot of support for the term. It's demeaning. 'Economically developing' would, I suppose, do.

-C- COMMENDING the goals and actions of the previous resolution #117 The Microcredit Bazaar and DESIRING to encourage the availability of the others aspect of microfinance
I would remove this. This resolution is of a fundamentally different order to The Microcredit Bazaar. That had one aim: to raise awareness of microcredit. This is actually forcing nations to support microfinance. That runs counter to one The Microcredit Bazaar's assumptions, that such systems will not be appropriate for all nations. The Microcredit Bazaar only implicitly increases availability of microcredit; it really only increases the availability of knowledge about it.

-D- NOTING that remittances are a very important source of revenues for many families in the world and, along with foreign direct investment and an important factor of development for developing nations
But why? You need to explain why this is so. This clause should be much higher in the preambulatory section, and should be explaining how it is that remittances generate such revenue, or more importantly, why they're more important than FDI. Your opponents may argue they're not at all a factor promoting 'development': they're in fact deincentivising such measures, because they lead to workers migrating to countries where they can earn more (and thus send back more), leading the poorest countries with no employment base with which to structurally develop.

-E- DISTURBED that remittances are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,
A legitimate concern.

-F- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits or basic life and property and micro-insurances, in order to save money or to be protected from theft or various incident.
See you haven't defined any of these terms, so there's on especial reason why people should know what STDs (ho ho) or micro-insurance are, or why they're beneficial. I probably agree with this, though, although I think it needs more legislative oomph.

-1- MANDATES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organisation, private banks and companies, post offices or in last ressort by national administrations; such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer.
This is where it really breaks down. These transfer services are notoriously unreliable; three clauses ago you pointed to possibility of exorbitant commission. If a compassionate government has actually nationalised these services, and is providing a good, fair, regulated service, why should they be forced down to 'last resort' status by possibly unscrupulous companies and banks?

Further, why are all nations being forced into this, if you're tying this proposal to The Microcredit Bazaar? Some socialists objected to what they saw as creeping institutional aid in TMB, but still voted for it, because they thought it might provide a service to other nations. This is a blanket installation (interestingly being co-authored by the Deputy for UN Affairs of Gatesville, the notoriously pro-sovereignty faction).

-2- URGES all members to monitor these money transfers for eventual terrorism, fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal aims, while respecting privacy
Completely unrealistic. You might as well put "everyone play nicely". This doesn't work. Private companies have a right to private accounting in many nations. Further, in personal exchanges, how do you get around "Stop privacy intrusion", which includes a ban on internet monitoring unless serious evidence is presented? That wouldn't allow for 'monitoring'. Further, what you're doing here is admitting some of the inherent flaws of these programs, but doing nothing to account for them.

-3- URGES all members to increase the access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by different means such as encouraging non-profits organisations and allowing incentives or tax breaks to private banks and insurance proving their commitments and in last ressort by being directly involved in such activities
This is a wild, ramshackle clause, that really needs to be variously broken down, and broken off. Let's look at it:
1. Increase access to microfinance --> Ok.
2. Encouraging NPOs --> Bear in mind, such bodies often have secondary agendas. A blanket encouragement for them is not adviseable. There needs to be some system for regulation.
3. 'Incentives' smacks of subsidising private banks, something we wouldn't wish to see encouraged.
4. Why are you so keen to relegate the government to the 'last resort', when it has the potential - and the requirement - to do so much more?

-4- URGES all members to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [3], should the concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance goes bankrupt.
Now the government should underwrite these potentially ambivalent non-profit organizations, whilst being told to keep their noses out? This comes across as very twisted financial logic. Again, it's a lovely idea, and I suppose it's only 'URGES', but the United Nations should not be seen to be even 'urging' bad ideas.

Category? I can't tell if it's Free Trade or Social Justice.

I'm not ruling out support for the idea, but as presented, this needs a significant amount more work.

OOC: Blimey, Sheknu. I had a fairly disapproving response ready and you go and eclipse it in spectacular fashion. Um, so yeah - what Sheknu said.

Sheknu, thanks a lot for your long comment

"DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution a remittance as a sum of money sent overseas by a worker to their family."

Thanks, that's better

1. You haven't defined 'family', but, in any case, why should we merely restrict it to what I assume you mean by that?

Ok, maybe we have to define “family”

2. You're not really explaining what the purpose of that is, and why it's advantageous (I know you'll say you do later on...you don't - and that needs to come first).

I think we did it with –D-, I agree it can be better written:

-D- NOTING that remittances are a very important source of revenues for many families in the world and, along with foreign direct investment and an important factor of development for developing nations

3. You're only defining 'remittance', which seems a little arbitrary, given this resolution covers various aspects of currency transfer. Why do you feel it not necessary to define 'microcredit', for example?

Microcredit is dealt in #117
Maybe we can define more tiny deposits and micro-insurance, I was thinking it was Ok

Seems ridiculous? But honestly, I don't think many people will know a lot about this - I certainly don't - and I think you know that, as you provided links to news articles. You need to explain why these ideas will help people, and how: saying they're 'important' isn't enough. Legislation has to have a justification. "X is Y, therefore we should do Z"; "Because A=B, C=D". That sort of thing. This just leaves you saying they're important, but offering no explanation as to how.

For me the argument is -D-, remittances bring as much money as FD, but We cannot say this way, as it will be a RL reference, We will try to improve -D-

Also: please don't use 'developing nations', unless there's a lot of support for the term. It's demeaning. 'Economically developing' would, I suppose, do.

I don’t get the point, but Ok, no pb

I would remove this. This resolution is of a fundamentally different order to The Microcredit Bazaar. That had one aim: to raise awareness of microcredit. This is actually forcing nations to support microfinance. That runs counter to one The Microcredit Bazaar's assumptions, that such systems will not be appropriate for all nations. The Microcredit Bazaar only implicitly increases availability of microcredit; it really only increases the availability of knowledge about it.

Yes, this reference to Microcredit Bazaar, is not very important, but it’s to emphasize the others components of “microfinance”
Furthermore, resolutions cannot be optional, and I don’t favour the creation of UN agencies and bureaucracy, while the UN don’t have any budget


But why? You need to explain why this is so. This clause should be much higher in the preambulatory section, and should be explaining how it is that remittances generate such revenue, or more importantly, why they're more important than FDI. .

Why, because remittances, along with FDI, are the main foreign source of revenues, we try to say it in -D-

Your opponents may argue they're not at all a factor promoting 'development': they're in fact deincentivising such measures, because they lead to workers migrating to countries where they can earn more (and thus send back more), leading the poorest countries with no employment base with which to structurally develop. .

I don’t think so, remittances is a consequence of migration, not a cause.

See you haven't defined any of these terms, so there's on especial reason why people should know what STDs (ho ho) or micro-insurance are, or why they're beneficial. I probably agree with this, though, although I think it needs more legislative oomph.

Thanks, maybe better to define more tiny deposits and micro-insurances

This is where it really breaks down. These transfer services are notoriously unreliable; three clauses ago you pointed to possibility of exorbitant commission. If a compassionate government has actually nationalised these services, and is providing a good, fair, regulated service, why should they be forced down to 'last resort' status by possibly unscrupulous companies and banks?

If a compassionate government as already providing a good, fair, regulated service, they will have nothing to do, as -1- states:
-1- MANDATES all members to secure easy access to…

Further, why are all nations being forced into this, if you're tying this proposal to The Microcredit Bazaar? Some socialists objected to what they saw as creeping institutional aid in TMB, but still voted for it, because they thought it might provide a service to other nations. This is a blanket installation

We can use “URGES” instead of “MANDATES” in -1-, but I really don’t see any pb with the mandates here, and also we will get the usual many critics if we don’t mandates anything

Completely unrealistic. You might as well put "everyone play nicely". This doesn't work. Private companies have a right to private accounting in many nations. Further, in personal exchanges, how do you get around "Stop privacy intrusion", which includes a ban on internet monitoring unless serious evidence is presented? That wouldn't allow for 'monitoring'. Further, what you're doing here is admitting some of the inherent flaws of these programs, but doing nothing to account for them.

Almost everything, even the best things have side effects.
We want to try to deal with it, and will look for something better, but it’s important to try to have something balanced.

This is a wild, ramshackle clause, that really needs to be variously broken down, and broken off. Let's look at it:
1. Increase access to microfinance --> Ok.
2. Encouraging NPOs --> Bear in mind, such bodies often have secondary agendas. A blanket encouragement for them is not adviseable. There needs to be some system for regulation.
3. 'Incentives' smacks of subsidising private banks, something we wouldn't wish to see encouraged.

Every government will choose how they want to deal with that, they have several options: non-profit organizations, private companies or administrations

4. Why are you so keen to relegate the government to the 'last resort', when it has the potential - and the requirement - to do so much more?

LAE favour privates initiatives over omnipresent government when it’s possible. I agree that’s it’s a light bias, but this is the way we want to draft it, and it seems to me legal as Nations are free to choose.

Now the government should underwrite these potentially ambivalent non-profit organizations, whilst being told to keep their noses out? This comes across as very twisted financial logic. Again, it's a lovely idea, and I suppose it's only 'URGES', but the United Nations should not be seen to be even 'urging' bad ideas.

No.
Governments are urged to underwrite tiny deposits and micro-insurances, not organizations or companies, this is really different:

-4- URGES all members to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [3]…

I was fully against the rescue of LTCM by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1998, for example

Category? I can't tell if it's Free Trade or Social Justice.

I don’t know either

I'm not ruling out support for the idea, but as presented, this needs a significant amount more work.

Thanks a lot, we will try to improve it

Ok, maybe we have to define “family”
And you could you also answer the question? Why should we be allowed to send money to family members, but not to non-biologically-related persons in our care, close friends, local terror cell leaders, and so on? Why is the family unit something special, simply from 'sending money abroad'.

I think we did it with –D-, I agree it can be better written:
-D- NOTING that remittances are a very important source of revenues for many families in the world and, along with foreign direct investment and an important factor of development for developing nations
No, you're not. You're saying this is good. That's it. You're not saying why this is good. Because it's an 'important source of revenue'? On what basis are you making that assumption? And I don't see the link to FDI, or any assessment of whether FDI is more or less preferable, or really anything linking this rather arbitrary inclusion to the rest of the proposal. Look at this way:

"Microfinance is good"

"Therefore all people should have access to microfinance"

Do you see how that doesn't actually provide any justification? It's a fallacy called "begging the question". You're saying what something does by virtue of...what something does. You need to make a case for microfinance as, in its own right, worthy of UN support.


Maybe we can define more tiny deposits and micro-insurance, I was thinking it was Ok
That's because you know what they mean. Putting aside all legislative concerns, you don't want people voting against because they don't understand. When you first joined the forum, you expressed concern that "Mitigation of Large Reservoirs" was unnecessarily complex in its wording (I know you've rescinded the post; I'm not trying to embarrass you, but show that I think you do understand the importance of making it clear what you're talking about). Besides, you're well under the character limit; a precise definition won't detract from anything.

For me the argument is -D-, remittances bring as much money as FD, but We cannot say this way, as it will be a RL reference, We will try to improve -D-
I see. I think in this case, to avoid a RL reference, you could merely 'speculate' or even 'suggest' that remittances would provide greater levels of currency flow than FDI.

Yes, this reference to Microcredit Bazaar, is not very important, but it’s to emphasize the others components of “microfinance”
But you're referencing a resolution with an entirely separate aim. At the very least, I would make it very clear you're setting out to do something distinct; at the moment, the clause reads as though you're 'expanding' The Microcredit Bazaar, which you're not.

Furthermore, resolutions cannot be optional, and I don’t favour the creation of UN agencies, while the UN don’t have any budget
There are many optional resolutions. Your IT Education Act was one of them, by the way. And the UN has managed to establish many agencies 'without a budget'. If you're concerned about funding, then establish some sort of funding system for this project.

Why, because remittances, along with FDI, are the main foreign source of revenues, we try to say it in -D-
Whilst that may be factually correct, it is just an observation. "This is so." Doesn't mean it should be so. And, in the NSUN, we should above all else be talking about what should be so. We have a pretty little fantasy world here: let's do better than RL. I do not see the advantage in facilitating the dependence of economically disadvantaged states on economically advantaged states. Would it not be better if, for these states, the biggest source of revenue was their own industries, which they controlled? What you're saying is "This is happening. Let's make it happen more!" without any comment on the merit of what is happening. There is still nothing in this proposal to demonstrate the intrinsic value of microfinance as opposed to structural aid or other projects.

I don’t think so, remittances is a consequence of migration, not a cause.
I'd partially disagree. To the extent it's true, it doesn't matter: you're talking about a new policy direction. We can't expect that not to have an effect. But also, some people clearly move to migrant work so that they can send money home. That's the whole point. If you make that easier and more profitable, they are going to do that even more. This won't help at all (and may negatively affect) the average wages of Sheknu and Love and esterel. In your Thriving Economy, people are payed more. It makes sense then to get jobs in Love and esterel, and send money back to Sheknu. That means Sheknu has no workers - especially given those fit for migration are likely to be the most productive sectors of the workforce.

Thanks, maybe better to define more tiny deposits and micro-insurances
Yes.

If a compassionate government as already providing a good, fair, regulated service, they will have nothing to do, as -1- states:
-1- MANDATES all members to secure easy access to…
Yes. However, you're making it clear that, regardless of the efficacy of the service, they should be last in queue. This proposal takes a strong anti-state stance: what is the justification for that? I can believe there might be one, but I can't understand why a bad private bank should have the UN endorse their corrupt actions over those of an effective government service. Put it this way: instead of saying government initiatives should be a 'last resort', why not create a rank order based on how well the service operates? Unscrupulous businesses, private or state, should be the last resort. In the absence of any justification for the discrimination, this is only fair.

We can use “URGES” instead of “MANDATES” in -1-, but I really don’t see any pb with the mandates here, and also we will get the usual many critics if we don’t mandates anything
No, no, NO. Lowering the force of the clause doesn't deal with any problems. This is like this approach:

"MANDATES everyone inject themselves with HIV"

"That's bad!"

"Ok. URGES everyone to inject themselves with HIV"

The UN should not be endorsing irresponsible practices, even if it's only "WEAKLY WONDERING IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND AWFULLY".

The point is, this system won't be appropriate for all economies. What about a closed border communalist economic system, where the production must be invested back into the system, because it's the basic property of the workers. They can't leak currency in this way: it's not fair.

Almost everything, even the best things have side effects.
We want to try to deal with it, and will look for something better, but it’s important to try to have something balanced.
This doesn't do anything though. You must be aware one of the criticisms of remittances is accusations of funding terrorist organizations, and of general misappropriation of funds. This is something which requires more regulation than "monitoring, with respect for privacy".

Every government will choose how they want to deal with that, they have several options: non-profit organizations, private companies or administrations
But again, you say government projects should be a 'last resort'. Why is this? What is so inherently wrong about a government wishing to help people?

LAE politics is too favour privates initiatives over omnipresent government when it’s possible. I agree that’s it’s a light bias, but this is the way we want to draft it, and it seems to me legal as Nations are free to choose.
I see. So what you're really saying is: you're just going to encourage capitalism. Oh, great. Sheknu's politics are fine. We believe in international agreement and law, and in negotiation with capitalist economies, but we do so on the basis that the UN, under the terms of its prohibition on ideological bans, cannot force the free market on us. I urge you to strike out this bias.

No.
Governments are urged to underwrite tiny deposits and micro-insurances, not organizations or companies, this is really different:
-4- URGES all members to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [3]…
Even so, what place is it of this proposal to (yes, I know, only 'urge') compel governments to underwrite debts they have no part in. There is no guarantee of accountability for these companies: they could quite easily be abused as fronts, the funds transferred, and bankruptcy declared as a scam. Why should governments foot the bill for this? I'm in favour of debt relief in general, but I think the terms of this are too sweeping.

As for category: I suppose this will be Social Justice, but it's difficult to tell at this stage.

Sorry to perhaps 'spam' your topic with a separate post, but I think this is an important, and relevant, point.

Also: please don't use 'developing nations', unless there's a lot of support for the term. It's demeaning. 'Economically developing' would, I suppose, do.I don’t get the point, but Ok, no pb
I'm probably way out of line on this. There are probably people from 'developing nations' who don't object to the term. And I accept most people - including, I'm sure, you - use 'developing' to mean 'developing economy'. Why, the United Nations has classified Sheknu (http://www.nationstates.net/sheknu) as having a 'developing' economy. Nonetheless.

My principle objection is to the blanket use of the term 'developing'. Whilst it has come to take on the mantle of a fairly specific economic descriptor, it does not necessarily imply that. To me, the term remains demeaning. Consider Mali. One of the poorest countries in the world, held back by the usual shackles of disease, war, desertification, and political upheaval. Consider the music, then, of Taj Mahal, or of Ali Farkar Toure. The latter made an album last year with the kora player Toumani Diabete. The album - In The Heart Of The Moon - was produced by Ry Cooder, and got fantastic reviews in the 'world music' process. Really, seriously, listen to it. Hawa Dolo is just about the most perfect tune ever played (and it's all improvised too, and recorded in what's pretty much a trailer). One journalist described it as "the most beautiful music in the world".

Then consider Live Waste. These giants of African music, who represent to the West a whole continent's cultural output in one field, were relegated to an empty stage in Cornwall, while some god-awful bands pranced around the 'main stages' in London, spewing mindless, boring, arrogant shit. You compare In The Heart Of The Moon and X&Y. One reaches its apex of music invention by...sampling a band most famous for making a song not just about but exactly replicating train noises (I actually like and respect Kraftwerk, but this is a rant). One reaches notes which seem almost spiritual.

Who's the more 'developed'?

(I should add that even if we stick to 'economically developed', that really means 'approaching a system of Western free market economics'. Whilst that's all well and good, there would be many who would consider providing for all citizens the basic necessities of life, instead of leaving them to bob around in a sea of anarcho-capitalist pandemonium, is more 'economically developed'. I honestly think 'rich' and 'poor' serve purposes. I don't especially object to the term 'structural development'.)

And you could you also answer the question? Why should we be allowed to send money to family members, but not to non-biologically-related persons in our care, close friends, local terror cell leaders, and so on? Why is the family unit something special, simply from 'sending money abroad'.

You right, maybe “relatives” is better

No, you're not. You're saying this is good. That's it. You're not saying why this is good. Because it's an 'important source of revenue'? On what basis are you making that assumption? And I don't see the link to FDI, or any assessment of whether FDI is more or less preferable, or really anything linking this rather arbitrary inclusion to the rest of the proposal.

Do you see how that doesn't actually provide any justification? It's a fallacy called "begging the question". You're saying what something does by virtue of...what something does. You need to make a case for microfinance as, in its own right, worthy of UN support.

I posted a chart in my 1st post showing that remittances are an important source of revenues for many nations and families, ok this is Real Life, but I don’t see any other source of information.

Ok, we will probably add, that these source of revenues allow more health care for these people along with opportunity to create small business and to pay for more education for children; thanks.

The link is that it’s as much money going to economically developing nations as FDI, the draft doesn’t say FDI or remittances are much better than the other one.

I not able to draft something about FDI, that’s not the topic.



That's because you know what they mean. Putting aside all legislative concerns, you don't want people voting against because they don't understand. When you first joined the forum, you expressed concern that "Mitigation of Large Reservoirs" was unnecessarily complex in its wording (I know you've rescinded the post; I'm not trying to embarrass you, but show that I think you do understand the importance of making it clear what you're talking about). Besides, you're well under the character limit; a precise definition won't detract from anything.

You right, it’s not easy, but we will work on it


I see. I think in this case, to avoid a RL reference, you could merely 'speculate' or even 'suggest' that remittances would provide greater levels of currency flow than FDI.

We don’t want to compare, the whole point is to say that several factors are important, we have choose to deal with one, remittances ,as we think we can draft something about it.


But you're referencing a resolution with an entirely separate aim. At the very least, I would make it very clear you're setting out to do something distinct; at the moment, the clause reads as though you're 'expanding' The Microcredit Bazaar, which you're not.

There are many optional resolutions. Your IT Education Act was one of them, by the way. And the UN has managed to establish many agencies 'without a budget'. If you're concerned about funding, then establish some sort of funding system for this project.

For me the aim is very similar to Microcredit Bazaar, give more access to “microfinance” for the less fortunate people, it’s just the mean which are different, as I don’t want to create a UN Agency. The UN has no fund, and we cannot ask for private donations for every resolution. “IT education act” had its own solution because. Here, for us the best solution is to encourage private initiatives to do that; that say if administrations really want to do it themselves, it will be ok with our draft.


Whilst that may be factually correct, it is just an observation. "This is so." Doesn't mean it should be so. And, in the NSUN, we should above all else be talking about what should be so. We have a pretty little fantasy world here: let's do better than RL. I do not see the advantage in facilitating the dependence of economically disadvantaged states on economically advantaged states. Would it not be better if, for these states, the biggest source of revenue was their own industries, which they controlled? What you're saying is "This is happening. Let's make it happen more!" without any comment on the merit of what is happening. There is still nothing in this proposal to demonstrate the intrinsic value of microfinance as opposed to structural aid or other projects.

Ok, thanks, we will probably add, that these source of revenues allow more health care for these people along with opportunity to create small business and to pay for more education for children, as private evening course.

Of course everything would have been better if every nation was economically developed.
But that’s not the case, We will of course support project to help them grow their own industries, as the “IT Education Act” or “Microcredit bazaar” does but we think there are different things to do, in different areas, remittances is one of them, maybe not the more important, but something important. We never tried to say that this is the one and only solution.


I'd partially disagree. To the extent it's true, it doesn't matter: you're talking about a new policy direction. We can't expect that not to have an effect. But also, some people clearly move to migrant work so that they can send money home. That's the whole point. If you make that easier and more profitable, they are going to do that even more. This won't help at all (and may negatively affect) the average wages of Sheknu and Love and esterel. In your Thriving Economy, people are payed more. It makes sense then to get jobs in Love and esterel, and send money back to Sheknu. That means Sheknu has no workers - especially given those fit for migration are likely to be the most productive sectors of the workforce.

For centuries, people didn’t wait the access to remittances to migrate. Ok, remittances may grow a little bit more migration, but they can also tend to decrease migration, as lots of remittances are used to create business at home and improve living condition. Therefore I think the additional effects to be not far from neutral.



Yes. However, you're making it clear that, regardless of the efficacy of the service, they should be last in queue. This proposal takes a strong anti-state stance: what is the justification for that? I can believe there might be one, but I can't understand why a bad private bank should have the UN endorse their corrupt actions over those of an effective government service. Put it this way: instead of saying government initiatives should be a 'last resort', why not create a rank order based on how well the service operates? Unscrupulous businesses, private or state, should be the last resort. In the absence of any justification for the discrimination, this is only fair.

You right about regulation of course, we will try to add some. Regulation has to be applied for all organizations, private companies and administrations anyway.

That said, it will be a long debate about the role of the government, my way of thinking is that’s it’s best to let private initiatives do things when they can do it, and hen to regulate it. Why should the government do everything? Why should everything in a nation be centralized? I personally think this tend to be not efficient in the long term. There are some areas of course, as education, or defence, where I think it’s better for administrations.

So this proposal let the choice, but encourage more one than one other, its just reflecting in a very light way the positions of the authors.



The point is, this system won't be appropriate for all economies. What about a closed border communalist economic system, where the production must be invested back into the system, because it's the basic property of the workers. They can't leak currency in this way: it's not fair.

Sorry, I don’t get your point. You are mentioning nation with no migrants, either in or out?


This doesn't do anything though. You must be aware one of the criticisms of remittances is accusations of funding terrorist organizations, and of general misappropriation of funds. This is something which requires more regulation than "monitoring, with respect for privacy".

Yes, you right, this is why we wrote clause -2-, I agree with you it can be better, we will try to do it soon, thanks.


But again, you say government projects should be a 'last resort'. Why is this? What is so inherently wrong about a government wishing to help people?

Nothing wrong, it’s why it’s encouraged in our draft; we just encourage even more to secure it by private initiatives, as it’s an area which doesn’t require a “monopole”.


I see. So what you're really saying is: you're just going to encourage capitalism. Oh, great. Sheknu's politics are fine. We believe in international agreement and law, and in negotiation with capitalist economies, but we do so on the basis that the UN, under the terms of its prohibition on ideological bans, cannot force the free market on us. I urge you to strike out this bias.

We doesn’t force anything about free market, we don’t prohibit/ban anything


Even so, what place is it of this proposal to (yes, I know, only 'urge') compel governments to underwrite debts they have no part in. There is no guarantee of accountability for these companies: they could quite easily be abused as fronts, the funds transferred, and bankruptcy declared as a scam. Why should governments foot the bill for this? I'm in favour of debt relief in general, but I think the terms of this are too sweeping.


You made a very good point, thanks, if we don’t find a good solution for clause -4- we will delete it, but, we like the idea and will come back with something better, I hope;)
That’s say it’s only about tiny deposits and micro-insurance so the amount will not be very high, we will try to introduce some regulation, there

As for category: I suppose this will be Social Justice, but it's difficult to tell at this stage.

Sorry to perhaps 'spam' your topic with a separate post, but I think this is an important, and relevant, point.


I'm probably way out of line on this. There are probably people from 'developing nations' who don't object to the term. And I accept most people - including, I'm sure, you - use 'developing' to mean 'developing economy'. Why, the United Nations has classified Sheknu (http://www.nationstates.net/sheknu) as having a 'developing' economy. Nonetheless.

My principle objection is to the blanket use of the term 'developing'. Whilst it has come to take on the mantle of a fairly specific economic descriptor, it does not necessarily imply that. To me, the term remains demeaning. Consider Mali. One of the poorest countries in the world, held back by the usual shackles of disease, war, desertification, and political upheaval. Consider the music, then, of Taj Mahal, or of Ali Farkar Toure. The latter made an album last year with the kora player Toumani Diabete. The album - In The Heart Of The Moon - was produced by Ry Cooder, and got fantastic reviews in the 'world music' process. Really, seriously, listen to it. Hawa Dolo is just about the most perfect tune ever played (and it's all improvised too, and recorded in what's pretty much a trailer). One journalist described it as "the most beautiful music in the world".

Then consider Live Waste. These giants of African music, who represent to the West a whole continent's cultural output in one field, were relegated to an empty stage in Cornwall, while some god-awful bands pranced around the 'main stages' in London, spewing mindless, boring, arrogant shit. You compare In The Heart Of The Moon and X&Y. One reaches its apex of music invention by...sampling a band most famous for making a song not just about but exactly replicating train noises (I actually like and respect Kraftwerk, but this is a rant). One reaches notes which seem almost spiritual.

Who's the more 'developed'?

(I should add that even if we stick to 'economically developed', that really means 'approaching a system of Western free market economics'. Whilst that's all well and good, there would be many who would consider providing for all citizens the basic necessities of life, instead of leaving them to bob around in a sea of anarcho-capitalist pandemonium, is more 'economically developed'. I honestly think 'rich' and 'poor' serve purposes. I don't especially object to the term 'structural development'.)

Ok, thanks for your demonstration, I will use "Economically developing nations";)

By the way, Sheknu, just a question, please forgive me if it's really unappropriate, i have sometimes the feeling that you are a former NS player, lol, Am I wrong?;)

You right, maybe “relatives” is better
No, I don't think you understand. I'm not saying you're missing out the third cousin twice removed; I'm saying you're missing out non-relatives. Why shouldn't people be allowed to send money home for their friends, for an organization, for their village, and so on? Why limit this to family support?

I posted a chart in my 1st post showing that remittances are an important source of revenues for many nations and families, ok this is Real Life, but I don’t see any other source of information.

Ok, we will probably add, that these source of revenues allow more health care for these people along with opportunity to create small business and to pay for more education for children; thanks.
Clearly we disagree on the meaning of the word 'important'. I fully acknowledge remittances contribute substantially to the financial situation of many of these families. As I have stressed, though, that does mean we should be enforcing and promoting this status quo. All economic actions have effects. Whilst remittances 'look' nice, they have effects on the economy from which the business is drawn, which you don't seem to be considering. You're promoting them, so far as this proposal argues, simply because they're there. We know they're there. The real question should be: are they preferable to the alternatives?

The link is that it’s as much money going to economically developing nations as FDI, the draft doesn’t say FDI or remittances are much better than the other one.

I not able to draft something about FDI, that’s not the topic.
You just contradicted yourself, though. No, the draft doesn't distinguish...except it provides substantial UN support for one, and ignores the other. Now, you may say you'd support an FDI proposal, but the fact is for all your claims to be taking a neutral stance, you are favouring one over the other (and ignoring alternatives too).

We don’t want to compare, the whole point is to say that several factors are important, we have choose to deal with one, remittances ,as we think we can draft something about it.
That's a very dangerous approach. Approaching an economic problem, and deciding to pursue one line of action in isolation simply because it's 'easy', is NOT a responsible attitude. Economic problems - particularly those of international currency flow - need to be considered as a whole.

For me the aim is very similar to Microcredit Bazaar, give more access to “microfinance” for the less fortunate people, it’s just the mean which are different, as I don’t want to create a UN Agency. The UN has no fund, and we cannot ask for private donations for every resolution. “IT education act” had its own solution because. Here, for us the best solution is to encourage private initiatives to do that; that say if administrations really want to do it themselves, it will be ok with our draft.
But this is nothing like The Microcredit Bazaar. That was in effect an educational resolution. It had a premise: if more people learn about microcredit, more people may invest in it. It had an action: the UN collated its resources into a central agency, and then nations which wanted to accept a chapter did so. This proposal's premise runs contrary to that. It provides no means for people to learn about microfinance, and it forces all states to accept microfinance as a proper policy. The aim is not similar to The Microcredit Bazaar; the execution runs sharply against The Microcredit Bazaar. I know it was a popular resolution, but there's no real reason for you to ally yourself to it to this extent.

As for encouraging 'private initiatives', Sheknu is puzzled by your insistence on this, given our absence of a private sector.

Ok, thanks, we will probably add, that these source of revenues allow more health care for these people along with opportunity to create small business and to pay for more education for children, as private evening course.
How do you know the funds will be used for this, though? You're talking about an essentially private interaction: people sending money home to their families. You should add in that it also provides the opportunity for people to bribe officials, to buy guns, and to fund terrorism.

Of course everything would have been better if every nation was economically developed.
But that’s not the case, We will of course support project to help them grow their own industries, as the “IT Education Act” or “Microcredit bazaar” does but we think there are different things to do, in different areas, remittances is one of them, maybe not the more important, but something important. We never tried to say that this is the one and only solution.
Surely we should start with 'the more important' first, and work down? Also, if this is not the one and only solution, then the proposal needs to explicitly acknowledge this. Part of this must surely be an acceptance that some nations will never sanction microfinance policies and, if they are pursuing alternative means of poverty relief (recall if you will the final clause of The Microcredit Bazaar: "...or otherwise"), then why should they have this system forced upon them?

For centuries, people didn’t wait the access to remittances to migrate. Ok, remittances may grow a little bit more migration, but they can also tend to decrease migration, as lots of remittances are used to create business at home and improve living condition. Therefore I think the additional effects to be not far from neutral.
I strongly disagree with this assertion. There is no guarantee the money sent home will be used for this kind of structural economic development, and it is as likely to be squandered, or simply completely consumed by the need for basic supplies, with none left for setting up small businesses. What I am saying is that this proposal is effectively saying: "if you leave your national job markets, we'll make it easier for you to send money home". Great, except that you have to acknowledge that countries with better-paying jobs will attract migrant workers to a greater extent in this case.

You right about regulation of course, we will try to add some. Regulation has to be applied for all organizations, private companies and administrations anyway.

That said, it will be a long debate about the role of the government, my way of thinking is that’s it’s best to let private initiatives do things when they can do it, and hen to regulate it. Why should the government do everything? Why should everything in a nation be centralized? I personally think this tend to be not efficient in the long term. There are some areas of course, as education, or defence, where I think it’s better for administrations.

So this proposal let the choice, but encourage more one than one other, its just reflecting in a very light way the positions of the authors.
Who said anything about centralization? What about devolution to local, semi-autonomous governments, and their programs? What we are getting here is your one view: that market liberalisation is good. I dislike strongly your attempting to force your ideological position on the world through the backdoor of what on the surface is a conciliatory economic proposal.

Sorry, I don’t get your point. You are mentioning nation with no migrants, either in or out?
No, I'm talking about nations which do not allow currency export. You're assuming all countries are part of a global market, operating with 'open borders' trade policies. Some in fact are economically isolationist. All revenue is generated by the state; in these societies, all revenue must be reinvested in the state. Why should these countries be forced to allow currency export?

Nothing wrong, it’s why it’s encouraged in our draft; we just encourage even more to secure it by private initiatives, as it’s an area which doesn’t require a “monopole”.

We doesn’t force anything about free market, we don’t prohibit/ban anything
You're, either accidentally or deliberately, missing the point. Would you support a proposal which encouraged - but didn't mandate - murder? Of course not. You are tacking onto an argument about the efficacy of microfinance blatant unrelated exhortations towards capitalist systems. That is not the place of this proposal to do. That it is only a mild clause is not enough from us seeing what its intent is.

Um.....wow

And I thought I had no life

Um.....wow

And I thought I had no life
Ok. Sorry for debating the issue. I thought this was a UN forum for discussion of UN issues; obviously I was mistaken.

I don't tell you how to play the game. So...

No, I don't think you understand. I'm not saying you're missing out the third cousin twice removed; I'm saying you're missing out non-relatives. Why shouldn't people be allowed to send money home for their friends, for an organization, for their village, and so on? Why limit this to family support?

Thanks for debating this with me

Our resolution aim is not to solve ALL the problem of the world, sorry, but just some few, so maybe we can say “relatives and friends”, but I fear it will be too large; if we stick to relatives, it can be easy to nations to monitor; and by the way it’s not because it’s not urged or mandated by the UN that’s it will be illegal, so nations may extend if they want to.
I’m even pretty sure your objection will b stronger if we don’t stick to “relatives”

Clearly we disagree on the meaning of the word 'important'. I fully acknowledge remittances contribute substantially to the financial situation of many of these families. As I have stressed, though, that does mean we should be enforcing and promoting this status quo. All economic actions have effects. Whilst remittances 'look' nice, they have effects on the economy from which the business is drawn, which you don't seem to be considering. You're promoting them, so far as this proposal argues, simply because they're there. We know they're there. The real question should be: are they preferable to the alternatives?

Remittances are very often small amount of money, and they are also very often subject to high rates or fees. Our proposal try to lower these rate/fees, remittances are often some money hard win by the worker, and sent to relatives with low income. Then for the same amount received by the relatives the worker will need to send less, for example.

As I said every thing has its side effect, microcredit have its side effects, free trade as its side effects, we try do deal with them in clause -2- (we will hopefully improve it).

By the way clause -1- is recommended by the real world IMF and some government, as the RL UK government.

OK for substantially instead of important

You just contradicted yourself, though. No, the draft doesn't distinguish...except it provides substantial UN support for one, and ignores the other. Now, you may say you'd support an FDI proposal, but the fact is for all your claims to be taking a neutral stance, you are favouring one over the other (and ignoring alternatives too).

That's a very dangerous approach. Approaching an economic problem, and deciding to pursue one line of action in isolation simply because it's 'easy', is NOT a responsible attitude. Economic problems - particularly those of international currency flow - need to be considered as a whole.

Sheknu, once again, our proposal aim is not to solve all the problems of the world in one resolution, sorry to be unable to do that, we don’t take a any stance or a neutral stance on FDI, it’s out of topic.

Powerhungry Chipmunks passed the microcredit bazaar and the small business act, Yelda the global food resolution, Caradune and me IT education Act; several nations try to improve economic conditions from several manner, no one of them solve all the world problems but add a contribution, other author will add more in the future hopefully.

But this is nothing like The Microcredit Bazaar. That was in effect an educational resolution. It had a premise: if more people learn about microcredit, more people may invest in it. It had an action: the UN collated its resources into a central agency, and then nations which wanted to accept a chapter did so. This proposal's premise runs contrary to that. It provides no means for people to learn about microfinance, and it forces all states to accept microfinance as a proper policy. The aim is not similar to The Microcredit Bazaar; the execution runs sharply against The Microcredit Bazaar. I know it was a popular resolution, but there's no real reason for you to ally yourself to it to this extent. .

Here is the difference, microcredit needs some funds from people in the world to finance these credits, and it’s why it’s important to inform many people to invite them to invest.

With remittances tiny deposits and micro-insurances, what are needed are actions taken by the players (organizations, corporation or administrations) it’s not the same target. We don’t need to loose money by learning everyone about this; we have to secure low charge/rate remittances services and to encourage the actors to propose tiny deposits and micro-insurance.

As for encouraging 'private initiatives', Sheknu is puzzled by your insistence on this, given our absence of a private sector.
Our draft gives you the choice

How do you know the funds will be used for this, though? You're talking about an essentially private interaction: people sending money home to their families. You should add in that it also provides the opportunity for people to bribe officials, to buy guns, and to fund terrorism.
I answered you up about side effects.

Surely we should start with 'the more important' first, and work down? Also, if this is not the one and only solution, then the proposal needs to explicitly acknowledge this. Part of this must surely be an acceptance that some nations will never sanction microfinance policies and, if they are pursuing alternative means of poverty relief (recall if you will the final clause of The Microcredit Bazaar: "...or otherwise"), then why should they have this system forced upon them?


For, me it had always been obviously obvious that no singular resolution was solving ALL THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD, but Ok, we can add a clause similar the last one in the microcredit bazaar.

I strongly disagree with this assertion. There is no guarantee the money sent home will be used for this kind of structural economic development, and it is as likely to be squandered, or simply completely consumed by the need for basic supplies, with none left for setting up small businesses. What I am saying is that this proposal is effectively saying: "if you leave your national job markets, we'll make it easier for you to send money home". Great, except that you have to acknowledge that countries with better-paying jobs will attract migrant workers to a greater extent in this case.

As I have said people didn’t wait remittances to be available to migrate, and it’s really not their main motivation, it’s really a consequence. As I have said, of course there are side effects, but remittances create jobs in home nations.

Remittances or not it will always be the same, as for centuries,:
“better-paying jobs will attract migrant workers”

So, this draft is trying to improve living conditions and also jobs opportunities in economically developing nations.

Who said anything about centralization? What about devolution to local, semi-autonomous governments, and their programs? What we are getting here is your one view: that market liberalisation is good. I dislike strongly your attempting to force your ideological position on the world through the backdoor of what on the surface is a conciliatory economic proposal.

Sheknu, we force nothing, ok a light preference is given, it’s obvious, but your nation will choose.

No, I'm talking about nations which do not allow currency export. You're assuming all countries are part of a global market, operating with 'open borders' trade policies. Some in fact are economically isolationist. All revenue is generated by the state; in these societies, all revenue must be reinvested in the state. Why should these countries be forced to allow currency export?

I’m afraid that’s it’s not the case anymore since:
Global Food Distribution Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=129

And along with Yelda, I have no problem to help economically developing nations, by integrating them in the global economy in some fair ways.

Remittances are most often money going to economically developing nations.

You're, either accidentally or deliberately, missing the point. Would you support a proposal which encouraged - but didn't mandate - murder? Of course not. You are tacking onto an argument about the efficacy of microfinance blatant unrelated exhortations towards capitalist systems. That is not the place of this proposal to do. That it is only a mild clause is not enough from us seeing what its intent is.

For us, the aim is similar to microcredit bazaar, GDFA or It education act, trying to improve world economy, and in particular economy in economically developing nations

GDFA, microcredit bazaar and UN small education act are also encouraging private initiatives.

For UN small business act it’s evident, for microcredit also, as microcredit are often money to create a private business.
And also GDFA introduce foreign-private initiative in all nations, by requiring them to open their border on food, so LAE private companies are already present in Sheknu, sorry about that.



Sheknu, thanks for all your comment, it will help us, but if you are against private initiative then I suppose you were also against, GDFA, against microcredit, against small business act, and I’m sorry there is nothing I can do for you on this matter.

"DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution a remittance as a sum of money sent overseas by a worker to their family."No good, this. Abroad is better than overseas, and "to another country" or "out of country" would be better still. To borrow from the Real World, someone in America sending money to Mexico would be cut out because of "overseas". He's not sending the money overseas, he's sending it overland to another country.

Pedantic, I know.

-F- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits or basic life and property and micro-insurances, in order to save money or to be protected from theft or various incident.
-3- URGES all members to increase the access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by different means such as encouraging non-profits organisations and allowing incentives or tax breaks to private banks and insurance proving their commitments and in last ressort by being directly involved in such activities
-4- URGES all members to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [3], should the concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance goes bankrupt.
-----
You have used the term TINY DEPOSITS three times and have not defined what this is. To some just '1' would be a 'tiny deposit' to others anything under say '1000000' might be. How with such wide valued currency forms can one say what is a 'tiny deposit' without some limit/value set on it. As this is open to abuse as in time only those that a 'tiny deposit' of say '100000' would be into it...

Other than this find it well done...

No good, this. Abroad is better than overseas, and "to another country" or "out of country" would be better still. To borrow from the Real World, someone in America sending money to Mexico would be cut out because of "overseas". He's not sending the money overseas, he's sending it overland to another country.

Pedantic, I know.

Ok, thanks


then:
-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to relatives in another country

Thanks to Sheknu, Hack and Zeldon
Here is the 2nd draft, we need also to improve clause -2- and try to improve it later,

-----
The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to relatives in another country

-B- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a tiny deposit, or microsavings, as a no-charge recorded small sum of money that someone has entrusted to a organisation/bank/administration and from which they can withdraw or add money, should the sum not be negative; tiny deposits may be granted some interest rates.

-C- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, micro-insurance, as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life, fire, property/cattle/crops damage or weather risk in return for a small paid premium

-D- NOTING that «microfinance», such as remittances, secured tiny deposits, micro-insurances and microcredit contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations - it shall be noted that microcredit is the topic of UN resolution #117 “The Microcredit Bazaar”

-E- NOTING that remittances is a substantial source of revenues for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,

-F- DISTURBED that remittances are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,

-G- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land, cattle, house or taxi property or to be protected from theft, fire, floods heath problems or various incident.


-1- MANDATES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organisation, private banks and companies, post offices or in last ressort by national administrations; such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer.

-2- URGES all members to monitor these money transfers for eventual terrorism, fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal aims, while respecting privacy

-3- URGES all members to increase the access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by different means such as encouraging non-profits organisations and allowing incentives or tax breaks to private banks and insurance proving their commitments and in last ressort by being directly involved in such activities

-4- URGES all members to set transparency standard to avoid abuses, about the origin and management of the funds and the indemnities, and to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [3], should a concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance respecting the transparency standard goes bankrupt.

Co-authored by Kirisubo

You have used the term TINY DEPOSITS three times and have not defined what this is. To some just '1' would be a 'tiny deposit' to others anything under say '1000000' might be. How with such wide valued currency forms can one say what is a 'tiny deposit' without some limit/value set on it. As this is open to abuse as in time only those that a 'tiny deposit' of say '100000' would be into it...

Other than this find it well done...

It would depend, I would guess on the relative value of the currency involved.

That said, everytime I hear "tiny deposits," I can't help but think of roach droppings.

Thanks for debating this with me

Our resolution aim is not to solve ALL the problem of the world, sorry, but just some few, so maybe we can say “relatives and friends”, but I fear it will be too large; if we stick to relatives, it can be easy to nations to monitor; and by the way it’s not because it’s not urged or mandated by the UN that’s it will be illegal, so nations may extend if they want to.
I’m even pretty sure your objection will b stronger if we don’t stick to “relatives”

I believe you are thoroughly missing the point. I think what Sheknu means is that there is no reason why relatives should be "special" in this respect - why should governments give me any extra help in sending money abroad just because it's going to my brother rather than to my best friend, or some guy I've never met but am sponsoring, or a local community project in my home village? Essentially, you are making a cultural assumption, that the Western conservative view of the close family as the basic unit of society and of people's main obligations being to support their blood relatives (rather in the vein of Maggie Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.") is the correct one, and that those who believe in equal obligations to community or even to the entire world are wrong.

Also, even if we were to assume for some reason that family needs to be special in law, and people don't deserve as much help if they're trying to give money to people they aren't closely biologically related to, you don't define "relatives". How close are we talking? Nuclear family? Third cousins? Fifteenth cousins? The entire human race, because we are all descended from a common ancestor?

By the way clause -1- is recommended by the real world IMF and some government, as the RL UK government.

Wow, yeah, I'm thoroughly persuaded now - because I just love the policies of the IMF and the UK government :rolleyes:

As for encouraging 'private initiatives', Sheknu is puzzled by your insistence on this, given our absence of a private sector.
Our draft gives you the choice

That isn't the point. Your proposal contains completely irrelevant rhetoric which condemns government intervention as something that should only be a last resort. It's an attack on a particular ideology which serves no purpose in the proposal, and hasn't been justified in the proposal.

As I have said people didn’t wait remittances to be available to migrate, and it’s really not their main motivation, it’s really a consequence. As I have said, of course there are side effects, but remittances create jobs in home nations.

You have failed to provide any reason to believe that there will be a net benefit to economically developing nations. Why should I believe that the loss of valuable workers, who are now being incentivised to leave my economy, will be adequately compensated by the money coming back in? It's more likely to result in the most skilled and qualified workers leaving, and my economy becoming reliant on foreign cash and the primary and secondary sectors, rather than the service sectors typical of richer countries.

I’m afraid that’s it’s not the case anymore since:
Global Food Distribution Act

Actually, the only compulsory clause in that resolution said "Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns". There are probably therefore still a few remaining closed economies, for instance where the dominant religion views food made abroad as unclean, or where very strict environmental practices are observed, and importing food from abroad when there's plenty of home-grown produce is regarded as environmentally irresponsible.

And also GDFA introduce foreign-private initiative in all nations, by requiring them to open their border on food, so LAE private companies are already present in Sheknu, sorry about that.

Uh, sorry, wrong. Quite apart from the exceptions described above, it does not force socialist governments to give up state monopolies on any industry. They don't have to allow any private businesses to be established, whether foreign or local.

After all these pages of discussion, I still do not see the point in this resolution. Why should governments be forced to set up a whole infrastructure for this, when there are plenty of companies who could dive into this market? With the added disadvantage that if governments control this, that includes malicious governments, and the money someone's sending home might never arrive, or be subject to corruption.

My advice would be to simply abandon this idea.

I believe you are thoroughly missing the point. I think what Sheknu means is that there is no reason why relatives should be "special" in this respect - why should governments give me any extra help in sending money abroad just because it's going to my brother rather than to my best friend, or some guy I've never met but am sponsoring, or a local community project in my home village? Essentially, you are making a cultural assumption, that the Western conservative view of the close family as the basic unit of society and of people's main obligations being to support their blood relatives (rather in the vein of Maggie Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.") is the correct one, and that those who believe in equal obligations to community or even to the entire world are wrong.

Also, even if we were to assume for some reason that family needs to be special in law, and people don't deserve as much help if they're trying to give money to people they aren't closely biologically related to, you don't define "relatives". How close are we talking? Nuclear family? Third cousins? Fifteenth cousins? The entire human race, because we are all descended from a common ancestor?

Thanks for your comments

Sorry, I was thinking that relatives was including “friends”

Thanks, Ok for relatives and friends, but it’s not easy to define more than the dictionary does, and it let nations the possibility to interpret it, and nations will be free to extend this, maybe we could states in -1-, that nations can extend it.


Wow, yeah, I'm thoroughly persuaded now - because I just love the policies of the IMF and the UK government :rolleyes:

It was just some examples; many humanitarian organisations also support this.


That isn't the point. Your proposal contains completely irrelevant rhetoric which condemns government intervention as something that should only be a last resort. It's an attack on a particular ideology which serves no purpose in the proposal, and hasn't been justified in the proposal.

Our proposal doesn’t condemns anything, yes it say to be in last ressort. It’s not the purpose of the proposal you right, and we will maybe forget it if some others nations comment it, but I’m pretty surprised about these comments against private initiative


You have failed to provide any reason to believe that there will be a net benefit to economically developing nations. Why should I believe that the loss of valuable workers, who are now being incentivised to leave my economy, will be adequately compensated by the money coming back in? It's more likely to result in the most skilled and qualified workers leaving, and my economy becoming reliant on foreign cash and the primary and secondary sectors, rather than the service sectors typical of richer countries.

I strongly disagree with you here, as I have said migration exist for centuries and centuries, people didn’t wait the availability of remittances to migrate; this availability may be an added factor to migration, but improve live conditions in home nations, are the origin of many small business and jobs creation.



Actually, the only compulsory clause in that resolution said "Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns". There are probably therefore still a few remaining closed economies, for instance where the dominant religion views food made abroad as unclean, or where very strict environmental practices are observed, and importing food from abroad when there's plenty of home-grown produce is regarded as environmentally irresponsible.

Uh, sorry, wrong. Quite apart from the exceptions described above, it does not force socialist governments to give up state monopolies on any industry. They don't have to allow any private businesses to be established, whether foreign or local.

So, you are saying that nations who don’t want international food imports may ban them for cultural or religious concerns? Does it mean that the GDFA does nothing and that the UNFTC created by # 130 will be submerged by complaints?

I still do not see the point in this resolution

Thanks for asking, sorry if we were not very clear

The points of this resolution are:
-to increase the availability and decrease the costs of remittances, which are a substantial source of revenues for many low-income fmily and economically developing nations while being often hard-win money by workers, but that they are often not easily available or come often with high charge/rate
-to increase the access to tiny deposits (or basic bank account if you prefer) and basic insurance for low income people, in particular in economically developing nations

-G- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land, cattle, house or taxi property or to be protected from theft, fire, floods heath problems or various incident.


Why should governments be forced to set up a whole infrastructure for this, when there are plenty of companies who could dive into this market?

With the added disadvantage that if governments control this, that includes malicious governments, and the money someone's sending home might never arrive, or be subject to corruption.

No, This proposal doesn't force governments to set up a whole infrastructure or to control this

but only to:

"secure access"

-1- MANDATES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organisation, private banks and companies, post offices or in last ressort by national administrations; such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer.

After all these pages of discussion, I still do not see the point in this resolution. Why should governments be forced to set up a whole infrastructure for this, when there are plenty of companies who could dive into this market? With the added disadvantage that if governments control this, that includes malicious governments, and the money someone's sending home might never arrive, or be subject to corruption.

My advice would be to simply abandon this idea.

We agree. The private sector can handle this just fine on its own.

The private sector can handle this just fine on its own.

This proposal try to encourage the private sector (either non-profit or for-profit) to handle this, and just ask administrations to secure it in last ressort.

I find it deeply regrettable that Ambassador Kasigi-Nero has found it meet to bandy around unfounded - indeed, palpably untrue - assertions in order to support his flimsy arguments. I refer to the following:

And also GDFA introduce foreign-private initiative in all nations, by requiring them to open their border on food, so LAE private companies are already present in Sheknu, sorry about that.
The Sheknu ambassador can confirm the situation in their own nation, I'm sure, but I will make it absolutely clear that there are no LAE-registered corporate entities currently operating in Ecopoeia (nor have there ever been, as far as I know). I'm not aware if this is because none have sought to involve themselves in our affairs or simply that their advances have been rebuffed.

MV

The Sheknu ambassador can confirm the situation in their own nation, I'm sure, but I will make it absolutely clear that there are no LAE-registered corporate entities currently operating in Ecopoeia (nor have there ever been, as far as I know). I'm not aware if this is because none have sought to involve themselves in our affairs or simply that their advances have been rebuffed.

MV

Is Ecopoeia, not complying with food free trade required by GDFA, or using its religious/cultural loopholes, curious to know;)

Is Ecopoeia, not complying with food free trade required by GDFA, or using its religious/cultural loopholes, curious to know;)
OOC: Well, the first question would have to be: have any LAE - or for that matter Cluichstani or Gruenberger - companies attempted to operate in Ecopoeia? I can't see much reason for you wanting to, especially as there is no profit motive there.

OOC: Well, the first question would have to be: have any LAE - or for that matter Cluichstani or Gruenberger - companies attempted to operate in Ecopoeia? I can't see much reason for you wanting to, especially as there is no profit motive there.

We'd love to crack your whiskey market... ;)

We'd love to crack your whiskey market... ;)
Strange, we only distil whisky.

O ho ho.

Ahem. In anticipation of the expected response of "yes, we're trying to get access to your markets", I'll confirm that Ecopoeia is using a combo of environmental and cultural justifications for keeping your filthy capitalist paws off our economy. Actually, the Sufis and Viriditans are probably invoking religious justifications as well.

Strange, we only distil whisky.


Strange, we distill ours. ;)

Strange, we distill ours. ;)
Touché!

Here is the 2nd draft, we need also to improve clause -2- and try to improve it later,
I'm afraid I still think you need to improve a lot more than just clause 2.

-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to relatives in another country
You're still not answering my concerns. Look at it this way:

I live in a poor village. I am chosen to go abroad and make some money, because there are no jobs in our country, and send money home. You're saying remittances are an absolute good. So why should we limit it to just 'relatives'? You talked about the possibility of establishing a small business. Several people might get together to set up one, and a couple of them migrate to get better paid jobs, and send start-up capital home. I don't see what's intrinsic to family, relatives, relations, whatever word you want to use, that means this proposal should target them.

-B- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a tiny deposit, or microsavings, as a no-charge recorded small sum of money that someone has entrusted to a organisation/bank/administration and from which they can withdraw or add money, should the sum not be negative; tiny deposits may be granted some interest rates.

-C- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, micro-insurance, as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life, fire, property/cattle/crops damage or weather risk in return for a small paid premium
I think these are fine; thank you. Some of the wording might need sorting, but I think the basic definitions are accurate.

-D- NOTING that «microfinance», such as remittances, secured tiny deposits, micro-insurances and microcredit contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations - it shall be noted that microcredit is the topic of UN resolution #117 “The Microcredit Bazaar”
But now you're pretty much admitting the two resolutions are unconnected, so I don't see any need for retaining this clause. What this clause says is "the UN once passed a resolution on a vaguely similar subject". That doesn't seem to me to justify anything in this proposal. Maybe you could telegram Powerhungry Chipmunks, and ask for his advice? He might have an insight as to how his resolution relates to yours. This clause, whilst accurate, strikes me as irrelevant.

-E- NOTING that remittances is a substantial source of revenues for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,
You're still stating a fact not an opinion. The cocaine trade is a substantial source of revenue for many families in Rio de Janeiro. Is this something we should encourage? I'd like to see an emphasis on why they should be a substantial source. It seems to me in -D- you're trying to say why on a national level remittances are good, and here saying why on a personal level remittances are good. I like that approach. Except you're not saying 'why'. You're not really giving a justification. The 'often allowing' section admits that this is only the case where they choose to so invest it. Essentially, 'money allows' all those services. What you have to do is isolate why this source of money is preferable.

-1- MANDATES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organisation, private banks and companies, post offices or in last ressort by national administrations; such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer.
I'm not touching this until you remove 'in last ressort [sic]'. Sorry, but you should not be pushing a right-wing agenda in a proposal designed to help developing nations' economies. If you want to write a free trade proposal, go ahead, but as it stands, this is just base propaganda sneaking past what appear to be good intentions.

-2- URGES all members to monitor these money transfers for eventual terrorism, fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal aims, while respecting privacy
You may as well just remove this, because it doesn't do anything. You need to consider, I would say, that if these transfers are so prone to abuse, then they may not be a good UN policy in the first place.

-3- URGES all members to increase the access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by different means such as encouraging non-profits organisations and allowing incentives or tax breaks to private banks and insurance proving their commitments and in last ressort by being directly involved in such activities
Again, remove 'last ressort' - it's one s, please - and then we can actually discuss the clause.

-4- URGES all members to set transparency standard to avoid abuses, about the origin and management of the funds and the indemnities, and to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [3], should a concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance respecting the transparency standard goes bankrupt.
This is a good start, actually, but without a universal system of prudential regulation, I'm not sure how effective it is. Still, this is much improved.

And you still haven't answered concerns about the structural deficit of encouraging labour migration.

My advice would be to simply abandon this idea.
I had a long, elaborate post all typed up and ready to go then decided that Groot had summed up my concerns quite nicely. Why should we be doing this?

You're still not answering my concerns. Look at it this way:

I live in a poor village. I am chosen to go abroad and make some money, because there are no jobs in our country, and send money home. You're saying remittances are an absolute good. So why should we limit it to just 'relatives'? You talked about the possibility of establishing a small business. Several people might get together to set up one, and a couple of them migrate to get better paid jobs, and send start-up capital home. I don't see what's intrinsic to family, relatives, relations, whatever word you want to use, that means this proposal should target them.

I added friends to relatives, in a previous post.
Nations are free to do more than our proposal mandates and urges; we want to focus on some point.

But now you're pretty much admitting the two resolutions are unconnected, so I don't see any need for retaining this clause. What this clause says is "the UN once passed a resolution on a vaguely similar subject". That doesn't seem to me to justify anything in this proposal. Maybe you could telegram Powerhungry Chipmunks, and ask for his advice? He might have an insight as to how his resolution relates to yours. This clause, whilst accurate, strikes me as irrelevant.

Yes there are connected. This proposal deal with some kind of microfinance, but not microcredit, another kind of microfinance; so we just want to say why we don’t deal with microcredit in this proposal: because there is already a proposal about it.

I don’t think it’s something important, and maybe there is a better way to state it but at least this is clear to understand.

You're still stating a fact not an opinion. The cocaine trade is a substantial source of revenue for many families in Rio de Janeiro. Is this something we should encourage? I'd like to see an emphasis on why they should be a substantial source. It seems to me in -D- you're trying to say why on a national level remittances are good, and here saying why on a personal level remittances are good. I like that approach. Except you're not saying 'why'. You're not really giving a justification. The 'often allowing' section admits that this is only the case where they choose to so invest it. Essentially, 'money allows' all those services. What you have to do is isolate why this source of money is preferable.

OK thanks a lot for helping me here, that’s great, what about:

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from hard-win wages from Migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenues for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,


I'm not touching this until you remove 'in last ressort [sic]'. Sorry, but you should not be pushing a right-wing agenda in a proposal designed to help developing nations' economies. If you want to write a free trade proposal, go ahead, but as it stands, this is just base propaganda sneaking past what appear to be good intentions.

Again, remove 'last ressort' - it's one s, please - and then we can actually discuss the clause.


OK

You may as well just remove this, because it doesn't do anything. You need to consider, I would say, that if these transfers are so prone to abuse, then they may not be a good UN policy in the first place.

I need to think about it



And you still haven't answered concerns about the structural deficit of encouraging labour migration.

I answered this point up:

migration exist for centuries and centuries, people didn’t wait the availability of remittances to migrate; this availability may be an added factor to migration, but improve live conditions in home nations, are the origin of many small business and jobs creation.

Sheknu, Thanks for your help

You perhaps won't surprise to hear Gruenberg wouldn't support this. However, microcredit seems to annoy communists, so we won't rule out the possibility.

How about an opt-in system? That would allow nations having economic crises to put a hold on currency flow. At the very least allow for nations to temporarily freeze remittances, in the case of a financial crash. But why not model this approach on The Microcredit Bazaar? You don't seem to trust governments, so just stick to encouraging private initiatives, and establish some central agency, which can work with nations who are willing to set up good mechanisms. That would be a much more efficient approach.

Well, this "communist" nation doesn't give a tinkers darn about this proposal because it doesn't apply to us. We can totally ignore it, even the mandated parts.

It's a bit hard to allow people to send money overseas in a cashless society. What they don't have, they can't send, and we certainly aren't introducing any form of capitalism just to allow foreigners to export our currency.

I don't see any point to this proposal to be honest. Nations economic systems differ widly and some nations will have very good reasons not to allow or enourage the export of their wealth. While it may help developing economies, its depleting their own. It also has the potential to encourage an immigration surge that some nations may not have the resources to cope with, especially those with high unemployment rates.

How about an opt-in system? That would allow nations having economic crises to put a hold on currency flow. At the very least allow for nations to temporarily freeze remittances, in the case of a financial crash. But why not model this approach on The Microcredit Bazaar? You don't seem to trust governments, so just stick to encouraging private initiatives, and establish some central agency, which can work with nations who are willing to set up good mechanisms. That would be a much more efficient approach.

Thanks for your comment, but i understood that opt-in systems are illegal.
Also, I don't favour that each resolution create its UN agency, the UN has no budget, and I think it's important to try to limit UN spending.

The Microcredit Bazaar needed more an agency, in particular to educate people about microcredit and give them assurance of its financial security and honesty, in order they may invest in.

I personnaly don't think that creating a UN agency is the solution for every proposal, in order to avoid the "this resolution does nothing, create an agency, it will then do something at least", or "opt-in is illegal, create a UN agency instead"

Here, what is needed is organizations/banks/insurance/administrations to improve/create/increase these microfinance services.

You had a good point about financial crash, thanks, i will think about it.

PS: I have no problem to trust government, i just think that a sensible Government have to try to not be omnipresent and try to concentrate in area such as education, defense, health, regulation, prevention and some other more, but when it goes to finance or agriculture, why do whe need to centralize every little details of everyday life. I think it's important that an significant part of the propulation doesn't have their work of everyday managed by the politic power.

That said I will drop the "last ressort" mentions in the draft, as it's of topic.

Thanks for your comment, but i understood that opt-in systems are illegal.
Also, I don't favour that each resolution create its UN agency, the UN has no budget, and I think it's important to try to limit UN spending.
Fine. Then don't make any mention of The Microcredit Bazaar, because it does all that, and you clearly wouldn't want to be associated with such a pile of crap.

Fine. Then don't make any mention of The Microcredit Bazaar, because it does all that, and you clearly wouldn't want to be associated with such a pile of crap.

Gruenberg, please if you may not interpret all my post, thanks a lot; I said an Agency was more adequate for microcredit

I'm a rightwingfluffly and opposed a strong opposition to the microcredit bazaar, and I don't trust government, maybe I'm an anarchist also:D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436608#goto_threadsearch
4th post

Furthermore, just for your information, I was a new player, when the microcredit bazaar was submitted
But I proposed to PC to include these aspect of microfinance in his small business act:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9898465&postcount=42

Ok, thanks to Sheknu, Myopia and Gruen
Here is the current -non-final- draft

-----
The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to relatives or friends in another country

-B- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a tiny deposit, or microsavings, as a no-charge/rate recorded small sum of money that someone has entrusted to a organisation/bank/administration and from which they can withdraw or add money, should the sum not be negative; tiny deposits may be granted some interest rates.

-C- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, micro-insurance, as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic incidents in return for a small paid premium

-D- NOTING that «microfinance», such as remittances, secured tiny deposits, micro-insurances and microcredit contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations - microcredit is the topic a of previous resolution and will not be adressed in this document's operative clause

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from hard-win wages from Migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,

F- DISTURBED that remittances services are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,

-G- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land, cattle, house or taxi property or to be protected from theft, fire, floods heath problems or various incident.


-1- MANDATES all member to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organization, private companies, post offices, administrations, or any organization interested in providing the service; such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer - Nations may reasonably limit the amount of remittances sent by person in case of currency crisis

-2- ENCOURAGES governments to spread information, to people without nutritional, clothing or housing needs receiving remittances, that they can be used not only in consumption but also in health care, education, economic initiative or even saved for future use on tiny deposits.

-3- URGES all member to monitor these money transfers for eventual terrorism, fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal aims, while respecting privacy

-3- URGES all members to increase the access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by different means such as encouraging non-profits organisations and allowing incentives or tax breaks to private banks and insurance proving their commitments or by administrations being directly involved in such activities

-3- URGES all members to set transparency standard to avoid abuses, about the origin and management of the funds and the indemnities, and to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [4], should a concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance respecting the transparency standard goes bankrupt.

Co-authored by Kirisubo

By the way as as UN agency already exist: "The Microcredit Bazaar"
Is it possible to rename it "The Microfinance Bazaar" for example and empowers it with added objectives
Or is it possible to empowers it with new objective only, if renaming it is impossible?

I have just some minor fixes/suggestions.

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from hard-win wages from Migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenues for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,
I think you want to drop the "s" on revenue, unless that's an American / British / Canadian thing.

-F- DISTURBED that remittances are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,
Available is the wrong word, you're not getting a remittence, you're sending it, right?



-1- MANDATES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organisation, private banks and companies, post offices or national administrations; such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer - Nations may reasonably limit the amount of remittances sent by person in case of currency crisis
I'd like something to the effect of

MANDATES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organisation, private banks and companies, post offices, national administrations, or any organization interested in providing the service, ...


-3- URGES all members to monitor these money transfers for eventual terrorism, fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal aims, while respecting privacy
Probably "member nations", for clarity.

Ok, thanks to Sheknu, Myopia and Gruen
Here is the current -non-final- draft
(snip)

My suggestion for the final draft: into the rubbish bin, get a life, and please stop writing useless resolutions.

Why even discuss this? It's like dog droppings (although they're medium deposits). You can talk all you want about it, but it stays crap, and it still stinks.

I have just some minor fixes/suggestions.

Thanks

I think you want to drop the "s" on revenue, unless that's an American / British / Canadian thing.

ok

Available is the wrong word, you're not getting a remittence, you're sending it, right?

You right, so the following may be better:

F- DISTURBED that remittances services are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,


I'd like something to the effect of

MANDATES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge and low-rate remittance services offered by non-profit organisation, private banks and companies, post offices, national administrations, or any organization interested in providing the service,...

Ok

Probably "member nations", for clarity.

Is "member nations" best than "nations" or "members"?

My suggestion for the final draft: into the rubbish bin, get a life, and please stop writing useless resolutions.

Why even discuss this? It's like dog droppings (although they're medium deposits). You can talk all you want about it, but it stays crap, and it still stinks.

Though we do not agree with the rather undiplomatic tone taken by Mrs. Lane, we do agree with her assessment of the proposal in question.

WTF???? remittances???? They still do that?:eek: Back in the day people used to give remittances to the black sheep of the family, so they would go away and never return home and cause scandal. THese days why do we need this. People have no sense of shame so they cannot be embarresed by the scandals of a relative. Besides this is another idea that needs to stay with idividual nations to decide, and not the UN. I look foreward to voting against this one.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla.

*snip*

I look foreward to voting against this one.

I look forward to preventing it from reaching the floor.

I look forward to preventing it from reaching the floor.

Well that too...:p

I added friends to relatives, in a previous post.
Nations are free to do more than our proposal mandates and urges; we want to focus on some point.
I'm sorry, but: :rolleyes: You obviously don't understand. I'll try once more, and then give up.

There is no qualitative difference between a worker sending money home to his children than to other people's children. They're sending money back to children; that's what matters. Family, relatives, relations, whatever: it's all just one long reiteration of a particular stance, that I don't think you're aware you're adopting. Community projects, towns...these can all benefit from remittances. Drop the part about 'relatives', and just make it clear that a remittance is money sent abroad to people.

Yes there are connected. This proposal deal with some kind of microfinance, but not microcredit, another kind of microfinance; so we just want to say why we don’t deal with microcredit in this proposal: because there is already a proposal about it.
But The Microcredit Bazaar didn't adopt a blanket UN policy towards microfinance in the way yours did. In fact, through its execution, it implied that microfinance was something individual nations should decide for themselves about. You mentioned that this could be used to develop the IT industry: why not link to the IT Education Act? It could be used to buy food...so mention the GFDA! Just because resolutions have similar subjects doesn't automatically justify their being linked in a preamble. Honestly, I think it weakens your proposal to be seen to be trying to gain justification off the back of an entirely different resolution.

I don’t think it’s something important, and maybe there is a better way to state it but at least this is clear to understand.
I agree, I disagree, and I agree. Not important, not clear...and no, there's not a better way to state it.

OK thanks a lot for helping me here, that’s great, what about:

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from hard-win wages from Migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenues for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,
Again, you don't understand. I wasn't talking about the source in that way. I was saying that you don't know they'll be used for these purposes. You know they have the potential for use to fund terrorism or organized crime, or to pay off extortion debts. So, whilst this clause is an improvement, it still doesn't answer two concerns:
1. How do we know this is what remittances are being used for?
2. Why are these sources of revenue preferable to others?

I need to think about it
Yes.

I answered this point up:
No you didn't. You gave a response, which we rebutted. Then you continued using it. You answered to the extent that you got the answer wrong. You must acknowledge that if people are offered financial incentives to work oversees, by way of their returning the more money they will get there home more easily, then more of them will do so. The people most likely to do this are going to be those most needed for the development of home economies. I'm not just talking about brain drain: even manual labour is likely to suffer. This is a very serious concern, and you're just ignoring it.

Sheknu, Thanks for your help
Not really. You haven't listened to anything I've said, or given satisfactory answers to any of my questions. Part of the process of being helped is to be prepared to take on board that help, and respond to it. If you are doing that, then that's great, and I'm glad I did help, but I don't honestly see any evidence of it in your replies, or in the drafts.

By the way as as UN agency already exist: "The Microcredit Bazaar"
Is it possible to rename it "The Microfinance Bazaar" for example and empowers it with added objectives
Or is it possible to empowers it with new objective only, if renaming it is impossible?
I wouldn't have thought so. But bear in mind, again, The Microcredit Bazaar isn't doing what your proposal is, so even if you could, I fail to see the relevance.

"When we thought this idea up it was hoped that a common system of funds transfer could be developed across the UN family.

All criticism is constructive so we can take this proposal and iron out the problems.

Having this as a service that nations can use is probally the best way to go"

Midori Kasigi-Nero leaves the stand having made her first apperance in the drafting debate.

ooc: sorry plp but i've had very little internet access this week and i won't have much more until the weekend. RL strikes :(

There is no qualitative difference between a worker sending money home to his children than to other people's children. They're sending money back to children; that's what matters. Family, relatives, relations, whatever: it's all just one long reiteration of a particular stance, that I don't think you're aware you're adopting. Community projects, towns...these can all benefit from remittances. Drop the part about 'relatives', and just make it clear that a remittance is money sent abroad to people.

I'm Ok for dropping famly and friends, i was thinking it would be a better strategy for the proposal, but it's not that important for me.

By the way, the feedback from my region recommended me to URGES only and write a mild proposal, Kirisubo tend toward that also, we will do that, as it's not a Human right proposal, and it can be better not to force anything here but try to encourage it.


But The Microcredit Bazaar didn't adopt a blanket UN policy towards microfinance in the way yours did. In fact, through its execution, it implied that microfinance was something individual nations should decide for themselves about. You mentioned that this could be used to develop the IT industry: why not link to the IT Education Act? It could be used to buy food...so mention the GFDA! Just because resolutions have similar subjects doesn't automatically justify their being linked in a preamble. Honestly, I think it weakens your proposal to be seen to be trying to gain justification off the back of an entirely different resolution.

Also not very important to me, the only objective is to use inside the draft the term:
"microfinance"
and i don't see how to use without a reference to microcredit, so maybe i can just keep:

-D- NOTING that «microfinance», such as remittances, secured tiny deposits, micro-insurances and microcredit contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations

or even not mention microcredit, it's not that much important for me either; but yes, there is a connection, as all of these are parts of what is widely called "microfinance". Bank account, credit, money transfer are often proposed by the same economic entities: Banks and post offices; this is why it's pretty close.

-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations


Again, you don't understand. I wasn't talking about the source in that way. I was saying that you don't know they'll be used for these purposes. You know they have the potential for use to fund terrorism or organized crime, or to pay off extortion debts. So, whilst this clause is an improvement, it still doesn't answer two concerns:
1. How do we know this is what remittances are being used for?

Sorry, If i'm not able to do better here, i'm not a expert in microfinance, and for me NS is a game, i just try my best:

i added:

-2- ENCOURAGES governments to spread information, to people without nutritional, clothing or housing needs receiving remittances, that they can be used not only in consumption but also in health care, education, economic initiative or even saved for future use on tiny deposits.

and also i think -E- answer to your question

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from hard-win wages from Migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,

Furthermore, even if I agree with you than clause -3- has to be improved, (I don't know how to do that yet; but will come back with something) I think it can also answer partially to your question

-3- URGES all member to monitor these money transfers for eventual terrorism, fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal aims, while respecting privacy


2. Why are these sources of revenue preferable to others?

I never said it's more important than others, I choose to draft a proposal about remittances, I just try to explain why it's something important or substancial, and why I think there is something to do about it


No you didn't. You gave a response, which we rebutted. Then you continued using it. You answered to the extent that you got the answer wrong. You must acknowledge that if people are offered financial incentives to work oversees, by way of their returning the more money they will get there home more easily, then more of them will do so. The people most likely to do this are going to be those most needed for the development of home economies. I'm not just talking about brain drain: even manual labour is likely to suffer. This is a very serious concern, and you're just ignoring it.

Forgive me if my answer was not precise enough, I will try to give you a more detailed answer here:

I acknowledge the side effects several times in this thread, but my views are that these side effects (one more reason to migrate) are being balanced by the increase of revenue in home nations.

For me, and statistically, nations where migrants come from are in most cases less economically developed ones than nations in which they decide to migrate.

I share the opinion, along with many people, that remittances contribute substantially to the economic development of economically developing nations, and therefore are a factor of migration decrease. And I even tend to think that this effect is not equal but greater than the concerned side effect.

Futhermore, diasporas, as China's and Israel's ones for example, may often be a positive factor for economic development, by influencing more economically developped nations to increase cooperation with the home country, by increasing foreign direct investment, and also increasing humanitarian aid.

The country where I live has a strong record for helping a particular economically developping nation, why? because one of our most famous singer come from there.

Another example is United Arab Emirates in RL, where 75% of the population are non-nationals (mainly from south and souh-east asia), many manual labour workers migrants stay few years there to make good money and come back in their nation, many also stay, but many of them keep ties with their home nations, where there is no manual labour workers shortage, as often in economically developping nations, and send remmitances.

(OOC: I've read that, in RL, the Phillipines & maybe some other relatively poor nations [such as India?] too, actually train more doctors & nurses than they can employ locally in the hope that the others will go to work in more prosperous countries & send money home...)

Here is the current -non final- draft
A and D modified,
1 urged instead of mandated
Slight changes in clause 3, i'm still not sure about it

-----
The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to other people in another country

-B- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a tiny deposit, or microsavings, as a no-charge/rate recorded small sum of money that someone has entrusted to a organisation/bank/administration and from which they can withdraw or add money, should the sum not be negative; tiny deposits may be granted some interest rates.

-C- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, micro-insurance, as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic incidents in return for a small paid premium

-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from hard-win wages from Migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,

-F- DISTURBED that remittances services are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,

-G- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land, cattle, house or taxi property or to be protected from theft, fire, floods heath problems or various incident.


-1- URGES all member to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services offered by non-profit organization, private companies, post offices, administrations, or any organization interested in providing the service; such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer - Nations may reasonably limit the amount of remittances sent by person in case of currency crisis

-2- ENCOURAGES governments to spread information, to people without nutritional, clothing or housing needs receiving remittances, that they can be used not only in consumption but also in health care, education, economic initiative or even saved for future use on tiny deposits.

-3- RECOMMENDS all member to monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, terrorism funding or origin from human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities

-4- URGES all members to increase the access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by different means such as encouraging non-profits organisations, allowing incentives or tax breaks to private banks and insurance proving their commitments or by administrations being directly involved in such activities

-5- URGES all members to set transparency standard to avoid abuses, about the origin and management of the funds and the indemnities, and to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [4], should a concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance respecting the transparency standard goes bankrupt.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----

What's a redcommand? And why not purplecommand? Purple's a much better colour in my opinion. :p

What's a redcommand? And why not purplecommand? Purple's a much better colour in my opinion. :p

ooopps, thanks, yes I think purplecommand is great;)

What's a redcommand? And why not purplecommand? Purple's a much better colour in my opinion. :p
shhhhh

-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to other people in another countryIsn't this redundant? They aren't likely to be sending it to themselves in another country. I'd drop "other".

tiny deposits may be granted some interest rates."Some" strikes me as superfluous.

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from hard-win wages from Migrant workersAppeal to emotion. More importantly, terrible grammar. "the hard-won wages of migrant workers".

-G- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land, cattle, house or taxi property or to be protected from theft, fire, floods heath problems or various incident.Seems these examples can be removed. Or at least trimmed.

-1- URGES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services offered by non-profit organizationsTense issues...

-2- ENCOURAGES governments to spread information, to peopleSuperfluous comma between "information" and "to".

Etc.

I realise this is only a draft, but before submitting, you would do well to have it proofread for grammatical errors, of which there seems to be plenty.

Isn't this redundant? They aren't likely to be sending it to themselves in another country. I'd drop "other".

"Some" strikes me as superfluous.

Appeal to emotion. More importantly, terrible grammar. "the hard-won wages of migrant workers".

Seems these examples can be removed. Or at least trimmed.

Tense issues...

Superfluous comma between "information" and "to".

Etc.

I realise this is only a draft, but before submitting, you would do well to have it proofread for grammatical errors, of which there seems to be plenty.

Ok thanks for your remarks, I will try to check for others grammatical errors
By the way, I was wondering what is the adequate category?

----------
The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a remittance, as a sum of money sent to people in another country

-B- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, a tiny deposit, or microsavings, as a no-charge/rate recorded small sum of money that someone has entrusted to a organisation/bank/administration and from which they can withdraw or add money, should the sum not be negative; tiny deposits may be granted interest rates.

-C- DEFINING, for the purpose of this document, micro-insurance, as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic incidents in return for a small paid premium

-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from wages of Migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,

-F- DISTURBED that remittances services are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,

-G- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land or other property or to be protected from theft, fire, heath problems or various incident.


-1- URGES all member to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services, by different mean such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer; these services may be offered by non-profit organization, companies, post offices or administrations - Nations may reasonably limit the amount of remittances sent by person in case of currency crisis

-2- ENCOURAGES governments to spread information to people without nutritional, clothing or housing needs receiving remittances, that they can be used not only in consumption but also in health care, education, economic initiative or even saved for future use on tiny deposits.

-3- RECOMMENDS all member to monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities

-4- URGES all members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profits organisations, private banks, insurance companies or administrations to offer these services

-5- URGES all members to set transparency standard relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses; and to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [4], should a concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance respecting these standard goes bankrupt.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----

*snip*

I realise this is only a draft, but before submitting, you would do well to have it proofread for grammatical errors, of which there seems to be plenty.

Ahem..."of which there seem to be plenty." :p

Sorry, Hack. Couldn't resist. ;)

By the way, I was wondering what is the adequate category?

"junk"

The United Nations,
-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations

Large wads of cash too; are you going to legislate on that too?

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from wages of Migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing more health care, opportunities to create small business or to pay for additional education for children,

It also means those who send the money are left in a poorer condition, likely to be barely able to participate in society. What are you going to do about that?

-F- DISTURBED that remittances services are sometimes not easily available and/or charged with high commissions,

Envelope and stamp. Cheap & easy. If it's expensive, it's probably so for a reason. Why should a government waste money on subsidizing that? The money is better spent for education and direct financial support for developing nations.

-G- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land or other property or to be protected from theft, fire, heath problems or various incident.

Or to have money for pets. Pets are good for people. There must be something about money for pets in your resolution.

By the way, what problems are caused by the Ericaceae family of plants?

-1- URGES all member to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services, by different mean such as their availability on the internet, international links between post-offices and banks and free confirmation of the transfer; these services may be offered by non-profit organization, companies, post offices or administrations - Nations may reasonably limit the amount of remittances sent by person in case of currency crisis

Micromanagement. Don't prescribe how to do it. Unless it concerns pets. Well, fluffy pets.

-2- ENCOURAGES governments to spread information to people without nutritional, clothing or housing needs receiving remittances, that they can be used not only in consumption but also in health care, education, economic initiative or even saved for future use on tiny deposits.

Don't solve all the world's problems with your resolution. Next thing you'll do is urge everybody to achieve world peace by microtransaction. This really is a patronising section in your resolution.

-3- RECOMMENDS all member to monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities

Ah, so I can make transferring money abroad illegal and arrest all microtransacters. Great!

-4- URGES all members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life, property, cattle and weather risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profits organisations, private banks, insurance companies or administrations to offer these services

Isn't this a different issue alltogether?

-5- URGES all members to set transparency standard relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses; and to guaranty the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [4], should a concerned non-profit organisations, banks or insurance respecting these standard goes bankrupt.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----

Ah, more money to spend.

Sorry, it's still a worthless resolution. Can't seem to help it.

Midori Kasigi-Nero takes her chance to speak up.

"despite some honourable members views on the subject the practice of funds transfer is well known and it's even common practice in some parts of the Kirisuban Empire as well.

what we are trying to achieve is a common and safe way of sending money home. Unless the honourable member from Grout Grouda has a very secure postal service I fail to see how you can send cash through the post without it being stolen or lost.

Insurance is also important especially if your livelyhood is a few goats or cows. If you lose those you lose your means to earn a living.

This still needs more work but that's why we're having a debate on this issue. My personal view is that this proposal should be as simple as possible yet setting up the basics off insurance, banks and money transfer which is something we take for granted.

I fail to see how this is micromanging when nothing is being mandated or forced onto nations."

Ok, this doesn't solve any problems, or mean Gruenberg supports this proposal, but how's about this for sprucing up the grammar a little? I personally suggest accordioning the first three clauses into one clause (it gets repetitive). I've also fiddled in a new clause 2 - you can of course drop it if you think it's unhelpful/irrelevant. I've left in some of the sly ideology; at least I favour free markets. ;)

The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, a remittance as a sum of money sent to people in another country,

-B- DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, a secured tiny deposit as a no-charge recorded small sum of money entrusted to an organisation/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be charged,

-C- DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, micro-insurance as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks in return for a small paid premium,

-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the economic development of economically developing nations,

-E- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from wages of migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing for greater access to healthcare, education and small business creation,

-F- DISTURBED that remittances services are sometimes not easily available or charged with high commissions,

-G- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land or other property or to be protected from theft, fire, health problems or other basic risks:

-1- URGES all members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge remittance services, whether through internet services, international links between post-offices and banks, including free confirmation of the transfer, or through other means, including services offered by non-profit organizations, companies, post offices or government agencies;

-2- PERMITS members to control, limit and if necessary fully restrict the transfer of currency in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

-3- ENCOURAGES members to spread information to people without nutritional, clothing or housing needs receiving remittances, such that the funds can be used not only in consumption but also towards health care, education or economic initiatives, or be saved for future use through tiny deposits or otherwise;
This clause I didn't understand. 'without...needs' - does that mean people who have sufficient nutrition etc., or people who are in need?

-4- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, all money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking, funding of terrorist activities or other criminal acts;

-5- URGES members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profit organizations, banks, insurance companies or government agencies to offer these services;

-6- URGES all members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [5], in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

Co-authored by Kirisubo

Additional concerns:
Category? Seems like a whole mass of things, really. Whatever it is, MILD.
Clause -4- is probably covered by Cluichstan's Anti-Terrorism Act, if it passes, but if not (because there's obviously no need to submit this yet, as it still needs work, and there's a long proposal queue) you might consider somehow facilitating this monitoring.
It's a little hard to understand, still. Any way to make it more 'user friendly'?
I had something...which I've now forgotten. Bugger. Will comment more after the weekend.

I had something...which I've now forgotten. Bugger. Will comment more after the weekend.

OOC: Bahahahahaha!!! Gruen's been drinking! Oh...wait..so have I.... *shuts up*

Midori Kasigi-Nero takes her chance to speak up.

The delegation from Groot Gouda makes booing and hissing noises.

what we are trying to achieve is a common and safe way of sending money home. Unless the honourable member from Grout Grouda has a very secure postal service I fail to see how you can send cash through the post without it being stolen or lost.

All services where money is transferred will involve stealing and loosing money. Our postal service is highly regarded as secure and has high standards. It might not be the fastest way to send money around with all the digital methods companies offer, but it's as reliable.

Insurance is also important especially if your livelyhood is a few goats or cows. If you lose those you lose your means to earn a living.

The Groot Gouda delegation admits that stuffing goats in envelopes have detrimental effects on said goat's health. Nevertheless, we think that those who depend on a few goats or cows hardly have the need to send their florins around. Old socks will suffice for them. If they need money from abroad to sustain their animals, they shouldn't be doing that and the money you'd spend on tiny deposits is best spent on other services to improve their living conditions.

This still needs more work but that's why we're having a debate on this issue.

No, we're having a debate so L&E can claim a "discussion" when this resolution is proposed. What we should do is find the best way to help those people, *not* fix ourselves on this resolution.

I fail to see how this is micromanging when nothing is being mandated or forced onto nations.

It's very detailed about what should happen, and if nothing is being mandated I'm against no matter what the contents are. Either write a good resolution which will help all UN citizens (or those who need it) mandatory, or don't bother the UN with unnecesary fluffiness.

Ok, this doesn't solve any problems, or mean Gruenberg supports this proposal, but how's about this for sprucing up the grammar a little? I personally suggest accordioning the first three clauses into one clause (it gets repetitive). I've also fiddled in a new clause 2 - you can of course drop it if you think it's unhelpful/irrelevant. I've left in some of the sly ideology; at least I favour free markets. ;)



Additional concerns:
Category? Seems like a whole mass of things, really. Whatever it is, MILD.
Clause -4- is probably covered by Cluichstan's Anti-Terrorism Act, if it passes, but if not (because there's obviously no need to submit this yet, as it still needs work, and there's a long proposal queue) you might consider somehow facilitating this monitoring.
It's a little hard to understand, still. Any way to make it more 'user friendly'?
I had something...which I've now forgotten. Bugger. Will comment more after the weekend.


Thanks Gruen for your help
I merged the 3 definition in one perambulatory clause, and made some new modifications to clause 1 and 2
Hope that clause 3 is easier to understand now
Terrorism is dropped in 4 to avoid redundancy with Chuichstan proposal
For the strength, you right, it will be a mild one, but don’t know yet which category is the best.


-----
The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:

- Remittance as a sum of money sent to people in another country,

- Secured tiny deposit as a no-charge recorded small sum of money entrusted to an organisation/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,

- Micro-insurance as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks in return for a small paid premium,

-B- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the economic development of economically developing nations,

-C- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from wages of migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing for greater access to healthcare, education and small business creation,

-D- DISTURBED that remittances services are sometimes not easily available or charged with high commissions,

-E- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land or other property or to be protected from theft, fire, health problems or other basic risks,


-1- URGES all member to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, in particular by increasing availability on the internet and international links between post-offices and banks; these services may be offered by non-profit organization, companies, post offices or government agencies;

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency in the event of financial crises;

-3- ENCOURAGES members to spread information that remittances may be used not only for consumption but also for health care, education or economic initiatives, or be saved for future use through tiny deposits, when basic nutritional, clothing or housing needs are covered;

-4- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, all money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

-5- URGES members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profit organizations, banks, insurance companies or government agencies to offer these services;

-6- URGES all members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [5], in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.


Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----

(Minor note: check the ends of the clauses. 1 and 3 should have semi-colons.)

(Minor note: check the ends of the clauses. 1 and 3 should have semi-colons.)

Done, thanks

All services where money is transferred will involve stealing and loosing money. Our postal service is highly regarded as secure and has high standards. It might not be the fastest way to send money around with all the digital methods companies offer, but it's as reliable.

As you said international postal service are not always fast, and also all may not be as secure as Groot Gouda's one.

Furthermore, there are 29,994 nation at the UN, and so almost as many different currencies. It may then not be easy for people sending or receiving the money to change it.

Even in real life, with far less currencies, it may not be easy for a bangladeshi worker in United Arab Emirates or Quatar, a chinese technician in an Angola or Equatorial Guinea oil exploitation, or a Suriname worker living in the suburbs of Rotterdam to change money, let alone their family or friends in their home village or small towns.


the money you'd spend on tiny deposits is best spent on other services to improve their living conditions.

To encourage economic actors to increase the tiny deposits services, will not be very costly, as these organisations /private banks / national agencies, will not have to allow negative accounts and will be able to invest the money of these accounts

Furthermore, I think the following draft is interesting, bank accounts and tiny deposits are an substantial factor for the increase of a nation middle class, it's a security for their savings, and may encourage them to save a little bit more for various things as said in the draft: education, property, future small business creation

http://www.economist.com/images/20051105/CSU680.gif

What we should do is find the best way to help those people, *not* fix ourselves on this resolution.

I don't think there is A best way, but SEVERAL ways, we never said this proposal is THE way, or THE BEST way, we think it's ONE OF THE way, along with others as microcredit, free trade for food, small business compassion or It education for example and others

It's very detailed about what should happen, and if nothing is being mandated I'm against no matter what the contents are.

So you are against every mild resolution?

Either write a good resolution which will help all UN citizens (or those who need it) mandatory

The Tsunami resolution was very much appreciated in LAE, even if there are no recorded tsunami recorded in LAE ever, and if our archipelago is very far from tectonic activity. So obviously this tsunami resolution was not for "ALL UN citizens". Sorry I don't think it's reasonable to MANDATES every nation to open tiny deposits for every citizen

Some mild resolution are also here to push things in a certain direction, without mandating, the effects may even sometimes be more effective.

As you said international postal service are not always fast, and also all may not be as secure as Groot Gouda's one.

In that case, other services might exist. No need to worry about that.

Furthermore, there are 29,994 nation at the UN, and so almost as many different currencies. It may then not be easy for people sending or receiving the money to change it.

It still won't be with this resolution, it's just that the enormous costs of implementing this for all those nations are put on my government's budget. I'd rather not waste my money that way.

To encourage economic actors to increase the tiny deposits services, will not be very costly, as these organisations /private banks / national agencies, will not have to allow negative accounts and will be able to invest the money of these accounts

It will be costly, I'd just like to see the cost (and profits) taken on by private companies. So there's no need to involve the UN into this at all.

Furthermore, I think the following draft is interesting, bank accounts and tiny deposits are an substantial factor for the increase of a nation middle class,

I don't think that's what the graph says. It says nothing about cause and effect.

I don't think there is A best way, but SEVERAL ways, we never said this proposal is THE way, or THE BEST way, we think it's ONE OF THE way, along with others as microcredit, free trade for food, small business compassion or It education for example and others

Apart from those other useless ideas, there are plenty things to combat poverty and inequality in this world. Choose the best ones first and start the small efforts later, if they're still necesary by then. Don't start with an idea that might sound cute but is impractical.

So you are against every mild resolution?

No.

The Tsunami resolution was very much appreciated in LAE, even if there are no recorded tsunami recorded in LAE ever, and if our archipelago is very far from tectonic activity. So obviously this tsunami resolution was not for "ALL UN citizens". Sorry I don't think it's reasonable to MANDATES every nation to open tiny deposits for every citizen

Firstly, although I did co-author a bit for the Tsunami resolution, I'd much rather have seen it as part of the Natural Disaster Act. However, it is still valid for all nations concerned, while your resolution isn't. I can ignore it if I want to. Most likely to do this are nations who need to implement it the most (following your reasoning, of course). So what is the point of your resolution if nations can ignore it anyway?

Some mild resolution are also here to push things in a certain direction, without mandating, the effects may even sometimes be more effective.

Bollocks. To stop inequality and poverty, you need to go against normal behaviour of most humans, so you need to mandate it. Those likely to implement your little ideas are most likely nations who already have many more and better policies.

"Mrs Lane, what about countries that don't have what we take for granted?

There's plenty of poorer nations that could benefit from these ideas and before you give me more hisses and boos this proposal will not really apply to you if you already have similar services in place.

The point of this is to implement these services where they don't exist"

Midori Kasigi-Nero

In that case, other services might exist. No need to worry about that.

These services are not always available, and many time their rates or charges are high; as remittances may be small amount of money, it’s problematic when the minimum charge is high.
Furthermore, the cost of money transfer may be very low when links between post offices or banks are increased or when IT or internet solution used. It’s why this proposal encourages productivity in this area to lower those rates and charges.

It still won't be with this resolution, it's just that the enormous costs of implementing this for all those nations are put on my government's budget. I'd rather not waste my money that way.

Governments are just urged to improve the availability and efficiency or these services. It’s costly for banks to deal with notes from many currencies while money transfer used when banks cooperate with each others or use IT solution are cost effective.

It will be costly, I'd just like to see the cost (and profits) taken on by private companies. So there's no need to involve the UN into this at all.

No, as I said: these organisations /private banks / national agencies, will not have to allow negative accounts, and will be able to invest the money of these accounts.

These services are rare in economically developing nations, and our proposal would like governments to encourages economic actors to provide them


I don't think that's what the graph says. It says nothing about cause and effect.

I posted the graph with arguments. Saving money is important not only for high-income people but also for low-income people, for them it’s a chance to access to property, to better education for their children, create small business and future access to their nation middle-class. It’s cause AND effect.

Secured deposits increase the will of people to save money, may prevent them to spend all their income in consumption and protect them against notes being stolen or burned.

Savings has play and continue toplay an important role in the economic development of many Asian nations, ad Japan, taiwan or even China.
And furthermore, these funds issue from savings also often allow to finance larger projects.

Apart from those other useless ideas, there are plenty things to combat poverty and inequality in this world. Choose the best ones first and start the small efforts later, if they're still necesary by then. Don't start with an idea that might sound cute but is impractical.

Bollocks. To stop inequality and poverty, you need to go against normal behaviour of most humans, so you need to mandate it. Those likely to implement your little ideas are most likely nations who already have many more and better policies.

You seem to have MANY ideas for how the UN may MANDATES ALL nations in order to both improve low-income people conditions and access to midlle-class, and grow the economy of economically developing nations.

Furthermore you seems to be tired with all these “useless ideas” as Remittances and Tiny Deposits, microcredit, food free trade, It eduation or small business compation. Please forgive me for not having your insights.

Please, may I invite you to post your great ideas, or at least the best one, and to draft a proposal. If you don’t have much time, I’m pretty sure many people will help you to draft and pass it. It will really help the UN.


No.



Firstly, although I did co-author a bit for the Tsunami resolution, I'd much rather have seen it as part of the Natural Disaster Act. However, it is still valid for all nations concerned, while your resolution isn't. I can ignore it if I want to. Most likely to do this are nations who need to implement it the most (following your reasoning, of course). So what is the point of your resolution if nations can ignore it anyway?

I understood that it’s illegal to address a proposal to some concerned nations only.

Many passed proposal are mild and so with obviously many other nations LAE think that the UN may also influence many things without mandating. Personally I think both mild and significant proposal may be usefull

Maybe if the authors could lift their heads for a minute from the micromanagement of the financial industry and post offices, they would be kind enough to address the larger implications of such a proposal.

There are nations that wish to employ capital controls, even when financial crises are not taking place. One possible type of capital control is taxation and/or restriction of international transfers. This proposal is directly limiting the flexibility of such an approach. Is this intended?

There are other nations who are annoyed enough when the UN regulates irrelevant economic issues. How do you think they will react if the UN urges them to nationalise or price-control a whole industry? Because that is what you are doing here. I assume L&E left his "I love competition" flags in the other suit...

Finally, I hope many nations will reject the fluffy, paternalistic attitude of "advising" citizens on how to spend their money. What comes next, the trousers vs. skirts grand UN debate?

Maybe if the authors could lift their heads for a minute from the micromanagement of the financial industry and post offices, they would be kind enough to address the larger implications of such a proposal.

I was answering questions from another nation.


There are nations that wish to employ capital controls, even when financial crises are not taking place. One possible type of capital control is taxation and/or restriction of international transfers. This proposal is directly limiting the flexibility of such an approach. Is this intended?

Our proposal is urging, not mandating, those nation to ease these capital transfers, because most remittances goes to economically developing nations and low-income people. When remittances are restricted, people send them anyway but by most costly or less secure means.

This proposal doesn’t deal with taxation.



There are other nations who are annoyed enough when the UN regulates irrelevant economic issues. How do you think they will react if the UN urges them to nationalise or price-control a whole industry? Because that is what you are doing here. I assume L&E left his "I love competition" flags in the other suit...

Please forgive me, and let me know if I missed something, but our proposal doesn’t encourage any nationalisation or price control
It just encourages the access of some services and more productivity and efficiency in this area. The aim is to lower these services cost, which may easily be low with improved link between the concerned economic actors or IT use.

Finally, I hope many nations will reject the fluffy, paternalistic attitude of "advising" citizens on how to spend their money. What comes next, the trousers vs. skirts grand UN debate?

Remittances, money savings, and insurances are not new, and are used by many people in the world.
They are substantial factors for economic development, increasing middle class, and improving living conditions, it’s why this proposal aim is to encourage the access of these services.

Do you make reference to clause 3, do you think it should be dropped?

Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think it “advise” citizens, but “inform”.

It’s easy for high-income people to act with long term aims (saving money, education, health…), but it’s less obvious for low-income people with more difficult every day life to focus on long term objectives.

I was answering questions from another nation.

I am afraid the micromanagement is not in your debate topics, but in the proposal itself.

Our proposal is urging, not mandating, those nation to ease these capital transfers, because most remittances goes to economically developing nations and low-income people. When remittances are restricted, people send them anyway but by most costly or less secure means.

When transfers are restricted, it is for a reason. While concentrating on the poor people who want to send money for their cousins to feed their goats, you seem to forget that there are other possible motives to make international transfers. These motives may be against the goals of the government, and as such the government might intend to stop that money from being sent. If nothing else, they might prefer money to be saved within the country, thereby stimulating their own economy. This is not a path we would pursue in Fonzoland, but it is a legitimate instrument for economic policy.

This proposal doesn’t deal with taxation.

Your proposal deals directly with taxation. You are urging governments to keep charges low. Taxes are part of the charges.

Please forgive me, and let me know if I missed something, but our proposal doesn’t encourage any nationalisation or price control
It just encourages the access of some services and more productivity and efficiency in this area. The aim is to lower these services cost, which may easily be low with improved link between the concerned economic actors or IT use.

You are urging governments to ensure a service is available at low price. Can you please tell me how a government can ever acheive this without:
a) Providing the service itself,
b) Regulating prices, or
c) Subsidising the industry?
None of the causes you mention for price reduction are under government control in capitalist systems. The government does not make investment decisions for firms, and competition takes care of lowering the price as much as possible.

Remittances, money savings, and insurances are not new, and are used by many people in the world.
They are substantial factors for economic development, increasing middle class, and improving living conditions, it’s why this proposal aim is to encourage the access of these services.

Yes, I am quite aware of the concepts, thank you. They have been peacefully going on for centuries, without the need for international legislation of this kind.

Do you make reference to clause 3, do you think it should be dropped?

Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think it “advise” citizens, but “inform”.

It’s easy for high-income people to act with long term aims (saving money, education, health…), but it’s less obvious for low-income people with more difficult every day life to focus on long term objectives.

You are free to live in a "father knows best" utopia if you so wish. You are NOT free to treat the proud citizens of Fonzoland like children. They are quite rational in their saving decisions, happily attend school whether they want it or not, and are perfectly aware of the benefits of the occasional doctor visit.

Dropping that clause would make the resolution slightly less insulting, but I am afraid only clauses 2 and 4 would ever receive our support.

When transfers are restricted, it is for a reason. While concentrating on the poor people who want to send money for their cousins to feed their goats, you seem to forget that there are other possible motives to make international transfers. These motives may be against the goals of the government, and as such the government might intend to stop that money from being sent. If nothing else, they might prefer money to be saved within the country, thereby stimulating their own economy. This is not a path we would pursue in Fonzoland, but it is a legitimate instrument for economic policy.

Of course, there are money sent to people with goals against governments, it’s why we wrote the clause 4. But we don’t think it’s the major flow, and also if they are against governments goals, they may likely be underground either if legal channel are stopped or monitored.

Our proposal has international aims, remittances are mainly sent to economically developing nations and even if this proposal don’t mandate anything, we don’t favour an approach encouraging nations to stop people to send money to their home.



Your proposal deals directly with taxation. You are urging governments to keep charges low. Taxes are part of the charges.

Ok, you right if we consider that Taxes are part of the charges.
Then our proposal are urging governments to keep taxes on remittances low and it’s ok for us; an international transaction tax of 0.1% will not change anything compared to charges who may be more than 5 or 10%.



You are urging governments to ensure a service is available at low price. Can you please tell me how a government can ever acheive this without:
a) Providing the service itself,
b) Regulating prices, or
c) Subsidising the industry?
None of the causes you mention for price reduction are under government control in capitalist systems. The government does not make investment decisions for firms, and competition takes care of lowering the price as much as possible.

Governments can invite these actors to coordination and harmonisation talks.

Governments have always been very influential; links between government and industry are very often very strong. I really think governments have the same ability to urges than the UN has. For example when a chief of state goes to an official visit abroad, he/she very often goes with many people from different economic entities, they can also use tax breaks.


Yes, I am quite aware of the concepts, thank you. They have been peacefully going on for centuries, without the need for international legislation of this kind.

It seems to me that, even if peaceful, economic development is more a long, not easy and sometimes chaotic process. It took times to economically developed nations to arrive to their level. It will take time to economically developing nations also. For many people, some things may be done in order this economic development in economically developing nations may a little bit less long and less difficult.


You are free to live in a "father knows best" utopia if you so wish. You are NOT free to treat the proud citizens of Fonzoland like children. They are quite rational in their saving decisions, happily attend school whether they want it or not, and are perfectly aware of the benefits of the occasional doctor visit.

Dropping that clause would make the resolution slightly less insulting, but I am afraid only clauses 2 and 4 would ever receive our support.

Ok, we will probably drop clause 3,
Sorry, if the ways we draft it give you that impression, but the reason was that Fonzoland and LAE citizens are lucky to have better living conditions, but for people living in poor countryside or suburbs it’s a lot more difficult decision to decide to save money or spend more in healthcare

These services are not always available, and many time their rates or charges are high; as remittances may be small amount of money, it’s problematic when the minimum charge is high.
Furthermore, the cost of money transfer may be very low when links between post offices or banks are increased or when IT or internet solution used. It’s why this proposal encourages productivity in this area to lower those rates and charges.

Well, tell those banks etc to use the internet, but don't bother the UN! Besides, the nations that (according to your logic) need the resolutions the most will also have the least IT infrastructure. It might be pigeons that need to carry the money. Or it will become very expensive for those developing nations. Is that what you want?

No, as I said: these organisations /private banks / national agencies, will not have to allow negative accounts, and will be able to invest the money of these accounts.

Yes, but we don't need the UN for that.

These services are rare in economically developing nations, and our proposal would like governments to encourages economic actors to provide them

So urging to encourage? That's a neat way of saying "it doesn't do anything".

I posted the graph with arguments.

Yes, and they were wrong. Explain it clearly: what does the graph say and how does it support your resolution?

Saving money is important not only for high-income people but also for low-income people,

They'll need money to save first. That should be the first priority, not fluffy idea #300.

Furthermore you seems to be tired with all these “useless ideas” as Remittances and Tiny Deposits, microcredit, food free trade, It eduation or small business compation. Please forgive me for not having your insights.

That's okay, maybe one day you'll see the light.

Please, may I invite you to post your great ideas, or at least the best one, and to draft a proposal. If you don’t have much time, I’m pretty sure many people will help you to draft and pass it. It will really help the UN.

Don't you dare that kind of reasoning on me. I am not the one proposing a resolution here. I'm trying to tell you the many ways your resolution is wrong, to prevent the UN from having to vote on this. I am suggesting how you can reach the goals you seem to have in a better way. But apparently your goal is only to have as many resolutions with your name attached to them. In any case, I will write a resolution when I have time to create a quality product which fits my own goals and fits with my vision of the UN. I will not be told by you to write a resolutions. I've written 2 so far, co-authored one, and for the moment, that's enough. I still have 2 drafts which I could try to pass, and after that I might start on new ideas. If I feel like it.

Many passed proposal are mild and so with obviously many other nations LAE think that the UN may also influence many things without mandating. Personally I think both mild and significant proposal may be usefull

Yes, and a non-mandating resolution can sometimes be usefull too. But you need to be a very good writer to make it usefull.

Yes, and they were wrong. Explain it clearly: what does the graph say and how does it support your resolution?

It's got pretty colours and stuff.

Well, tell those banks etc to use the internet, but don't bother the UN! Besides, the nations that (according to your logic) need the resolutions the most will also have the least IT infrastructure. It might be pigeons that need to carry the money. Or it will become very expensive for those developing nations. Is that what you want?

As remittances are send mostly from more developed nations, it’s there that remittances services are mostly needed. Receiving nations may need more banks/post offices/tiny deposits actors coordinations with foreign entities.

And furthermore, IT services are often not expensive in economically developing nations, as wages are lower; more and more economically developing nations have Bangalore-like IT cluster for example.



So urging to encourage? That's a neat way of saying "it doesn't do anything".

We think some improvements need to be done in this area. We don’t think it’s practical for the UN to mandates this, but we think the UN may influence a lots of things and a resolution on this topic will generate more interest for it from economic actors and governments.

I understand you may want more often stronger binding clause from the UN, We don't share this opinion, our point of view is that the UN may use both its mandates power and it's influence.


Yes, and they were wrong. Explain it clearly: what does the graph say and how does it support your resolution?

They'll need money to save first. That should be the first priority, not fluffy idea #300.

Many low-income people in the world save money.

You can see in the draft that the % of people having a bank account in economically developing nations is very low.
Tiny deposits is a secure way for them to save their money, as people in Groot Gouda with bank acounts. As they know it’s secured it’s even an opportunity for them to save more, as they may not fear anymore theft, fire or various incident.



I am suggesting how you can reach the goals you seem to have in a better way.

Did you? Or do you mean the pretty polite comments you posted in ths thread:

It's like dog droppings (although they're medium deposits). You can talk all you want about it, but it stays crap, and it still stinks


"junk"

Old socks will suffice for them.


Groot Gouda, You told me:

Apart from those other useless ideas, there are plenty things to combat poverty and inequality in this world. Choose the best ones first and start the small efforts later, if they're still necesary by then. Don't start with an idea that might sound cute but is impractical.

Bollocks. To stop inequality and poverty, you need to go against normal behaviour of most humans, so you need to mandate it

You have many wonderful ideas which the UN may mandate every nation to do stuff in order to improve economic development in economically developing nations.

If you don’t care to be the author of so many resolutions, maybe you will want to be benevolent and let your friends from your region or elsewhere use your insights

IT services are often not expensive in economically developing nations, as wages are lower; more and more economically developing nations have Bangalore-like IT cluster for example.

Once again you show your knowledge of economics is very limited. It's pointless to discuss with you, as you seem to have your mind set on this resolution and not on solving a problem. You are unwilling to accept criticism, fail to answer questions repeatedly and don't know what you're talking about.

I give up.

Once again you show your knowledge of economics is very limited.

IT components are cheaper and cheaper each year in the world.
And IT services are developping fast in many nations even economically developping ones, where they are not so expensive (it's why US, Japan or European companies are using indian or chinese IT industry)

Just few examples of these growing clusters Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai and many more in India, Shanghai, Guangdong, Zhongguancun (Beijing) and many others in China, Guadalajara in Mexico, Porto Digital (Recife) in Bresil, the Córdoba province in Argentina or Chittagong in Bangladesh.

Bangalore has more engineers than the California silicon valley.

Many US, Japan or European companies uses indian or chinese IT industry, why? because it's cheaper there, not more expensive

It's pointless to discuss with you, as you seem to have your mind set on this resolution and not on solving a problem. You are unwilling to accept criticism, fail to answer questions repeatedly and don't know what you're talking about.

Groot Gouda, sorry but many times you said stuff like "it costly", "junk", "it's like dog droppings" "Apart from those other useless ideas, there are plenty things to combat poverty and inequality in this world. ", "Old socks will suffice for them.", "it's crap" these are not arguments

IT components are cheaper and cheaper each year in the world.
And IT services are developping very fast in many nations even economically developping ones.

Just few examples of these growing clusters Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai and many more in India, Shanghai, Guangdong, Zhongguancun (Beijing) and many others in China, Guadalajara in Mexico, Porto Digital (Recife) in Bresil, the Córdoba province in Argentina or Chittagong in Bangladesh.

Note lack of African nations. While labour is so cheap there! Amazing.

Groot Gouda, sorry but many times you said stuff like "it costly", "junk", "it's like dog droppings" "Apart from those other useless ideas, there are plenty things to combat poverty and inequality in this world. ", "Old socks will suffice for them.", "it's crap" these are not arguments

Well, they were true words, but only a small part of my comments.

Note lack of African nations. While labour is so cheap there! Amazing.

The small Guateng Province is a booming silicon valley like in South Africa, Egypt has its "pyramid Technology Park", and the many call centers set up for European clients in Tunisia and Morocco inject dynamism in these nations IT sector.

Some modifications to the draft
-former clause 3 deleted, and
-definition of remittance modified, thanks to a former post by Sheknu
-and other minor edits

We would like also to ask for advice about the category

-----
The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:

- Remittance as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organisation or local community project in another country,

- Secured tiny deposit as a no-charge recorded small sum of money entrusted to an organisation/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,

- Micro-insurance as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks in return for a small paid premium,

-B- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the economic development of economically developing nations,

-C- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from wages of migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business creation, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and help funding local community project

-D- NOTING WITH REGRET that remittances services are sometimes not easily available or charged with high commissions,

-E- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land or other property or to be protected from theft, fire, health problems or other basic risks,


-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, in particular by increasing availability on the internet and international cooperation between post-offices and banks; these services may be offered by non-profit organization, companies, post offices or government agencies;

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency in the event of financial crises;

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

-4- URGES members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profit organizations, banks, insurance companies or government agencies to offer these services;

-5- URGES members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [5], in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----

Still worthless.

Still worthless.

You may think so, but remittances bring as much foreign money in economically developping nations as Foreign Direct Investment. Less expensive remittances services allow people to give as much money while sending less, some cheap solution exist, but are not often available, this proposal promotes cooperation and productivity.

In US or Europe we are used to have bank accounts, but it's not the case in economically developping nations, and without bank accounts or tiny deposits it's much harder to save money.

if this idea is worthless then what is the point of the NSUN? The Kirisuban UN office is well known for its national sovereignty views but even we think this has merit.

If you give a man a fish he eats for a day. If you teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime.

Unless you give a developing nation the means to save money, send it home and the means to insure a livelyhood then how will they manage to get off their knees and onto their feet.

A nation thats on its feet can become a customer for your goods so before this is dismissed think long term.

Midori Kasigi-Nero, Deputy Ambassador

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/Chechnya.jpg

THe only rimittances I favor are the old fashioned ones that are paid to relatives to stay far away. After all there are only so many nations we can foist them off on as ambassadors.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

THe only rimittances I favor are the old fashioned ones that are paid to relatives to stay far away. After all there are only so many nations we can foist them off on as ambassadors.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Speaking of which, Senator, I do believe it's high time we exchanged ambassadors.

Speaking of which, Senator, I do believe it's high time we exchanged ambassadors.

Sounds good to me. I've got plenty of undesirable...err... I mean qualified relatives to banish...err... send to another nation.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla


Einstien's 2nd theory of Relativity states: All things being relative, my relatives are worst than most.:D

First, some formatting:

-A- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:
Could I suggest you change the 'marker' for these definitions to an asterisk, a §, or something. Because you introduce all your clause with dashes (which I still find weird, but ok) it makes it a little unclear. Also, I'd advise putting the word to be defined in speech marks. So I'd suggest:

-A- DEFINING....

* "Blah" as blah

* "Blob" as blob

- Remittance as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organisation or local community project in another country,
I'd use organization instead. Both 'organization' and 'project' also need to be pluralised. Also, I'm not sure about the use of 'country'; 'nation' might be better. Even then (OOC example - Palestine is more a self-governing territory than a sovereign nation)...perhaps it could simply be 'sent...abroad'. But, in fact...could one have intranational remittances? For example, Bob goes and works in the rich South, and sends money back to his family in the poor North? Just a thought. Perhaps, then, you could phrase it as 'from a migrant worker'?

- Secured tiny deposit as a no-charge recorded small sum of money entrusted to an organisation/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,
I think perhaps:
1. it should be 'no-charge-recorded'
2. it should be 'organization' (again)

- Micro-insurance as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks in return for a small paid premium,
There should probably be a comma after the final use of 'risks'.

So that would give you:

-A- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:

* "Remittance" as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker,

* "Secured tiny deposit" as a no-charge-recorded small sum of money entrusted to an organisation/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,

* "Micro-insurance" as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks, in return for a small paid premium,

-C- NOTING that remittances, which mainly come from wages of migrant workers, are substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, often allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business creation, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and help funding local community project
If you go with my definition, you could strike the 'which mainly...' clause (I've never liked that so much anyway). I think instead of 'are' it should 'can be', and that you should then strike 'often'. I'd change 'creation' to 'development'. Then, 'help' seems to be a verb, which doesn't fit. I'd just eliminate 'help funding', and also strike 'local'. The problem with 'local' is that:
1. community projects don't have to be local
2. remittances are necessarily sent over a distance, and this could confuse people.
There also needs to be a comma on the end. Finally, it's suffering a little bit from 'shopping list syndrome'. In other words, you're going to forget the Shreddies and upset someone. So perhaps a 'or other worthy causes', or something less sanctimonious?

This would give:

-C- NOTING that remittances can be substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business development, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and community projects,

-D- NOTING WITH REGRET that remittances services are sometimes not easily available or charged with high commissions,
Because it comes straight after a different noting, I'd change this simply to 'REGRETTING', for the purposes of spicing it up. I think 'remittances' should be singular. And then, because of the first half of the explanation, I would rejig the second:

-D- REGRETTING that remittance services are sometimes not easily available or charge high commissions,

-E- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in order to save money for future education, access to land or other property or to be protected from theft, fire, health problems or other basic risks,
'Micro-insurances' should be singular. I'd cut 'future' - people could begin studying immediately, and continue working part-time - and for the second list, you should reorder it to fit with the definition provided in -A-. Also, the clause should end with a colon, as it introduces the operative section. Again, there's shopping listing.

-E- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance, in order to save money for education, access to land or other property or to be protected from basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks:

-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, in particular by increasing availability on the internet and international cooperation between post-offices and banks; these services may be offered by non-profit organization, companies, post offices or government agencies;
Firstly: can you explain what the 'free confirmation of the transfer' actually means?

You can lose 'rate'. Then, I would change 'by' to 'through'. I'm always wary of your dedication to the internet; whilst I think it's justifiable - although even then, not as an absolute, in the context of RL, I'm not so sure about NS (no, I'm not about to start tech-wanking). In any case, I propose changing 'in particular' to 'such as'. You should also change the internet line to 'increasing the availablity of internet services'.

Finally, that last clause strikes me as not needed. You're basically saying 'anyone can offer these services'. Yeah...we know that. I'd cut it:

-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency in the event of financial crises;
Hmm, no, I think you got my idea mixed up, although thanks for including it. The reappropriation of forged currency is independent of financial crises; it's a separate thing. Second, you don't want your proposal to have too many unintended consequences - we saw this, for example, with UN Small Business Education - so I would rephrase:

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to prevent the transfer of and reappropriate forged currency;

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;
What about sponsoring terrorism??? That's the big one. When I mentioned Cluich's proposal, I guess I didn't mean for you to entirely eliminate the terrorism line.

Now...I'm tired, so I need to go shower and have breakfast. I'll comment more later.

OOC: Seriously, I don't see a need to amend 'organisation' to 'organization', or 'labour' to 'labor', or 'labelling' to 'labeling', or 'distil' to 'distill'. I think Americans are capable of recognis/zing the meaning and won't vote against just because of linguistic differences.

Sorry, but this just genuinely bugs me. I don't expect my spelling preferences to be accommodated for by American proposal writers and I would hope that this is reciprocated.

LAE - I recommend spelling it in the manner that is natural to you. If that involves using a 'z' then use a 'z'. Just be consistent.

LAE - I recommend spelling it in the manner that is natural to you. If that involves using a 'z' then use a 'z'. Just be consistent.Indeed. Don't be like me and blend spellings.

if this idea is worthless then what is the point of the NSUN?

Yes, I had a feeling you didn't understand that.

The point of the UN is to stimulate international cooperation through national governments. Set up a basic level from which we all operate. Accomodate national differences where possible, force basic rights where needed. The UN can potentially legislate on everything, but should be wise enough to leave those issues that don't require or even get worse by forcing one international standard.

Mostly, the UN is an organisation of national governments. So legislate for them. Don't dictate laws which are done just as well by companies. Don't center power in the UN or a national government which is better left to local organisations, local people, local governments. And don't get into too much detail. You can't think up the perfect solution for 35000 nations and gods know how many people.

Sort out your priorities. You're talking about people who should save money who don't have money to save in the first place. Solving that is a good resolution idea. This isn't.

First, some formatting:....

Gruen, Thaks a lot for all your comments, I'm reading them

LAE - I recommend spelling it in the manner that is natural to you. If that involves using a 'z' then use a 'z'. Just be consistent.

About organis/zation, maybe we could organis/ze a poll on the forum to decide what is the best. Personnaly I don't really care much, as no one of them is natural for me:D

Thanks, anyway as i better understand this now.

My point was: I was pretty organization was the British. Like 'civilize' and 'realize', not all British words are s not z. I thought organize was one too.

My point was: I was pretty organization was the British. Like 'civilize' and 'realize', not all British words are s not z. I thought organize was one too.

Some words can be used both ways in British English. Organise, civilise, and realise are all correct.

Yes, I had a feeling you didn't understand that.
In all honestly, I don't blame the honourable representative of Kirisubo for not 'understanding', because what you're outlining is not the objective point of the UN, but your personal one.

The point of the UN is to stimulate international cooperation through national governments. Set up a basic level from which we all operate. Accomodate national differences where possible, force basic rights where needed. The UN can potentially legislate on everything, but should be wise enough to leave those issues that don't require or even get worse by forcing one international standard.
On what are you basing that assumption? The UN has to a great extent stimulated international cooperation through national governments; that doesn't mean it should have done so, or should continue to do so. There are plenty of other alternatives. It could work through citizen groups and associations, through corporations and business, through individuals. Furthermore, you say it shoukd 'force basic rights', but those of us who do not acknowledge the existence of such, yet have every much the same say as you in the UN, are somewhat mystified as to how you are discerning this 'aim'.

Mostly, the UN is an organisation of national governments. So legislate for them. Don't dictate laws which are done just as well by companies. Don't center power in the UN or a national government which is better left to local organisations, local people, local governments. And don't get into too much detail. You can't think up the perfect solution for 35000 nations and gods know how many people.
The UN is perfectly capable of collaboration with organizations rather than governments. Were it not, you would perhaps not be pushing to enshrine the rights of unions. There are charities and aid organizations, and there are corporations and small businesses, who are just as likely to benefit from UN action, and be beneficial to such, as national governments. Bear in mind there are UN members without any form of federal government: this was the point of the Safalran objection to "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning", which they embodied in their repeal thereof. Should they be excluded, because they do not conform to your ideal?

Sort out your priorities. You're talking about people who should save money who don't have money to save in the first place. Solving that is a good resolution idea. This isn't.
Actually, I disagree. It's not that they don't have money, it's that they don't have a lot of money. And they're not likely to get it if they tie it up in object value, which can be broken, lost or stolen. Providing them the means to save their admittedly small amounts of money seems to me to be a perfectly worthy aim for a resolution.

I don't know what the aim of the UN definitively is. Nor do I pretend to do so, nor do I lecture others on it.

First, some formatting:
Could I suggest you change the 'marker' for these definitions to an asterisk, a §, or something. Because you introduce all your clause with dashes (which I still find weird, but ok) it makes it a little unclear. Also, I'd advise putting the word to be defined in speech marks. So I'd suggest:

-A- DEFINING....
* "Blah" as blah
* "Blob" as blob
Ok, may be clearer indeed
I'd use organization instead
2. it should be 'organization' (again)

Will do a poll on that matter ;)
Both 'organization' and 'project' also need to be pluralised
Ok
Also, I'm not sure about the use of 'country'; 'nation' might be better. Even then (OOC example - Palestine is more a self-governing territory than a sovereign nation)...perhaps it could simply be 'sent...abroad'. But, in fact...could one have intranational remittances? For example, Bob goes and works in the rich South, and sends money back to his family in the poor North? Just a thought. Perhaps, then, you could phrase it as 'from a migrant worker'?
You made a good point, need to think about it
1. it should be 'no-charge-recorded'
Or maybe:
As not-charged recorded small sum of money…
There should probably be a comma after the final use of 'risks'.
OK
If you go with my definition, you could strike the 'which mainly...' clause (I've never liked that so much anyway)
Related to the definition, need also to think about it
I think instead of 'are' it should 'can be', and that you should then strike 'often'. I'd change 'creation' to 'development'. Then, 'help' seems to be a verb, which doesn't fit. I'd just eliminate 'help funding', and also strike 'local'. The problem with 'local' is that:
1. community projects don't have to be local
2. remittances are necessarily sent over a distance, and this could confuse people.
There also needs to be a comma on the end. Finally, it's suffering a little bit from 'shopping list syndrome'. In other words, you're going to forget the Shreddies and upset someone. So perhaps a 'or other worthy causes', or something less sanctimonious?

This would give:
-C- NOTING that remittances can be substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business development, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and community projects,
OK
Because it comes straight after a different noting, I'd change this simply to 'REGRETTING', for the purposes of spicing it up. I think 'remittances' should be singular. And then, because of the first half of the explanation, I would rejig the second:

-D- REGRETTING that remittance services are sometimes not easily available or charge high commissions,
OK
'Micro-insurances' should be singular. I'd cut 'future' - people could begin studying immediately, and continue working part-time - and for the second list, you should reorder it to fit with the definition provided in -A-. Also, the clause should end with a colon, as it introduces the operative section. Again, there's shopping listing.

-E- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance, in order to save money for education, access to land or other property or to be protected from basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks:
OK
Firstly: can you explain what the 'free confirmation of the transfer' actually means?
It’s a way to find out for the sender that the money has arrived, maybe a fax, phone call, e-mail by the operator in the receiving nation or the receiver.
You can lose 'rate'
I prefer to keep both rate and charge, as, correct me if I’m wrong, it seems to me that a service may have low-charge but High rate (for example a remittance of 100$ is charged 1$ with a rate of 10%), that said I’m not sure I’m right.
Then, I would change 'by' to 'through'. I'm always wary of your dedication to the internet; whilst I think it's justifiable - although even then, not as an absolute, in the context of RL, I'm not so sure about NS (no, I'm not about to start tech-wanking). In any case, I propose changing 'in particular' to 'such as'. You should also change the internet line to 'increasing the availablity of internet services'.
OK
Finally, that last clause strikes me as not needed. You're basically saying 'anyone can offer these services'. Yeah...we know that. I'd cut it:
Not sure yet, but why not
Hmm, no, I think you got my idea mixed up, although thanks for including it. The reappropriation of forged currency is independent of financial crises; it's a separate thing. Second, you don't want your proposal to have too many unintended consequences - we saw this, for example, with UN Small Business Education - so I would rephrase:
In fact, I don’t understand what you mean by “take steps to prevent the transfer of and reappropriate forged currency”
What about sponsoring terrorism??? That's the big one. When I mentioned Cluich's proposal, I guess I didn't mean for you to entirely eliminate the terrorism line.
Can put it back, no pb, I just wanted to avoid duplication

Thanks a lot for all this stuff, it’s much appreciated.

You're talking about people who should save money who don't have money to save in the first place. Solving that is a good resolution idea. This isn't.

You can see on the graph that in Bangladesh or Iran for example, around only 5% of households have a bank account. Even if average income in these nations are not high, the proportion of people saving money (and who may save if they were access to a bank account) is higher, as they hope to buy land, house, shop, cattle.

Some people save for pelrinage, some other in South-Asia for example, rickshaw or taxi drivers save money to be able to buy their own and a license.

A dramatic example, related to another draft in this forum, is dowry practices, where some low-income people may save money for years to come up with the amount.

The world is not divided on the one side by middle/high-income people with bank account and on the other side by poor people with absolutly no money to save.

http://www.economist.com/images/20051105/CSU680.gif

The chart's interesting, but regression lines are dicey, and it doesn't prove causality. People with Vitamin D deficiency often earn lower wages. Does being short on D make you earn less money? Does being broke leech D from your body?

Or is it that people who work the night shift, and thus have less exposure to sunlight both earn less and have less D?

In other words, just because you can find a correlation between percentage of people with accounts and national GDP, doesn't mean that one causes the other or that their in any way connected at all. I'm sure that Iran and Pakistan's autocratic governments have something to do with it too. Also, there's not too many data points on this chart, making it even more dubious.

Your goal is certainly noble, but I wouldn't base your defence of it solely on that chart.

My point was: I was pretty organization was the British. Like 'civilize' and 'realize', not all British words are s not z. I thought organize was one too.
Honestly, you're the first Brit I've ever seen use the spelling 'realize'. And 'civilize' is, I suspect, more common nowadays because of a certain game...

Oh, LAE - please don't bother with a poll, just spell it one way or another.

Honestly, you're the first Brit I've ever seen use the spelling 'realize'. And 'civilize' is, I suspect, more common nowadays because of a certain game...
'Civilize' I am 20000% sure of.

'Realize' I accept I haven't really seen others use; it's just something I picked up through Project Gutenberg, working on old books.

'Organize' is the OED spelling.

I recall we had this conversation some time ago on UNOG and didn't get very far; anyway, it's dragging the thread off topic. Agree to disagree?

'Civilize' I am 20000% sure of.

'Realize' I accept I haven't really seen others use; it's just something I picked up through Project Gutenberg, working on old books.

'Organize' is the OED spelling.

I recall we had this conversation some time ago on UNOG and didn't get very far; anyway, it's dragging the thread off topic. Agree to disagree?
OED is shit. Ahem. Sorry, I'm kidding - I didn't mean this to seem like an argument - I think LAE should choose one way and stick to it. I don't actually mind which he chooses...

... but if anyone tries to use the US dating conventions in a resolution, I'll set fire to their genitals.

but if anyone tries to use the US dating conventions in a resolution, I'll set fire to their genitals.Heh. Luckily people have taken to writing it out in the Mod Centre. Nothing like seeing someone was warned on 12/01/05 and wondering if it was in December or January...

The chart's interesting, but regression lines are dicey, and it doesn't prove causality. People with Vitamin D deficiency often earn lower wages. Does being short on D make you earn less money? Does being broke leech D from your body?

Or is it that people who work the night shift, and thus have less exposure to sunlight both earn less and have less D?

In other words, just because you can find a correlation between percentage of people with accounts and national GDP, doesn't mean that one causes the other or that their in any way connected at all. I'm sure that Iran and Pakistan's autocratic governments have something to do with it too. Also, there's not too many data points on this chart, making it even more dubious.

Your goal is certainly noble, but I wouldn't base your defence of it solely on that chart.

It was to answer to a comment about the ability of people without bank account to save money.

Google search:
185,000,000 for organisation
1,030,000,000 for organization

Yahoo search:
220,000,000 for organisation
492,000,000 for organization

May use this or use a random either:)

Ok, thanks to Gruen, i included most of your comments, I just don't really understand what mean "and to take steps to prevent the transfer of and reappropriate forged currency" and don't know about redundancy for monitoring funds related to terrosrism activity
Also i prefer to keep "low-charge/rate" in clause 1.

Here is the current draft

-----
The United Nations,

-A- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:

* "Remittance" as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker,

* "Secured tiny deposit" as a recorded and not-charged small sum of money entrusted to an organization/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,

* "Micro-insurance" as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks, in return for a small paid premium,

-B- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the economic development of economically developing nations,

-C- NOTING that remittances can be substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business development, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and community projects,

-D- REGRETTING that remittance services are sometimes not easily available or charge high commissions,

-E- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance, in order to save money for education, access to land or other property or to be protected from basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks:


-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

-4- URGES members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profit organizations, banks, insurance companies or government agencies to offer these services;

-5- URGES members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of the tiny deposits and micro-insurances mentioned in clause [5], in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----

Ok, thanks to Gruen, i included most of your comments, I just don't really understand what mean "and to take steps to prevent the transfer of and reappropriate forged currency"
Right, what I meant by that was: remittances involve sending currency. If that currency is forged, or is being sent as part of a fraud scheme, it needs to be stopped. I'm not saying your proposal can - or should - do a great deal about that, but it needs to acknowledge the possibility of the situation. Trafficking forged currency is an international criminal offence which increasing access to remittances hopefully won't foster, but might in the worst cases have some correlation to.

Right, what I meant by that was: remittances involve sending currency. If that currency is forged, or is being sent as part of a fraud scheme, it needs to be stopped. I'm not saying your proposal can - or should - do a great deal about that, but it needs to acknowledge the possibility of the situation. Trafficking forged currency is an international criminal offence which increasing access to remittances hopefully won't foster, but might in the worst cases have some correlation to.


Ok thanks, sorry i didn't make the effort the search for the definition of forged before;) , I will use your sentence

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to prevent the transfer of and reappropriate forged currency;


Also, will probably use:
"a recorded and not-charged small sum of money..." in the definition of tiny deposit

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to prevent the transfer of and reappropriate forged currency;
That maybe sounds a little awkward. You can probably cut 'prevent the transfer of' - because that would still entail reappropriation (i.e. taking it back). So I think it could just be 'to take steps to reappropriate forged currency'.

This really isn't a big thing, though.

Also, will probably use:
"a recorded and not-charged small sum of money..." in the definition of tiny deposit
"not-charged" sounds weird; could it be "uncharged"?

That maybe sounds a little awkward. You can probably cut 'prevent the transfer of' - because that would still entail reappropriation (i.e. taking it back). So I think it could just be 'to take steps to reappropriate forged currency'.

This really isn't a big thing, though.


Ok, thanks

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

Also, I was wondering about the category, I suppose it's social justice or free trade, as it's related to economy and access to financial services, but not sure.

Also, I was wondering about the category, I suppose it's social justice or free trade, as it's related to economy and access to financial services, but not sure.
Free Trade, I'd say, and Mild.

I have another comment: no offence, but it's really dry. You start reading it and zzzzzzz. Look at The Microcredit Bazaar, for example:

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,

Now, I know 'appeal to emotion' is a fallacy. And this intro isn't an appeal to emotion. But it's stirring stuff. It translates a financial consideration into a human context. As it stands, your proposal doesn't do this. It' straight into definitions of things the majority of the UN won't know or care about, and as such the benefits of such a system might be hard for them to see. I know you go on to explain later...but I think rhetorically, it might be better to have something as the first introductory clause, explaining why this is needed.

Free Trade, I'd say, and Mild.

OK

I have another comment: no offence, but it's really dry. You start reading it and zzzzzzz. Look at The Microcredit Bazaar, for example:

Now, I know 'appeal to emotion' is a fallacy. And this intro isn't an appeal to emotion. But it's stirring stuff. It translates a financial consideration into a human context. As it stands, your proposal doesn't do this. It' straight into definitions of things the majority of the UN won't know or care about, and as such the benefits of such a system might be hard for them to see. I know you go on to explain later...but I think rhetorically, it might be better to have something as the first introductory clause, explaining why this is needed.


Ok, so what about a change of the preambulatory clauses order?

-A- NOTING that remittances can be substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business development, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and community projects,

-B- REGRETTING that remittance services are sometimes not easily available or charge high commissions,

-C- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance, in order to save money for education, access to land or other property or to be protected from basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks,

-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the economic development of economically developing nations,

-E- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:

* "Remittance" as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker,

* "Secured tiny deposit" as a recorded and not-charged small sum of money entrusted to an organization/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,

* "Micro-insurance" as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks, in return for a small paid premium:

Yes, that works well: I still think you need a first first first preamble, though, basically saying "poverty is bad".

'Civilize' I am 20000% sure of.

Using the well tested L&E device:

civilise - 409,000
civilize - 519,000

Too many disagreements for one to be incorrect... Anyway [/threadjack (promise)]

Yes, that works well: I still think you need a first first first preamble, though, basically saying "poverty is bad".

You probably right, will try but not sure I will manage to do it

Using the well tested L&E device:

civilise - 409,000
civilize - 519,000

Too many disagreements for one to be incorrect... Anyway [/threadjack (promise)]

I got
Google:
409,000 for civilise
357,000 for civilize

Yahoo:
402,000 for civilise
964,000 for civilize

Strange results!

Anyway:
Google
1,810,000 for civilised
9,530,000 for civilized

Yahoo
2,990,000 for civilised
12,800,000 for civilized

End of suspens:D

You probably right, will try but not sure I will manage to do it



I got
Google:
409,000 for civilise
357,000 for civilize

Yahoo:
402,000 for civilise
964,000 for civilize

Strange results!

Anyway:
Google
1,810,000 for civilised
9,530,000 for civilized

Yahoo
2,990,000 for civilised
12,800,000 for civilized

End of suspens:D

Meh. Still too much for a wrong spelling, considering the US/UK bias, you don't think? The first test may be contaminated by French.

[/threadjack (but never believe my promises)]

Very few instances of 'surprize', not very much to my surprise.

Um. Look, it's a slow day in the office, OK?

Meh. Still too much for a wrong spelling, considering the US/UK bias, you don't think? The first test may be contaminated by French.

[/threadjack (but never believe my promises)]

Agree

Submitted for a 1st round without campaigning:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=deposits

NB: I just forgot to change the order of the perambulatory clauses, and to update for "mentioned in clause [4], in clause 5.

"not-charged" sounds weird; could it be "uncharged"?

Thanks, "uncharged" is better

We will fix these points for the next submission.

Our cash is not going to the invaders of my country. They weren't told to come here, weren't allowed to stay here, and most definitely aren't allowed to live here.

NO

-B- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the economic development of economically developing nations,

To me, "economic development of economically developing nations" sounds strange.

Could you try "economic development of developing nations" or "development of economically developing nations" instead?

Imperiux isn't sure about * "Remittance" as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker,
Since, unless the migrant is from a UN country, we don't really do anything more than what the UN requires.

Otherwise we're still pretty unsure, put to the vote we'd probably go against.

Imperiux isn't sure about * "Remittance" as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker,
Since, unless the migrant is from a UN country, we don't really do anything more than what the UN requires.

Otherwise we're still pretty unsure, put to the vote we'd probably go against.

To me, "economic development of economically developing nations" sounds strange.

Could you try "economic development of developing nations" or "development of economically developing nations" instead?

Sheknu convinced me nicely to use "economically developing nations".
Thanks, "development of economically developing nations" is better indeed.

Since, unless the migrant is from a UN country, we don't really do anything more than what the UN requires.

Thanks for your comment, but please forgive me I didn't understand what you mean.

This act would apply regardless off where the person sending the money comes from.

Lets say for example a person from the PR Hok-Tu worked in Kirisubo.

Hok-Tu is not a UN nation but Kirisubo is.

So if money is being sent this service has to be provided assuming that theres a way to recieve it at the other end.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

Thanks for your comment, but please forgive me I didn't understand what you mean.

OOC: You're not alone, L&E. I think most of us fail to understand most of what Imperiux/Optischer posts.

Because it's usually nonsense.

OOC: You're not alone, L&E. I think most of us fail to understand most of what Imperiux/Optischer posts.

Because it's usually nonsense.

Including Imperiux/Optischer, I think...
who just glues together words at random.

we've made a good start in getting the required number off approvals so i'm hoping that the joint proposal will make quorum.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero get the information that the proposal "Remittances and Tiny Deposits" reached quorum on his new tactile-phone-Ipod, as he was listening to Suzanne Palmer - Fascinated (Peter Rauhofer Mix):

http://test256.free.fr/ipod1.jpg

He wanted to thanks Midori Kasigi-Nero, his wife and deputy UN-Ambassador of the Empire of Kirisubo, to have co-authored it with him and for her help in the campaign.

He also want to thanks the 125 delegates who approved it and everyone who commented politely in this draft, in particular Sheknu and Gruen for their precious help.

STOP THAT!

Stop what (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10430550&postcount=31)?

Okay guys, we've been pretty lax about cracking down on images. We let the UN cards slide by without comment, but please, please keep your images relevent. Posting picogram instructions on how to select a song on an iPod is unnecessary.

Images are fun, but let's not go overboard, especially if you're leeching^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhotlinking them.

bumped for the floor debate

Ah, thanks for digging this up for me.

Taped to the top of the forum with:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/ducttape.jpg
The Duct Tape Of Sticky Stickiness!

I've gone from being mildly opposed to this to being mildly in support of it. You've had a good drafting process here. I suggest that you post the text so that people don't have to go digging through the thread looking for it.

Sounds to me, just a quick look anyway, as though this is an attemot to force the banks to spend time on clients with no money. Very bad for buisiness.

Sounds to me, just a quick look anyway, as though this is an attemot to force the banks to spend time on clients with no money. Very bad for buisiness.
Clearly, no. If they have no money, then they won't open an account. If they have a small amount of money, they can, and can be charged interest thereon. Perhaps it's an opportunity to open up a new market sector?

Clearly, no. If they have no money, then they won't open an account. If they have a small amount of money, they can, and can be charged interest thereon. Perhaps it's an opportunity to open up a new market sector?

Uh? Charged interest on deposits? :confused:

Uh? Charged interest on deposits?
No: he was talking about more general bank dealings, which this proposal doesn't directly relate to, but will encourage by proxy, because it will increase the extent to which such organizations and such individuals interact.

IF I have read the rules of the UN correctly, at a point when a bill is being voted on, you cannot change the wording.

FROM UN CHARTER ON PROPOSALS: Amendments
You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

At this point I withdraw my country's support until this is clarified. Thank you.

I've gone from being mildly opposed to this to being mildly in support of it. You've had a good drafting process here. I suggest that you post the text so that people don't have to go digging through the thread looking for it.


Thanks, here is the text:
-----The United Nations,

-A- NOTING that remittances can be substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business development, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and community projects,

-B- REGRETTING that remittance services are sometimes not easily available or charge high commissions,

-C- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance, in order to save money for education, access to land or other property or to be protected from basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks,

-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations,

-E- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:

* "Remittance" as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker,

* "Secured tiny deposit" as a recorded and uncharged small sum of money entrusted to an organization/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,

* "Micro-insurance" as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks, in return for a small paid premium:


-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these international money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

-4- URGES members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profit organizations, banks, insurance companies or government agencies to offer these services;

-5- URGES members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
-----

The wording is indeed now fixed and cannot be changed.

The wording is indeed now fixed and cannot be changed.

Yes but then was the previous debate on wording before or after such time as it was fixed?

The language was fixed from the moment it was officially submitted. I'm not sure exactly when that was, though.

The language was fixed from the moment it was officially submitted. I'm not sure exactly when that was, though.

Our nation will remain undecided until further debate on this resolution has occured & thanks for clarifying

Sounds to me, just a quick look anyway, as though this is an attemot to force the banks to spend time on clients with no money. Very bad for buisiness.

It's not clients with no money but with little money, we think it's quite different.
Also we wrote the definition carefully: negative account, credit, credit card, bank cheque are not mentionned. And even if it's not huge sums of money, when coming from many people it will then be significant and these economic entity offering tiny deposits services will invest this money.

Uh? Charged interest on deposits?

These deposits will not be charged
They may be credited interest, but it's written as a possibility in our proposal.

We still oppose this resolution, because it's not necessary to regulate this through the UN, and it has no real use.

We still oppose this resolution, because it's not necessary to regulate this through the UN, and it has no real use.
We'd rather the UN stuck to international matters, such as this, than national matters, such as abortion. But you know what? We're not going to say "that IS what the UN is for". We're going to say "that's what WE think the UN SHOULD be for". Please don't pretend your personal opinions are factual mandate.

As for real use, of course it does: remittances serve as a productive source of income for families of migrant workers. Maybe you just don't understand the topic?

The position of the Aendinia Government is AGAINST

The reasoning for our vote is as follows. The Resolution does not establish the origin of the money being sent to people. Does it originate from our own tax base, or from U.N. funding? Furthermore, the Resolution establishes that “Secured tiny deposits”will be entrusted to an organization//bank/administration. This wording is far to vague and opens the door for corruption of this system. The Resolution further defines “Remittance” as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker, however it does not define the accredation process for a non-profit organization. Aendinia has a strong establishment of Seperation of Church and States and religious organizations are not considered non-profit by the Aendinia Government. The resolution does not establish if we use our own national definitions for a non-profit, or if we must adopt U.N. Standards in order to award Remittances.

Again the intent of the legislation is well-intended, however the poor draft allows too much room for corruption and leaves too many grey areas in legal definition that could be used later to infringe upon the civil rights of our citizens.

The position of the Aendinia Government is AGAINST

The reasoning for our vote is as follows. The Resolution does not establish the origin of the money being sent to people. Does it originate from our own tax base, or from U.N. funding?
I'm no supporter of the resolution but I understand that the money is coming from individuals of their own volition. I'll leave the rest of your commentary to others.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Midori Kasigi-Nero stands up and speaks.

"Honourable delegates and ambassadors, I would like to clarify what our proposal is about.

We are asking for two things.

One is for micro savings accounts and fund transfer. The amount of money involved may be small to some nations but migrant workers sending money home and the means to save it back home without having to dig a hole, put it up in the rafters or hide it in a mattress is something we take for granted in a lot of UN nations.

Surely this is something the people of all nations should be entitled too as well.

Secondly micro insurances would allow poorer nations or individuals to recover a lot quicker when disaster or ill-fortune strikes. If you're a small scale farmer in a developing country and an outbreak of foot and mouth means your small group of cows has to be culled you have the means to recover quicker and be able to replace your cattle.

Even if the nation where the money is going isn't in the UN this still applies as long as its being sent from a UN nation.

It dosen't even need governments to spend a lot of money and may even be the start of a nations banking services and mean the improvement of a nations economy.

People with money saved become consumers in the long run so don't take the short sighted view and dismiss this out off hand"

We still oppose this resolution, because it's not necessary to regulate this through the UN, and it has no real use.


We think the UN has several functions, as it has several categories, and several strengths. So the UN has some human rights resolution, some about international relations, some with mandating clauses and some others which are mild and which are a tribune, a commitment, a message related to a topic.

I personally think that all of these are important.

The Resolution does not establish the origin of the money being sent to people. Does it originate from our own tax base, or from U.N. funding?

Sorry I didn't understand fully what you mean. I hope this will answer to your question, but I'm not sure:
The money concerned is people's money, from people mainly migrant workers wanting to send some to their parents/children/friends or to a local community projects in their home country.

Furthermore, the Resolution establishes that “Secured tiny deposits”will be entrusted to an organization//bank/administration. This wording is far to vague and opens the door for corruption of this system.

"Entrusted" is just the definition of a bank account (or tiny deposits), when you have a bank account your money is entrusted to a bank.


The Resolution further defines “Remittance” as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker, however it does not define the accredation process for a non-profit organization

We were thinking it's better to let that to nations.

Aendinia has a strong establishment of Seperation of Church and States and religious organizations are not considered non-profit by the Aendinia Government. The resolution does not establish if we use our own national definitions for a non-profit, or if we must adopt U.N. Standards in order to award Remittances.

The definition in the proposal use: "accredited non-profit organizations".
So nothing prevents your states to mandate banks/post-offices to stop remittances to your national non-accredited non-profit organisations.

Do have in mind Saudi-Arabia-financed extremist madrassas in Africa or South-East Asia? if you fear them nothing will prevent you for stopping them to get remittances. And even if no legal remittance channel exists, these organisations will be able to get the money by underground channels.


Again the intent of the legislation is well-intended, however the poor draft allows too much room for corruption and leaves too many grey areas in legal definition that could be used later to infringe upon the civil rights of our citizens.

Our proposal is about the development of financial services for people, so the only clause which may eventually tend to infringes upon civil rights is clause -2-. But we think it's important to try to deal with side effects intrinsically to a resolution and furthermore, clause -2- is only to "monitor".

Delegate Won-Hang Lo of The People's Republic of Hangup stands to speak...

Honored Members and Delegates to the UN,

Having read the resolution at hand, and debated this with other members of our country's government, We state the following:

The Hung, our national currency is unstable and inflation is exorbitant at this time. To allow other people, in other countries, to send currency home to their families and relatives without levying massive charges against this would only serve to destabilise our currency further, eventually leading to it being devalued to the point of collapse. Currently we have inflation of over 73%, and our currency value's mean that US$1.00 runs to over Hg130,000.

It would not be right to stop us charging for currency transfer into or out of the country, in no matter what form.

Because of this, as delegate of The People's Republic of Hangup, We enter a vote AGAINST this resolution being passed.

Thank you.

Honourable Delegate Lo, there is nothing to say that you have to stop charging on currency transactions.

-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;

You can still charge a fee if you want to.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

no, sorry
countries work for the best of their own citizens
not for the others

i find this unacceptable,therefore i vote against it

This is an interesting resolution. As Groot Gouda stated it probably isn't "necessary" for the UN to regulate this, but there is nothing that requires that the UN only do things that are necessary. The real question is whether or not this resolution would be helpful or harmful to the nations of the United Nations and to the peoples within the nations of the United Nations. Second to that is the question of whether this is an issue of true international importance, that is it either crosses national borders or there is some common reason why standards helps all the member nations therein.

I can't see this resolution, in and of itself, harmful in any way. Indeed this can only help both the people (especially the migrant workers and those who employ them) and the nations through the transfer of capital.

Therefore Tzorsland votes AYE for this resolution, as does our Regional Deligate and urges all other members to also vote AYE.

The Federation of Roman Republics will be casting a vote AGAINST this resolution. I would like to point out why though.

Our country supports the overall idea of this although it needs some editing and rewriting before we will vote for it. I'm sorry I do not have time to post everything that I think needs to be changed, but there is one major thing I can point out. It needs to be rewritten so that people can understand what it is trying to convey. The amount of posting in this thread that has to do with explaining to people what a certain part of it means is a clear indication that it is not easily understandable. This can lead to misinterpretation and this in turn can lead to tyranny of the law where noone can understand what is breaking or following a law except those that wrote it.

Anyways, I believe it should be rewritten for the purposes of this game so that a non-economics major could understand it. Thank you for your time.

Flavius Corpus
Romanorum Res Publica UN delegate

Honourable Delegate Lo, there is nothing to say that you have to stop charging on currency transactions.

-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;

You can still charge a fee if you want to.


Honorable Ms. Nero

It is with gratitude I thank you for pointing this out to myself. This was our primary concern with regard to our vote. Having discussed this further with my Government and High Officers, and accepting that we may still charge for such service, although the charge will have to be reduced; and accepting that we may also restrict the amount traded in the event of Financial crisis , we withdraw our vote of opposition to this proposal.

Accordingly, The People's Republic of Hangup votes FOR this resolution to be enacted.

Delegate Won-Hang Lo
The People's Republic of Hangup

After all these pages of discussion, I still do not see the point in this resolution. Why should governments be forced to set up a whole infrastructure for this, when there are plenty of companies who could dive into this market? With the added disadvantage that if governments control this, that includes malicious governments, and the money someone's sending home might never arrive, or be subject to corruption.

My advice would be to simply abandon this idea.

IMHO abandoning this idea would seem to be the best solution to a proposal wrought with opportunities for fraud, corruption, and missuse at a minimum.

We still oppose this resolution, because it's not necessary to regulate this through the UN, and it has no real use.

It's good to see that the representative from Groot Gouda at least draws a line somewhere.

FOR the support of the little guy, and, because Klitvilia has a large immigrant and refugee population, supporting legislature to get them on their feet

First of all, I should get this out of the way. We believe the authors' intent is noble and worthy, we agree with the preambulatory statements, and we believe this is a very relevant issue to discuss in this assembly.

Having said so, this resolution fails at addressing the root causes of the problem, and in fact constitutes a toothless, non-mandatory, whishful sequence of platitudes and bad economic advice.

The financial sector of developing nations is poorly developed. Why? Let me venture a list of possible causes:
a) Unstable, bureaucratic, and corrupt public institutions;
b) Unsuitable or non-existent regulatory frameworks;
c) Misguided, constrained, and unpredictable economic policy, with high inflation rates and erratic tax systems;
d) Insufficient public investment in infrastructures and education, rendering even clear-cut investment opportunities unnaceptably risky;
e) Insufficient or completely unavailable information on the credit history and circumstances of individuals or firms;
f) Underdeveloped judiciary institutions, in particular regarding the enforcement of contracts;
g) Religious objections against interest bearing loans.

This list is by no means exhaustive. But I ask, have the authors even attempted to address any of these points? The answer is, tragically, no. I now turn your attention to the points the authors do address.

-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;

This is as wonderful on paper, and as useless in practice, as saying "URGES governments to ensure bread is cheap." If you are a capitalist nation, you surely believe that free competition drives prices as low as the marginal cost. The government could only reduce the cost of the transaction by either subsidising the industry, regulating the price of the service, or performing similar protectionist/anti-competitive acts. If you are a communist nation, you surely believe you are a (benevolent or otherwise) social planner, distributing national resources according to the greater good, the needs of the people, or other less worthy goals. In either case, I would appreciate a careful explanation as to why national resources should be diverted from other priorities to a small niche of the financial sector.

On the other hand, promoting international integration of financial systems is a great idea. The authors do not attempt it; they rather urge member nations to have a go at it with bilateral agreements.

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

Interesting. The authors recognise the danger of financial crises, so one would assume that they recognise the danger of speculative attacks on the weak currency of a small developing nation. And yet, a speculative attack would usually take the form of a large transfer of funds out of the country. Provided that the speculator was an undefined "migrant worker," this resolution defines the offending transaction as a remmitance in itself. Such major transfer is not only facilitated, but actually encouraged, with the proviso that, after the subsequent crisis takes place, the countries are permitted to institute controls on international transfers. We would assume that imposing the controls a priori would be a better way of reducing the risk of a financial crisis ever taking place.

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these international money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

Laudable. We can only wonder as to why the authors believe any sound-minded national leader would need to be advised by the UN to do so. Unless, of course, the government itself had vested interests on said activities, in which case I would wager that this recommendation will fall on deaf ears.

-4- URGES members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profit organizations, banks, insurance companies or government agencies to offer these services;

Remarkably similar to clause 1, but for a different sub-industry. If we all hold hands and concentrate, somehow organisations which previously found this niche market unattractive will start providing the service. Seriously, if the services are not being provided, there is always a reason. Rarely the reason is that the leaders of such organisations are all unimaginative and absent-minded; as such, encouraging them has little effect. I previously listed some factors that may influence this decision. Rather than addressing those, the authors have chosen a wording that can only imply a strategy of either gentle persuasion or protectionist mechanisms; these are respectively ineffective and counter-productive.

-5- URGES members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

Ah, and it starts so well. One would be led to assume that this clause is begining to tackle the much needed regulatory framework needed for healthy financial markets. However, what it actually ends up doing is urging governments to guarantee the debts of financial institutions in case of bankrupcy. Governments guaranteeing debts??? If we were talking about developed countries, I would direct the honorable delegates to the economic concept of moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard): the adverse impact that such a bail-out has on responsible management practices. I would argue that the well established practice of imposing reserve requirements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirements) is more than enough to protect small deposits and insurance holders, without need for government intervention, and actually reduces the risk of bankrupcy, as opposed to the proposed strategy. I would warn of the example this sets for other businesses, and of the predictable cry for protection of wage payments after bankrupcy in other industries. Since we are talking about small developing nations, I will merely highlight the impact this could have on a poor, heavily indebted government budget. Is public debt default somehow more desirable than bank bankrupcy default? Those are two wholly different scales, with wholly different economic impacts.

I thank and admire the honourable delegates who are still with me at this point. While I did not intend to take the floor for so long, I believe these arguments are relevant and should be raised. I hope our honourable colleagues find in them enough reasons to reject this well-meaning but flawed resolution.

Sorry I didn't understand fully what you mean. I hope this will answer to your question, but I'm not sure:
The money concerned is people's money, from people mainly migrant workers wanting to send some to their parents/children/friends or to a local community projects in their home country.

By your own definition in Clause E “Remittance” as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker. The key phrase for this Ambassador is "sent to people". Sent from where? Your defintion is what draws my attention, not your attempt at explaination. I understand what is being proposed, and it is not throughly defined. Your own definition leaves me with questions. A sum of money "sent to people" from where? I know we are talking about money for people, but you have continued to fail to identify the source of the money being "sent"

"Entrusted" is just the definition of a bank account (or tiny deposits), when you have a bank account your money is entrusted to a bank.

That may be your intention, however again I will restate that the lack of any type of boolean identifier (and/or/all) leaves this porition of your proposal open to misuse by larger interests. You define “Secured tiny deposit” as a recorded and uncharged small sum of money entrusted to an organization/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,.

The use of slashes in the proposal means that a bank OR an administration OR an organization (which is about as vague a description as you can get in this case,) can be entrusted with the "secured tiny deposit" When I mentioned that the proposal does not go into in depth description as to what makes an "accredited non-profit organization" you stated

We were thinking it's better to let that to nations.

While that may be the intention of the proposal, without it being defined within the proposal itself, it is undefined and therefore pourous to corruption. Unless the proposal is recinded and re-written to include a firm declarative that individual nations may define for themselves, within their own soverign borders what a "accredited non-profit organization or local community projects from a migrant worker" may be, the Aendinian Government will forever stand in opposition to this poorly constructed gaping loophole in this proposal.

The definition in the proposal use: "accredited non-profit organizations".
So nothing prevents your states to mandate banks/post-offices to stop remittances to your national non-accredited non-profit organisations.

Again, are we supposed to simply take your word that this is the intention? It must be included in the proposal.

Do have in mind Saudi-Arabia-financed extremist madrassas in Africa or South-East Asia? if you fear them nothing will prevent you for stopping them to get remittances. And even if no legal remittance channel exists, these organisations will be able to get the money by underground channels.

I do not have any one group in mind. I am guarding my people against corruption in general. I am guarding them against being forced into recognizing groups which do not fullfill our internal criteria for financial assistance or aid programs becuase the U.N. has left a wide loophole for radical legislators and judges to take advantage of. I do not stand against providing assistance for those who needs it. However the Freeland of Aendinia requires that the measure, its policies, and where certain definitions and determinations will be made to be more strictly and clearly defined in the wording of the proposal and not in after-the-fact promises of the mouth.

(OOC: i'm a bit effing pished now, the effing forum logged me out and destroyed my rather long post i had here. Attempts at reconstruction will probably not have quite the impact i had originally intended.)

We cannot support this resolution due to bad grammar, the author's thinly-veiled capitalist agenda, their lack of proper debate skills and understanding of the topic, and their failure to address the major issues raised by their opponents.

Thank you.

--dunerat

(OOC: Some 400 words lighter, this post now sucks. Sorry.)

We'd rather the UN stuck to international matters, such as this, than national matters, such as abortion. But you know what? We're not going to say "that IS what the UN is for". We're going to say "that's what WE think the UN SHOULD be for". Please don't pretend your personal opinions are factual mandate.

I wasn't. I never claimed a mandate, just stated that it isn't necessary to regulate this on UN level. And it's poor debating to drag abortion into this. There are enough threads about that, please keep that subject there and discuss the resolution at vote.

As for real use, of course it does: remittances serve as a productive source of income for families of migrant workers. Maybe you just don't understand the topic?

I understand the topic, thankyouverymuch, I just don't think that this resolution solves the problem underlying this. For remittances and tiny deposits, someone has to have money in the first place. Poverty isn't solved here (also because the resolution is entirely voluntary), so something is created for people who need it less. It's socialism without a cause.

The Federation of Roman Republics will be casting a vote AGAINST this resolution. I would like to point out why though.

Our country supports the overall idea of this although it needs some editing and rewriting before we will vote for it. I'm sorry I do not have time to post everything that I think needs to be changed, but there is one major thing I can point out. It needs to be rewritten so that people can understand what it is trying to convey. The amount of posting in this thread that has to do with explaining to people what a certain part of it means is a clear indication that it is not easily understandable. This can lead to misinterpretation and this in turn can lead to tyranny of the law where noone can understand what is breaking or following a law except those that wrote it.

Anyways, I believe it should be rewritten for the purposes of this game so that a non-economics major could understand it. Thank you for your time.



Maybe you right and the wording is too complicated, it's why we wrote 3 definitions in the proposal, maybe the insurance part was too much.
May you post your question about the resolution at vote, and then i will try to anser you.

For remittances and tiny deposits, someone has to have money in the first place. Poverty isn't solved here (also because the resolution is entirely voluntary), so something is created for people who need it less. It's socialism without a cause.

Sorry, our proposal is not the solution to solve poverty, it's just a little sometying to improve living conditions of many people in economically developping nationsSorry, our proposal is not the solution to solve poverty; sadly we don’t think there is a “miracle” solution against poverty, it's just a little something to improve living conditions of many people in economically developing nations.

Remittances go often to people who need it most.
I agree that tiny deposits, is not directly for people who need it most, there are many low-income people saving money every month in the world for access to property, taxi, rickshaw, cattle or future education, small business, dowry…
This part of the proposal is to increase the size of the emerging middle class in many economically developing nations.

First of all, I should get this out of the way. We believe the authors' intent is noble and worthy, we agree with the preambulatory statements, and we believe this is a very relevant issue to discuss in this assembly.

Thanks

Having said so, this resolution fails at addressing the root causes of the problem, and in fact constitutes a toothless, non-mandatory, whishful sequence of platitudes and bad economic advice.

The financial sector of developing nations is poorly developed. Why? Let me venture a list of possible causes:
a) Unstable, bureaucratic, and corrupt public institutions;
b) Unsuitable or non-existent regulatory frameworks;
c) Misguided, constrained, and unpredictable economic policy, with high inflation rates and erratic tax systems;
d) Insufficient public investment in infrastructures and education, rendering even clear-cut investment opportunities unnaceptably risky;
e) Insufficient or completely unavailable information on the credit history and circumstances of individuals or firms;
f) Underdeveloped judiciary institutions, in particular regarding the enforcement of contracts;
g) Religious objections against interest bearing loans.

This list is by no means exhaustive. But I ask, have the authors even attempted to address any of these points? The answer is, tragically, no. I now turn your attention to the points the authors do address.

The clause -5- of our proposal tries to solve some of these problems:

-5- URGES members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

Clause -1- asks for more efficiency:
"Such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;"


I would like to emphasize is related to only a topic (microfinance) and that it seems already a lot. We had never the ambition to try to solve all these problems of economically developing nations; sorry we are not able to do this. We just tried to focus on some points.


This is as wonderful on paper, and as useless in practice, as saying "URGES governments to ensure bread is cheap." If you are a capitalist nation, you surely believe that free competition drives prices as low as the marginal cost. The government could only reduce the cost of the transaction by either subsidising the industry, regulating the price of the service, or performing similar protectionist/anti-competitive acts. If you are a communist nation, you surely believe you are a (benevolent or otherwise) social planner, distributing national resources according to the greater good, the needs of the people, or other less worthy goals. In either case, I would appreciate a careful explanation as to why national resources should be diverted from other priorities to a small niche of the financial sector.

We really think mild proposal, only urging are also useful, as it can be a great commitment, tribune, message...
This proposal may for example increase the interest related to this topic to any economic actors or powerful meetings as the NSDavos.

This proposal emphasizes the need of more efficiency in these services to reduce the cost, as it's a sector where IT solutions and cooperation between actors have shown it can decrease costs.

We don't think such actions are costly for states, as they can easily use their influence to try to convince various economic actors. Influence of governments in economically developing nations is often very important, and we think it can be a useful to invite governments to do it in certain ways.

Furthermore tiny deposits is not an economic activity loosing money, it has proven viable in many nations, as Brazil, India, Bangladesh, and even less risky that microcredits.


On the other hand, promoting international integration of financial systems is a great idea. The authors do not attempt it; they rather urge member nations to have a go at it with bilateral agreements.

It's interesting; do you mean the implementation of a SWIFT system for NS?
Maybe we should have write more about it in ur proposal, but there was already a lot of stuff, and I don't know how to write a NS-SWIFT.


Interesting. The authors recognise the danger of financial crises, so one would assume that they recognise the danger of speculative attacks on the weak currency of a small developing nation. And yet, a speculative attack would usually take the form of a large transfer of funds out of the country. Provided that the speculator was an undefined "migrant worker," this resolution defines the offending transaction as a remmitance in itself. Such major transfer is not only facilitated, but actually encouraged, with the proviso that, after the subsequent crisis takes place, the countries are permitted to institute controls on international transfers. We would assume that imposing the controls a priori would be a better way of reducing the risk of a financial crisis ever taking place.

Of course we recognize the side effects; there are side effects in most of things, aren't they? It’s the reason of clause -2-

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

1st our proposal mandates nothing, so it lest nations the possibility to react as they wish; and 2nd we think that over reaction from a government in case of eventual financial crisis lead many times to a greater decrease of confidence in the said currency. Also remittances is momeny going mostly to economically developping nations, not the contrary.

Furthermore, I don't know how anyone can predict a financial crisis seriously.

Laudable. We can only wonder as to why the authors believe any sound-minded national leader would need to be advised by the UN to do so. Unless, of course, the government itself had vested interests on said activities, in which case I would wager that this recommendation will fall on deaf ears.

Remarkably similar to clause 1, but for a different sub-industry. If we all hold hands and concentrate, somehow organisations which previously found this niche market unattractive will start providing the service. Seriously, if the services are not being provided, there is always a reason. Rarely the reason is that the leaders of such organisations are all unimaginative and absent-minded; as such, encouraging them has little effect. I previously listed some factors that may influence this decision. Rather than addressing those, the authors have chosen a wording that can only imply a strategy of either gentle persuasion or protectionist mechanisms; these are respectively ineffective and counter-productive.

You are questionning the utility of "mild" proposal.
Yes, we think mild proposal are usefull, it's can be a powerfull message, commitment. The UN floor and the Un resolution book are both a great worldwide tribune, we really think it's not deaf ears.

We don’t think that because a service is not provided, there is a good reason. It’s similar to the microcredit resolution; sometimes a push may be needed.
We just didn’t create a UN agency, because we cannot fund a UN agency to every resolution, maybe in the future a UN agency will be created to deal with all economic topic.



Ah, and it starts so well. One would be led to assume that this clause is begining to tackle the much needed regulatory framework needed for healthy financial markets. However, what it actually ends up doing is urging governments to guarantee the debts of financial institutions in case of bankrupcy. Governments guaranteeing debts??? If we were talking about developed countries, I would direct the honorable delegates to the economic concept of moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard): the adverse impact that such a bail-out has on responsible management practices. I would argue that the well established practice of imposing reserve requirements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirements) is more than enough to protect small deposits and insurance holders, without need for government intervention, and actually reduces the risk of bankrupcy, as opposed to the proposed strategy. I would warn of the example this sets for other businesses, and of the predictable cry for protection of wage payments after bankrupcy in other industries. Since we are talking about small developing nations, I will merely highlight the impact this could have on a poor, heavily indebted government budget. Is public debt default somehow more desirable than bank bankrupcy default? Those are two wholly different scales, with wholly different economic impacts.

Our proposal never asked to underwrite the economic actors themselves, but only the deposits and micro-insurance, and only urges it.
It’s really different, in case of bankruptcy of a bank for example, the shareholder will get nothing from the states, it’s only the holder of the tiny deposits themselves.

By your own definition in Clause E “Remittance” as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker. The key phrase for this Ambassador is "sent to people". Sent from where? Your defintion is what draws my attention, not your attempt at explaination. I understand what is being proposed, and it is not throughly defined. Your own definition leaves me with questions. A sum of money "sent to people" from where? I know we are talking about money for people, but you have continued to fail to identify the source of the money being "sent"

The definition of “remittances” in our proposal include “from a migrant worker”.
Then of course it will happen that these services will be used by other unwanted actors. It’s why we wrote clause -3-:

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these international money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

I agree that nothing is perfect, but we think the advantages will be greater than the effects of the unwanted money using these channels. And by the way criminals are better to find underground channels than migrant workers.



That may be your intention, however again I will restate that the lack of any type of boolean identifier (and/or/all) leaves this porition of your proposal open to misuse by larger interests. You define “Secured tiny deposit” as a recorded and uncharged small sum of money entrusted to an organization/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,.

The use of slashes in the proposal means that a bank OR an administration OR an organization (which is about as vague a description as you can get in this case,) can be entrusted with the "secured tiny deposit"

Sorry, I’m lost here, maybe you right but I don’t get the point.


When I mentioned that the proposal does not go into in depth description as to what makes an "accredited non-profit organization" you stated



While that may be the intention of the proposal, without it being defined within the proposal itself, it is undefined and therefore pourous to corruption. Unless the proposal is recinded and re-written to include a firm declarative that individual nations may define for themselves, within their own soverign borders what a "accredited non-profit organization or local community projects from a migrant worker" may be, the Aendinian Government will forever stand in opposition to this poorly constructed gaping loophole in this proposal.



Again, are we supposed to simply take your word that this is the intention? It must be included in the proposal.



I do not have any one group in mind. I am guarding my people against corruption in general. I am guarding them against being forced into recognizing groups which do not fullfill our internal criteria for financial assistance or aid programs becuase the U.N. has left a wide loophole for radical legislators and judges to take advantage of. I do not stand against providing assistance for those who needs it. However the Freeland of Aendinia requires that the measure, its policies, and where certain definitions and determinations will be made to be more strictly and clearly defined in the wording of the proposal and not in after-the-fact promises of the mouth.

The definition use “accredited non-profit organizations”, and as neither our proposal nor any resolution define it, it’s then up to nations themselves.

Sorry, our proposal is not the solution to solve poverty; sadly we don’t think there is a “miracle” solution against poverty, it's just a little something to improve living conditions of many people in economically developing nations.

But it doesn't.

Remittances go often to people who need it most.
I agree that tiny deposits, is not directly for people who need it most, there are many low-income people saving money every month in the world for access to property, taxi, rickshaw, cattle or future education, small business, dowry…
This part of the proposal is to increase the size of the emerging middle class in many economically developing nations.

These are for a large part people without access to the facilities you create with this resolution. Unless so much is paid that this resolution becomes hugely economically inadequate.

These are for a large part people without access to the facilities you create with this resolution. Unless so much is paid that this resolution becomes hugely economically inadequate.

I agree that tiny deposits are not a solution for people without money to save. But once again many people in economically developping nations save money or would like to save or save more if they had access to a secured bank account or tiny deposits.

And if you look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan and nowadays China, the high savings rate there had been/is now (for china) an important factor of their economic development.

We are convinced that the passage from "economically developping" to "economically developped" status is by increasing the size of the middle classe, and our proposal is one tool to accelerate this process.

so people aren't supporting this because it's too captitalist? are we afraid that our countries will actually have a populance that doesn't live in fear of what some crazy wacko will do to their homes? or wreak their cars?
are you all just scared of capitalist motives?

Sorry to perhaps 'spam' your topic with a separate post, but I think this is an important, and relevant, point.


I'm probably way out of line on this. There are probably people from 'developing nations' who don't object to the term. And I accept most people - including, I'm sure, you - use 'developing' to mean 'developing economy'. Why, the United Nations has classified Sheknu (http://www.nationstates.net/sheknu) as having a 'developing' economy. Nonetheless.

My principle objection is to the blanket use of the term 'developing'. Whilst it has come to take on the mantle of a fairly specific economic descriptor, it does not necessarily imply that. To me, the term remains demeaning. Consider Mali. One of the poorest countries in the world, held back by the usual shackles of disease, war, desertification, and political upheaval. Consider the music, then, of Taj Mahal, or of Ali Farkar Toure. The latter made an album last year with the kora player Toumani Diabete. The album - In The Heart Of The Moon - was produced by Ry Cooder, and got fantastic reviews in the 'world music' process. Really, seriously, listen to it. Hawa Dolo is just about the most perfect tune ever played (and it's all improvised too, and recorded in what's pretty much a trailer). One journalist described it as "the most beautiful music in the world".

Then consider Live Waste. These giants of African music, who represent to the West a whole continent's cultural output in one field, were relegated to an empty stage in Cornwall, while some god-awful bands pranced around the 'main stages' in London, spewing mindless, boring, arrogant shit. You compare In The Heart Of The Moon and X&Y. One reaches its apex of music invention by...sampling a band most famous for making a song not just about but exactly replicating train noises (I actually like and respect Kraftwerk, but this is a rant). One reaches notes which seem almost spiritual.

Who's the more 'developed'?

(I should add that even if we stick to 'economically developed', that really means 'approaching a system of Western free market economics'. Whilst that's all well and good, there would be many who would consider providing for all citizens the basic necessities of life, instead of leaving them to bob around in a sea of anarcho-capitalist pandemonium, is more 'economically developed'. I honestly think 'rich' and 'poor' serve purposes. I don't especially object to the term 'structural development'.)





Developing country is the correct commercial term, not economically developing, as it also refers to a few other things. In all technicality, a developing country is one with a small population, economy, and level of technology. Really it's the people who invented the terms saying a country that hasn't lost all hope at remaining partially in touch with what it originally was, and wasn't colonised earlier on, to a great extent

i still don't get what this message is actually saying. It seems to be presented in a confusing manner so as to lure people into believing it's all good and proffesional, like in real politics, but is presented almost to say that people can't have these "micro-insurances" and "tiny deposits", which are still not adequately explained so EVERYONE can understand (though i can just a bout). It also seems like your trying to force LEGAL migrants into paying these things to charities, and then further tax on some such thing. LEGAL migrants have done nothing wrong, it's like moving from England to America, you want to live in a new climate or some such thing, and I happen to know for a fact that some countries even support ILLEGAL migrants, as they wish to be a utopia, or increase their population, and this resolution appears anti-that.

On these bases, i am voting against at this point in time

i still don't get what this message is actually saying. It seems to be presented in a confusing manner so as to lure people into believing it's all good and proffesional, like in real politics, but is presented almost to say that people can't have these "micro-insurances" and "tiny deposits", which are still not adequately explained so EVERYONE can understand (though i can just a bout). It also seems like your trying to force LEGAL migrants into paying these things to charities, and then further tax on some such thing. LEGAL migrants have done nothing wrong, it's like moving from England to America, you want to live in a new climate or some such thing, and I happen to know for a fact that some countries even support ILLEGAL migrants, as they wish to be a utopia, or increase their population, and this resolution appears anti-that.

Maybe the wording is not clear enough, but nothing in our proposal ask migrant worker to send money home.
Remittances is a reality as it's a source of foreign revenu, which bring as much money in economically developping nations as foreign Direct Investment and many more than foriegn aid. Our proposal is just trying so provide those people sending remittances some cheaper, faster and more secure services.

The ultimate problem facing this bill, is that its not a bill. It is a bunch of "urges" and suggestions. If this bill passed unainimously, it would do absolutely nothing, at all, period, the end.

Aside from that the wording of the bill is so convoluted, I'm not even certain what the point of it is (:confused: ). Seriously, defeat this proposal, and let the guys who wrote it do a second draft, then we can actually look at the 'merits' it possesses.

so people aren't supporting this because it's too captitalist? are we afraid that our countries will actually have a populance that doesn't live in fear of what some crazy wacko will do to their homes? or wreak their cars?
are you all just scared of capitalist motives?


Short answer,

We're not all capitalists.

Thanks

As has already been mentioned, I'm sure the intent behind this resolution is pure and noble.

However, My Master wishes me to stand from the simple point of view that we already have a system for dealing with currencies travelling into and out of fair Kivisto and do not wish to have that system intruded upon by the UN as it will have some unusual results on our economy.

As such I must vote Nay.

Thank You for your efforts, though. Keep up the good work.

Oskar Feldstein
By the Glory of HR Reposing Master
Representing Kivisto

The clause -5- of our proposal tries to solve some of these problems:

-5- URGES members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

You might have noticed that I liked the begining of the clause. Still, it is not in any way enough to enact regulatory changes by stating "set transparency standards." Of course, this is all academic; that clause is destroyed by the second part.

Clause -1- asks for more efficiency:
"Such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;"

If you think this sort of statements are even remotely related to the efficiency of banks and insurance companies, the burden of proof is on your side. To me, it reads:
"Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had internet in poor countries, and if loads of companies provided services online, and if all the post-offices and banks in the world started talking to each other?"
Economic effect: Nil.

I would like to emphasize is related to only a topic (microfinance) and that it seems already a lot. We had never the ambition to try to solve all these problems of economically developing nations; sorry we are not able to do this. We just tried to focus on some points.

I did not ask you to solve all the problems. I merely listed (some of) the economic reasons for the specific problem you are trying to solve. And carefully argued, point by point, as to why your proposal fails to address any of these reasons. If you don't remove the root causes, your proposal does nothing to reduce their consequences. In fact, by giving bad economic advice, you actually make some problems more severe. Your proposal urges nations to stimulate speculative attacks and irresponsible managerial practices.

We really think mild proposal, only urging are also useful, as it can be a great commitment, tribune, message...
This proposal may for example increase the interest related to this topic to any economic actors or powerful meetings as the NSDavos.

This proposal emphasizes the need of more efficiency in these services to reduce the cost, as it's a sector where IT solutions and cooperation between actors have shown it can decrease costs.

We don't think such actions are costly for states, as they can easily use their influence to try to convince various economic actors. Influence of governments in economically developing nations is often very important, and we think it can be a useful to invite governments to do it in certain ways.

Furthermore tiny deposits is not an economic activity loosing money, it has proven viable in many nations, as Brazil, India, Bangladesh, and even less risky that microcredits.

URGING nations is fine. URGING nations to urge companies is dubious, but OK. URGING nations to ensure companies provide specific products at lower cost to the consumer is bad economics. Can't you see that? The business world does not work on soft hearts, gentle persuasion, or fluffy platitudes. That is reserved for the NSUN.

L&E: Dear companies, you need to be more efficient and lower your prices.
Companies: Damn, why didn't I think of that? Thank you.
L&E: Dear companies, if you cooperate with others you will make more money.
Companies: Damn, why didn't I think of that? Thank you.
L&E: Dear companies, you should offer more internet services, even though internet penetration is only 5% of the population.
Companies: Damn, why didn't I think of that? Thank you.
L&E: Dear companies, international transfers, micro-insurance, and tiny deposits are actually very profitable businesses. Do more of it.
Companies: Damn, why didn't I think of that? Thank you.

If you believe that this is how the world works, then by all means support this proposal.

It's interesting; do you mean the implementation of a SWIFT system for NS?
Maybe we should have write more about it in ur proposal, but there was already a lot of stuff, and I don't know how to write a NS-SWIFT.

I am not defending this particular measure above others, but yes: Creating an inter-bank communication system would reduce transaction costs. Doesn't it strike you as more reasonable to reduce costs and risks, by e.g. creating an infrastructure, rather than simply encouraging companies to reduce prices?

Of course we recognize the side effects; there are side effects in most of things, aren't they? It’s the reason of clause -2-

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

1st our proposal mandates nothing, so it lest nations the possibility to react as they wish; and 2nd we think that over reaction from a government in case of eventual financial crisis lead many times to a greater decrease of confidence in the said currency. Also remittances is momeny going mostly to economically developping nations, not the contrary.

Furthermore, I don't know how anyone can predict a financial crisis seriously.

Sigh. Financial crises may not be predictable, but the risk of financial crises is predictable. Foreign currency reserves, interest rate differentials, level of foreign investment, exchange rate policy... I will not go into technicalities. The main point is that financial crises are provoked by speculation. What do these speculators use to provoke a financial crisis? Why, it's a remmitance.

Nations do not need to forecast when a crisis will occur. But if they deem their currency to be weak and vulnerable, and therefore the risk of attack to be high, it is their right to impose capital controls. Not because a crisis is occurring, but to prevent it. Urge them to do otherwise, and to wait until after the damage is done, is irresponsible economic advice.

Incidentally, if you are willing to take the increased risk of financial crises in your stride as an "unfortunate side effect," I think you might need to review your priorities...

You are questionning the utility of "mild" proposal.
Yes, we think mild proposal are usefull, it's can be a powerfull message, commitment. The UN floor and the Un resolution book are both a great worldwide tribune, we really think it's not deaf ears.

No, I am questioning no such thing. I am questioning the realistic effect of each clause, and the economic implications of the advice you give. You, my friend, are either dodging or not understanding my point.

We don’t think that because a service is not provided, there is a good reason. It’s similar to the microcredit resolution; sometimes a push may be needed.
We just didn’t create a UN agency, because we cannot fund a UN agency to every resolution, maybe in the future a UN agency will be created to deal with all economic topic.

A push??? Really??? So you think my list of seven yes seven valid economic arguments for the service not to be provided is irrelevant? Or maybe you think companies can't be bothered to permanently look for new investment opportunities? Maybe they do, but are too simple-minded to find out that those services are so wonderfully profitable? Ah, all we need is a paternalistic state instructing businesses on where to invest. No, wait, better yet: a paternalistic UN, who knows which businesses are profitable in every single member nation; who is showing its extensive knowledge of economics and finance in this debate; who cares so deeply about poverty that it can only think of advising companies to reduce prices; therein lies the saviour and champion of all misguided business leaders.

Our proposal never asked to underwrite the economic actors themselves, but only the deposits and micro-insurance, and only urges it.
It’s really different, in case of bankruptcy of a bank for example, the shareholder will get nothing from the states, it’s only the holder of the tiny deposits themselves.

Sigh #2. OK, fine: Introduction to Economics, Agency Problems. Simplified for L&E.

Imagine a world where there are two types of banks, Good banks and Bad banks.

Good banks are serious, respectable banks, put their money in sound investments, after a thorough risk evaluation, and do all the nice things we expect nice managers to do. These banks never go burst.

Bad banks are smart but reckless; they keep low reserves, invest in potentially profitable but highly risky opportunities, do not conduct due diligence in their loans, and in general lead their activities hoping for the best. Occasionally, these banks file for bankrupcy. However, since they are accepting more risks, they will be able to attain higher average returns, and are able to pay higher interest rates on deposits.

Now, if you are a poor person investing your money, you probably care a lot more about the possibility of losing all your savings than a marginal increase in returns. Probably you will prefer a Good, established bank to a dubious gamble in some unknown Bad adventurer.

Unfortunately, L&E just decided that, even if a bank goes burst, the government will step in and pay back all deposits. As a result, all the poor (and rich) people will no longer care about the possibility of bankrupcy, and will move their money from Good to Bad banks. Soon, even Good banks are forced to take higher risks and more aggressive strategies, otherwise they cannot compete with Bad banks. Now all the banks are Bad, they occasionally go boom, but the clients don't really care because THE FREAKING TAXPAYER IS TAKING ALL THE RISK. Ahem.

Is my point clearer now?

As has already been mentioned, I'm sure the intent behind this resolution is pure and noble.

However, My Master wishes me to stand from the simple point of view that we already have a system for dealing with currencies travelling into and out of fair Kivisto and do not wish to have that system intruded upon by the UN as it will have some unusual results on our economy.

As such I must vote Nay.

Thank You for your efforts, though. Keep up the good work.


Well done if your nation have already this kinds of politics in place; but it's not the case for every nation. For example some nations never experienced a tsunami and will probably never experience it, but feel concerned because of others nations.

The Palentine does not support this resolution. While we are probally just as captialist as other countries(and in some cases probally more agressive captialist than others), we do not see the need for this resolution. The only use remittances should have are to send embarrassing reletives as far away as possible, and keep them away. However we have found a cheaper alternative...we make them abasssadors, and ship them out(willing or not) to other nations.:p Now excuse me, but I've got to prepare a list for Lord Julius.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

You might have noticed that I liked the begining of the clause. Still, it is not in any way enough to enact regulatory changes by stating "set transparency standards." Of course, this is all academic; that clause is destroyed by the second part.

Thanks for the first part.
About the 2nd part, it’s not the shareholder which will get some money in case of bankruptcy, as the very sad action in my opinion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTCM
But holders of tiny deposits.

“guarantee the security of tiny deposits and micro-insurances”

That means, before any money be spent by the state, that the money coming from the liquidation from the bank will goes to tiny deposits holder, not to the shareholder

In the LTCM case, Federal Reserve Bank of New York flooded the private company with public money in order to avoid bankruptcy

I really think the difference is huge


If you think this sort of statements are even remotely related to the efficiency of banks and insurance companies, the burden of proof is on your side. To me, it reads:
"Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had internet in poor countries, and if loads of companies provided services online, and if all the post-offices and banks in the world started talking to each other?"
Economic effect: Nil.

Maybe our proposal would have been better to go more in details here, but it contains many things already, and yes we think that more It and more cooperation between banks/post offices had proven the best ways, to reduce the costs of remittances services. The more efficient services in the world did that.



I did not ask you to solve all the problems. I merely listed (some of) the economic reasons for the specific problem you are trying to solve. And carefully argued, point by point, as to why your proposal fails to address any of these reasons. If you don't remove the root causes, your proposal does nothing to reduce their consequences. In fact, by giving bad economic advice, you actually make some problems more severe. Your proposal urges nations to stimulate speculative attacks and irresponsible managerial practices.

Fonzoland, the absence of such services is not the consequence of your list of problems.
Economic growth is a progressive process, and then you start from a situation where there are almost no bank accounts to a situation were almost everyone has one.

As we said several times in this thread, we think bank accounts are not only a consequence of economic development but in the same time a cause, because it’s the best way to people to save money.

A great example is the economic development in Asian Countries, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now china) were the savings rate has always been very high during the transition phase where a large middle class appeared.


URGING nations is fine. URGING nations to urge companies is dubious, but OK. URGING nations to ensure companies provide specific products at lower cost to the consumer is bad economics. Can't you see that? The business world does not work on soft hearts, gentle persuasion, or fluffy platitudes. That is reserved for the NSUN.

I really don’t share your position here.
I’m not myself a partisan of overwhelming administrations, but I really think that states have some role to play about stimulating economy. In the same manner that business or unions are lobbying governments, governments often lobby the industry (here also economic growth in Asian country is a living example)

Furthermore, the UN resolution book, and even the UN floor itself, is a great tribune for some topic some ideas. We live in a world of influence of advertisement.

My position is that the UN may use both its mandate power and its influence advertisement power.

Relationship between government and industry is always very tight, look at who goes in president/prime minister planes, for official visit abroad, why not try to use power in some ways more than others?



I am not defending this particular measure above others, but yes: Creating an inter-bank communication system would reduce transaction costs. Doesn't it strike you as more reasonable to reduce costs and risks, by e.g. creating an infrastructure, rather than simply encouraging companies to reduce prices?

I like the idea also; I just don’t know really how to deal with that.
But if you want to reduce the price you have to reduce its costs, maybe our proposal could have do more about inter-bank communication system, but sorry, I didn’t know how to do it and I get no comment on this matter, during the too week drafting stage there.

Sigh. Financial crises may not be predictable, but the risk of financial crises is predictable. Foreign currency reserves, interest rate differentials, level of foreign investment, exchange rate policy... I will not go into technicalities. The main point is that financial crises are provoked by speculation. What do these speculators use to provoke a financial crisis? Why, it's a remmitance.

Nations do not need to forecast when a crisis will occur. But if they deem their currency to be weak and vulnerable, and therefore the risk of attack to be high, it is their right to impose capital controls. Not because a crisis is occurring, but to prevent it. Urge them to do otherwise, and to wait until after the damage is done, is irresponsible economic advice.

Incidentally, if you are willing to take the increased risk of financial crises in your stride as an "unfortunate side effect," I think you might need to review your priorities...

Remittances goes mainly from more economically developing nations to less economically developing ones (the opposite as migration process) and then it may be a best opportunity for them to keep this incoming flow.

Further more our proposal doesn’t mandates anything. So in case of serious financial risk they are not mandated to let the leaving flow open, but they will profit from the incoming flow of remittances. They can also set a temporary tax on currency transfer if they want.



A push??? Really??? So you think my list of seven yes seven valid economic arguments for the service not to be provided is irrelevant? Or maybe you think companies can't be bothered to permanently look for new investment opportunities? Maybe they do, but are too simple-minded to find out that those services are so wonderfully profitable? Ah, all we need is a paternalistic state instructing businesses on where to invest. No, wait, better yet: a paternalistic UN, who knows which businesses are profitable in every single member nation; who is showing its extensive knowledge of economics and finance in this debate; who cares so deeply about poverty that it can only think of advising companies to reduce prices; therein lies the saviour and champion of all misguided business leaders.

It seems we disagree about the role of governments about economy. Yes I’m an ardent partisan of economic freedom, and yes in the same time I really think governments have a great role to play to give direction to the economy, by using its influence, it’s advertising and marketing power.

Asian economic success is based on this model; the US new deal in the 30’s was not far from that.
And also it’s logical that bank account services are rare in economically developing nations, because they are at the start of their development.

Just 2 example of “governments advertising power, you may like them or not, but in more case it’s powerfull, I don’t share your view that’s paternalist:

This ad, I shoot myself in Dhaka (Bangladesh) close to 2 universities
http://test256.free.fr/australia.JPG

The 100$ laptot projet
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/
When he heard about this project Bill gates proposed them windows for free.
The project prefered to choose a open-souce exploitation system, then Microsoft decided to work on a similar project.
Last year this project get the official support of Kofi Annan and the real UN, and it boosted the project, as more industrial company were interested to produce the laptops.

Another example, not directly related but which work in the same manner:
For long yahoo mail and hotmail storage where limited to 6 and 2 Mo, everyone was angry about this.
Then gmail arrived with its 1 Go, in few month yahoo and hotmail followed easily.



Imagine a world where there are two types of banks, Good banks and Bad banks.

Good banks are serious, respectable banks, put their money in sound investments, after a thorough risk evaluation, and do all the nice things we expect nice managers to do. These banks never go burst.

Bad banks are smart but reckless; they keep low reserves, invest in potentially profitable but highly risky opportunities, do not conduct due diligence in their loans, and in general lead their activities hoping for the best. Occasionally, these banks file for bankrupcy. However, since they are accepting more risks, they will be able to attain higher average returns, and are able to pay higher interest rates on deposits.

Now, if you are a poor person investing your money, you probably care a lot more about the possibility of losing all your savings than a marginal increase in returns. Probably you will prefer a Good, established bank to a dubious gamble in some unknown Bad adventurer.

Unfortunately, L&E just decided that, even if a bank goes burst, the government will step in and pay back all deposits. As a result, all the poor (and rich) people will no longer care about the possibility of bankrupcy, and will move their money from Good to Bad banks. Soon, even Good banks are forced to take higher risks and more aggressive strategies, otherwise they cannot compete with Bad banks. Now all the banks are Bad, they occasionally go boom, but the clients don't really care because THE FREAKING TAXPAYER IS TAKING ALL THE RISK. Ahem.

Is my point clearer now?

We are dealing with tiny deposits here, only them are urged to be secured, also we are dealing also with people who don’t have access to bank accounts, they even have not the choice, in some nations less than 5% of people have some bank accounts.

Further more, our proposal states:
“in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization”
So in the case they have the choice between several banks, they may prefer the legitimate one, which respect more transparency standards and then which has a lower probability of bankruptcy.

The ambassador from Fonzoland, offered the following:


Laudable. We can only wonder as to why the authors believe any sound-minded national leader would need to be advised by the UN to do so. Unless, of course, the government itself had vested interests on said activities, in which case I would wager that this recommendation will fall on deaf ears.


In response to this clause from the current resolution:

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these international money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

While my government appreciates the attention to detail that many nations have paid toward this resolution, and in particular approvingly notes many of the comments from the ambassador, I wanted to briefly reply to state that we feel the recommendation for member nations to monitor international money transfers is actually a valid point in the resolution, specifically because it includes the following language, "in cooperation with other nations".

One of the strengths of UN resolutions is that they can serve as focal points for our domestic law making bodies, and in this particular clause the resolution is essentially encouraging our governments to work together.

That said, Mikitivity's position on most matters of UN cooperation is in firm support. Of course, my staff is still reviewing both the resolution and analyzing some of the more relevant points raised by both sides. Tenatively we've weighed in our voice in support of this resolution, however, we've purposefully not passed along a recommendation to the people of Antrium, whom currently represent the International Democratic Union as our UN Delegate nor is my government firm in its support.

I do have one question ... that may have already been addressed: how is this resolution different than the Microcredit Bizarre (sp?)? My apologizes if this has been answered elsewhere, but my staff has been busy on the domestic front.

Well done if your nation have already this kinds of politics in place; but it's not the case for every nation. For example some nations never experienced a tsunami and will probably never experience it, but feel concerned because of others nations.
wow, 13 pages....
anyway, i know that right now i'm concerned with the stability of my own nation, i dont have time for a un resolution that could ruin my hard work and i'm too busy to worry about other nations

Well done if your nation have already this kinds of politics in place; but it's not the case for every nation. For example some nations never experienced a tsunami and will probably never experience it, but feel concerned because of others nations.


Ah if only it were as simple as that. Alas it is not so much that we have similar legislation in place, but contrary legislation that our Master does not wish to part with. It is understood that we will comply with UN resolutions whether we wish to or not, such is the price of an international community, but we cannot support this particular proposal at this time.

Respectfully,

Oskar Feldstein
Representing the repressed hordes
In The Masters Daydream

Sorry to perhaps 'spam' your topic with a separate post, but I think this is an important, and relevant, point.


I'm probably way out of line on this. There are probably people from 'developing nations' who don't object to the term. And I accept most people - including, I'm sure, you - use 'developing' to mean 'developing economy'. Why, the United Nations has classified Sheknu (http://www.nationstates.net/sheknu) as having a 'developing' economy. Nonetheless.

My principle objection is to the blanket use of the term 'developing'. Whilst it has come to take on the mantle of a fairly specific economic descriptor, it does not necessarily imply that. To me, the term remains demeaning. Consider Mali. One of the poorest countries in the world, held back by the usual shackles of disease, war, desertification, and political upheaval. Consider the music, then, of Taj Mahal, or of Ali Farkar Toure. The latter made an album last year with the kora player Toumani Diabete. The album - In The Heart Of The Moon - was produced by Ry Cooder, and got fantastic reviews in the 'world music' process. Really, seriously, listen to it. Hawa Dolo is just about the most perfect tune ever played (and it's all improvised too, and recorded in what's pretty much a trailer). One journalist described it as "the most beautiful music in the world".

Then consider Live Waste. These giants of African music, who represent to the West a whole continent's cultural output in one field, were relegated to an empty stage in Cornwall, while some god-awful bands pranced around the 'main stages' in London, spewing mindless, boring, arrogant shit. You compare In The Heart Of The Moon and X&Y. One reaches its apex of music invention by...sampling a band most famous for making a song not just about but exactly replicating train noises (I actually like and respect Kraftwerk, but this is a rant). One reaches notes which seem almost spiritual.

Who's the more 'developed'?

(I should add that even if we stick to 'economically developed', that really means 'approaching a system of Western free market economics'. Whilst that's all well and good, there would be many who would consider providing for all citizens the basic necessities of life, instead of leaving them to bob around in a sea of anarcho-capitalist pandemonium, is more 'economically developed'. I honestly think 'rich' and 'poor' serve purposes. I don't especially object to the term 'structural development'.)

Why cant we take the Money, the savings, instead of spending it on Health and Education, we take it to the Military, Police Force, and Defence Budgets?

Midori Kasigi-Nero stands up in the chamber and speaks again.

"having heard arguements for and against our proposal I would again ask the honourable nations of the NSUN to consider this proposal properly.

This proposal will give a developing nation a better chance to become an improving nation.

theres no freebies here. its an individuals own money being sent home, saved and financing small scale insurance policies.

A nation that saves money will become stronger financially and eventually become consumers. Look at the strong trading nations we have represented in this chamber. they all started the same way and what do you think financed their first ventures?

Savings.

this will give poorer nations a chance to pull themselves out of poverty on their own."

i reconize that you all aren't capitalists, but even Lenin used capitalism.
so if even commies use capit, then it shows everyone could use some

i reconize that you all aren't capitalists, but even Lenin used capitalism.
so if even commies use capit, then it shows everyone could use some
While Ceorana will not dispute the benefits of capitalism, we must point out that this argument is somewhat flawed:

*Just because Lenin used capitalism doesn't mean all communists use capitalism
*Just because communists use capitalism doesn't mean that there aren't some people who believe in not having capitalism

Microcredits as the ekonomic therm is, has proven to be a very good system. As a responsibel nation Sutropia is all for this kind om aid to the poor.
Its up to the UN-menbers to accept this fine ide.
I dont understand why you anr agenst it! :headbang:

i reconize that you all aren't capitalists, but even Lenin used capitalism.
so if even commies use capit, then it shows everyone could use some

A very good point were it not for the fact that there are more options than simply being communist or capitalist. Couple that with the fact that the USSR crumbled under it's own inability to juggle a corrupt communist regime with the demands of a capitalist nation, and I begin to worry about the ramifications of moving to one side or the other without jumping whole hog into it.

With respect

Oskar Feldstein
Representative of the Codes
Delegated by The Master in Repose

The resolution "Remittances and Tiny Deposits" was defeated 7,634 votes to 5,180.

Bad luck.

Commiserations.
I did vote for it, eventually.

Our proposal “Remittances and Tiny deposits” was a sensible tool to help economically developing nations. We are obviously disappointed by the vote. It seems to us that our proposal may not have been easy to read, we should have wrote it in a simpler manner, and also that economic topics seem boring for many.

But we have received many supports in this operation, and we would like to thanks them: the co-author Kirisubo, the delegates who approved it, all members who voted for it and all of those who helped us or supported us by telegram or in this forum.

That said, as this proposal was a mild one, the objective was a commitment of the UN and a worldwide tribune to this topic. Of course the commitment is not reached, but the 5 days on the floor have been a nice advertisement, this is why even without the success we were hoping for it, we enjoyed our move and are at least satisfied that the UN floor had spread these progressive ideas.

Our proposal “Remittances and Tiny deposits” was a sensible tool to help economically developing nations. We are obviously disappointed by the vote. It seems to us that our proposal may not have been easy to read, we should have wrote it in a simpler manner, and also that economic topics seem boring for many.

But we have received many supports in this operation, and we would like to thanks them: the co-author Kirisubo, the delegates who approved it, all members who voted for it and all of those who helped us or supported us by telegram or in this forum.

That said, as this proposal was a mild one, the objective was a commitment of the UN and a worldwide tribune to this topic. Of course the commitment is not reached, but the 5 days on the floor have been a nice advertisement, this is why even without the success we were hoping for it, we enjoyed our move and are at least satisfied that the UN floor had spread these progressive ideas.
I'd like to commend the representative of Love and esterel for taking the defeat with such good grace and positive attitude. I share the belief that this proposal may have been overly 'dull' for many voters, which I think is a shame, even if I was personally won over to vote against by the Fonzoland delegation's analysis

We'd like to echo the remarks of our distinguished colleague from Gruenberg. We find the attitude of the honorable representative from Love and esteral to be quite commendable and, to be honest, refreshing.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yeah, I'd third that sentiment. I think L&E has been so incredibly civil and mature throughout the debate (at least all the portions I've read), even under some fairly hostile criticisms of the resolution.

As Cap'n Woody says: 'eet bring a smy-ul to me face. :)

We in Jey commend L&E for their well-mannered demeanor throughout this somewhat difficult debate. Too bad on the results though.

Good luck with whatever your next project may be. :)

Our proposal “Remittances and Tiny deposits” was a sensible tool to help economically developing nations. We are obviously disappointed by the vote. It seems to us that our proposal may not have been easy to read, we should have wrote it in a simpler manner, and also that economic topics seem boring for many.

But we have received many supports in this operation, and we would like to thanks them: the co-author Kirisubo, the delegates who approved it, all members who voted for it and all of those who helped us or supported us by telegram or in this forum.

That said, as this proposal was a mild one, the objective was a commitment of the UN and a worldwide tribune to this topic. Of course the commitment is not reached, but the 5 days on the floor have been a nice advertisement, this is why even without the success we were hoping for it, we enjoyed our move and are at least satisfied that the UN floor had spread these progressive ideas.

OOC: There are a number of RL Olympic athletes whom should honestly take note of this. As others have stated, I was very impressed by the professionalism that your nation displayed in this debate.

I'm glad this capitalist proposal did not pass.

Our proposal “Remittances and Tiny deposits” was a sensible tool to help economically developing nations. We are obviously disappointed by the vote. It seems to us that our proposal may not have been easy to read, we should have wrote it in a simpler manner, and also that economic topics seem boring for many.

We endorse the previous comments by other delegates, and we commend both authors for elevating the level of UN debate beyond that of some past resolutions. In addition, we stress our previously stated (and thoroughly deserved) praise of the noble intentions behind this effort. However, we hope that the honorable delegate is able to extract some constructive criticism from the points raised, and resists the natural temptation of reducing the opposition to delegates who found the proposal hard to read and boring.

Our proposal “Remittances and Tiny deposits” was a sensible tool to help economically developing nations. We are obviously disappointed by the vote. It seems to us that our proposal may not have been easy to read, we should have wrote it in a simpler manner, and also that economic topics seem boring for many.
Your implication that Remittances and Tiny Deposits was rejected due to a deficit of literacy and short attention-span is an insult to opponents who fully considered the proposal and its implications.

Our proposal “Remittances and Tiny deposits” was a sensible tool to help economically developing nations. We are obviously disappointed by the vote. It seems to us that our proposal may not have been easy to read, we should have wrote it in a simpler manner, and also that economic topics seem boring for many.Your implication that Remittances and Tiny Deposits was rejected due to a deficit of literacy and short attention-span is an insult to opponents who fully considered the proposal and its implications.
L&E never claimed misunderstanding and obscurity were the sole reasons nations voted Against (the player didn't even claim that it was a major reason, or a reason at all). L&E didn't say it was even a "deficit of literacy" in the audience, either--instead L&E suggested that the proposal was written too obtusely for the layperson (a criticism of his-or-herself, rather than everyone else). I, frankly, don't see anything insulting or exclusive in L&E's statement.

But if you choose to be insulted--well, I'm not going to stop you.

Your implication that Remittances and Tiny Deposits was rejected due to a deficit of literacy and short attention-span is an insult to opponents who fully considered the proposal and its implications.

The honorable representative of Love and esterel made no such implication. He criticized his proposal, not those who opposed it. If you're looking for an insult, look somewhere else.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Our proposal “Remittances and Tiny deposits” was a sensible tool to help economically developing nations. We are obviously disappointed by the vote. It seems to us that our proposal may not have been easy to read, we should have wrote it in a simpler manner, and also that economic topics seem boring for many.
I agree that simplicity is a major factor in these resolutions. A NSUN resolution is like a resume, if you don't get the deligate's attention within the first 5 seconds of reading it, you have probably lost that deligate. On the other hand, another problem with the resolution was that it did not address the fact that deep down every deligate harbors the "what's in it for me" attitude. It's all nice and good to help "them" or "others" even when the others are within the nation itself, but what gets a deligate's attention is when they see something that in the process of helping the other helps the nation as a whole. They will vote YES not because of the other, but because of the help their own nation as a whole will get. That way, a WIN WIN situation benefits everyone.

Quite frankly, when I first read the resolution my first thought was "well it does no harm and might help peple." That's nice, but not the way to get massive votes. It has to give the clear impression that it helps the people and the nation at first glance. You never have a second chance to make a first impression!

Finally I hate to turn a wake into a love fest (oops that really wasn't intentional I swear!) but your positive reaction to the defeat of this resolution is the best response from a deligate I have ever seen in these forums! Don't be discouraged! The judges (er deligates) are idiots but in time they do on occasion do the right thing.

The judges (er deligates) are idiots but in time they do on occasion do the right thing.

Fortunately we have you to show us the way.


By the way, it's

DELEGATE.

...if you choose to be insulted--well, I'm not going to stop you.
Damn right. I am very insulted. In fact, I'm going to take a moment to stand here and glare accusingly at my computer screen. :mad: