NationStates Jolt Archive

Right, I have now got another UN Proposal in progress. Please note that this is the first draft of the proposal, and still needs a lot of work.

A lot of constructive criticism would be nice so I can improve and work on this thing.


Category: Free Trade

Title: Free Trade of Currency

The United Nations,

NOTICING the number of countries in the UN and their currencies,

AND the temporary migration of citizens between these countries,

WHICH sees millions of transactions of currency changes each day.

HOWEVER noticing the restrictions in place on currency transactions in some countries,

WHICH restricts the economies of all UN Nations, and the amount of capital tourists may spend in other UN Nations,

HEREBY declares any UN Citizen to trade between these currencies with no limit on the amount of capital traded.

BELIEVING this will boost the economy of all UN Nations through Global Tourism.

HOWEVER REALISING these currency's value may fluctuate over periods of time,

WHICH enables businesses to trade between these currencies for profitable reasons,

THUS allowing for larger government gains through tax,

HEREBY allows all UN Businesses trade between currencies for profitable gain.

BELIEVING that all currencies will stabilise with minimal fluctuations,

THUS reducing risk of major economic collapses of UN Countries.

---------------------------------------

at the moment this looks like an essay but besides that i'm not sure what you're trying to acomplise.

does this relate to tourists changing their obans into funs or does it cover currency speculators or even criminals trying to launder money?

Kaigan Miromuta
Kirisuban ambassador to the NSUN

AND the temporary migration of citizens between these countries,This to me indicates this is anyone spending money anywhere other than their own nation....

HOWEVER noticing the restrictions in place on currency transactions in some countries,I've never visited another nation that limited how much I spent there.. Most wanted me to spend more so not sure what this means.

WHICH restricts the economies of all UN Nations, and the amount of capital tourists may spend in other UN Nations,Tourists coming here can spend all they want and pay exactly what a citizen would pay for all items. So how is this a problem if that what you trying to say it is...?

HEREBY declares any UN Citizen to trade between these currencies with no limit on the amount of capital traded.Whoa here as we want cash up front no credit here for visitors so bring it with you and you can spend it here... Don't have a 'Silence' in hand then you can't buy here. We don't take 'Plastic'..... from outsiders....

BELIEVING this will boost the economy of all UN Nations through Global Tourism.This clearly makes the a trourist issue here not getting into all the other areas where money is exchanged between national borders...

WHICH enables businesses to trade between these currencies for profitable reasons,Woops now he moved to those other areas...

THUS allowing for larger government gains through tax,Guess the small nations will have to be left out of this and now need to know what makes a 'larger nation' or 'smaller nation' so know if we are what here...

HEREBY allows all UN Businesses trade between currencies for profitable gain.Didn't know the UN ran any businessess just thought it regulated them in some way throught the resolutions it might pass..

THUS reducing risk of major economic collapses of UN Countries.If ten small nations collapses then what will they do to that so call major one when they collapse... This needs to look at all nations not just the 'Big Ones' as many 'Big One' get where they are by stepping on the 'Small Ones'... so remove enough 'Small Ones' and some of the 'Big Ones' end up taking their place... until they collapse..

Nocoin Takenfrom
Minster of Trade Zeldon

It needs to be worked somewhat. Mostly reformatting.

It's an interesting Free Trade resolution. A clear violation of National Sovernity, but in an area most Nat Sovs wouldn't even notice or care less about. If reworded to a better standard it might have an interesting time of passage.

I recently went to London and India. I was able to purchase pounds at the airport in the US before I left for London. I was informed that I should only purchase Rupees within India itself. It's a minor difference but an important one. The former was available for sale in any country, but the latter was only legal for sale in the native country.

(Note to the readers, there seems to be to action clauses in the resolution, both prefixed by HEREBY)

(By the way, what in NationStates are you talking about? This resolution doesn't talk about credit at all. Merely the right in my own nation to purchase the currency of your nation. It's as simple as that.)

Is the purpose of this proposal to compel nations to offer currency conversion services for any foreign currency a traveler may request? If so, it could be a logistical nightmare to ensure reserves of anthing one might want. I'm not exactly sure how to overcome that obstacle. Still, the idea is intriguing.

I think the resolution is simply about the right to be able to trade, the logistics would follow from the basic right.

Let's consider the opposite, here is an excertp from the "FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999" of India, "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person resident in India shall acquire, hold, own, possess or transfer any foreign exchange, foreign security or any immovable property situated outside India."

"A person resident in India may hold, own, transfer or invest in foreign currency, foreign security or any immovable property situated outside India if such currency, security or property was acquired, held or owned by such person when he was resident outside India or inherited from a person who was resident outside India."

"A person resident outside India may hold, own, transfer or invest in Indian currency, security or any immovable property situated in India if such currency, security or property was acquired, held or owned by such person when he was resident in India or inherited from a person who was resident in India."

The ability to buy nation A's currency in nation B is not a guarenteed right in the RW. The ability to speculate in various international currencies is not always possible. Whether this would be physical paper or the ability to set up global currency trading markets is not clear by this proposal. But the general idea itself has merit.

Didja ever notice that the all cap words almost for a sentence on their own? Why is that?

NOTICING
AND
WHICH
HOWEVER
WHICH
HEREBY
BELIEVING
HOWEVER REALISING
WHICH
THUS
HEREBY
BELIEVING
THUS [/Rooney]

But, yeah, this needs a lot of work. It reminds me of the mini-remitances thingie that L&E put out. Also, am I reading this right in that all it does is allow banks to trade currency futures?

Didja ever notice that the all cap words almost for a sentence on their own? Why is that?

[/Rooney]

But, yeah, this needs a lot of work. It reminds me of the mini-remitances thingie that L&E put out. Also, am I reading this right in that all it does is allow banks to trade currency futures?

ROFL

Only you would notice that.....

But, yeah, this needs a lot of work. It reminds me of the mini-remitances thingie that L&E put out. Also, am I reading this right in that all it does is allow banks to trade currency futures?

Not that I can tell, but I can't see why it would prohibit them. This is probably one of the reasons why it needs to be re-written, you need a currency exchange market for large "virtual" transactions, and simple exchange kiosks for normal physical currency transactions. Given a currency market, options and futures (and options on futures) as well as warrents should be possible.

OOC: My current real world job is the development and maintenance of a global market end of day pricing, maintenance and corporate action system so I can babble about this for days. My business level knowledge is rather limited, but since currency supply remains more or less the same over time, I would figure that currency options might be more popular than currency futures. (A future is buying a commodity which you won't receive until a later date. An option is buying the right to buy or sell the commodity at a fixed price in the future.)

OOC: This looks to me as though it's supposed to be an 'Abolish "Exchange Controls"' measure... Some RL nations (such as the United Kingdom for quite a while after WWII, I think until Mrs T's government changed the rules) have had legal limits -- sometimes called 'Exchange Controls' -- on the amounts of money that any of their people could take/send abroad... OOC & IC in favour of the idea, although the wording does need some improvement (and I might allow any nations that were currently at war to retain limits...).

This resolution is a good way to have a global financial crisis. By removing exchange controls, you're introducing massive instability into the money markets. You're creating the potential for currency speculation, which was the cause of the 1998 Asian financial crisis which wrecked the economies of East Asia. You're creating the potential for hot money flows, where vast amounts of money move around different countries quickly - extremely destabilising. The effect is the complete reverse of what you think will happen.

Exchange rates are also a form of government economic policy. A government might want to encourage or discourage imports in order to pursue its macroeconomic aims - say in a period of recession when a government revalues its currency to make imports more expensive, or when it devalues it so its exports are cheaper to the outside world. It is a tool of domestic economic policy, just like interest rates or government spending, so there's a NatSov argument there.

The Duchy of Bugtusle would find the deregulation of currency exchange not only an economic tragedy but a moral one as well. How would we keep the currency of our fellow Caribbean region member The Free Land of Masturbationists out of the hands of minors???:eek:

It needs to be worked somewhat. Mostly reformatting.

It's an interesting Free Trade resolution. A clear violation of National Sovernity, but in an area most Nat Sovs wouldn't even notice or care less about.

I notice, I care, and I'll be voting AGAINST this nonsense if it reaches the floor.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

It's an interesting Free Trade resolution. A clear violation of National Sovernity, but in an area most Nat Sovs wouldn't even notice or care less about.

A number of the NatSov-favouring nations, or at least of those that are in the NSO, accept that UN legislation does has a valid role in genuinely "international" matters such as international trade, and some of them might be willing to accept that this proposal falls into that category...

I just got back from poland, and at my local post office the price to buy Zlotys is 5.25 and the price to sell is 6.22. However the price at Thomas cook is 5.32 and 6.55. Thus a better resolution would be to limit the difference between the price zlotys are boughts and the price they are sold.

Before anyone says anything, i appreciate that this is a real life situation but i would imagine that any country as mine which has 60 mil people within would have banks and therefore bureau de exchanges which will charge different rates to buy and sell as this is how they make money on it.

I therefore propose a limit to a 2.5% difference betweeen the price bought and sold. Thus in a game play situation, if a currency is worth 10 of my grenadas, then they can be bought at 10 grenadas and sold at a maximum of 10.25 gremadas.

Inflation can snowball quickly. Free trade of currency is good most of the time... but there would need to be lots of safeguards to soften the fall when national economies start to collapse.

I just got back from poland, and at my local post office the price to buy Zlotys is 5.25 and the price to sell is 6.22. However the price at Thomas cook is 5.32 and 6.55. Thus a better resolution would be to limit the difference between the price zlotys are boughts and the price they are sold.

Before anyone says anything, i appreciate that this is a real life situation but i would imagine that any country as mine which has 60 mil people within would have banks and therefore bureau de exchanges which will charge different rates to buy and sell as this is how they make money on it.

I therefore propose a limit to a 2.5% difference betweeen the price bought and sold. Thus in a game play situation, if a currency is worth 10 of my grenadas, then they can be bought at 10 grenadas and sold at a maximum of 10.25 gremadas.

The less stable a currency's value is, the wider the difference between 'buy' & 'sell' values that the currency-exchangers are going to "require" to cushion themselves against any sudden changes: Limiting the difference too much would probably cause them to drop the less stable currencies from the lists of those in which they would trade altogether...

The externalities present in financial markets and their potential to spill over into the real economy are such that regulation is absolutely and always required. Your proposal would have the opposite effect to that which is intended.

A number of the NatSov-favouring nations, or at least of those that are in the NSO, accept that UN legislation does has a valid role in genuinely "international" matters such as international trade, and some of them might be willing to accept that this proposal falls into that category...

While this proposal attempts to be international in scope, it fails to recognise basic economics and could cripple national economies.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

While this proposal attempts to be international in scope, it fails to recognise basic economics and could cripple national economies.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I sadly agree. As written the proposal is unworkable. A similar resolution could be much better though.