NationStates Jolt Archive

I am planning on submitting a proposal to the UN some time next week, entitled, International Stock Exchange. The response that it got in my region has helped motivate me in pushing it through to the UN. But first I would like to receive some constructive criticism and suggestions on my rough draft proposal, and I want to gain the support of other delegates. The following is my proposal, (This is the first draft, mind you.) :
International Stock Exchange

Category: Free Trade.

Description: RECOGNIZING that the world has no standard Stock-exchange, and relies on liaisons and intermediaries in order to buy, sell and trade corporate stocks between national borders;

NOTING that some nations charge tariffs or taxes on the purchase, sale, or trade of corporate stocks across their borders, causing imbalances in economic power of one nation over another;

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS shall create an International Stock Exchange by:

1) Combining all current national stock exchanges and other market exchanges under one UN controlled market.

2) Purchasing all international liaison and intermediary corporations, (whose main source of profit is from purchasing, selling and trading stock between borders,) at the current market value, in order to minimize economic loss.

3) Ensuring the tariff-free and tax-free purchase, sale, and trade of all stock, within its own market.

4) Providing easy, prompt, and accurate transfer and display of stock ownership and prices for public and private corporations, households, and individuals.

5) Provide a means of free currency exchange at each nations exchange to encourage purchase and sell of stock.

DOING SO in order to provide opportunities of economic growth to all nations within the UN, and encouraging better relations within the UN by causing economic inter-dependency.

The Commonwealth of Nullarni

Cut clause one. It basically requires nations to abolish their own stock markets in favor of the UN's. That's completely unfeasable, and we can't support with it in.

It makes much more sense to retain individual exchanges and simply create an international exchange.

I'm also not quite sure what clause 2 does. Could you elaborate?

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador to the UN

:eek: OMG I feel like raiders of the lost arc when the guy stared into the open arc, "It's beautiful" he declared before it turned ugly and melted his head off.

I'll nit pick and say that since item 1 consolidates all markets into a single UN market, then item 3's reference to within its own market is a little out of place, as there is only one market.

Mind you, it will have a difficult time at passage. Non capitalist nations will clearly vote NO, and a lot of capitalist nations would not want to have the UN controlling their markets. Traders would rejoice at the tax free nature of the UN markets, but they don't get a vote. Sorry.

My reasoning for clause one is to:
1) cut cost. It is to use the existing national stock exchanges as an infrastructure. They will still exist, just not as individual stock exchanges.
2) standardize. If each nations individual stock exchanges remained intact, there would be complications like selling of the same shares twice and other communication and booking nightmares like that.
3) minimize financial loss. The international stock exchange, would instantly become a monopoly, decimating the indepentant stock exchanges. So if you incorporate them into the international stock exchange, they become branches and not competitors of it.
4) make the change relatively easy. (See point number one.)

The point behind clause two is that if there is only one stock exchange, the companies that make money off of buying and selling between stock exchanges would lose their buisness. Now lose of buisnesses in this caliber would be damaging to the economy and government purchase of these companies would allow the buisness owners to reinvest their money into other buisness ventures instead of having to undergo such a significant loss. And this would, in the long term be much better for the international economy.


Stan Weller
Cheif Economist of the Commonwealth of Nullarni

I'll nit pick and say that since item 1 consolidates all markets into a single UN market, then item 3's reference to within its own market is a little out of place, as there is only one market.

The reason clause three is there, is that, eventhough there will only be one market, the trading of stocks will still be across borders. Therefore, they are subject to nations putting tariffs on the purchase and sales of the stock across their borders. So, it was included to make the point clear that this action would be considered unacceptable.

Your point on non-capitalist well taken. The UN would not control what the markets do, they just provide the market place. I believe that despite the fact that non-capitalist nations would not be as active in trading on the market, they would have many opportunities to make large amounts of money for their government. But any advise on how we could encourge non-capitalist to support this would be apreciated.

Stan Weller
Cheif Economist of the Commonwealth of Nullarni

Is really the UNs business to consolidate the world's collective stock market?
Now, I'm no expert on economcis but it seems kind of unfiar to force nations into a single sphere of econmics like that, it would allow unrestricted buyouts, and mass economic imperialism, besides, what about nations that don't ahve stock markets, or only have internal markets and forbid international purchase? And on top of all of that, is it really the UN's job to establish a global market? If more capitalistic nations want to do this amongtst themselves, they can go ahead and establish a market, but it's not the UNs job to force everyone to do it.

Is really the UNs business to consolidate the world's collective stock market?...
And on top of all of that, is it really the UN's job to establish a global market?

It is the UNs job to have its hand in the global market, (there already is a global market, by the way.) And having an international stock market, or "global stock market" would make the global market flow easier and encourage economic interaction between nations. I feel this only spells prosperity for us all, not the establishment of economic imperialism. With out a global stock market, only the large economic empires can afford to buy significant amounts of stock. This just levels the playing field by providing opportunity to all entrepreneurs.

You need to reword Clause 1 then. The way it is written it will abolish national stock markets.

I'm all for an international stock exhange, I think it makes great economic sense. But I do NOT want that exchange to come at the expense of the invidual nation. You could operate it on the same principle as the US markets: restricting the sale of stock to certain markets.

I'm still not sure what clause 2 does.

This is a huge proposal, and I see it as being "significant," because the impact on member nations would be incredible. I can't support this as written, but given substantive changes I would be more than willing to endorse it.

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador to the UN

This is a very bad idea. Corporations may not exist in many different nations. There are a variety of different economic systems throughout nation states.

What do exist are commodities, barrels of oil, orange juice, coffee-- various durable goods that are exchanged between different countries. The exchange of commodities-- orange juice is not necessarily corporate based. Open an exchange with voluntary membership for commodities would make sense in nation states.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS shall create an International Stock Exchange by:

1) Combining all current national stock exchanges and other market exchanges under one UN controlled market.


We would like to inform the delagate of Nullarni that, as many in this world, the main stock exchange in Love and esterel: the LAEX (LAE Stock eXchange - http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/LAEX) is a private and listed company.

So may we ask the delegate which one of the following options his/her proposal plan to do:
-the UN will friendly or hostily purchase 50%, 100% or a significant % minority of the LAEX and others privates exchanges, at their market price; or
-the UN will build the "International Stock Exchange" fom scratch, which will compete against all existing exchanges, or
-the UN will brutally takeover many/all private Stock Exchanges in the UN members, without indemnities (or with lower than market price indemnities) for the shareholders of those privates companies?

May we instead invite the delagate of Nullarni to establish/urges/mandates or whatever for more standardised transactions between stock exchanges and for more cooperation between regulory agencies or even the establishment of an international agency on this matter.
We will then be pretty happy to try to help the best we can.

Well A UN created one could be usefull but just don't require anything. Just establish it. This way the non-capitalists arn't being imposed upon and any corperation that wanted to in a nation that allowed it(which would be almost all capitlist ones) would. Making it massive anyway and not infringing anyones rights.

Horrid. Simply horrid.

The UN shouldn't be establishing a stock exchange. Nor should national governments. The role of government in this issue should be restricted to making sure all trading is done fairly. Perhaps you'd like to tackle that issue (of fairness in international stock trading)?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations