NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING the importance in understanding and studying Economics,

BELIEVING that by drawing attention to the field of Economics the UN can promote the worldwide study of Economics,

NOTING that many Economic discoveries go unnoticed on the international stage,

WISHING to raise the profile of economic studies, discoveries and theories that can benefit all members of the United Nations,

SEEKING to accomplish both these these noble goals of promoting Economics and rewarding contributions to the field of Economics,

HEREBY:

1) Establishes the United Nations Economic Prize which will be awarded to the person, or persons, responsible for the greatest contribution to the field of Economics over the past year,

2) Creates the United Nations Awards Committee (UNAC) to determine the annual winner of the Prize,

3) Mandates the UNAC to award the prize based on the following criteria:

i) The work must be international in scope,
ii) It must have effects beyond the contributors own nation(s),
iii) The work must have the potential to improve the lives of people in all UN Member nations if implemented.

4) Encourages private donations to fund a monetary reward for the prize.


This proposition has now reached quorum.

We may not be a mod, but we would argue against categorising the proposal as Free Trade. This is fundamentally a matter of rewarding and publicising educational research, and does not of itself affect trade directly. We imagine that the consequences of any individual piece of research may or may not affect trading practices, depending on the state of legislation, thereby making the Free Trade categorisation marginal at best.

That said, we would like to thank the writers of the proposal for providing an excellent template for prizes of all sorts, and encourage them to think more widely than their own special interest in drafting this.

We will now go and wash our mouth out.

This kind of goes dually into Free Trade and Education and Creativity. What say the mods?We say you need to write to the category.

So we'd look at putting it in the Educational category then and make some appropriate changes:

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING the importance in understanding and studying Economics,

NOTING, in particular, the skills and knowledge acquired from such studies,

CONVINCED that by drawing attention to the field of Economics the UN can promote the worldwide study of Economics,

SEEKING to accomplish the noble goals of promoting the study of Economics and raising the profile of contributions to the field of Economics,

HEREBY:

1) Establishes the United Nations Economic Prize which will be awarded to the person, or persons, responsible for the greatest contribution to the field of Economics over the past year,

2) Creates the United Nations Awards Committee (UNAC) to determine the annual winner of the Prize,

3) Mandates the UNAC to award the prize based on the following criteria:

i) The work must be international in scope,
ii) It must have effects beyond the contributors' own nation(s),
iii) The work must have the potential to improve the lives of people in all UN Member nations if implemented.

4) Encourages private donations to fund a monetary reward for the prize.

Gobbannium - at the moment we want to promote our own narrow special interest. We feel that it would not raise the study of economics if we also went around promoting every other subject. That being said, we'd encourage other nations to use the template we have created here to promote certain subjects. And should this resolution fail, we'd look at incorporating other subjects to improve the chances of it passing.

I have one concern about this reslution in general.

The resolution would create a committee for the awarding of prizes based on economic considerations. This committee would, most likely, be staffed by UN gnomes.

The same UN gnomes who constantly produce the most outlandish reports on unemployment figures that have no relation whatsoever with the those produced by reputable economic forcasting companies. (OOC: I.E. NSEconomy) If they can't get unemployment numbers right how can they be trusted with the determination of "the greatest contribution to the field of Economics."

True, but there really is no other way of doing it seeing as you cannot specifically name nations or people to committees. Hopefully by getting more people (including gnomes) to study economics the economic abilities of the gnomes would increase and their statistical prowess would improve.

Also, another point to bear in mind, an unpopular decision would (we hope) provoke much debate which would go someway to raising the profile of economics - all news is good news!

While we do find the concept of the UN awarding prizes interesting, we find this particular prize to be too narrowly focused and, in addition, we don't see the reasoning behind an international body (made up of nations which have widely varying standards of economic good practice and economic success) attempting to bestow recognition on this matter.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Might I suggest as the prize...

http://www.sabratullmeyer.com/images/kewpie-small.jpg

The Bronze Kewpie?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

While I acknowledge that economics is a field of endeavour that merits reward for expert practitioners, I feel that instating a prize for a specific field of learning is unwise. Will we similarly reward biologists, physicists, artists, historians, sociologists, etc., etc.? I suspect the UN populace will soon tire of voting on a succession of similarly structured resolutions.

May I recommend that you instead use this draft as a template for a catch-all proposal that rewards intellectual endeavours in a variety of intellectual pursuits (non-specified?)? This would have the advantage of not placing economics on a pedestal and in so doing belittle other fields of enquiry.

Benedictions,

Anyone fancy a nobel prize?

Anyone fancy a nobel prize?

Just FYI, there have already been at least two failed attempts to create a peace prize already (see here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Peace_Prize_%28failed%29) and here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Peace_prize_%28failed%29)). Perhaps, though, with the prize extended to a variety of academic and artistic endeavours, it might have a chance of passing (especially if the actual prize itself were a Bronze Kewpie).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

For a quick point by point...

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING the importance in understanding and studying Economics,

Why?

NOTING, in particular, the skills and knowledge acquired from such studies,

Like what?

CONVINCED that by drawing attention to the field of Economics the UN can promote the worldwide study of Economics,

So?

SEEKING to accomplish the noble goals of promoting the study of Economics and raising the profile of contributions to the field of Economics,

There will be some who are going to laugh at the "noble" bit, but aside from that, why? Why is the UN interested in doing this? Or, rephrased, why should all member nations care?

HEREBY:

1) Establishes the United Nations Economic Prize which will be awarded to the person, or persons, responsible for the greatest contribution to the field of Economics over the past year,

Alright. No issue with this. Some have already pointed out their issues that it is so narrow in scope, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You're better off doing one thing well than doing a dozen things half assed.

2) Creates the United Nations Awards Committee (UNAC) to determine the annual winner of the Prize,

Completely unnecessary committee. Change the following line

3) Mandates the UNAC to award the prize based on the following criteria:

to

MANDATES that the prize shall be awarded based on the following criteria;

and you can lose the UNAC.

i) The work must be international in scope,
ii) It must have effects beyond the contributors' own nation(s),
iii) The work must have the potential to improve the lives of people in all UN Member nations if implemented.

While I understand the efforts at making the award truly international in nature, I don't think it should be necessary that the contribution must be so completely international. If someone comes up with something absolutely ingenious that saves a single nation from bankruptcy and starvation, that should probably be given more credit than someone who creates formulae that allow all nations to roughly predict exchange rates a few weeks in advance (although that is still pretty cool).

4) Encourages private donations to fund a monetary reward for the prize.

Nice touch. Perhaps the Kewpie Company might be interested ;)

Perhaps the Kewpie Company might be interested ;)

A haggard man in a rumpled suit bursts into the hall, carrying a briefcase overflowing with papers in one hand and a bronze kewpie tucked under the other arm. He pauses to catch his breath before speaking.

I got here as quickly as I could. Sheik Orbsah bin Cluich, chief of sales for Cluichstani Toy Corp., Kewpie Division. Boy, oh boy, do I have a bargain for you!

Why?


Ditto.

Although certainly an understanding of economics is benificial, I really think there are alot more worthy endevours for the UN to promote. Curing disease, environmentally friendly energy production, world hunger etc...I really think economic research falls pretty low on the list of things worth UN funding...somehwere between spaceflight technology and Wii controller mods.

Actually, it really isn't the field I take issue with, though. The UN is an international governing body, dedicated to maintaing a structured and organized world of nations willing to co-operate. We are dedicated to, in whatever way we beleive, helping nations get together and make the world better. I really think handing out cash awards for research is somewhat outside the point of the UN. I'm sure your nation, and other like minded nations, could form an awards group if you so chose, but I don't think it's something that mandates a UN Resolution.

LAE fully support this effort, as we think that economy, along with some other topics, has to be pretty high on the list of things worth UN consideration.
We think this Prize can be a useful tool, in order to spread economics understanding and best practices worldwide.

I am very disappointed to note that, despite the qualms expressed by several delegates, this proposal has now achieved quorum.

This is by no means harmful, but it is unnecessarily narrow in focus. The UN statute scarcely needs more padding.

Benedictions,

This is by no means harmful, but it is unnecessarily narrow in focus. The UN statute scarcely needs more padding.It's interesting how organisations which have always been so keen to cut down on the amount of irrelevance in UN legislation have apparently* assisted in the drafting process of this piece of belly-button fluff.

* I don't know the discussions about this that took place behind the scenes, so it's probably unfair to make sweeping assumptions.

It is worth pointing out that this resolution does not specify that the recipient of the prize must be a capitalist economist. A socialist could win it one year, a capitalist the next.

It is worth pointing out that this resolution does not specify that the recipient of the prize must be a capitalist economist. A socialist could win it one year, a capitalist the next.
Indeed. But not a psychiatrist.

I'm actually pleased that it only covers economics. This leaves open the possibility of future resolutions establishing prizes in the other sciences, the arts or humanities. Let's face it, we're running out of areas to legislate in and I'd rather not see the entire "prize category" closed off by a single resolution.
* ooc: Understood, but can you imagine the NS populace contentedly voting on a succession of, say, a dozen of these proposals? At the very least, this should have come under a 'social sciences' prize or somesuch. *

EDIT: and Jolt chronology goes bonkers.

Indeed. But not a psychiatrist.
I'm actually pleased that it only covers economics. This leaves open the possibility of future resolutions establishing prizes in the other sciences, the arts or humanities. Let's face it, we're running out of areas to legislate in and I'd rather not see the entire "prize category" closed off by a single resolution.

Indeed. But not a psychiatrist.

Why not? It says it goes for the "greatest contribution to the field of Economics." Who is to say that a psychiatrist can't contribute to the field of economics? Why there is even an official publication, "The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics."

Since 1998, The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics has served as a forum for publishing high quality, peer-reviewed original research studies. The first medical journal that takes account of the relationships between health economics and health policy formulation at the specialty level, it is an authoritative reference for psychiatrists, health economists, and public health researchers around the world who are seeking published original research in this field. It is the official Journal of the WPA Section on Mental Health Economics and the reference journal for the mental health sector of the International Health Economics Association (iHEA). The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics has been selected to be indexed by Index Medicus / Medline, Journal of Economic Literature / EconLit and ISI Social Sciences Citation Index.

Why not? It says it goes for the "greatest contribution to the field of Economics." Who is to say that a psychiatrist can't contribute to the field of economics?

I fear you've missed the point yet again. That point being that the UN should not solely recognize achievements in the field of Economics.

I do find this proposal to be somewhat narrow, which is why I have yet to approve it.

This leaves open the possibility of future resolutions establishing prizes in the other sciences, the arts or humanities. Let's face it, we're running out of areas to legislate in and I'd rather not see the entire "prize category" closed off by a single resolution.

I don't see why having a Nobel Prize-esque would cut off the "prize category". See the RL example of the Nobel Prize and the Fields Medal. I would have liked to see prize resolutions focus on a certain professional brach -- one for the sciences, one for literature, etc, and not just focus on one particular area of study.

I fear you've missed the point yet again. That point being that the UN should not solely recognize achievements in the field of Economics.

I do find this proposal to be somewhat narrow, which is why I have yet to approve it.

I agree with the latter, although I don't see that as a reason not to approve it. I disagree with the former. This resolution does not prohibit the UN from recognizing achievements in fields other than economics. I seriously doubt that any mod would say because this resolution has passed we can't write a similiar resolution to award the furtherment of democracy.

Ever hear the expression, "Jack of all trades; master of none?" There is some merrit to the atomic theory of resolution writing as opposed to the grand molecular one. A resolution that does one thing well is superior to a resolution that does many things poorly. Why? Because you can duplicate the effort and soon all things will be done well!

OOC : Ya know, given how in the real world, international peace prizes seem to be often given to mass murderers and totalitarian dictators, it's hard to see how any international prize would not turn into a travesty and a tragedy.

I agree with the latter, although I don't see that as a reason not to approve it. I disagree with the former. This resolution does not prohibit the UN from recognizing achievements in fields other than economics. I seriously doubt that any mod would say because this resolution has passed we can't write a similiar resolution to award the furtherment of democracy.

You're right that no mod would block prize resolutions because of this one, however that's not what I'm arguing either. By choosing to narrow the focus to just Economics right now, proposal writers will be forced to create more resolutions for prizes, and this amount of prize resolutions could easily become an unnecessarily large amount. A less focused approach to UN prizes would be more manageable, regardless if these resolutions could be poorly written.

You're right that no mod would block prize resolutions because of this one, however that's not what I'm arguing either. By choosing to narrow the focus to just Economics right now, proposal writers will be forced to create more resolutions for prizes, and this amount of prize resolutions could easily become an unnecessarily large amount. A less focused approach to UN prizes would be more manageable, regardless if these resolutions could be poorly written.We could have science, fly-fishing, democracy etc etc etc.

I don't know about you, but I don't fancy having the same discussion again and again.

You're right that no mod would block prize resolutions because of this one, however that's not what I'm arguing either. By choosing to narrow the focus to just Economics right now, proposal writers will be forced to create more resolutions for prizes, and this amount of prize resolutions could easily become an unnecessarily large amount.

OK since you agree that the atomic model (a prize for a specific field) would no preclude other prizes being given out what about the arg molecuar model - which is basically what you are proposing. Well in a comprehensive resolution (ala a Nobel Prize system) you would have to by nature list all the fields you wish to cover. (Having them not listed would be a ear guarentee to not get it passed.) Now you can't add new fields because that would be ammendments to the resolution. You probably can't add another specific atomic resolution either because you already have a grand all encompassing resolution in place.

Also in the atomic model physics won't suffer if someone suddenly hates economics and manages to get a repeal. In the large molecular model to kill one prize you kill them all!

Yes it does seem odd, but you do also have to consider the odd way NS works. Also note that even the Nobel system is not done "by committee" but by "committees" and in fact there is a lot more autonomy among the committees than you might think.

We’re afraid we’re voting against based on grounds other esteemed nations aired earlier. We believe this resolution opens the flood gates to countless other prize resolutions; we do not wish our time to be wasted by repetitive debate when we are sure there are far more important matters for us to discuss.

Further, we disagree that this “atomic” approach is advisable on grounds that individual prize resolutions would be more susceptible to repeal due to a perception that they are utterly useless. Should other resolutions be passed in a similar format they would also be perceived as utterly useless and therefore susceptible to repeal.

Conversely, we believe a “molecular” approach would be far less susceptible to repeal by having merit as well as points of contention to undermine any repeal effort. The lack of true merit in the resolution presently at vote would provide no reason at all to keep it should a repeal reach the floor.

To continue the chemistry analogy (OOC: yes this is just because I’m bored and you can skip this bit) rather than the weak vdW forces associating each prize with the next in the atomic model we’d have far stronger covalent bonds due to the overlapping nature of the subject area which would increase the energy required for any repeal effort.

The pooling of the prizes in a single resolution would result in them lending support to each other. Lets just say the perfect prize resolution is one that would function like a benzene ring.

In short, we believe this will be repealed shortly after passing because it is an example of another unnecessary committee taking up unnecessary space on the legislative books. The focus is too narrow and in our opinion this will be its undoing in the future.

There is no merit to this resolution for us, rather than attempting to build support for this endeavour it simply attempts to be devoid of content so that no opposition rises to it.

Also, we generally believe such narrow prize efforts are better managed by groups of private individuals, nations, and/or regions.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

My country has not yet made its final decision. But, in addition to concerns voiced by others, I must admit I'm uncertain how exactly the committee would make its decision without systematically endorsing a particular socio-economic model. And if it flips back and forth year by year, rewarding capitalists and socialists alternately, wouldn't it become somewhat schizophrenic?

A committee of schizophrenic gnomes. Now there's a nice thought.

Still, in theory this isn't a bad idea. I'm concerned about practical consequences.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Our Nation has decided to vote against this proposal. The reasons for the proposal are admirable and have no serious effect on the U.N. but the proposal is mostly "fluff" it is not necessary nor dire to some of the problems the world faces today. Another reason we do not support it is that this economics prize would lead to many more of the same proposals (I understand this has been stated before). If it was a more general proposal maybe it would have more of a approving tone. We are for education but the fact of the matter is this is a focused proposal on one subject, however important it may be we believe that it does not deserve to be passed.

"The Dutch Democratic Republic fully and unequivocally supports this splendid little idea.

The communists and revolutionary agitators in the United Nations merely oppose this prize because they hate knowledge and science. Economics is the science that proves their fancy ideas to be wrong.

Full steam ahead, I say!"

~Aram Koopman

The reasons for the proposal are admirable and have no serious effect on the U.N. but the proposal is mostly "fluff" it is not necessary nor dire to some of the problems the world faces today.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-208283196.jpg Flash Blond enters the chamber along with an escort of Emperor Penguins.

Well hi everyone. Just got back from a funeral. Boy I didn't know that those things could be so dangerous. But did I hear someone mention that the proposal under consideration doesn't solve some of the "problems" that the world faces today? Is the proposal queue really that backed up? It didn't look that way to me. I would suggest in my ever so humble but Blonde fashion that if you want the UN to address some issue you think is important then write up the resolution yourself! Yes you! Don't look at me, my nation recently moved to Niftyonia where there are only two nations there in the UN and the other nation, who we have appointed as our delegate is sleeping over in the corner. Don't disturb the old man I think he has gout. Early to bed and early to rise my ass. Write it yourself, and don't forget to write the resolution to the category!

Anyway, back to the resolution at hand. Retired WerePenguins strongly supports this fine resolution. We need more effort towards economics. It's a rising tide that is not related to global warming. While our own economic rating is "powerhouse" and our unemployment rating is only 4% I feel we can do better and so can all other nations!

OK Ladies, you can go now. (And with that the penguins exit the debate chamber.)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/tpcard1kr.jpg

Ack! You broke the page, Hirota!

Ack! You broke the page, Hirota!Apologies, and fixed.

Still, we reiterate our desire to fart heavily on this proposal.

Still, we reiterate our desire to fart heavily on this proposal.

OOC: It was just using all of them that broke it.

IC: We concur. I'll be off in the Stranger's Bar, swilling booze and eating baked beans until I can get some proper flatulence built up.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I note that there is little substance here. If nothing else, there could reasonably be a working definition of "economics"; certainly people know what it means, but it's a good idea to state exactly what the proposal takes any disputable terms to mean.

Also, the criteria are poorly chosen. The work must be international and have effects outside the originating country? And again with the definitions: how is it determined if something improves the lives of people?

For these reasons, the Free Land of Fruhstuck will oppose this resolution.

This doesn't exactly seem worth the UN's time; after all, there are far more pressing issues such as Maritime Neutrality, my novel, and crisp packet colour coding that should be addressed prior to making up a variety of prizes...

As clarification on our earlier stance on this matter, we feel that it would be more beneficial to have a resolution that would open up the possibility of UN-sponsored prizes in multiple fields, rather than just one. This would eliminate the undesirable possibility of having to wade through multiple resolutions for prizes for everything from economics to underwater basket weaving.

If one were to go this route, the best way to accomplish it might be to create a committee that would decide which fields to offer prizes in, and what the criteria should be.

This should not be construed as our supporting such an idea, however; we frankly feel this is a waste of the UN's time, and would rather not see any prizes offered at all. We feel private entities can do that job just fine without wasting UN time or money on it.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

We are against this because we do not wish to see a flood of proposals like the following:

The UN Phrenology Prize

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING the importance in understanding and studying the bumps on people's heads,

BELIEVING that by drawing attention to the field of phrenology, the UN can promote the worldwide study of the bumps on people's heads,

NOTING that many phrenological discoveries go unnoticed on the international stage,

WISHING to raise the profile of phrenological studies, discoveries and predictions of the future that can benefit all members of the United Nations,

SEEKING to accomplish both these these noble goals of promoting phrenology and rewarding contributions to the field of phrenology,

HEREBY:

1) Establishes the United Nations Phrenology Prize, which will be awarded to the person, or persons, responsible for the greatest contribution to the field of phrenology over the past year,

2) Directs the United Nations Awards Committee (UNAC) to determine the annual winner of the prize,

3) Mandates the UNAC to award the prize based on the following criteria:

i) The work must be international in scope,
ii) It must have effects beyond the contributors own nation(s),
iii) The work must have the potential to improve the lives of people in all UN Member nations if implemented.

4) Encourages private donations to fund a monetary reward for the prize.

We could be persuaded to change our position, however, should the UNAC be required to award the winner with a Bronze Kewpie from the Cluichstani Toy Corporation...

http://www.sabratullmeyer.com/images/kewpie-small.jpg

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Oh, so that's the kind of toys CTC sells; if only that hornball Riley had known before, he mightn't have wasted all those millions investing in your company ...

For Riley's sort of toys, he should go to CPESL. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We could be persuaded to change our position, however, should the UNAC be required to award the winner with a Bronze Kewpie (http://www.sabratullmeyer.com/images/kewpie-small.jpg) from the Cluichstani Toy Corporation...Oh, so that's the kind of toys CTC sells; if only that hornball Riley had known before, he mightn't have wasted all those millions investing in your company ...

Anywho, the Federal Republic finds this resolution rather pointless, and casts its vote in the negative.

Sammy Faisano
etc.

"The Great Commonwealth stands against, as we feel that prizes can just as easily be granted by other, less *cough*busy*cough* groups. Like the Commonwealth Television Corporation or something."

As previously stated, this is a waste of time. The Harem is firmly against and has cast it's vote accordingly.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

For Riley's sort of toys, he should go to CPESL. ;)Yeah, Riley's been trying to avoid them lately, for obvious (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10359786&postcount=257) reasons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12308235&postcount=9). :p

Thanks though. ~Amb. Faisano

... crisp packet colour coding ...

I can't believe nobody has tackled that one, or the broader international issue of whether they should be called 'crisps', 'chips', 'frites'; or whether 'salt & vinegar' packets can legally be sold alongside 'prawn' or 'barbeque' flavors. Such a huge untouched category of ... what would it be ... 'International Security', perhaps.

Well, food for thought, in any event.

I'm actually pleased that it only covers economics. This leaves open the possibility of future resolutions establishing prizes in the other sciences, the arts or humanities. Let's face it, we're running out of areas to legislate in and I'd rather not see the entire "prize category" closed off by a single resolution.


'Running out of areas to legislate in', obviously legislating solely for the purpose of legislating, why not leave countries to legislate for themselves.

I can't believe nobody has tackled that one, or the broader international issue of whether they should be called 'crisps', 'chips', 'frites'; or whether 'salt & vinegar' packets can legally be sold alongside 'prawn' or 'barbeque' flavors. Such a huge untouched category of ... what would it be ... 'International Security', perhaps.

Well, food for thought, in any event.

Don't forget milk colour coding, honestly I don't know if it's UHT, fresh, skimmed, semi or what these days, come on UN do something about this

I can't believe nobody has tackled that one, or the broader international issue of whether they should be called 'crisps', 'chips', 'frites'; or whether 'salt & vinegar' packets can legally be sold alongside 'prawn' or 'barbeque' flavors. Such a huge untouched category of ... what would it be ... 'International Security', perhaps.

Well, food for thought, in any event.

I'd say free trade, after all it worked for the other standardization resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

'Running out of areas to legislate in', obviously legislating solely for the purpose of legislating, why not leave countries to legislate for themselves.

What a non-Internationalist viewpoint! How dare you accuse nations of being able to make their own choices! For shame.

Ausserland has voted AGAINST the resolution. Our objection is not to its intent, which we find reasonable and perhaps laudable. Our objection is to its scope.

If the NSUN were to establish a prize for economics, it would only be simple fairness to establish similar prizes for other worthwhile spheres of endeavor. Establishing a prize only for economics would signal that this discipline is somehow more important or more worthy of recognition than others. We strongly disagree. So the Assembly could end up spending its time discussing and voting on prizes for psychology, history, sociology, political science, biology, medicine, and on and on. Is that really all we have to do?

We would quite likely support a proposal that took the "molecular approach" suggested by the distinguished representative of Ithania and others. We cannot support this one.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

So the Assembly could end up spending its time discussing and voting on prizes for psychology, history, sociology, political science, biology, medicine, and on and on. Is that really all we have to do?


Don't forget literature. And peace. And mathematics.

Oh, the fun we could have!


Christelle Zyryanov,
not entirely sure yet whether she's being sarcastic or not...

Don't forget literature. And peace. And mathematics.


And phrenology (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12434129&postcount=41). ;)

We believe the most important of all prizes has thus far been excluded from consideration; the defenestration prize. If we wish to increase efforts in any field surely that should take precedence over all others.

Such a prize would encourage new methodology for dispatching wastrels in a minimum amount of time, methods such as the mechanical defenstrator and there are never enough delegations wishing to rid us of drive by posters or intolerable trolls.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

And phrenology (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12434129&postcount=41). ;)

Let's not forget ethnomusicology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnomusicology) and lutherie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luthier). The possibilities are endless!

We fail to see the point.

Opposed.

Rang Erman
Advisor

OOC: It's interesting that this is almost universally opposed on here and other forums, but it's winning by a considerable margin. I realize this is early days and it could easily turn around, but I still find it interesting.

OOC: It's interesting that this is almost universally opposed on here and other forums, but it's winning by a considerable margin. I realize this is early days and it could easily turn around, but I still find it interesting.

I'm waiting until Gatesville, the feeders, the larger regions, etc add their votes. I think a lot of regions tend to use polls prior to voting now which gives chance for more UN familiar members to steer the vote so we’ll no doubt see a rise in against votes closer to the deadline (even if it does pass the margin will be narrower I hope).

I must say that glancing at the delegate votes there were a few surprises and I do find myself wondering how Gallantaria justifies placing a vote so soon given that her/his region is supposed to have a poll.

I think this is passing because of general apathy, its meaningless nature means there’s nothing to passionately dislike. It’s coasting through on its lack of content.

Would anybody like to start a campaign? I’ll be more than willing to join in if it nips the potentially never-ending prize resolutions in the bud.:rolleyes:

OOC: It's interesting that this is almost universally opposed on here and other forums, but it's winning by a considerable margin. I realize this is early days and it could easily turn around, but I still find it interesting.

well we really are the only people who actually read what these resolutions say :rolleyes:

Would anybody like to start a campaign? I’ll be more than willing to join in if it nips the potentially never-ending prize resolutions in the bud.:rolleyes:

Draft Proposal: End UN Award Commitees



Category: Human Rights

Honorable Delegates of the The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that award commitees do little good for the world besides nice shiny trophies,

BELIEVING that The United Nations has too much bureaucracy already,

NOTING that many people should be commended for their efforts,

WISHING to place the bestowingship of citations to the home nations of the recipient,

SEEKING to give end the UN Award Councils,

HEREBY:

1) Dissolves the United Nations Award Commitee (UNAC)

2) Places the rights of individual award ceremonies and awards in the hands of the nations themselves and lets the creation of different awards to the individual.



The United States votes against this proposal due to the fact that we don't believe it helps the people of the world.

Best Wishes,
Cookeslandic "Still Searching for a UN Ambassador" UN Mission

well we really are the only people who actually read what these resolutions say :rolleyes:
That's true.

Come on now, pageantry? Is that what we've been reduced to? What's next, international sporting events and a fund for those as well? Hmm?
Pretty soon it'll be "well you've never won an award so your opinions are shite"

Byrnsido and the Anime Islands will be voting against this.

While we realize economics is important, it is a foolish waste of money to believe that by awarding a prize to one man, the UN could raise a global awareness.

In addition, many other areas- history, physics, literature- exist, which could all be argued to have similar or higher importance than that of economics.

We find it rather naive to believe that, by rewarding one man per time frame, an entire populace can be motivated to study economics.

We also find that anyone who would be motivated to do this would be so even without monetary reward.

Wherefore, we shall vote against this proposition.

We believe the most important of all prizes has thus far been excluded from consideration; the defenestration prize. If we wish to increase efforts in any field surely that should take precedence over all others.

Such a prize would encourage new methodology for dispatching wastrels in a minimum amount of time, methods such as the mechanical defenstrator and there are never enough delegations wishing to rid us of drive by posters or intolerable trolls.


Nah, it'd be too predictable. Iron Felix would win everytime.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Save prizes for Nobel.

Know what I think is a better reward for economic breakthrough? Living in a rich country! :p I think this is a frivolous waste of time, and we could be voting on better things. Like repealing the ban on pedophilia...(so that we can put in a better one :rolleyes: )

Save prizes for Nobel.

What is this Nobel of which you speak?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm actually pleased that it only covers economics. This leaves open the possibility of future resolutions establishing prizes in the other sciences, the arts or humanities. Let's face it, we're running out of areas to legislate in and I'd rather not see the entire "prize category" closed off by a single resolution.

Agreed. I also like a short resolution from time to time as well. At first glance, I've made a recommendation to my government to support this. I expect a reply within the next 48 hours.

Howie T. Katzman

Against!

This body which has rejected multiple proposals to set up general prize ideas, which has shot down resolutions promoting various equally important fields is currently throwing its weight behind a resolution that wants an award for the sole field of economics.

This body which has spent its past two years pulling apart specific or limited resolutions and replacing them with complete, wide sweeping resolutions (heralded, to some degree, by the very organization that drafted this resolution), is willingly and happily promoting and supporting a resolution calling for the foundation of a resolution devoted to the sole purpose of founding a SINGLE ANNUAL award. Not an award event, but a single award

Finally, this body is supporting and promoting a resolution that promotes, encourages, and rewards research in a field which already has the distinct advantage of being promoted, encouraged and rewarded by the very fact that successful discoveries and theories will improve the well being of their country, its citizens, and its business-people.

By passing this resolution, the UN is saying that the MOST important field is not social services, scientific development, promotion of peace, the security of citizens, cultural or educational creations, or medicine. We are saying that the MOST important field, the field that deserves the MOST focus is the Economy, the almighty dollar.

This resolution is a shamble and a disgrace for this body and this organization. As part of a much more wide ranging resolution, it would be an EXCELLENT resolution, but it is not. As such, our vote is against

EDIT: And now I realize that the thread isn't, necessarily, supporting it....

What is this Nobel of which you speak?Damn argon!

Come on now, pageantry? Is that what we've been reduced to? What's next, international sporting events and a fund for those as well? Hmm?
Pretty soon it'll be "well you've never won an award so your opinions are shite"

OOH, you know what we could do about the funds that's just as productive as all this mess? We could have a bake sale!

Agreed. I also like a short resolution from time to time as well. At first glance, I've made a recommendation to my government to support this. I expect a reply within the next 48 hours.

Howie T. Katzman

We certainly hope that the distinguished representative of Mikitivity will rethink his support of this unfortunate legislation. Does the representative really think it's proper for the NSUN to enshrine economics as the only academic discipline worthy of this body's recognition? If not, does he really want to waste weeks of this Assembly's time and attention in debate and voting on awards for all the other fields of endeavor that are every bit as worthy of an award?

We respectfully urge the representative and our other colleagues who might support this resolution to think carefully about it. Well intentioned it is; deserving of passage it is not.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Ardchoille supports this proposal, on the grounds that, should it succeed, we will have a large number of economists gathered in a particular place at a particular time.

Sheik, you know that little favour you mentioned ... ?

The Commonwealth has abstained. We have no interest either way, and this resolution will hardly affect us if it passes or fails.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador and
Professor Emeritus of Political Sciences
University of Kent, Aki

We certainly hope that the distinguished representative of Mikitivity will rethink his support of this unfortunate legislation. Does the representative really think it's proper for the NSUN to enshrine economics as the only academic discipline worthy of this body's recognition? If not, does he really want to waste weeks of this Assembly's time and attention in debate and voting on awards for all the other fields of endeavor that are every bit as worthy of an award?

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Prime Minister Aschenbach, I respectfully disagree with your position, though I do understand your point. I am not under the impression that this resolution will preclude nor signify that the field of economics is any more important than say other fields that are much more dear to the people of my nation (such as music, engineering, beer, and food). In fact, I'll point to my government's two and a half year campaign to have the UN reduce tariffs on alcohol as a prime example of another field in which many of us here have singled out one particular commodity at the neglect of others. When we first proposed to reduce beer tariffs others asked why we had not also looked at promoting free trade for whiskey, wine, etc. A logical question and one we addressed with the next submission of the proposal. However, others asked why we did not attempt to simply reduce all tariffs, and we pointed out that there is an art of compromise inherent in our resolutions: they need to have some detail, but at the same time should appeal to 50%+1 (I think a supermajority is a much more appropriate target for international statements) of the UN member vote.

Other prize focused proposes should in fact follow. Actually, the UN has considered other prizes in the past -- which have sadly failed. I do not fear that we'll become burdened with too many prize resolutions, as UN Delegate fatigue will control the rate at which similar proposals reach the UN floor. And I'd much rather bring new resolutions to the Mikitivity Counsel of Mayors for approval instead of more repeals.

Howie T. Katzman

"The naysayers are just afraid of setting precedent. They fear that, if they do the right thing once, they may have to do the right thing again.

For shame!"

~Aram Koopman

I voted against this particular resolution.

Why?

I do not see it worthwhile to declare an international prize for economics alone and above all other worthwhile pursuits such as world peace, medicine, a host of other much more vital subjects.

As one of my friends in my region said, it is like giving out a prize for astrology or phrenology.

This is not an argument I expect to win, but I've been there before.

For shame, ladies and gentlemen. A more molecular model along the lines of the Nobel prizes would have gained my nation's support.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

As one of my friends in my region said, it is like giving out a prize for astrology or phrenology.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Ambassador Lynniston,

What particular "category" or mandate does the UN have to deal with astrology? I'd argue that between the Free Trade and Social Justice categories that the UN has a long standing tradition of debating both macro and micro-scale economic issues as they pertain to international trade. While the category of this resolution is "educational" and designed to promote economics, it *also* is doing so in a field in which countless previous resolutions (both Free Trade and Social Justice) have been enacted.

I don't think a strawman argument comparing the study of economics to astrology is really fair.

Had you argued astronomy, a field in which there have been a few UN resolutions, then your friend's comment might be fair ... but I've already argued that there is no reason why four months from now that we could not propose to have a UN Physical Sciences Prize proposal that could promote international research in fields that are tied to a large number of existing UN resolutions.

Howie T. Katzman

Prime Minister Aschenbach, I respectfully disagree with your position, though I do understand your point. I am not under the impression that this resolution will preclude nor signify that the field of economics is any more important than say other fields that are much more dear to the people of my nation (such as music, engineering, beer, and food). In fact, I'll point to my government's two and a half year campaign to have the UN reduce tariffs on alcohol as a prime example of another field in which many of us here have singled out one particular commodity at the neglect of others. When we first proposed to reduce beer tariffs others asked why we had not also looked at promoting free trade for whiskey, wine, etc. A logical question and one we addressed with the next submission of the proposal. However, others asked why we did not attempt to simply reduce all tariffs, and we pointed out that there is an art of compromise inherent in our resolutions: they need to have some detail, but at the same time should appeal to 50%+1 (I think a supermajority is a much more appropriate target for international statements) of the UN member vote.

Other prize focused proposes should in fact follow. Actually, the UN has considered other prizes in the past -- which have sadly failed. I do not fear that we'll become burdened with too many prize resolutions, as UN Delegate fatigue will control the rate at which similar proposals reach the UN floor. And I'd much rather bring new resolutions to the Mikitivity Counsel of Mayors for approval instead of more repeals.

Howie T. Katzman

With all respect to our distinguished colleague from Mikitivity, we cannot agree with his logic.

Other prize proposals have failed in the past, yet if this one passes it sends no signal of relative importance? We continue to hold that there is no necessity or justification for establishing a prize solely in the field of economics.

As for subsequent prize proposals.... Indeed, if this one passes, simple fairness would require that prizes be established in all fields of study that contribute to the betterment of the human condition. Does the representative seriously want to wade through the (probably boring) debate on all of them? Should this Assembly be forced to spend a week of voting time on each of them? We agree wholeheartedly that delegate fatigue will set in. And we believe that delegate fatigue and loss of interest in the NSUN is the last thing we need to have happen.

If the representative believes that other fields of endeavor should be accorded the same level of respect this resolution gives to economics, we would urge him to draft a proposal incorporating the "molecular" approach already suggested. Let's not bog this Assembly down in wasteful, unnecessarily duplicative effort that can only distract our attention, cause lack of interest, and clog the legislative works while other, substantive matters go unattended.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Ardchoille supports this proposal, on the grounds that, should it succeed, we will have a large number of economists gathered in a particular place at a particular time.

Sheik, you know that little favour you mentioned ... ?

Gotcha, Ms. Reilly. ;) I'll see to it that preparations begin immediately.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

With all respect to our distinguished colleague from Mikitivity, we cannot agree with his logic.

As for subsequent prize proposals.... Indeed, if this one passes, simple fairness would require that prizes be established in all fields of study that contribute to the betterment of the human condition. Does the representative seriously want to wade through the (probably boring) debate on all of them? Should this Assembly be forced to spend a week of voting time on each of them? We agree wholeheartedly that delegate fatigue will set in. And we believe that delegate fatigue and loss of interest in the NSUN is the last thing we need to have happen.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Prime Minister Aschenbach,

As might be ascertained from my government's voting record, Mikitivity does not participate in all UN votes ... and accordingly would not be bored with debates on similar resolutions. If anything, similar proposals for other fields (one I already mentioned would be physical sciences) would probably benefit from streamlined debates, thus allowing us to spend our staff time working on draft proposals.

As for fatigue, would never argue against a resolution on the floor because its adoption would make another resolution on a similar topic in the future lose support. Instead I'd simply suggest that proponents of future proposals bear in mind that the UN membership has statistically shown that proposals that are remotely similar to recently adopted resolutions will have less support and thus these proponents should delay things a bit. (I can point to UNA-Mikitivity data that supports my theory.)

I think time is our friend here. Other proposals will surely follow, but I do not see them taking away from everything else we are dealing with.

Howie T. Katzman

"The naysayers are just afraid of setting precedent. They fear that, if they do the right thing once, they may have to do the right thing again.

For shame!"

~Aram Koopman

With all due respect to the honorable representative from Knootoss, that's not what we fear. We fear doing the wrong thing here, and then having to do that again....and again....and again.

We have yet to hear an argument in this debate that convinces us that economics is a field worthy above all others for a UN-sponsored award. Nations that wish to promote other fields of study will most likely feel the same way, and insist upon awards to promote their own agenda. While the ensuing rush of bureaucracy needed to make that happen would no doubt make the gnomes happy, we seriously doubt the ensuing waste of the UN's time and money would please anyone else.

More to the point, we still very strongly feel that this is not a matter worthy of the UN's attention. While the promotion of various fields of study or endeavor is a worthy one, we feel that interested nations, educational institutions and private entities could form their own committees to award such prizes, and leave the UN to tackle matters that are truly international in scope.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Ambassador Lynniston,

What particular "category" or mandate does the UN have to deal with astrology? I'd argue that between the Free Trade and Social Justice categories that the UN has a long standing tradition of debating both macro and micro-scale economic issues as they pertain to international trade. While the category of this resolution is "educational" and designed to promote economics, it *also* is doing so in a field in which countless previous resolutions (both Free Trade and Social Justice) have been enacted.

I don't think a strawman argument comparing the study of economics to astrology is really fair.

Had you argued astronomy, a field in which there have been a few UN resolutions, then your friend's comment might be fair ... but I've already argued that there is no reason why four months from now that we could not propose to have a UN Physical Sciences Prize proposal that could promote international research in fields that are tied to a large number of existing UN resolutions.

Howie T. Katzman

Mr. Katzman,

I engaged in hyperbole, I did not erect a strawman. I do not see economics as a subject any more valuable than I see sociology. Economics is about decision making, it involves a lot more than just the world business and economic climate.

I realize I am among a large grouping of free market, Keynesian economists when I disagree with anything written by ACCEL or any of the other large cliques that aggressively pursue capitalism at the expense of everything else.

You cannot seriously expect me to rate economics higher on the scale of importance than medicine or world peace. I don't think the UN should either.

It sends a very bad message.

Regards,

Lynniston

Mr. Katzman,

You cannot seriously expect me to rate economics higher on the scale of importance than medicine or world peace. I don't think the UN should either.

Regards,

Lynniston

Ambassador Lynniston,

My government does not feel that it nor your government are making a "priority" statement by voting in favour of this resolution. This is not a "if you say yes, you are saying no to everything else issue". What you will be doing is saying, "Yes, we agree that having an international award will help promote this field."

Tomorrow or 4 months from now, any nation is more than welcome to draft up resolutions for similar ideas. For example, my government's vote in favour of this resolution has not undermined our continued effort to pursue a reduction in international tariffs on alcohol nor will it undermine my government's belief that issues like condemning gendericide or safe international travel are important endeavors for the United Nations.

Imagine this ... for ANY given resolution any nation could say, "If we adopt standards on potato chips we are neglecting soft drinks, pick-up trucks, and puppy dogs." However, that is EXACTLY what we've done with the over 200 other resolutions we've adopted. We've selected specific issues to address and tabled other issues for the future. The only agenda at work to set up a priority really comes from the nations that have the resources (time and money) to get a viable draft to the proposal queue first and whom have the experience necessary to collect the 100 to 150 UN Delegate endorsements necessary for their idea to reach the larger UN membership via a true resolution.

If the arguments against this resolution really are nothing more than, "But we'll be opening a flood gate!", please consider that after we voted upon the first resolution, "Fight the Axis of Evil" we already opened our spillway. The waters that will rush out of our proposal reservoir are in large part determined now by the UN Delegate endorsements.

Howie T. Katzman

As might be ascertained from my government's voting record, Mikitivity does not participate in all UN votes ... and accordingly would not be bored with debates on similar resolutions.

We would suggest that is an awfully egocentric perspective sir. With that statement you are reducing yourself to a “not my problem” perspective and suggesting that we should follow your example and abandon the UN floor while these utterly pointless resolutions absorb vital time.

If anything, similar proposals for other fields (one I already mentioned would be physical sciences) would probably benefit from streamlined debates, thus allowing us to spend our staff time working on draft proposals.

What you call “streamlined debates” we call “increased apathy”. The only reason debates would be “streamlined” is because enthusiasm for the United Nations will have been lost. The last thing this insular organisation needs is to repel and/or drain long-standing and/or promising members.

We would much prefer to avoid any further debate on this issue at all by passing a single, molecular resolution so we can continue focusing on “making the world a better place one resolution at a time.”

If your staff require more time to draft proposals then surely your delegation could simply “not participate in all UN votes” until completion rather than endorse wasting the time of the UN as whole for your own ends?

As for the rest of your statement; while we may deeply respect the UNA-Mikivity we believe that the duration between wasted UN time is irrelevant, it is still wasted time nonetheless.

We also doubt how quickly support will fall away from prize resolutions; there are many fields that conjure powerful and uniform emotive reactions such as medicine therefore as long as prize resolutions pull on the heartstrings of naive delegations we’ll continue to see them.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

(OOC: I'm afraid I'm using take-out and copious amounts of wine to improve my rahter boring Saturday so apologies if this doesn't make complete sense.

Before you ask: No I didn't see the message above and it addresses most of this already. Sorry.)

Why not just create a proposal which creates a committee to discuss and distribute various UN-sponsored prizes? A forum could be created where members propose new prizes to be distributed, and those proposals can pass within the committee, not the UN floor. This would ensure that each members' ideas of fields to award prizes to are heard, and that the UN floor won't be cluttered with resolution after resolution dealing with prizes.

We would suggest that is an awfully egocentric perspective sir. With that statement you are reducing yourself to a “not my problem” perspective and suggesting that we should follow your example and abandon the UN floor while these utterly pointless resolutions absorb vital time.

What you call “streamlined debates” we call “increased apathy”.

Hardly. I'm hear to represent the needs of my citizens, not yours. If their needs require that I spend less of my time reading the debates, I shouldn't have to worry about following every statement. Instead I should devote my time to focusing on the resolution and its projected impacts (based upon how my government's legal system works) on my citizens.

I would much rather no UN ambassador feel as if she or he is a hostage to the UN floor debates, but the idea that we should vote against the current resolution to prevent future "boring" debates implies that some of us do feel stuck here.

Please do not mistake my mission to represent my government as a disinterest in working with other nations. If that were the case, I would not have bothered to even state what my government's vote was. But do not fool yourselves into thinking that the 10,000 of nations in the UN are voting based on the UN debates. The majority of us are debating upon the needs and will of our governments. This is supported by the fact that these debates are maybe read 1,000 times (at best), while the final votes register in the 10,000s.

Howie T. Katzman

Against!

This body which has rejected multiple proposals to set up general prize ideas, which has shot down resolutions promoting various equally important fields is currently throwing its weight behind a resolution that wants an award for the sole field of economics.

This body which has spent its past two years pulling apart specific or limited resolutions and replacing them with complete, wide sweeping resolutions (heralded, to some degree, by the very organization that drafted this resolution), is willingly and happily promoting and supporting a resolution calling for the foundation of a resolution devoted to the sole purpose of founding a SINGLE ANNUAL award. Not an award event, but a single award

Finally, this body is supporting and promoting a resolution that promotes, encourages, and rewards research in a field which already has the distinct advantage of being promoted, encouraged and rewarded by the very fact that successful discoveries and theories will improve the well being of their country, its citizens, and its business-people.

By passing this resolution, the UN is saying that the MOST important field is not social services, scientific development, promotion of peace, the security of citizens, cultural or educational creations, or medicine. We are saying that the MOST important field, the field that deserves the MOST focus is the Economy, the almighty dollar.
Yes.

Without an economy, you can't support cultural or educational creations medicine stagnates and social services cannot be provided. An economy, a successful economy, provides the opportunity to do all those things. If you consider them important, then the economy is THE most important thing. It is no coincidence that the greatest medical advances have come during the period of massive economic growth and prosperity.

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka is strongly support this resolution. This award will be very helpful to many leading communist, socialist and anarchist economists in all UN countries. It will give them fame and respect necessary for defeating of capitalist point of view in economy science.

My country has not yet made its final decision. But, in addition to concerns voiced by others, I must admit I'm uncertain how exactly the committee would make its decision without systematically endorsing a particular socio-economic model. And if it flips back and forth year by year, rewarding capitalists and socialists alternately, wouldn't it become somewhat schizophrenic?

A committee of schizophrenic gnomes. Now there's a nice thought.

Still, in theory this isn't a bad idea. I'm concerned about practical consequences.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Actually I don’t see any problem here, they will just award those works that’s will give the biggest help to the biggest number of people in the UN countries (if implemented). It doesn’t matter is this capitalist, socialist, or work about some other economic model. What is matter is how much it can improve the life of the people in the UN countries. So, in most cases awards will be given to works with more practical AND humane approach to human resources.

With all due respect to the honorable representative from Knootoss, that's not what we fear. We fear doing the wrong thing here, and then having to do that again....and again....and again.

We have yet to hear an argument in this debate that convinces us that economics is a field worthy above all others for a UN-sponsored award. Nations that wish to promote other fields of study will most likely feel the same way, and insist upon awards to promote their own agenda. While the ensuing rush of bureaucracy needed to make that happen would no doubt make the gnomes happy, we seriously doubt the ensuing waste of the UN's time and money would please anyone else.

More to the point, we still very strongly feel that this is not a matter worthy of the UN's attention. While the promotion of various fields of study or endeavor is a worthy one, we feel that interested nations, educational institutions and private entities could form their own committees to award such prizes, and leave the UN to tackle matters that are truly international in scope.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Well, I can say why economic science is more important than most of the other science fields. Depending on the system of priorities of the society it will have very different social, political and international policies. Economic science and sociology have the most impact on what priorities society will have in the near future. So, if we want to do our world better, our starting point must be the supporting of economic science and sociology. If we will not organize our society in efficient, humane way, we will have very big problems with using fruits of all other science fields, and of course we will never reach political stability and world peace. This resolution will give good boost to one of the most important sciences for the UN.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

If the UN is going to give out a prize, should it not be in a field that improves the world in some way? I am by no means saying economics is not an important field, but I am saying that it is a less important field than others. I do not believe there is something wrong with Prize resolutions. If this were a UN Medical Science Award, for example, I would be a strong supported. I disagree with the argument that "it can be done later". I realize that there can be more prizes later. However, it is my belief that the first prize that the UN ever awards should not be an Economics prize.

Roderick Spear
Paradican Ambassador to the UN

Nothing like starting a flood, eh? Next we get a proposal for a prize for medicine. Then we get one for physics. After that, one for chemistry. Then one for literature. It'll never stop. This proposal's the equivalent of placing TNT on a dam, and I really don't feel like treading water for several months, especially when the alternative is drowning in similar proposals.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

"I am forced to agree with the representative from Wegason.

Simply put, Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. As such, it is core to much of UN decision-making, and better understanding of this field would yield immediate positive results.

Moreover, methods of economic analysis have been increasingly applied to fields that involve persons (United Nations officials included) that make choices in a social context, in fields as diverse as crime, education, the family, health, law, politics,religion, social institutions, and war.

I'm not seeing any phrenologists do that."

~Aram Koopman

Ladies and Gentlemen, I must disagree with this proposal. There are already awards out there for economics on an international level. I do not agree in turning the UN into an institution that hands out awards, but keeping it one of action. I see this as just another pork spending project that is already being covered by other institutions.

Allen Haine, UN Delegate.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I must disagree with this proposal. There are already awards out there for economics on an international level. I do not agree in turning the UN into an institution that hands out awards, but keeping it one of action. I see this as just another pork spending project that is already being covered by other institutions.

Allen Haine, UN Delegate.

Please name for the Assembly these "awards out there" already for economics at the international level. Otherwise, I shall have to ring the "Yerong" chime.

Ben presses a button beneath the surface of his rostrum, and a four-bell bronze carillon descends from a hidden panel in the ceiling. Once the bells reach his height, Ben begins polishing them lovingly and with zeal.

[OOC: As far as I know, NS has no Nobel Prize, and the RLUN hands out awards all the time. Hell, a friend of mine finished 13th -- just out of the top 10 and the money/recognition -- in a UN-sponsored political cartooning contest.]

OK since you agree that the atomic model (a prize for a specific field) would no preclude other prizes being given out what about the arg molecuar model - which is basically what you are proposing. Well in a comprehensive resolution (ala a Nobel Prize system) you would have to by nature list all the fields you wish to cover. (Having them not listed would be a ear guarentee to not get it passed.) Now you can't add new fields because that would be ammendments to the resolution. You probably can't add another specific atomic resolution either because you already have a grand all encompassing resolution in place.

Also in the atomic model physics won't suffer if someone suddenly hates economics and manages to get a repeal. In the large molecular model to kill one prize you kill them all!

Yes it does seem odd, but you do also have to consider the odd way NS works. Also note that even the Nobel system is not done "by committee" but by "committees" and in fact there is a lot more autonomy among the committees than you might think.

Seconded.

Please name for the Assembly these "awards out there" already for economics at the international level. Otherwise, I shall have to ring the "Yerong" chime.

Ben presses a button beneath the surface of his rostrum, and a four-bell bronze carillon descends from a hidden panel in the ceiling. Once the bells reach his height, Ben begins polishing them lovingly and with zeal.

[OOC: As far as I know, NS has no Nobel Prize, and the RLUN hands out awards all the time. Hell, a friend of mine finished 13th -- just out of the top 10 and the money/recognition -- in a UN-sponsored political cartooning contest.]

OOC: As far as I knew the game was a replica of "Earth" just with the countries changed to be how we wanted it and a self run UN. If this was the case it could have a Nobel Prize, but I'm honestly not sure. Can we get some sort of mod in here to answer it? or perhaps someone who has been playing longer. If we don't have a Nobel prize/some replacement I need to change my argument.

Can we get some sort of mod in here to answer it? or perhaps someone who has been playing longer.
The fact that real-world references are not permitted in NS UN proposals is part of the official rules sticky at the top of this forum. You don't need a mod to tell you that.

Yeah, you need to change your argument. NS =/= Real Life.

Ambassador Lynniston,

My government does not feel that it nor your government are making a "priority" statement by voting in favour of this resolution. This is not a "if you say yes, you are saying no to everything else issue". What you will be doing is saying, "Yes, we agree that having an international award will help promote this field."

And this is precisely where we differ.

No matter the INTENT that the author and supporters of this resolution had, the perception will be that Economics above all else is the most important widget among the pile of widgets. If you don't believe me, read Wegason's post.

To support a UN Prize for Economics and not include others is to give the solid impression that the UN could give a fig about the rest of that very important pile of widgets and that is the crux of the matter for me. It is highly doubtful that it will make a difference, but I often find myself on this side of the argument, so I will bear up fine.

I cannot support the impression it leaves and I cannot support this resolution.

Lynniston

I won't support this resolution just because I don't think that it's worth spending the UN's "money" on. I also believe that nations should be trying to make this world a better place because they care, not because they want a shiny medal to place in their display cabinet.

- Ambrella

The shiny metal is an incentive. If you had studied economics, you'd have known how well that works!

~Aram Koopman

Not UN money...private donations. In other words, if you don't want to spend your money on it, that's okay. If other people do, they can.

Right. Dude.

If you see paragraph four, you see that it "encourages private donations to fund a monetary reward for the prize".

That is why I support this thing. That is why you should too, my fellow Free Market Warrior!

Assuming you just changed your vote, lets carry on.

~Aram Koopman

OOC: I’m sorry, maybe this is not very important, but my post was shown much after I’m write it. If someone is interested in reading it, it is third from the end of the previous page. Sorry for taking your time.

As long as this will be funded by private donations, it will have the full support of Mcdouglasland.

"I am forced to agree with the representative from Wegason.

Simply put, Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. As such, it is core to much of UN decision-making, and better understanding of this field would yield immediate positive results.

Moreover, methods of economic analysis have been increasingly applied to fields that involve persons (United Nations officials included) that make choices in a social context, in fields as diverse as crime, education, the family, health, law, politics,religion, social institutions, and war.

I'm not seeing any phrenologists do that."

~Aram Koopman

But, Aram, phrenologists can tell the freakin' future! Surely that's worth a prize, too!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

No, Sheik, they can not.

~Aram Koopman, etc.

Nothing like starting a flood, eh? Next we get a proposal for a prize for medicine. Then we get one for physics. After that, one for chemistry. Then one for literature. It'll never stop. This proposal's the equivalent of placing TNT on a dam, and I really don't feel like treading water for several months, especially when the alternative is drowning in similar proposals.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I don't see that transpiring. I see a few proposals like that at first, and the proposal queue might double from 5 pages to 10. But I also remember when it was 20 pages long and I really do not see the passage of this resolution really having that big of an impact on the proposal queue or the UN.

Howie T. Katzman

The biggest question is “Why economics and not some other science?”

I would have thought the answer is institutively obvious to a casual observer. It is, I would hope, the goal of this august body to raise the bar for all those under its care. There is clearly no one who would argue that physics and engineering are not important disciplines. We can have a death star hovering above us and people will still be spending the night starving and without necessary medication. We can solve all the problems of war and people will be spending the night starving and without necessary medication.

In the nation of Tzorsland, that land where my foremothers had gainful employment in the military, there were a number of moronic monastics (well technically they were friars) who bemoaned the fact that they were no longer the big cheese of the nation, as was the case when they invaded the Kingdoms of Tzor and Titipu (and a few others I’ve forgotten about) and bludgeoned King Harold with an old stale loaf of French bread. In their anger they sought their independence and once granted proceeded to run the entire nation into economic ruin.

Yes, the devastation of wars is minor compared to what can happen if you let morons at the economic helm of a nation. Our brief encounter with them while we were both in the same region is enough to convince us of this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, net to war itself, economics is, or must be, the highest priority for the United Nations to consider. Therefore we must encourage the growth of this field so that it can become a proper science and lead us out of the darkness of economic fear into the light of logical economic truth! Think of the starving and under medicated children!

Thank you.

Fundamental rights for all peoples (aka human rights) >>>> Economics (aka Shiny metal)

My government has studied this proposal carefully and taken due note of arguments expressed for and against. At present, we intend to abstain... unless someone can make us feel strongly about it one way or the other.

Christelle Zyryanov,
etc...

Yes.

Without an economy, you can't support cultural or educational creations medicine stagnates and social services cannot be provided. An economy, a successful economy, provides the opportunity to do all those things. If you consider them important, then the economy is THE most important thing. It is no coincidence that the greatest medical advances have come during the period of massive economic growth and prosperity.

This is very much true, however it is a possibility that the economy of the nation which has been awarded could collapse due to war, civil war, natural disaster etc, in which case the money invested into rewarding the building the economy of the nation involved would have gone to waste. That is also not taking into account factors such as corruption which could mean that the prize money given would not go into the economy at all. It is also worth pointing out that in the event of a crippling national disaster, the nation involved would need aid for areas such as medical care and it is not safe to assume that all nations would be able to provide medical care for citizens themselves, or even be able to afford to rebuild the lost properties and buildings damaged or destroyed as as result of the war or disaster.

I have reversed my position on this resolution and will now be voting AGAINST for a variety of reasons.

#1 -- The prospect of having an actual forum discussion on why mime is not included under the assumed future UN "Arts" prize was enough to sour my stomach right after this morning's breakfast.

#2 -- International organizations among the vast majority of professional fields already exist and recognize the excellence within their fields already. The International Association of Cheesemakers have already handed out their "Whey to Go" awards, including Cheese of the Year to the Supreme Commonwealth of the Society of Orion for their Orion Blue Cheese. Surely several professional organizations know more about their constituencies than an ad hoc UN prize commission.

#3 -- There is NO #3.

#4 -- No pooftas.

To all members of this House:

On behalf of the Federation of Alyawulof, the Alyawulfian Committee for UN Matters (ACUNM) would like to announce its decision to vote AGAINST the resolution.

Our greatest point of contention regarding the resolution at hand is the lack of any defining criteria for the recipient of this Economics Prize. Is the Economics Prize awarded to economists who contribute practically to the development of a nation's economy? Or is the prize awarded to those who formulate revolutionary or fresh economic theories? If the latter is true we do not see how the argument that the economy of a nation is vital to its survival would stand; clearly, if we are awarding prizes for theories, and the criteria is practical benefit, there exists no rationale for awarding the prize. On the other hand, if one is awarding the prize to those who successfully effect positive changes in a nation's economy, how is one going to determine which economist to give the prize to? Also, allow us to be frank: is it not wholly ironic to give a monetary reward to the economists who successfully effect these changes? I am rather certain that for these economists to reach the position they are in, they would require a certain level of education and clearly a large majority hail from First World or developing countries. Clearly, there is little sense in giving these economists a monetary reward; scientists who win monetary rewards can channel these funds into further research, but what about economists?

In Honour and Respect
Ridvashye Haukyevik Nyedzyek
Chairman
Alyawulfian Committee of United Nations Matters

In all honesty we from the Halls of Magical Representation, do not care one way or the other on the outcome of this proposal. It is compleatly pointless, awarding a prize to the best Economic... whatever we don't care, and have thus refrained from voting.

Argh.... Too loose not that many rules and loopholes to those established rules

Yes.

Without an economy, you can't support cultural or educational creations medicine stagnates and social services cannot be provided. An economy, a successful economy, provides the opportunity to do all those things. If you consider them important, then the economy is THE most important thing. It is no coincidence that the greatest medical advances have come during the period of massive economic growth and prosperity.

Economy at the sacrifice and ignorance of other aspects of society is no greater for a society and her people than to forget the economy entirely, for the society fails to benefit from such an endeavor. Economics may be the most important field to remember, but it is not the most important field to study.

The advances that came about during the boom of the Industrialization age were from the same source as the economic explosion that fueled the industrialization period, not because of the boom. The world had access to methods and materials that enabled them to do things they had never before been able to do - whether it be greater precision, greater strength, or greater production levels. Equally, the inequality in that era was tremendous, the gap between the rich and the poor widening and not shrinking until the era of the Production line, about a century later. Instead of prospering from such advances, society was punished under them and the rewards were not reaped by her people until much later. Just as opening the door into a room never seen before ignites a flurry of exploration, opening the door into a new area of study enabled us to discover so much more, just as the microchip would open up its own area of exploration still not mastered by man.

Your narrow focus on the economy has left you blind to the diverse reality and the extensive set of circumstances that have led us to this new era. It was not the economic boom but the economic boom followed by worker rights being granted, followed by social programs being considered and implemented by the state, and the value of the worker, the human being, being enshrined at a level forgotten by the politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen that ran the world - likely BECAUSE they ran the world.

Siding with the economy at the expense of everything only promotes the narrow view that caused such damage to the society. Forgetting fields all across the board that are equally important to a stable, expansive and productive society while continually chanting "Economy, Economy, Economy" leads one not to a growing economy that will forever build a society and make her the greatest in the world, but will result chaos, in depression, in suffering, and - if no rethinking of one's position is taken - possibly to her eventual demise.

It astounds me how little Economists are aware of their own history, the history of the many booms, the many changes to society, the change in thought, and the change in structure - and what sort of adverse effect they had upon the societies and the world in which they occurred.

Ambassador Zyryanov stands and applauds the representative of Forgottenlands.

Ambassador Spear follows suit.

Wow, I had voted for, considering this resolution a harmless bit of fluff, but after reading Forgottenlands post, that vote will be withdrawn, and we will abstain.

I've never seen the concept of economic worship explained so well.

Forgottenlord
Failing miserably at retirement

I am very, very glad that Forgottenlord is such a miserable failure.

Economy at the sacrifice and ignorance of other aspects of society is no greater for a society and her people than to forget the economy entirely, for the society fails to benefit from such an endeavor. Economics may be the most important field to remember, but it is not the most important field to study.

Human behavior is economic behavior. But remember that economics does not concern itself with the "why," but rather the "what"- the why is left to social scientists and commentators.

Economics is equal to other studies, because it is concerned with human behavior. To say that one discipline is superior to another is to foster discontent and argument.

The advances that came about during the boom of the Industrialization age were from the same source as the economic explosion that fueled the industrialization period, not because of the boom. The world had access to methods and materials that enabled them to do things they had never before been able to do - whether it be greater precision, greater strength, or greater production levels. Equally, the inequality in that era was tremendous, the gap between the rich and the poor widening and not shrinking until the era of the Production line, about a century later. Instead of prospering from such advances, society was punished under them and the rewards were not reaped by her people until much later. Just as opening the door into a room never seen before ignites a flurry of exploration, opening the door into a new area of study enabled us to discover so much more, just as the microchip would open up its own area of exploration still not mastered by man.

Human economic history is a timeline of development. Periods of extreme discontent give way to periods of extreme happiness. That is the universal truth- that good and bad things give way to each other. The flurry of modern development will, in its time, give way to regressive depression, only to rise again.

Your narrow focus on the economy has left you blind to the diverse reality and the extensive set of circumstances that have led us to this new era. It was not the economic boom but the economic boom followed by worker rights being granted, followed by social programs being considered and implemented by the state, and the value of the worker, the human being, being enshrined at a level forgotten by the politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen that ran the world - likely BECAUSE they ran the world.

Of course it is fashionable to blame the politicans and the businessmen, because they owned the factories and they gave ground to the worker. Human behavior is economic behavior- if the picketing factory worker were in the shoes of the industrialist, he would have done the exact same, would he not have?

Social development is a cycle of interlocking causes and effects. Myopic focus on one discipline is a failure to see the entire system, but a self-righteous declaration that one discipline is worth less than others is even worse, because it denies the contributions of all things.

Siding with the economy at the expense of everything only promotes the narrow view that caused such damage to the society. Forgetting fields all across the board that are equally important to a stable, expansive and productive society while continually chanting "Economy, Economy, Economy" leads one not to a growing economy that will forever build a society and make her the greatest in the world, but will result chaos, in depression, in suffering, and - if no rethinking of one's position is taken - possibly to her eventual demise.

The demise of all societies is a constant, the eternally fluctuating state of nature. It is the way things are. I have seen no soapboxes where suited capitalists proclaim to this assembly the virtues of economic study to the detriment of all others, but I have seen the self-righteous beat their breasts and shout that want of money is the root of all evil.

It astounds me how little Economists are aware of their own history, the history of the many booms, the many changes to society, the change in thought, and the change in structure - and what sort of adverse effect they had upon the societies and the world in which they occurred.

It astounds me the hubris of the self-righteous, secure in the towers, ignoring the contributions and harms of all disciplines. It astounds me how little one could value the study of the economic world, when they trumpet the value of others. All things are in balance; the evil caused is equal to the good.

Our vote remains opposed, but we condemn this outburst with all of our voice. Our reasons for opposition are not for dislike of economic study, but for the most important reasons- necessity.

Most courteously.

Defenstration by logic is truly the most elegant method...

This proposition is outrageous! All it seems to do is reward the already well- off nations. A nation, such as mine, appears too unimportant as this law would only benefit, large, prosperous nations. Simple enough, think about it.

This proposition is outrageous! All it seems to do is reward the already well- off nations. A nation, such as mine, appears too unimportant as this law would only benefit, large, prosperous nations. Simple enough, think about it.

It doesn't stop there, oh certainly not! In addition to rewarding only those nations that are most successful (which clearly does not make sense) it rewards only members of the United Nations. As HotRodia is not a member of the UN, we stand opposed to this egregious discriminatory measure.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

No, Sheik, they can not.

You see, this is precisely why we need a prize for phrenology -- to raise global awareness of this importance of this important field of study, so that people like my friend Mr. Koopman here will know more about the ability to foretell the future by examining bumps and one's head.

I don't see that transpiring. I see a few proposals like that at first, and the proposal queue might double from 5 pages to 10. But I also remember when it was 20 pages long and I really do not see the passage of this resolution really having that big of an impact on the proposal queue or the UN.

I do, however, see it happening, but then, I'm no phrenologist. Are you, Mr. Katzman?

The fact is, should this proposal pass, it opens up the potential for a flood of similar proposals that could completely bog us down (though perhaps that was the author's real intent).

Human behavior is economic behavior.

Yeah, if you've got your Karl Marx blinders on...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

This proposition is outrageous! All it seems to do is reward the already well- off nations.

What? :confused: Did you take the time to read the actual proposal?

"Establishes the United Nations Economics Prize which will be awarded to the person, or persons, responsible for the greatest contribution to the field of Economics over the past year"

What nation? The reward is given to one or more people not nations. Moreover those nations do not have to be members of a UN nation. Compliance is mandatory by all UN nations but the reward goes to whoever is considered "responsible" no matter what their national status.

You don't have to be a rich nation to have an intelligent person with a great contribution. Nor do you need to be in the UN. Of course you don't get any money, unless you count income taxes, the person does.

Needless to say people who live in nations with 100% income tax probably aren't rushing to make great economic contributions to the rest of the world.

If this gets double-posted, my apologies, I got timed-out in the writing and it didn't appear.

It is more clause 3, subclause iii that I find vague and unsatisfying, rather than its overall relevancy or lack thereof.

3) Mandates the UNAC to award the prize based on the following criteria:

i) The work must be international in scope,
ii) It must have effects beyond the contributors' own nation(s),
iii) The work must have the potential to improve the lives of people in all UN Member nations if implemented.

What exactly does "improve the lives of people in all UN Member nations if implemented." mean? By whose definition? Decided by whom? UNAC one supposes, but with the criteria so vague, it could be awarded to anyone for almost anything. What sort of "improvements"? How can ONE economic policy improve EVERY UN nation? Oh yes, potential . So, even if in actuality it does f*ck all for many nations, or is totally unworkable for many, we have the glib "potential" there as a catch-all phrase.

If there was some mention of narrowing the disparity in wealth between poorer and richer nations or something of a similar ilk in subclause iii, Minyos would wholeheartedly support this proposal. However, this seems like an economist's backslapping prize, and not something that will either have any impact on UN nations or NS play, so Minyos and the International Communist Union say "Nay".

However, it looks like it is going to pass, for whatever good it does. Repeal in three months I say, just cluttering up the books with irrelevancies.

Iain. (Minyos - International Communist Union UN Delegate, ICU Defense and Foreign Minister, WLWA [World Left Wing Alliance] Global Moderator.)

The nation of Aduross formally states its opposition to this proposal for several reasons already described by numerous persons before me. Repeating them would just be redundant, and if there's one thing the fine citizens of Aduross hate, it's redundancy.

Perhaps if it were a committee that distributed several prizes for several different sciences and practices to be decided at their own discretion, I might be more willing to invest some thought into this, but even then the UN's involvement in the formation of such a committee seems hardly essential. I'm almost entirely certain that's a run-on sentence.

Regardless of my opinion though, it seems this will pass. I wonder what kind of "prizes" we can expect in the future? All I can say is, our phrenologists look forward to it.

What a dispiriting exercise this is. You have reduced this body to a self-important talking shop*. I wash my hands of this farcical waste of time.

Benedictions,

* ooc: let's take the "but it's already a self-important talking shop" comments as read, yes?

*snip*

I could waste time pulling apart your argument, or I could just summarize my opposition in a single "WTF?"

I didn't say Economics is inferior. I did not say that it is less worthy. I did not say that I have no value in the study of economics. Read my argument before you start criticizing it. Half the time you're agreeing with me and half the time you're using a straw man.

Ahh, but we forget that is part of his inestimable charm. He takes a perfectly valid and logical argument by Forgottenlands and ties himself into knots trying to refute an irrefutable argument.

He even admits it himself. Economics is equal to other fields of study. By this admission he only strengthens Forgottenlands argument.

He goes on in his typical fashion to either attempt his usal brand of ad hominem attacks, erect his usual strawman, or prattle on fatuously about hubris, when indeed the author he was trying to emasculate was already advocating all disciplines be treated equally including economics.

I would not so modestly suggest that the only person engaging in hubris is Allech-Atreus.

I would not be concerned with his bombastic, vainglorious attempts to prop up his already overweening sense of self-importance.

My compliments to Forgottenlands for a well thought out argument, but I fear it is far too late.

Lynniston

this is outrageous. not only for the reasons above, but because (while economics is important) the judging committee will surly have a bias on one economics system over another, and prizes will only be awarded to people in support of that economic system.

Human behavior is economic behavior.
*snip the rest*

And war is peace, freedom is slavery, and so on.

Good sir, I strongly recommend that you not try to use a crosswalk anytime soon, as I fear you may also try to tell us that black is white.

Actually, I'm bored and I don't believe I've ever had an opportunity to rip up one of your arguments, FL style

There are 3 things I would like to do here

1) Explain in small words what I was actually saying. The small part I think I may fail miserably at, but the explain part, I hope, you will be able to get
2) Show you where and how your comments make no sense relative to what I said
3) Shoot down some of the incorrect or disagreeable arguments you've made.

To start off:

Economy at the sacrifice and ignorance of other aspects of society is no greater for a society and her people than to forget the economy entirely, for the society fails to benefit from such an endeavor. Economics may be the most important field to remember, but it is not the most important field to study.

Translation: One cannot SOLELY focus upon the economic field, for it isn't the most important to the success of a society. I note that it is a field, that if neglected, will be the most DISASTROUS for your society (and, in a sense, I am saying it is a VERY important field). I also say that benefits in economics does not, necessarily, benefit society. Going back, I realize one of my greatest failings was not explaining what I meant by society, so perhaps I should clarify now.

Society is the people as a whole of a nation - and with 95% of it back in the Industrialization Age being the Working, Poor, or Slaves, this ultimately means that they are, by far, the greatest influence on the measure of what is societal beneficiaries. Considering these people were shoved off their land, forced into the city to work for little money and even less dignity, living amongst the smog filled streets, their children and wives being required to work equally backbreaking labor, and for amazingly long hours with not much evidence of improvement to their Standard of Life, their Health/Life Expectancy (in fact, there are certainly a few stats that say these fields diminished) and their ability to support their family, I would say that these people DID NOT benefit. We could also go into the various Psychological discussions and such, but being a rather logical thinker myself, I have never been able to sympathize with them.

Moving on

Human behavior is economic behavior.

I would be curious how you prove that and its rather odd that you would start off that way, but alas, my curiousness is nowhere near my curiousness as to why you would start out that way. It's almost as if you think I'm violating this claim by saying that the EFFECT upon society is in disagreement with a claim about the CAUSE of economic development. Intriguing at best.

But remember that economics does not concern itself with the "why,"

Problem: Economics doesn't concern itself with the why because it assumes that everyone is a money-grubbing, self-serving individual who looks out for #1. Well, ok, perhaps not that extreme, but it certainly goes along the line of "we don't need to worry about the why because they why is the almighty dollar". I believe I made that comment earlier.

but rather the "what"- the why is left to social scientists and commentators.

And those who deal with all aspects.

Now again, I ask you this, what are you going on about? Yes, Economics focuses more closely at the what (despite what you think, the major Economists of history did spend a bit of time looking at the why - yes, in some cases it might be a footnote, but they certainly did look at why - why they should do this, why there is a problem, why it is a problem, etc, etc, etc), but how is that related to what I said? I didn't comment on what Economics looks at, merely that it, alone, does not complete a puzzle of how best to improve societies. As you can imagine, a topic that deals solely with they "what" while trying to ignore the "why" certainly fails to complete the puzzle.

But then again, you agreed with that very premise...

Economics is equal to other studies, because it is concerned with human behavior. To say that one discipline is superior to another is to foster discontent and argument.

Indeed, which is why I oppose this very resolution. Thank you for supporting my outburst.

By this point, I was mostly baffled. You had made a rather confusing comment, and having never debated with you, I was unsure about what position you were taking. Why would you reply by splitting my post up so much and so extensively if you were just going to agree with it. Thankfully, you were more clear about your own beliefs (though NOT your position on the resolution in question or the actual content of my post) in the next section.

The advances that came about during the boom of the Industrialization age were from the same source as the economic explosion that fueled the industrialization period, not because of the boom. The world had access to methods and materials that enabled them to do things they had never before been able to do - whether it be greater precision, greater strength, or greater production levels. Equally, the inequality in that era was tremendous, the gap between the rich and the poor widening and not shrinking until the era of the Production line, about a century later. Instead of prospering from such advances, society was punished under them and the rewards were not reaped by her people until much later. Just as opening the door into a room never seen before ignites a flurry of exploration, opening the door into a new area of study enabled us to discover so much more, just as the microchip would open up its own area of exploration still not mastered by man.

In here, I would be refuting an argument made claiming that scientific advancement is directly tied to one's economic might. This is not true - well, not entirely. Certainly, a failed economy cannot contribute funds to science, but science is not completely reliant upon the economy to prosper - nor does an excellent economy guarantee that there will be scientific advancement.

I do dawdle a bit into the gap between the rich and the poor and the suffering of the poor under the rich, but that isn't exactly the point, nor did you really argue that way yourself. On to your own content

Human economic history is a timeline of development.

So is scientific, social, cultural, religious, etc, etc, etc, history. Hell, history is a timeline of development. I still don't remotely have a clue what you're blabbering about here.

Periods of extreme discontent give way to periods of extreme happiness.

As does the collapse of one major Empire lead to a dark age for her resulting sub-states. That said, extreme discontent does not, necessarily, result in extreme happiness nor does extreme happiness mean that extreme discontent is acceptable. Failure to act - by the very least, on the part of the populace - will mean an inevitability of the extreme discontent remaining. Am I saying Intervention on the part of the Government is necessary? No. Does it help? Absolutely. Some of the largest Economic Depressions are notable for the fact that the Governments that made the widest changes to how they governed were the ones that recovered the fastest while those that said "just keep on going as we're going" did not recover for a long time.

Personally, however, I think there is a second hand being played here. When I look at the modern world, with the claim that those who are going on about an Economic upturn, but I don't look at JUST the GDP. I look at other factors, such as the sustainability of such an economy (and when some of them have gigantic Trade Deficits, I can't help but think it's not great in the long term), the average person's income (dropping), the average person's Standard of Life (dropping), etc, etc, etc. I look at it and I don't believe that this is a marker of a good society, one that is prosperous.

That is the universal truth- that good and bad things give way to each other.

Yes, and one society's fall can be the rise of another.

The flurry of modern development will, in its time, give way to regressive depression, only to rise again.

At what cost, and even more importantly, will the rise be in the same place? You use Laissez-faire Economics as if it were your God, but some of the greatest benefits to SOCIETY (not the economy) have come when Laissez-faire economics was abandoned in favor of many other theories - Economic and otherwise.

By the way, at this point, you still have yet to fire a single shot at a single argument in my entire speech. In fact, by this point, you are making an excellent essay on the theories of Capitalism and Laissez-faire economics, but have done nothing to combat my comments about societal beneficiaries, the promotion of Economics at the exclusion of other fields, and historical analysis of the dichotomy between economic booms and societal benefits. In effect, you are falling into EXACTLY the trap I talked about at length: you have looked at the entire thing from the angle of Economics and Economics alone at the exclusion of all other aspects of society and used it as your justification that my claims are wrong.....when, in fact, you disagree with nothing I've said so far.

Which, humorously, was addressed right after your argument so that had we labeled it with names instead of sticking things in quotes, my statement would've refuted you.

Your narrow focus on the economy has left you blind to the diverse reality and the extensive set of circumstances that have led us to this new era. It was not the economic boom but the economic boom followed by worker rights being granted, followed by social programs being considered and implemented by the state, and the value of the worker, the human being, being enshrined at a level forgotten by the politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen that ran the world - likely BECAUSE they ran the world.

Translation: SOCIETY advanced and progressed because of the combined effort and improvement of the concepts of democracy, socialism, workers rights, human rights, as well as Economics and Technology. However, Economics and technology, alone, failed to improve society (as I discussed above). Oh, they improved the economy, but the economy isn't the society.

Interestingly, you seem to have actually found something to shoot at here

Of course it is fashionable to blame the politicans and the businessmen, because they owned the factories and they gave ground to the worker.

In truth, yes

Human behavior is economic behavior

And by gunning at the Politicians, the businessmen, the bureaucrats, etc, I believe I'm gunning at the HUMAN BEHAVIORS of such individuals

- if the picketing factory worker were in the shoes of the industrialist, he would have done the exact same, would he not have?

Back then? I'm not sure. You see, the entrepreneurs were mainly descendants of the already well off, the land owners of the old, while the workers were ones who had already worked in the Mill to begin with. They understood what was happening there, they understood what sort of lifestyle they lived. They understood much more. Perhaps they wouldn't improve conditions to what they are today, but they certainly wouldn't have the insanely poor conditions of back then.

However, you take modern factory workers and stick them in the shoes of back then, you would see a rather diverse change. Why? Oh right, you forgot about this line:

followed by worker rights being granted, followed by social programs being considered and implemented by the state, and the value of the worker, the human being, being enshrined at a level forgotten

It was the societal development - developments of theories and concepts of fields beyond the idea of economics itself. Some of these beliefs had never existed before and were brand new, others we had forgotten over the course of history, and others vanished because the nobility had spent so long being detached from the peasants. Today's workers have these new concepts of Sociology ingrained within their education and thus would be more willing to apply them. Certainly, some won't - more than a few of them are a part of this body - but by and large, they will.

Human behavior is variant, diverse, and expansive. Even my own claims about the impossible conditions is a blanket statement unfair to many of those who ran factories back in the day. Indeed, you have proven very little understanding of human behavior - and have completely misread my own behavior and instead applied your own filter.

Social development is a cycle of interlocking causes and effects. Myopic focus on one discipline is a failure to see the entire system, but a self-righteous declaration that one discipline is worth less than others is even worse, because it denies the contributions of all things.

I do not recall declaring that one discipline is worth less than others. However, your continual focus upon the economy with full exclusion of many other fields is rather....humorous.

So, at this point, you have attacked a single argument by excluding all the others. You have attacked textbook cases, assuming that I was neither intelligent or diverse enough to already have developed a more complex understanding of the situation. You have assumed me to be nothing greater than a simple socialist who hates economics - and in the process, proven your own simplicity. Perhaps I am expecting too much of you to think beyond the constraints of the simple, the stereotypical, and try and look at the argument itself, attack it, perhaps expand it if you need to, rather than just sitting there attacking the stereotype that is behind it.

Your next statement is, perhaps, the best.

Siding with the economy at the expense of everything only promotes the narrow view that caused such damage to the society. Forgetting fields all across the board that are equally important to a stable, expansive and productive society while continually chanting "Economy, Economy, Economy" leads one not to a growing economy that will forever build a society and make her the greatest in the world, but will result chaos, in depression, in suffering, and - if no rethinking of one's position is taken - possibly to her eventual demise.

The demise of all societies is a constant, the eternally fluctuating state of nature. It is the way things are.

In the Capitalist - and arguably, Economic - fields alone. A demise of a society is not an inevitability. The weakening, certainly, a changing, absolutely, but not her collapse. (OOC: Anyone who thinks otherwise: look at China)

I have seen no soapboxes where suited capitalists proclaim to this assembly the virtues of economic study to the detriment of all others,

Oh, but you have. In fact, had you BOTHERED reading my post, you would've realized that it was sitting right in front of your nose.

Without an economy, you can't support cultural or educational creations medicine stagnates and social services cannot be provided. An economy, a successful economy, provides the opportunity to do all those things. If you consider them important, then the economy is THE most important thing. It is no coincidence that the greatest medical advances have come during the period of massive economic growth and prosperity.

It was to this that I responded, and it was to this that I gunned at. This was not a random soap box being plotted down, this was a rebuttle (and yes, it was a rebuttle, for that post, in turn, quoted my own which I later admitted was made unnecessarily as an overreaction to the vote without having paid attention to the debate at hand)

but I have seen the self-righteous beat their breasts and shout that want of money is the root of all evil.

I do not recall saying that either. I said that the almighty dollar has become over important at the expense of forgetting the many things that are equally important. It is amazing how you can so completely misjudge my statement

So by this point, you have made a partial argument, agreed with my position once, attacked a strawman several times, and plain out proven that you have no clue what is going on here nor that you are actually reading that happenings of the UN forum. At least I admitted it.

It astounds me how little Economists are aware of their own history, the history of the many booms, the many changes to society, the change in thought, and the change in structure - and what sort of adverse effect they had upon the societies and the world in which they occurred.

So here, at the end of our long walk through my post, we find that I made a comment on the ignorance of many Economists. Again, I point out that I discussed, in great detail, how many fields and reasons aside from economics fueled many changes and advances in our world - in effect, I was directly contradicting the final claim in the quoted post - the claim that Technological development and Economic Development were inherently linked. To some degree, though, I was also summarizing my points and noting how many people overlook what was required for Societal benefits to be achieved aside from the economic boom. So how do you reply?

It astounds me the hubris of the self-righteous,

I won't deny that I'm a bit self-righteous and quite opinionated, but interesting that you responded to my closing on the attack

secure in the towers, ignoring the contributions and harms of all disciplines.

Again, you fully misinterpret what I said.

It astounds me how little one could value the study of the economic world, when they trumpet the value of others. All things are in balance; the evil caused is equal to the good.

Again, you agree with me but say that I have no value in the economic field. Interesting when I even began my entire speech by saying that the Economic field is the most important to NOT forget.

Our vote remains opposed, but we condemn this outburst with all of our voice. Our reasons for opposition are not for dislike of economic study, but for the most important reasons- necessity.

Most courteously.

I guess if you don't like straw men, there is plenty of reason to condemn their existance, but I'm sure that the various Genocide resolutions would take issue with it. After all, you leveled only one argument against me.

It's over, folks. Time to drop the debate. There's no point in it anymore.

However, I'm torn here now. Do I proceed to draft a repeal, or do I start organising a flood of prize proposals to demonstrate how stupid this proposal's passage was?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

blah blah blah personal attacks blah

Uhhh... was an in-character post from a national ambassador with a penchant for oration. Nice job.

*snip*

You mean it isn't?

*snip*

You are under the impression that I care about what you say.

Debate over.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must've mistaken you for someone who is trying to be respectable and a contributing member to this body, not a mouth on a stick blabbering about something pointless

It's over, folks. Time to drop the debate. There's no point in it anymore.

Says who there was a point? I was bored.

Says who there was a point? I was bored.

And apparently still are.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*exceedingly long post*

I ran that post through Word...
8 Letter-size pages
3,231 words
15,203 characters without spaces
91 paragraphs
301 lines

This is an example of the sort of post I don't take the time to read. It's just too much.

Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Representative
"Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why it's wrong."

However, I'm torn here now. Do I proceed to draft a repeal, or do I start organising a flood of prize proposals to demonstrate how stupid this proposal's passage was?


Oh, the latter would be a lot more amusing. When you've finished with phrenology, may I suggest the study of glass-blowing?


Christelle Zyryanov,
etc...

I ran that post through Word...
8 Letter-size pages
3,231 words
15,203 characters without spaces
91 paragraphs
301 lines

This is an example of the sort of post I don't take the time to read. It's just too much.

Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Representative
"Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why it's wrong."

8 pages? Only? I'm slipping.....must be all those months off.....

However, I'm torn here now. Do I proceed to draft a repeal, or do I start organising a flood of prize proposals to demonstrate how stupid this proposal's passage was?


Both. Draft the repeal and submit proposal after proposal continuously during the drafting to keep it fresh in people's minds.

You are under the impression that I care about what you say.

Debate over.

Childish. Very. Were you not interested in debating her, you should not have bothered responding to her in the first place, or making the previous comment.


This is an example of the sort of post I don't take the time to read. It's just too much.

Then skip it and don't bother responding to it. I took the time to read it. She makes some really good points. A few not quite as solid os others, but overall it's one of the best dissertations on why to oppose this unfortunately passed resolution. That there was a lot of it is hardly any reason to dismiss the argument.

It is interesting, I believe, to provide the full quote here:

"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse."

-- CEO Nwabudike Morgan,
"The Centauri Monopoly"

And right he is.

-Aram Koopman

It's over, folks. Time to drop the debate. There's no point in it anymore.

However, I'm torn here now. Do I proceed to draft a repeal, or do I start organising a flood of prize proposals to demonstrate how stupid this proposal's passage was?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Tempting though the flood is, Sheik, I humbly and graciously ask that a repeal be the course of action. I second and support a repeal already.

Oh, the latter would be a lot more amusing. When you've finished with phrenology, may I suggest the study of glass-blowing?


Christelle Zyryanov,
etc...

Aw, now don't go mocking the glass blowers! You don't want Dale Chihuly (http://www.chihuly.com/intro.html) and the Pilchuck Glass School on your ass, do you?

Huh. I thought not.

I ran that post through Word...
8 Letter-size pages
3,231 words
15,203 characters without spaces
91 paragraphs
301 lines

This is an example of the sort of post I don't take the time to read. It's just too much.

Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Representative
"Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you why it's wrong."

Then why in the world would you bother to post that you didn't read it?

Honestly, some people's kids....

Uhhh... was an in-character post from a national ambassador with a penchant for oration. Nice job.


Thank you, I meant every word.

Sheik, I think we should flood the boards with prize committee resolutions since the delegates and nations have opened that door. No...wait a minute, <sigh> nope.

I think I will write the repeal, this piece of trash is the last bloody straw. Besides, it will irritate A-A no end.


...don't have a heart attack, I mean it.

Lynniston

Tempting though the flood is, Sheik, I humbly and graciously ask that a repeal be the course of action. I second and support a repeal already.Make sure you add that it is another useless commitee in any repeal you submit.

However, I'm torn here now. Do I proceed to draft a repeal, or do I start organising a flood of prize proposals to demonstrate how stupid this proposal's passage was?

I say go for the repeal. Lots of luck though, this this is more fluffy than Happy Feet and more beloved than baseball. I would say it hasn't a chance in hell in the next six weeks, but three months from now all will be forgotten.

Don't flood with proposals. All the ones that are obvious will wind up in Silly. All the potential clever ones will get boggled down in the blahs. (Economics is, after all, all amout money and everyone wants more money.)

Now if you really want to be clever, there are some not to obvious fields that are still wonderfuly fluffy and will pass in a heartbeat. This approach might really work for alternate energy systems and be infinitely better than the old horrid attempts like hydrogen cars.

And remember, an educated consumer is our best customer!

Thank you, I meant every word.

Sheik, I think we should flood the boards with prize committee resolutions since the delegates and nations have opened that door. No...wait a minute, <sigh> nope.

I think I will write the repeal, this piece of trash is the last bloody straw. Besides, it will irritate A-A no end.


...don't have a heart attack, I mean it.

Lynniston

Schwarzchild, could you in the future make sure to address A-A's character rather than using his nation name?

Generally, referring to their nation name as a personal pronoun is taken to mean that you are talking about the player. And while attacking a character prone to rhetoric is fine, attacking the player is something that can cause a lot of trouble for you and others. I think it better all around that you not cause that sort of trouble for yourself or others. It's especially good because it doesn't leave me in the annoying position of trying to decide whether you're flaming or not.

This ain't an official warning, but do keep it in mind that making a solid distinction between your In-Character remarks and OOC remarks is a helpful habit.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Schwarzchild, could you in the future make sure to address A-A's character rather than using his nation name?

Generally, referring to their nation name as a personal pronoun is taken to mean that you are talking about the player. And while attacking a character prone to rhetoric is fine, attacking the player is something that can cause a lot of trouble for you and others. I think it better all around that you not cause that sort of trouble for yourself or others. It's especially good because it doesn't leave me in the annoying position of trying to decide whether you're flaming or not.

This ain't an official warning, but do keep it in mind that making a solid distinction between your In-Character remarks and OOC remarks is a helpful habit.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

OOC: My response is that it is common enough to be annoyed with not just the IC person, but the IC nation in character. I suppose I was just trying to be clever wanting to annoy his entire nation, but I shall watch the line in the future.

Thank you for your courtesy.

The Kingdom of Altanar is appalled that this resolution has passed, and will be more than happy to offer its aid to the multiple nations already considering drafting a repeal to this utter and complete waste of time and money.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Need I remind the Atlantarian delegation that UN Economics Prize is supported by private donations?

Need I remind the Atlantarian delegation that UN Economics Prize is supported by private donations?

Need I remind the delegate from David6 that some of us feel you and others have set a horrible precedent by elevating the study of Economics alone above all other fields as prizeworthy?

Need I further remind the delegate that private donations don't matter a brass farthing when the United Nations puts it's name on the prize? It still bears the perception that it is funded by the UN.

If the Right Honourable Gentleman had bothered asking, he would have gained support for a body that awards prizes for a variety of fields important to the world rather than for just Economics alone.

I fully expect that there is a long line of nations and delegates that will only be too happy this scrap this ill-considered resolution in the medium term future and only too happy to replace it with something that benefits the world and not just economists, CEO's and businesspeople.

I don't object to a prize in Economics being awarded, I object to the virtual deification of it and the exclusion of other praiseworthy subjects of study.

Before you even say it, I will be writing a repeal for this resolution sometime in the future in addition to the replacement resolution that will correct these ghastly inequities.

Regards,

Thomas B. Lynniston; KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

"Three cheers to pointless UN resolutions!"

David Swansea
et al.