NationStates Jolt Archive

The following was drafted on our regional board and given to the UN on a test basis. As of now, without any telegraming, posting here, or publicity, it was able to get up to 37 approvals. I'm posting it here to see if there's any improvements others might have before I give it another go with some actual effort behind it.

International Trade Currency
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Remba

Description: AWARE of the multitude of currencies existing in the world;

CONCERNED with the difficulty in negotiating multi-national trades requiring numerous currencies being exchanged;

FIRMLY BELIEVING that easing of trade difficulties will help all peoples of the world and all nations of the world;

RESPECTING the national sovereignty of member nations and their attachment to their own, native currencies;

ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;

CREATES the International Credit as the standard for all international trade;

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of creating a free market for the exchange of local national currency to the International Credit;

IN LIEU OF direct UN funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;

-ELIMINATES these fees should alternative funding be passed by the UN;

REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;

STRONGLY URGES member nations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

URGES corporations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

ALLOWS private citizens to make use of the International Credit and the World Bank;

RECOMMENDS but does not require member nations to switch to the International Credit for all intra-national exchange as well.



International Trade Currency
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Remba

Description: AWARE of the multitude of currencies existing in the world;

CONCERNED with the difficulty in negotiating multi-national trades requiring numerous currencies being exchanged;

FIRMLY BELIEVING that easing of trade difficulties will help all peoples of the world and all nations of the world;

RESPECTING the national sovereignty of member nations and their attachment to their own, native currencies;

ESTABLISHES the World Bank, to run the International Credit Appraising Committee (ICAC), which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;

CREATES the International Credit as the international standard for all international trade;

CHARGES the ICAC with the responsibility of creating a free market for the exchange of local national currency to the International Credit;

REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;

STRONGLY URGES member nations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

URGES corporations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

ALLOWS private citizens to make use of the International Credit and the World Bank;

RECOMMENDS but does not require member nations to switch to the International Credit for all intra-national exchange as well.

We approve of this idea and would like to thank the representative from Remba for bringing it forth.

A couple of notes:
CONCERNED about the difficulty in negotiating multi-national trades requiring numerous currencies being exchanged;
Would it read better to say "CONCERNED with" or "CONCERNED over"?
ESTABLISHES the World Bank, to run the International Credit Appraising Committee (ICAC), which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;
I like the idea of a World Bank and was surprised upon arriving here to find that we don't already have one. I'm wondering though about the need for the extra committee. Would the bank itself not function as a committee under the rules of the UN? In other words, couldn't you change this article to:

"ESTABLISHES the World Bank, which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;"

And then change all further references to the ICAC to just say "the World Bank"?

CREATES the International Credit as the international standard for all international trade;
This would sound better if you dropped one of the "internationals". I would suggest "CREATES the International Credit as the standard for all international trade;"

The rest appears very good to me and I look forward to being able to support this legislation.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I like the idea of a World Bank and was surprised upon arriving here to find that we don't already have one. I'm wondering though about the need for the extra committee. Would the bank itself not function as a committee under the rules of the UN? In other words, couldn't you change this article to:

"ESTABLISHES the World Bank, which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;"

And then change all further references to the ICAC to just say "the World Bank"?

That is a good point. Pick the World Bank or the ICAC. I don't think you could have a bank just to run a committee.

What Remba has is fine. There doesn't need to be an either/or. However, I think that Mr. Watts is correct when he says that it should be "Concerned with" instead of "about". It just reads better.

Other than that, you know I like this. I hope that you are going to submit it again. If you are going to telegram for it, I would willing to help.

So, why is the International Credit a good idea again? Apart from giving currency speculators something else to play with, that is?

Would it read better to say "CONCERNED with" or "CONCERNED over"?Fair enough. That's one of my grammatical hiccups.

"ESTABLISHES the World Bank, which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;"

And then change all further references to the ICAC to just say "the World Bank"?This is partially an atifact of the drafting. Originally, there was no bank, just the ICAC. I added the bank at the suggestion of a regionmate. I guess I just liked the ICAC too much to give it up.

I'm not fully sure why I'm keeping both, but it seems like I should, I guess. The bank is the physical face of the ICAC, which does all the heavy lifting. I suppose I could axe one or the other.

This would sound better if you dropped one of the "internationals". I would suggest "CREATES the International Credit as the standard for all international trade;"Hm. Yes, that does sound better. Thank you.

That is a good point. Pick the World Bank or the ICAC. I don't think you could have a bank just to run a committee.Well, sure I could, heh. The question is if I should.

If you are going to telegram for it, I would willing to help.Thank you. You're the bestest founder ever.

So, why is the International Credit a good idea again? Apart from giving currency speculators something else to play with, that is?To streamline trade. To borrow from the real world, if the US wants to trade with the UK, it has to dance around with converted dollars into pounds. With multi-partner trades, you add more and more work, more and more exchanges, and more and more people who can take a cut, driving up the price for everybody. With all international trade being done with the IC, everyone's on the same playing field. The exchange rate stuff is just a side effect of having the ICAC (or the bank) doing it's primary duties, which is maintaining a global currency. Hard to do that when you don't know how many greebles are in a skrumtat.



edit: Wow... it'll die soon, but 66 aprovals... this gives me hope.

CREATES the International Credit as the international standard for all international trade;

CHARGES the ICAC with the responsibility of creating a free market for the exchange of local national currency to the International Credit;

REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;


No. No. No.

This proposal is well written, and I commend the representative of Remba for his efforts, but these clauses would make it all but impossible for IFTA (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/IFTA) signatories to remain within the United Nations.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

these clauses would make it all but impossible for IFTA (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/IFTA) signatories to remain within the United Nations.I don't see the conflict:

Section I is a preamble and tells you that if you don't toe the line you'll be kicked out.

Section II deals with labor. Should be safe to assume that the bank and/or ICAC has acceptable hours and wages.

Section III says investment, but seems to just be a series of taxes. I don't really see a problem here either.

Section IV deals with who you can trade with. But since the bank/ICAC are UN contructs and not nations, they can loophole their way right on through.

Where's the conflict?

We have here a subject I know even less about than pollination, but here goes: is the International Credit actually a type of currency? Originally, it seemed like it wasn't, but the last line makes me think it is intended as such.

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

is the International Credit actually a type of currency? Originally, it seemed like it wasn't, but the last line makes me think it is intended as such.That was the intent, yes. Since we'd be hauled off to the clink for trying to change everyone's currency, this seemed the best way to go about doing so. ICAC and such are simply to insure that the values are proper and to prevent anyone from gaming the system.


~Lady Meribeth Collins

Hmm... Wolfgang pondered, reading the information on his PET. This wouldn't be a problem for the Commonwealth at all. They already used the "credit"; it would just be a matter of changing the rates to match. He was speaking with the Alpha Elect electronically, and the Alpha was agreeing. They'd put it to universal vote, but immediate data said yes. He stood briefly. "We wholeheartedly accept and support this concept and the current actual writing." As he sat, his PET pinged, showing him the Universal Vote in question. He tapped "support". A few minutes later, it pinged again, showing the results of querying every single Guardian over the age of three. Not unanimous, but a resounding triumph nonetheless.

[/bored IC post]

To streamline trade. To borrow from the real world, if the US wants to trade with the UK, it has to dance around with converted dollars into pounds. With multi-partner trades, you add more and more work, more and more exchanges, and more and more people who can take a cut, driving up the price for everybody. With all international trade being done with the IC, everyone's on the same playing field. The exchange rate stuff is just a side effect of having the ICAC (or the bank) doing it's primary duties, which is maintaining a global currency. Hard to do that when you don't know how many greebles are in a skrumtat.
I really can't see how the IC makes things better. Surely all it does is add one more currency to the mix, and hence one more collection of places where a cut can be taken. Sure it's got World Bank approved exchange rates that you can easily look up, but that's true of any set of exchange rates. It's not like the IC has any particular claim to stability; it's not tied to any standard at all, so it's subject to all the same economic fluctuations as any other currency on the market.

OOC: I believe the point is to provide an IC explanation for the US Dollar exchange rates on things like NSEconomy.

OOC:...which is artificial, and frankly more of a "beer standard" than anything else (i.e. it gives a feel for how much you'd pay for a pint of beer in that nation). Unfortunately when faced with the reality of currency speculation markets, such artificial comparators can explode rather messily even more easily than real currencies.

I really can't see how the IC makes things better. Surely all it does is add one more currency to the mix, and hence one more collection of places where a cut can be taken.No, not really. Everyone's using the same currency so there's less juggling going on. A three nation trade wouldn't require bouncing all over the place.

Furthermore, since the bank/ICAC would be run by "gnomes", there shouldn't be a concern about taking a cut. I suppose I could add a line about mandating exchanges being free. Perhaps:

FORBIDS charging any fees for currency exchange to a from the IC by the World Bank;

It's not like the IC has any particular claim to stability; it's not tied to any standard at all, so it's subject to all the same economic fluctuations as any other currency on the market.Most currencies have no physical backing. Their value is based on faith in the issuing agency. In this case, the issuing agency is the UN.

OOC: I believe the point is to provide an IC explanation for the US Dollar exchange rates on things like NSEconomy.Actually, no. That's an interesting side-effect though, I suppose.

"So the point is to create an easily accessible, third-party, everyone-has-equal-access-to-it-by-dealing-with-a-neutral-party currency, yes?"

Pretty much, yep.

The failure of the funding act means that this can't be free. A modest funding line will be added. However, I should be able to make it so that a future funding act will eliminate all cost.

Tweaked a little for the funding issues. I'm sure it'll tick some people off, but I agree with Koopman: such things need to fund themselves. However, keeping things to bare minimums elminates any concerns about filthy profiteering. Also, should a fund act be passed, it will trump the Bank's fees and eliminate them. I'm pretty sure such sunset clauses are legal. Similar ones have been done before.

International Trade Currency
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Remba

Description: AWARE of the multitude of currencies existing in the world;

CONCERNED with the difficulty in negotiating multi-national trades requiring numerous currencies being exchanged;

FIRMLY BELIEVING that easing of trade difficulties will help all peoples of the world and all nations of the world;

RESPECTING the national sovereignty of member nations and their attachment to their own, native currencies;

ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;

CREATES the International Credit as the standard for all international trade;

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of creating a free market for the exchange of local national currency to the International Credit;

IN LIEU OF direct UN funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;

-ELIMINATES these fees should alternative funding be passed by the UN;

REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;

STRONGLY URGES member nations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

URGES corporations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

ALLOWS private citizens to make use of the International Credit and the World Bank;

RECOMMENDS but does not require member nations to switch to the International Credit for all intra-national exchange as well.

This has been SUBMITTED (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Currency)

http://www.sloganizer.net/en/style3,International-spc-Currency.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

I'll reiterate the poverty of my understanding of economics; nonetheless, we still feel there are some problems with this proposal. For a start, it is predicated on
CONCERNED with the difficulty in negotiating multi-national trades requiring numerous currencies being exchanged;
But, why is this actually the case? So long as exchange rates are known, there's no problem. If the Bobtopian pound, Bobvillish shekel and Bobtonese dollar have a ratio of exchange of 5:3:1, then you can work out the rates. Obviously, as the number of currencies and complexity of the relative values changes, so the arithmetic becomes harder, but we're dealing with international trade: I'm sure someone will lend a calculator if needs be.
ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;
1. What does it mean to 'standardize international exchange rates'? How are they non-standard now?
2. The second part of the clause gives us considerable pause for thought. It would appear to prohibit fixed exchange rates. If that is so, there definitely needs to be some justification for so sweepingly taking away sovereign rights in fiscal policy, and in any case the language should probably make clear what 'a common free market exchange' will actually entail. Even more so if this prohibits any form of intervention to manage a floating currency.
CREATES the International Credit as the standard for all international trade;
I'll address this later, because I'm confused as to its meaning. However, what this also doesn't touch on is who will administer the IC. Yes, I know the World Bank seems to, but who sets fiscal policy? If you're establishing a monetary union, which you later incline to do, shouldn't national banks be playing some sort of role?
-ELIMINATES these fees should alternative funding be passed by the UN;
I'm not sure this bit is legal. You can't program into a proposal for it to have an effect contingent on other resolutions' effects.
STRONGLY URGES member nations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

URGES corporations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;
A corporation is a specific type of business. It would seem to make sense to urge businesses in general to use the IC for international trade. However, you earlier 'create[d]' it as the standard: so if that doesn't require people to use it, what exactly does it do?

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

The failure of the funding act means that this can't be free. A modest funding line will be added.
You could have the World Bank assess a 0.00005% per annum "users fee".

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

This has been added to the updated draft of the proposal.

IN LIEU OF direct UN funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;

-ELIMINATES these fees should alternative funding be passed by the UN;

Perhaps adding the 0.00005% per annum "users fee". to the PERMITS clause would be good, but it's a little late for that now. The proposal has been submitted.

Maybe Remba would be willing to do so if this doesn't make quorum this time around.

Lillith Cresil
UN Representative
The Torture Chamber of Lady Deathstrike

No, not really. Everyone's using the same currency so there's less juggling going on. A three nation trade wouldn't require bouncing all over the place.
In practice that's what happens anyway, without the benefit of the IC. A three nation trade is defined in terms of whichever of the three currencies (or sometimes an external one) the participants think will do best in their circumstances.

Most currencies have no physical backing. Their value is based on faith in the issuing agency. In this case, the issuing agency is the UN.
I think we've just had a rather large lack-of-faith-in-the-UN vote, sadly.

Besides, as you said that's only mostly true. The fabled RL US dollar, for instance, derives a large part of its stability from the fact that oil is priced in dollars. There are NS currencies that similarly benefit from the pricing of uranium and the like, though less so give the sheer size of the NationStates world(s).

But, why is this actually the case? So long as exchange rates are known, there's no problem. If the Bobtopian pound, Bobvillish shekel and Bobtonese dollar have a ratio of exchange of 5:3:1, then you can work out the rates.True, but it's easier to simply convert into a single currency. Also, currency exchanges are a business practice, thus raising the costs for everyone. While the Bank will charge for this service, it will only be to keep itself sufficient, as opposed to turn a profit.

Obviously, as the number of currencies and complexity of the relative values changes, so the arithmetic becomes harder, but we're dealing with international trade: I'm sure someone will lend a calculator if needs be.True, but we're also dealing with 30,000+ nations. If nothing else, this means hiring fewer accountants.

1. What does it mean to 'standardize international exchange rates'? How are they non-standard now?Everything is based off the IC, as opposed to cumbersome exchange rates between, say, the Remban coin, the QuoD whatever, and the Lady Deathstrike whatsit.

2. The second part of the clause gives us considerable pause for thought. It would appear to prohibit fixed exchange rates.It's standardizing via the use of the IC, and only mandates on the national level. Corporations can still engage in currency speculation, and can fully ignore the IC if they wish.

I'll address this later, because I'm confused as to its meaning. However, what this also doesn't touch on is who will administer the IC. Yes, I know the World Bank seems to, but who sets fiscal policy?The UN. Or, if you prefer, "the gnomes".

If you're establishing a monetary union, which you later incline to do, shouldn't national banks be playing some sort of role?They would act with the World Bank. Kind of like having a federal bank that works with regional banks.

I'm not sure this bit is legal. You can't program into a proposal for it to have an effect contingent on other resolutions' effects.It's shady, but I think it's okay. It's not prohibiting future laws, and it's not making things optional. It's basically a way of saying "If someone passes a UN Funding act, that will pay for this instead of fees". Without the sunset clause, the World Bank would continue assessing fees even if universal funding was passed.

A corporation is a specific type of business. It would seem to make sense to urge businesses in general to use the IC for international trade. However, you earlier 'create[d]' it as the standard: so if that doesn't require people to use it, what exactly does it do?It requires nations to use it. Remba, the nation, would have to use the IC when trading with QuoD. Should the Remban version of Wallmart buy 5,000 VCRs from the Kennyite version of Sony, they could use the IC or native currencies; whichever they prefered. The proposal would prefer if "Walmart" and "Sony" used the IC, but it doesn't force them to.

Likewise, if I, Maribeth, was to buy a lawnmower from you, Samantha, we could use whatever type of money we wanted, including the IC.

Perhaps adding the 0.00005% per annum "users fee". to the PERMITS clause would be good, but it's a little late for that now. The proposal has been submitted.

Maybe Remba would be willing to do so if this doesn't make quorum this time around.I would be hesitant to do that, actually. Looking at the huge amounts of money 0.00005% would generate, it seems to be far more than the World Bank would need to pay for itself.

In practice that's what happens anyway, without the benefit of the IC. A three nation trade is defined in terms of whichever of the three currencies (or sometimes an external one) the participants think will do best in their circumstances.This is standardizing that currency. Instead of digging around for the Obscuristan Florin, they can just use the IC. And since the rates are public, everyone knows what everything is worth. Transparency and all.

I think we've just had a rather large lack-of-faith-in-the-UN vote, sadly.This, I cannot argue.

Besides, as you said that's only mostly true. The fabled RL US dollar, for instance, derives a large part of its stability from the fact that oil is priced in dollars.You've put the cart before the horse. Oil is priced in dollars because of the already existing faith in the value of the US dollar, it's strong value, and the fact that the USA isn't going anywhere. Politics aside, they're an economic powerhouse, and everyone knows it. Should the mythical EU manage to actually become a superpower and surpass the USA, you just might start seeing oil priced in Euros.

There are NS currencies that similarly benefit from the pricing of uranium and the like, though less so give the sheer size of the NationStates world(s).But that's the problem. In the mythical real world, there's 200-some countries, and the USA is pretty much the de-facto superpower (again, politics aside). In NS, there's... what? 100,000 nations? Is the NS world's superpower Praetor? The Grendles? Testlandia? The delegate of one of the feeders? Scolopendra? Melkor Unchained? Automagfreek?

Omigodthekilledkenny?!

There's simply too many nations with too much power for there to be such a standard like there is in the "real" world. However, while a single nation cannot manage such a thing, the UN can. And, hopefully, the UN will.

~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

OOC: Woo... 63 approvals so far!

I would be hesitant to do that, actually. Looking at the huge amounts of money 0.00005% would generate, it seems to be far more than the World Bank would need to pay for itself.

Fair enough.


OOC: Woo... 63 approvals so far!

Yay! Has that surpassed what it got when you submitted it for a test run?

Yay! Has that surpassed what it got when you submitted it for a test run?Almost. It died with 66 or 67. Then again, it hasn't been up for 24 hours yet.

Message from the President

President Justin M. Ambrose has informed me to let you all know that should this resolution achieve quorum, we will not be voting in favor of it. Our reasons for this decision follow:

1. The creation of a single entity to arbitrarilly decide what current exchange rates should be. This can lead to the problems of overcharging, inflation, undercutting a currency of a U.N member-state who has fallen out of favor with the "World Bank", the problems could be endless with this.

2. No oversight committee on this "World Bank". Who watches them? We trust all of our money and our exchange rates to this entity, yet there is no oversight to make sure that it is handled properly.

3. Even recommending using this "International Credit" for intra-national transactions is insulting, to say the least. It should be called an "International Credit" for a reason, that it is only used internationally.

4. While understanding that the U.N needs funding for projects due to the recent defeat of the UNFA (which The Federation voted FOR), we reject the use of funding this organization by placing an arbitrary fee on each transaction, especially since such a fee is not spelled out in the resolution, leaving this "World Bank" to set it at whatever they want.

While we are not against the idea of a so-called "International Credit" in principle, we are decidedly wary of it. However, we cannot, in any way, shape, or form, place our support behind this resolution. We would like to say, however, that we respect the delegation from The Submerged Queendom of Remba for putting forth this piece of legislation.

Respectfully,
Justin M. Ambrose, President
Christopher Benson, Premeir
Benjamin J. Douglas, Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands

1. The creation of a single entity to arbitrarilly decide what current exchange rates should be...."through common free market exchange."

This can lead to the problems of overcharging, inflation, undercutting a currency of a U.N member-state who has fallen out of favor with the "World Bank", the problems could be endless with this.Except that things don't work like that. The World Bank's agenda is to do its job. There can be, and will be, no backbiting, backstabbing, or backanythings.

2. No oversight committee on this "World Bank". Who watches them?Um... the UN does?

We trust all of our money and our exchange rates to this entity, yet there is no oversight to make sure that it is handled properly.Because it cannot be mishandled. [ooc: this isn't the real world. Corruption is a non-issue in the NS UN]

3. Even recommending using this "International Credit" for intra-national transactions is insulting, to say the least. It should be called an "International Credit" for a reason, that it is only used internationally.... I really don't know how to respond to this. Allowing people to use an international currency for intra-national means is... insulting?

especially since such a fee is not spelled out in the resolution, leaving this "World Bank" to set it at whatever they want.How on earth could a fee be spelled out? People would either call it a metagaming violation, call it a real world violation, call it too low, or call it too high. Since corruption is a non-issue for the NS UN, I would rather place the messy accounting work in the hands of "the gnomes".

~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

M'lady, I think you missed the main crux of my point. You seem to base your argument around that this is not the real world and that corruption does not play any part in the NS UN. Our nation has been here for only one resolution so far and already we have seen that corruption runs rampant throughout this organization. While this corruption has mostly been seen in its members, we cannot, in good concience, vote for a resolution that offers no oversight of a "World Bank" except for, as you put it "um... the UN does" when we have just witnessed the resounding defeat of a perfectly good resolution through the corruption of this organization's members.

Also, regardless of whether this UN follows the example of the RL UN or not, funds can still be mishandled. Servers crash, coding mistakes are made, things happen. And with no oversight, they happen and can be swept under the rug.

I am amazed that you cannot see how asking people to use an "International Credit" for transactions made inside of their own nation could possibly be insulting. Our citizens have used our own credit for many, many years, and are perfectly fine with it, and do not wish to switch to any other type of monetary unit. This includes our corporations who do business with other nations around the world.

It is our belief, and we could be wrong, that your delegation did not wish to place a monetary fee in the resolution because that would have increased the chances of it being shot down. If this is true, it is an underhanded, dirty, dare we say, corrupt trick. "Leaving it to the gnomes" is not an acceptable excuse in this case. Without a fee spelled out in the resolution (0.000005% of every transaction is reasonable to us) we will not, no matter what the circumstances, be voting in favor of it.

This declaration is not a personal attack on yourself, m'lady, your delegation, or your nation as a whole. It is an attack on the resolution itself, which we see as flawed and will not be supporting.

Respectfully,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

Our nation has been here for only one resolution so far and already we have seen that corruption runs rampant throughout this organization.Where is this corruption?

we have just witnessed the resounding defeat of a perfectly good resolution through the corruption of this organization's members.Corruption is not the same as idiocy. There was nothing corrupt about that vote.

Also, regardless of whether this UN follows the example of the RL UN or not, funds can still be mishandled. Servers crash, coding mistakes are made, things happen. And with no oversight, they happen and can be swept under the rug.[ooc: Again, no it doesn't. Not here.]

I am amazed that you cannot see how asking people to use an "International Credit" for transactions made inside of their own nation could possibly be insulting.It seems that, along with 'corruption', you use different and unique definitions for other words.

"Hey, want to use this other type of currency?"
"Fuck you! How dare you insult me, sir! I demand satisfaction! Cannons at dawn!"

Our citizens have used our own credit for many, many years, and are perfectly fine with it, and do not wish to switch to any other type of monetary unit.Then don't. Or is your definition of optional likewise unique?

It is our belief, and we could be wrong, that your delegation did not wish to place a monetary fee in the resolution because that would have increased the chances of it being shot down.No, we didn't want to put a fee because we wanted the transaction to be free, making it superior to existing methods. However, we are not irresponisble enough to expect funds to magically appear from the sky.

If this is true, it is an underhanded, dirty, dare we say, corrupt trick.Good thing it isn't, huh?

"Leaving it to the gnomes" is not an acceptable excuse in this case.No, it's perfectly acceptable. "The gnomes" have no loyalty save to the UN. They don't care about profit or punishing nations.

Without a fee spelled out in the resolution (0.000005% of every transaction is reasonable to us)For many things, that amount would be less than a nation's smallest denomination. For others, it would be far more than is necessary. The process of converting 100 kopins to 87.50 IC is no different than converting 10000 kopins to 8750 IC. There is no need for the later to cost 100 times as much.

Especially since any excess would have no use as the World Bank is not authorized to spend money on anything other than keeping itself running.

~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

We hope this resolution will pass for it seems a simple and efficient way to boost international trade by reducing difficulties.

True, but it's easier to simply convert into a single currency.
Yes, it is. Which is what already happens. In any currency transaction, one common base of reference is used. Because you haven't demonstrated why the IC would be preferable to any other, all you've done is forced there to be one extra conversion in the loop.
Also, currency exchanges are a business practice, thus raising the costs for everyone.
Well heaven forbid someone turn a profit! Just because I'm a Social Democrat doesn't mean I'm a Marxist; besides, are you now saying that this proposal prohibits all currency exchanges that don't use the IC? And so if I want to go on holiday to Omigodtheykilledkenny (I hear Paradise City is a pretty funky place) I have to change my sovereigns to ICs to tree-fiddys? Argh!
While the Bank will charge for this service, it will only be to keep itself sufficient, as opposed to turn a profit.
It would make a lot more sense to institute a Tobin tax on forex transactions, which would have the advantage of promoting stability whilst not being totally arbitrary.
True, but we're also dealing with 30,000+ nations. If nothing else, this means hiring fewer accountants.
This is where your assumption is false. We are almost certainly not dealing with 30,000+ nations. Yes, The World is a big place, but precisely because of that, it's very hard to gain a monopoly, or even a niche. Nobody needs to trade with 30,000 nations: they can probably get by with interregional trade for the most part.
Everything is based off the IC, as opposed to cumbersome exchange rates between, say, the Remban coin, the QuoD whatever, and the Lady Deathstrike whatsit.
Ok, I'm going to ask again, what does it mean? Is it, as above, that if I want to convert my sovereigns into Remban gold coins, I have to change them into International Credits first? If so, other than adding an extra layer of bureaucracy, what on earth is the value?

Furthermore, there is nothing 'cumbersome' about exchange rates. Let's say there's a sovereign:gold coin currency pair. We compare that to a sovereign:tribble pair. Where is the problem?
It's standardizing via the use of the IC, and only mandates on the national level. Corporations can still engage in currency speculation, and can fully ignore the IC if they wish.
Ok, I was talking about fixing exchange rates. It is 'only' mandating on the national level I am worried about. We may not be nuts for national sovereignty, but forcing every nation to move to a floating system with no consideration of their economic circumstances is way out. If you don't like fixed exchange rates, then don't institute them yourselves, but what on earth is the value of prohibiting them on a UN-wide scale?
The UN. Or, if you prefer, "the gnomes".
So we're handing over fiscal policy in all matters of international currency transaction to a wholly unaccountable body, and have no means of discerning what policies they will institute will be?

Completely and utterly opposed. Can you not see how dangerous this is???
They would act with the World Bank. Kind of like having a federal bank that works with regional banks.
You've made no provision for this within the proposal, so I can't see how the system you've just outlined can be the case. Again, it would appear, all policy is devolved unaccountably. We can't accept that.
It's shady, but I think it's okay. It's not prohibiting future laws, and it's not making things optional. It's basically a way of saying "If someone passes a UN Funding act, that will pay for this instead of fees". Without the sunset clause, the World Bank would continue assessing fees even if universal funding was passed.
Yes, I agree: and I think sunset clauses are illegal. You can't have your resolution's effects change at some later point: it bears no correlation to the mechanics of category.

I think this may all be a matter of misunderstanding. You continually say that the existence of exchange rates is 'cumbersome' and 'unnecessary'. Could you outline how?

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Based on the drafting (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60), some further concerns:
- you state (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10720669) that you will simply assume the UN will 'use its magical powahz' to determine exchange rates, and given your proposal has 2,200 characters to spare, fearing that explaining how the economics will actually work will simply be 'a big block of text' seems odd: you have room for a big block of text;
- you then admit (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10730440) the sole purpose (other than simply meeting the 'challenge') is to add an extra level of bureaucracy;
- once again, we are told (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10815171) the vagueness is deliberate, and will be resolved by the magical powers of the committee; I'm going to take a wild guess here: do you actually know what exchange rates are?
- we begin to see the reason why (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10859234) the proposal is so unclear;
- the bank, which has total and unaccountable control over all international monetary policy, is an afterthought (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10881663);
- at least you admit (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10898152) it is not sovereignty friendly (though not the extent of that).

And what it comes down to: I'm not looking for you to overcome (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10931199) my objections: I'm looking for you to try to listen to constructive advice and continue drafting this proposal, rather than hastily rushing it to quorum (eight approvals shy, last time I checked). We like the idea; we loathe the implementation. And we're not entirely sure you've understood everything your proposal does.

-- Samantha Benson

“Ladies and gentlemen, I rise to support this fine, well written, and important resolution proposal. I also rise because I think I’ve been indirectly insulted.”

“Ms. Benson, if you take the time to read the proposal you will clearly find that currency rates will not be determined by ‘magical powahz’ of the UN. It will instead be determined ‘through common free market exchange.’ You know, real people, real traders, using the power of the free market to determine the proper value of currency. Neither UN nor national bureaucrat will set these rates, but the free market itself; the very free market that needs those rates in order to function!”

“This brilliant method, (and not because I was the one who suggest this during the initial drafting phase) gives power to the free market. I am shocked by your suggestion that somehow nations would prefer a government controlled fixed exchange rate. One would almost get the impression that you would also wish to go back to the dark ages of the gold standard, and economically crippling tariffs and taxes.”

“Therefore, I applaud the efforts by Lady Meribeth Collins to bring this wonderful resolution to the attention of the UN. I urge support for this fine resolution by the delegates and look forward to the day when we can debate this as a resolution up for vote on the floor of this fine august body.”

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/WerepenguinsBanner2.gif

I apologise if you feel indirectly insulted, as I was trying to directly insult you.
Ms. Benson, if you take the time to read the proposal you will clearly find that currency rates will not be determined by ‘magical powahz’ of the UN. It will instead be determined ‘through common free market exchange.’ You know, real people, real traders, using the power of the free market to determine the proper value of currency. Neither UN nor national bureaucrat will set these rates, but the free market itself; the very free market that needs those rates in order to function!
That's lovely, but it's not how the vast majority of exchange rate regimes are determined at the moment. Many countries have fixed currencies - so those supporting this one are presumably putting aside any reasonable support for sovereignty on any future whatsoever - and even those that allow floating exchange rates generally allow their central banks to intervene sometimes. This proposal totally removes the ability of nations to make such corrections, and it is patent nonsense to bloviate about the free market whilst supporting a proposal that makes no allowance whatsoever for what happens in case of a market failure.
This brilliant method, (and not because I was the one who suggest this during the initial drafting phase) gives power to the free market. I am shocked by your suggestion that somehow nations would prefer a government controlled fixed exchange rate. One would almost get the impression that you would also wish to go back to the dark ages of the gold standard, and economically crippling tariffs and taxes.
Well, one would be wrong. Pegging a currency can promote economic stability in times of financial crisis.

-- Samantha Benson

The delegation from Ambrose-Douglas would like thank Ms. Benson and the delegation from the Quintessence of Dust for showing the problems with this piece of legislation, instead of simply falling in with the rest of the flock. We hope this resolution makes it to quorum so that it can be shot down.

And to Lady Collins and her delegation, we saw corruption from this very U.N when a member of the U.N Building Mgt team came in and began threatening those who did not vote for the UNFA with rent payments on their offices. Threatening delegates to get votes? I am sorry, but for an organization that is "not corrupt" and "those sort of things don't happen here", that seems awfully corrupt to me.

Also, it seems to everyone in my delegation that you place a little too much faith in this body we call the NSUN. Saying that things could never happen? Never is a very strong word, Lady Collins, and should be treated with care. A NSUN server has never crashed? A coding mistake has never happened? I highly doubt that. But, even if they haven't, what guarentee do you have that they will never happen in the future?

Finally, I sugguest that you read what you are responding to before you respond to it. I said that asking people to use a different currency for intra-national exchanges was insulting. Why? Because it implies that your currency is better than theirs. And no, our response won't be "fuck you" as you so un-eloquently put it, but we will instead refuse, urge our allies to refuse, and let all other nations know that if they wish to do business in our nation, they will have to use the Ambrosian credit.

I do not use "unique" difinitions of words, I believe you simply do not wish to see any criticism of your precious resolution.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foriegn Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

P.S. Also, to the delegation from Retired WerePenguins, I have only two words for you... "Grow up". Attacking a resolution we see as flawed is not in any way an attack on the framers or the writers of such a resolution. This, however, is a personal attack. I sugguest you learn the difference.

Quorum reached.

Congratulations Lady Meribeth.


Lillith Cresil
UN Observer
The Torture Chamber of Lady Deathstrike

This is standardizing that currency. Instead of digging around for the Obscuristan Florin, they can just use the IC. And since the rates are public, everyone knows what everything is worth. Transparency and all.
But the rates used (in this context) are always public, they can't be anything else. I don't see how transparency is any better served here.

If the Obscuristan Florin is a better fit to a particular transaction than the IC (because, say, the nation doing the paying happens to have a decent pile of them, and the receiving nation has a use for them elsewhere), the participants would still have to use the IC. That's a set of transactions that didn't previously have to happen, that have an obvious cost in time and trouble which someone, somewhere will have to pay for. That can't be right.

You've put the cart before the horse. Oil is priced in dollars because of the already existing faith in the value of the US dollar, it's strong value, and the fact that the USA isn't going anywhere. Politics aside, they're an economic powerhouse, and everyone knows it. Should the mythical EU manage to actually become a superpower and surpass the USA, you just might start seeing oil priced in Euros.
Respectfully, no I haven't. Politics aside, oil was priced in US dollars largely because of historical accident, reasonably enough. It continues because switching away from the dollar now would be a major act of economic warfare -- in fact one of the more effective threats that Iran has used against the USA has been to talk about pricing its oil in Euros. Decoupling from the oil standard right now would be disasterous for the dollar, unlikely as it is to happen.

But enough fairy tales.

There's simply too many nations with too much power for there to be such a standard like there is in the "real" world. However, while a single nation cannot manage such a thing, the UN can. And, hopefully, the UN will.
But I still don't accept that the UN should. There doesn't seem to be any value in doing it.

By the way, should I take it from the lack of activity on the part of the Secretariat that the particular type of sunset clause in this proposal is considered acceptable?

I understand that it's too late to repair this problem, and I'm sorry not to have noticed it earlier, but there is a grammatical error in the construction of your proposal.

You have clauses beginning:

AWARE
CONCERNED
FIRMLY BELIEVING
RESPECTING

in your preamble, then:

ESTABLISHES
CREATES
CHARGES
-PERMITS
-ELIMINATES
REQUIRES
STRONGLY URGES
URGES
ALLOWS
RECOMMENDS

for your operative clauses. But you never specify who is doing these things. Shouldn't there have been a "The General Assembly of the United Nations" or just "The United Nations" in there somewhere? At the beginning of the text perhaps or maybe between the RESPECTING and ESTABLISHES clauses?

It makes for a confusing read because it never specifies who is doing the respecting, establishing, allowing, etc.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

given your proposal has 2,200 characters to spare, fearing that explaining how the economics will actually work will simply be 'a big block of text' seems odd: you have room for a big block of text;Yes, because people like to read big blocks of text. In fact, isn't there a UN card specifically to bitch about big blocks of text?

I'm going to take a wild guess here: do you actually know what exchange rates are?Coming from the representative who started this exchange by saying this was the one subject you possibly knew the least about...

- the bank, which has total and unaccountable control over all international monetary policy, is an afterthought (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10881663)Yes. I took advise from a region mate. What a terrible ambassador I am.

- at least you admit (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10898152) it is not sovereignty friendly (though not the extent of that).Did I ever claim it was? Did I join the NatSov org when I wasn't looking?

And we're not entirely sure you've understood everything your proposal does.I do. And I think your concerns are overstated.

And to Lady Collins and her delegation, we saw corruption from this very U.N when a member of the U.N Building Mgt team came in and began threatening those who did not vote for the UNFA with rent payments on their offices.Oh. You take them seriously?

Interesting.

Threatening delegates to get votes? I am sorry, but for an organization that is "not corrupt" and "those sort of things don't happen here", that seems awfully corrupt to me.It sure passed that bill, too. Yep.

Saying that things could never happen? Never is a very strong word[ooc: You do know that OOC means "out of character", right?]

Why? Because it implies that your currency is better than theirs.No, it implies that there's an alternative.

I do not use "unique" difinitions of words, I believe you simply do not wish to see any criticism of your precious resolution.I'm sure that's it.

By the way, should I take it from the lack of activity on the part of the Secretariat that the particular type of sunset clause in this proposal is considered acceptable?Too late now. Either it was fine, or nobody noticed it.

It makes for a confusing read because it never specifies who is doing the respecting, establishing, allowing, etc.Eh. I took a dangerous position and assumed that since it was a UN resolution, it was the UN doing this stuff.

Then again, considering some of the nonsense brought up in these halls, you may have a point.

~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

- - - - -
[ooc]
Well, we're up to vote now. I've added the final version to the first post, and, sadly, off I go. I won't be around the first day of voting as I'll be away from any sort of internet connection. I didn't think this would hit the floor as quickly as it did.

Careful people this is not about helping trade between nations this proposal is all about control, control of the many by the few. The Free Market is a misnomer if ever there was one. It only benefits the large corporations and capitalist aggressors. The small struggling countries will all be swept away by monopolies and global conglomerates, who's increased ability to put pressure on the less economically minded will destroy culture and a countries heritage all in the name of progress.
Think local and vote global
Say no to this proposal

The use of IC for trade would cause de-stableisation of all other currency as they would be used only for internal affairs and trade unless the country switched it's main currency.
Many small UN countries like my own will feel the effects of this for many years, they are likley to have economical collapse which in turn would lead to a loss of trade and effect the large counties aswell.
So in a sense the UN is saying, "Use our currency or your screwed". I find this unacceptable and is not in keeping of the way the UN is supposed to be run.

Also if this goes through we countries must then trust the UN with looking after our money. I don't think this would be uch a good idea as there is always a chance the UN and the World Bank itself could fall apart and then were would that leave us all?

At this moment the goverment of Ugerland are abstaining to vote until these issues have been resolved or fully discused.

Could someone for please clarify something for me before I decide which way too vote.

The benefit of having different currencies allows whoever currently controls the exchange rate to adjust for poorer or struggling nations so that their currency makes a bigger impact and hopefully help them to recover. What will happen to those nations under a single currency?

Yes, because people like to read big blocks of text. In fact, isn't there a UN card specifically to bitch about big blocks of text?
I don't give a flying fuck what people like to read. The substance of a proposal totally outweighs how prettily presented it is.
Coming from the representative who started this exchange by saying this was the one subject you possibly knew the least about...
Indeed. So, answer the question.
I do. And I think your concerns are overstated.
Ok. What would be helpful here is if you made a single reference to my actual concerns, given your reply has contained not one single mention of fiscal policy.

Since you haven't responded, I'll repeat myself:
True, but it's easier to simply convert into a single currency.
Yes, it is. Which is what already happens. In any currency transaction, one common base of reference is used. Because you haven't demonstrated why the IC would be preferable to any other, all you've done is forced there to be one extra conversion in the loop.
Also, currency exchanges are a business practice, thus raising the costs for everyone.
Well heaven forbid someone turn a profit! Just because I'm a Social Democrat doesn't mean I'm a Marxist; besides, are you now saying that this proposal prohibits all currency exchanges that don't use the IC? And so if I want to go on holiday to Omigodtheykilledkenny (I hear Paradise City is a pretty funky place) I have to change my sovereigns to ICs to tree-fiddys? Argh!
While the Bank will charge for this service, it will only be to keep itself sufficient, as opposed to turn a profit.
It would make a lot more sense to institute a Tobin tax on forex transactions, which would have the advantage of promoting stability whilst not being totally arbitrary.
True, but we're also dealing with 30,000+ nations. If nothing else, this means hiring fewer accountants.
This is where your assumption is false. We are almost certainly not dealing with 30,000+ nations. Yes, The World is a big place, but precisely because of that, it's very hard to gain a monopoly, or even a niche. Nobody needs to trade with 30,000 nations: they can probably get by with interregional trade for the most part.
Everything is based off the IC, as opposed to cumbersome exchange rates between, say, the Remban coin, the QuoD whatever, and the Lady Deathstrike whatsit.
Ok, I'm going to ask again, what does it mean? Is it, as above, that if I want to convert my sovereigns into Remban gold coins, I have to change them into International Credits first? If so, other than adding an extra layer of bureaucracy, what on earth is the value?

Furthermore, there is nothing 'cumbersome' about exchange rates. Let's say there's a sovereign:gold coin currency pair. We compare that to a sovereign:tribble pair. Where is the problem?
It's standardizing via the use of the IC, and only mandates on the national level. Corporations can still engage in currency speculation, and can fully ignore the IC if they wish.
Ok, I was talking about fixing exchange rates. It is 'only' mandating on the national level I am worried about. We may not be nuts for national sovereignty, but forcing every nation to move to a floating system with no consideration of their economic circumstances is way out. If you don't like fixed exchange rates, then don't institute them yourselves, but what on earth is the value of prohibiting them on a UN-wide scale?
The UN. Or, if you prefer, "the gnomes".
So we're handing over fiscal policy in all matters of international currency transaction to a wholly unaccountable body, and have no means of discerning what policies they will institute will be?

Completely and utterly opposed. Can you not see how dangerous this is???
They would act with the World Bank. Kind of like having a federal bank that works with regional banks.
You've made no provision for this within the proposal, so I can't see how the system you've just outlined can be the case. Again, it would appear, all policy is devolved unaccountably. We can't accept that.

I think this may all be a matter of misunderstanding. You continually say that the existence of exchange rates is 'cumbersome' and 'unnecessary'. Could you outline how?

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

What a terrible resolution, essentially it sets up a UN-backed Bureau de Change on the basis that we've all somehow struggled to exchange currencies at the moment - god knows how we manage in the real world where the UN doesn't provide this, I'm amazed anyone goes abroad on holiday as clearly there is no system to exchange currencies in real life.

The resolution then goes on to get the UN to fund the thing if something such as the UN funding act is passed, rather than charge on a per transaction basis. Surely your use of the exchange should dictate how much you pay to use it?

Finally, it then wants the International Credit to be used in all transactions, so if I want to buy goods from Remba I go down to the world bank, change my Bottle Caps into International Credits - for a fee - and pay Remba. He then has to go down to the World Bank, change his International credits into Gold Coins - for a fee - so he can make use of the money has had received. The way things work now I'd go down to the currency exchange, which I'd guess quotes the same exchange rates as all other currency exchanges as that is the way the free market works, change my Bottle Caps into Gold Coins - for a fee - and pay Remba. So this resolution doubles transaction fees and duplicates existing markets that work fine.

So in the simple, end-user sense it is useless and I've not even got onto the technical economic aspects as to how exactly the IC is calculated, the effect on fixed exchange rates, pegged exchange rates and so on.

AGAINST

New Anonia hereby announces that it couldn't care less about this proposal. ABSTAIN, or something of the sort.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

I really can't see how the IC makes things better. Surely all it does is add one more currency to the mix, and hence one more collection of places where a cut can be taken.No, not really. Everyone's using the same currency so there's less juggling going on. A three nation trade wouldn't require bouncing all over the place.

Furthermore, since the bank/ICAC would be run by "gnomes", there shouldn't be a concern about taking a cut.

What? This is disingenuous at the least and flat-out forktongued at worst. Not only have you not eliminated 'concern about cuts', you have actually legislated in an additional cut in the very text of the proposal!

-PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;

So instead of:

Manthian 9mm to Vetalian solaris (fee to money changer).

It is:

Manthian 9mm to International Credit (fee to World Bank/money changer) to Vetalian Solaris (fee to World Bank/money changer)

It's both more bureaucratic and more expensive.

The way to cut down on bureaucracy would be to standardise national currencies. So instead of Manth using the 9mm and Vetalia using the Solaris, we would both use the Solaris for everything. This would cut down on bureaucracy.

What this does is completely different. Rather than cutting down on the number of exchanges, it increases them, by mandating that international trades be made in a currency different from the domestic currency of EITHER nation. More exchanges, more red tape, more expenses. This will hurt free trade, not help it.

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

And to Lady Collins and her delegation, we saw corruption from this very U.N when a member of the U.N Building Mgt team came in and began threatening those who did not vote for the UNFA with rent payments on their offices. Threatening delegates to get votes? I am sorry, but for an organization that is "not corrupt" and "those sort of things don't happen here", that seems awfully corrupt to me.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foriegn Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

Gah, how many times do we have to explain it to you people, we're not part of the UN, we just run the building.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

OOC: I'd also like to point out that this nation is seen by most people for what it is, a joke. Now why haven't you figured that out yet?

Gah, how many times do we have to explain it to you people, we're not part of the UN, we just run the building.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

OOC: I'd also like to point out that this nation is seen by most people for what it is, a joke. Now why haven't you figured that out yet?

You run the building that the UN runs out of. You threaten rent on those who do not vote yes for the UNFA. By directly interfering with UN politics, you have made yourself a de facto member, whether or not you vote or not.

By the way, our delegation is proud to announce that we have voted AGAINST this flawed and ridiculous piece of legislation.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

OOC: Well, the first part could be that I'm new here. Maybe you should make that more clear before you go around threatening people. Not that it changed my vote any, I still voted yes.

Oh, and as an OOC to that bitch Remba, yes, I know what OOC means you fucker. My point was still relevent to IC as well, which is why I put it there. Stop being such a little bitch because people don't like your proposal, try writing a better one next time.

Oh, and as an OOC to that bitch Remba, yes, I know what OOC means you fucker. My point was still relevent to IC as well, which is why I put it there. Stop being such a little bitch because people don't like your proposal, try writing a better one next time.


A friendly suggestion. Tone it down. Speaking to people in this manner is generally frowned upon, whether you think it's warranted or not. Again, just a friendly suggestion.

Oh, and as an OOC to that bitch Remba, yes, I know what OOC means you fucker. My point was still relevent to IC as well, which is why I put it there. Stop being such a little bitch because people don't like your proposal, try writing a better one next time.
OOC: Uh, flaming much?

I urge you all not to be a sheep and to stay with our own currencies, for example, inflation will increase, look at the facts, the belgian franc was worth
$1.43, but now as being the Euro, it is now worth 78 cents, its price has totally dropped, so for the good of all things in this world for the people still deciding please vote against, for the people who have voted for, the withdraw your vote and for people who have voted against, I thank you.
The Armed Republic Of The Grand Viceroy Bill

You have no clue what you're talking about, do you?
1) This is NS, not RL
2) This proposal does not make nations change their currencies.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Based upon the (sensible) criticisms offered so far in this discussion, the Federal Republic has cast its vote against this legislation. Bureaucratic hurdles for bureaucratic hurdles' sake is no way to run an international market.

Sammy Faisano

Considering the opinions expressed, New Anonia changes its vote to AGAINST.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

My, my, my. Remba has a great idea, if I do say so. Greater Cairo's parliament tried to submit such a proposal but was thrown out, so I think that Remba made several points in the proposal that has given it several votes for it. He certainly has MY vote!

A friendly suggestion. Tone it down. Speaking to people in this manner is generally frowned upon, whether you think it's warranted or not. Again, just a friendly suggestion.

So noted. I will restrain myself in the future. I am simply tired of her continually insulting not only my intelligence, but those who also do not support this bill.

The outburst was not warrented, and I apologize, but I will not stand for my, nor anyone else who simply does not agree with you, intelligence to be degradred.

This delegate has reviewed all the evidence for and against this resolution and has decided to vote against this resolution.

AGAINST

Having reviewed the evidence provided herein with the debate, along with numerous questions as to the operation and management of the World Bank, the people of Sapiko stand in opposition to this resolution.

AGAINST. We don't wish more bureacracy.

Plus I'm feeling mean.

-Dr. Jules Hodz

i totaly agree with this but wouldnt it have been better to add something about holding a nation accountable for past debts?

just athought

i agree with spartan lore on this 1....
but, the international trade will be a thing thatmight cuz some problems in the future... i think that if we are going to have international trade it should be with a safe and trusted country. leaving any chances of being scerwed out of money almost 0% of happening. :headbang: :mp5: the wall will fall on both sides

Having listened to the arguments presented by both sides, New Leicestershire has regrettably cast its vote against.

We feel that the legislation was rushed to a vote without giving due consideration to the suggestions offered by the delegation from Quintessence of Dust, among others. Should the legislation be defeated, we encourage the delegation from Remba to consider redrafting and resubmitting it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I am sure that the Delegation from Remba, will consider a redrafting and a resubmission. I have to agree that there was a rush in submitting it and getting it to quorum.

Since the Remban (Rembian? Rembaites?) Delegation will be absent for the first few days of the vote, I will do my best to answer any questions and deal with any concerns that our fellow ambassadors may have. At least to the best of my ability.

Lillith Cresil
UN Observer
The Torture Chamber of Lady Deathstrike

"You know, I couldn't care less about our currency. You know what it's called? The 'credit.' Therefore, Lady Collins, even should this fail, we would gladly tack an 'international' on there and adjust its value accordingly. I see no reason to not have a universal currency available. Not required. Just available."

OOC: I was going to try to say this IC, but I just can't bring myself to do it. THE NSUN IS A PERFECT BUREAUCRACY. There is no corruption. This is a necessary function of the NSUN, because that falls in the "game mechanics" side, over which we have no power whatsoever. Since we have no actual methods of combating corruption in the game, it is necessary that we assume there is none. The Gnomes will execute their orders exactly per all standing resolutions.

I repeat. Your hair's not on fire. No one's going to be gambling away your money in Vegas. No one's going to skim a little off the top. THERE IS NO CORRUPTION.

-Files through notes-

Based on what The Honorable Dr. Blade left me, I see that someone was complaining about more bureaucracy.
Didn't the UNFA create more bureaucracy as well?

-Shrugs-

Oh well. I have been instructed to wait, until the number-crunchers emerge from their Fortress of Solitude and Numerical Singularities, to see the benefit on the Isles and our region.


Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, Ph.D.
Envoy Extraordinary
Deputy Representative to the United Nations
The Federation of the Genoshan Isles

I am sure that the Delegation from Remba, will consider a redrafting and a resubmission.Not if this passes. You can't withdraw a proposal once it's at vote.

Based on what The Honorable Dr. Blade left me, I see that someone was complaining about more bureaucracy.
Didn't the UNFA create more bureaucracy as well?There's a difference between useful and wasteful bureaucracy. UNFA was the former; MRoB, and requiring people to go through an unnecessary extra level of currency exchange, is the latter.

After having read the exchanges here, I am inclined to vote AGAINST, simply because Remba doesn't seem to defend this with anything other than sarcasm and a mocking tone.

"But... you have no arguments against the proposal itself?"

The Wolf Guardians;12685575']OOC: I was going to try to say this IC, but I just can't bring myself to do it. THE NSUN IS A PERFECT BUREAUCRACY. There is no corruption. This is a necessary function of the NSUN, because that falls in the "game mechanics" side, over which we have no power whatsoever. Since we have no actual methods of combating corruption in the game, it is necessary that we assume there is none. The Gnomes will execute their orders exactly per all standing resolutions.

I repeat. Your hair's not on fire. No one's going to be gambling away your money in Vegas. No one's going to skim a little off the top. THERE IS NO CORRUPTION.Just to indulge a little off-topic, threadjacking problem I have with this argument, why would the UNFA need to set up an Oversight Board and independent audits if there is "no corruption" whatsoever? Even the "perfect," OOC, Gameplay aspect of enforcement of UN laws is not exactly perfect, otherwise there would be no system glitches and the NS servers would never crash.

The International trade currency will destroy the foundation of the economy. No country wants to be equal, because when you are equal you tend to loose your determination. United Przemyslaw states that this is strike one against the left-wing population. If John Locke was here today, he would be outraged. We are going to destroy the people; the people make up this U.N. United Przemyslaw guanrntees that it will destroy this poposal if it is pasted. We will bring this debate back to the forum, and tear it down.

Not if this passes. You can't withdraw a proposal once it's at vote.

You're right. In my haste to reply, I forgot to mention that if it fails, I'm sure that they will consider a redrafting and resubmission.

Iamloco is concerned with the costs this IC may generate. Even a very low tax (free trade is seldom achieved by taxing trade) on trade will have negative effects on the amount traded and these market distortion costs may be greater than the costs saved by creating an artificial vehicle currency. If provided with convincing evidence that the costs saved are greater then the costs generated the Commonwealth of Iamloco will surely vore for the proposal.

At the moment Iamloco will vote against. Iamloco has a strong belief in the existance of natural regional vehical currencies. (like the US is a vehicle currency today for the region 'earth', maybe it is likely that NS has several US vehicle in several regions 'earth') It also seems plausible that most trade will take place intra economic blocks in NS, and less trade will take place inter economic blocks. If each of those has it's own vehicle currency, the IC you are proposing may already exist although not in the same form.

Just to indulge a little off-topic, threadjacking problem I have with this argument, why would the UNFA need to set up an Oversight Board and independent audits if there is "no corruption" whatsoever? Even the "perfect," OOC, Gameplay aspect of enforcement of UN laws is not exactly perfect, otherwise there would be no system glitches and the NS servers would never crash.

OOC(duh): I'm not talking about the computers the game resides in, or the code behind it. I'm talking about the rules governing gameplay as it pertains to users. And, I've not seen NS crash in a very long time, nor any system glitches. As far as the rules behind the code is concerned, the bureaucracy is perfect.

As to the Oversight Board, that seemed to me an attempt to fight corruption, which raised the question (you must hear this question in the nasally, mocking voice I'm doing it) "What about corruption in teh Oversite Bored?!?!" and so on and so forth. In short, it wasn't necessary, in my opinion.

As I said somewhere else, we do not have the luxury of trying to meet every contingency, as RL governments do. We have a limit on the length of the legislation, and on the patience of the people trying to read it. In RL, there is always a way for corruption to find a way in, so they have to try to plug all the holes they can, with all kinds of checks and balances and so forth. Our legislation requires only one such check: The ability to repeal.

In shorter, it's a game. A simulation. Simulations rarely follow reality to the letter, because reality is tedious and boring and really frickin' slow. To streamline games and simulations, they alter the "world" in favor of the gamer, to make time pass more quickly or to make things easier.

And now it's time for chinese food. Excuse me. *runs*

[/massive. mildly philosophical threadjack]

I've been having a few at the Strangers' Bar, but I am not drunk enough to vote for this. Altanar is opposed.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

What in the HELL are you people thinking?! Don't touch my money! If you create a worldwide currency or any such thing then MY economy gets all F#$%ed up, it relies on how much the currency is worth in YOUR nation. What is this happy horse @#$%?

With considerable regret and a touch of embarrassment, we have to admit that our knowledge of macroeconomics is rather pitiful. All that high-faluting economics talk tends to make our eyelids droop. That means we have to fall back on possibly over-simplistic focus on what a resolution like this would mean for people.

Now, international marketing has become a commonplace in today's world, especially with the burgeoning of the Internet. Our citizens aren't limited to shopping locally anymore. They can comparison-shop for substantial purchases worldwide. So one of our citizens, Mr. Goodhammer, fires up his browser and goes shopping at sites created by vendors in nine different nations. The prices are posted in nine different local currencies, because there's no NS-wide standard currency. So Mr. Goodhammer fires up his currency converter and starts in. Now, he's not only got to consider the multiplicity of currencies, he has to think about warranties, availability, shipping costs, product features, possible changes in exchange rates, and a whole bunch of other considerations. By this time, he has a headache.

Now let's see how things would be different with this resolution in place. The nine vendors are savvy marketers. They've posted the prices and shipping costs in the local currency and the IC. Price comparisons are a snap. Mr. Goodhammer can easily figure how much the item would cost in our tollens. One speedbump on the road to satisfying his need has been removed.

We've read the arguments against this resolution in this thread. As for the business about corruption in the UN, our response was simply "show me". As for the rest, we admit to having understood about half of them. But as we see it, this resolution would simplify international trade for both vendor and prospective customers. Simplicity reduces costs. Simplicity reduces error and confusion. Simplicity increases confidence and promotes involvement.

Ausserland has voted FOR the resolution.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

But as we see it, this resolution would simplify international trade for both vendor and prospective customers.


You havn't read the arguments against if you belive this will simplify anything, It will complicate things alot more.

Having reviewed the topic and after having no reply about issues that ere brought up hours ago, I'm sorry to announce Ugerland is voting AGAINST this piece of legislation

The Peoples Republic of Wezani will vote AGAINST this resolution, and we encourage others to do so as well. Think of your own economies and how this will depreciate the value of your national currency.

We take pride in our Currency!!!!!
DO YOU????:confused:

Respectfully Yours,
Ambassador Geoffrey E. Ward

You havn't read the arguments against if you belive this will simplify anything, It will complicate things alot more.

Having reviewed the topic and after having no reply about issues that ere brought up hours ago, I'm sorry to announce Ugerland is voting AGAINST this piece of legislation

We're sure the representative of Ugerland didn't mean to imply that our Ambassador was lying. At least, we hope he didn't. She clearly stated that we had read the arguments, admitting that some of them were beyond our comprehension.

We'd be interested in knowing how the representative refutes our argument: that from the point-of-view of the international vendor and consumer, dealing with two currencies is significantly simpler, easier, and less prone to error than having to deal with five, a dozen, or a hundred, or--in the case of the vendor--potentially thousands.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I have seen but one single, lonely, almost pathetic, little argument against this that can actually pretend to carry water. That's the argument that this will create an extra step of bureaucracy in the process of currency exchanges from one nation to another.

The simple rebuttal to this, and it really is quite simple, is that this proposal does not mandate that you exchange to the IC before switching to the next currency. It simply states that you must accept and honour the exchange rates that the World Bank has listed. It lists these exchange rates using the IC as a standard, but you don't have to exchange to the IC before exchanging to the next currency. We, the nations, can still perform one step currency exchanges.

The rest of the arguments I have witnessed in this debate can, almost without exception, be summed up as ....what was that phrase?....ah yes.... alarmist pettifoggery. Much Ado About Nothing. Strawmen, if you will. There are so many people screaming on and on about what they obviously know not, many of whom need to simply step back, take a breath, put on their reading glasses, and peruse the text of the proposal. The answers to your concerns are there. If you look and cannot find anything that ever remotely suggests your concern, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you thought it was a concern in the first place.

Unless someone can come up with an incredibly convincing reason why we should change our mind, Kivisto is casting its vote in favour of International Trade Currency.

Oskar Feldstein
Kivistan Ambassador to the UN
Polishing The Master's Grassy Gnoll

The honourable representatives from Ausserland and Kivisto have convinced us. We are changing our vote to FOR.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

My appologies I phrased what I said wrongly

What I infact ment to say was:

You havn't fully read and understood the arguments against if you belive this will simplify anything, It will complicate things alot more.

The main arguments against the current Resolution at vote are as follows:


The use of a standred curency would cause the value of many other currencies to fall as they would be used less. As a result many countries will be forced to change there standered currency to the IC or face an economical collapse and even if they do change there currency they will beforced to pay a handeling fee which is unfair as they would have no other choice.


The minister from The Grand Viceroy Bill gave a RW example for this

"I urge you all not to be a sheep and to stay with our own currencies, for example, inflation will increase, look at the facts, the belgian franc was worth
$1.43, but now as being the Euro, it is now worth 78 cents, its price has totally dropped, so for the good of all things in this world for the people still deciding please vote against, for the people who have voted for, the withdraw your vote and for people who have voted against, I thank you.
The Armed Republic Of The Grand Viceroy Bill"

and secondly I quote what was said by the minister from New-Manth

"It's both more bureaucratic and more expensive.

The way to cut down on bureaucracy would be to standardise national currencies. So instead of Manth using the 9mm and Vetalia using the Solaris, we would both use the Solaris for everything. This would cut down on bureaucracy.

What this does is completely different. Rather than cutting down on the number of exchanges, it increases them, by mandating that international trades be made in a currency different from the domestic currency of EITHER nation. More exchanges, more red tape, more expenses. This will hurt free trade, not help it."


For these two main reasons I urge everyone to vote against this Resolution at Vote

The Peoples Republic of Wezani will vote AGAINST this resolution, and we encourage others to do so as well. Think of your own economies and how this will depreciate the value of your national currency.

We take pride in our Currency!!!!!
DO YOU????:confused:

Respectfully Yours,
Ambassador Geoffrey E. Ward

Alright, we hear your concern. Now, just exactly how will this depreciate the value of our currency? Please explain.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

While we would like to see international trade simplified, the few sections of the resolution do bother us:

As a nation, we would like to be in control of the value of our currency. Whether we float our currency, peg it to the Bigtopian dollar, or devalue the currency, it it should be the decision of the respective central banks. The value of the currency greatly affects a nation's economy and we would like it at the control of the nations.
ALLOWS private citizens to make use of the International Credit and the World Bank;
We are fearing that if this passes, people would rather use this supranational entity for banking purposes and this supranational currency for transactions. (Thus other banks would lose transactions; and other currencies would lose out) It is alright if the IC would just be used as a benchmark, or a standard value (just like gold in RL), but as we see in the following section, IC is meant to be produced and has the capability to replace national currencies.
RECOMMENDS but does not require member nations to switch to the International Credit for all intra-national exchange as well.

Now, if trade would be coursed in IC, national governments would probably lose a good chunk of control over their economy, as they won't probably have control over the valuation or the desirability of their currency.

And the last one:
-PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;
We deem this clause to be detrimental to trade and to national currencies. Of course, if somebody would need to pay to exchange livros to ICs, that would just add to the costs in doing trade. Thus, trade would likely shift to ICs instead, virtually guaranteeing loss of control over the economy.

All of this makes me think this clause was just added for cosmetic purposes:RESPECTING the national sovereignty of member nations and their attachment to their own, native currencies;

This resolution has good intentions we would support, however we deem objectionable the means to achieve the intentions. We would vote against the resolution, in the hopes of having a better version later.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli (http://www.ns.goobergunch.net/nationstates/index.php/Carina_Talchimio-Spicolli)
Permanent Representative of Brutland and Norden to the United Nations

The Peoples Republic of Wezani will vote AGAINST this resolution, and we encourage others to do so as well. Think of your own economies and how this will depreciate the value of your national currency.

We take pride in our Currency!!!!!
DO YOU????:confused:

Respectfully Yours,
Ambassador Geoffrey E. Ward

It's not meant to destroy your economy or national identity, it's promoting international cooperation and easier ways to transfer money and such.

Cookesland is 101% for this proposal.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

The United States of Tarsinia is completley aginst this peice of legislaton. What it is atempting to do is set up a one world curency which will lead to a one world government. And that is a scarry thought I have voted aginst this legislaton and urge all independant minded U.N. Members to do so. The vote is close but we must do everything in our power to stop this from passing. If this legislation passes the United States of Tarsinia will remove it's self from the U.N. We hope and pray that it does not come to this but we understand that it and the further relations with this country and the U.N. is in God's hands.



Respectfuly,
Mark Newcastle
U.N. Representative
From the United States
of Tarsinia

The use of an international trade curreny is a sound and wonderful idea. The Empire fully supports this endeavor.

Most courteously,

Alright, we hear your concern. Now, just exactly how will this depreciate the value of our currency? Please explain.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We fear that this "super currency" will usurp our own and in doing so will lower the value of our beloved wii. If I understand correctly it ALLOWS private citizens to make use of the International Credit and the World Bank. Why would my citizens use our currency when they could just use the global currency. It would be much easier and they would no longer have to pay fees for exchange of currency from World Bank for international trade.

This would be the end of the Wii in my Country:(, so I will vote NO!

Thank You for Listening,
Prime Minister Charles M. McCellen
The People's Republic of Wezani

The United States of Tarsinia is completley aginst this peice of legislaton. What it is atempting to do is set up a one world curency which will lead to a one world government.

It's just trying to increase free trade amongst member nations but here's something stated by The Honorable Ambassador of Kivisto:

"The rest of the arguments I have witnessed in this debate can, almost without exception, be summed up as ....what was that phrase?....ah yes.... alarmist pettifoggery. Much Ado About Nothing. Strawmen, if you will. There are so many people screaming on and on about what they obviously know not, many of whom need to simply step back, take a breath, put on their reading glasses, and peruse the text of the proposal. The answers to your concerns are there. If you look and cannot find anything that ever remotely suggests your concern, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you thought it was a concern in the first place."


The Blue Eyed Man
U.S.C Ambassador

I have seen but one single, lonely, almost pathetic, little argument against this that can actually pretend to carry water. That's the argument that this will create an extra step of bureaucracy in the process of currency exchanges from one nation to another.

I'll humor you... how about the argument, which has been brought up but which you failed to address, that this resolution will hamstring the vital ability of a government to manage its own currency, since exchange rates will be set by the World Bank with regard to market rates only, and member nations will be required to observe these rates?

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

It's not meant to destroy your economy or national identity, it's promoting international cooperation and easier ways to transfer money and such.

Cookesland is 101% for this proposal.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

It may not mean to destroy our economy or National Idenity (although it is possible). But it will certainly hurt the value of our Wii. It will also put a UN hand in the affairs of my International Trading for it REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;. and it RECOMMENDS but does not require member nations to switch to the International Credit for all intra-national exchange as well.

How does it RECOMMEND? I would hate to be strong-armed by high international tariffs if I don't fully comply.

Then it REQUIRES me to accept the rates of the World Bank
I might not agree with their rates (to high).

With Respect,
Ambassador Geoffrey E. Ward

The Grand Imperium of Risban understands the concerns of several nation-states with regards to the creation of this international currency. However, the economic benefits it will grant to trading nations and the convenience it will give to citizens traveling to foreign nations is too good a thing to ignore.

Thus, the Imperium fully supports this resolution.


Lord Justinian Fowl
United Nations Ambassador
The Grand Imperium of Risban

You run the building that the UN runs out of. You threaten rent on those who do not vote yes for the UNFA. By directly interfering with UN politics, you have made yourself a de facto member, whether or not you vote or not.Well, according to this (http://www.nationstates.net/un_building_mgmt) your claim about our membership status is wrong.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

Well, according to this (http://www.nationstates.net/un_building_mgmt) your claim about our membership status is wrong.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

Did I say that you were actually a member? No, I said you were a de facto member. The is a large and gaping difference.

However, I am not going to continue this petty argument with you and allow you to continue hijacking this thread. There are more important matters at hand, such as making sure this resolution does not pass.

Good day.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

indeed. this resolution must not pass. it will oppress us and take away our national identities.

Votes For: 1,995

Votes Against: 1,368

We're down by about 630.

"What a coincidence. We're up by about 630.

"Now, how is this going to oppress you and take away your national identities? Did the people of your nation always use the same currency. Ours did, only because we started on the ruins of another society. Most naturally evolving nations wouldn't, however. As they grew and expanded and encompassed other groups, they would have to standardize.

"Standards are not evil. The point is to make it possible slash easier for us to interact. If we were trying to compare measurements and neither of us knew the metric system or some other common ground, we'd have no point of reference. 'It's about three pnedas away.' 'Three what?' 'Pnedas.' 'What's a pneda?' 'Four pnedes.' 'Four what?' Now, if a pneda was 3.14 kilometers or something, they'd have a common reference. You don't have to stop measuring in the insert your measurement here in your country, but to make it easier to talk about, we'd have the kilometer.

"My guess is, the citizens of nation X are not going to run out and instantly swap all their currency for ICs. It might not even be acceptable at some stores. If your citizens are all gung ho about it, then your money must have a problem. Perhaps a rubber triangle 3 miles on a side or something stupid.

"Yes, this will increase bureaucracy, if you choose to use its services. But I, at least, feel that it at least doing something mildly helpful. If we can't stand increasing bureaucracy, why do we exist? Every action we take increases bureaucracy[OOC: which is perfect :D] in this multiverse."

The Isles will vote FOR the proposal, but the Genoshan Parliament is preparing a bill that makes the Genoshan dollar the only acceptable form of currency within the borders and territories of the Federation, in order to secure our financial independence.

To the honorable representative from Remba,
Thank you for honoring the wishes of sovereign nations to keep their own currencies. It is my hope that others will read thoroughly, and ease international trade throughout.


Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, Ph.D.
Envoy Extraordinary
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations
The Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Should this resolution pass, and the citizens as well as the government sincerely hope that it doesn't, Ambrose-Douglas will make it quite clear that any nation wishing to do business in our nation will do the same they always have... convert their currency to the Ambrosian credit, and we will do the same for them.

Also, any tourists coming to Ambrose-Douglas will not be using the IC in country, but instead will use the Ambrosian Credit.

A poll of our 14 million citzens last night gave us a margin of 78% in favor of the government's stance on this issue, with 18% against and 4% undecided. The poll has an error margin of + or - 3%.

Benjamin J. Douglas

Wolfgang was silently entering commands on his computer. In a few moments, it brought up the new vote he'd initiated across the Commonwealth. It displayed the proposal, the log of activity in the GA for arguments for and against, and two buttons marked "FOR" and "AGAINST". He, obviously, tapped FOR.

Sixteen minutes later, the device pinged. He arose. "The 1.758 billion Citizens of the Commonwealth have voted. 1,598,468,217 of them support this proposal. With no margin of error," he sarcastically added. "I submit that my..." he mentally calculated, "... 91ish percent of one and three quarters billion is more significant data.

"While it's nice to know, it's also entirely irrelevant. I don't, and I feel the majority of people don't, care how popular your governments decisions are, because its not our business. Please explain, concisely, without animosity, your arguments against the proposal."

Espase has voted against this measure.
We simply don't want ONE body controlling international trade.
A universal currency is one thing.
A world bank is a whole other.

Espase encourages all who voted in favor to reconsider.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, representatives of the nations of our world; the Empire of Alexandrian Ptolemais has an interesting question to ask about the proposed resolution "International Trade Currency," a question that no one has been prepared to ask yet.

What will back the International Credit? The various nations of our world use
various items to back their currency, some use Gold, others Silver, some a mixture of the two and various other standards. We even see that there are nations that use what we call the air standard; a standard which sees their currencies backed by absolutely nothing; for the economically inclined, I am referring to a fiat system.

We cannot support such a proposal until our fears are eased as to what the International Credit will be backed with; if it is only backed by air, then we will vote against it. However, if it is backed by something acceptable, then we are very willing to vote in favour of the resolution - the government of the Empire sees the benefits in improving trade for all the nations of the world.

Why such a fuss you ask? It is because the Empire is very attached to its Gold Standard, since our independence 303 years ago, we have been able to exchange four Gold Denarii for an ounce of gold; we have had practically no inflation and the people of our Empire fear that this is the back door route to a fiat currency system, a system that has caused much inflation in our world. Once we know what the International Credit will be backed with, then we will make our firm decision. For now, we are voting against."

John Smith
United Nations Ambassador
Empire of Alexandrian Ptolemais

"There is always a margin of error, no matter how miniscule. Nothing is absolute. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your flaunting your lofty population numbers in our face. We have just pulled ourselves out of a devastating civil war followed by a plague soon after. Our 14 million is better than our experts predicted a year ago." Douglas retorted, looking back over his notes from his previous arguments. "I'm sure you've seen them already, but I will lay them out for you once again."

"Firstly, an outside entity to decide what exchange rates should be. Currently, nations do that themselves and it has worked quite nicely. At the moment, currencies are judged against the USD ($)." Douglas checked his PDA quickly for up-to-the-nanosecond information on his nation. "Presently, [1] Ambrosian credit = $1.44. The calculations can be found here (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php?nation=Ambrose-Douglas), not just for my nation, but for all nations." Tapping a few buttons, Douglas brought up a new screen. "Actually, here (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php?nation=The+Wolf+Guardians) are the statistics to your nation. [1] of your credits is equal to $0.36."

"Also, asking nations to use this IC over their own is, as we said before, insulting. It insinuates that this IC is better than our own local monetary units. As stated earlier, even should this resolution pass, all intra-nation exchanges within Ambrose-Douglas will still be carried out using the Ambrosian credit. As stated before, if it is called an "International Credit", it should only be used for international purchases."

"Further, the resolution says that this "World Bank" can take a fee off of any transaction in lieu of direct UN funding, without naming what such a fee would be. Is this fee a flat fee, or a percentage of each transaction? Without this spelled out, allowing an arbitrary new entity to create an arbitrary new fee, we cannot, in good concience, support this resolution."

Glancing over his notes one last time, Douglas looked up at the delegate from The Wolf Guardians. "I believe that is all, Ambassador." Douglas sat back, propping his feet up on the desk in front of him.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

On behalf of the His Highness and the Isle of Warminster:

The Isle of Warminster cannot support this resolution as drafted. The Principality does not support the following clause.

"REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank; "

His Highness does not support resolutions that place restrictions or compels action by member states that are contrary to the will of its rulers or its peoples.

Heindrich M. Collyer
His Highness's UN Ambassador
The Principality of the Isle of Warminster

I am curious...

What would the actual value of this currency be? If it is done on, say, an average of the currency values of all UN nations... well...

Anybody want to volunteer to run that committee? I believe your primary tools will be a noose, closet, and chair to stand upon for a few brief seconds once you realize the sheer size of your task.

The UN has hundreds, if not thousands of regions, each of which has anywhere from 5 to, oh, you know, 4,000 nations. Try getting a currency value for just an average of 100 nations: I believe you'll find it truly daunting, even with a committee of coffee-addicted-overpaid-resource-wasting-beaurocratic-mini-tyrants "coordinating" the effort.

"There is always a margin of error, no matter how miniscule. Nothing is absolute. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your flaunting your lofty population numbers in our face. We have just pulled ourselves out of a devastating civil war followed by a plague soon after. Our 14 million is better than our experts predicted a year ago." Douglas retorted, looking back over his notes from his previous arguments. "I'm sure you've seen them already, but I will lay them out for you once again."

"Firstly, an outside entity to decide what exchange rates should be. Currently, nations do that themselves and it has worked quite nicely. At the moment, currencies are judged against the USD ($)." Douglas checked his PDA quickly for up-to-the-nanosecond information on his nation. "Presently, [1] Ambrosian credit = $1.44. The calculations can be found here (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php?nation=Ambrose-Douglas), not just for my nation, but for all nations." Tapping a few buttons, Douglas brought up a new screen. "Actually, here (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php?nation=The+Wolf+Guardians) are the statistics to your nation. [1] of your credits is equal to $0.36."

"Also, asking nations to use this IC over their own is, as we said before, insulting. It insinuates that this IC is better than our own local monetary units. As stated earlier, even should this resolution pass, all intra-nation exchanges within Ambrose-Douglas will still be carried out using the Ambrosian credit. As stated before, if it is called an "International Credit", it should only be used for international purchases."

"Further, the resolution says that this "World Bank" can take a fee off of any transaction in lieu of direct UN funding, without naming what such a fee would be. Is this fee a flat fee, or a percentage of each transaction? Without this spelled out, allowing an arbitrary new entity to create an arbitrary new fee, we cannot, in good concience, support this resolution."

Glancing over his notes one last time, Douglas looked up at the delegate from The Wolf Guardians. "I believe that is all, Ambassador." Douglas sat back, propping his feet up on the desk in front of him.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

"First off, I asked for no animosity. I was simply explaining that how much your nation backs you is irrelevant, because, despite the fact that my nation backs me with more force(and that number's exact, by the way, there literally is no significant error, as we use the entire population) we have the same vote, to the best of my knowledge and assuming you're not a regional delegate.

"Second, I'm aware that conversion happens. But, if I was doing business with you, you seem hell-bent on using your currency, which I don’t want to use. I’d rather use a third party currency, preferably as neutral as possible, like whatsit, “Swiss” in the RL dimension. Half that Earth uses Swiss banks for their neutrality. I mean, what the heck does the USD mean to my nation?“

He called up the conversation log in his head. “Next, that’s fine if you don’t want to use it in your nation. It would streamline the whole thing, and some nations would rather use that. As I’ve said, we have no problem adjusting the value of our credit and tacking the word “international” on it. There is no standard behind our money, nor is there any paper or coinage anyway. For us, it makes sense. For you, it might not. But, it doesn’t require it, anyway. Do you take offense any time you’re asked to do something?

“I do worry –slightly- about the lack of an exact amount, but one cannot, in advance, predict the needs of the Bank to maintain itself, and thus how much it needs. And something has to pay for it, since the UNFA failed. Furthermore, it’s not asking for dues or anything. If you don’t use the IC or the Bank, then you won’t pay them anything.

“My opinion is that the benefits outweigh the risks. You’re really going to shoot down something that can benefit some without detriment to the others? It seems to me that you really have no stake in it. Either way, things seem to stay the same in your nation, except possibly having to change international trade by way of IC, and you can make the person you’re trading with pick up the tab for conversion, if you so wish.” He sat down and responded to the next Commonwealth vote that'd appeared on his screen.

AGAINST. We don't wish more bureacracy.

Plus I'm feeling mean.

-Dr. Jules Hodz

Awww don't be hatin' Dr. Hodz...

I am curious...

What would the actual value of this currency be? If it is done on, say, an average of the currency values of all UN nations... well...

That would be decided by the World Bank, i believe

Anybody want to volunteer to run that committee? I believe your primary tools will be a noose, closet, and chair to stand upon for a few brief seconds once you realize the sheer size of your task.

just a shot in the dark but, i think there'll be more than one person working on this as well as bankers in the individual ntions determining the exchange rate.

I believe you'll find it truly daunting, even with a committee of coffee-addicted-overpaid-resource-wasting-beaurocratic-mini-tyrants "coordinating" the effort.

Well, this is the UN so anything's possible...



The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

I am curious...

What would the actual value of this currency be? If it is done on, say, an average of the currency values of all UN nations... well...

Anybody want to volunteer to run that committee? I believe your primary tools will be a noose, closet, and chair to stand upon for a few brief seconds once you realize the sheer size of your task.

The UN has hundreds, if not thousands of regions, each of which has anywhere from 5 to, oh, you know, 4,000 nations. Try getting a currency value for just an average of 100 nations: I believe you'll find it truly daunting, even with a committee of coffee-addicted-overpaid-resource-wasting-beaurocratic-mini-tyrants "coordinating" the effort.

"I don't think the gnomes would appreciate such a description, especially as it's them who'd do it. They're remarkably good at just such a thing. They manage to coordinate all 26,104 UN Members already, don't they? The rest of the world bedamned, anyway. We have no power over them."

After consulting personally with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have in turn been in conversations all day with prominent banking institutions in New Leicestershire and elsewhere, I can announce that I have changed our vote from against to abstain, pending further consultations.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

After consulting personally with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have in turn been in conversations all day with prominent banking institutions in New Leicestershire and elsewhere, I can announce that I have changed our vote from against to abstain, pending further consultations.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

"Very sensible. Incidentally...

Votes For: 2,378

Votes Against: 1,537."

IC:
Someone stuck a meaningless buzzword into the legislation. I support it in spirit, but we intend to fully ignore this phrase "CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of creating a free market" until we see notes from the author detailing their intent. (We follow a strict Functionalist interpration).

-Discordian Universalist Supreme Court Justice Raver the 6th

OOC: So this would be a direct slap in the face to the communists?

What will back the International Credit? The various nations of our world use
various items to back their currency, some use Gold, others Silver, some a mixture of the two and various other standards. We even see that there are nations that use what we call the air standard; a standard which sees their currencies backed by absolutely nothing; for the economically inclined, I am referring to a fiat system.

This is probably the most pertinent economic point made in the entire debate. If this currency is backed by air there is nothing to stop the world bank printing millions upon millions of International Credits causing rampant inflation and economic destruction.

While I have no problem with a fiat system (a responsible government will not abuse the currency for the above reasons), the lack of understanding on how monetary and exchange rate systems work, and the lack of an oversight committee are the major reasons to vote against this proposal.

I will say it again: in the real world we do not have the need for a UN body overseeing exchange rates, exchange rate markets do that for us already. There is simply no need for this organisation.

this resolution could lead to the downfall of all world trade and economics. It would be like the depression all over again! hyperinflation of money will make it worthless. introducing a new currency could fimrly screw up an insecure and struggling economy like that. your thoughts please!
regards uzbek

ALLOWS private citizens to make use of the International Credit and the World Bank

At first I believed that the IC would be some sort of virtual currency (electronic denomination), only used to facilitate exchanges between different currencies. When private citizens will be allowed to pay with the IC, the IC will no longer remain just a virtual currency; it will also be a real currency (coins, notes). Has the cost of printing and distributing this new money (coins, notes) been taken into consideration. Iamloco can see no reason why it is usefull to add this paragraph to the proposal.

Iamloco also sees a contradiction between the two following paragraphs:

ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;

REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank

The first one implies that you would have the exchange rates between the national currency and the IC established by the market. The exchange rate between the national currency and the IC would then be floating. If there is a higher demand for the national currency, the value of the national currency will go up. The same logic applies when there is a lower demand for the national currency.

The second quote implies that the World Bank would decide an (abitrary?) fixed rate between the national currency and the IC. If this fixed rate posted by the World Bank is not comform the markets, who's responsibility is it to keep this rate fixed? While fixed exchange rates between countries do have their adavantages, Iamloco does not believe that this fixed rate will be maintanable. Will there not be countless de-, revaluations?

If the second quote does not imply fixed rates, why would countries have to follow the rates set by the World Bank. They are variable anyway, and it is possible that a healthy national monetary policy requires national governments to influence the IC/nationa currency exchange rate. Maybe even some countries think it is possible that they can credible link their money to the IC. Then they should be allowed to do so at the rate they themselves see fit. Because it is they that will carry the cost of the fixed rate.

I will conclude this by asking the following question: Do you propose to establish a vehicle currency or a fixed exchange rate?

this resolution could lead to the downfall of all world trade and economics. It would be like the depression all over again! hyperinflation of money will make it worthless. introducing a new currency could fimrly screw up an insecure and struggling economy like that. your thoughts please!
regards uzbek

Um, you do realize, as in all things, it's up to the individual natiions to implement right? Are you telling me your nation can't implement this withotu destroying yoru economy? Our black market is already speculating on the International Credit futures stock.

This is probably the most pertinent economic point made in the entire debate. If this currency is backed by air there is nothing to stop the world bank printing millions upon millions of International Credits causing rampant inflation and economic destruction.

While I have no problem with a fiat system (a responsible government will not abuse the currency for the above reasons), the lack of understanding on how monetary and exchange rate systems work, and the lack of an oversight committee are the major reasons to vote against this proposal.

I will say it again: in the real world we do not have the need for a UN body overseeing exchange rates, exchange rate markets do that for us already. There is simply no need for this organisation.

It's up to each nation to make these choices. Believe me, you don't wany any world body to set an exchange rate, that's definitely up to each sovereign power.


As a point of clarification, I'm interpeting this "
REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank; " assuming the world bank only discuss the rate of exchange between a national currency, and world bank credits. I expet when our beuracrats catch up with our black market and implement this, they'll start out by allowing only CD's, and dealing only with large financial instituions. Our state government does not involve itself with money trading on the street.

--snip first bit--
Excellency, we share with most members of this General Assembly a profound respect for your opinions, but we cannot agree in this instance. First - and I'm not intending this to be as snippy as it's going to come out - we recall discussing the matter of free trade with you in the past (in fact, it was Mr Madison, but I was privy to the conversation). You stated it was a matter of reasonable policy - not knee-jerk national sovereignty, but simple...and bah, I can't remember the word you generally used for it. Sort of like 'devolution' - decisions being made at the lowest level possible. Ah, subsidiarity! That was it.

Right, well, why does that not apply here? The UN shouldn't force all nations to remove tariffs, but it should force all nations to change to a free floating currency? Choosing to peg one's currency isn't necessarily good sense, and it's not necessarily bad sense: it's contingent on circumstances. In the wake of a financial crisis, we'd wager pegged currencies might fare considerably better as they could stabilise more quickly (if pegged to unaffected or quickly stabilising currencies). This proposal removes the ability of national banks to judge those circumstances, and does not even empower the World Bank to do so. In fact, we'd note even nations like Quintessence of Dust don't have true free floating currencies: our central bank intervenes on occasion, as the situation demands.
Now, he's not only got to consider the multiplicity of currencies, he has to think about warranties, availability, shipping costs, product features, possible changes in exchange rates, and a whole bunch of other considerations. By this time, he has a headache.
I fail to see how an international currency would remove any of these problems. In fact, I see that it wouldn't. Every one of these things would still be present in the final transaction (which, obviously, isn't an argument against this proposal: it just isn't one for it, either).
Now let's see how things would be different with this resolution in place. The nine vendors are savvy marketers. They've posted the prices and shipping costs in the local currency and the IC.
If they're savvy vendors, I strongly suspect they will already have realized this, and will have listed the currencies relative to one anyway (we're told the Menelmacari Credit (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Menelmacari_Credit) - stable and, unlike the IC, not prone to wild and irreparable inflation - is a common base of reference), or will include some currency convertor on the site (a simple tool that many websites have implemented).

Nonetheless, my subsequent ping-pong annoys even me and I'm not going to bother going into everything: basically, I think your analogy is false by virtue of not engaging with the reality of the International Credit. Would some international base of reference make things easier? We say yes - we have already said so, in fact. So we're not disputing that for some workable system, your buyer would have an easier time and that this would facilitate trade in general. We're disputing that this system would.
We've read the arguments against this resolution in this thread. As for the business about corruption in the UN, our response was simply "show me".
You know, I don't like a lot of the nonsense about UN corruption, but I don't like the idea of a totally unaccountable body having total control over international fiscal policy either. At the risk of sounding paranoid, 'showing you' corruption would be a bit too late.
Simplicity reduces costs.
This resolution factors in an extra transaction cost that wouldn't be there otherwise.
Simplicity reduces error and confusion.
Both good nouns with which to characterise the drafting of this proposal. And surely error and confusion will only be exacerbated by 'standardised exchange rates'; we're still waiting on a definitive explanation of what that means, but absent such it only makes sense to assume it means one will not be able to compare one currency to another, but rather the first currency's value relative to the second in terms of a third. I generally find calculations involving three quantities more prone to error and confusion than those with two.
Simplicity increases confidence and promotes involvement.
How confident do you think people are likely to be with a currency which has no value and can be subject to massive inflation at any point?
I have seen but one single, lonely, almost pathetic, little argument against this that can actually pretend to carry water. That's the argument that this will create an extra step of bureaucracy in the process of currency exchanges from one nation to another.
Your snideness notwithstanding, do you not think that no one has yet identified what the value of the IC is a mite alarming given it is to become the basis of all international trade?

I don't mean here the political value: I mean its actually, monetary value. Is it backed to gold or another metal? Is it on a fiat system? Who controls the money supply? And if the answer is 'the magic gnomes of the World Bank', then a) quid custodiet ipsos custodes? and b) how do we have any assurance they won't simply hyperinflate the currency?

Furthermore, if this resolution actually set up a viable currency, then its only accomplishment - as admitted by the author - would be to add an extra layer of bureaucracy. Fortunately, the resolution isn't this pointless: it's much more damaging.
The simple rebuttal to this, and it really is quite simple, is that this proposal does not mandate that you exchange to the IC before switching to the next currency. It simply states that you must accept and honour the exchange rates that the World Bank has listed. It lists these exchange rates using the IC as a standard, but you don't have to exchange to the IC before exchanging to the next currency. We, the nations, can still perform one step currency exchanges.
Not true. The IC is the standard for all international trade, and is mandated on a national level - both of these points have already been acknowledged by the author.

Furthermore, I'm intrigued as to what you think '[i]t lists these exchange rates using the IC as a standard' a) means and b) accomplishes. If, as you say, currencies can simply be exchanged through one step exchanges, then what does it mean to have 'the IC as a standard' when changing between a Quintessential sovereign and a Remban gold coin? You express one currency in terms of value of the other - x coins = 1 sovereign - how does the IC fit in?

I'm also going to guess you're not a small business proprietor, given your indifference to the demands of increased bureaucracy and unnecessary transaction fees.
The rest of the arguments I have witnessed in this debate can, almost without exception, be summed up as ....what was that phrase?....ah yes.... alarmist pettifoggery. Much Ado About Nothing. Strawmen, if you will. There are so many people screaming on and on about what they obviously know not, many of whom need to simply step back, take a breath, put on their reading glasses, and peruse the text of the proposal. The answers to your concerns are there. If you look and cannot find anything that ever remotely suggests your concern, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you thought it was a concern in the first place.
Ok, then provide the answers that so stupidly elude me: does this proposal state how the International Credit value is determined?

(Hint: the answer begins with an 'n' and rhymes with 'go'.)
New Anonia hereby announces that it couldn't care less about this proposal. ABSTAIN, or something of the sort.
Considering the opinions expressed, New Anonia changes its vote to AGAINST.
The honourable representatives from Ausserland and Kivisto have convinced us. We are changing our vote to FOR.
Couple of suggestions:
1. Calm down.
2. Wait, I don't know, five minutes, and try reading through the arguments as they progress instead of wildly flip-flopping every time the debate changes direction.

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

We have voted FOR. A single currency will do wonders to help international trade. No switching money as you visit other UN nation, no confusion of the average citizen not knowing who's money is worth more before visiting relatives in another nation, ect.

Now if this flops, we can always simply go back to our old currency and/or push thru an amendment resolution fixing the problem.

Should this resolution pass, and the citizens as well as the government sincerely hope that it doesn't, Ambrose-Douglas will make it quite clear that any nation wishing to do business in our nation will do the same they always have... convert their currency to the Ambrosian credit, and we will do the same for them.

Also, any tourists coming to Ambrose-Douglas will not be using the IC in country, but instead will use the Ambrosian Credit.
So you're killing your tourist industry in order to make a point. Great idea! Why didn't I think of that?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

I actually thought this was what the USD was created for.

Still, I find the World Bank a good idea, the International Credit...well, let's just say I'll sit this one out for the moment; I'd like to see how it plays out.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

So you're killing your tourist industry in order to make a point. Great idea! Why didn't I think of that?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

There is absolutely no reason why his country SHOULDN'T. My country is preparing that as we speak. Why shouldn't tourists to the Isles use Genoshan dollars? All the airports, docks, and other ports of entry have money exchangers, and with the passing of our new bill, there will be a lot more. We like the idea of an International Credit, but our allegiance is to God, Country, Crown.

And...what will this IC be based on? The good faith of the World Bank?
(In the light of trying to be a world player, I forgot to ask the important questions. Dr. Blade would be upset with me....:()

V/R,
M. Diegaus III
UN Rep from Genosha.

"I was foreseeing the IC as an electronic currency even for private citizens, first. Second, you don't bloody have to use it inside your nation. The only time you'd have to honor it would be during international trade deals, and, as I've said, if that pisses you off to such an extent, you can just make the group you're trading with pick up the conversion tab, which, if it is an electronic currency, should be peanuts. Finally, our currency is backed by nothing and we manage quite nicely. It's also electronic. I like this idea, because it'd take us about three minutes to implement it. I'd also assume that the Gnomes would set the exchange rates based on the free market exchanges.

"All this fight about having a neutral, third-party currency available?"

OOC: Does anyone know what backs the USD? It used to be gold, but I seem to remember reading/hearing that we've made way too much money for the minuscule gold reserves to cover it.

I find it fascinating that this resolution has driven political paramours screaming from each other's beds and into the arms of those they previously found unworthy of even a bargepole's caress. National sovereigntists, 'international federalists', right, left: allies rent asunder in all directions. This truly is most enjoyable.

Anyway, enough of my peculiar means of deriving pleasure from life. To the matter at hand:

I see many fears expressed concerning unnecessary bureaucracy and waste, even corruption [* ooc: and why on earth should we presume no corruption? I'm amazed that some here would choose to assume zero corruption - godmoding on behalf of the UN? Tsk. *]. I see others bristle with ideological fervour or national pride.

Standing against these naysayers are those who portray the resolution as a boon to free trade and all its concomitant benefits. Many deride their opponents as doom-mongers with baseless fears.

Notwithstanding the above, I find myself unconvinced of the necessity of this legislation in the first place. Never mind if it is harmful, what good will this resolution do, friends? And if none, or very little, have we not determined via the repeal process that such legislation is itself wasteful and undeserving of its place on the UN statute?

I lean towards casting my nation's vote in the negative. Advocates: do your job! Persuade me that this is not only harmless, but useful; indeed, essential.

Benedictions,

The Wolf Guardians;12689222']"I was foreseeing the IC as an electronic currency That really is part of the problem. One shouldn't need to use foresight in order to know what a resolution is saying. Core details concerning the IC and the World Bank should be spelled out. If we're to muck about with the trade economies of the entire UN, we'd prefer something more than Jedi hand waves.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador


OOC: Does anyone know what backs the USD? It used to be gold, but I seem to remember reading/hearing that we've made way too much money for the minuscule gold reserves to cover it.The gold standard was abandoned for a free-floating basis in 1975.

That really is part of the problem. One shouldn't need to use foresight in order to know what a resolution is saying. Core details concerning the IC and the World Bank should be spelled out. If we're to muck about with the trade economies of the entire UN, we'd prefer something more than Jedi hand waves.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador


The gold standard was abandoned for a free-floating basis in 1975.

"You're right. It should specify. I concede the point, there. Hmm... That might be a solid enough point for us to withdraw our vote. I'll have to think about it."

OOC:
Soooo.... would you say that the fears about free-floating, unbacked currency are relatively baseless? I only have a minimal understanding of finance and economics, but consider my logic skills to be fairly good.

And, Dashanzi, we have to assume there's no corruption in the bureaucracy because it's part of the game mechanics and we thus have no way to combat it. Otherwise, it's "how much corruption is there? Are the little buggers stealing all our money, or just the fractions of pennies from the end? Are they enforcing their own ideals?" and a whole bunch of other things that we can't answer. For the sake of simulation, I feel we need to assume that none of this exists, since the Great Author didn't give us that information.

The Wolf Guardians;12689410']OOC:
Soooo.... would you say that the fears about free-floating, unbacked currency are relatively baseless? Baseless? No. The volatility of the dollar and its susceptibility to both inflation and negative market influences are downsides that can't be ignored. As QuoD has noted elsewhere in this thread, both pegging and free-floating systems have their benefits and risks.

Now if this flops, we can always simply go back to our old currency and/or push thru an amendment resolution fixing the problem.


Even if we do this the effects of the original implimentation would cause detramental effects to most nations economy and changing back will only result in more ill effects for the UN states

This resolution presents a conundrum for us. In order to explain why, I will need to provide some background on New Leicestershire.

Our nation is located on what you would call an "alternate earth". It is almost exactly like the "RL earth" that many of you speak of, except for a few minor details like the existence of a large island called New Leicestershire located in the mid-Atlantic.

So far, none of the other nations on our home world have been provided with any more than just very basic information on the NationStates multiverse. Those details are so far known only to the highest levels of our government, military and intelligence community. The existence of Nationstates is "above top secret". In fact, it is so far above top secret that we don't even have a name for it.

What this means is, while we are in contact with all of you, we are at the same time still in contact "back home" with nations which know nothing (or very little) of your existence.

So we have a couple of questions.

1. Several of our larger banks engage heavily in currency speculation. What effect will this resolution have on these activities vis-à-vis our trading the currencies of nations that don't know of the existence of NS?

2. The value of our own currency, the New Leicestershire Pound. It is currently a free floating, freely traded currency. But if we decided that we needed to invoke monetary policy and either tighten or increase the supply, would we still be able to do that under this? Would we be able to peg it to another currency, the USD or Pound Sterling (our world's Pound Sterling and USD, not the RL ones) for instance?

3. This resolution seems to indicate that the IC would have to be made available for use by private citizens. This means that the IC would suddenly show up in the marketplace in New Leicestershire and would have to be considered legal tender, does it not? What if foreign travelers in one of our cities, or worse yet Foreign Businesses(!) wanted to convert their currency into ICs? Keep in mind that these tourists and foreign businesses are from nations that are not NSUN members, nor do they probably even know what the NSUN is. Do you see the problem here?

I know that none of these are reasons for any of you to oppose this legislation, but I hope you will understand how these things might give us pause.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

OOC: I hope that made sense. New Leicestershire is on another earth, very much like RL earth. They haven't given any other nations there access to the portal that leads here and are struggling mightily to keep the existence of NS a state secret, with mixed results.

Lady Maribeth, you are to be commended for this excellently-written resolution. As I am due back in Valentine [Intangelon's capital, ed.] for the annual planting ceremony, I haven't had time to read the whole of the General Assembly transcript. I apologize in advance if my points have already been addressed. Please also forgive any egregious lack of economic background.

1. Who prints/produces the International Credit, and how much currency will be produced? How will that be determined?

2. What outside force(s) will keep financial problems like inflation from affecting its worth?

3. Doesn't an entity producing currency need to have all the other trappings of an economy (income, expenses, GDP, etc.)? Does the UN have such...things?

4. How much of the new international standard will the several nations be allowed to have in their own banks/treasuries? What if a "run" on the currency or similar ultra-/infravaluation occurs?

I am abstaining on this vote for now.

OOC: An example of how this works in RL would help me, given my ignorance.

We thank Ms. Benson for her courteous response to our comments, even though we remain in disagreement.

Excellency, we share with most members of this General Assembly a profound respect for your opinions, but we cannot agree in this instance. First - and I'm not intending this to be as snippy as it's going to come out - we recall discussing the matter of free trade with you in the past (in fact, it was Mr Madison, but I was privy to the conversation). You stated it was a matter of reasonable policy - not knee-jerk national sovereignty, but simple...and bah, I can't remember the word you generally used for it. Sort of like 'devolution' - decisions being made at the lowest level possible. Ah, subsidiarity! That was it.

Right, well, why does that not apply here? The UN shouldn't force all nations to remove tariffs, but it should force all nations to change to a free floating currency? Choosing to peg one's currency isn't necessarily good sense, and it's not necessarily bad sense: it's contingent on circumstances. In the wake of a financial crisis, we'd wager pegged currencies might fare considerably better as they could stabilise more quickly (if pegged to unaffected or quickly stabilising currencies). This proposal removes the ability of national banks to judge those circumstances, and does not even empower the World Bank to do so. In fact, we'd note even nations like Quintessence of Dust don't have true free floating currencies: our central bank intervenes on occasion, as the situation demands.

We've admitted our ignorance of macroeconomics and such stuff as pegged and free-floating currencies. So once again, we're going to default to the micro level.

First, just to clarify what we feel might be a misunderstanding on the part of some (not Ms. Benson). Nothing in the resolution forces any nation to "change to" the IC as the currency of use. It positions the IC as a medium of international exchange, while our own currency can continue to be used both domestically and internationally, should we choose.

Now correct us is we're wrong, but wouldn't the actual value of a national currency remain subject to the same influences now at work? Wouldn't the World Bank be considering the same factors in establishing rates as now considered by profit-based exchange institutions and currency speculators? Is there something in the resolution that states differently? If not, we assume it will be the case.

I fail to see how an international currency would remove any of these problems. In fact, I see that it wouldn't. Every one of these things would still be present in the final transaction (which, obviously, isn't an argument against this proposal: it just isn't one for it, either).

Ms. Benson is correct. it wouldn't remove all of these problems. But it most definitely would eliminate the problem of having to deal with a multiplicity of currencies.

If they're savvy vendors, I strongly suspect they will already have realized this, and will have listed the currencies relative to one anyway (we're told the Menelmacari Credit (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Menelmacari_Credit) - stable and, unlike the IC, not prone to wild and irreparable inflation - is a common base of reference), or will include some currency convertor on the site (a simple tool that many websites have implemented).

Nonetheless, my subsequent ping-pong annoys even me and I'm not going to bother going into everything: basically, I think your analogy is false by virtue of not engaging with the reality of the International Credit. Would some international base of reference make things easier? We say yes - we have already said so, in fact. So we're not disputing that for some workable system, your buyer would have an easier time and that this would facilitate trade in general. We're disputing that this system would.

So the Ausserland vendor chooses the Menelmacari Credit, the Wailele Islanders think the Lumpkin Island coin is the standard of choice, and on and on. And yes, all of those vendors could provide on-line converters. And that would make the process simpler for the consumer, except that he or she would have to use a converter for each different currency encountered. And we'd have to wonder about diffrent languages, different sources of rates, different updating schedules, etc. And the situation for the potential customer remains confusing. So we can agree, at least, that a common base of reference would make things better.

And, at the risk of sounding pecksniffish, we used no analogy. We presented a notional example. To use it as an analogy for the complicated interworkings of international finance would be spurious. We had no intention that it be taken as such.

You know, I don't like a lot of the nonsense about UN corruption, but I don't like the idea of a totally unaccountable body having total control over international fiscal policy either. At the risk of sounding paranoid, 'showing you' corruption would be a bit too late.

Our objection is only to those paragons of paranoia who scream that the NSUN is corrupt, presenting no evidence whatsoever to support that. It's a specious assertion, unworthy of consideration in debate.

This resolution factors in an extra transaction cost that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Does Ms. Benson believe that currency exchanges are now without cost? If so, we'd advise her to do some international traveling and see whether exchange institutions don't charge for their services. As we see it, establishment of the World Bank would probably lower the costs of international commerce. The fees to be charged are limited by the resolution. There will be no profit involved.

Both good nouns with which to characterise the drafting of this proposal. And surely error and confusion will only be exacerbated by 'standardised exchange rates'; we're still waiting on a definitive explanation of what that means, but absent such it only makes sense to assume it means one will not be able to compare one currency to another, but rather the first currency's value relative to the second in terms of a third. I generally find calculations involving three quantities more prone to error and confusion than those with two.

For speculators in currencies, we can see this would be an extra step. But frankly, we're not terribly concerned about them. We're more interested in those dealing in international trade as a normal part of doing business or their daily lives. For them, having to deal only with two currencies is about as simple as you can make it, I think. And we don't understand the comment about standard exchange rates exacerbating confusion and error. Surely it will make things easier and simpler than having to deal with multiple exchange rates and varying transaction fees, won't it?

How confident do you think people are likely to be with a currency which has no value and can be subject to massive inflation at any point?

We were not speaking of confidence in the currency. We don't think that most people spend much time worrying about that. We were speaking of the confidence of real people to engage in international transactions. If the process is simplified, those wishing to engage in it will have greater confidence that they can do so successfully.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

It positions the IC as a medium of international exchange, while our own currency can continue to be used both domestically and internationally, should we choose.
Yes and no. Yes, the resolution does not explicitly state that, and no, the consequences are not like that. While a nation can force its inhabitants to use the national currency domestically, these currencies would probably lose out internationally. Note this clause:
-PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;
ANY TRANSACTION that would involve international trade and national currency would be subject to this additional fee. This would most probably represent a trade barrier and/or disincentive to use the domestic currency for international exchange.
However, states still using their own currencies would also be placed at a relative disadvantage compared to nations adopting IC. Imports and exports (all priced in domestic currency) would be slapped with this fee, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. Thus, to maintain effective trade relations, some would probably have to switch to IC. Then IC becomes a medium of domestic exchange.

OK. Simplified: Resolution passes. Nation A adopts IC just for the heck of it. Nation B doesn't, as it still wants its colorful dollars. Now, consider this magnificent product, "Low Endurance Women's Deodorant" (LEWD), a product of Nation C.

For example, LEWD costs 2 ICs. It goes through Nation A without any exchange fee/tax imposed by this World Bank, and A's women pay IC for LEWD. The case is different for B. The women of B pay in colorful dollars for LEWD, and the manufacturer have to convert the colorful dollars to ICs, thereby incurring this fee/tax. Therefore, to recover this added cost of doing trade, the price of LEWD is higher in B than in A.

Now, let us reverse the situation. Suppose both A and B produce 'super proliferative agitating machines' (SPAM) for export. They use the same resources and the same cost for production. Now, SPAM costs 1 ICs in A, and 5 colorful dollars in B. Now, if A and B sell SPAM to other countries, it would all cost 1 IC. No problem for A; but problem for B. B has to convert these ICs to colorful dollars, and doing so entails a fee. Thus their profits would be reduced, putting B's companies at a relative disadvantage.

This is even more problematic if trade is being done between two countries which had not adopted IC. What if countries D and E want some trade. Ddollars would be converted to IC, then from IC to Epound. This would make the World Bank rich and international trade harder.

I say scrap this clause, but as we can't edit passed resolutions, better vote this down.

Now correct us is we're wrong, but wouldn't the actual value of a national currency remain subject to the same influences now at work? Wouldn't the World Bank be considering the same factors in establishing rates...
Yes, actually. The World Bank usurps one trump card nations have in controlling their economy: the value of their currency. Nations could peg their currencies, float it in the free market, or revalue, devalue, or strengthen their currencies, as the case may be. However, we think that nations would know better how to manage their economy than this World Bank, which would, I assume, be completely staffed by UN gnomes.

Also, we prefer a toned-down resolution that establishes IC and puts its management in a World Bank, BUT leaves the valuation of the currency to the nations themselves.

But it most definitely would eliminate the problem of having to deal with a multiplicity of currencies.
Yes, it does, but it is going OVERBOARD. The function of the World Bank, as stated in this resolution, is micromanaging each countries' currencies and economies.

It does indeed alleviate the problem of dealing with many currencies, but it adds more problems (see above). Also, if this resolution would be passed, you would still deal with that multiplicity of currencies. This resolution, as worded, creates a lot more problems than those it solves.

So we can agree, at least, that a common base of reference would make things better.
This is what we just want: the establishment of a standard common base of reference where we can compare our currencies with. But we don't need the World Bank dictating how many golden watermelons I can buy with one Nord-Brutlandese livro.

As we see it, establishment of the World Bank would probably lower the costs of international commerce. The fees to be charged are limited by the resolution. There will be no profit involved.
Central banks commonly provide that service with a small or no charge. I don't see why we should suddenly make everyone pay for changing pieroes to ICs.

We were not speaking of confidence in the currency. We don't think that most people spend much time worrying about that.
We think otherwise. If your currency is weak and investors have no confidence in it, then they might as well eschew trade/investment with you. Because they are not sure whether their one thousand Pikiwiki Dollar can still buy a cow tomorrow, or whether it may be just worth as firewood.
However, if your currency is known to be stably and reasonably valued, then investors might invest in your country more.

This resolution aims to establish a common base reference for trade. That is good. But all of the excess baggage and collateral damage this resolution can cause makes it bad. We urge delegates to vote against, and return back to the basic idea.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli (http://www.ns.goobergunch.net/nationstates/index.php/Carina_Talchimio-Spicolli)
Permanent Representative of Brutland and Norden to the United Nations

Lady Maribeth, .........
OOC: An example of how this works in RL would help me, given my ignorance.

OOC: The closest exaple in RL for this is in my opinion the gold-dollarstandard that was established after 1945.

All countries take the responsibility upon themselves to keep their currency at a fixed exchange rate with the dollar (USD), or within certain limits.

Lets say exchange rate of the pound (GBP) is fixed at 2,00 USD/GBP and the Bank of England (BoE) commits itself to interviene when the exchange rate differs from the fixed rate. The BoE can either loosen or tighten monetary policy to keep the rate fixed at 2,00 USD/GBP, by for example buying or selling USD.

The USA in return has commited itself to keep the dollarprice of gold fixed, for example $1 for 1 ounce of gold. If the dollarprice of gold differs from this fixed rate then the USA has to buy or sell gold. The advantage of this GBP-USD-Gold link is its symmetry. Every country has its responsibilities. The reason that the gold-dollar standard collapsed was because the symmetry disappeared. People started using less and less gold and instead they were using USD. The USD became as good as gold and this give the USA a position of power. The USA no longer needed to keep the goldprice of dollars fixed. The USA now got all of the gains of fixed exchange rates, but none of the costs. This let to disgruntled trading partners and the fixed exchange rate collapsed.

The IC even goes further than the gold-dollar standard in the sense that it creates a whole new currency to fulfill the role of the dollar in the gold-dollar standard. Note that like the late dollar standard, the IC is not backed by anything so it is prone to abuse and may fall apart just like the dollar standard.

I have a lot more to say, but that will have to be for another time. Too tired now.

However, if your currency is known to be stably and reasonably valued, then investors might invest in your country more.


...Ehm... Isn't that moneymaking on other countries? They invest dol to get even more dol back. The Confederacy of Leikeze is not a national bank. We don't pay interest! I say this sucks...

With regards,
Head of the Confederacy of Leikeze
Leikeze II

So you're killing your tourist industry in order to make a point. Great idea! Why didn't I think of that?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

I fail to see how this "kills our tourist industry" as you put it. Already, tourists are required to use the Ambrosian credit in country when here on vacation. They can exchange their monetary denomination, free of charge, at our airports, seaports, and at our nation's borders. So, if this passes, things will remain the same as always, except that they will be exchanging either their monetary denomination or the IC for the Ambrosian credit.

If this resolution passes, we will decide whether to use our standard USD exchange rates, or use the IC exchange rates for intra-national exchanges.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

Hmm...just seems like a step closer to New Right Liberal Heaven, to me. I mean, it's a good idea, but where next? I'm probably just being sceptical and underestimating the doubtless bountiful authority that this is going to impose, bu there seems to me to be less regulation concerned here and more, say, "let people get on with their economic affairs". Which, while I'm sure is a principle many hold dear, is not something that I as a proud and iron-backed supporter of socialist and moral ideals could condone or advocate, let alone support.

Just a thought; are there no more left-wing economists our there willing to take a look and have their little grumble?

Rt Hon Stefan Magdij-Vassalos MP
Prime Minister of the Community of Lybov

So you're wasting tax dollars in order to not kill your your tourist industry?

Lord Edward Black
Blah

So you're wasting tax dollars in order to not kill your your tourist industry?

Lord Edward Black
Blah

We are not wasting anything, sir. We are actually saving ourselves money. Should we choose to use the IC for intra-national exchanges, every single vendor in Ambrose-Douglas would need to get new machines to take this IC, especially if it were electronic. Who would pay for that? The vendors themselves? Of course not. The government would pay for that to keep our small businesses in business.

However, should we choose to keep using the Ambrosian credit as we do now, then all the government will have to add is a few new money exchange counters and hire some more people to keep them staffed.

So, let's see... buying millions upon millions of new machines, training people how to use them, etc. Or building a few new monetary exchange places, or simply adding onto existing ones, and hiring a few more staff to handle IC exchanges. Which sounds cheaper to you, sir?

Benjamin J. Douglas

I was referring to all the Ambrosian money you have to give out for free at the exchange booths.

Name
Job

Wait, will this increase taxes? Or will you only be charged when you make a transaction?

Wait, will this increase taxes? Or will you only be charged when you make a transaction?

I can't see how this would increase taxes, i would guess you only would be charged when exchanging your money.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

occ: i just noticed that like the UN Funding Act all the people i usually see here are for it and the newer or obscure posters seem to be against it...

Since the recent resolution to abolish the metric system went negative, creating a global international currency would be the next smartest option to consolidate both measurement systems and overall benefit worldwide commerce. The only problem of course is that taxes may fluctuate occasionally on an unpredictable rate, but this can be solved since the currency is global, and all nations could agree on a balanced tax rate.


Bosnaeum votes FOR.



- Bosnaeum's UN Representative

Just to annoy the Blue Eyed Man, I should point out that many regulars are opposed to this. Myself, Ms Benson of the Quintessence of Dust, and the Ambassador of Leg-Ends to name but three. As the Ambassador of Dashanzi noted, this has split the usual ideological partners far and wide.

My biggest concern remains the fact that the IC has a cost associated with it (per-transaction at present), which contrary to the speculations of Citizen Wolfgang, can't be negligable. It can't be a purely electronic currency, because not all UN nations can cope with that. Gobbannium just about could (though the extra infrastructure would be very expensive for us). Cobdenia couldn't, though, and they aren't the only ones.

It is worth reinforcing the point, though, that the IC is backed by air. A truly free-floating currency, it has no defense against speculators and no form of stabilisation available. That has to be a recipe for disaster.

(OOC: it's also worth pointing out that the US dollar isn't a truly free-floating currency; oil-pricing provides a tremendous stabilization for it.)

"The Commonwealth has withdrawn its vote as well, unfortunately. We have questions about the form of the currency and so on. In short, we won't shoot it down, but the scales have been tipped towards it not explaining things in their entirety. I only wish that all this input could've been gather prior to submission."

CONCERNED with the difficulty in negotiating multi-national trades requiring numerous currencies being exchanged;

We're not concerned. At all. If people are not able to negotiate a multinational trade, they should not be managing multinational trades. Further, adding in international currency as a middleman complicates things more.

FIRMLY BELIEVING that easing of trade difficulties will help all peoples of the world and all nations of the world;

Via magic? And how does adding a middle man = easing of trade difficulties?

RESPECTING the national sovereignty of member nations and their attachment to their own, native currencies;

If only you could do the same for monitary policy.

ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;

How elegantly useless. Since the free market does something exceedingly well, we should interfere, add bureaocracy, and do it exactly the same way. Our goal, certainly, is not maximum benefit and minimal cost. That would fundamentally contradict the entire nature of economics.

CREATES the International Credit as the standard for all international trade;

Whose value will be insured and determined by...? Whose utility is...?

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of creating a free market for the exchange of local national currency to the International Credit;

Because everyone will flock to pick up a currency with no assurance of value and no purpose.

IN LIEU OF direct UN funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;

An incentive against trade and arbitrary redistribution of wealth. Isn't this supposed to be a free trade resolution?

-ELIMINATES these fees should alternative funding be passed by the UN;

Even better, we all get to pay for this useless crap.

REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;

Which makes it command, not free; that's exactly opposing free.

STRONGLY URGES member nations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

You'll need more than that if you're going to convince anyone to use a purposeless currency with no value insurance that requires fees to obtain.

URGES corporations to use the International Credit and the World Bank for all international trade;

Good luck.

ALLOWS private citizens to make use of the International Credit and the World Bank;

They won't anyway.

RECOMMENDS but does not require member nations to switch to the International Credit for all intra-national exchange as well.

Incredible idea. We'll all switch to the same currency, one with no assurance of value or defined purpose. That way, these government can't implement monetary policy.

The problems with this resolution are:
- it's useless: why would using a middleman make transactions easier, especially if it adds a fee?
- it adds bureaocracy: it admits it does something the free market does well--in fact the free market does it so well, the bureaocracy will mimic it
- it impairs nations' abilities to implement monetary policy: pretty hard to change the value of your currency if it's set by an international organization
- it's stupid: no sane nation would actually want to do this
- it redistributes wealth arbitrarily: away from producers, and towards UN workers who provide purposeless services
- it will waste our money, if direct UN funding is implemented: our tax dollars will go towards a useless endeavor with useless means and useless aims

By the way, if you use any of the following weasel arguments, you will hear the sound of our I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons:

- it reduces difficulties: No, it adds a middleman. And, since it spends money to do something that is already being done by the free market, and does it the exact same way it is being done by the free market, it actually increases difficulties, because this organization has to republish exchange rates.
- it'll be free when UN Funding Act passes: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. No, this money will come from our taxes.

Needless to say, we are strongly against this resolution.

OK, now I've got a crisis of conscience :)

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/knootoss.jpg

Omnia mutantur nos et mutamur in illis

Joint Position Statement by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs & Defence and the Minister of Economic Affairs of the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss


Position
The Executive Branch of Knootoss fully supports the "International Trade Currency" resolution, which currently stands to be pass by a marginal amount in the United Nations General Assembly. As such, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defence has instructed the head of the Knootian UN Office to vote in favour of the resolution.

Political discussion on the implementation of the resolution, should it be passed by the General Assembly, will have to take place when a new government has been formed (after the general elections, which are due shortly.) The government is of the opinion that full technical implementation is the most efficient option.

Argument
Knootoss has an open economy that is heavily dependent on foreign trade. All UN resolutions and international agreements which reduce barriers to free trade and commerce have therefore traditionally enjoyed the support of the Dutch Democratic Republic. After the International Patent Office, this is arguably the strongest free trade resolution ever proposed by the United Nations, and (if passed) it stands to generate an unprecedented amount of international trade.

Multi-national trade involving numerous currencies (such as is the case with throughput trade) would become considerably easier. When the prices of Knootian and foreign goods and services can effectively be measured against one unified international standard, comparative advantages become immediately obvious. This will increase economic efficiency within the International Credit area.

A world bank that has the stated purpose of "creating a free market for the exchange of local national currency to the International Credit" carries the full support of the executive, especially considering that the World Bank has stated to standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange. The government interprets this as full support for its policy of floating the Euro.

The government is firmly opposed to a "Tobin Tax" or any other direct tax on trade, however it does recognise the need for the World Bank to receive appropriate funding without a direct mandate. Considering the negligible nominal cost of World Bank facilities, the government believes this fee would not amount to a Tobin Tax and it could (should) in practice be substituted with a small near-nominal fee charged on national governments, depending on the volume of trade. Such a manner of implementation would be consistent with earlier resolutions banning the UN from directly taxing the citizens. The government remains committed to see a "UN Funding Act" pass, doing away with the need of cumbersome separate funding clauses.

Policy implementation
If the "International Trade Currency" resolution is passed, the government of the Dutch Democratic Republic shall:

Mandate, by Executive Order, that the prices for government services as well as national government statistics shall be drawn up in both the Euro (EUR) and in the International Credit (IC)
Promote use of the International Credit for the purpose of international trade.
Work with banks to establish the International Credit as a digital currency - and guarantee that all digital conversion shall be instantaneous and free of charge.
Study the merits of switching to a minted version of the IC for the purpose of intra-national exchange, should a minted IC become popular internationally.

My nation's businesses have no problems regarding international transactions as is, so I see no benefit to this proposal. Against.

EDIT: Seeing as how the majority of businesses in my nation are privately owned, and this proposal gives the World Bank the right to assess charges on exchanges, how does this proposal not violate resolution #4, UN taxation ban?

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

EDIT: Seeing as how the majority of businesses in my nation are privately owned, and this proposal gives the World Bank the right to assess charges on exchanges, how does this proposal not violate resolution #4, UN taxation ban?

Easy. Res #4 only bans direct taxation by the UN. It's a fee, not a tax. No one forces you to trade currency, so it's transactional, not tax. Also, it's institutional, not direct. And the World Bank is not the UN, it's just established by the UN.

Notice that I'm not endorsing the proposal, only stating that it's legal.

The Government of Napatare is fundamentally opposed to adding excessive layers of Bureaucracy for no tangible benefit. As existing currency markets are perfectly adequate for determining exchange rates this proposal will serve only to create inefficiency and add costs to international trade. Should this resolution pass the Napatarean Council of Elders will be instructing the chambers of commerce and industry to continue trading at free market rates and not those dictated by the world bank. The Napatarean Government will not prosecute any firms for breaking UN compliance laws in this matter.

It seems to me, that I have it by it's throat:
About the new Resolution:
I realize that the I's have the Nay's quite outnumbered but that is no reason to vote for the I's. In fact, I am here to persuade to say Nay for this new Resolution. On the first count, a multitude of nations would lose residents trading their currency for somewhere where it's worth twice or three times of that in their homeland. Second count: It would destroy the economies of the nations that were accepting these currency traders, mainly because their national print would lose thousands if not millions of dollars in all of this, it would also destroy the economy of the nations losing those citizens, because it would mean less people to do jobs, which would mean that everywhere would be under-staffed and would be struggling to keep up the employees salaries! Thirdly: The UN (Should it not find an alternative form of funding) would lose grand amounts of money providing each and every nation with a bank to trade currency at, and hiring employees to come in and deal with thousands of people a day! and Finally: the smallest nations would be in grand trouble. Think of it, a nation of 20 million, losing 18 million to different nations? Horrible. The same nation of 20 million having to retrieve that traded money from god know's where, but import fees, ship fuel, all of that would add up. So in conclusion, say Nay, because this resolution destroy's nations economies, lowers population drastically, and the UN would only loose money, not gain it from this one.
That is a letter I sent to my Region's Delegate. I do not know his position yet, but I am highly against this new resolution. l will not idly stand by and watch as my nation is ravaged by money hungry mongrels! I refuse to take this lying down! I stand for keeping our economies as they are! Say Nay, do not let your own nation be at the wrong end of cashless mutts that want nothing more than to buy out your country from underneath you! Say No!

No, no it doesn't, and use the official topic, you've been around enough to not have to be told that Disco.

OOC: How can you use the phrase "Free Market" and not violate the idealogical ban? I figure at very least the term would have to be defined somewhere. ~~~~

If this resolution gets passed will I lose some control over my nation's interest rates and my currency in general? If this is a "Euro" style proposal then I am definitely resigning from the UN. I am proud of my national currency and I'm not going to let it be eradicated by a bureaucratic one

Where you might save time converting one currency to another, now you will have spend time calculating how much trade tax you will have to pay. And not only that, you will also have to spend time to turn over the taxmoney to the right authorities. Then they will have to spend time accepting the tax, checking if the amount if right. There will also need to be someone who checks every trade transaction (there most be millions of those a day) and watches if the tax is indeed being paid. Who will punish people not paying the tax and how? The burocracy needed for this is enormous. Another 100 000 jobs created at the UN? All these extra costs will result in a need to make the tax even higher. All money waisted.

Iamloco's position: AGAINST

If this resolution gets passed will I lose some control over my nation's interest rates and my currency in general? If this is a "Euro" style proposal then I am definitely resigning from the UN. I am proud of my national currency and I'm not going to let it be eradicated by a bureaucratic one

No it isn't 'Euro' style. The Euro was set as everyones currency, the International Trade currency is used to change your nations monies into another nations.

It is just extra bureaucracy in my opinion. The Federation of M-dan has voted against, and hopes that the votes follow suit.

OOC: The closest exaple in RL for this is in my opinion the gold-dollarstandard that was established after 1945.

All countries take the responsibility upon themselves to keep their currency at a fixed exchange rate with the dollar (USD), or within certain limits.

Lets say exchange rate of the pound (GBP) is fixed at 2,00 USD/GBP and the Bank of England (BoE) commits itself to interviene when the exchange rate differs from the fixed rate. The BoE can either loosen or tighten monetary policy to keep the rate fixed at 2,00 USD/GBP, by for example buying or selling USD.

The USA in return has commited itself to keep the dollarprice of gold fixed, for example $1 for 1 ounce of gold. If the dollarprice of gold differs from this fixed rate then the USA has to buy or sell gold. The advantage of this GBP-USD-Gold link is its symmetry. Every country has its responsibilities. The reason that the gold-dollar standard collapsed was because the symmetry disappeared. People started using less and less gold and instead they were using USD. The USD became as good as gold and this give the USA a position of power. The USA no longer needed to keep the goldprice of dollars fixed. The USA now got all of the gains of fixed exchange rates, but none of the costs. This let to disgruntled trading partners and the fixed exchange rate collapsed.

The IC even goes further than the gold-dollar standard in the sense that it creates a whole new currency to fulfill the role of the dollar in the gold-dollar standard. Note that like the late dollar standard, the IC is not backed by anything so it is prone to abuse and may fall apart just like the dollar standard.

I have a lot more to say, but that will have to be for another time. Too tired now.

This is what I was worried about -- what backs the IC? Thank you for the illustration.

This resolution appears to be a very elegant and well-intended solution for a problem that doesn't really exist. I have not heard anyone express the "concern" mentioned in the proposal.

Also, I've not received any responses to my earlier post asking about the following:

1. Who prints/produces the International Credit, and how much currency will be produced? How will that be determined?

2. What outside force(s) will keep financial problems like inflation from affecting its worth?

3. Doesn't an entity producing currency need to have all the other trappings of an economy (income, expenses, GDP, etc.)? Does the UN have such...things?

4. How much of the new international standard will the several nations be allowed to have in their own banks/treasuries? What if a "run" on the currency or similar ultra-/infravaluation occurs?

Since I've heard no replies, I am forced to switch from ABSTAIN to AGAINST.

It is unfortunate to see the hair-raising accusations raised against this fine resolution. I would be laughing, if these troglodytes weren't actually in charge of nations. As usual, its the wing-nuts that most virulently oppose this resolution: one the far right there are the so-called "capitalists" who inexplicably stand in opposition to a global floating currency exchange, beating their nationalist drums. On the left there are the communists who oppose the free flow of trade, and the very idea of world financial institutions.

Then, of course, the opposition can be broken down to include a large section of morons. Some of the more hilarious accusations against a standardised system of free global currency exchange in this debate include:

Mass death and severe population decrease.
Nations will be "ravaged by money hungry mongrels".
The end of [the science of] Economics
Complete economic collapse of their particular nation
The United Nations stealing peoples money. [using mitts or otherwise]

If I actually cared, I would pity the people who have to suffer under the yoke of such moronic leaders. But then... I don't really care.

The Iconoclastic Singdicate of Intangelon posed some questions, asking those in favour of the resolution to answer them or the Republic would be forced stand in opposition. This is profoundly unfair, in my opinion, as these questions all concern matters not at all discussed in the resolution text.

The International Credit is not "printed" by any international body, it is a means of global currency exchange. As the IC is pegged as a standard unit of comparison, it is only worth as much as an averaged basket of international currencies. All the implementation issues that their representative asks about are simply matters for the Gnomes' consideration. Nations are allowed (but not forced) to adopt the IC as their domestic currency, implementation of which then clearly is a matter for domestic consideration.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

Also, I've not received any responses to my earlier post asking about the following:

1. Who prints/produces the International Credit, and how much currency will be produced? How will that be determined?The resolution does not account for this.

2. What outside force(s) will keep financial problems like inflation from affecting its worth?The resolution does not account for this.

3. Doesn't an entity producing currency need to have all the other trappings of an economy (income, expenses, GDP, etc.)? Does the UN have such...things?The resolution does not account for this.

4. How much of the new international standard will the several nations be allowed to have in their own banks/treasuries? What if a "run" on the currency or similar ultra-/infravaluation occurs?The resolution does not account for this.

In my view, some of these details should at least have been given lip service in the actual resolution text, since we are setting up a World Bank and an international currency that is to be "the standard for all international trade," and this proposal is to be a matter of international law and all. But, as has already been pointed out, the author assumes the gnomes will magically work out these details for themselves, and we're supposed to accept that on blind faith.

Since I've heard no replies, I am forced to switch from ABSTAIN to AGAINST.Yeah, good choice.

I would remind the Kenniite delegate that the gnomes are much more capable of filling in such details. I would dread to leave the minutiae of economic management (important as they may be) to the UN General assembly.

The simply fact is that every clause included in a resolution like this can and will be misinterpreted by some illiterate moron as "destroying their nation" or "money-grabbing". Thus, a detailed and well-thought-out, honest resolution such as the UN Funding Act is doomed to fail. This resolution has the three 's'-ses that it needs to pass: simple, sexy, successful.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

Now correct us is we're wrong, but wouldn't the actual value of a national currency remain subject to the same influences now at work? Wouldn't the World Bank be considering the same factors in establishing rates as now considered by profit-based exchange institutions and currency speculators? Is there something in the resolution that states differently? If not, we assume it will be the case.
Oh, if only that were the case. In fact, that's what the proposal originally stated:
ESTABLISHES the World Bank, to run the International Credit Appraising Committee (ICAC), which will standardize international exchange rates based on standard international practices;
Then some genuis stepped in (http://z6.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise2/index.php?showtopic=60&view=findpost&p=10842288), and we have:
ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;
This means that currencies cannot peg or fix exchange rates: they must all be determined through the free market (because the proposal also 'REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;'). This was reaffirmed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12680544). Thus, this proposal removes the ability of nations to set exchange rates by regimes of their choosing.
Does Ms. Benson believe that currency exchanges are now without cost? If so, we'd advise her to do some international traveling and see whether exchange institutions don't charge for their services. As we see it, establishment of the World Bank would probably lower the costs of international commerce. The fees to be charged are limited by the resolution. There will be no profit involved.
Based on my interpretation, I disagree: when exchanging currencies, the extra step of converting to the International Credit is involved. I go to the bank or bureau, get charged for the conversion, and also have to pay an extra fee to the World Bank.

On the other hand, if your interpretation is correct, are we not a) removing a market sector (I don't necessarily like having to pay extra at bureaus de changes, but that doesn't mean such actions should be prohibited) and b) increasing the likelihood of aggressive and irresponsible currency speculation?
For speculators in currencies, we can see this would be an extra step. But frankly, we're not terribly concerned about them. We're more interested in those dealing in international trade as a normal part of doing business or their daily lives.
The international forex market dwarfs normal international trade in goods and services: it is easily the biggest source of capital movement. So we are interested in it, because so fundamental to the global economy.
We were not speaking of confidence in the currency. We don't think that most people spend much time worrying about that.
You are probably correct. However, given the potential for currency speculation to lead to massive financial crises that do then affect everyone, this minority is a fairly important one. I have never speculated in currency; you can bet I felt the effect of Black Thursday, when Quodite markets experienced a severe crisis.
We were speaking of the confidence of real people to engage in international transactions. If the process is simplified, those wishing to engage in it will have greater confidence that they can do so successfully.
This is objectively true, obviously, and we are not disputing that for $reasonable_international_currency_proposal, it would hold. We are disputing that this is a reasonable international currency proposal, and hence that there would be any confidence.

As an aside, to those muttering about ideological splits: just because we are in agreement with some highly regulated and some highly deregulated economies, does not mean we agree with their reasoning. We reject this proposal for our own reasons, and not necessarily those of others.

-- Samantha Benson

I would like to remind the delegates that conversion to the International Credit is free, barring the fact that the organisation itself requires funding.

The total cost of the International Credit, shared by all participating nations, is the government equivalent of an annual subscription to "Play Bunny" when compared to the staggering cost of international currency conversion between 30.000 nations. Institutional costs will be much, much lower if this resolution is properly adopted.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

I am still yet to see any compelling justification for supporting this resolution and have thus placed the New Cultural Revolution's vote against.

Benedictions,

I would like to remind the delegates that conversion to the International Credit is free, barring the fact that the organisation itself requires funding. This is true as far as one can throw it. The exception arises for those nations needing to actually exchange currencies. Since the funding of the World Bank is dependent on the fees for such exchanges, and given that overhead isn't likely to differ much based on number of exchanges, the individual fee charged to any individual nation or international trader could end up being quite substantial.

The IC as I see it:

You start by adding up the the values of all different currencies in NS. Then you divide this sum by the total number of currencies. This way you get a weighed average of all currencies available. To find out what the exchange rate between the IC and the national currency is, you simply divide the national currency by the IC. This way you can see the value of your own currency in relation with the average value of all other currencies.

The IC would be some sort of basket currency, but this does not mean that there would be a fixed exchange rate standard. Nations can still choose their own monetary policy. They can either let their currency float, peg it to the IC or peg it to any other currency of their choosing.

To illustrate the advantage of the IC I will use a real life example. Suppose you are a Swiss trader and you want to trade your Swiss Francs for Israeli Shekels. Because both countries are relatively small, it might be hard for the Swiss trader to find someone who is willing to trade Israeli Shekels for Swiss Francs. It is in fact easier to exchange the Francs for USDollars and then to trade those USD for Israeli Shekels. Something which is done very frequently. The USD is called a 'vehicle currency', which means it is used as a vehicle to facilitate trade between several less used currencies. Like the USD, the IC would also be a vehicle currency. With the enormous amount of nations in NS, it seems impossible to trade without such a vehicle currency.

A question we can ask ourselves is: aren't there any natural vehicle currencies that already exist in the NS world. If there already are such currencies available, then the IC would do a job (at a cost) that is already being done by the market (for free). I do not believe there is only one vehicle currency in the nation state world. I believe there are several. Each trade block would have developed its own natural vehicle currency. Buying and selling between all the different vehicle currencies would be easy because of the size of each of the vehicle currencies. I believe we can also make the assumption that not all of 100 000 nations trade a significant amount with every other nation, so a global vehicle currency wouldn't be needed.

In the previous part I have made some assumptions as to what is really meant by this UN proposal. I will now sum these up:

-the IC will only be virtual money, not notes or coins
-the IC will not set fixed exchange rates
-the IC cannot be adopted as a national currency, it is only virtual money. This assumption is in contrast as to what is said in the proposal. If countries can adopt the IC as their national currency, they give up the ability to an automomous monetary policy. Each country that chooses to do this will in fact take part in a 'Euro zone' type of commitment. You just cannot put some random countries together, give them the same currency and expect that system to work.

Before this UN proposal can be implemented, the above assumptions will need to be clarified. I suggest we reject this proposal and await a better worked out proposal.

Remba I see why you have full support in the issue it could solve many problems within curremt world trade, however i am strongly opposed to the motion. Once passed which i think it is heading, i believe that Countries will lose part of their freedom once signed up to the credit. A sense of Independence lost.I wish you all the luck with this motion and if it is passed congratulations on the whole!

*Aram grabs a beermat and scribbes down some numbers on its back.*

Nonsense. Suppose the "horror" scenario of a big bureaucracy comes true, and the system employs a hundred thousand people and takes ten billion standard dollars to operate per annum. I believe this to be a ridiculous overstatement of the running costs, mind you, but it's on the "safe" side...

Let's also suppose the International Credit is not very popular, and only used by about ten thousand nations. Seeing as at least fifty percent of member nations would have to vote in favour for it to pass, it allows for a generous amount of voters failing to use an idea which they approved.

The average annual cost per nation (grossly inflated by conservative assumptions with pretty round numbers) would then come down to $1,000,000.- . It is quite obvious that large users would pay a larger fee, and small users would pay a much smaller fee.

For a nation with billions of people, this is about the amount we spend on inspecting the quality of horse-piss at county faires. A pretty painting in one of our government ministries would cost more. With a 2% flat income tax (and the total tax burden at 7.2% of GDP), Knootoss has an annual budget of $25,969,721,755,703.-

*An annoying child with a ridiculously oversized lollipop wanders in*

"But Aram! A million dollars is still a lot of $CURRENCY! You can buy a lot of cheese-flavoured bubblegum for that amount. And besides, we worked hard to take that money from our people in the first place. Our population would all die as thieving UN regulators with mittens destroy economics and piss on our flag as they destroy our cultural identity."

First off, you little twat, we're talking about government funding. Governments have more money than you will ever have, to spend on big things like Superbattleships, n00ks and social welfare.

Secondly, this money is used to fund a global system of free currency exchange. Having the IC will save businesspeople a lot of money. Yes, individual people will not be saving a million dollars, but everyone together will be much cheaper off. If you approve this resolution, the savings will simply dwarf the small nominal cost of maintaining a world bank.

But that's probably not enough for you eh? Because you want everything to be free and funded by the taxpayers from somewhereelseistan?

*The annoying child nods, throwing the lollipop at the UN logo and stamps its foot, demanding more free icecream.*

Go to hell.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

If this resolution gets passed will I lose some control over my nation's interest rates and my currency in general? If this is a "Euro" style proposal then I am definitely resigning from the UN. I am proud of my national currency and I'm not going to let it be eradicated by a bureaucratic one

As opposed to your government, which is not at all a giant bureaucracy? According to your national page, it is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government of Charlotenberg stops and the rest of society begins The average income tax rate in Charlotenberg is 100%.

Anyway, your own well-paid bureaucrats can sleep softly, for your interest rates and domestic currency are completely unaffected. It will just be easier to change your currency into another currency.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

We have just withdrawn our vote for this resolution and will abstain on the question.

We find great merit in the idea of an international standard for currency exchange. It would clearly be in the best interests of both producers/vendors and consumers of goods. However, we've carefully read and considered the many objections to this resolution that have been raised here. Some of them are patently absurd -- based on failure to read and understand the resolution, cluelessness about economics that surpasses even our own, or a lack of understanding of the NSUN. But there have been substantial objections raised also, here and in other venues, by several representatives whose opinions we respect. We confess to not understanding all of them and flatly disagreeing with others, but some give us pause.

Our conclusion is that we simply don't know enough about the subject to cast a sufficiently informed vote. With apologies for our ignorance, we abstain.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

*Aram grabs a beermat and scribbes down some numbers on its back.*
Let's also suppose the International Credit is not very popular, and only used by about ten thousand nations. ... It is quite obvious that large users would pay a larger fee, and small users would pay a much smaller fee.Perhaps, Mr. Koopman, you shouldn't be analyzing legislation through beer goggles, eh?

The problem arises not if the IC is not very popular (as you assume in your hypothetical), but if the IC is adopted broadly (thus reducing the numbers of exchanges made), leaving the minority to foot the bill of the World Bank. Nor is it obvious from the wording of the resolution (and that is all we have to work with)-PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;how fees will be structured, merely that the Bank will be allowed to charge enough to support itself in whatever ultimate form it takes.

Secondly, this money is used to fund a global system of free currency exchange. Interesting definition of "free" you have there, sir.

But that's probably not enough for you eh? Because you want everything to be free and funded by the taxpayers from somewhereelseistan?

*The annoying child nods, throwing the lollipop at the UN logo and stamps its foot, demanding more free icecream.*

Go to hell.We suggest Mr Koopman come down off his hobby horse and insert his head in its proper place... under his hat.

Many of the people you are excoriating supported the UNFA and will again given the chance. That we are aware of and support TANSTAAFL for this body doesn't automatically mean we should support a poorly written resolution simply because it attempts, through a last minute throw-on clause, to fund itself.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador and big-ass lollipop fan.

More people using the International Credit would lower its already whimsical burden further. I fail to see your problem. The quadruple denial used in your opening sentence doesn't help my comprehension of your argument.

The resolution does not specify how fees will be structured, but it does espouse the principle of pegging fees to exchange. That already gives us a pretty good idea of where we are going.

I may not have a Gnomish intellect, but given the infinitesimal percentage that would be levied on an individual exchange, it stands to reason that contribution fees would be determined on total volume of trade and levied on a national level.

This is, of course, technology-dependent and up to the gnomes. No single technology described in this resolution would fit the multiverse, and no doubt the hobbits or the medievalists or the martian nations would complain if a precise mechanism was laid out. Rather than bitching about the specifics, I commend those who drafted this resolution for their bravery in explaining that there will be a funding mechanism. No resolution can reasonably be expected to do more in the current political climate.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

More people using the International Credit would lower its already whimsical burden further. I fail to see your problem. The quadruple denial used in your opening sentence doesn't help my comprehension of your argument.We've edited our remarks to enhance clarity, though we would pedantically note there were only two negatives in the significant sentence and none in our first sentence. ;)

Perhaps an absurd hypothetical will improve your comprehension. Assume this passes and the World Bank is established. It costs a million $foo to run the Bank (pay the gnomes, physical overhead, computer resources, etc.). The Bank is authorized to set fees that will support itself. Those fees are, per the resolution, placed on currency exchanges. Now assume that every member nation converts to the IC for domestic as well as international trade except for one lonely holdout. When Holdoutistan makes their one currency exchange a year, the fee will be (must be as the resolution mandates self-support of the Bank). one million $foo. Obviously the number of nations refusing to convert will be more than one, but the uncapped nature of any individual fee the World Bank charges is hopefully clear to you now.

This was, of course, in response to your "it's free" comment above. The fee structure problem is only one of the problems with this resolution (well-documented by other posters already).

--L.T.

PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank

I think that the World Bank can finance itself without asking minimal fees on exchanges. Here is how I see this happening:

The World Bank creates a pile of virtual IC. The cost of creating is very near to zero.

The World Bank then exchanges the IC's it has created with real money from the nations in NS at the going exchange rate. In other words: the World Bank sells IC's (which cost the World Bank nothing, but they are worth a lot more) and people pay with their national currencies.

This way the World Bank is sitting on a large pile of money. It can then go to the financial markets with that money and put it on a bank account. The World Bank will then receive interest rates on this money to pay for its operating costs.

Confidence in the IC is maintained when the World Bank guarantee that when people return to the World Bank with their IC's, they can get their real money in return. While normal money in RL used to be covered by gold, the IC will be 100% by real money holdings. No money is destroyed or created, just transformed in other types of money.

In this posts and in my previous posts I have made some interpretations of how the IC would work in my own mind. If the UN proposal meant what I think it means, then I can actually see it work. I would feel better if the topic starter could verify that I am not far from the truth here.

Iamloco will now change its position from against to FOR.

When Holdoutistan makes their one currency exchange a year, the fee will be (must be as the resolution mandates self-support of the Bank). one million $foo. Obviously the number of nations refusing to convert will be more than one, but the uncapped nature of any individual fee the World Bank charges is hopefully clear to you now.
Let me use a slightly less exaggerated example. 100 nations don't use it. That only leaves ten thousand $foo each. And if 1000 nations (still less than a twenty-fifth of UN members) don't use it, it's only a thousand $foo each. I could pay for that alone. Every week. And still have enough to buy a car.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Votes For: 3,997

Votes Against: 3,924

"It's a close game, so far."

Votes For: 4,028

Votes Against: 3,985

It certainly, certainly has gotten much closer. We should be in for an interesting two days.

Votes For: 4,053

Votes Against: 4,009


It certainly has got alot closer.

What time does voting close at on the Sunday?

Votes For: 4,053

Votes Against: 4,009


It certainly has got alot closer.

What time does voting close at on the Sunday?

Votes For: 4,056

Votes Against: 4,043


this....is...not...good...

ooc:The Polls always seem to close around noonish or start of the afternoon in my time zone

Votes For: 4,045

Votes Against: 4,058


Nay sayers finally lead, There's still about 3000 votes that are likley to be cast, if the last poll is anything to go by

This is nail-biting.

Visiting the forums of the vote-rich feeder regions, the resolution is down 0-5 in The South Pacific, but our delegate Fudgetopia had not yet voted on the resolution. The resolution is encountering objections over at The East Pacific.

But I have no inkling how Shasoria (TWP), Kandarin (TRR), Dezzland (Lazarus), Chodean Kal (TNP), and Moo-cows with Guns (TP) will vote, so results would still be unpredictable even if them feeders wake up...

Hold your breath everyone.

Well just remember it's not over 'til its over (Sunday)

I hate to be one to celebrate a resolution finally falling into the hands of the nays, but I must in this case, as I have been against this resolution from the start and have recieved nothing but vicious personal attacks for doing so.

Now, we shall see how the vote progresses.

Votes For: 4,085

Votes Against: 4,100

I am overjoyed with the current results of the resolution at vote.

I have always been Against this issue and it's promises of a Global Wide currency....and the fact that our international trade will bogged down in pointless bureaucracy!

With Respect,
Geoffrey E. Ward
UN Ambassador for Wezani

The people prematurely celebrating the "defeat" of this resolution disgust me. Have some tact people.

It's hard to call a resolution that's behind by a grand total of 15 votes defeated.

I don't know if you were referring to what I said. If so, that's why I said prematurely and put defeat in quotations.

If not, then...um..move along. Nothing to see here.


;)

I was agreeing with you.

well we can all argree it's kinda annoying to have people celebrating the defeat of this resolution two days before voting ends, right?

I was not celebrating this resolution's defeat. I was celebrating the fact that, for the first time, the nay side has the majority. I am celebrating because this is an encouraging sign after a number of days of being down by as many as 800. I am also celebrating because, unlike the last resolution, this should have an exciting finish.

And I'm sorry if you feel that me celebrating because the side I support is currently in lead is somehow "tactless", but I will say this; my opposition to this resolution has led to nothing but personal attacks on myself from both the writers of this resolution and her supporters. Have they shown "tact" with that?

well we can all argree it's kinda annoying to have people celebrating the defeat of this resolution two days before voting ends, right?

Kinda? That's an understatement. At least in my books.

blah blah blah whine blah overstimulated martyr complex blah blah

Personally, I don't care if you celebrate or not. In fact, I barely care about your existence at all. I have made no such personal attacks on your person, nor anyone else involved in this debate. From what I have witnessed of this debate, there was but one or two statements that could have been interpretted as personal attacks. One of those was not directed at you, as demonstrated by the one who voiced the comment directly voicing that it was a comment intended for one single person. The other was made by yourself at the author, and was neither tactful, on point, called for, nor impersonal. You very directly and incredibly vulgarly verbally assaulted them in such a fashion that even you realized you were out of line. Since then, there has been nothing but a stream of whining from you about how everyone is attacking you. Seriously friend, get over yourself. You are not that important to the lives of anyone in attendance here. They, for the most part, really don't give a damn whether you stay, go, speak, remain silent, or do anything else for that matter. Believe it or not, there are people actually discussing things in this very room that have absolutely nothing to do with you in any way shape or form.

But, if it will satisfy your need for attention, here's something that you can either accept as a personal attack, compliment, or whatever else you wish.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/AB.jpg

Nothing personal you understand, but I'd rather not waste any more time than necessary listening to some thin skinned pissant nation moan about how everyone hates them. It gets real old real quick, and there are more important things for some of us to tend to.

Why is the Affirmative side behind? An International Trade Currency can be a good thing for all nations, how would it be bad?

Why is the Affirmative side behind? An International Trade Currency can be a good thing for all nations, how would it be bad?

Politics are not simple.

Personally, I don't care if you celebrate or not. In fact, I barely care about your existence at all. I have made no such personal attacks on your person, nor anyone else involved in this debate. From what I have witnessed of this debate, there was but one or two statements that could have been interpretted as personal attacks. One of those was not directed at you, as demonstrated by the one who voiced the comment directly voicing that it was a comment intended for one single person. The other was made by yourself at the author, and was neither tactful, on point, called for, nor impersonal. You very directly and incredibly vulgarly verbally assaulted them in such a fashion that even you realized you were out of line. Since then, there has been nothing but a stream of whining from you about how everyone is attacking you. Seriously friend, get over yourself. You are not that important to the lives of anyone in attendance here. They, for the most part, really don't give a damn whether you stay, go, speak, remain silent, or do anything else for that matter. Believe it or not, there are people actually discussing things in this very room that have absolutely nothing to do with you in any way shape or form.

But, if it will satisfy your need for attention, here's something that you can either accept as a personal attack, compliment, or whatever else you wish.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/AB.jpg

Nothing personal you understand, but I'd rather not waste any more time than necessary listening to some thin skinned pissant nation moan about how everyone hates them. It gets real old real quick, and there are more important things for some of us to tend to.

Overstimulated martyr complex? I beg your pardon. I did not realize that simply making two statements on how I have been treated constituted, as you put it, a "stream of whining from you about how everyone is attacking you".

I contend that I have made many valid points throughout the duration of this thread, sir. Points that were brought up as problems to an author who didn't want to hear anything of the sort. Futhermore, my arguments have remained valid throughout. When met with respect, I have responded respectfully.

I never accused you of doing any of the things I mentioned. Why you chose to bring yourself into the debate concerning that is beyond me. Might I sugguest that you get over yourself, sir? I must have missed the memo that gave you the right to speak for all others in this thread.

Also, whether you can see this message or not makes little difference to me. It is my belief that, should you choose to ignore me, you will miss out on some interesting, perhaps informative, posts in days and weeks to come.

Sincerely,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose Douglas

Based on what has been said, HSM's Parliament has voted to table the IC/World Bank measure indefinitely. Parliament has also voted near unanimously to allow only Genoshan dollars to be used in domestic transactions. His Serene Majesty, King Michael Aurelius, is affixing his royal signature and seal to the bills to make them law, as we speak.

Our official position is abstention. We understand the desire for an International Credit. But if many, many nations are in protest, surely there must be a reason, right?

Corruption in the UN? Guess what, unless there is an example to the contrary, we will always account for corruption, even if it is by a bunch of mindless, non-union gnomes.

Just to be frank, the Genoshan Isles will always scrutinize EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of a proposition that demands money. If it doesn't sit well, someone better damn well convince us that it is worthy of a Genoshan 'Aye' vote. If we're convinced, we'll back it. If not, we won't. If we're not sure, we'll abstain, and pass appropriate legislation to ensure the sovereignty of the Isles are sustained.



Respectfully,
The Rt. Honorable Martin Welles, 2nd Baron Welles, KCMC, CC
Prime Minister of His Serene Majesty's Government
The Federation of the Genoshan Isles

But, if it will satisfy your need for attention, here's something that you can either accept as a personal attack, compliment, or whatever else you wish.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/AB.jpg

Nothing personal you understand, but I'd rather not waste any more time than necessary listening to some thin skinned pissant nation moan about how everyone hates them. It gets real old real quick, and there are more important things for some of us to tend to.ooc: You might want to read up on flamebaiting with ignore announcements (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8269429&postcount=45). The OSRS allows polite announcements (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023&highlight=ignore+list+flamebait), but the emphasized wording seems less than polite.

I have voted NO! And will encourage my regional delegate to do so as well.

This is a step in the wrong direction for the independence of regions. First we accept a global currency...and then we will be pushing for one Supreme Government and Military.


Oppose this legislation out of respect for freedom and independence for all regions!

The people prematurely celebrating the "defeat" of this resolution disgust me. Have some tact people.

I was not celebrating the resolutions defeat! I am well aware that we still have two more days! I was merely voicing my opinion of the "CURRENT" status of the pole results.


I am sorry if you did not understand,
Geoffrey E. Ward
Wezani Ambassador's Office at the UN

To all of those gloating and/or celebrating over the change in the voting totals:

1. Please stop. Try to show some decorum here.

2. Don't count your chickens before they've hatched. There are still two days of voting left.

3. Try to keep in mind that some of the nations who are opposed or abstaining actually support the idea of an international currency resolution, they just have misgivings about the wording of this one. We could see a different version of this very proposal passed at some time in the future.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Wow. This thread has exploded.

First, I would like to, again, express my regrets that I wasn't able to be around for these first two(ish) days of debate. These are critical days, and I really do wish I could have been here for them. Alas, the Queen needed me back home, and I wasn't able to communicate my thoughts and feelings. And explinations.

Second, I would like to thank everyone who has defended this resolution in my absence, and everyone who has voted in favor of it. I would like to extend extra thanks to Ambassador Koopman, who said many of the things I would have said if I was here. I didn't put him up to this, he just feels strongly about this.

Third, I would like to address all the concerns that have been raised in my absence, but I fear that would be going over things that have been talked about, and it would probably take me until the vote ends to address every point. This discussion has been quite lively.

I will, however, address a couple general concerns. One of the motivating ideas behind the style used in this resolution was KISS; Keep It Simple, Stupid. This is not an attack on the general assembly, just me keeping reality in mind.

A highly detailed resolution has as many problems as a vague one, such as this. Nobody enjoys reading big blocks of text, and they introduce more problems than they solve.

*No exact fees: I didn't list hard fees (and opposed the concept of a 0.00005% flat fee) because I honestly don't know how much the Bank will need to keep itself running. Perhaps it would only need 0.00001%, in which case it would have a surplus that it couldn't do anything with. It's not allowed to abolish fees on its own, so extra money would literally be a waste. It would sit there and collect dust. Likewise, too small a flat fee would leave the Bank strapped for cash and with no way to raise more money. By leaving the fees undefined but limited, the Bank can only take what it needs.

*Any fees at all: Considering the failure of the Funding Act, I took Amb. Koopman's words to heart. The UN cannot simply continue to fund itself through the good will of member nations. Quite simply, these things cost money. Even if the Bank is nothing more than a really smart "gnome" with a supercomputer, she'll still need electricity and someplace to house the computer. In that case, the fees would be so ridiculously low that nobody would notice. Regardless of how expensive things are, they need to be paid for somehow. I don't think that ignoring this reality is responsible. The sunset clause is there to prevent double-dipping. I cannot comment on its legality except to say that I added it in good faith: I wasn't trying to get away with anything.

*Real or virtual: I must be honest on this one: it was sacrificed on the KISS altar, but I didn't give it a lot of thought until this debate. Again, spelling it out strictly would cause problems with tech levels. Low tech nations won't be using virtual currency, while high tech nations are less likely to use physical currency. However, my thoughts are that it would likely be a combination of the two, depending on what was going on.

A tourist going from Remba to the DDR, would likely get themself a stack of physical ICs, so they could hail cabs, buy dinner, and so on. The nation of Remba, trading with the DDR itself using ICs probably would be using a virtual currency. Why? Because it's a nation-to-nation trade, so small slips of paper changing hands is largely irrelevent. If the Queen decides to buy one hundred billion ICs worth of tanks from the DDR, she's not going to have her agent carrying a truck full of non-descript attache cases. It'll be a wire transfer, which means nothing physical has moved; it's numbers in a bank account.

*Floating vs. Fixed: The IC is floating. I thought that was obvious because no backing was stated. Having a fixed currency in such a dynamic world is simply unworkable. If you fix it to something, what are you going to do when some git finds another world full of the stuff and crashes the market? It's a floating currency, based on the various exchange rates compiled by the Bank. The "backing" is the UN itself. Say what you like about the UN, it's not going anywhere. It may be silly and stupid at times, but it's not going to be disbanded or replaced.

*Other vagueries: I simply don't like it when everything is spelled out in excruciating detail. Yes, I had plenty of characters left, but I didn't think this needed it. My thought is that unexplained things should either be obvious (the fact that it's a floating currency), are left up to the "gnomes" (what the exact fees will be), or are left up to nations to decide (the extent of their use of the IC). No, it's not perfect, but I'd rather give nations too much leeway than not enough.

*If it fails: Yes, I'll work on another version. My original motivation may have been accepting a challenge, but I've grown quite fond of the idea, and I don't intend to give up.


~Lady Meribeth Collins
Submerged Queendom of Remba

PS- Come on, guys... updates every 20 minutes of the vote count aren't necessary.

*Any fees at all: Considering the failure of the Funding Act, I took Amb. Koopman's words to heart. The UN cannot simply continue to fund itself through the good will of member nations. Quite simply, these things cost money. Even if the Bank is nothing more than a really smart "gnome" with a supercomputer, she'll still need electricity and someplace to house the computer. In that case, the fees would be so ridiculously low that nobody would notice. Regardless of how expensive things are, they need to be paid for somehow. I don't think that ignoring this reality is responsible. The sunset clause is there to prevent double-dipping. I cannot comment on its legality except to say that I added it in good faith: I wasn't trying to get away with anything.

This UN Funding issue could really use some closure

*If it fails: Yes, I'll work on another version. My original motivation may have been accepting a challenge, but I've grown quite fond of the idea, and I don't intend to give up.

~Lady Meribeth Collins
Submerged Queendom of Remba



go for it!

3. Try to keep in mind that some of the nations who are opposed or abstaining actually support the idea of an international currency resolution, they just have misgivings about the wording of this one. We could see a different version of this very proposal passed at some time in the future.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Our nation has said this all along. We do not have a problem with the idea of an International Credit, but it is the implementation of this resolution that is what we are worried about.

And to the delegation from Remba, we would again like to extend our apologies for our outburst some number of pages back. It was uncalled for, and no excuses cover, or should cover, what was said. Whether you have seen it or not does not make a difference, what matters is that it was said, and for that we are truly sorry.

Sincerely,
Under-Ambassador Richard Curkney
Temporary Ambassador to the UN

"Wow. Us Guardians are finicky today. Public opinion is now in support, and I have cast our vote such." He sighed. "I hate those days when there's nothing to do but sit around and think."

This UN Funding issue could really use some closureIndeed it could. Then authors could ignore funding again.

Our nation has said this all along. We do not have a problem with the idea of an International Credit, but it is the implementation of this resolution that is what we are worried about.This seemed, to us, to be one of the few ways it could be done, given the various legal restrictions on such an action. If we could just say "Everyone changes their currency to the IC and that's that," it would be considerably easier.

The trick is doing it in a way that isn't too odious, but not completely useless.

Whether you have seen it or not does not make a difference, what matters is that it was said, and for that we are truly sorry.Oh, I saw it. Had I been around when it was first said, I'd likely have responded. Saying something now would just be... petty.

The Wolf Guardians;12696518']"Wow. Us Guardians are finicky today. Public opinion is now in support, and I have cast our vote such."Part of the joys of a monarchy, Wolfgang (Mr. 0-13?). There's only one vote to count.

Indeed it could. Then authors could ignore funding again.


I would like to refer to one of my previous posts which proposes an alternative way of funding the world bank.

I also provide a quite elegant solution to stop hyperinflation of the IC.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12694329&postcount=171

Furthermore I refer to the following link where I explain what the benefits of an IC are. Why it doesnt interfere with a nations sovereinity.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12693993&postcount=163

It is true that the Empire of Rum and Coke with Lime is a new addition to the UN, and the community as a whole- but our fine nation has been greatly involved in world politics for some time before its current evolution into the Empire it is today.
The humble ambassador of Rum and Coke with Lime sees far too many problems with creating an International Trade Currency that just do not outweigh the benefits of "convenience".

If all decisions in this world came down to simple convenience there would be no such thing as democracy nor would there be really any structured governments at all.
Your nation handles their economy their own way- and by doing so, the value of their money is greater than or less than the value of other nations. This creates stronger economies and a more thriving work force as it can be shown that a country who is doing better may reap the benefits of a more valued currency.
You will notice throughout the world this is true, and it is not the right of any governing body to take away what a nation as fine as yours or ours has rightly earned with sweat,blood and tears.

The Empire of Rum and Coke with Lime votes AGAINST this, as its ambassador will not dare to try and rob his nation of its own identity- and shame to any nation who attempts such an act.

Thank you very much for your time,

Michael Slade
U.N. Ambassador
The Empire of Rum and Coke with Lime

Reads....

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

AGAINST.

Your nation handles their economy their own way- and by doing so, the value of their money is greater than or less than the value of other nations. This creates stronger economies and a more thriving work force as it can be shown that a country who is doing better may reap the benefits of a more valued currency.
You will notice throughout the world this is true, and it is not the right of any governing body to take away what a nation as fine as yours or ours has rightly earned with sweat,blood and tears.

The Empire of Rum and Coke with Lime votes AGAINST this, as its ambassador will not dare to try and rob his nation of its own identity- and shame to any nation who attempts such an act.

Thank you very much for your time,

Michael Slade
U.N. Ambassador
The Empire of Rum and Coke with Lime

The introduction of the IC does not have any effect on existing exchange rates, nor does it have any effect on economic policy decisions made by any nation. Strong currencies will still be strong, weak currencies will still be weak. The IC does not fix exchange rates, nor does it demand that existing exchange rates be atlered. Exchange rates will still be formed by the same market mechanisms as before. The IC is a virtual currency (a means to facilitate exchanges from one existing currency into another) it does'nt have the same goals as real currencies (a means to facilitate exchanges from one good/service into another). This difference means that it can never take the place of national currencies.

For further information about how the IC would work, I refer to my 2 earlier posts.

The introduction of the IC does not have any effect on existing exchange rates, nor does it have any effect on economic policy decisions made by any nation. Strong currencies will still be strong, weak currencies will still be weak. The IC does not fix exchange rates, nor does it demand that existing exchange rates be atlered. Exchange rates will still be formed by the same market mechanisms as before


The use of the IC would have an impact on the economic policies of a nation aswell as the exchange rate of there home currency. It would cause economical disaster for some small nations.


The minister from The Grand Viceroy Bill gave a RW example for this

"I urge you all not to be a sheep and to stay with our own currencies, for example, inflation will increase, look at the facts, the belgian franc was worth
$1.43, but now as being the Euro, it is now worth 78 cents, its price has totally dropped, so for the good of all things in this world for the people still deciding please vote against, for the people who have voted for, the withdraw your vote and for people who have voted against, I thank you.
The Armed Republic Of The Grand Viceroy Bill"

OOC: And the Belgian economy is doing fine. Exports benefit greatly from the new change. Belgium has greatly benefited from the eurozone. It has fine growth and low unemployment. People are most certainly not dying in the streets.

I fear this resolution is about to fail narrowly because of lying scaremongering campaigns like the one from this Belgian xenophobe.

The use of the IC would have an impact on the economic policies of a nation aswell as the exchange rate of there home currency. It would cause economical disaster for some small nations.


The minister from The Grand Viceroy Bill gave a RW example for this

"I urge you all not to be a sheep and to stay with our own currencies, for example, inflation will increase, look at the facts, the belgian franc was worth
$1.43, but now as being the Euro, it is now worth 78 cents, its price has totally dropped, so for the good of all things in this world for the people still deciding please vote against, for the people who have voted for, the withdraw your vote and for people who have voted against, I thank you.
The Armed Republic Of The Grand Viceroy Bill"

I agree with you when you say that establishing a world currency union, like the Eurozone would be a bad idea. Luckely this proposal does not establish a currency union, but a vehicle currency. These two things may sound alike, but there is a world of difference. If you do not feel like you fully understand both concepts I urge you to read my previous posts:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=163
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=171

As to your arguement that the Belgian Franc (BEF) would be worth 1.43USD, that is incorrect. Prior to the Euro, one USD was worth about 30BEF. Or put the other way around, 1BEF was worth about 1/30USD. I agree with the Knootian East Indies when they said that the Euro was a good thing for Belgium.

One last thing: a high currency value doesn't have to be good, nor is a low currency bad. It can go both ways. So even if the BEF (doesn't even exist anymore, so how would it's value be relevant?) is worth less now then it used to be. It might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing depending on each specific case.

OOC: sadly, those with even a high school understanding of economics are not a majority in this vote.

I agree with you when you say that establishing a world currency union, like the Eurozone would be a bad idea. Luckely this proposal does not establish a currency union, but a vehicle currency. These two things may sound alike, but there is a world of difference. If you do not feel like you fully understand both concepts I urge you to read my previous posts:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=163
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=171

As to your arguement that the Belgian Franc (BEF) would be worth 1.43USD, that is incorrect. Prior to the Euro, one USD was worth about 30BEF. Or put the other way around, 1BEF was worth about 1/30USD. I agree with the Knootian East Indies when they said that the Euro was a good thing for Belgium.

One last thing: a high currency value doesn't have to be good, nor is a low currency bad. It can go both ways. So even if the BEF (doesn't even exist anymore, so how would it's value be relevant?) is worth less now then it used to be. It might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing depending on each specific case.


Firstly, I am no Xenophobe and i'm greatly offended by you caling me one, I was simply showing a RW example and expressed no view either way as to my views on the Belgin people.

The post I cited refered to the value of the Belgin currency during the two months period it had where it used the BEF and the Euro where the value of the BEF greatly fell. This duel currency state is similar to what will happen if the current proposal is implemented and this is why it is relevent to this topic.

If the value of a nations currency falls there overal economical value will fall which will in turn push inflation and taxes up, causing a nation that is barely sustaning itself to collapse.

ooc: You might want to read up on flamebaiting with ignore announcements (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8269429&postcount=45). The OSRS allows polite announcements (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023&highlight=ignore+list+flamebait), but the emphasized wording seems less than polite.

I admit my previous ignorance of that particular ruling. My thanks, Rubina. I'll attempt to restrain my wording in future.

Firstly, I am no Xenophobe and i'm greatly offended by you caling me one, I was simply showing a RW example and expressed no view either way as to my views on the Belgin people.

The post I cited refered to the value of the Belgin currency during the two months period it had where it used the BEF and the Euro where the value of the BEF greatly fell. This duel currency state is similar to what will happen if the current proposal is implemented and this is why it is relevent to this topic.


If the value of a nations currency falls there overal economical value will fall which will in turn push inflation and taxes up, causing a nation that is barely sustaning itself to collapse.

The last part of your argument isn't relevant. The IC will not have an influence on current exchange rates. Why not? Because the IC is very different from the Euro. The IC doesn't propose to hold exchange rates fixed at a predetermined level like the Euro, for example the EUR/BEF exchange rate fixed at 40.3399.

Instead the NS currencies will float against the virtual IC. The value of IC/'national currency' exchange rate will be determined by the exchange rates of all the national currencies together.

Let's take for example three countries: 1, 2 and 3 with each its own currency respectivly: A, B and C.

How will exchange rates form?
You just take the value of currency A and divide by the value of currency B. In our example: the exchange rate of country 1 and 2 would be A/B. The same argument is true for all other nations.

How will we decide the value of the IC?
We just apply the same logic as above, with some adjustments. First we add all the values of all the currencies: A+B+C. We divide this by the total number of currencies: 3. This would give the IC a value of (A+B+C)/3.

How will the exchange between the national currencies (A,B and C) and the IC form?
Simple. Just like in the first step we take the value of country 1's currency: A and we divide this by the value of the IC =(A+B+C)/3. In symbols this would give us an exchange between country 1 and the IC equal to: A/IC.

What is relevant?
From the reasoning above we see that the exchange rate of the IC is actually determined by the values national currencies, and not the other way around. This way the IC cannot have any influence on the values of the national currencies.

What if the value of currency A raises by 10%?
The two other currencies B and C won't be worth as much A as before. With or without an IC, this process will be the same. When there is an IC, the risen value of A will change the value of the IC (and the value of the IC won't have an effect on the value of A, as previously demonstrated) because the value of the IC reflects the values of all participating national currencies. In symbols: IC= (1.1*A+B+C). Countries 2 and 3 will now have to pay more B and C for an IC, which reflect their lower relative value to A on the world market.

(the 1.1 in the equation above IC= (1.1*A+B+C) refers to the rise of 10% of the value of A)


You make it look as if I called you a xenophobe, something that I didn't do. Someone else did but that's not my problem.

i like the idea of the bank but i would like it even more if it was free to change the money instead of paying a fee that is undetermind yet.

This resolution is a good idea beacuse it promotes economical strenght and international trade. Althought I don't agree with the One currency it is only recomended

I disagree with this resolution. Perhaps if a few things were rephrased or omitted I'd go along with it.

I disagree with this resolution. Perhaps if a few things were rephrased or omitted I'd go along with it.

Care to tell us what you think should be rephrased or omitted?

The introduction of the IC does not have any effect on existing exchange rates, nor does it have any effect on economic policy decisions made by any nation.
This is exactly wrong. The resolution mandates that exchange rates shall henceforth be determined by free market mechanisms. That's pretty much all it mandates, but it's enough to undermine command economies. Gobbannium doesn't have a command economy, but even we can see that being a bad idea.

Not just command economies; for the sake of stability many countries pursue managed float systems and it could be very difficult for that to continue. It could seriously affect many countries which rely on exporting to power their economy and find it impossible to stop their currency's value, vis-a-vis this international currency, from appreciating.

And our currencies are part of our identities. A lot of people believe that switching to an international currency is going to take away their current currency, the one they created at the beginning of the game. If I'm reading this right, that's exactly what it's going to do, and a lot of people aren't okay with that. Including me.

The IC is a vehicle currency that should only be used at the state level.

Period dot.

Shoot this thing down, re-submit it, and let's see how it works with that.

A lot of people believe that switching to an international currency is going to take away their current currency, the one they created at the beginning of the game. If I'm reading this right, that's exactly what it's going to doBut you aren't reading it right.

OOC: sadly, those with even a high school understanding of economics are not a majority in this vote.

This holder of an Economics A-level certainly hopes that you aren't making the rather arrogant implication that disagreement with you, opposition to this resolution or the concept of an international trading currency is necessarily founded in ignorance.

OOC: May I presume that "A Level" is something British? *too lazy and tired to look it up*

I think this proposal is a skilful solution which avoid the ban of a single currency for all UN nations and LAE voted proudly FOR.

The "Credit" seems pretty simlar to the forerunner of the €: the ECU (European Currency Unit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Currency_Unit

That said I recognize some problems with this resolution:
-the name of the currency "Credit" which is ithink 100% confusing and a really bad name.
-the clause:
"PERMITS the World Bank to assess minimal fees on exchanges, but limits those fees to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank"
which is very vague and a totally different matter, what will be the taxed here is not clear.

Yes it is. And some universities on the other continent will give you advance credit or whatever they term it since it covers most of what you'd learn in the first year.

Nevertheless I'd never presume to say I must be correct and other people are ignorant/stupid/wrong because I have a pre-university qualification in the subject, and I hope we're not about to hit that here.

Now as for the resolution, I can't sustain an argument since I can't log on as frequently as I'd like, so I'll just state a position here. I think this is a silly and potentially dangerous resolution which critically undermines the ability of nations - regardless of the economic system which prevails there - to set economic policy and manage their economies, particularly in regards to trade. Neither does it seem to me that the objective of increasing trade would be achieved very effectively as surely the need to convert currencies isn't such a terrible inconvenience or extra cost as to discourage trade. It also appears to require all currencies to be freely traded, which is something I can't agree with, IC or OOC. Go here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kelssek_dollar) for a basic overview of the IC currency policy.

-the name of the currency "Credit" which is ithink 100% confusing and a really bad name."Credit" is a pretty generic currency name. Kinda like "dollar" or "coin".

which is very vague and a totally different matter, what will be the taxed here is not clear.The transaction.

It also appears to require all currencies to be freely traded, which is something I can't agree with, IC or OOC.Well, there's nothing I can do about that. I can't imagine that any future drafts (as this vote isn't looking too good for me) won't include something akin to that.

And there's not much I can do about people who always oppose free trade resolutions.


~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

Now as for the resolution, I can't sustain an argument since I can't log on as frequently as I'd like, so I'll just state a position here. I think this is a silly and potentially dangerous resolution which critically undermines the ability of nations - regardless of the economic system which prevails there - to set economic policy and manage their economies, particularly in regards to trade. Neither does it seem to me that the objective of increasing trade would be achieved very effectively as surely the need to convert currencies isn't such a terrible inconvenience or extra cost as to discourage trade. It also appears to require all currencies to be freely traded, which is something I can't agree with, IC or OOC. Go here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kelssek_dollar) for a basic overview of the IC currency policy.

This proposal is absolutly not silly. It's a natsov-friendly one which try to set up a stability international financial system. This system is not mandatory but encouraged.

This proposal can bring stability as it introduce a new currency which will be the ***reference*** for international trade and transaction. Then international trade and transaction will not be addicted to one very unstable national money in general (such as the unstable dollar in the virtual world called "The Earth" or a metal such as "gold" or whatever).

But what is missing also to this proposal is that this unit will be best to calculated as a panel of all UN currencies (ie: a economicly weigted average of all UN currencies).

LAE proudly voted FOR.

"REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;" looks quite mandatory. We would lose the ability to control the value of our currency. Moreover, I do not see that this has any significant advantages over the current situation.

I didn't mean instability in terms of the international system, I meant in terms of domestic economies. It can hurt exports and hence the domestic economy to have your currency go up or down rapidly, which is why many national banks intervene to moderate the jumps. Can't do that if this passes. Or what about the big exporters who keep their currencies undervalued to maintain competitiveness?

Well, there's nothing I can do about that. I can't imagine that any future drafts (as this vote isn't looking too good for me) won't include something akin to that.

Why is that so important to the idea of an international trading currency? I don't see the link. If not for this we'd just shrug and let it go. Honestly, even having some international organisation dictate to me how much my currency is worth is a small thing compared to requiring it to be freely traded.

"REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;" looks quite mandatory. We would lose the ability to control the value of our currency.

Indeed this mandatory part is indeed an international "Tobin tax" on i suppose "cuurencies* transactions and LAE support this as we drafted a resolution on this topic before.
And no, this has nothing to do with the he ability for a nation to control the value of its currency.

I didn't mean instability in terms of the international system, I meant in terms of domestic economies. It can hurt exports and hence the domestic economy to have your currency go up or down rapidly, which is why many national banks intervene to moderate the jumps. Can't do that if this passes. Or what about the big exporters who keep their currencies undervalued to maintain competitiveness?

No, as this proposal clearly states:
""""RECOMMENDS but does not require member nations to switch to the International Credit for all intra-national exchange as well.""""
this new currency unit is set up for mainly "international trade".

If we look at what happen in RL today, US$ is de facto the "international trade" currency.
So the question is: do you prefer:
1- a one-national and instable currency (such as the US$) de facto the "international trade" currency, or
2- a chaotic system without main unit reference for international trade (which impose even more currencies variation insurance for most of international trade), or
3- gold (or any other stuff) as the reference unit!
4- a stable economically-weighted unit which is not related to *one* nation in particular, but *all* of them in the NSUN?

Which one of these solutions do you think will will help the more the world economy to be sustainable?

I apologise for the misunderstanding. I was under the impression that the "rates" referred to were currency exchange rates. However, I still do not see an opt-out for "ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;"

Sustainable? Now that's a loaded question which goes far, far beyond international currency exchange, trade or even economics for that matter. I don't think it's within the scope of the discussion.

And wouldn't national currencies continue to fluctuate in value against each other and the new currency unit? What difference would it really make in terms of making trade simpler? You'd still have to take fluctuations in value into account because you still have to convert somewhere, whether it's to buy from a local supplier or pay your employees.

Why is that so important to the idea of an international trading currency? I don't see the link. If not for this we'd just shrug and let it go.The value has to be set somehow, doesn't it? As mentioned by the delegate from L&E, there's only so many options available. People are screaming bloody murder about existing vagueries already. I can't imagine the response if I was to have left valuation of the IC undefined.

A single de facto currency from one nation isn't going to work in NS. Too many nations, too many variables, and then there's the problem if IGNORE cannons. If the Menelmacari Credit is to be the international standard, what happens if someone decides that Menelmacar doesn't exist?

Having no basis for a currency whatsoever is insane. It would be worthless and nobody would use it. This isn't the same as a floating currency. This is Monopoly money.

Having a fixed standard (ie: gold, oil, uranium) is also asking for disaster. In a world with pan-galactic space empires, scarcity is an illusion. It's just too vulnerable to manipulation (ie: look at what De Beers has done to the diamond market IRL).

This leaves us with a free market solution. No one nation can manipulate the value as its value is derived from 30,000-some nations. Add in the fact that the UN isn't going anywhere (ooc: as it's hard coded into the game), and it's a stable mechanic. The cries of corruption are hyperbole, and I see no other way to calculate the value of the IC.


~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

"REQUIRES all member nations to accept and honor the rates posted by the World Bank;" looks quite mandatory.

Why is that so important to the idea of an international trading currency? I don't see the link. If not for this we'd just shrug and let it go. .

I do agree with the fact that the original proposal doesn't go into the details as much as it should do. There are some things in it that require a bit of imagination and goodwill while reading. This is probably because UN proposals do have a length limitation and writing the proposal out clearly and completly would take several pages. I shall try to clarify some things for you:The bit where it says that member states will have to honor the rates posted by the world bank is unhappely frased. What it means is that the World Bank will let the market determine exchange rates between the IC and the national currencies, (read this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12697724#post12697724 if you want to know how this would happen) and that IC's will be traded against national currencies at that exchange rate.
I know the proposal doesn't say this literaly, but it can be interpreted like this.
Moreover, I do not see that this has any significant advantages over the current situation.

The advantages are quite important aswell. Lets say I have 100 Locos (my currency) and I want to trade those for your Kelssek dollars. If we are both small nations, it will be very hard for me to find someone who has Kelseek dollars and wants to trade them for my 100 Locos. If I can't find anyone I'm pretty much screwed. The only way I would get my Kelssek dollars would then be to trade my Locos for Pounds, then those Pounds for Francs, then those for Liras and if I am lucky I will find someone who is willing to trade my Liras for Kelssek dollars.

At first sight it may look like the IC complicates trade by adding another currency, it actually makes trade less complicated by reducing the amount of transactions I have to make to convert my Locos into Kelssek dollars. There will now be a maximum amount of conversions I will have to do with the IC. I will have to convert my locos to IC (step 1) and then I can convert my IC's in Kelssek dollars (step 2).

Note that this two-step process does in no way elevates the minimum amount of transactions needed (1 step) to convert my locos into Kelssek dollars. If I get really lucky and I find someone who is willing to trade my locos for Kelssek dollars, then there is nobody stopping me from making a direct trade.

In short: the IC lowers the maximum required amount of transactions, which used to be infinite, to 2. Without elevating the minimum required amount of transactions, 1.

We would lose the ability to control the value of our currency.

I didn't mean instability in terms of the international system, I meant in terms of domestic economies. It can hurt exports and hence the domestic economy to have your currency go up or down rapidly, which is why many national banks intervene to moderate the jumps. Can't do that if this passes. Or what about the big exporters who keep their currencies undervalued to maintain competitiveness?

The IC in no way demands that countries give up their monetary policy. Let's say your national bank finds that you currency (Kelssek dollar) isn't worth enough and that it would be better for your economy if your Kelssek dollar would appreciate. How would your national bank achieve this? The process remains the same before and after the introduction of the IC. Your national bank will then buy Kelssek dollars and sell international reserves (any other currency that your national bank may possess). Basic laws of supply and demand say that when demand for Kelssek dollars raises and supply of other currencies raises aswell, the relative price of your Kelssek dollar will go up and your currency will appreciate.

The IC even facilitates your monetary policy because your national bank will find it easier to find appropriate partners to exchange money with, as described above.

Honestly, even having some international organisation dictate to me how much my currency is worth is a small thing compared to requiring it to be freely traded

The World Bank doesnt dictate how much your money is worth. It doesn't have such power. Check this link:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12697724#post12697724

for a detailed explanation on how exchange rates will form.

Sustainable? Now that's a loaded question which goes far, far beyond international currency exchange, trade or even economics for that matter. I don't think it's within the scope of the discussion.

And wouldn't national currencies continue to fluctuate in value against each other and the new currency unit? What difference would it really make in terms of making trade simpler? You'd still have to take fluctuations in value into account because you still have to convert somewhere, whether it's to buy from a local supplier or pay your employees.

Sustainability is related to stability. I suppose you don't oppose any international trade. As each nation has its own currency, international trade has always a *risk* created by the fluctuation of currencies. As such many organism operating international trade subscribe expensive "insurance" in order to decrease the risk created by the fluctuation of currencies.

A international unit, as created in this proposal, is by definition pretty stable by any standard (as the average of the variation of 30 000 currencies).

And then it means the international trade and national currencies will be less easily damaged by rogue attacks by traders against one currency or by various economic events.

I see what you mean. Unfortunately, as I've said, such a thing is completely unacceptable to our government as we will refuse to expose our currency to speculation. As we've indicated even the prospect of a world body setting rates to the international credit is (barely) more palatable.

In the end it's risk versus reward. Most of our trade is non-monetary or with nations which would reject the use of the international credit anyway. Relinquishing capital and currency controls represents an unacceptable level of risk for the sake of very little, if any, reward - the value of which we are doubtful of. I hope you can see why, even before any discussions of ideology, we are opposed to this.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

EDIT:

Sustainability is related to stability

I don't think we're quite on the same wavelength here. Sustainability makes me think of environmental problems and running out of oil. I'm not sure what you mean by it.

A international unit, as created in this proposal, is by definition pretty stable by any standard (as the average of the variation of 30 000 currencies).

But individual currencies are not necessarily going to be stable in relation to it. I don't argue with the fact that it might make transactions involving multiple countries easier. I do argue with the fact that it's such a huge improvement over the situation without it.

And then it means the international trade and national currencies will be less easily damaged by rogue attacks by traders against one currency or by various economic events.

In fact, by forcing us to make our currency freely tradable on an open market, we are forced to make it more easily damaged by a speculative attack. Our domestic economy is put at serious risk in such a case and it could easily have a knock-on effect throughout the world.

Having no basis for a currency whatsoever is insane. It would be worthless and nobody would use it. This isn't the same as a floating currency. This is Monopoly money.

Having a fixed standard is also asking for disaster. In a world with pan-galactic space empires, scarcity is an illusion. It's just too vulnerable to manipulation (ie: look at what De Beers has done to the diamond market IRL).

~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

Instead of backing up the IC by commodities (ie: gold, oil, uranium), you can also back it up by other money. Explained here:


The World Bank creates a pile of virtual IC. The cost of creating is very near to zero.

The World Bank then exchanges the IC's it has created with real money from the nations in NS at the going exchange rate. In other words: the World Bank sells IC's (which cost the World Bank nothing, but they are worth a lot more) and people pay with their national currencies.

This way the World Bank is sitting on a large pile of money. It can then go to the financial markets with that money and put it on a bank account. The World Bank will then receive interest rates on this money to pay for its operating costs.

Confidence in the IC is maintained when the World Bank guarantee that when people return to the World Bank with their IC's, they can get their real money in return. While normal money in RL used to be covered by gold, the IC will be 100% by real money holdings. No money is destroyed or created, just transformed in other types of money.

I see what you mean. Unfortunately, as I've said, such a thing is completely unacceptable to our government as we will refuse to expose our currency to speculation. As we've indicated even the prospect of a world body setting rates to the international credit is (barely) more palatable.

In the end it's risk versus reward. Most of our trade is non-monetary or with nations which would reject the use of the international credit anyway. Relinquishing capital and currency controls represents an unacceptable level of risk for the sake of very little, if any, reward - the value of which we are doubtful of. I hope you can see why, even before any discussions of ideology, we are opposed to this.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

Correct me if I'm wrong but apart from the mandatory *tobin tax* created by this proposal, nothing is mandated. So if you want to, you are not forced to use this very usefull tool. That said i would like to encourage you to think again if it pass, as I'm sure it can help also your nation.

as we will refuse to expose our currency to speculation

I applaud you goal, but I hope Kelssek is not a totalitarian regime which ban people from travelling or export/import goods/services, so you have to accept that your currency is being traded for another one, this is something very important to consider.

This is exactly wrong. The resolution mandates that exchange rates shall henceforth be determined by free market mechanisms. That's pretty much all it mandates, but it's enough to undermine command economies. Gobbannium doesn't have a command economy, but even we can see that being a bad idea.

The exchange rate between the IC and national currencies is determined by the markets. But as I have explained before. It only states that the World Bank will not set fixed exchange rates. Nations are still free to choose between a fixed or a floating exchange rate.

And wouldn't national currencies continue to fluctuate in value against each other and the new currency unit?

Yes they would, unless national governments choose to intervene. The IC doesnt change any of this.


Most of our trade is non-monetary or with nations which would reject the use of the international credit anyway.

This would be a valid arguement against the IC. The IC will not directly benefit you if you do not use money in international trade. Still it will benefit other nations who do use money in international trade. Why won't you deny them that adavantage.

Also what seems puzzeling to me is that if you do not use your money a lot on the international markets but you are very concerned with the value of your money. The only way a stable exchange rate will benefit your is if you use it a lot in trade. Else your just waisting money to stabilize something that nobody uses.

Also I wonder how you trade without using money? 80sheep + 3 camels in return for a license on menure?

Er, no, not in my reading of "ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common free market exchange;"

I don't see any opt-out from that.

I applaud you goal, but I hope Kelssek is not a totalitarian regime which ban people from travelling or export/import goods/services, so you have to accept that your currency is being traded for another one, this is something very important to consider.

Those kinds of quantities are not enough to cause significant destabilisation; in fact, as tourism is a significant part of our economy, we encourage travel. Those uses are precisely what currencies and international exchange is meant for and we don't have any problems with that. Tourists don't generally need to bring home over $100,000.

It's speculation which we don't want. We don't bother with trying to plug up the "leaks", we just try to make sure they're small enough that it doesn't matter so much. We can't do much about people trading it around, but the amount that is trading around isn't so much that a sell-off could spark an economic crisis (OOC: such as what happened to the Thai baht in 1997) and we can effectively prevent hot-money flows.

EDIT:

We're concerned because if the value is too high, we become less attractive for tourists, and that's a lot of our economy. And we do have some money-based trade which would be affected. The non-monetary trade is effectively barter, based on the monetary value of the goods we indeed do something like that, though it's more like $5 million worth of refrigerators for $5 million worth of seafood, quantity will vary with whatever the value of the goods are. We're IFTA members and a lot of our trading partners are anarcho-syndicalist communes and the like. The respective trade office gnomes deal with all the nitty-gritty.

It's speculation which we don't want.

We don't like it also; but when there is trade there is speculation, no escape.
So the aim is to limit speculation, as you cannot prevent it totally, it's utopia.
And this proposal try to introduce something interesting to limit speculation:
a tobin tax on currencies exchange inside the UN.
I agree that more can be done to limit speculation, but that's a pretty good start.

By establishing a stabilized international unit, this proposal propose a second tool to limit speculation and to give more stability and visibility to the financial international market and trade.

No, there are no magical solution against speculation, but yes we can do something to sustain, secure and stabilize international trade which is essential for the world economy and this proposal is not perfect, but introduce 2 pretty useful tools.

With all due respect, I don't think forcing us to relinquish our anti-speculation measures, which is what demanding we allow free exchange will force, will help reduce speculation in our currency.

Those kinds of quantities are not enough to cause significant destabilisation; in fact, as tourism is a significant part of our economy, we encourage travel. Those uses are precisely what currencies and international exchange is meant for and we don't have any problems with that. Tourists don't generally need to bring home over $100,000.

It's speculation which we don't want. We don't bother with trying to plug up the "leaks", we just try to make sure they're small enough that it doesn't matter so much. We can't do much about people trading it around, but the amount that is trading around isn't so much that a sell-off could spark an economic crisis (OOC: such as what happened to the Thai baht in 1997) and we can effectively prevent hot-money flows.

EDIT:

We're concerned because if the value is too high, we become less attractive for tourists, and that's a lot of our economy. And we do have some money-based trade which would be affected. The non-monetary trade is effectively barter, based on the monetary value of the goods we indeed do something like that, though it's more like $5 million worth of refrigerators for $5 million worth of seafood, quantity will vary with whatever the value of the goods are. We're IFTA members and a lot of our trading partners are anarcho-syndicalist communes and the like. The respective trade office gnomes deal with all the nitty-gritty.

I don't believe the IC will lead to increased speculation. The sharp reduction of the value of the Baht was a sign of deeper economic problems in south east asia. It is not because the collapse of the Baht that the economy collapsed, but rather the other way around.

You say that you have stable exchange rates. Stable in relation to who? Lets say there are three currencies: Kelssek dollar (KSD), USD and GBP. The value of the KSD stayes the same. The USD appreciates a lot and the GBP depreciates a lot compared to the KSD.

Now you want to keep your exchange rates fixed. What will you do? The value of the KSD compared to the USD has plunged. To repair this you will need to appreciate your currency. The value of the KSD compared to the GBP has soared. To repair this you will need to depreciate your currency.

Any one nation can only peg its currency to one other nation. If all countries peg their currency to the same nation then you will have a fixed exchange rate regime between all those countries. The idea here is that you cannot unilaterly decide to have a fixed exchange rate regime with more than one country.

Only tribal economies still use barter trade, most other economies have switched to using money (and for good reason). Barterring is terribly expensive in comparison. But of course if you want to have a tribal nation that is your choice.

With all due respect, I don't think forcing us to relinquish our anti-speculation measures, which is what demanding we allow free exchange will force, will help reduce speculation in our currency.

What are your anti-speculation measures? And how will they be influenced by the IC?

No more than KSD 100,000 may go in or out of the country without permission from the central bank, which also tries to maintain a managed float system against the currencies which are important to us, such as major sources of tourist arrivals and trading partners. Officially the KSD is also kept off money markets as much as possible, though we don't really bother with trying to stop people from trading it around once the currency gets out of the country. Then there's also the natural limitations since we only trade within the closed IFTA bloc. I'd say only about 1/4 of our trade is based on money, but the explanation is below so I'll get to your answer now:

Part of this resolution demands we drop these restrictions on money movements and allow our currency to be freely traded on currency markets. It is not that introducing the credit itself will cause currency speculation, it is this specific provision of the resolution that will expose us to greater risk of it.

For an explanation most of our trade is based on negoiated bilateral trade deals within the IFTA, x amount of a certain good for x amount of another. It looks like bartering, but in reality our governments just agree on what to exchange and we have gnomes in offices working out the monetary values and the proper quantities to be imported and exported based on demand, costs, etc. The usual money-based deals, I'm sure, take place between private citizens but the value of these transactions is very small in the big picture of our economy - which is just how I see my IC system working, incidentally, my trading partners may see it working how they wish. We have a lot of cross-border trade with one of our IFTA-member neighbours and that probably accounts for most of the money-based trade since it's much less organised and there's naturally more economic activity between geographical neighbours than with nations on other continents.

No more than KSD 100,000 may go in or out of the country without permission from the central bank, which also tries to maintain a managed float system against the currencies which are important to us, such as major sources of tourist arrivals and trading partners. Officially the KSD is also kept off money markets as much as possible, though we don't really bother with trying to stop people from trading it around once the currency gets out of the country. Then there's also the natural limitations since we only trade within the closed IFTA bloc. I'd say only about 1/4 of our trade is based on money, but the explanation is below so I'll get to your answer now:

Part of this resolution demands we drop these restrictions on money movements and allow our currency to be freely traded on currency markets. It is not that introducing the credit itself will cause currency speculation, it is this specific provision of the resolution that will expose us to greater risk of it.

For an explanation most of our trade is based on negoiated bilateral trade deals within the IFTA, x amount of a certain good for x amount of another. It looks like bartering, but in reality our governments just agree on what to exchange and we have gnomes in offices working out the monetary values and the proper quantities to be imported and exported based on demand, costs, etc. The usual money-based deals, I'm sure, take place between private citizens but the value of these transactions is very small in the big picture of our economy - which is just how I see my IC system working, incidentally, my trading partners may see it working how they wish. We have a lot of cross-border trade with one of our IFTA-member neighbours and that probably accounts for most of the money-based trade since it's much less organised and there's naturally more economic activity between geographical neighbours than with nations on other continents.

Your closed economy might work. But the resolution doesn't demand that you open up your capital markets. There will be a world bank who will say: "I got IC's and I am willing to trade those for KSD". You can still say: "No more than KSD 100,000 may go in or out of the country without permission from the central bank". The amounts of KSD traded on the world market will still be the same as before. Just as before, nobody will want your KSD's because they can't buy anything with it. Mainly because you barter as much and don't allow any large capital flows.

Look At What You Communists Did!!!

Well, that's a difference in the interpretation of the clause which states all currencies will be traded on a free market which I doubt we can resolve. I don't think it allows us to restrict the trade of our currency, you think it will. Since the resolution has failed, though, I guess it's moot.

Since the resolution has failed, though, I guess it's moot.Not quite (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12704214#post12704214).

this does raise a good point BUT! you will have to convert anyways, and i think that it will be hard economicly to achive, based that some countrys might have more currency than others because of there current currency. It would be unbalaced, i think no matter what, the only way for this to solve is all trading go through UN and they pay with the currency or All countries have to pay with currecy, i think neither will happen soon, may i suggest that first before this, we set up some basic trade laws that start to involve the UN and make a slow plan to introduce the new currency, but i think the UN would have to do more conversions with the currency than with current currencey ex: Us dollars to UK pounds= 1 dollar=Xamout of pounds, then they have to have a refrence point to base the currency off of say 5 US dollars= 1 currency so it would be in the final equasion. X Us dollars to X Uk Pounds divided by 5 Us Dollars= X