NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the version that failed:

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.

As promised, I'm not giving up on this, so I'm going to start reworking it, as soon as I get a solid grasp on how and what to change. It's still going to be Free Trade though, so if you always vote against Free Trade resolutions, there's nothing I can do about it.

Right off the top, I'll be eliminating the sunset clause. I still think that it's legal, but there's no sense in having that lurking about, causing problems. I think I'll compress the funding into something like:

IN THE ABSENCE OF direct UN funding, blah blah blah

I'm still leaning towards an undefined fee charged per transaction. I think setting a solid amount isn't going to work.

~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

Semi-OOC post.

Here is what I suggest:

-Explain the problem: people who don't have a basic understanding of economics don't know what the problem is. You gotta pitch it. Frame the issue, if you will. Explain the disastrous inefficiency of 30.000 different currencies. You have to break a good story down into two sections: a problem that they can be outraged about, and a solution they will be relieved is there. A lot of abstaining votes were because people did not understand the problem. (And feel free to sex it up a little - people don't "get" economic efficiency, and the euro was largely sold on it "being convenient for when people go on holiday". This isn't the Euro, but people treat it in exactly the same way in their voting behaviour.)

-Get rid of the per-transaction fee. People will assume it is huge, and it's grossly inefficient to tax a huge number of individual transactions to get a nominally tiny amount of money. Just permit the world bank to "raise money". That means they can charge money, but the n00b countries won't go "grrr arrgh" because of it being THEIR money. The gnomes will decide how to raise the money. I like financial responsibility, but the debate on the failed resolution inexplicably focussed on how to raise (at most) four fucking billion dollars, rather than implementing a world currency and a world bank. We gotta pick fights we can win.

-Add a specific clause that looks natsov but which doesn't change the proposal. Like "the IC is NOT a single currency" or words to that effect. This might reassure some of the British/Nationalist players who are voting. (the GRRRRRRRRRR MAAAAH CURRENCY BUT WE ARE THE MOTHERLAND *wraps self in his own flag and weeps for loss of colonial empire* crowd is still going to go against, but you can try to at least not actively alienate the more moderate of these mongrels.)

-Perhaps redundant (since you are of the same opinion) but the resolution is still a free trade one. Trying to appease the hardcore anticapitalists is pointless. Kelsek and the ACA are never going to vote for this.

-The word "bureaucracy" was often used in association with the World Bank. This can be spun more positively. Perhaps the "World Bank" should be named differently: a word that the peons have more happy associations with. Financial Trust... or something. Please don't change what it does, but consider changing how you call it.

-Perhaps change the order in which the resolution is presented; neatly pidgeonhole the different institutions. Paragraphs might be better. One for the world bank explaining its purpose, one for the IC, etcetera. I'm not a marketeer, but the presentation could at least be less confusing.

Just as the only word I'm going to say on this (but it is not by far my only grievance), please remove the last RECOMMENDS. It just doesn't sit well with me, and I'm under the impression that it didn't sit well with many other nations as well.

Ok, I lied, there's one more thing I'm going to say. Please don't do paragraphs as the respected prior delegate suggests. The current batch of nations tends to respect concise, compact bullet point presentation rather than paragraph prose.


Either way, I'm going to continue not to support this, but I have enough respect for your efforts to help you improve your chances with others the next time around.

What part of "recommends" are you not getting, though?

International Vehicle Currency

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;

CREATES the International Vehicle Currency as a helpful tool for all international trade;

ESTABLISHES the World Bank to create a free market for the exchange of national currencies into the International Vehicle Currency;

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of exchanging the International Vehicle Currency at market rates, while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy;;

CHARGES the World Bank to safely guard all the national currencies it has accumulated to ensure confidence in the International Vehicle Currency and to guarantee the stability of the International Vehicle Currency;

FORBIDS the World Bank to print money. The International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies, but an aid in converting one currency into another;

NOTING that national currencies exist to facilitate exchanges between goods, the International Vehicle Currency exists to facilitate exchanges between currencies;

IN LIEU OF funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to use interest profits to sustain itself, but limits those profits to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;

REQUIRES the World Bank to accept and honour the rates determined by the free market;

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

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

I think the main problem people (including myself) had, is that it introduces more bureaucracy. Convert my nations monies, into TC, then again into the target nations currency, seems overly complicated.

If you wish to improve it, find some way of reducing bureaucracy and pointing out what 'red tape' we currently have that this proposal would eliminate.

International Vehicle Currency

IN LIEU OF funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to use interest profits to sustain itself, but limits those profits to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;


The world bank does not need taxing to sustain itself. Instead it creates the IC and trades this in for real national money. This means that it will actually have real national currencies as assets. It can then use (limited) amounts of these national currencies and invest them in a risk free way to get some income.

CHARGES the World Bank to safely guard all the national currencies it has accumulated to ensure confidence in the International Vehicle Currency and to guarantee the stability of the International Vehicle Currency

People have also critisized the last proposal because the IC didnt have any backing. It wasnt worth anything and it would be prone to loosing a lot of its value leaving people with worthless IC's on their bank accounts. However in this system there would be real currencies guaranteeing the value of the IC. Every time someone exchanges real currencies for ICs with the world bank. The world bank will safely guard these real currencies in its vaults. Users of the IC can be sure that if they ever want to trade their ICs back in for real currencies, that the world bank can pay the real money back. This principle is also called 100% reserve banking.

An example:

I have 100locos and I trade those against 100IC. So I give my 100locos to the world bank and they give me 100IC. The world bank keeps my 100locos in its vaults. The value of my 100IC can never drop below 100locos, because I know that when I go to the world bank with my 100IC, I will always get 100locos in return.

I think the main problem people (including myself) had, is that it introduces more bureaucracy. Convert my nations monies, into TC, then again into the target nations currency, seems overly complicated.

If you wish to improve it, find some way of reducing bureaucracy and pointing out what 'red tape' we currently have that this proposal would eliminate.

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.

OOC:
I like Iamloco's proposal. It certainly appears a lot more restrictive to the natsov crowd. The older proposal had nicer wording that appealed to internationalist sentiments, but this looks far more passable.

Minor thing: "URGES corporations to use the International Credit" - should be changed to "IVC" as well. ;)

Also... *groan* M-dan... I understand that your "belly-feeling" is that introduces "bureaucracy" but... its easier. In the same way that the dollar is used IRL as a "vehicle currency" between trade of third nations that doesn't even involve the United States. The only red tape is in your head, which is why essentially those who want this resolution are forced to defend widespread allegations of a problem that doesn't exist, to people who don't understand the benefits. I agree, the proposal should SHOW the problem more clearly.

Well coulden't we have a currency used just for international reasons that's not tradable with normal national currency?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Well coulden't we have a currency used just for international reasons that's not tradable with normal national currency?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

No.

You can dress it up however you like. The fact remains that it is just another attempt to give the UN more economic power. It will still be defeated.

Well coulden't we have a currency used just for international reasons that's not tradable with normal national currency?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

It needs to be allowed to be exchanged against normal money because if it isnt exchangeble, its not worth anything. Nobody will use it. Say you sell 100 refrigerators for 100000IC. If you cant exchange the IC's for real money, youve basicly given the refrigerators for free.

Besides I dont see the down side about the exchangebility. So why drop it?

It needs to be allowed to be exchanged against normal money because if it isnt exchangeble, its not worth anything. Nobody will use it. Say you sell 100 refrigerators for 100000IC. If you cant exchange the IC's for real money, youve basicly given the refrigerators for free.

Never though of that

Besides I dont see the down side about the exchangebility. So why drop it?

I was thinking of dropping the exchangablity to protect the national currency and to make business deals easier. Its not really practical now that i see how it would go.

Never though of that



I was thinking of dropping the exchangablity to protect the national currency and to make business deals easier. Its not really practical now that i see how it would go.

The proposal only states that the IC can be exchanged for national currencies. However it does not restrict countries from any national exchange rate policy. Lets say for example one country decides that its currency can no longer be exchanged into another currency (for whatever strange commie reason), the world bank will not (and cannot) stop this country from doing so. It only offers nations the possibility to use the IC, it doesnt force them. Nations still have a choice.

The same goes for fixed exchange rates, currency unions, FTA's,...

International Vehicle Currency
*snip*

I do hope that this is something that you're offering the delegation of Remba. From my quick skim through it, you pretty much changed 'trade" to "vehicle" and took removed some of the things from the original. If this is something that you plan on submitting yourself, how's about starting your own thread and leave this one for Remba's draft?

International Vehicle Currency

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;

CREATES the International Vehicle Currency as the standard for all international trade;

ESTABLISHES the World Bank to create a free market for the exchange of national currencies into the International Vehicle Currency;

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of exchanging the International Vehicle Currency at market rates, while not impeding countries to use their own monetary policy;

CHARGES the World Bank to safely guard all the national currencies it has accumulated to ensure confidence in the International Vehicle Currency and to guarantee the stability of the International Vehicle Currency;

FORBIDS the World Bank to print money, the International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies. Instead it is an aid to convert one currency into another;

NOTING that national currencies exist to facilitate exchanges between goods, the International Vehicle Currency exists to facilitate exchanges between currencies;

IN LIEU OF funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to use interest profits to sustain itself, but limits those profits to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;

REQUIRES the World Bank to accept and honour the rates determined by the free market;

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

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

Even though someone said before that this was just an attempt to give the UN more economic power, I disagree. Though we have had our disagreements over this proposal, I believe that Remba did have international trade's best interests at heart. That being said...

This draft by Iamloco I would support, with two minor changes. The first is grammatical.

"CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of exchanging the International Vehicle Currency at market rates, while not impeding countries to use their own monetary policy;"

I would changes this to "while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy;" I think that it reads better and makes more sense that way.

Second is that I'd ask that Remba be given at least co-author status with this proposal, since she was the one who came up with the idea in the first place and this is very similar to her original.

Regards,
Under-Ambassador Richard Curkney
Acting-Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

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.
Let me try and explain my position a little better.

Firstly our currency is the 'graklack' and as you have already mention yours is the 'loco' so I'll use them in my explanation.

In your example you said that you wanted to buy my graklacks with your locos, this wouldn't happen as what is the point of buying someone else's money, so I'm assuming you are referring to what happens after a transaction.
I shall start at the beginning:
Let us say for arguments sake that your country makes excellent bed-side lamps. I wish to purchase some of these lamps for my country. You are selling them at 6 locos each. As I have no locos, and I have nothing I wish to sell (which would turn it into a barter) I must spend graklacks. So I check the exchange rate.

Here is where I am possibly misunderstanding. I am assuming that every nation has a national bank, through whom most dealings go through. They monitor transactions and work out an exchange rate from the price of items in locos and their price in graklacks.

Anyway, I get the exchange rate and let us say its 2 graklacks to a loco. The lamps cost me 12 graklacks each, I give you the money, you give me the lamps and the deal is closed. Now, what to do with your graklacks. You give your graklacks to your national bank, they give you locos back, then when either you or one of you nations companies goes to buy something from me they exchange them and the graklacks end up coming back to me.

At least that is my understanding of the situation, there is only one exchange of monies.

As an additional comment, what if your nation never buys anything from me, you have graklacks just sitting there. I suppose the answer is that in your banks dealings with nations other than ours, they swap the currencies and nations keep swapping them until they come back to me.

Having read my above paragraph I think I am starting to understand your position, however I believe that we need clarification of how nations manage their money currently

I do hope that this is something that you're offering the delegation of Remba. From my quick skim through it, you pretty much changed 'trade" to "vehicle" and took removed some of the things from the original. If this is something that you plan on submitting yourself, how's about starting your own thread and leave this one for Remba's draft?

This idea is still Rembas idea and I give full credit to her for that. The original proposal got rejected so I am giving some (hopefully useful) suggestions. The things I changed are based on criticisms received in the original thread. The wording and a few technicalities are different. I dont plan to submit this on my own. I hope that with the help of Remba and some other posters on this forum we can a proposal that will pass the vote. That was the intention of this topic right? I apoligize for my lack of references, but meh this isnt the journal of international economy :)

Even though someone said before that this was just an attempt to give the UN more economic power, I disagree. Though we have had our disagreements over this proposal, I believe that Remba did have international trade's best interests at heart. That being said...

I agree, besides why would our only goal be to give more power to the un?



"CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of exchanging the International Vehicle Currency at market rates, while not impeding countries to use their own monetary policy;"

I would changes this to "while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy;" I think that it reads better and makes more sense that way.


Sound good, Ill edit my earlier post.


Second is that I'd ask that Remba be given at least co-author status with this proposal, since she was the one who came up with the idea in the first place and this is very similar to her original.


Remba is still the author, im just an advisor.

This idea is still Rembas idea and I give full credit to her for that. The original proposal got rejected so I am giving some (hopefully useful) suggestions. The things I changed are based on criticisms received in the original thread. The wording and a few technicalities are different. I dont plan to submit this on my own. I hope that with the help of Remba and some other posters on this forum we can a proposal that will pass the vote. That was the intention of this topic right? I apoligize for my lack of references, but meh this isnt the journal of international economy :)

Okay. I was more curious than anything. ;)

The Empire proposes that the new resolution include a requirement for the International Trade Credit to be backed by something tangible, such as gold. We do not believe that this will diminish the ability of the free market to determine its values, but it will certainly reduce the uncertainty of having a major trade currency that is based on the air standard.

John Smith
United Nations Ambassador
Empire of Alexandrian Ptolemais

OOC: I think this could be something along the lines of Special Drawing Rights; IIRC, they are still backed by gold, but of course none of the countries can grab the gold

Please don't put this on the gold standard or base it on any other trade-able commodity. It is backed by the full faith and credit of the NSUN (which isn't going away) and that's all it requires for backing.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

It is backed by the full faith and credit of the NSUN (which isn't going away)

You're making the dangerous assumption that there's any faith in the UN to begin with, which considering the recent defeat on the UNFA I know I'm not sure exists.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Here is where I am possibly misunderstanding. I am assuming that every nation has a national bank, through whom most dealings go through. They monitor transactions and work out an exchange rate from the price of items in locos and their price in graklacks.

Anyway, I get the exchange rate and let us say its 2 graklacks to a loco. The lamps cost me 12 graklacks each, I give you the money, you give me the lamps and the deal is closed. Now, what to do with your graklacks. You give your graklacks to your national bank, they give you locos back, then when either you or one of you nations companies goes to buy something from me they exchange them and the graklacks end up coming back to me.

At least that is my understanding of the situation, there is only one exchange of monies.

As an additional comment, what if your nation never buys anything from me, you have graklacks just sitting there. I suppose the answer is that in your banks dealings with nations other than ours, they swap the currencies and nations keep swapping them until they come back to me.

Having read my above paragraph I think I am starting to understand your position, however I believe that we need clarification of how nations manage their money currently

I agree with you that normal consumers will never use this IC. They will just go to any bank and get their money exchanged. But this is only half the picture, the second stage in a two-stage process. Banks need to exchange money aswell, and in pretty large amounts. They cant go to the bank because they are the bank. The IC will help banks and other large institutions to trade money more easy. The direct benefit for consumers is when banks have fewer costs exchanging money, they will charge consumers a smaller fee aswell.

In your example you said that you wanted to buy my graklacks with your locos, this wouldn't happen as what is the point of buying someone else's money

Banks and investors buy money just for the sake of buying money. When you do international trade the first step is always sell your money and buy other money with that, or in other words: get your money exchanged.

The Empire proposes that the new resolution include a requirement for the International Trade Credit to be backed by something tangible, such as gold. We do not believe that this will diminish the ability of the free market to determine its values, but it will certainly reduce the uncertainty of having a major trade currency that is based on the air standard.

John Smith
United Nations Ambassador
Empire of Alexandrian Ptolemais

OOC: I think this could be something along the lines of Special Drawing Rights; IIRC, they are still backed by gold, but of course none of the countries can grab the gold

The IC is already backed by something tangeable. It is backed by real money, your national currency, my national currency,.... Unless you don't think your currency isnt tangeable?

Ill copy paste the explanation here:

CHARGES the World Bank to safely guard all the national currencies it has accumulated to ensure confidence in the International Vehicle Currency and to guarantee the stability of the International Vehicle Currency

People have also critisized the last proposal because the IC didnt have any backing. It wasnt worth anything and it would be prone to loosing a lot of its value leaving people with worthless IC's on their bank accounts. However in this system there would be real currencies guaranteeing the value of the IC. Every time someone exchanges real currencies for ICs with the world bank. The world bank will safely guard these real currencies in its vaults. Users of the IC can be sure that if they ever want to trade their ICs back in for real currencies, that the world bank can pay the real money back. This principle is also called 100% reserve banking.

An example:

I have 100locos and I trade those against 100IC. So I give my 100locos to the world bank and they give me 100IC. The world bank keeps my 100locos in its vaults. The value of my 100IC can never drop below 100locos, because I know that when I go to the world bank with my 100IC, I will always get 100locos in return

OOC: I think this could be something along the lines of Special Drawing Rights
This basic idea is indeed based on the SDR, but more specific it is based on the SDR after the collapse of bretton woods. I hope this IMF quote will clarify things:

The value of the SDR was initially defined as equivalent to 0.888671 grams of fine gold—which, at the time, was also equivalent to one U.S. dollar. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, however, the SDR was redefined as a basket of currencies,today consisting of the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling, and U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar-value of the SDR is posted daily on the IMF's website. It is calculated as the sum of specific amounts of the four currencies valued in U.S. dollars, on the basis of exchange rates quoted at noon each day in the London market.

My mild opposition has hardened since I cast my nation's vote against the defeated resolution. The arguments so eloquently elucidated by the ambassador from Kelssek have proved persuasive. Thus, much as I commend your efforts to solicit consensus, I will not support a measure that exposes us to the risks previously outlined.

Benedictions,

I think it will add to the discussion if we can sum up critisisms this proposal has received and what the response is (if any).

Ideological conviction free trade is evil: can't really argue with that, I have to respect people's beliefs (because that is what it is: a belief)

a tax on trade will do more harm than good: i agree, the tax has been dropped and there is an alternitive way of funding

the IC stop me from doing my own monetary policy: not at all

the IC will force me to give up my currency: no the IC isnt even a real currency

If there is an IC, i will be forced to use it: use of the ic is entirely optional, it will only be used when the IC will save you money

the IC will add to much red tape: it will cut red tape

the IC will force me to allow my currency to be freely traded: nobody is forced to open their markets, if you were succesful before the IC in keeping your capital market closed, you will be succesful after aswell

I have given longer and more clear answers in this topic and the other.

I have some second thoughts on the name of International Vehicle Currency. Even if it clearly subscribes what the IC is, if people dont know what the difference is between a vehicle currency and any other currency this wont do us much good. I would like to see the word 'currency' dissappear completly in the name. It will only add to confusion.

I would also like to see this refrased:
AWARE of the multitude of currencies existing in the world
for me this somehow implies that we think that there are too many currencies in the world and that we should get rid of some. Something that isn't the intention of this proposal.

It is very hard to explain what the IC does and why it would be beneficial. The economic theory behind this is too complex to explain in just a few lines. Think I prefer if the propasal was allowed to be 10pages long. It goes well beyond the scope of a high school course of economics.

It is very hard to explain what the IC does and why it would be beneficial. The economic theory behind this is too complex to explain in just a few lines. Think I prefer if the propasal was allowed to be 10pages long. It goes well beyond the scope of a high school course of economics.
* ooc: Oh, totally - I haven't studied economics for twelve years and may people will have never studied it * (it's not compulsory in the UK, for example). You should also be aware that many will make the link with the euro, which tends to attract fairly fiercely held views: generally positive in Europe, more often negative in the UK and, perhaps, US. *

It is nothing like the Euro. Just because the Euro had something to with currencies and this has something to do with currencies doesnt make the two identical. Even the proposal says it:

RESPECTING the national sovereignty of member nations and their attachment to their own, native currencies
FORBIDS the World Bank to print money, the International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies. Instead it is an aid to convert one currency into another

Other posts explain the difference in more detail. Just because it is a little difficult to understand doesn't make it bad.

* ooc: All I'm saying is that some people will make that connection, regardless. Not much you can do about that. *

Skipping merrily over the ideological bits...

CREATES the International Vehicle Currency as the standard for all international trade;
Perhaps if you called it "a standard for all international trade" you'd avoid the proposal sounding quite so full of itself? Being "the" standard is quite a claim; either the IVC will need a run-up at gaining the confidence of nations, or you'll have more people claiming (with some small justification) that this is just a UN attempt to amass economic power.

ESTABLISHES the World Bank to create a free market for the exchange of national currencies into the International Vehicle Currency;
This is definitely an improvement on the previous phrasing, but it still leaves me uneasy. This is actually the place where I want the absolute guarantee that our national monetary policies will not be affected at all.

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of exchanging the International Vehicle Currency at market rates, while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy;;
See above.

CHARGES the World Bank to safely guard all the national currencies it has accumulated to ensure confidence in the International Vehicle Currency and to guarantee the stability of the International Vehicle Currency;

FORBIDS the World Bank to print money, the International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies. Instead it is an aid to convert one currency into another;
Ooooookay. First, the grammar of the FORBIDS clause is all wrong. Try:
FORBIDS the World Bank to print money. The International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies, but an aid in converting one currency into another;
Second, why are the two clauses not mutually contradictory? I imagine a lot of people will have trouble with the concept of the World Bank buying amounts of national currencies and not handing over some physical token to the seller.

NOTING that national currencies exist to facilitate exchanges between goods, the International Vehicle Currency exists to facilitate exchanges between currencies;
And as long as it stays as optional as this, we'll all be happy.

-PERMITS the World Bank to use interest profits to sustain itself, but limits those profits to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;
Sorry, but this set off all my "magic money" alarms. What interest profits? The World Bank isn't in the business of lending, according to the mandate you've given it.

Hmmm... I thought I posted this before... don't know why it didn't show... anyways...

Here's my input... put in an example. A lot of the smaller nations were saying that they "couldn't afford" 0.00005% of their GDP or GNP to be "taxed". Giving them an example of how little they are giving might make it more palatable.

Example with Ambrose-Douglas:
29 million citizens, GDP of $313,568,214,102

so, 0.00005% of $313,568,214,102 = $156,784.11... or roughly $0.0054 per citizen.

Just a thought.

Any proposal with an actual nation as an example should be done for branding. The whole idea of putting a worked example into a resolution just feels wrong, for that matter.

Any proposal with an actual nation as an example should be done for branding. The whole idea of putting a worked example into a resolution just feels wrong, for that matter.

It doesn't need to be an example from a specific nation. My numbers won't even be like that in a few hours, so they can just say "If nation X has a GDP of ... and blah blah blah".

I just sugguested it to quiet some of the naysayers who said it was "too much".

International Vehicle Currency
--snip--
Nicely done, but we have a few questions:

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of exchanging the International Vehicle Currency at market rates, while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy;
So, is the valuation of the native currency is now with the nation? (I mean, the governments now have the prerogative to determine the value of the currency... I just want to be sure if I understand this clause correctly.)

FORBIDS the World Bank to print money, the International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies. Instead it is an aid to convert one currency into another;
Now my question is, if it ain't printed, how can I exchange my livros to IVCs if there is no "hard" IVCs in the first place? Or IVC is just meant to be "electronic"/"standard" currency? Let's say I did some trade with Cookesland. Cookesland paid with pieroes, the WB converted it to ICs. I have money in the WB in ICs, but when I withdraw my money, I'll get livros. Is that how this is supposed to work?

It doesn't need to be an example from a specific nation. My numbers won't even be like that in a few hours, so they can just say "If nation X has a GDP of ... and blah blah blah".

I just sugguested it to quiet some of the naysayers who said it was "too much".

The fee could be structed so that those nations with higher GDP/international trade pay more that countries with little trade

The Empire proposes that ... be backed by something tangible, such as gold.

What's the "tangible" value of gold?
I'd understand if "something tangible" were reffered to like water, wine, food, clothing, which can be stocked (to some extend) and have a value of their own: inhabitants everywhere, whatever their shape or size, need food and beverages, though some may want "sodas" (on the sidewalk, as in Renssignol), while others prefer beer or water. At least water is common in (almost?) all beverages.
Same goes for clothing: the form may differ widely, but in the end it shelters bodies. (Of course, the needs differ enormously: a state of mainly frogs have other clothing needs than the state of mainly sheep and wolves, and a state of clouds will still dress differently.)

For us in Renssignol the "exchange of currencies" is ... a fringe idea. It may be needed, on the rare occasions when some foreigner visits or country and wants to pay for his soda with something weird, like metals (silver, gold, nickle, copper have been seen and refused). Often they end up washing glasses or holding the vendor in a tender hug (these street boys like a hug, especially the foreign hugs from furry visitors)

We don't seemuch use for any "world-wide" currency, as echange values are -at least should be- linked to exchange of "wares". Without trade of material goods, no currency needs be exchanged. Services can be "paid" with services if payment is wanted, but the most valuable services aren't paid for.
See our motto: Love cannot be bought, tenderness, caring, attention cannot be sold "for cash". --unless one introduces prostitution, but with our economy it 'll be hard to do. An international "exchange" facility may introduce just that: other than our good heart, we don't have much "for sale", and the hearts are big enough to share, and share again.

Skipping merrily over the ideological bits...


Perhaps if you called it "a standard for all international trade" you'd avoid the proposal sounding quite so full of itself? Being "the" standard is quite a claim; either the IVC will need a run-up at gaining the confidence of nations, or you'll have more people claiming (with some small justification) that this is just a UN attempt to amass economic power.

Indeed, the IVC doesnt have to be a standard. My hope is of course that it will become one after time. Maybe if we change "standard" to "a possible tool" and I would also drop the "for ALL international trade", "for international trade" seems less bossy.


This is definitely an improvement on the previous phrasing, but it still leaves me uneasy.
What I meant to say there was that the World Bank will have to follow market rates for exchanging the IVC into national currencies. Not that the world bank is charged with creating a free exchange market, because that already exists and the world bank shouldnt meddle but leave it alone.

This is actually the place where I want the absolute guarantee that our national monetary policies will not be affected at all

I believe that the parts where it says: "while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy" and "The International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies, but an aid in converting one currency into anothe" are pretty clear in saying that the UN will not ask nations to change their monetary policy. Or does this need more stressing?

Ooooookay. First, the grammar of the FORBIDS clause is all wrong. Try:

ok will have to believe you on that, grammar is not really my thing

Second, why are the two clauses not mutually contradictory? I imagine a lot of people will have trouble with the concept of the World Bank buying amounts of national currencies and not handing over some physical token to the seller.

Instead of handing out coins and notes, the world bank will instead wire the same amount in electronic money. While this might not look like physical money in the strict sense of the word If you have €1000 in notes or if you have the same amount on your bank account there isn't really a difference. Also note that normal people will not use the IVC, I dont see myself taking a trip to the world bank to exchange my money. Only big corporations, national banks and other financial institutions will use the IVC. These big corporations will transfer such large amounts of money at the same time that it wouldnt be very usefull to drive around truckloads of physical money. I also believe that printing and distributing physical money amoung several billion people in thousands of nations will be too expensive and nations will think it is competing with their own currencies aswell. Perhaps when the IVC has proven itself to work, someone can make a proposal to distribute physical money aswell.


And as long as it stays as optional as this, we'll all be happy.
The use of the IVC is optional. Only when you can't find a direct way of exchanging money should you use this. If I got €100 and I want to exchange these for USD, then I dont have to use the IVC if I can find someone who has USD and is willing to exchange those for EUR. Perhaps I should say that more explicitly in the proposal.

[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but this set off all my "magic money" alarms.
Every money is magic money, except maybe for commidity based money. The IVC will be very trustworthy because it keeps a 100% reverves of all the money it has issued. real will currencies guarantee the value of the IC. Every time someone exchanges real currencies for ICs with the world bank. The world bank will safely guard these real currencies in its vaults. Users of the IC can be sure that if they ever want to trade their ICs back in for real currencies, that the world bank can pay the real money back. This principle is also called 100% reserve banking.

What interest profits? The World Bank isn't in the business of lending, according to the mandate you've given it.

After exchanging the IC for national currencies, the world bank will have a lot of national currencies sitting in its vaults. Because the world bank will need some funding and taxing doesn't look like a good idea, I would allow the world bank to take a small part of this money and make some risk free 'investments' with it. For example put it on a bank account of a very big and stable national bank.

There is one problem with this. It would actually create extra money. I have no idea what the effect will be. Other commercial banks create money all the time so it doesnt need to be a problem. Might be good, might be bad. If anyone could solve this puzzle for me, it would be very helpfull.

So, is the valuation of the native currency is now with the nation? (I mean, the governments now have the prerogative to determine the value of the currency... I just want to be sure if I understand this clause correctly.)

Nations can choose to let their exchange rates flow freely, fix their exchange rate to another national currency or fix it to the IVC. Fixing your currency to another is quite hard to do. Its not something that you can just decree, instead you will need an active monetary policy (buying and selling your own currency) to keep your currency at a fixed rate. By doing this a nation influences the free market to get the results wanted. And this is perfectly compatible with what the world bank does.

Now my question is, if it ain't printed, how can I exchange my livros to IVCs if there is no "hard" IVCs in the first place? Or IVC is just meant to be "electronic"/"standard" currency? Let's say I did some trade with Cookesland. Cookesland paid with pieroes, the WB converted it to ICs. I have money in the WB in ICs, but when I withdraw my money, I'll get livros. Is that how this is supposed to work?

I have answered the reason for electronic currency in a post above. About your example: yes it can work like that but there are other possibilities aswell. Cookesland electronicly transfers WB to the world bank (or any other bank) and the world bank tranfers IC's for the same worth to Cookesland. Cookesland then electronicly transfers you the amount in IC. You can then keep those IC for following transactions or go to a bank (doesnt have to be the world bank) and exchange your ICs for whatever money you'd like.

--snipping galore!--
We are satisfied with the current wording of the document. We are particularly happy that the monetary policy remain at the hands of individual governments, and that the international currency would not entail additional fees that might be detrimental to trade.

Having addressed our objections to the failed version, we would be happy to announce that the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden would support this version and would lobby for it in our home region should it come up to vote.

So if I want to trade with lets say Oezbekistan and I don't want them to pay me in their currency I can safely let them pay me in IC's and afterwards exchange in the currency of my choosing.
This seems very usefull because in this virtual world there is no strong currency like the dollar or the euro, and there are over 100.000 different currencies.
Further more I can keep my own currency and my own monetary policy and if I don't want to use it I don't have to.
Question is has this to be organised by the United Nations?

Every money is magic money, except maybe for commodity based money.


Not exactly. Time for a brief tangent into economics. To lay the cards (real life) on the table, I am not an economist. This is from my understanding of having completed introductory level university economics (micro and macro) as a requirement of graduation from my institution. Further, when discussing "how things work" I'm specifically referring to the American system, although I'm given to understand that most of the first world uses a system that is essentially similar. Please, if anyone actually *is* an economist, point out anywhere I screw up. Also, please note that I'm completely opposed to this idea as part of NS. I just don't think that the game engine and the proposal limits allow for an issue as complex as monetary policy and currency to be adequately addressed. So with that in mind, I'll be happy to point out and explain what I see as problems, and try to offer suggestions, but please understand that as far as I'm concerned, it's impossible for you to write an acceptable single proposal within the confines of the game.

Most people seem to believe that paper money is "fiat" currency, which is not technically true. Fiat currency is currency that derives its value solely from the authority of the issuing agency. However, this is NOT true of paper. Paper money derives its status as legal tender by decree of the government, normally the treasury department or its equivalent, which controls the mints.

However, there is in fact, and I'm using the real bills doctrine here as it is, in my opinion so please disagree vehemently, the most consistent with the behavior of central banks, no such thing as fiat currency. Paper money acquires its value through the operations of central banks. Paper money is backed by the assets of that central bank, generally its reserves of gold and its bonds, although technically it actual building and equipment also contribute to that value as assets (they could at least in theory be exchanged as specie for an amount of paper currency, and therefore do lend that currency value). Modern currencies do in fact maintain convertibility.

There are two types of convertability: Physical and Financial. Physical convertability means that I can give the bank a unit of currency in exchange for some form of specie (gold, silver, shark's teeth, etc...). Financial convertability means that I can give the bank a unit of currency in exchange for some of its assets (which is broader in meaning that specie). Normal real world currencies maintain the latter.

Now, what that means is that the central bank can maintain the value of money at whatever level it chooses. Suppose for example, that I wish to maintain the value of my currency at 1 ounce of MINERAL per unit currency. This is where financial convertibility is important. Suppose for example that for some reason Citizen has 100 extra Currency and intends to exchange that for 100 ounces of MINERAL. The bank will head off this demand for MINERAL by selling some of its bonds or assets instead in exchange for 100 of its own currency, thereby maintaining the value of Currency. The process also works in reverse, by the way, if Citizen wants more Currency and has assets. This type of open market operation on a much larger scale that central banks engage in to control the amount of money in circulation and therefore it's value. Inflation, by the way, is also controlled by this mechanism, as selling bonds or other assets reduces the amount of Currency in circulation making each note in circulation represent a larger portion of the backing, increasing it's real value (although its nominal value hasn't changed).

I'm not sure how this will work in regards to the IVC as, 1, there's technically none of it in circulation, and 2, it's backed by other currency, and not assets, although that currency is then backed by assets, I have NO idea how the economics of that plays out... Although, I doubt it's in a good way.


Every money is magic money, except maybe for commodity based money. The IVC will be very trustworthy because it keeps a 100% revserves of all the money it has issued. real will currencies guarantee the value of the IC. Every time someone exchanges real currencies for ICs with the world bank. The world bank will safely guard these real currencies in its vaults. Users of the IC can be sure that if they ever want to trade their ICs back in for real currencies, that the world bank can pay the real money back. This principle is also called 100% reserve banking.

After exchanging the IC for national currencies, the world bank will have a lot of national currencies sitting in its vaults. Because the world bank will need some funding and taxing doesn't look like a good idea, I would allow the world bank to take a small part of this money and make some risk free 'investments' with it. For example put it on a bank account of a very big and stable national bank.

That's contradictory. If it takes any amount of its reserves and invests them anywhere you've just engaged in fractional reserve banking (which, by the way is what banks in the real world do, including most central banks, although we're talking about a scale that far larger than anything IRL). This also implies that the central bank is taking risk with its reserves, since, while it may only invest in low risk opportunities (which by the way, you should spell out if you're going to allow... at current this is at the least AMAZINGLY AND COMPLETELY AMBIGUOUS), you cannot eliminate the risk entirely. Although this would, at least, provide the bank with some manner of control over the value of the IVC (which I personally think it lacks entirely at the moment, by the way).


There is one problem with this. It would actually create extra money. I have no idea what the effect will be. Other commercial banks create money all the time so it doesn't need to be a problem. Might be good, might be bad. If anyone could solve this puzzle for me, it would be very helpful.


You're right, it does create additional national currency, which is a major problem. Commercial banks are subject to the monetary policy set by the central bank of a nation, the world bank, obviously, is not. By doing something like that, the world bank would be creating a pressure to INCREASE inflation within the nation that it's depositing its reserves in. One, this will then reduce the value of the IVC as the IVC is partially pegged to the national currency of said nation. In addition, the host nation will probably undertake monetary policy actions to correct this policy. In other words, your world bank would be affecting (albeit somewhat indirectly) the monetary policy of nations, something which you disavow. Unfortunately, as far as it goes, I don't see any way around this with the way this is currently set up.

One last problem I see. You haven't left the bank with any method of controlling the market value of the IVC. There is no physical currency involved, and as far as I can understand what you're saying, it blinks in and out of existence in any arbitrary amount at will. It can't be traded in any physical form. Your bank has no assets anyway, but even if it did, it couldn't trade them for its own currency because it doesn't exist. Similarly, the reserves which are supposed to back the value of this currency are completely uncontrolled. The bank has absolutely no way of controlling its reserves, because it gains them in the normal course of its operation (like any bank), but can't DO anything with them besides continually stockpiling them. Yes, it has to return them if asked, but look at any real bank. The demand for return of reserves at any given time is generally less than that which is going in. If you add the ability for it to invest in national banks, you've given some outlet for this, but it's a very limited outlet, because of the fact that it would be indirectly affecting monetary policy, which is just asking for commercial banks to limit the amount they'll accept, or failing that it be regulated as a matter of monetary or fiscal policy.

Anyway, therefore, as for actual real suggestions, first and foremost, restore this to being an actual physical currency and give someone printing authority over it.

Second, give the world bank the ability to engage in monetary policy (open market operations) regarding the IVC. Coupled with the first, this actually allows the value of the IVC to be set and maintained.

Third, I'd find a better source of backing for the IVC than the reserves within the bank. Besides being hard to control, national currencies also vary greatly in their mileage. For that matter, the value of the IVC would change drastically if any major currency suddenly collapsed or disappeared.

As far as it goes, I think fiscally, the UN is in need to three actual resolutions. 1 to establish a for the UN, 1 to establish funding for the UN (and therefore that bank), and then this as a final proposal, establishing a currency and giving control over it to said bank, but this last paragraph is random musing I guess...

So if I want to trade with lets say Oezbekistan and I don't want them to pay me in their currency I can safely let them pay me in IC's and afterwards exchange in the currency of my choosing.
This seems very usefull because in this virtual world there is no strong currency like the dollar or the euro, and there are over 100.000 different currencies.
Further more I can keep my own currency and my own monetary policy and if I don't want to use it I don't have to.
Question is has this to be organised by the United Nations?

Exactly, as well the functions and duties of The World Bank, funding of the bank, et al.


After exchanging the IC for national currencies, the world bank will have a lot of national currencies sitting in its vaults. Because the world bank will need some funding and taxing doesn't look like a good idea, I would allow the world bank to take a small part of this money and make some risk free 'investments' with it. For example put it on a bank account of a very big and stable national bank.

Couldn't the World Bank charge a small fee for doing all the exhanges? Or the UN could subsidize it? (sorry if those ideas have been suggested.)

There is one problem with this. It would actually create extra money. I have no idea what the effect will be. Other commercial banks create money all the time so it doesnt need to be a problem. Might be good, might be bad. If anyone could solve this puzzle for me, it would be very helpfull.

This would cause world wide inflation which would cause prices to skyrocket which would be very very bad.

I have a question: the money that the world bank saves in its volts does it depreciate because of inflation and if so which inflation?

Second question if the world bank uses the money it gets for a savings acount with another bank it not only creates new money but you add money volume with your original sum does that also has an effect on the value?

I have a few more questions:
1) Can the exchange rate that a normal bank offers me be more favorable than the exchange rate that the world bank offers me? This due to the fact that the value of the IC is set by the average value of all currencies? And wouldn't this be so in most cases?

2) When my country prints money and invests this immediately in IC's, in wich case the value of my currency lowers, and I keep doing this until there is a shortage of physical money in my country, in wich case the value of my currency rises again. In this case I can make a profit?

3) When I exchange a large sum of a certain currency in IC's and afterwards the value of this currency thumbles. I have valuable IC's in my possesion and the world bank has worthless money in its volts?

4) Can the existance of the world bank cause speculation against my own currency?

5) Can you lend money from the world bank? This can be a source of income but the problem is the same when the world bank puts some money on a savings account: you use the same money twice.

What I meant to say there was that the World Bank will have to follow market rates for exchanging the IVC into national currencies. Not that the world bank is charged with creating a free exchange market, because that already exists and the world bank shouldnt meddle but leave it alone.

I believe that the parts where it says: "while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy" and "The International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies, but an aid in converting one currency into anothe" are pretty clear in saying that the UN will not ask nations to change their monetary policy. Or does this need more stressing?
Right. If you change the clause to say what your explanation said rather than the entirely different thing that it says right now, the monetary policy part doesn't need restressing. Otherwise it does.



Instead of handing out coins and notes, the world bank will instead wire the same amount in electronic money.
There are nations (most obviously Cobdenia) for which this fails rather spectacularly, since they don't have the infrastructure to deal with electronic money even on a purely governmental level.

Perhaps when the IVC has proven itself to work, someone can make a proposal to distribute physical money aswell.
I think you're severely aggravating the trust issues here, at least amongst those of us whose nations don't have such faith in economics.

The use of the IVC is optional. [snip] Perhaps I should say that more explicitly in the proposal.
It was clear enough to me, but I do remember some arguments on the previous version convincing me that it was mandatory for governments until I went back and re-read the proposal!

Every money is magic money, except maybe for commidity based money. The IVC will be very trustworthy because it keeps a 100% reverves of all the money it has issued.

Uh? It does? How? It's value will be constantly fluctuating against all other currencies, so the exchanges the World Bank makes for actual currencies will change in relative value over time. Assuming the value of the IVC is the average of the values of member nations' currencies (not specified in the proposal, I think), then its value will be in the general vicinity of 100%, but the chances of it actually being 100% +/- 0.5% aren't big.

After exchanging the IC for national currencies, the world bank will have a lot of national currencies sitting in its vaults. Because the world bank will need some funding and taxing doesn't look like a good idea, I would allow the world bank to take a small part of this money and make some risk free 'investments' with it. For example put it on a bank account of a very big and stable national bank.

No investment is risk-free. Many are low risk, I grant, but risk-free? Not a chance. Share prices can go down as well as up, and all that. That's why I asked the question in the first place -- does tying reserves up in investments really count as safely guarding them? I can see big arguments happening over that point if it comes to vote.

There are two types of convertability: Physical and Financial. Physical convertability means that I can give the bank a unit of currency in exchange for some form of specie (gold, silver, shark's teeth, etc...). Financial convertability means that I can give the bank a unit of currency in exchange for some of its assets (which is broader in meaning that specie). Normal real world currencies maintain the latter.

The statement I made that all money is magic money I didnt mean literally that all money isnt backed by anything. It was an oversimplification of things. The IC is backed by the exact same mechanism as described above (i have underlined it). Whereas other central banks can give other currencies, government bonds and other finincial assests in return for its money, the World Bank can give other currencies in return. It is exactly the same and it doesnt change just because its only electronic money. Electronic money is just as real as coins or notes.

I'm not sure how this will work in regards to the IVC as, 1, there's technically none of it in circulation, and 2, it's backed by other currency, and not assets, although that currency is then backed by assets, I have NO idea how the economics of that plays out... Although, I doubt it's in a good way.

1) There are IVC in circulation. For a central bank it doesnt matter if the money in the economy is in notes or it is electronicly. When someone has the sum of 1million EUR in cash and he then puts it on a bank account, the central bank is not going to be relieved because this tackles inflation. Trichet is not going to say: PHEW there was 1million EUR too much in the economy but now that its on a bank account its no longer technically in circulation and no longer my problem.

2)other currency is assets

That's contradictory. If it takes any amount of its reserves and invests them anywhere you've just engaged in fractional reserve banking (which, by the way is what banks in the real world do, including most central banks, although we're talking about a scale that far larger than anything IRL). This also implies that the central bank is taking risk with its reserves, since, while it may only invest in low risk opportunities (which by the way, you should spell out if you're going to allow... at current this is at the least AMAZINGLY AND COMPLETELY AMBIGUOUS), you cannot eliminate the risk entirely. Although this would, at least, provide the bank with some manner of control over the value of the IVC (which I personally think it lacks entirely at the moment, by the way).

You're right, it does create additional national currency, which is a major problem. Commercial banks are subject to the monetary policy set by the central bank of a nation, the world bank, obviously, is not. By doing something like that, the world bank would be creating a pressure to INCREASE inflation within the nation that it's depositing its reserves in. One, this will then reduce the value of the IVC as the IVC is partially pegged to the national currency of said nation. In addition, the host nation will probably undertake monetary policy actions to correct this policy. In other words, your world bank would be affecting (albeit somewhat indirectly) the monetary policy of nations, something which you disavow. Unfortunately, as far as it goes, I don't see any way around this with the way this is currently set up.

US treasury bonds (and other governemnt bonds) are usually viewed as risk free. Central banks usually keep those bonds as assets aswell to back up their currency. Just as you said in the first bit I quoted. So I see nothing wrong with the world bank having a few of those aswell. There is a difference here. The world bank can not use all of its money and buy bonds. It is only allowed to buy as much needed to have enough interest profits to sustain itself. Which wont be very much. Commercial banks usually have to keep about 10% of their money in reserve. The world bank will keep about 95-99% of its currencies in reserve. This makes the world bank a lot safer then any other commercial bank. When there is a bank run (argentina and 1929) the system will survive. It is really no problem.

Because the world bank will not invest all of its money (and it can spread out its investments) I hope that its effect on inflation will be moderate.

One last problem I see. You haven't left the bank with any method of controlling the market value of the IVC. There is no physical currency involved, and as far as I can understand what you're saying, it blinks in and out of existence in any arbitrary amount at will. It can't be traded in any physical form. Your bank has no assets anyway, but even if it did, it couldn't trade them for its own currency because it doesn't exist. Similarly, the reserves which are supposed to back the value of this currency are completely uncontrolled. The bank has absolutely no way of controlling its reserves, because it gains them in the normal course of its operation (like any bank), but can't DO anything with them besides continually stockpiling them. Yes, it has to return them if asked, but look at any real bank. The demand for return of reserves at any given time is generally less than that which is going in. If you add the ability for it to invest in national banks, you've given some outlet for this, but it's a very limited outlet, because of the fact that it would be indirectly affecting monetary policy, which is just asking for commercial banks to limit the amount they'll accept, or failing that it be regulated as a matter of monetary or fiscal policy.

-electronic mounts does count as physical money
-the amount of IVC in circulation (be it 0 or billions) doesnt matter because of the reserves the world bank has to keep. It will not change the value of the IVC. An example: Say you exchange $100 for 100IVC. The exchange rate between the two will be one. Say you exchange $1000 for 1000ICV. The exchange rate will be one aswell. The total amount of money in circulation (IVC+USD) stays the same.
-the world banks assets are foreign currencies and possibly government bonds, just like any other bank.
-its own currency does exist, and it is a liability for the world bank
-stockpiling foreign currencies is needed to maintain the confidence in the IVC


Second, give the world bank the ability to engage in monetary policy (open market operations) regarding the IVC. Coupled with the first, this actually allows the value of the IVC to be set and maintained.

The value of the IVC cant change much because of two thing: first it is the weighted average of serveral thousand currencies, something that shouldnt change much.
Second: If the world bank can give a credible guarantee that 1IVC=$1 (which it can because of the reserve) then the IVC/USD exchange rate cant possibly drop below 1. An example: say you have 100IVC and according to the market rate those 100IVC are only worth $90. What will you do? Will you trade your IVC on the market and get $90 for them? Or will you go to the world bank and get $100 for them? Your choice will be pretty obvious. Now lets do it the other way around. Suppose 100IVC are worth $110. If you have $110 will you trade them for 100IVC on the free market, or would you go to the world bank and trade your $110 for 110IVC? Again the choice is obvious.

In short: when the value of the IVC raises (falls) on the free market, demand (supply) for IVC's on the market will become zero untill the value of the IVC on the free market equals the value of the IVC of the world bank.

Other open market transactions would give the world bank too much power. Even if it does seem fun as an economist to fiddle with that much money.

Third, I'd find a better source of backing for the IVC than the reserves within the bank. Besides being hard to control, national currencies also vary greatly in their mileage. For that matter, the value of the IVC would change drastically if any major currency suddenly collapsed or disappeared.

Say you have 30000 currencies participating in the IVC and 1 currency suddenly collapses (this doenst usually happen) then the value of the IVC will drop by 1/30000. I admit that the IVC will be subject to some exchange rate risk, but this risk also exists with any other currency. Like the IVC each currency can appreciate or depreciate. But the IVC is the sum of 30000 currencies, some of those will depreciate, some will appreciate. This average will make the IVC even more stable than normal currencies.

You can buy insurance against exchange rate risks at a pretty low cost. This insurance is also called hedging.

I have a question: the money that the world bank saves in its volts does it depreciate because of inflation and if so which inflation?

If at first 1USD=1IVC then it will remain so. However the purchasing power of the USD may have halved. For example: you could buy two breads with 1USD before, and now you can only buy one bread. The IVD doesnt create inflation, but it is subject to the inflation in the participating countries. If a country expects high future inflation, this will have an effect on the current exchange rate.


Second question if the world bank uses the money it gets for a savings acount with another bank it not only creates new money but you add money volume with your original sum does that also has an effect on the value?

The money you get from intrest profits aren't added to the original sum of money in the vaults, rather they are used to pay costs. So it doesn't have an effect on the value.

I have a few more questions:
1) Can the exchange rate that a normal bank offers me be more favorable than the exchange rate that the world bank offers me? This due to the fact that the value of the IC is set by the average value of all currencies? And wouldn't this be so in most cases?

Not likely. You can find the answer on this in my previous post.

2) When my country prints money and invests this immediately in IC's, in wich case the value of my currency lowers, and I keep doing this until there is a shortage of physical money in my country, in wich case the value of my currency rises again. In this case I can make a profit?

When you start selling off large amounts of your currency its exchange rate will drop. You dont need the IVC to be able to do this. You can just go ahead and exchange all your national currency, for foreign currencies and see what happens. It would make for an interesting experiment. (might be economical suicide but hey, its your country)

3) When I exchange a large sum of a certain currency in IC's and afterwards the value of this currency thumbles. I have valuable IC's in my possesion and the world bank has worthless money in its volts?

Yes. This is called speculation. Again you don't need the IVC for that. If you expect your current currency to loose a lot of its value, you can exchange it for a foreign currency. Because the value of your current currency is part of the value of the IVC, the IVC will loose (even if it isnt much) of its value aswell. If you would have just bought a foreign currency instead of IVC, you wouldnt have this loss. From this we can conclude that the IVC should be less exposed to speculation.

4) Can the existance of the world bank cause speculation against my own currency?

Speculation existed before the world bank and will still exist after.


5) Can you lend money from the world bank? This can be a source of income but the problem is the same when the world bank puts some money on a savings account: you use the same money twice.

If the world bank buys bonds, it is actually lending money to nations. Putting money on a savings account is the same as lending someone money.

There are nations (most obviously Cobdenia) for which this fails rather spectacularly, since they don't have the infrastructure to deal with electronic money even on a purely governmental level.

Even the most poor underdeveloped countries in the world (the real one) have some sort of banking system. Nations who dont even have that are closer to medieval societies then to modern day economies. I doubt that even when there are cash IVC's, they would actually use them. Perhaps if they really want to use the IVC (which i doubt) they can go to neighbouring more developed countries.


I think you're severely aggravating the trust issues here, at least amongst those of us whose nations don't have such faith in economics.

This is why I dont want to impliment it right away.

No investment is risk-free. Many are low risk, I grant, but risk-free? Not a chance. Share prices can go down as well as up, and all that. That's why I asked the question in the first place -- does tying reserves up in investments really count as safely guarding them? I can see big arguments happening over that point if it comes to vote.

You can invest in government which are regarded as risk free. If you buy bonds from several thousands of nations, you have an even more spread out risk. The chance of big nations with stable economies actually defaulting on loans is very close to zero. It would also be a small proportion that would be used to buy bonds, so it should be ok.

Couldn't the World Bank charge a small fee for doing all the exhanges? Or the UN could subsidize it? (sorry if those ideas have been suggested.)

It has been suggested before, but it was critisized. Every time you deal directly with the world bank, it charges a small exchange fee (just like other exchange agencies do) to cover the operating costs. That would seem workable aswell.

My only worry there is that after a while there will be a lot of IVC's in circulation and people won't go to the world bank anymore to exchange them. Instead they will exchange them amoung themselves (because the world bank charges a fee). So after a while not many people will deal directly with the world bank. The exchange fee will no longer generate enough money. The only way out is to have the world bank charge a higher fee, then even less people would use it anymore and your stuck in a downward spiral.


This would cause world wide inflation which would cause prices to skyrocket which would be very very bad.

If the amount of money that is created isnt too large, effects on inflation shouldn't be too large. Central banks can offset the difference cause by the extra money from the world bank really ease. For example lets say that the world bank pumps some extra money into the financial system. The larger supply of money would cause intrest rates to drop by lets say 0.0001%. Central banks can then raise intrest rates by 0.0001% so that the amount of money in the economy stays the same. This doesnt really change anything and would certainly not cause hyperinflation. I believe that the effects of the a small amount of created extra money wont be noticable.

If you compare the total money in circulation within the 30000 participating nations and compare it to the amount the world bank will actually generate, the world bank will create very very very little money. Even if you consider the multiplier effect.

well I don't see any more problems
everything seems logical
and it would save my country money
if you go ahead with the proposal it would be a good idea to put a Q&A on this forum because it needs more explaining than possible in the proposal.

The IC is already backed by something tangeable. It is backed by real money, your national currency, my national currency,.... Unless you don't think your currency isnt tangeable?

People have also critisized the last proposal because the IC didnt have any backing. It wasnt worth anything and it would be prone to loosing a lot of its value leaving people with worthless IC's on their bank accounts. However in this system there would be real currencies guaranteeing the value of the IC. Every time someone exchanges real currencies for ICs with the world bank. The world bank will safely guard these real currencies in its vaults. Users of the IC can be sure that if they ever want to trade their ICs back in for real currencies, that the world bank can pay the real money back. This principle is also called 100% reserve banking.

An example:

I have 100locos and I trade those against 100IC. So I give my 100locos to the world bank and they give me 100IC. The world bank keeps my 100locos in its vaults. The value of my 100IC can never drop below 100locos, because I know that when I go to the world bank with my 100IC, I will always get 100locos in return

The issue that the Empire has with the keeping of national currencies proposal is that not every single nation keeps to something along the lines of a gold/silver standard. The people of the Empire do not feel comfortable with the prospect of having such a significant currency backed by nothing but air - a fiat currency system does and will lead to inflation. Furthermore, at least our people have the confidence that they will get something tangible for their banknote; with this, you may get a hundred XYZ Dollars, but as far as we are concerned, these XYZ Dollars is only worth the paper that it is written on

John Smith
United Nations Ambassador
Empire of Alexandrian Ptolemais

The money you get from intrest profits aren't added to the original sum of money in the vaults, rather they are used to pay costs. So it doesn't have an effect on the value.
That's some precision investment you have going there, Ambassador.

You can dress it up however you like. The fact remains that it is just another attempt to give the UN more economic power. It will still be defeated.

Well said. If you want this to go anywhere, you need to remove the World Bank. If it cannot work without the bank, throw it out the window.

The issue that the Empire has with the keeping of national currencies proposal is that not every single nation keeps to something along the lines of a gold/silver standard. The people of the Empire do not feel comfortable with the prospect of having such a significant currency backed by nothing but air - a fiat currency system does and will lead to inflation. Furthermore, at least our people have the confidence that they will get something tangible for their banknote; with this, you may get a hundred XYZ Dollars, but as far as we are concerned, these XYZ Dollars is only worth the paper that it is written on

John Smith
United Nations Ambassador
Empire of Alexandrian Ptolemais

So your problem is that you do not trust the currencies of other nations because they are not backed by gold? Not many currencies are backed by gold, there just isnt enough gold in the world to do that. Not to mention that it is highly unpractical to store and move around tons of the stuff. Today most currencies are back by other stuff. You should read the explantion written by Minbaric Federal Zones a page earlier about how money is backed on the previous page, which clearly states that no money is fiat money.

The market isnt stupid. If a nations money isnt backed well and it is likely that its currency will plunge, you will see this translated in a lower exchange rate. If you are really that worried about exchange rate risk you can hedge yourself against it. This means that you exchange 100USD for 100IVC, you go to a financial institute and they will guarantee to give you 100USD for your 100IVC should the IVC be worth less, and all of this for a small fee.

The problem you decribed above is not created by the IVC but already exists today. Shooting down this proposal will NOT make exchanging money less risky. It will do quite the opposite because the IVC is unlikely to loose a lot of its value because of the great number of currencies backing it. Too see a noticable change in the value of the IVC, not just one but hundreds of currencies should plunge. And lets be serious, currencies dont often loose all of their value that often.

That's some precision investment you have going there, Ambassador.

Its not that hard. Say the costs of the world bank are budgetted at $100million per year and you have a known fixed intrest rate on investments (say 3%), then the world bank will need to invest $3333million to get all of its money back. If it spreads this evenly amoung all 30000participating nations, the world bank will invest (read:buy bonds) $0.1111million in each country. This also shows how little effect the world bank will have on inflation.

Well said. If you want this to go anywhere, you need to remove the World Bank. If it cannot work without the bank, throw it out the window.

If someone can explain to me how the world bank will get extra power and how it can use it to better its own interests instead of the interests of the nations. Every project set up by the UN gives it a little power, but only that needed to execute its mandate. Besides nobody said that there wouldnt be some sort of oversight committee.

*start of sarcasm* You can even shoot down UN humanitarian aid proposals because it would give the UN more power. Lets say the UN wants to help starving children. Someone says: "no this will give the un too much power because it is most likely that everyone in the un is blue eyed, so they will only help the blue eyed childre, in effect committing a genecide of all brown eyed children. stop this atrocity now!!!!" *end of sarcasm*

Iamloco, I'd like to thank you for your ideas and assistance in redrafting and defending this proposal. I've been horribly busy lately (ooc: damn real life). I hope to review this thread and post my comments soon.

Again, thank you.

~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

So your problem is that you do not trust the currencies of other nations because they are not backed by gold? Not many currencies are backed by gold, there just isnt enough gold in the world to do that. Not to mention that it is highly unpractical to store and move around tons of the stuff. Today most currencies are back by other stuff. You should read the explantion written by Minbaric Federal Zones a page earlier about how money is backed on the previous page, which clearly states that no money is fiat money.

The market isnt stupid. If a nations money isnt backed well and it is likely that its currency will plunge, you will see this translated in a lower exchange rate. If you are really that worried about exchange rate risk you can hedge yourself against it. This means that you exchange 100USD for 100IVC, you go to a financial institute and they will guarantee to give you 100USD for your 100IVC should the IVC be worth less, and all of this for a small fee.

The problem you decribed above is not created by the IVC but already exists today. Shooting down this proposal will NOT make exchanging money less risky. It will do quite the opposite because the IVC is unlikely to loose a lot of its value because of the great number of currencies backing it. Too see a noticable change in the value of the IVC, not just one but hundreds of currencies should plunge. And lets be serious, currencies dont often loose all of their value that often.

The Empire is not concerned that the IVC is not backed by gold/silver, but because of the fact that it is not backed by anything tangible. Loans may be all well and good as backing, however, you must acknowledge that even in that environment, there is nothing stopping the supply of money from going through the roof. We feel that the IVC should be backed by something tangible and reasonably stable; we do grant that gold/silver may not be the only things, other metals could be used, such as platinum.

Also, the Empire is not concerned about exchange rate risk, we are concerned that the printing presses could be very easily started up by some bureaucrat and that the value of the Gold Denarius gets dragged down with it - we have had next to no inflation for the last three hundred years and we would like to remain that way and not be forced off the gold/silver standard via the back door. The citizens, firms and government of the Empire participate in billions of Gold Denarii worth of transactions per day and we are completely aware about exchange rate risk - it is not that which concerns us.

We are not shooting down this proposal because of exchange rate risk; we are shooting down this proposal because it can very easily mark the beginning of the end of our gold/silver standard. Once that disappears, then what stops bureaucrats from starting up the printing presses? We certainly do not want to see a day where fifty Gold Denarii cannot even pay for the weekly groceries.

*start of sarcasm* You can even shoot down UN humanitarian aid proposals because it would give the UN more power. Lets say the UN wants to help starving children. Someone says: "no this will give the un too much power because it is most likely that everyone in the un is blue eyed, so they will only help the blue eyed childre, in effect committing a genecide of all brown eyed children. stop this atrocity now!!!!" *end of sarcasm*
I'd be less depressed about agreeing with you if I hadn't seen people do just that.

The Empire is not concerned that the IVC is not backed by gold/silver, but because of the fact that it is not backed by anything tangible.

Money isn't tangeable? Nothing is as tangeable as money. Putting gold or any other commodity in the vaults of the world bank wouldn't make any sense. When people go to the world bank with IVCs they expect to get currency in return, not gold. So even if the world bank had gold in its vaults, it would have to sell it first before it could give users of the IVC what they want.

Loans may be all well and good as backing,

Money actually is a loan. When you use money printed by a central bank, you have actually lent the same amount of money to the central bank. Intrestfree of course. Because the central bank has lent this amount of money but doesnt need to pay any intrest, they central bank is making a profit. This profit is called seignorage.

however, you must acknowledge that even in that environment, there is nothing stopping the supply of money from going through the roof.

The amount of IVC's in circulation is not important (I shall later on use the same logic with a goldbacked currency). What is important for the value of the IVC is the ratio: "IVC's issued"/"foreign currency in vaults". This ratio will never change because unlike central banks, it is not the world bank's job to lower/raise the money supply by open market transactions(=central bank prints money, buys bonds with it, money supply goes up. central bank sells bonds, money supply goes down). The value of IVC's issued will always equal the foreign currency in vaults. Why? Because whenever the world bank issues IVC's, it asks for foreign currencies in return.

We feel that the IVC should be backed by something tangible and reasonably stable; we do grant that gold/silver may not be the only things, other metals could be used, such as platinum.

Nations used to back their currencies up with gold in the past, yet they don't anymore. Why do you think this happened? If a gold backed currency was better than currencies that are backed in another way, then nobody would have given that up. Unfortunatly there are some big downsides to backing up your money with gold. The most noticable downside is of course that its pretty expensive to store and move all that gold (its a whole lot of gold!!!). Another downside is that the price (read: purchasing power) of gold isnt stable. Goldprice can go up or down.

Lets say for example the world supply of gold increases by 25% (for whatever reason). Lets also assume that the demand for gold is pretty inelastic. This may cause the price of gold to suddenly plunge by more than 50%, effictivly reducing the value of your money and thus inflation by the same amount. (inelasticity isnt a must)

What else can go wrong? World demand for gold drops by 25%, then you can have the same effects as decribed above.

What if the supply of gold is limited but your economy needs more liquidity to grow? You cant just print more money because then your "money issued"/"gold in vaults" ratio will go up. Just like I said above. It doesnt matter how much money you issue, what is important is how much gold you have to back up your money. Minbaric Federal Zones has in fact explained quite clearly on the previous page that money is always backed by something, it is rarely pure fiat money.

Also, the Empire is not concerned about exchange rate risk, we are concerned that the printing presses could be very easily started up by some bureaucrat and that the value of the Gold Denarius gets dragged down with it - we have had next to no inflation for the last three hundred years and we would like to remain that way and not be forced off the gold/silver standard via the back door. The citizens, firms and government of the Empire participate in billions of Gold Denarii worth of transactions per day and we are completely aware about exchange rate risk - it is not that which concerns us

We are not shooting down this proposal because of exchange rate risk; we are shooting down this proposal because it can very easily mark the beginning of the end of our gold/silver standard. Once that disappears, then what stops bureaucrats from starting up the printing presses? We certainly do not want to see a day where fifty Gold Denarii cannot even pay for the weekly groceries.

The world bank's money is only electronic so it cant actually print money. But if you are worried about the world bank issuing too much money electronicly, the world bank cant create money. It can only exchange money for other money which as I said before will keep the IVC/foreign currency equal. So because the world bank cant print/issue extra money, it cannot inflate the IVC.

The IVC will also not mean the end of your gold standard, the IVC will not affect the value of your national currency. Why not? Because the value of the IVC is based on the value of your national currency and other national currencies. However this causality doesnt go the other way around. Let's compare this with "the chicken and the egg" analogy;). The chicken (=your national currency) came first and it lay an egg (=the IVC), the egg can never lay the first chicken. The only egg the IVC-egg can lay is the egg of easier trade;). Now before taking this analogy too far:p, let us examine what will happen if the IVC suddenly became worthless.

To keep it simple we will consider a world with only two nations (1 and 2), two currencies (A and B) and they decide to make an IVC and a world bank. For simplicity all exchange rates are set to one. Each nation converts 100 of its currency into 100IVC. The assets (=active side) of the world bank will be: 100A + 100B. The liabilities (=passive side) of the world bank will be: 200IVC. Now for whatever unlikely reason currency B totally looses its value. The 100B in the vaults of world bank are now worthless. The world bank now only has 100A assets compared to 200IVC. The value of the IVC has halved. People who have bought IVC's in nation 1 will have lost 50% of their money. You will now need twice as many IVCs too buy something in nation 1 as before. However, and this is exactly my point, the amount of A needed to buy something in nation 1 is exactly the same.

There is no effect on the value of currency A, the gold standard doesnt collapse. The only effect is that people who bought IVC's took an exchange rate risk and lost.

I'd be less depressed about agreeing with you if I hadn't seen people do just that.

Maybe thats for the better, nobody likes those brown eyes. Theyre evil! Evil I tell ya!

Please don't use the term "Free Market." It comes off as Capitalist propaganda after that.

Please don't use the term "Free Market." It comes off as Capitalist propaganda after that.

It is sad that the term free market has a negative connotation. However what can we use instead? By free market I mean that the UN will not force nations to choose a specific type of economy, in other words the UN will leave nations FREE to choose wether they want to be an open economy, closed, protectionist, commie,...

Free as opposed to more regulation, less choices. Personally I dont see whats so bad about freedom. Even if you are an authoritarian regime and don't like your citizens to be free, the regime itself would prefer as much freedom of choice as possible?

"Some economic theorists - and governments - see complete economic deregulation - which is a goal of some governments, typically those committed to economic growth as a signifier of national wellbeing - as leading inevitably to a state where corporations employ ever-increasing clout at the expense of the consumer and the producer. A sort of "tyranny of the distributor", if you will.

"I believe that this is what the honorable Ambassador from Discoraversalism means.

"The line in question might benefit from removing the words "free market" from it entirely, so that it reads "ESTABLISHES the World Bank which will standardize international exchange rates though a common exchange"."

~ Margaret Andrea Morgan Cheltenham, FIHTL Ambassador to the UN

It doesn't matter what the intent is, it still looks like capitalist propaganda. Sad but true.

Well the intent is to reduce the costs of trade, which will increase trade, which will increase economic growth. Although it is based on the principle that growth is good, I dont think it is really propaganda.

Blind hate is never a good basis for informing your decision to vote. Informed hate is the way to go.
-Aram Koopman.

Looks like interest for this topic has faded. Too bad I really enjoyed writing lenthy posts. Guess nobody enjoyed reading them.

OOC: Submit it yourself?

OOC: Submit it yourself?Oh no you don't. I've been exceptionally busy, but I'm not dead yet.



Iamloco, skimming this thread, it looks like you've mostly been defending your changes, and trying to show people why this won't kill their economy forever and ever. If you've posted a new draft since page one, please correct me. My time's still limited, but I'm going to do what I can, darn it.

International Vehicle CurrencyI think we need to work on the name, frankly. Both yours and mine are clunky and not very useful. Still, that's window-dressing and can be worried about later.

ESTABLISHES the World Bank to create a free market for the exchange of national currencies into the International Vehicle Currency;I do remember mention of chopping out "free market", however. I don't much care for such an alteration. I know it'll cause die-hard command economists to vote against, but many likely would anyway. Also, chopping that out introduces more vagueries.

I'd like to think people can tell the difference between "a free market" and "you must now have an Adam Smith-esque free market economy".

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of exchanging the International Vehicle Currency at market rates, while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy;Good addition. Might stop people whining about losing their existing currencies (despite the preamble).

CHARGES the World Bank to safely guard all the national currencies it has accumulated to ensure confidence in the International Vehicle Currency and to guarantee the stability of the International Vehicle Currency;

FORBIDS the World Bank to print money. The International Vehicle Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies, but an aid in converting one currency into another;For some reason I'm less than thrilled with this, but perhaps I'm just being petty. After all, this is what I was hoping to do. You just managed to put it into intelligable words.

I guess the hope with what I was doing was to have the IC be an actual currency (as I was trying for a legal global currency).

NOTING that national currencies exist to facilitate exchanges between goods, the International Vehicle Currency exists to facilitate exchanges between currencies;Further explination is good, I'm afraid. I wish we didn't have to hold delegates' hands.

IN LIEU OF funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to use interest profits to sustain itself, but limits those profits to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;With the new direction, yeah I guess this is a better way to fund this thing.

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

URGES corporations to use the International Vehicle Currency and the World Bank for all international trade;Again, we're fading away from a physical currency, but perhaps that's a sad reality we're facing.

Sigh.

~Lady Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

I'd like to see the UN adopt an international currency. When I was a little girl, we used the imperial credit, like nearly every other world in the galaxy -- well, our galaxy anyway -- and that worked great. But when the Empire fell, things got really confusing. Some planets were refusing to accept the currency of the New Republic, and others wouldn't take the old imperial credits. Others even tried floating their own currencies. Turned into a big mess. The adoption of the international credit is an excellent idea.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

'free market'
'private citizen'

Nay!

More reactionary garbage from the usual suspects...

Nay!

More reactionary garbage from the usual suspects...
Come back after taking a reading comprehension course.

Come back after taking a reading comprehension course.

I'm getting rather annoyed with your one-liner attacks with no other substantive contribution. You're not role-playing, you're just sniping.

Knock it off. NOW.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Can we get back to this please? It's definitely an idea worth considering, if we can get past all the silly bickering.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I thought the standard currency was created by the gnomes who are part of no country, but are immensely rich. It it is called the nationstates dollar and is symbolized by this $ . No one really understands it.

Regards,

Rex Smiley.

I'd like to think people can tell the difference between "a free market" and "you must now have an Adam Smith-esque free market economy".
As I understand it, the mythical Adam Smith known for his contributions to economic theory in the Real World Simulator was an advocate of responsible, socially aware market policies. It seems a shame that his name is now used to represent devil-may-care market libertarianism; I doubt he would have been grateful for the association.

Benedictions,

It is sad that the term free market has a negative connotation. However what can we use instead? By free market I mean that the UN will not force nations to choose a specific type of economy, in other words the UN will leave nations FREE to choose wether they want to be an open economy, closed, protectionist, commie,...

Free as opposed to more regulation, less choices. Personally I dont see whats so bad about freedom. Even if you are an authoritarian regime and don't like your citizens to be free, the regime itself would prefer as much freedom of choice as possible?

I'd say open economy.

The line between capiltalist, socialist, and communist is a lot blurrier now then the Red Scare is waining.

I'd say open economy.

The line between capiltalist, socialist, and communist is a lot blurrier now then the Red Scare is waining.

Open market instead of free market, thats just the kind of cunning deception we need :D

Open market instead of free market, thats just the kind of cunning deception we need :D

That's the type of thing I'd suggest using on the UNFA redraft as well... in title and throughout the whole resolution... who knows, maybe it'll pass then.

How can anyone be against capitalism?

Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the UN
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

The line between capiltalist, socialist, and communist is a lot blurrier now then the Red Scare is waining.

Are you sure it's waning? Just because there haven't been any proposals about rouge nations lately doesn't mean that it's waning.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

How can anyone be against capitalism?

Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the UN
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

They like economic equality, which capitalism fails miserably to provide? Seriously. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but that question ain't a tough one.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

They like economic equality, which capitalism fails miserably to provide? Seriously. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but that question ain't a tough one.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce


The Capitalism versus Communism struggle is a false paradigm. Both paradigms ignore the black market.

(As do most UN legislation)

The truth of the matter is a lot of countries are kept alive by a thriving black market :)

The Capitalism versus Communism struggle is a false paradigm. Both paradigms ignore the black market.

(As do most UN legislation)

The truth of the matter is a lot of countries are kept alive by a thriving black market :)

We just have one big market in HotRodia. None of that black market/grey sector stuff. It's a damn rainbow market in my nation.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

We just have one big market in HotRodia. None of that black market/grey sector stuff. It's a damn rainbow market in my nation.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

What crimes do your youth commit online?

They like economic equality, which capitalism fails miserably to provide? Seriously. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but that question ain't a tough one.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

If someone lacks the unction to function and cannot get off his lazy arse to create something of him/herself, that person should not get money from the hard working.

Now, I can understand about the elderly and disabled. Those who cannot fend for themselves should be helped. Those who won't fend for themselves should be fed to the dogs.

M. Diegaus

Even if you are a diehard commie, this doesnt have to mean that you will be against trade. If trade makes your country richer (and this is exactly what trade will do: some will gain, some will loose but total gain will be greater than total loss) you can still choose to redistribute as you please. If have more money, it is only natural that you can give more to your nation's poor than if you have less money. This is true in a more capitalist economy, but also in a total egalitarian economy. In a total egalitarian economy the total amount of welfare in a society is measure by the welfare of this societies poorest member.

Of couse I am assuming here that even communist societies want to maximize its total welfare. If your vision of a perfect society is a place where everyone is extremely poor and starving, but you think its great because everyone is equally poor and equally hungry you will not agree with the above statement. Personally I prefer some starving and some not starving over a place where everyone is starving, even if everyone is equal in the latter.

Okay, let's try this:

International Exchange Currency

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;

CREATES the International Exchange Currency as a helpful tool for all international trade;

ESTABLISHES the World Bank to create a open market for the exchange of national currencies into the International Exchange Currency;

CHARGES the World Bank with the responsibility of exchanging the International Exchange Currency at market rates, while not impeding countries' use of their own monetary policy;

CHARGES the World Bank to safely guard all the national currencies it has accumulated to ensure confidence in the International Exchange Currency and to guarantee the stability of the International Exchange Currency;

FORBIDS the World Bank to print money: the International Exchange Currency is not a replacement for existing currencies, but an aid in converting one currency into another;

NOTING that national currencies exist to facilitate exchanges between goods, the International Exchange Currency exists to facilitate exchanges between currencies;

IN LIEU OF funding:

-PERMITS the World Bank to use interest profits to sustain itself, but limits those profits to the minimum needed to maintain the World Bank;

REQUIRES the World Bank to accept and honour the rates determined by the open market;

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

URGES corporations to use the International Vehicle Currency and the World Bank for all international trade.

Co-authored by Iamloco

I changed the name of the currency (vehicle just seemed off to me), and replaced both references to "free market" with "open market". Also added the co-author line.

Looks pretty good to me. The only thing that could be better imo is the name International Vehicle Currency. It is very decriptive and accurate, but if people dont know what a vehicle currency is they arent helped very much. I would also like to see the word currency changed.

International exchange unit? or something.

"URGES corporation..." Are corporations the right thing to be urging? I seem to recall someone suggesting some considerable time ago that it was over-specific.

That said, I'm happy that this isn't a destructive resolution. I still don't see the point, but we've been around that argument many times and there are adequate safeguards in place for nations like my own which don't wish to play this particular game.

"URGES corporation..." Are corporations the right thing to be urging? I seem to recall someone suggesting some considerable time ago that it was over-specific.

That said, I'm happy that this isn't a destructive resolution. I still don't see the point, but we've been around that argument many times and there are adequate safeguards in place for nations like my own which don't wish to play this particular game.

ENCOURAGES instead of urges?

"URGES corporation..." Are corporations the right thing to be urging? I seem to recall someone suggesting some considerable time ago that it was over-specific.
I think that was me, and my point was that a corporation is one type of company, which might be a better word to use (because not all companies have corporate status). Given it's a mild clause, though, I don't think it's a big thing anyway.