NationStates Jolt Archive

The World Assembly,

To fund its own operations,

To provide a system to fund the development of the world,

To provide a system to prevent financial crises,

To provide a system to fund disaster and war recovery,

Hereby creates the World Assembly Bank, to fund the World Assembly, directed by the World Assembly Bank Board of Directors.

The WAB will accept monetary deposits and/or donations from any nation, whether member or not. These accounts shall be paid interest, as determined by the Board of Directors.

The WAB shall loan its assets to memberstates. These loans are voluntary to both parties. The terms of these loans are to be assessed by the Board of Directors and agreed upon by both parties.

The profit from these loans are to fund the World Assembly.

The terms of all loans are to respect national sovereignty.

No loan shall be given to any state engaged in armed conflict.

................................................................................

yes its terribly written. i have done it in 5 minutes. ill polish the language as i go, but wanted to open the idea to debate, especially as this funding debate rages accross the forum.

this proposal does not tax. it provides low risk investment to nations (by way of bank accounts) and exists as a lender for developmental loans, recovery. i was concerned that people wouldnt like an IMF/World Bank style organization, so i would like to make sure that this institution wouldnt infringe on national sovereignty with loan conditionality. i also figured it would be a bad idea to let the bank fund wars.

id also like to note that i know very little about banking, and banking regulations.

comments, if i havent annoyed the crap out of yall already?

With the number of times I've said this lately I'm beginning to feel like a broken record, but I'll say it again anyway.

Category and strength?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I'd imagine Free Trade and Strong. Looks like a good resolution though, just needs some polish. Oh, and you mention the "Board of Directors." You should probably add a clause about how they're chosen, but I'll vote for it either way.

Worrel D'Assembly
Vanteland's WA Representative

Category and strength?

yep...... free trade-strong. although im not quite sure about strength.... the proposal "WA Treasury of the States" is mild.

I'd imagine Free Trade and Strong. Looks like a good resolution though, just needs some polish. Oh, and you mention the "Board of Directors." You should probably add a clause about how they're chosen, but I'll vote for it either way.

i would, but i cant, illegal. and yeah, definitely needs polishing.

This was a dumb idea when it came up last year, and it hasn't improved with time.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

as i was not a nation last year, and have never heard of such a proposal, perhaps you could enlighten me? especially as to why it is "dumb"?

As long as it remains completely voluntary, I don't see why not.

as i was not a nation last year, and have never heard of such a proposal, perhaps you could enlighten me?They're referencing my miserable failure (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526927) of a proposal.

Thank you Remba. having just read ~10 pgs of text my eyes hurt.

gowever i am now confused if the esteemed delegate from Gobbannium actually read my proposal. while Remba's proposal deals with exchange rates, and is for the admitted purpose of creating a universal currency, my proposal does not deal at any point with exchange rates, or currencies. my intention is (as have other {illegal} proposals i have debated) to defend from the WA taxing my nation in any way.

i apparently should have titled it something like..... 'unique WA funding proposal', and will definitely add a line about respecting national determination of currency.

The World Assembly,

While protecting national determination of currency and other economic policies,

To fund its own operations,

To provide a system to fund the development of the world,

To provide a system to prevent financial crises,

To provide a system to fund disaster and war recovery,

Hereby creates the World Assembly Bank, to fund the World Assembly, directed by the World Assembly Bank Board of Directors.

The WAB will accept voluntary monetary deposits and/or donations from any nation, whether member or not. These accounts shall be paid interest, as determined by the Board of Directors. The WAB shall always maintain a level of currency, as determined by its Board of Directors, requisite to prevent banking runs.

The WAB shall loan its assets to WA memberstates. These loans are voluntary to both parties. The terms of these loans are to be assessed by the Board of Directors and agreed upon by both parties after necessary negotiations.

The profit from these loans are to fund the World Assembly.

The terms of all loans are to respect national sovereignty, including but not limited to, the sovereign right to determine a nation's own currency, own policies on economic development, and own political development.

The WAB Board of Directors shall give no loan to any state engaged in armed conflict, nor any state with a reasonable chance of entering into any armed conflict in the term of the loans duration.

.................................................................................

so slightly more polished. first substantial line is respecting national currency sovereignty. respecting that is put once more into the body. knowing as little as i do about banking regulations, ive included what little i know (minimun reserve to prevent bank runs). more elaboration of respect of national sovereignty. refusing to give a loan to any nation with a reasonable chance of going to war (ie the US couldnt take out a giant loan with troops on the boarder of iraq 1991).

im thinking about renaming this something akin to 'Developmental Bank of the WA' or 'Funding Bank of the WA' or anything different to eliminate parallells to the failed 'World Bank' proposal.

any comments other than my proposal is dumb?

How can you be sure that the profits, meaning I assume the accrued interest above the rate of inflation, on loans taken out by countries in need of economic development from an untried, untested, unproven funding source will be sufficient to fund all WA operations? No offence, but this all sound a little bit too happy-clappy: oh look what happened by magic! It'd be neat if it worked, but will it? What happens if it falls short: we just stop funding WA programmes?

The WA needs a secure, regular source of funding, because it's reasonable to assume most of its funding requirements will be relatively constant. Assessing a small, required contribution will meet this. Having one nation default on loan just as a new epidemic breaks out will not.

Why would nations donate? The proposal contains no guarantees the loans be financially secure, that necessary reforms be part of loan deals, that loans be refused nations with consistently records of financial reform or endemic corruption, or with poor credit. This proposal suffers from an excess of blind humanitarianism and that is unlikely to inspire investment. In fact, the national sovereignty clause is damaging: it seems to suggest that a nation with economic policies promoting hyperinflation and thus strongly inveighing against an ability to repay loans is to be treated on an equitable lending basis. Your proposal isn't 'dumb' and nor are you, which makes the inclusion of that strikingly dumb provision the more surprising.

On the other hand, if you can make a particularly stunning case for investment, why not simply have the donations fund the WA in the first place, instead of just the hopeful skimmed profits? Why not allow non-national actors to donate, such as NGOs or corporations?

I don't exactly understand how there could be a bank run, given this is not really a bank. No one is holding money in it: the money is donated in, and loaned out. There are no accounts, so there can be no massive withdrawals. Unless you're suggesting the bank would somehow loan out more money than it has, which is akin to suggesting its directors will all drop acid before the board meeting. Required reserves only make sense for a deposit bank, which this is not.

Finally, as with the SilentScope proposal, of which this is an interestingly close reminder, we don't like the confusion of the goals of WA funding and international development. When I was a kid I had a slingshot, and I found that two birds proved remarkably difficult to kill with one stone.

-- Samantha Benson

They're referencing my miserable failure (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526927) of a proposal.

Actually no, I was thinking of the infinitely more boneheaded proposal that I think came out of SilentScope, which just about says it all. That one worked fine as long as you had perfect enough market prediction to always exactly hit a fixed interest rate for investments, and trashed the world economy if you ever got it wrong.

gowever i am now confused if the esteemed delegate from Gobbannium actually read my proposal. while Remba's proposal deals with exchange rates, and is for the admitted purpose of creating a universal currency, my proposal does not deal at any point with exchange rates, or currencies. my intention is (as have other {illegal} proposals i have debated) to defend from the WA taxing my nation in any way.
Then your proposal is a miserable failure, because it doesn't even come close to doing any such thing. I'd oppose it if it did, mind you.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

ok. before i start, anybody have a link to that silentscope proposal? i went through his posts, and couldnt find it due to incredible incomptetence.

Originally Posted by Decapod Ten View Post
gowever i am now confused if the esteemed delegate from Gobbannium actually read my proposal. while Remba's proposal deals with exchange rates, and is for the admitted purpose of creating a universal currency, my proposal does not deal at any point with exchange rates, or currencies. my intention is (as have other {illegal} proposals i have debated) to defend from the WA taxing my nation in any way.
Then your proposal is a miserable failure, because it doesn't even come close to doing any such thing. I'd oppose it if it did, mind you.


wait. now here's some confusion. hypothetically if my proposal did "defend from the WA taxing my nation in any way." you would "oppose it if it did, mind you."???? why the hell would you do that? no no no.... seriously, why are you pro-unnecessary taxes? {again, if hypothetically they were unecessary} i.e. if my proposal were to achieve my goals of making taxes unnecessary to fund the WA, why would you oppose that?

and i cant resist this: fuck it, let's make a new mistake.

How can you be sure that the profits, meaning I assume the accrued interest above the rate of inflation, on loans taken out by countries in need of economic development from an untried, untested, unproven funding source will be sufficient to fund all WA operations?

it wouldnt necessarily achieve this. that would be my ideal goal. on the other hand, it would provide profits, and keep taxes at a minimum at the banks minimum. furthermore, since 1846/1860 the world has been loaning lots of money for development. i dont pretend to understand banking entirely, but if CITIBank is fine with loaning to Kenya, then there has to be a market for it, and it either makes sense, or we're all totally fucked.

The WA needs a secure, regular source of funding, because it's reasonable to assume most of its funding requirements will be relatively constant. Assessing a small, required contribution will meet this. Having one nation default on loan just as a new epidemic breaks out will not.

perhaps, but so far no such proposal has succeded. furthermore, given the number of nations, and the potential number of loans, i doubt that one loan would bankrupt the system.

Why would nations donate?

no idea. Decapod Ten sure wouldnt. i assume nobody donates to their private bank. But then again, why not let people do so? i assume my private bank wouldnt turn down any money i donated to them.

The proposal contains no guarantees the loans be financially secure, that necessary reforms be part of loan deals, that loans be refused nations with consistently records of financial reform or endemic corruption, or with poor credit. This proposal suffers from an excess of blind humanitarianism and that is unlikely to inspire investment. In fact, the national sovereignty clause is damaging: it seems to suggest that a nation with economic policies promoting hyperinflation and thus strongly inveighing against an ability to repay loans is to be treated on an equitable lending basis. Your proposal isn't 'dumb' and nor are you, which makes the inclusion of that strikingly dumb provision the more surprising.

i disagree on the fact that it is 'strikingly dumb' but do agree that it may be terribly written (and am surely not married to the clause, but the Remba proposal seemed to evoke NatSov hate) i wrote that to attempt to not get into an IMF/World Bank system. The IMF/World Bank caused numerous nations to adopt ISI as a developmental strategy, which has since failed, and been widely discredited. i also should probably add a part specifying (somehow) that when i say "he terms of these loans are to be assessed by the Board of Directors and agreed upon by both parties after necessary negotiations." i mean that the Bank would, like any bank, assess the credit of a nation and its ability to pay when determining the terms of the loan, particularly not in an 'equitable' fashion.

On the other hand, if you can make a particularly stunning case for investment, why not simply have the donations fund the WA in the first place, instead of just the hopeful skimmed profits? Why not allow non-national actors to donate, such as NGOs or corporations?

good point. i should let corps and anybody put money in. (see below as my explanation about donations)

I don't exactly understand how there could be a bank run, given this is not really a bank. No one is holding money in it: the money is donated in, and loaned out. There are no accounts, so there can be no massive withdrawals. Unless you're suggesting the bank would somehow loan out more money than it has, which is akin to suggesting its directors will all drop acid before the board meeting. Required reserves only make sense for a deposit bank, which this is not.

actually, i believe people would hold money in it. it is a deposit bank. not necessarily only donated, but "The WAB will accept voluntary monetary deposits and/or donations" so Decapod Ten would never donate, but may very well deposit, and hold money in the bank. We already have foreign currency reserves to insure our financial systems, why not put them into a bank? Inflation is lowering the reserves value, a small amount of interest in a secure bank would let it not depreciate.

so when you ask:

why not simply have the donations fund the WA in the first place, instead of just the hopeful skimmed profits?

because donations would be low, loan profits off deposits would fund (perhaps not entirely) the WA.

Just a quick not here from Jackspurt.

If this proposal stays voluntary and doesn't force itself on WA members then I see no reason to not support it.

Jackspurt

Head of and Representative of the Incorporated States of Jackspurt

I'm not good [at all] when it comes to matters of banking and economics, and I'm still not sure what this proposal seeks to do.

knowing as little as i do about banking regulations, ive included what little i know

I don't mean to be rude, but if you profess limited knowledge about banking, then why did you attempt to write a proposal that deals with such?

If this proposal stays voluntary and doesn't force itself on WA members then I see no reason to not support it.

BAD REASON, trust me.


Unless I can be convinced otherwise, I would not support this proposal; there's no way I'm going to support something I can't understand.

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

I don't mean to be rude, but if you profess limited knowledge about banking, then why did you attempt to write a proposal that deals with such?

because the other funding proposals tax my nation, and i dont support that. i also suggested the idea as an afterthought, and nobody championed it. obama wants to be commander in chief, but isnt a military expert. clinton wants to change healthcare, but isnt a doctor. mccain wants to fix the economy, but isnt an economist.

I'm not good [at all] when it comes to matters of banking and economics, and I'm still not sure what this proposal seeks to do.

it seeks to provide funding for the WA through profits reaped from loans to WA memberstates. it does not profess to necessarily fully fund the WA. it does not profess to develop the world. it does not profess to prevent financial collapse of nations, or even to make finance easier. (although it has those possibilities)

The World Assembly,

While protecting national determination of currency and other economic policies,

To fund its own operations,

To provide a system to fund the development of the world,

To provide a system to prevent financial crises,

To provide a system to fund disaster and war recovery,

Hereby creates the World Assembly Bank, to fund the World Assembly, directed by the World Assembly Bank Board of Directors.

The WAB will accept voluntary monetary deposits and/or donations from any nation, whether member or not. These accounts shall be paid interest, as determined by the Board of Directors. The WAB shall always maintain a level of currency, as determined by its Board of Directors, requisite to prevent banking runs.

The WAB shall loan its assets to WA memberstates. These loans are voluntary to both parties. The terms of these loans are to be assessed by the Board of Directors and agreed upon by both parties after necessary negotiations.

The profit from these loans are to fund the World Assembly.

The terms of all loans are to respect national sovereignty, including but not limited to, the sovereign right to determine a nation's own currency, own policies on economic development, and own political development.

The WAB Board of Directors shall give no loan to any state engaged in armed conflict, nor any state with a reasonable chance of entering into any armed conflict in the term of the loans duration.Back to the topic at hand. The WAB Board should also be tasked on giving CREDIT RATINGS per nation to make assessment easier on whether a certain nation deserves to be granted a loan. Also, the WAB Board should be made accountable to the whole WA General Assembly once called upon so they wouldn't just be granting loan to any nation of their choosing.

I have no idea what this means.. The terms of all loans are to respect national sovereignty, including but not limited to, the sovereign right to determine a nation's own currency, own policies on economic development, and own political development.

Simon Samuels
National Center for WA Affairs

I'm curious as to what "development of the world" is?

The following, unfortunately, has to be out of character. I really prefer roleplayed discussions, so if you can try to keep RL references out, it'd make it a lot easier for everyone.
ok. before i start, anybody have a link to that silentscope proposal? i went through his posts, and couldnt find it due to incredible incomptetence.
I can't find a Jolt version either, though I'm pretty sure there was one. In the meantime, archived regional discussions: one (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=704) and two (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=708).
it wouldnt necessarily achieve this. that would be my ideal goal. on the other hand, it would provide profits, and keep taxes at a minimum at the banks minimum. furthermore, since 1846/1860 the world has been loaning lots of money for development. i dont pretend to understand banking entirely, but if CITIBank is fine with loaning to Kenya, then there has to be a market for it, and it either makes sense, or we're all totally fucked.
They do so precisely because of international financial regulations and their own risk management strategies. They would not loan to a nation where they were prohibited from making any judgments on the nation's ability to use the loan responsibly and make repayment. Whether or not they occur, loans for development not tied to structural reform are incredibly risky, because there is so much likelihood for corruption. You have to remember, the recent election trouble in Kenya was so shocking because it had always been touted as Africa's success story. Banks would be considerably less willing to loan to nations with poorer democratic structures and avenues of oversight: you see them queueing up to give money to Zimbabwe? Yet your proposal's national sovereignty clause prohibits the exercise of such judgment.
perhaps, but so far no such proposal has succeded. furthermore, given the number of nations, and the potential number of loans, i doubt that one loan would bankrupt the system.
Again, I have less faith in the ability of this system to generate mass wealth than you do, given you have supplied zero reason for investor confidence, have yourself suggested you wouldn't invest in such a system, and have supplied no confidence that loans would be repaid, let alone with interest. Furthermore, a key plank of the current international social justice movement's platform is forgiving debts. In order for this to make enough money to fund the WA, you're going to have to start visiting people with baseball bats. That seems unlikely to produce development, which goes back to the point that it is at absolute best totally arbitrary to link development and WA funding in this way.
no idea. Decapod Ten sure wouldnt. i assume nobody donates to their private bank. But then again, why not let people do so? i assume my private bank wouldnt turn down any money i donated to them.
Ok, I'm beginning to think this is all just a joke, right? So, you're not going to give money, not going to give anyone else a reason to give money, but are going to assume that some people will to the tune of the interest funding the biggest international organization in the world.

As Cluichstan used to say, riiiiight...
i disagree on the fact that it is 'strikingly dumb' but do agree that it may be terribly written (and am surely not married to the clause, but the Remba proposal seemed to evoke NatSov hate) i wrote that to attempt to not get into an IMF/World Bank system. The IMF/World Bank caused numerous nations to adopt ISI as a developmental strategy, which has since failed, and been widely discredited. i also should probably add a part specifying (somehow) that when i say "he terms of these loans are to be assessed by the Board of Directors and agreed upon by both parties after necessary negotiations." i mean that the Bank would, like any bank, assess the credit of a nation and its ability to pay when determining the terms of the loan, particularly not in an 'equitable' fashion.
As a free trader I'm not a fan of ISI, but I've been reading about it for my course on Latin America and it's not quite as totally rejected as you suggest; Mexico is a good example, Argentina a bad one. I agree that what I'm arguing for looks suspiciously like the IMF, and that if you make all the changes I'm suggesting Kelssek will no doubt pop up and the OOC fun continue. But there can be a middle ground: we can require some structural reforms and compliance with international law, without mandating full privatisation of utilities. NS provides us an opportunity to do better than RL, and lurching to the other end of the spectrum doesn't seem like the best way of doing that.
actually, i believe people would hold money in it. it is a deposit bank. not necessarily only donated, but "The WAB will accept voluntary monetary deposits and/or donations" so Decapod Ten would never donate, but may very well deposit, and hold money in the bank. We already have foreign currency reserves to insure our financial systems, why not put them into a bank? Inflation is lowering the reserves value, a small amount of interest in a secure bank would let it not depreciate.
Except, I don't see why anyone would deposit in it. There is no guarantee this will be a secure bank. Its interest rates are unlikely to be high, given it needs to retain enough profit to fund the entire the WA, and is doing all that on the basis of loans to underdeveloped countries on which it can place no conditions or guarantees. Sorry, this proposal is silly. If you want someone to invest and make an account, give them a reason to do so. At present - as, bizarrely, you seem to admit - there would be almost no reason for doing so.
because donations would be low, loan profits off deposits would fund (perhaps not entirely) the WA.
Well, then what is the point, given the WA will still need extra funding!? This isn't even going to diminish the necessity of the proposals you hate!

Now, can I ask: are you interested in discussing this proposal as part of NS's roleplayed universe, or are we going to head off to General to talk about international banking?

I can't find a Jolt version either, though I'm pretty sure there was one.

It's here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523400).

"What's this now?" the Kawaiian Nuncia replied, looking over the sheet of paper handed to her by her First Secretary.

"A draft proposal, your grace," the Secretary replied briskly. "From the Decapodian delegation. This one has promise, I think."

The Nuncia looked over the text and hmm'd. "They're trying another go at a UN...er, World Assembly bank?" Mental note: must get used to the new name, she thought.

"Yes. It's not a bad proposal, as far as I can tell, your grace. The Decapodians seem to think the WA can manage a bank like a corporation."

"With board of directors and all." The Nuncia thought for a moment, and added, "You're right. With a little tweaking, this could be ingenious. Prepare a missive to the Decapodian ambassador."


In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii
[I]may the Cute One be praised

To: Ambassador, Decapod Ten
Subject: Proposed World Assembly Bank

Your Excellency,

We note with approval your proposal to create a World Assembly bank as a means of funding WA activities. The Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii agrees that such a bank, if properly run, would be of great benefit to the NationStates of the world. We have one concern, however, and would like you to consider an addition to the proposal:

The World Assembly Bank Board of Directors shall be chosen by vote among NationStates holding reserves within the Bank, such vote apportioned according to the fraction of total reserve held by a given NationState.

The Nuncia looked over the missive and nodded with approval before handing it to the First Secretary. "That should do it," she said.

The First Secretary looked over the missive. "I take it you believe the Prophet will approve us investing Church funds in this, your grace?" she asked.

"For a stake in the operation? Of course," the Nuncia replied with a grin. "With the kind of liquid capital we can funnel in through the various tribal casinos, we'll be running it within a year."

It's here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523400).

ok. im not hiding. im not {yet} abandoning this idea. given the failure of the Remba proposal, the SilentScope Proposal {btw thanks, i was looking at silentscope embassy for posts} and the GOBBANIUM proposal, possibilities look bleak. but, given that it is currently 236am, i am going to go to sleep while only saying, a) i just read the silentscope idea.... freakishly similar, but different in some ways..... b)

The World Assembly Bank Board of Directors shall be chosen by vote among NationStates holding reserves within the Bank, such vote apportioned according to the fraction of total reserve held by a given NationState.

i would, if it weren't illegal to determine anything about a committee.

ill address bigger arguements tomorrow... hopefully....

I wouldn't take the Gobbannaen proposal as too much of an indicator. We didn't have much clue here in the embassy about how much work getting something to quorum on your own was. I'm not sure His Nibs ever got round to resubmitting it. (OOC: and I'm not about to try again soon, given how busy I am!)

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

and I'm not about to try again soon, given how busy I am!

here here. which is why it has taken me so much time to respond to so friggin much.

.................................................................................

So here's why this entire type of proposal cannot succede

-capitalism is the dominant economic type in NS, capitalism is defined by competition.
-commercial banks compete to offer the highest interest to bank accounts, and the lowest on loans.
-commercial banks use their profits to expand.
-any WAB would need to expand to be able to fund more and more WA programs.
-any WAB would need to effectively compete to get deposits, and loans.
-therefore, any WAB would need to have competitive, and thus similar, interest rates
-With the same interest rates, and the same need to expand, any WAB cannot hope to effectively provide funding for the WA.

........................................................

hopefully that is a more articulate reasoning that can dissuade anybody from trying this again than "this is dumb"

Ok, but we all knew that from the start. It's you who started this proposal, so railing against us for trying to dissuade you, then turning round and lecturing us on why it was a bad idea to start with...

I need a drink.

oh no. i wasnt railing against you. you were articulate on how you told me im an idiot. i do however disagree with your statement that "we all knew that from the start." which also forces me to agree with your idiot arguement.