NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello... I am a new nation to NationStates but I thought I'd give this proposal thing a shot.
Also, :gundge: is the coolest smiley I have ever seen.
As such, I present my proposal:

World Assembly Charity
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Paristopolis

Description: REALIZING that the nations in the World Assembly contain some portion of their population that is unable to meet the standards of living and face disease and starvation,

ACCEPTING that there will always be economic disparities among individuals across the world,

ACKNOWLEDGING that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

KNOWING that poverty affects all nations, not just those in the World Assembly,

AFFIRMING that if these basic needs are not met, thousands upon thousands of people will meet their end from starvation, dehydration, exposure, or disease

SEEING that some nations are so poor as to be unable to meet the basic needs of its citizens,

DECLARES that the WA members should always strive towards a greater good for all human beings, not just those in their nations and as such:

1)PROPOSES that all nations in the WA donate .1% of their national budget into an international fund that will be distributed among those who face not mild poverty but to those who lack ESSENTIAL elements that all human beings should have, such as food, water, basic shelter, and basic medical care,

2)REQUIRES that an organization titled the World Assembly Charity (WAC) be created to maintain the fund, distribute it only to those who NEED the money to survive, and enforce the collection from the WA nations,

3)PRESERVES the right of a nation in the WA to be free from this obligation if, after analysis by the WAC, it is determined that even giving up .1% of their national budget would place them into a situation where they would then be unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens,

4)CALLS upon nations to send a delegate to the WAC, preferably with economic experience, to help with this process and ensure that the needs of only those who require it are met across the world.

1)PROPOSES that all nations in the WA donate .1% of their national budgetYou need to keep in mind just how big some nations are. My WA nation, which is smaller than this nation, would be looking at something like 16,129,007,462.40 in donations. That's a lot of money, and just from one nation...

You need to keep in mind just how big some nations are. My WA nation, which is smaller than this nation, would be looking at something like 16,129,007,462.40 in donations. That's a lot of money, and just from one nation...

EXACTLY! And it takes A LOT of money to feed the hungry around the world....

Think of it as if every person in the world gave a dollar, then you'd have 6 billion dollars to distribute to people who needed it. I'm not asking a lot from each nation, just the smallest of fractions to help make the world a better place...

.1% is nothing. It will not crash a budget or throw off any nation development but it will help feed thousands of people. I made it proportional so that large nations and small nations alike can give what they can.

Think of it as if every person in the world gave a dollar, then you'd have 6 billion dollars to distribute to people who needed it.
No, you wouldn't. Some individual nations have populations of 12 billion; the world population is in the trillions.

No, you wouldn't. Some individual nations have populations of 12 billion; the world population is in the trillions.

That misses the point of my post entirely but okay, the idea is every person gave a dollar then you'd have x dollars where x is the number of people...

Now y, which we know to be <x, is the number of people that will starve or die without that money... so...

If y<x, and x only has to pay a small amount each, then wouldn't it make sense for each person in x to pay a little to save all of y?

Think of it as if every person in the world gave a dollar, then you'd have 6 billion dollars to distribute to people who needed it.You aren't asking for $1/person. You're asking for 0.1% of the government's budget. For this nation, it's not 12 billion, but more like 62 billion. 62 billion that I'm sure my government could find other things to spend on.

Furthermore, most of the world's problems can't be solved just by throwing obscene amounts of cash around.

I wasn't missing your point; I was just making sure you knew just how much money you'd be collecting. A conservative calculation based on the 2005 NS Census and a GDP per capita of ~$8,000 would be over $100 trillion. Even for such an eminently worthy cause, that's a lot of money, and there are other areas - education, environmental protection, international security, trade adjustment assistance, scientific research - that also need funding.

I also think some nations would be nervous about 'donating' to a 'charity' that contains absolutely no checks to make sure the money is not misspent, no oversight to prevent corruption, and no structure for promoting development other than doling out stuffed envelopes (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_to_give_every_iraqi_3_544_91). Also, the funds don't appear to be tied to any commitments to political reform, though that may be intentional.

You aren't asking for $1/person. You're asking for 0.1% of the government's budget. For this nation, it's not 12 billion, but more like 62 billion. 62 billion that I'm sure my government could find other things to spend on.

Furthermore, most of the world's problems can't be solved just by throwing obscene amounts of cash around.

Yes, a lot of the world's problems CAN be solved by throwing obscene amounts of money around. Money provides the ability to help with food, access to clean water, and basic medical care. I'm not talking universal and complete medical care obviously, but basic care that most nations can get at a pharmacy or general physician.

The NS world is huge, and as such, its problems require more money than most problems... the number of people in countries who cannot provide for them is then proportionally larger. No one nation will care about .1% of their budget. If your nation is so large that 62 billion is a drop in a lake, then why not be able to spare it to ensure FELLOW HUMANS do not starve to death, die of thirst, or die from a basic illness.

I also think some nations would be nervous about 'donating' to a 'charity' that contains absolutely no checks to make sure the money is not misspent, no oversight to prevent corruption, and no structure for promoting development other than doling out stuffed envelopes. Also, the funds don't appear to be tied to any commitments to political reform, though that may be intentional.

I believe points two and four address the enforcement problem that you bring up here. It's direct distribution to those who need the money done by delegates from the WA nations to ensure their country's money is not used or spent improperly by the WAC.

Once again, 0.1% is not an insignificant amount. 0.1% of our budget is equivalent:
- the entire budget of our Department of Veteran Support, or,
- the entire budget of our Department of Small Businesses plus the entire counterterrorism budget of our Department of the Interior, or,
- the combined budgets for our school modernisation program, all Department of Food, Fisheries and Farming research programs, and the national rail service.

So which of those do you suppose we do without? Of course, given there are so many rich nations in the WA, maybe you could simply lower the threshold you're collecting? After all, you haven't even produced a figure for how much you will need: usually, it would make sense to work out the cost of an item before setting its price.

Clauses 2 and 4 do nothing to allay my concern. Giving money to those who need, sorry, those who NEED it, does not guarantee it will be spent appropriately. Just because we give it to them to spend on food, they might end up spending it on other things. Giving people money in this also does nothing to promote sustainable development.

Furthermore, why do you suppose such poverty exists in the first place? Maybe tackling the root causes would be worthwhile. For example, sometimes it's not a lack of money but a lack of food that contributes to hunger. Our nation recently ended all biofuels subsidies to help with this problem. Perhaps something promoting research in crops genetically modified to increase yields? Housing demands might be better met if more research were put into low-cost buildings. And these countries are going to remain locked in a cycle of poverty if they don't have governments that are accountable to their people, and if their producers don't have access to world markets.

Need some iprovements, what if a WA member is poor?

:headbang:

As my colleagues from Quint and Hack have already taken 1 to task I'll settle in for 2, how exactly is the WAC going to determine who needs the charity, and also more importantly as a nation that devote much more the .1% of it's income to defense... how does the WAC intend on enforcing such a requirement?

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Chief Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

Need some iprovements, what if a WA member is poor?
:headbang:

Point 3 meets your query. Any nation with a complaint of inability to pay will be met with sympathy from the WAC and will not have to contribute.

how does the WAC intend on enforcing such a requirement?

Enforcement of collection, distribution, and allocation of resources is done by the delegates in the WAC.

That includes members from any donating nation. Simply send people from your nation to watch where the money goes. Enforcement is done by delegates from your own country along with delegates from the other WA nations. That way, you know you can trust them, and if problems arise, you have only your citizens to blame.

Alright, so what I'm hearing is that if I changed the number in point 1 to a smaller proportion than 1/10 of a percent, I would get approval on that part.

Of course, given there are so many rich nations in the WA, maybe you could simply lower the threshold you're collecting? After all, you haven't even produced a figure for how much you will need: usually, it would make sense to work out the cost of an item before setting its price.

Furthermore, why do you suppose such poverty exists in the first place? Maybe tackling the root causes would be worthwhile. For example, sometimes it's not a lack of money but a lack of food that contributes to hunger. Our nation recently ended all biofuels subsidies to help with this problem. Perhaps something promoting research in crops genetically modified to increase yields? Housing demands might be better met if more research were put into low-cost buildings. And these countries are going to remain locked in a cycle of poverty if they don't have governments that are accountable to their people, and if their producers don't have access to world markets.

1) I don't need to produce a figure... that's a hypothetical calculation that no one person can estimate. Pardon me sir, tell me how much it would cost to end the world's problems? The WAC is designed as a relief to the world's problems of being unable to provide food, access to clean water, and basic medical care. Hunger, disease, thirst, these have no prices... they are not "items" to be sold off.. they require constant attention. It is an unfortunate consequence of the world.

2) The WAC is not designed to be a political machine that influences governmental policies... the WA should be solving the political problems that create hunger and thirst. This is meant to address the IMMEDIATE concerns of the people currently waiting for the world's problems to be solved. I look forward to the day that the WAC is no longer needed, but that day is not today. You want long-term solution to long-term problems, propose it. Don't attack my proposal for immediate relief to those currently suffering because I did not address long term dilemmas.

3) These people that we will give the money to know what they need. If you were starving, would you spend your money on a video game system? No. Why? Because you'd want to live. If you were ill, would you spend your money on new dancing shoes? NO. Why? Because the people we would give the money to would be in such a poor state that they would appreciate and not misspend the money.

Clauses 2 and 4 do nothing to allay my concern. Giving money to those who need, sorry, those who NEED it, does not guarantee it will be spent appropriately. Just because we give it to them to spend on food, they might end up spending it on other things. Giving people money in this also does nothing to promote sustainable development.

They should. As explained above. This is not for sustainable development. By thinking it should be, you have completely missed the point of the proposal. I am aware this fixes the symptoms and not the causes. However, that's what needs to be done sometimes and this is one of those times. I'm still trying to figure out why you're against feeding, sustaining, and curing the poor.

Point 4: CALLS upon nations to send a delegate to the WAC, preferably with economic experience, to help with this process and ensure that the needs of only those who require it are met across the world.

To ensure that their needs are met. The delegates will make sure that is what happens.

Alright, so what I'm hearing is that if I changed the number in point 1 to a smaller proportion than 1/10 of a percent, I would get approval on that part.Not especially. You're putting the cart before the horse. You're collecting money first, and then figuring out what to do with it. Using a three year old figure of roughly 100 trillion, what if this program only needs 80 trillion. What happens to the surplus? Do you redefine "NEED" and "ESSENTIAL"? Is the money invested? Returned? Spent on hookers and tequila for the WAC?

You're attempting a very simple solution to a very complex problem. Again, throwing around money just isn't going to cut it.

Not especially. You're putting the cart before the horse. You're collecting money first, and then figuring out what to do with it. Using a three year old figure of roughly 100 trillion, what if this program only needs 80 trillion. What happens to the surplus? Do you redefine "NEED" and "ESSENTIAL"? Is the money invested? Returned? Spent on hookers and tequila for the WAC?

You're attempting a very simple solution to a very complex problem. Again, throwing around money just isn't going to cut it.


Alright, barring a miracle rush of people endorsing my proposal today, I'll redraft it with answers to those questions. I'll include an investigatory committee as part of the WAC to estimate the costs, again made up of the delegates from the WA nations and which areas and people lack access to food, clean water, and basic medical care. With that estimate, the money will be collected from the WA nations, distributed to the people in need, and monitored by the delegates as in point 4) to ensure no money is wasted and/or taken by deceit.

The money that will be collected from the nations will be based around a max cap of .01% of any nation's budget at any given time. Obviously if a nation in the WA is willing and able to give more because they have a soul, then extra will be accepted. The bigger nations donate more than the smaller nations because they can afford to do so. If a surplus occurs, the money will be held over and guarded by the WAC in case of any crisis or natural disaster that requires emergency aid to be given.

And if being alive has taught me anything, it's that enough money will get you what you want. Also, again, this is not a solution to long-term problems, this is a solution to immediate effects until other members come up with longterm solutions. Those who want long-term solutions should not try to tack them to this proposal.

Spent on hookers and tequila for the WAC?

Although, I'm rather fond of this idea. :D

So to end world hunger will the money be spent on improving farming method on the poor countries or just giving them money so their corrupt governments can waste it away

1) I don't need to produce a figure... that's a hypothetical calculation that no one person can estimate. Pardon me sir, tell me how much it would cost to end the world's problems? The WAC is designed as a relief to the world's problems of being unable to provide food, access to clean water, and basic medical care. Hunger, disease, thirst, these have no prices... they are not "items" to be sold off.. they require constant attention. It is an unfortunate consequence of the world.
Not a 'sir', and I don't need to come up with the figure because I'm not the one writing the proposal. Look, there must have been some reason you came up with the figure of 0.1% rather than 10% or 0.001% or whatever. Furthermore, the items you list, rhetorical kitsch notwithstanding, do have prices. Food has a price, water has a price, medicine has a price. (Prices that will, incidentally, rocket as a result of the hyperinflationary effect of this proposal, but one thing at a time.) While I wouldn't expect you to produce an exact estimate, but some vague indication?
2) The WAC is not designed to be a political machine that influences governmental policies... the WA should be solving the political problems that create hunger and thirst. This is meant to address the IMMEDIATE concerns of the people currently waiting for the world's problems to be solved. I look forward to the day that the WAC is no longer needed, but that day is not today. You want long-term solution to long-term problems, propose it. Don't attack my proposal for immediate relief to those currently suffering because I did not address long term dilemmas.
This isn't short term. Your proposal would require: finding out the needs of every national of a WA nation, comparing it to some indeterminate standard of living index, collecting the resources, and distributing them. Sorry, but with the best will in the world that's not going to happen 'today'. Furthermore, my point is that stop-gap welfare measures have a nasty habit of becoming entrenched. The cutesy expression 'give a person a fish and they can eat for a day, teach (http://www.teachamantofish.org.uk/) a person to fish and they can eat for a lifetime' has some relevance: maybe the resources of WA members would be better invested in promoting sustainable development than in such a redistribution program, however appealing it might be on paper.
3) These people that we will give the money to know what they need. If you were starving, would you spend your money on a video game system? No. Why? Because you'd want to live. If you were ill, would you spend your money on new dancing shoes? NO. Why? Because the people we would give the money to would be in such a poor state that they would appreciate and not misspend the money.
These dancing shoes are an essential life necessity, I'll have you know. But besides that, are you telling me you've never met someone who spends food money on drugs? Furthermore, people really don't always know what they need. People are not born with an inate, perfect knowledge of nutrition and medicine.
I'm still trying to figure out why you're against feeding, sustaining, and curing the poor.
Bam! I was waiting for that one; I think I'll get it framed.

You seem smarter than that, so I'll give you time to retract it. Of course we're not against 'sustaining...the poor'; we're questioning the merits of your proposal precisely because it does matter. It matters so much, it's important to do it right.

-- Samantha Benson

Nigel stands trying to hide his smirk

Just have to say that after all this time away I almost had forgotten how much fun it was to watch Ms Benson at work.

No one here is saying that we don't want to work in charitable ways, we're saying the solution of blindly giving any percentage of a nations budget to an agency is only going to make that agency rich beyond measure and is really not going to literally put food in people's mouths.

Also I'm deeply offended by the notion that in order to prove that my nation has as you put it a "soul" I need to take money that can be used to save the souls of my nations unfortunate and send it out to help the rest of the worlds unfortuate. My nation has never turned down a request for help and has given much in financial, military, and humanitarian aid to many nations around the world. My nations soul doesn't need to be measured by some WA committee.

Furthermore, my esteemed colleague is dead wrong in believing that collecting gobs of money and then throwing it at people will make them self sufficient. That is a skill that is taught, not bought.

This is a complex problem, and any short term fix will only in the end make it harder to develop a long term solution. You are not just dealing with money, your are dealing with politics, national sovereignty, even ideologies. Collecting money from a dictator won't make him view the poor in his nation any differently.


Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Chief Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

And if being alive has taught me anything, it's that enough money will get you what you want.

We would observe, however, that enough money will rarely bother getting you what you need.

I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand...