At Vote: Remittances And Tiny Deposits
#1

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

-A- NOTING that remittances can be substantial sources of revenue for many families in the world, allowing for greater access to healthcare, education, small business development, savings through tiny deposits or otherwise and community projects,

-B- REGRETTING that remittance services are sometimes not easily available or charge high commissions,

-C- DESIRING that more people with low income, in particular in economically developing nations, have access to secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance, in order to save money for education, access to land or other property or to be protected from basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks,

-D- NOTING that remittances, secured tiny deposits and micro-insurance contribute substantially to the development of economically developing nations,

-E- DEFINING, for the purposes of this document:

* "Remittance" as a sum of money sent to people, accredited non-profit organizations or local community projects from a migrant worker,

* "Secured tiny deposit" as a recorded and uncharged small sum of money entrusted to an organization/bank/administration, which the account holder can add to or withdraw from, with a zero credit limit, and on which interest may be credited,

* "Micro-insurance" as the coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risks, in return for a small paid premium:


-1- URGES members to secure easy access to fast, low-charge/rate remittance services including free confirmation of the transfer, such as through increasing the availability of internet services and through international cooperation between post-offices and banks;

-2- PERMITS members to reasonably limit the transfer of currency, through restriction of remittance amounts, in the event of financial crises, and to take steps to reappropriate forged currency;

-3- RECOMMENDS members monitor, in cooperation with others nations, these international money transfers for eventual fiscal fraud, human and arms trafficking or other criminal activities;

-4- URGES members to increase access to tiny deposits and basic life risk, fire, property/cattle/crops damage, weather risk or other basic risk micro-insurances to people with low income, by encouraging non-profit organizations, banks, insurance companies or government agencies to offer these services;

-5- URGES members to set transparency standards relative to the management and origin of the funds and to the amount of indemnities, in order to avoid abuses, and to guarantee the security of tiny deposits and micro-insurances, in the event of bankruptcy of a legitimate organization offering such services.

Co-authored by Kirisubo
Reply
#2

Against. The UN has no business telling nations which businesses to encourage (clauses 1 & 4, which in fact are the only meaningful effects).

We believe encouraging specific businesses is protectionist, and a bad idea altogether.
Reply
#3

I disagree completely with Fonzoland. Having been poor and disadvantaged (by first world standards that is) most of my life I can see there is a need for this. my family had a house fire and lost absolutely everything and had to rely on the charity of others because we couldn't afford basic insurance cover. We could have had a choice in education if my mother was able to save little bits of money without it being eaten up in account fees.

This is definately not anti-business as it creates a whole new market for finance companies to expand into and in the long run poorer people will be better off and more secure and finance and insurance companies get a whole new market.

Although this might impinge on NSov a little it also prevents nations with restrictive practices from excluding poor people from participation in finance and easing their financial situation. Even in real life some nations seem to encourage a poor, uneducated underclass to provide corporations with cheap labour - this would prevent that.

I feel that apart from the obvious financial beneifts that this proposal could have long term wide ranging social benefits as well.

Lawtonia supports this proposal
Reply
#4

Quote: I disagree completely with Fonzoland. Having been poor and disadvantaged (by first world standards that is) most of my life I can see there is a need for this. my family had a house fire and lost absolutely everything and had to rely on the charity of others because we couldn't afford basic insurance cover. We could have had a choice in education if my mother was able to save little bits of money without it being eaten up in account fees.[/quote]

While I sympathise with your plight, just telling nations "you really should increase access" does nothing to prevent those situations. A capitalist country accepts the fact that the market price is equal (close) to marginal cost, so it cannot be reduced further. A communist country accepts that a centralised social planner distributes resources according to the best interest of the population, and as such needs no external advice. In either case, the UN is in the worst possible position to tell nations which industries should be encouraged, or where public funds should be spent. Insurance and financial transfers are not an essential good, nor for that matter affect any basic human needs/rights.

Quote: This is definately not anti-business as it creates a whole new market for finance companies to expand into and in the long run poorer people will be better off and more secure and finance and insurance companies get a whole new market.[/quote]

The market already exists! There is no way a market can be created by a UN resolution... If there is demand for micro-insurance, the economic powers that be take care of supplying it. Be it the invisible hand or the benevolent planner.

Quote: Although this might impinge on NSov a little it also prevents nations with restrictive practices from excluding poor people from participation in finance and easing their financial situation. Even in real life some nations seem to encourage a poor, uneducated underclass to provide corporations with cheap labour - this would prevent that.[/quote]

No, it wouldn't. Name the clause that prevents exploitation.

Quote: I feel that apart from the obvious financial beneifts that this proposal could have long term wide ranging social benefits as well.[/quote]

There are no obvious financial benefits. If any nation thought there were obvious financial benefits, they would have already taken the measures without the need for the UN to intervene. This is not an international issue.
Reply
#5

I obviously can't vote, and will vote for whatever the region decides, but I just wanted to say that if you read it, it doesn't necessarily enforce anything. It only "urges" and "recommends."

So, it doesn't really matter if it passes or not.
Reply
#6

I support this initiative. At the very least, as Antrium suggests, its language is very mild (I refer to the actual terms, not the mild strength). It's a very loose set of guidelines.

The types of programs suggested by the resolution have had the desired effects in many countries, increasing the fortunes of the least well off. While this would not decrease exploitation, nor aid in situations such as Lawtonia went through (OOC: I'm glad you were able to get through that), it would give a mechanism to raise the standard of living.

This helps to increase "Equality of Opportunity", which we see espoused in so many liberal democracies (such as IDU member states).

This resolution is not a threat to any state or market, and can only serve to improve the fortunes of a people. If a state doesn't like it, they can disregard it; that's the beauty of its weakness.
Reply
#7

Against, because it's crap, because it's LAE and because it will do nothing good at all.
:protest: :vom:
Reply
#8

We support this. See Lawtonia's comments =)
Reply
#9

I'm not really sure what this resolution would accomplish.

For one thing, it defines certain terms differently than how they have been generally understood, and we are left with the impression that it is a mixture of inconsistent financial and economic devices and concepts that fails to promote the growth of economies in emerging nations.

The micro-credit system as we have understood it is a device in third-wrold economies to encourage the growth of home-based businesses and the creation of a entreprenurial middle class.

Protecting remittances from expatriates might be a worthy objective better addressed as a separate proposal.

Secured tiny deposits as defined in the resolution has no size limit. If we read this correctly quite a substantial sum might well be a secured tiny deposit under the stated definition in this proposal.

We therefore vote AGAINST this resolution,
Reply
#10

I plan on casting the region's vote on late Thursday. (Central Time)
Reply
#11

Since the region appears to be split on this, and since I went through the trouble of making an extended post on jolt explaining my position, I might as well link to it here.

I hope this is able to persuade some friendly neighbours to vote NAY. Smile
Reply
#12

FonzolandFeb 21 2006, 01:10 PM I hope this is able to persuade some friendly neighbours to vote NAY. Smile [/quote]
Well, one of them at least.

Ceorana votes NAY per Fonzoland's argument.
Reply
#13

Does appear as though this will pass, however, the Empire is supporting the measure. I concur with Fonzoland that ultimately, this is meaningless milquetoast. I guess I just lean toward as least stating the idea as opposed to not doing so.

Regardless, the matter appears to be moot.
Reply
#14

The members of my office's staff are still analyzing what the impacts of this resolution will be. While we certainly are moved by the idea that, like micro-credit, which we supported, may help improve financial stability of nations at this time my staff is unsure of the overall impacts of this resolution.

That in mind, Mikitivity has not cast a vote here, but has tenatively voted in favour. Without a position based on the nation of sponsorship, we'd appreciate points raised by nations for and against dealing with just the impacts of this resolution (which I believe is a point the people from Grosseschnauzer have also raised).

OOC: Seriously, let's vote on and discuss the resolution itself ... not the author. Love and Estrel does lurk in our forums, and I'm a bit upset that we even mentioned him. Given that I've never seen him say anything negative about anybody it is kinda hitting below the belt, and L&E telegrammed me once to say that he was afraid to even come here ... that is not the type of reputation I'd like the IDU to have. Pro / Con arguements are fine, and I'll try and sneak some time tomorrow to read them in more detail ... though I'm still puzzled over the actual impacts of the resolution itself.
Reply
#15

MikitivityFeb 22 2006, 06:58 AM ... though I'm still puzzled over the actual impacts of the resolution itself. [/quote]
May I point you towards my jolt posts? I really can't be arsed to copy it to all off-site fora...
Reply
#16

FonzolandFeb 22 2006, 12:25 PM MikitivityFeb 22 2006, 06:58 AM ... though I'm still puzzled over the actual impacts of the resolution itself. [/quote]
May I point you towards my jolt posts? I really can't be arsed to copy it to all off-site fora... [/quote]
I would second that. Your Jolt posts have certainly convinced me. The other arguments - that it was mild, that it was by L&E - didn't hold any weight, but, whilst I know nothing about economics, I know enough to know you're right. If you see what I mean.
Reply
#17

FonzolandFeb 22 2006, 05:25 AM MikitivityFeb 22 2006, 06:58 AM ... though I'm still puzzled over the actual impacts of the resolution itself. [/quote]
May I point you towards my jolt posts? I really can't be arsed to copy it to all off-site fora... [/quote]
:worship:
Actually I did read some of it and plan to go back and read the rest ... though last night after telegramming (and cleaning my apartment ... more the latter of course) I was pretty exhausted. It does look very through and focused on the resolution. Smile
Reply
#18

Based on this:

Quote: FOR [ 4 ]  [50.00%]
AGAINST [ 4 ]  [50.00%]
ABSTAIN [ 0 ]  [0.00%] [/quote]

Because it's a tie, ( :o ) I have decided to vote AGAINST this proposal, because it does not enforce anything. Pointless proposals should not be passed. Also, there is no chance of it being passed now anyway.

I would wait until someone else voted but I have to write an essay so I won't have time
Reply
#19

Even though we are strongly against this well-intentioned but flawed proposal, we would magnanimously accept any decision from our delegate.

Translation: Heh, it's going down in flames, so we don't give a damn... Wink
Reply
#20

I agree with Fonzo. Though I tentatively accept the aims of this proposal, I respect the leeway of our delegate to make those tough decisions. Hopefully this will just make someone draft something that counts (yeah, right).
Reply
#21

Neu HamsterdamFeb 22 2006, 03:35 PM The other arguments - that it was mild, that it was by L&E - didn't hold any weight, but, whilst I know nothing about economics, I know enough to know you're right. If you see what I mean. [/quote]
I fully admit to partially basing my against vote on the fact that it's by L&E. However, L&E has shown repeatedly to know bugger all about economics. So it's not surprising that an economic resolution by him turns out bad.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)