02-19-2006, 05:31 AM
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.
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.