The Atlasia Dispatch-Herald News Unit (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:45:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The Atlasia Dispatch-Herald News Unit (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: The Atlasia Dispatch-Herald News Unit  (Read 50240 times)
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #100 on: December 19, 2009, 07:54:52 PM »
« edited: December 19, 2009, 08:07:28 PM by GM Purple State »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.[/quote]

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #101 on: December 19, 2009, 11:21:52 PM »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.

That makes more sense.


To some extent. Splitting these organizations and creating several smaller ones will reduce systemic risk and take "too big to fail" out of our vocab to describe the current situation.

I could support lowering the limits if need be.



[/quote]

It is the prerogative of the Senate. Just laying out the options. You can ensure "too big to fail," but it will limit the amount companies can loan. We can't expect the same speed of growth/innovation as we cutback on certain things. But we can't have unrestrained lending. It's a balance with a give and take.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #102 on: December 19, 2009, 11:31:48 PM »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.

That makes more sense.


To some extent. Splitting these organizations and creating several smaller ones will reduce systemic risk and take "too big to fail" out of our vocab to describe the current situation.

I could support lowering the limits if need be.




It is the prerogative of the Senate. Just laying out the options. You can ensure "too big to fail," but it will limit the amount companies can loan. We can't expect the same speed of growth/innovation as we cutback on certain things. But we can't have unrestrained lending. It's a balance with a give and take.

I know its a tough choice that has to be made. But that is the business we are in, isn't it. Smiley
[/quote]

It's the business you're in. I just get to slam whatever it is you produce, as it will inevitably hurt someone. Wink
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #103 on: December 20, 2009, 09:40:42 AM »

Again :

Will we have some news about Northeast ? A detailed analysis of the legislative work of the incumbent Assembly would be very apreciated. Wink

You seem to have dramatically neglected us since the Assembly was created.

I'm just getting off finals and all that. Yes, I will be getting to a regional update. There will also be other news on a slew of topics coming in the next few days.

From Wednesday night until Sunday night, I will be away, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #104 on: December 22, 2009, 12:25:27 PM »

Regional News

Biweekly Regional Report

Northeast
A major winter storm, likely to break all modern records for snow fall, is likely to hit the Northeast particularly hard in the next four days. Allocation of substantive funding to help the region weather the storm is recommended.

With the economic recovery on track and unemployment continuing to fall, the Northeast should consider ways to rebalance its budget, which now faces a $5 billion deficit


Exactly what parts of the Northeast will be hit the hardest, and can you give a rough estimate of the cost of the damage?


Cost of the damage depends on how quickly the Northeast can get something going. The governor could start things with an executive order to make sure proper measures are in place. Understandably, the Assembly is a little busy.

Coastal states and areas will be hit hardest, with two feet predicted in CT and parts of Maine and slightly less predicted as you move in-coast.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #105 on: December 22, 2009, 05:22:31 PM »


First, be patient. There are a number of important things to do and I thought I should give all regions something to do before I comment on past items passed.

Next, I'm not going to comment on the various reforms you made to improve the Assembly, such as veto overrides or the number of seats. That should be clear. I commented on the green stuff before it passed and will likely come back to it when the Senate moves on the environment. The economic recovery items were already reflected in various pieces, including falling unemployment, an improving economy, etc.

Finally, bare in mind that some of those items, such as sustainable forestry, won't have an immediate impact. I can speculate, but I think you would prefer that I give you more to do, rather than talk about the number of trees I expect to be saved/planted.

Your reports on my region are always schizo. You said we had only a modest deficit a few months ago and a simple tax increase would pay for it and then we'd be fine. So we raised taxes. Now we must raise taxes again? Something's not right there.

It's not an issue of having enough money as much as having too much bureaucracy in the Pacific. That's the point that was being pushed for a while in these reports.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #106 on: December 22, 2009, 05:28:24 PM »

I would ask you to say how, but I keep forgetting that you're God and I have to go along with every word you say no matter what it is.

In any case, you could at least put it in a different way. Even if you are God of Atlasia you can't just come out here and say "raise taxes to pay for it" even after you said we had a small deficit and we already raised taxes for that.

My vision for this may be slightly flawed as it was borrowed from a New York measure that allows citizens to consolidate/remove local and municipal government entities. Perhaps it was an overly ambitious hope of mine. Wink

I'll try to come up with something new for your region.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #107 on: December 22, 2009, 05:38:48 PM »

I'm just confused at how the Pacific region gets the reputation of being a communist hell-hole or something. I'm curious as to how the Pacific is just so insanely bureaucratic and so radically different from any other region. The only thing different about us is that we had single payer awhile before we in the Senate changed health care. Beyond that, we're not the USSR.

I gave each region its own "character" if you would, based mostly on existing partisan breakdowns when I took office. I never said communist, but overly cumbersome bureaucracy is a hallmark of places like New York and California. The other regions have their own issues as well that they must work to overcome.

I've edited it now. You just won illegal immigrants. Congrats! Wink
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #108 on: December 22, 2009, 05:42:26 PM »

I can speculate, but I think you would prefer that I give you more to do, rather than talk about the number of trees I expect to be saved/planted.

Well, snow storms aren't exactly my speciality. Tongue

Let's hope then that someone in the Assembly is an expert. Or do the research, eh? Tongue

There is only so much I can give regions before it becomes a federal issue. Technically, the federal government could do whatever it wanted and I highly doubt anyone would sue the Senate for overreaching.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #109 on: December 22, 2009, 11:36:06 PM »

The Office of the GM will be closed until December 28th or 29th. I may get on tomorrow one last time, but it isn't likely.

Wishing you all a happy and safe holiday.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #110 on: December 27, 2009, 10:48:02 PM »

Whenever you return, could you elaborate on the problems with Midwest law enforcement?

Sure thing. I'll try to do something this week if I can.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #111 on: January 04, 2010, 11:19:30 PM »

I am trying something new. I'll be putting headlines in the title of the ADH thread. Let me know if you find it a worthwhile addition.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #112 on: January 12, 2010, 04:32:38 PM »

Markets are back...

Financial News

Financial Indicators
  • ANSE     896 -8 (0.89%)
  • $1 Atlasian = $0.87240 U.S. (-0.01264)
  • Crude Oil = $89.62/barrel +1.53 (1.74%)

Analysis:
The ANSE fell as Atlasian clout over global affairs has come under increasing doubt with seeming isolationist policies in recent months.

The Atlasian Dollar fell as global trade imbalances persist and many question the future dominance of the Atlasian dollar as a global currency. The President and Senate should begin to focus on correcting trade and currency imbalances soon.

Oil prices rose sharply with commodities after China’s exports surged in December and imports rose amid signs of accelerating global economic recovery.

You can't legislate away a trade deficit. You can create policies that encourage Economic growth such as investments in Technology and infrastructure(already done), depress the value of the dollar by spending way beyond our means(already accomplished), or you can just restart the deflationary downward spiral. I am sure 25% Unemployement will end the Trade deficit rather quickly, don't you? Tongue

It isn't necessarily "legislation" that is needed, although I can think of a few things the Senate can do to begin to address currency imbalances. Also, the President has a bully pulpit that can help the issue as well.

For evidence of how well this can work, see here.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #113 on: January 12, 2010, 08:17:11 PM »
« Edited: January 12, 2010, 09:06:19 PM by GM Purple State »

Economic News

Independent Panel Finds Bank Compensation Practices At Fault For Recession
An independent panel has found risky compensation practices at financial institutions to be one of the main causes of the global recession.

The non-partisan panel issued a report outlining the ways in which many large financial corporations promoted short-term profits through compensation packages, without sufficient regard for the risk of long-term losses in the run-up to the crisis. It also stresses the need for government-led reform to ensure that such practices are discontinued or diminished.

One method to shift the focus of compensation practices include compensating employees with awards of deferred stock - shares that they cannot sell immediately. Companies can also include "clawback" provisions requiring employees to repay bonuses if short-term gains curdle into long-term losses. Finally, it is recommended that pay decisions made by independent members of a company's board of directors.

The Office of the GM recommends that the Senate take action to promote such changes in businesses. Some paths to achieve this include government oversight, FDIC action or other means to be assessed at official request.

Lol. This "commission" needs to have it's member's heads examined. This fails to take into account the fact that if it weren't for the Housing Boom 1996-2006 the banks wouldn't have had the risky derivitives to trade. Or the fact that there are macro-economic problems in the US economy that have existed since 2001 that made such a speculatory bubble necessary. To say it is a root cause is a misinterpretation. The speculation in risky derivitives and the accompanying asset bubble was created primarily do to the lack of substantial growth in the real economy so speculation looked like the most promising return on investment unlike in the 90's when the best place to be was in Dow or Nasdaq trading shares of productive companies, not financial schemes. So that was the "root" cause right there.

They found it to be "one of the main causes," not the only cause. The title of the ADH page was slightly misleading in order to fit the character limit for titles. I was simply trying to call attention to one issue that has not yet been addressed. People don't seem to act around here unless someone says that the problem is big.

EDIT: In a more explicit prompt for the Senate, here is the article I based this piece on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/12/AR2010011201492.html
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #114 on: January 19, 2010, 02:58:52 AM »

What's the unemployment rate/when do we get on an update on it, Mr. GM?

I'll do it tomorrow (Tuesday, so today in that case). I am going to redo the economic data schedule to slim it down a bit. Some things were not being used nearly enough for the work required, so I'll make a new, leaner schedule.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #115 on: January 21, 2010, 12:26:39 PM »

Was there some sort of culling of Pacific citizens I missed?

Apparently. I calculated the numbers the exact same way as the last time, right from the SoFA list (which, admittedly, hasn't been updated for a month). Also consider that the loss of one "actual" citizen equals the loss of potentially millions of "Atlasian" citizens.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #116 on: January 31, 2010, 11:13:16 PM »


Well, you guys seem to care a lot about the issue, so I figured I would give you some numbers to throw around.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #117 on: February 02, 2010, 10:37:49 PM »

If you refer to the Southeast, I posted them previously. The tax amnesty was only one of a number of options recommended.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #118 on: February 03, 2010, 12:45:32 AM »

If you refer to the Southeast, I posted them previously. The tax amnesty was only one of a number of options recommended.

I suggest you repost them then. Otherwise this will never get noticed.

Edited it into the post. Link here as well.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #119 on: February 14, 2010, 03:01:54 AM »

Could you give an analysis of the law enforcement reform I proposed?

I'll try to get it done tomorrow. Considering the season of campaigning we are in, could you post a link here?
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #120 on: February 14, 2010, 11:50:41 PM »

Good, effective and the is deficit neutral (well, positive).

Yes, sir.

On that note, I will begin working on regional budget reports in the next week or two to make sure you're all updated on the current state of the regions, budget-wise at least.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #121 on: February 15, 2010, 12:18:43 AM »

Could the GM provide the Mideast with some more information regarding the labor abuses?

Yeah, I just saw your proposal in the Assembly, so I'll work on a quick report for tomorrow/today (if I forget, please follow up).
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #122 on: February 16, 2010, 10:18:41 PM »

Yeah, I just saw your proposal in the Assembly, so I'll work on a quick report for tomorrow/today (if I forget, please follow up).

Mr. GM?

It's posted. Thanks for following up. Smiley
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #123 on: February 18, 2010, 11:03:59 PM »

NOTICE

I'll be on leave until Sunday. I have a pretty busy weekend and won't be available.

Until then, everyone enjoy your weekend and try not to pull any surprises before I get back, eh? Wink
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #124 on: February 22, 2010, 10:41:43 PM »

If the Pacific shuts off trade with us, we shall do without Pacific-made products. I for one shall not desert this region.

I much prefer the game drive me than my ideas drive the game. This is actually a fun thing to report on that I can analyze pretty easily while it is actually led by citizens and the people that play the game.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.