NationStates Jolt Archive

Subsidies and tariffs in the first world prevent developing world nations from establishing healthy trading relationships with the first world, by artificially making their products uncompetitive. At the same time, third world countries are unable to install similar measures, due to aggressive tactics by the first world. To establish closer trading ties would establish greater global profit, healthier competition and friendship, besides a better chance for third world industries and economies. I submit therefore that significant reductions should be made to permissible subsidies and tariffs, under the following rules:

1) That all subsidies be capped, to a level not greater than 15% of the final value of the product.

2) That all tariffs against imports be likewise capped, to a level no more than 10% greater than tax due on a competing domestic product.

Do you support or oppose this proposal?

Subsidies and tariffs support and protect local investment and labor.
A propsperous global economy only benefits the rich few.
A propsperous local economy benefits all our citizens, who all happen to be local.
The local benefits of free trade have yet to be proven.

Subsidies and tariffs support and protect local investment and labor.
A propsperous global economy only benefits the rich few.
A propsperous local economy benefits all our citizens, who all happen to be local.
The local benefits of free trade have yet to be proven.

Hmm, you must obviously be referring to the great benefits to the poor that have been generously provided by the USA and EU through their subsidies to their own agricultural industries, and - let us not forget - the helping hand provided to the less fortunate by the tariffs, too.

Yours Godly
Heksefatter
God of Heksefattania

collaboration, my thoughts exactly. we shoult aggressively shoot down this proposal before foreign intrests invade our soil.

The Senate of the Most Holy Republic of Eredron will debate the proposed issue; at this time, Eredron cannot establish its position on the matter.

We support this. Feline has small tariffs on goods, and small subsidies on industries that the government wishes to see grow. However, your points are valid, and this is an excellent compromise resoulution.

Thank you for your feedback - and if you like this idea, don't forget to lobby your representatives to get this voted on!

Seriously though, I am aware that subsidies and tariffs have their uses, which is why I allowed for them to be used up to a fixed point. It just shouldn't be possible for rich countries to buy their industry a vast unfair advantage while bullying poor countries out of doing anything like the same - and don't forget that in the real world the rich few usually manage to grab the lion's share of EU and US subsidies, however carefully they're constructed.

Hurry people - voting ends Tuesday!

I agree. Subsidies and tariffs may have limited short-term benefits to the economy, but they are undoubtedly harmful after a few years have elapsed.

The US farm bills are one of the most environmentally harmful policies created by our government. They effectively pay farmers to saturate their land, something that they normally wouldn't do. This not only kills their land, but it raises the price of crops. The US Omnibus farm bill is supposed to have cost $20 billion outright and another $10 billion in higher grocery prices.

One of the key causes of the Great Depression was America and Europe's overuse of tariffs and subsidies. America's highest tariff ever, the Hawley-Smoot tariff, was passed on the eve of the crash. American subsidies encouraged industrial complacency, which led our industry to be unable to cope with new economic realities.

Our steel tariffs against Japan aren't going to magically improve our own industries... they are sort of like sitting in a stationary train and closing the curtain so that you think you are moving. Eventually reality catches up to you.

Tariffs in third-world nations will simply make those nations poorer. While a small amount of short-term tariffs may be helpful, anything above 10-20% will degrade the economy tremendously. APEC, which is the world's future dominant economic power (APEC includes America, Japan, and China), and has a mix of developed and developing nations, is set to eliminate most of its internal tariffs in 2010.

We in Gurthark do not use tarrifs for "pure protectionist" reasons. That is, we never impose a tarrif on foreign goods simply because they are foreign.

However, we maintain--and want to reserve the right to keep maintaining--"targeted tarrifs" that level the playing field in cases where we do not feel our potential trading partners are playing fair.

For example, we place a steep tarrif on goods from countries with lax environmental regulations, or insufficient protections for poor laborers (in both cases, we make some--but only some--allowances for the level of economic development of the country).

In other words, we don't believe local industry deserves protection simply because it is local, but given that we have held our own industry up to especially high social and environmental standards, we do believe it is fair to protect them from competitors not held to such standards. This has the additional benefit of encouraging our trading partners to adopt responsible behavior.

Gurthark must oppose the proposal, as currently written.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Dear Global Market and Gurthark,

Thank you for your insightful replies! Gurthark, how would you have written the proposal to allow the setting of demanding standards?

Lohen