NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Economy
Strength: Strong

Recognizing that tariffs are nothing more than hidden taxes upon the consumer.

Recognizing that trade restrictions create a closed economy that becomes stagnant.

Recognizing that free and open trade allows for more innovation, lower prices for all consumers, and higher profits for all businesses.

Resolving:
That all trade restrictions whether they be tariffs, quotas, and subsidies shall be lifted by all member nations whithin a period of time that shall be debated by this community.

Sorry, a flat no to this one. Trade tariffs are essential to protect developing economies from destruction at the hands of developed nations with heavily subsidised industries.

Moreover, we find some of the assertions highly questionable - trade restrictions do not necessarily cause economies to stagnate, we see nothing wrong with "taxes upon the consumer" hidden or otherwise, and we object strongly to any measure that means higher profits for business.

-DP-

-DP-

-DP-

First off, I'm a little new at writing proposals, in fact this is my first attempt. If someone would be so kind as to explain what the strength means I would be most appreciative, I have seen it on other draft proposals and I figured I might as well put "strong" in the blank.

Let me explain my proposal just a bit, I realize that free trade will initially cause short term job displacement but in the end it leads to far more innovation. If it were not for the outsourcing of jobs, then we would probably all still be working in factories making little cheap plastic toys or textiles. It is far better for a minority of workers to be layed off, so that the business may become more profitable. More profits leads to more capital investment by businesses and therefore more jobs. Please feel free to ask questions and I will do my best to answer them. I'm sure there are people out there who are far better experts in economics than I. So here goes, debate please.

Once again I have to disagree with you East Hackney. Free trade will allow the free movement of jobs to countries with lower wage rates. Jobs in developing countries is a good thing is it not?

Also I would like to amend my own proposal because subsidies are a form of restrictions and are unfair.

Third, trade restriction do lead to stagnant economies. Let me give you a real world example, after WW1 America became highly isolationist and raised tariffs, as a result other countries, mainly Europe raised tariffs as well. By the end of the 20's the world was in a depression.

The profit motive is the basic driving force of capitalism, without it we would not have the innovation that we have now in pharmaceudicals, in the technology sector, or the motivation to become more efficient at what we do. WHy do you think real world governments are so inefficient, they do not have the motive to save money or to make a profit off of their investments.

I don't know about you but I think that people in my country would be much happier with lower prices for the basic everyday commodities that they buy.

Respectfully,
Unashamed Christians

Once again I have to disagree with you East Hackney. Free trade will allow the free movement of jobs to countries with lower wage rates. Jobs in developing countries is a good thing is it not?

Also I would like to amend my own proposal because subsidies are a form of restrictions and are unfair.

Third, trade restriction do lead to stagnant economies. Let me give you a real world example, after WW1 America became highly isolationist and raised tariffs, as a result other countries, mainly Europe raised tariffs as well. By the end of the 20's the world was in a depression.

The profit motive is the basic driving force of capitalism, without it we would not have the innovation that we have now in pharmaceudicals, in the technology sector, or the motivation to become more efficient at what we do. WHy do you think real world governments are so inefficient, they do not have the motive to save money or to make a profit off of their investments.

I don't know about you but I think that people in my country would be much happier with lower prices for the basic everyday commodities that they buy.

Respectfully,
Unashamed Christians

Free trade will allow the free movement of jobs to countries with lower wage rates. Jobs in developing countries is a good thing is it not?

Yes and no. First off, free trade doesn't tend to do this. Instead, it tends to allow economic powerhouses to dump their goods in developing economies, destroying local industry and preventing economic development.

Secondly, if you're also talking about lifting restrictions on capital investment by overseas firms, once again developed economies can use their clout to hold down wages and conditions in developing nations. Jobs are a good thing, jobs in sweatshops are not.

Also I would like to amend my own proposal because subsidies are a form of restrictions and are unfair.

Why are they unfair? It is each nation's own choice to support industries as it sees fit.

The profit motive is the basic driving force of capitalism

True. But East Hackney is a communist nation and has no interest in profits.

without it we would not have the innovation that we have now in pharmaceudicals, in the technology sector, or the motivation to become more efficient at what we do.

Not true. The profit motive is not the only possible motive. Government-sponsored research in universities, undertaken out of intellectual curiosity and the desire to better humanity's lot, has been behind a great deal of innovation.

WHy do you think real world governments are so inefficient, they do not have the motive to save money

That's a sweeping statement not justified by the facts. Real-world governments have the very powerful motive that, if they're not efficient, the voters will kick them out.

I don't know about you but I think that people in my country would be much happier with lower prices for the basic everyday commodities that they buy.

People in my country, having a broader feeling for humankind and their role and responsibilities in the world, prefer to pay a higher price for ethically produced products where workers receive a living wage. As a signatory to the International Fair Trade Agreement and a member of the Coalition of Anti-Capitalist Economies, we do not and are forbidden to trade with capitalist nations. We cannot support any measure undermining nations' right to choose their own paths towards economic development.

Apologies, Unashamed Christians, but we agree with East Hackney. We do not practice capitalism in Ecopoeia and do not regard economic strength as a primary indicator of the health of our society.

Kind regards
Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

dp

Once again I have to disagree with you East Hackney. Free trade will allow the free movement of jobs to countries with lower wage rates. Jobs in developing countries is a good thing is it not?

Unless you live in one of the countries that the jobs are moving from, then you end up with a high unemployment rate.

Hmmm. Hands off my economy. I am going to have to vote no on this, I simply don't like it, it gives me an twitch. Don't know why, but last time I got this twitch I voted yes on the Union resolution, ...

No, no no no no ! ! !

Ahem, there, covered. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Third, trade restriction do lead to stagnant economies. Let me give you a real world example, after WW1 America became highly isolationist and raised tariffs, as a result other countries, mainly Europe raised tariffs as well. By the end of the 20's the world was in a depression.

Well, The Great Depression had more to do with over-reliance on loans to pay off stock debts than tariffs. Free trade would not have stopped it, and, in fact, there an argument could be made that The Great Depression showed the flaws of capitalism, as without a safety net the whole population can crumble.

But East Hackney is a communist nation and has no interest in profits.

On the plus side, in the incredibly unlikely scenario that this gets passed, we'll be able to happily ignore it.

1) It makes no mention of economic sanctions, and we'll just maintain our sanctions on all non-IFTA nations.

2) Non-capitalist nations don't really need to worry about tarriffs unless they let capitalists trade with them, which we don't.

Ecopoeia still has something to fear though - we're not an IFTA signatory and have no intention of becoming one.

Don't abandon us to the capitalist wolves!

I realized that this was liberal community just by looking at past resolutions but this surpasses my wildest dreams.

Just wondering but were you all publik skrool educated? (spelling was intentional) Or did you never have any basic economics courses in college or something, cause anyone with a basic understanding of economics realizes that free trade is a good thing.

Unashamed Christians

Right, since this has moved out of character...

'liberal community' - er, free trade is a form of liberalism. Please do not confuse liberal and left wing or socialist. They are not equivalent terms.

'publik skrool' - depends on what the US (I'm assuming you're American, apologies if you're not) definition is. In the UK, this means fee-paying ( I agree, it's a linguistic oddity. Well, I went to a state school. Regardless, I don't see how this would afeect the quality of education received.

'basic economic courses' - yes, I studied economics. There's a lot of disagreement in the field, you know. It is not a science.

It's a shame you've reacted in this way. I suggest you return to the more civilised manner of your earlier posts and simply recognise that your opinions are not necessarily those of the majority. Indeed, accept the possibility you may not even be right.

DP

I realized that this was liberal community just by looking at past resolutions but this surpasses my wildest dreams.

Just wondering but were you all publik skrool educated? (spelling was intentional) Or did you never have any basic economics courses in college or something, cause anyone with a basic understanding of economics realizes that free trade is a good thing.

Unashamed Christians

Thank you for the unwarranted personal attack. To reassure you, I have studied a great deal of economics. And the more I read, the clearer it becomes that the current neoliberal attachment to free trade is dogma, no more - an attempt to further impoverish the majority of the world's people for the benefit of a tiny few in the west.

If you would care to support your views with some arguments based on the facts, rather than personal attacks and sweeping assertions of dogma, please feel free to do so.

I realized that this was liberal community just by looking at past resolutions but this surpasses my wildest dreams.

Just wondering but were you all publik skrool educated? (spelling was intentional) Or did you never have any basic economics courses in college or something, cause anyone with a basic understanding of economics realizes that free trade is a good thing.

Unashamed Christians

Thank you for the unwarranted personal attack. To reassure you, I have studied a great deal of economics. And the more I read, the clearer it becomes that the current neoliberal attachment to free trade is dogma, no more - an attempt to further impoverish the majority of the world's people for the benefit of a tiny few in the west.

If you would care to support your views with some arguments based on the facts, rather than personal attacks and sweeping assertions of dogma, please feel free to do so.

First off, I'm a little new at writing proposals, in fact this is my first attempt. If someone would be so kind as to explain what the strength means I would be most appreciative, I have seen it on other draft proposals and I figured I might as well put "strong" in the blank.

Let me explain my proposal just a bit, I realize that free trade will initially cause short term job displacement but in the end it leads to far more innovation. If it were not for the outsourcing of jobs, then we would probably all still be working in factories making little cheap plastic toys or textiles. It is far better for a minority of workers to be layed off, so that the business may become more profitable. More profits leads to more capital investment by businesses and therefore more jobs. Please feel free to ask questions and I will do my best to answer them. I'm sure there are people out there who are far better experts in economics than I. So here goes, debate please.
The stregth tab indicates the strength of the effect to the server. For example a proposal to increase the environment at the expense of auto manufacture with a strong effect would boost environmental spending and harm auto manufacture mch more than the same proposal with a weak or moderate effect.

I have received a great deal of education (that’s what we do best in the Black New World) and I do not believe sacrificing the happiness and success of the majority for the wealth of the minority would be a good idea.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Free trade is not fair trade.

Free trade makes a few rich people richer and helps no one else.

Fair trade raises standards where they need to be raised, and is equitable.

Click here (http://www.fairtradefederation.com/ab_whyft.html) to learn more.

We concur with the delegate from Collaboration.

In Joccia, we will have nothing at all to do with free trade. We are firmly commited to everything having a price, and we feel that if there is anything at all going free then it is the private preserve of those who sacrifice their life, leisure and principles to serve their fellow man in Parliament.

Monny a mickle mak's a Muckle!

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...click

"This is the BBC Home service..........................

Monny a mickle mak's a Muckle!

We feel sure that we would agree with the esteemed representative from Joccia, if only we could, erm, understand what he was saying. Do you speak English, my good man? :wink:

No.

We are not a capitalist economy, do not subscribe to capitalist ideals, and will never allow trade with nations that do not have what we consider ethical labour standards and good human rights records.

We do not believe profit is an end in itself. It is a means, and in order for it to achieve its ends it has to be directed.

Unjustifiable, sweeping rhetoric like the below disturbs us deeply.
Recognizing that free and open trade allows for more innovation, lower prices for all consumers, and higher profits for all businesses.

All clearly false. Innovation? It's often in the interests of major companies to suppress innovation. What if someone within a motor company invents a revolutionary gizmo that would save thousands of lives a year, but would require massive retooling of assembly lines? Well, remodelling'd cost a lot, this quarter's figures show that obscure, unsensational safety features don't sell cars, it'd expose how unsafe our existing stock is... no deal. What about durability? It's in the interests of corporations to sell equipment that'll need replacing in a few years so they can sell the thing again, and to improve a product as gradually as possible to maximize the number of times it has to be replaced.
Lower prices? Not necessarily. Free trade opens the doors for global monopoly and price-fixing on a grand scale.
Higher profits? Across the board, maybe, but hardly for all businesses. Free trade opens the doors for every dirty trick the biggest corporations can pull, and smaller businesses will get steamrollered.

Kamquin Dakar
Ministry of Trade and Industry

I have a rather low opinion of American Education myself that is why i refer to it as "publik skrool". In my opinion the government needs to get its hands off of education and allow free and open competition with the private sector in order to allow it to get better.

Second, I didn't single anyone out when I said my previous comments, remember I used the word "community". So far as using the word liberal, in America Democrat/liberal/socialist all mean the same thing.

Third, What if we could debate the addition of a fair trade clause? We could start off by adding amendments about anti-dumping. Any more ideas about what constitutes "fair" trade?

Fourth, nobody has yet to rebut the argument that reducing tariffs reduce the cost of commodities for consumers. Businesses are not going to absorb the cost of tariffs, they will pass them on to the consumer or to the next business in the supply chain, thereby making everything more expensive.

Fifth, Comparative Advantage, a fundamental of economics. Each nation should concentrate at what they are best at doing and trade for what they are not good at doing. Tariffs limit this ability and make everything more expensive.

Unashamed Christians

I have a rather low opinion of American Education myself that is why i refer to it as "publik skrool".

Please bear in mind that many (most?) of us are not American. I have a very high opinion of British state schools and feel that the last thing education needs is the inevitable falling standards and spiralling costs that would be occasioned by widespread privatisation.

Second, I didn't single anyone out when I said my previous comments, remember I used the word "community". So far as using the word liberal, in America Democrat/liberal/socialist all mean the same thing.

Again, please remember that this is not America. If Americans get their Democrats confused with their socialists (an idea that makes non-Americans laugh very hard indeed), then that's a failing of their oh-so-wonderful private school/college system.

Fourth, nobody has yet to rebut the argument that reducing tariffs reduce the cost of commodities for consumers.

We're not concerned whether it lowers prices or not. We *are* concerned with protecting our nation's developing industries, preserving our jobs and denying trade opportunities to countries whose economic policies we consider unethical.

Fifth, Comparative Advantage, a fundamental of economics. Each nation should concentrate at what they are best at doing and trade for what they are not good at doing.

Not necessarily. First off, this argument ignores many nations' desire for some level of self-sufficiency. Second, it ignores the possibility for growth and development. For instance, we may not be able to compete with Unashamed Christians in, say, car manufacturing right now, but if we protect our growing industry with tariffs until it can stand on its own two feet then we could end up having a comparative advantage in that area in the future.

We're afraid that we just don't see any way to compromise on this issue.