NationStates Jolt Archive

Lindim is proud to have introduced a proposal that encourages free trade and commerce worldwide. The proposal is as follows:

----------------------------------------------

Title: Gradual Reduction of Tariffs

Submitted by: Lindim

Catergory: Free Trade

Strength: Significant

Description:

The General Assembly:

Acknowledging the help of LadyRebels,

Reminding the Assembly of Lindim's proud tradition of encouraging free trade and commerce,

Noting the rise of anti-business states,

Observing the benefits free trade brings to all citizens of humanity,

Lindim

1) Calls for a global reduction of tariffs on legal goods,

and

2) Encourages all nations to gradually reduce tariffs on imports until they no longer exist.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 153 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon May 3 2004

--------------------------------------------

We ask all nations to support this, thereby promoting prodcutive business and free trade.

Respectfully,
Yuni Hu
UN Ambassador of Lindim

((OOC: The odd format that it is typed in is the official UN format for working papers and resolutions.))

I think I can speak not only for Ecopoeia but the entire Anti-Capitalist Alliance when I say: No.

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

Lindim respects your philosophy. However, we would like to hear from pro-Capitalizm nations.

((OOC: "Capitalizm" is a joke from Jennifer Government, I do not spell it that way normally.))

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for my somewhat terse earlier statement. This kind of proposal comes up frequently and can be a little tiresome to respond to. This is not in any way a criticism of you, simply a consequence of the continuing stream of new nations joing the UN.

As for your comment regarding 'pro-capitalizm' nations, I would point out that the UN is a broad church. Should the pro-capitalizts get their way on a reolution such as this, then an unprecendented wave of resignations from the UN will follow from the non-capitalists.

In the interest of harmony and goodwill (and with no disprespect to the peoples of Lindim), I hope this proposal fails.

Kind regards

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

Perhaps this proposal is redundant, but then again, most are.

Also, it appears to our delegation that all proposals simply support a view or position. If you expect a proposal that satifies everyone, you may be mistaken about how the UN works. Several countries have made proposals relating to military, when not all nations approve of war. If all proposals were supposed to support all positions, there would be no point to voting, or anything else.

Lastly, we did not make this proposal in the effort to get noticed as a new nation. We submitted it because we belive it would be benefitial to many nations and peoples, and will stand by our beliefs.

Observing the benefits free trade brings to all citizens of humanity,


That's VERY debatable.

Granted, I am saying that as the leader of a nation whose economy was nearly destroyed by foreign capitalists.

It is true that extremists of all forms of philosophies are dangerous, however, for the most part capitalism and free trade are benefitial.

It is true that extremists of all forms of philosophies are dangerous, however, for the most part capitalism and free trade are benefitial.

...for a small minority of the human race, true.

It is true that extremists of all forms of philosophies are dangerous, however, for the most part capitalism and free trade are benefitial.

How is an extremeist ascetic who does yoga 24/7 dangerous ?

How is an extremeist ascetic who does yoga 24/7 dangerous ?

You won't be saying that after you've done five rounds on a Twister mat with him.

How is an extremeist ascetic who does yoga 24/7 dangerous ?

You won't be saying that after you've done five rounds on a Twister mat with him.

hahahahaha

:lol:

Decorum, delegates, decorum! :D

Seriously though, I undersstand the anti-capitalists's points, but I do not agree, as does not Lindim. But that's just us.

Removing tariffs allows superior, cheaper goods that lower class citizens can afford to be sold in a nation, and provides competition to local indutries which ecnourages increases in quality while decreases in prices. In short, it is benefitial to nations' citizens.

and provides competition to local indutries which ecnourages increases in quality while decreases in prices.

...but increases in quality and decreases in prices don't appear from thin air. They don't come from some magical restructuring catalysed by competition. Companies will have to cut costs somewhere: lose profits, or else slash the wages and working conditions of their labour force. (Gee, I wonder which they'd choose). Many companies will be driven out of business entirely by this competition, leading ultimately to monopolies in many fields: that is, the worst of both worlds.

In short, this would be good for the people at the top of multinationals, and nobody else. The economy is not a good of itself. It's there to benefit the people.

((OOC: Much of my new arguements have moved to the Economic Rights Act thread, please read it.))

Lindim still stands by the belief that free trade is, in the end, benefitial. Also, our proposal only demands a reduction of tariffs, a complete reduction is simply encouraged. Thank you.

Lindim,
Although Richardelphia strongly agrees with your stance on free trade, we do not share the idea that our stance should be imposed on other nations.

The purpose of the UN is to protect the security and soverignty of its member nations, not to impose any political or economic philosophy on them.

Trade barriers, crippling or not, are the right of all sovereign nations. They are not harming any other nation through force or fraud. It is not our place as UN delegates to try to protect member nations from their own policies.

If you read the past UN Resolutions that all Member States should be following, you will see that economic ideologies have already been forced on every UN Member and Delegate, whether you agree or not. So arguing that economic philosophies should not be brought to the UN is a moot point, so to speak.

Yes, economic ideologies have already been forced on every UN Member and Delegate. That does not mean that it was right to do so. It also does not change the spirit or intention of the UN.

By promoting this bill your are promoting the surrender of the sovereignty of member nations to the whims of the UN body as a whole. This may serve you well, but eventually the pendulum of the majority's political philosophy will swing the other way.

Consider the bill a misguided attempt to improve the world. Then please direct your attention the the World Body Powers Act being discussed in another thread.

Respectfully,
Yuni Hu