NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow delegates,

The Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss would like to propose that the United Nations General Assembly heeds the repeated calls of UN Nations to focus on strengthening the economies of UN nations intstead of only weakening them categorically (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354337). To show the world that the UN is not an anti-business organisation, we would like to see a resolution or (preferably) several resolutions adopted with the purpose of stimulating sustained economic growth within the UN. Therefore we call for the support of all nations who value peace and prosperity to support the "Pro-Business Resolution" initiative.

This resolution or these resolutions are to be submitted in the category ´free trade´. Lowering tariffs within the UN would be the most obvious first solution but as a representative I have witnessed what happens to those resolutions. They are campaigned against voted down by the socialists before even reaching quorum. In order to facilitate a certain level of potential support these proposals will not be ideologically motivated but rather pragmatic policy choices which have worked in the economic development of economic blocks in the past.

Instead of providing a fixed proposal for individual criticism our Ministry of Economic Affairs has provided several ideas for review and discussion my the General Assembly. Proposals receiving favourable feedback will be developed further.

Proposed resolution ideas

Promoting Parttime work.
A UN promotional campaign, with the main dual objective of promoting the creation of parttime work and getting women and other groups to work parttime. This will reduce unemployment and make the labour market more flexible. A secondary objective is to promote combining care with parttime work and facilitating this by supporting institutions such as day-care. The UN will 1) work with governments and provide advice on how they can support parttime work, and review their progress. 2) Coordinate the promotional campaign designed to convince potential employers and employees of the benefits of parttime work.

International Contract Law
Still to be worked out, this resolution would promote the recognition of several basic principles of international contract law, and make international deals either involving governments or going over a certain threshold value to be eligible to a mediation procedure.

The Virtual Market (A personal favourite of mine.)
The UN oversees the creation and maintenance of a system of Automated Trading, and the creation of a virtual market-like programme where supply and demand meet. Like E-bay, only global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts. The speed of trading is vastly increased and worldwide online market data will become available free with a 15-minute delay. Automated trading programmes with advanced search algorithms can match demand with supply. This programme would hugely extend the range of enterprises that compete for each contract. Ideally, every enterprise competes for every contract offered, maximising competition and market forces. This system could include or exclude the labour market. An option not to consider embargoed nations in the search should be given.


Please discuss. It should also be noted that I have a ton of RPs to do and school is starting and such, so I would appreciate the help of anyone who could assist me with campaigning. :)

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman, new Knootian UN representative

OOC:
Oh, yes, another remark. This thread can also be used to brainstorm about all kinds of ideas for pro-business resolutions. I would really like comments on the ideas I proposed but if you have an idea on how the UN can support business, please also mention it here! Your contributions are valued!

If a debate about a paticular resolution bogs things down it we split it off.
~Der Knoot

The Virtual Market (A personal favourite of mine.)
The UN oversees the creation and maintenance of a system of Automated Trading, and the creation of a virtual market-like programme where supply and demand meet. Like E-bay, only global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts. The speed of trading is vastly increased and worldwide online market data will become available free with a 15-minute delay. Automated trading programmes with advanced search algorithms can match demand with supply. This programme would hugely extend the range of enterprises that compete for each contract. Ideally, every enterprise competes for every contract offered, maximising competition and market forces. This system could include or exclude the labour market. An option not to consider embargoed nations in the search should be given.
[/list][/i]

I agree that this idea is very intresting you have the go ahead from the Tippman federation for this resolution. This market would benefit every nation intrested in foreign trade

you have no friends. Go away. RAWR.


see you in bed.

AKA: Tag

search word: Biotopia

heh :fluffle: You´d better post now. Sleep isfor the weak. :p

Promoting Parttime work.
A UN promotional campaign, with the main dual objective of promoting the creation of parttime work and getting women and other groups to work parttime. This will reduce unemployment and make the labour market more flexible. A secondary objective is to promote combining care with parttime work and facilitating this by supporting institutions such as day-care. The UN will 1) work with governments and provide advice on how they can support parttime work, and review their progress. 2) Coordinate the promotional campaign designed to convince potential employers and employees of the benefits of parttime work.Interesting idea, if handled carefully. I like that you've included promotion of affordable day-care for working mothers - the high cost of day-care is a major reason, in many areas, why mothers can't afford to work part-time.

International Contract LawThis is an excellent idea. Creating a body of international contract law and an international mediation/arbitration forum is a HUGE movement forward toward a level playing field in free trade - smaller nations would no longer need to fear the standard contract clause of "This Agreement is to be interpreted under the laws of $JURISDICTION and all disputes will be subject to the jurisdiction of that state" giving stronger states the home-court advantage when breach of contract becomes 'efficient' for them.

Deregulation Review ProgrammeA good idea that belongs at the national rather than international level.

Privatisation Review ProgrammeThreatens to override some forms of government, thus inappropriate.

The Virtual Market (A personal favourite of mine.)
The UN oversees the creation and maintenance of a system of Automated Trading, and the creation of a virtual market-like programme where supply and demand meet. Like E-bay, only global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts.Yes. Bloody brilliant. My only reservation about it is that if a virtual market is going to become a primary forum for international trade, there needs to be a financial assistance program of some sort for developing economies to meet technological standards for participation.

You've got some excellent ideas here, ones that reach across ideological lines. I look forward to seeing them develop and supporting some of them when they come up for vote in final form.

Going through all of them...

Promoting Parttime work
Interesting idea, if handled carefully. I like that you've included promotion of affordable day-care for working mothers - the high cost of day-care is a major reason, in many areas, why mothers can't afford to work part-time.
*nods* Its an important part of making it possible. Of course, writing the resolution itself will be tricky. :P

International Contract Law
This is an excellent idea. Creating a body of international contract law and an international mediation/arbitration forum is a HUGE movement forward toward a level playing field in free trade - smaller nations would no longer need to fear the standard contract clause of "This Agreement is to be interpreted under the laws of $JURISDICTION and all disputes will be subject to the jurisdiction of that state" giving stronger states the home-court advantage when breach of contract becomes 'efficient' for them.
*nods*
In RP there is (more or less) such a body in the Knootian International Stabilisation Treaty (http://s7.invisionfree.com/KIST/index.php?act=idx) but I must admit my approach there has been a bit ad hoc. :P Another body in RP would be the International Mediation Council (IMC) but that one is more oriented on preventing wars and such.

Deregulation Review Programme
A good idea that belongs at the national rather than international level.
Hmmm... perhaps. But UN involvement might bring an independent perspective into it. This could give talks a new dynamic, perhaps?

Privatisation Review Programme
Threatens to override some forms of government, thus inappropriate.
Hmmm... fair point. It could apply only to nations who do not have an entirely planned economy. Would that invalidate the whole resolution though?

The Virtual Market
Yes. Bloody brilliant. My only reservation about it is that if a virtual market is going to become a primary forum for international trade, there needs to be a financial assistance program of some sort for developing economies to meet technological standards for participation.
Thanks :)
Well, I would think that the transaction costs for setting up such a system are rather low when compared to the benefits of actually being hooked up to it when it is working. (Especially if you consider that they would pay only an appropriate miniscule part in developing the thing if that silly progressive UN tax proposal goes through.) So it would be profitable to participate. Of course, several nations including the DDR would be happy to pay for some of the installation hubs and the actual *scale* of the whole system would mean that it could be mass-produced. This would cut costs significantly. Getting a seperate programme would IMO be too burdensome.

You've got some excellent ideas here, ones that reach across ideological lines. I look forward to seeing them develop and supporting some of them when they come up for vote in final form.
Thank you :)

Well, I would think that the transaction costs for setting up such a system are rather low when compared to the benefits of actually being hooked up to it when it is working. (Especially if you consider that they would pay only an appropriate miniscule part in developing the thing if that silly progressive UN tax proposal goes through.) So it would be profitable to participate. Of course, several nations including the DDR would be happy to pay for some of the installation hubs and the actual *scale* of the whole system would mean that it could be mass-produced. This would cut costs significantly. Getting a seperate programme would IMO be too burdensome.A modest profit margin could be built into user fees for the virtual market - either a periodic membership fee or a per-transaction surcharge - to fund interest-free loans or grants for bringing developing economies up to technological standards. I can see the industrialized nations making this a very popular service, so that a fee of mere pennies per transaction could finance the program. Free-market and progressive all at once. Who'd have thought? :cool:

We'd be interested in seeing a draft of the Virtual Market and International Contract Law. Would you be open to the idea of an online collaboration with UN Forum readers? We're willing to offer constructive criticism of both suggestions.

In NS terms, short and tightly written proposals do better than longer, more accurate ones. While I dislike excluding useful language, soetimes you have to sacrifice to make it work for more people ... and it's always more fun to argue over ambiguities than to have everything tightly spelled out.

Frisbeeteria is always open to idea that enhance free trade among nations. Profit is good!

Regarding International Contract Law:

A complete, detailed resolution actually creating a body of international contract law would be roughly the length of the 9/11 Commission Report.

One could, however, establish an international contract law drafting commission, consisting of reps from the {number} largest regions and {same number} reps from small regions chosen by some reasonably unbiased means, empowering them to draft a body of international contract law for review and ratification by the UN as a whole. This, IMHO, could be a brief and easy to read resolution that would breeze through with a minimum of acrimony in debate, and still count as Free Trade - Strong.

I concur with the aforementioned initiative. TFPotJW will support well balanced passable resolutions that promote research and progressive growth. I had been working on a peice of legislation that was stalled within my region to create a sort of economic union within the UN to create a more effective framework of carrots and sticks for enforcing treaties that does not involve the use of military force.
Idea is to structure such that it creates a net benefit for all UN members. creates a comparative economic advantage to be a UN member over a non-UN member. So carrot is economic benefit. Of course with that comes the 'hardship' of the rule of law and regulations to protect many individual human rights, resticting the powers of regional governments.

I think all of Knootoss ideas were very well thought out and written. I am behind him 100%.

Perhaps another pro-business would be a use of UN funds to aid in the purchase of goods from more developed countries to less developed. Economic aid packages thus can be funded from the UN funding act (assuming it passes) or from the UN general budget. This would result in an increase of overall trade and allow less secure economies to become competitive.

_Myopia_ must be wary of any free trade resolutions, since as a Civil Rights Lovefest, we are extremely susceptible to falling into anarchy if economic freedoms are increased.

_Myopia_ must be wary of any free trade resolutions, since as a Civil Rights Lovefest, we are extremely susceptible to falling into anarchy if economic freedoms are increased.

Well, how about a resolution to end frivolous lawsuits? This certainly would increase business. Or an offering of free legal representation for small businesses in civil cases?

Well, how about a resolution to end frivolous lawsuits? This certainly would increase business. Or an offering of free legal representation for small businesses in civil cases?On the one hand you'd have to define 'frivolous'...and on the other, you'd have to either find the lawyers willing to work pro bono or pay them out of UN funds, which latter means giving the UN funds to work with. Not sure which is more difficult....

Well, how about a resolution to end frivolous lawsuits? This certainly would increase business.
Ummm ...
Common Sense Act II

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Fantasan
Description: : Far too many civil injustices occur each and every day in courts around the world. Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist. Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:
1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This proposal will lower the tax burden on all citizens, it will make the jobs of Judges and Juries easier, and will help restore a modicum of common sense to the world.

Votes For: 8627, Votes Against: 4776
Implemented: Fri Sep 12 2003
While it's pretty limited in scope, you can't say nobody ever tried it. Some of you folks ought to read what's out there before assuming nobody ever considered your point of view.

Ummm ...

While it's pretty limited in scope, you can't say nobody ever tried it. Some of you folks ought to read what's out there before assuming nobody ever considered your point of view.

You are absolutely correct. Thank you.

You have a lot of good ideas here. I particularly like the idea of the virtual market because it really does an end run around what is a gorwing RW problem among the states of the United States, and a smaller problem among nations in general.

In the global markets, brick and mortal stores are decreasing while internet and telephone sales are increasing. But there is a growing problem. If a customer is in state X, the computer (or the telephone person) is in state Y, and the wherehouse is in state Z where did the sale occur? It can get complex and different areas of law may give different answers. Sales taxes generally side on the point of where the customer is, but since they are collected by the person where the computer or telephone person is, most states only require you to charge for intra-state residents. However some states (Like NY) report all internet/telephone sales made to out of state stores and directly pay the sales tax with their state income tax.

The complexities of multinational ties can be simplified by the creation of the virtual market. Instead of having to deal with the complexities of all the other nations of the world, one one has to deal with a simplified set of problems that link the nation to the virtual market. This results in corporate savings because of the reduced breucratic costs, resulting in better corporate profits.

These proposals won't work the way you want them to. Of the three proposals you mention, two would hurt businesses, one help. I'll go into detail if you'd like (heh, like you can stop me!!!, uh, yeah...):Promoting Parttime work.
A UN promotional campaign, with the main dual objective of promoting the creation of parttime work and getting women and other groups to work parttime. This will reduce unemployment and make the labour market more flexible. A secondary objective is to promote combining care with parttime work and facilitating this by supporting institutions such as day-care. The UN will 1) work with governments and provide advice on how they can support parttime work, and review their progress. 2) Coordinate the promotional campaign designed to convince potential employers and employees of the benefits of parttime work.Daycare is an irreducible cost. You cannot make it cheaper. Since there really is no such thing as "free", what you are actually proposing is taxing the whole for the costs of a few. This produces a number of inefficiencies, starting with increasing the cost in providing the service (adding bureaucratic overhead) and ending with the problem of all subsidies--increases in what is subsidized (i.e. more people unable to support children having children). Quality of day care would plummet as you split responsiblity for pay from the personal realm. It never ceases to amaze me that people want more sectors run as government "services". Can you name a government "service" that you admire as effecient and of high quality?

Frankly, parttime jobs don't help businesses much anyway and would hardly be seen as a pro-business proposal. You'd see some sectors increase in employment, sure, but those sectors will be low-paying and not sectors actually leading to long-term economic health. You'll be left in ten years with a glut of laborers suited only for cheap labor, more demand for child-care, and everyone wondering why things haven't gotten any better (and most of them probably calling for increasing the program that not only doesn't work, but is at the heart of some of their current trouble).International Contract Law
Still to be worked out, this resolution would promote the recognition of several basic principles of international contract law, and make international deals either involving governments or going over a certain threshold value to be eligible to a mediation procedure.Why do you think this will help businesses? The only businesses this helps is law firms. All you would do is increase the exposure companies have to law suits. Now, you can be sued in local, national and international court. How exactly is this helpful? The only way you could make this be cheaper for businesses is if you did away with all local and national laws and thus reduce the uncertainty and cost for legal precautions. I guarantee that I wouldn't vote for that.The Virtual Market (A personal favourite of mine.)
The UN oversees the creation and maintenance of a system of Automated Trading, and the creation of a virtual market-like programme where supply and demand meet. Like E-bay, only global, massive and used for all sorts of contracts. The speed of trading is vastly increased and worldwide online market data will become available free with a 15-minute delay. Automated trading programmes with advanced search algorithms can match demand with supply. This programme would hugely extend the range of enterprises that compete for each contract. Ideally, every enterprise competes for every contract offered, maximising competition and market forces. This system could include or exclude the labour market. An option not to consider embargoed nations in the search should be given.This might actually work. I'd back it. It's a brilliant idea and something that would be helpful for all involved. Frankly, if you add a very small use-fee it'd be self-supporting. The biggest weakness of it would be the potential for corruption. You've just made a terrific target for corporate espionage with immense potential for payoff. Also, you'd have to guard against abuse by yourself in a "kill the goose that lays the golden egg" kind of way. It'd be really tempting to strangle the market with "benign" regulations or begin seeing it as a profit center. You do that and you introduce incentive to bypass the central market and since it's going to have a strong network effect (each node using it increases the value of the service exponentially), you'd risk killing it if bypassing the central market became too common.

Komokom is a pro-business locality, and should find iself supporting most, if not all, the fine, fine, ideas of the Knootian representative as they are developed.

Translation = Komokom ... INVESTS ! ;)

The Council of Enn would prefer to see a draft before making a judgement as to whether it agrees with the concept or not.

Translation - make a draft proposal, we can all argue over it, people go home happy.

OOC: At last, the right are revolting! Ahem. Best wishes with your plans; I look forward to debating and, possibly, even endorsing some of your proposals. Goodness, a future where anti-capitalists and neoliberals co-operate? Scary.

Thank you all for the feedback and the positive support. I really appreciate it; thanks :) Based on what proposals you have responded to most, I have withdrawn both Evaluation Review proposals so I can concentrate on the remaining ones. I will now deal with the questions/comments feedback that wanted me to change stuff or proposed new ideas. Haia Sophia gets a separate post in this regard.

A modest profit margin could be built into user fees for the virtual market - either a periodic membership fee or a per-transaction surcharge - to fund interest-free loans or grants for bringing developing economies up to technological standards. I can see the industrialized nations making this a very popular service, so that a fee of mere pennies per transaction could finance the program. Free-market and progressive all at once. Who'd have thought? :cool:

Well, a user fee would seem reasonable. However a cost per transaction (which would in effect work like a tobin tax) is IMO hurtful to trade. (If it’s a percentage of the sum then HUGE transactions would become expensive, and if it is a nominal sum then small transactions would become unprofitable to do using the virtual market.) Still, a membership fee including interest-free loans would seem to be in order, but perhaps it can be arranged thusly that nations can decide for themselves how they want to shift the burden. (Ie. Certain governments may want to pay for it themselves entirely while other nations would want individual membership fees)

However both individual membership fees, national membership fees and a combined membership fees create their own particular problems. Individual fees may have an exclusive effect, making it impossible for the poor to participate in the network and national fees would mean the governments have to maintain an expensive network of servers etc where they did not do this before. (which would in turn require the loan system) I´d like to hear some more thoughts on the matter.

We'd be interested in seeing a draft of the Virtual Market and International Contract Law. Would you be open to the idea of an online collaboration with UN Forum readers? We're willing to offer constructive criticism of both suggestions.

In NS terms, short and tightly written proposals do better than longer, more accurate ones. While I dislike excluding useful language, soetimes you have to sacrifice to make it work for more people ... and it's always more fun to argue over ambiguities than to have everything tightly spelled out.

Frisbeeteria is always open to idea that enhance free trade among nations. Profit is good!

Most certainly, online collaboration with UN Forum readers was precisely what I was aiming for. You have more experience in getting good proposals too, so it is very welcome.

Regarding International Contract Law:

A complete, detailed resolution actually creating a body of international contract law would be roughly the length of the 9/11 Commission Report.

One could, however, establish an international contract law drafting commission, consisting of reps from the {number} largest regions and {same number} reps from small regions chosen by some reasonably unbiased means, empowering them to draft a body of international contract law for review and ratification by the UN as a whole. This, IMHO, could be a brief and easy to read resolution that would breeze through with a minimum of acrimony in debate, and still count as Free Trade - Strong.

Good point; the task of creating a body of international contract law should be delegated to a committee. I would not use elected people from regions but instead take a committee of experts and then (not really, but resolutionwise) have that committee be accountable to the General Assembly. However, I do think that it would be a good thing to include some basic principles for international contract law. Not so much specific laws, but more ´aims´ or a democratically legitimsised ´framework´ where this committee of experts would have to work with.

I must emphasise that I am not a legal expert; merely bringing my Institutional Economics course into practice here. :) So if anyone here would know stuff about legal mumbo-jumbo I would like to see some (short) principles that such a body of law would have. (For example I think, it would have to recognise the freedom of enterprise on the international level for economic actors.)

I concur with the aforementioned initiative. TFPotJW will support well balanced passable resolutions that promote research and progressive growth. I had been working on a peice of legislation that was stalled within my region to create a sort of economic union within the UN to create a more effective framework of carrots and sticks for enforcing treaties that does not involve the use of military force.
Idea is to structure such that it creates a net benefit for all UN members. creates a comparative economic advantage to be a UN member over a non-UN member. So carrot is economic benefit. Of course with that comes the 'hardship' of the rule of law and regulations to protect many individual human rights, resticting the powers of regional governments.

Well… promoting growth is what we all want here… getting a net benefit and such. This is the idea behind that thread. Howeve,r I would like to know if you have any concrete ideas to accomplish this. Its all good and well to say that you want to improve your economy, the key question is ´how´.

Perhaps another pro-business would be a use of UN funds to aid in the purchase of goods from more developed countries to less developed. Economic aid packages thus can be funded from the UN funding act (assuming it passes) or from the UN general budget. This would result in an increase of overall trade and allow less secure economies to become competitive.

Errr… well, basically that is attempted welfare distribution combined with expert subsidies. :X This actually happens IRL in a less wrangled way and in my opinion it is a very exploitative. I see your intend is noble, but it would work out all wrong.

In effect, the United Nations would be subsidising the industries in developed nations using general funds. So the governments of the poor nations would be paying money to rich farmers and factory owners in the rich nations! If these developed nations use these UN export subsidies to make their products cheaper, this is also unfair competition for the developing economies. Basically, they would be totally washed away by the developed economies and would never be able to get something off the ground. It would keep those who are poor in their misery for all eternity. A good IRL example of what export subsidies do is the European Union exporting milkpowder to the Sahara desert a while ago. The EU subsidised its farmers and had too much production so they had to ´dump´ it in the developing nations. Milkpowder was made because they could save the excess milk longer if powdered. Obviously, the people in the Sahara required water pumps and such, rather then milkpowder which is pretty usesless on the whole in a desert :)

These proposals won't work the way you want them to. Of the three proposals you mention, two would hurt businesses, one help. I'll go into detail if you'd like (heh, like you can stop me!!!, uh, yeah...):
I respectfully disagree, and I will explain to you why I do.

Promoting Parttime work
Daycare is an irreducible cost. You cannot make it cheaper. Since there really is no such thing as "free", what you are actually proposing is taxing the whole for the costs of a few. This produces a number of inefficiencies, starting with increasing the cost in providing the service (adding bureaucratic overhead) and ending with the problem of all subsidies--increases in what is subsidized (i.e. more people unable to support children having children). Quality of day care would plummet as you split responsiblity for pay from the personal realm. It never ceases to amaze me that people want more sectors run as government "services". Can you name a government "service" that you admire as effecient and of high quality?

As you may have noticed, the title of this resolution is not ´Free Nationalised Daycare For All´ but rather the promotion of daycare is mentioned as a way to facilitate parttime work. How exactly a scheme for providing daycare is implemented in should be left to the individual member nations but with the UN promoting such schemes and acting as a centre of know-how and (perhaps) to give some project funding. Different kinds of nations have different economic paradigms that require different solutions. In a planned economy, privatised daycare would not work. In a libertarian state the government would be unable to set up proper programmes and the UN could best try to organise private parties. Other states require mixed solutions.

I find the reasoning that daycare is a self-increasing subsidy is shaky. The decision of potential parents to have children is a profound one, and I submit that it is not based on the availability of daycare in any significant fashion. Furthermore, the programme that is being advocated is meant for those parents with the parttime (or even full time, perhaps) jobs and not for every unemployed mother who dumps her child so she can go to a bar and get pregnant. Again, national legislation could set rules in this regard and this is also the case here in the DDR. There are standards for being eligible for daycare, unless of course you are willing to pay. Besides, it is IMO very empowering to give women the option of pursuing a career without excluding them from the possibility of motherhood.

To answer your rhetorical question (OOC, since the question was OOC), I know the Dutch Taxation Bureau here has won several prizes for its high efficiency. While I am a market liberal in most respects I believe it is insane to assume that a government agency cannot, by definition, do anything efficiently. The claim that government never works is IMO populist demagoguery. However as I have just explained this is not the focus of this resolution so I would ask for a capitalism vs communism debate to be held elsewhere. :)

Frankly, parttime jobs don't help businesses much anyway and would hardly be seen as a pro-business proposal. You'd see some sectors increase in employment, sure, but those sectors will be low-paying and not sectors actually leading to long-term economic health. You'll be left in ten years with a glut of laborers suited only for cheap labor, more demand for child-care, and everyone wondering why things haven't gotten any better (and most of them probably calling for increasing the program that not only doesn't work, but is at the heart of some of their current trouble).

How do you back up this statement?

Its tempting for me to go and herald the enormous IRL successes we have had here in the Netherlands with doing this (A whole new economy was created by labour participation from women going from one of the lowest in the western world to the top of Europe, a huge stimulus to economic growth and slashing total unemployment to a level that was for a while below that of the United States until our open economy was hit hard by the international recession.) But I will not argue useless statistics but instead provide simple reasoning:

Creating parttime jobs is good on the supply side of labour because a whole section of the population who do not want or where unable to get a fulltime job suddenly get to be part of the labour market. This increases the labour pool of the economy. Keeping a huge segment of the population at home because there are no jobs that fit them is not good for the economy at all.
A bigger labour pool and enhanced production will in turn lead to higher demand, initiating a positive economic cycle. This is especially the case if this happens throughout the UN member states.
For employers it is a good development because it gives them more options to choose from (bigger labour pool) but also more flexibility in their production processes. The rational requirements for all jobs do not come in standard units of forty hours in a week. With parttime jobs employers can choose to hire someone for the amount of hours that is actually needed. (For example, a woman with a child could handle the paperwork of a small business for 15 hours in a week, perhaps doing a lot from her home.) This means that she can actually do something productive and the company does not have to hire someone fulltime.


The risk of creating only ´bad´ jobs is negligible IMO because this is mostly an attitude problem based on tradition rather then business savvy. Good jobs can also be done by parttime workers. For the top jobs (Monitoring a nuclear power plant, CEO of Microcosm) parttime work is perhaps less suitable in some situations, but there is no rational reason why parrtime work is not possible for other jobs nor should it make economic development of high-end industries impossible because there are still plenty of people working fulltime.

In conclusion, I maintain that it is a pro-business resolution.

International Contract Law
Why do you think this will help businesses? The only businesses this helps is law firms. All you would do is increase the exposure companies have to law suits. Now, you can be sued in local, national and international court. How exactly is this helpful? The only way you could make this be cheaper for businesses is if you did away with all local and national laws and thus reduce the uncertainty and cost for legal precautions. I guarantee that I wouldn't vote for that.

As others have already pointed out, this system of international contract law would actually provide more stability to an international economic climate and establish a more level playing field for international transactions. Because there is a common ´rulebook´ trading is simplified and becomes less dependent on economic ´power play´. It’s the rule of law instead of the law of the jungle. In NS, the Allanean crises and the disruption of trade in the FKC have shown that International Accountability can help a lot when there are large disputes. In RL, the World Trade Organisation and their agreements have a role (sorta) in playing ´international judge´ for example in EU-US trade disputes and NS (which has no WTO) would do well to implement something like that to replace acts of economic warfare with mediated solutions based on common principles.

The suggestion that it will lead to frivolous lawsuits is unfounded, since such lawsuits have already been dealt with in a previous resolution. International Contract Law would be based on the terms that are actually in a contract and basic principles to be agreed upon. International Contract Law would only be applicable in certain specific situations to be defined.

Putting multinationals and governments of powerful nations above the law is not ´pro-business´. It is a perversion of the market and it does not contribute to a more stable and prosperous international business environment.

The Virtual Market
This might actually work. I'd back it. It's a brilliant idea and something that would be helpful for all involved. Frankly, if you add a very small use-fee it'd be self-supporting. The biggest weakness of it would be the potential for corruption. You've just made a terrific target for corporate espionage with immense potential for payoff. Also, you'd have to guard against abuse by yourself in a "kill the goose that lays the golden egg" kind of way. It'd be really tempting to strangle the market with "benign" regulations or begin seeing it as a profit center. You do that and you introduce incentive to bypass the central market and since it's going to have a strong network effect (each node using it increases the value of the service exponentially), you'd risk killing it if bypassing the central market became too common.

Thank you :)
Making the system secure should be given big priority.

OOC: At last, the right are revolting! Ahem. Best wishes with your plans; I look forward to debating and, possibly, even endorsing some of your proposals. Goodness, a future where anti-capitalists and neoliberals co-operate? Scary.

:eek:

*looks up from his well-dug liberal trench to view the opposing camp*

Well, historicaly the liberals and socialists were all children of the French Revolution and worshippers of the pagan god Reason; to oppose the monarchist conservative scum.Things sorta went downhill from there. Anyway, thanks for the support and I look forward to debating with you. :) My issue is with others in your... organisation... anyway.

*Throws a Hayek grenade and ducks from incoming Marxist machinegun fire*

http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/hope/images/hope_page_pix/french_revolution.jpg
Knoots inspiring picture of the day

*Throws a Hayek grenade and ducks from incoming Marxist machinegun fire*
Ecopoeians have carefully considered what Marx has to say and decided to come up with their own theories. Our economy is screwed but, hey, we live in a Lovefest so all is OK.

Incidentally, we're not in CACE and haven't signed IFTA. Have a peek at the 4CACE conference thread for further details (about page 9 or 10, I think) if you're interested.

Finally, it sounds as if the French Revolution was a lovely time to be alive. Oh, hang on...

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

*hangs on*

Recalculating data...

Nation: Ecopoeia
Former relation classification: -170 [Enemy]

Not a member of CACE............ relations +50
Not a signatory to IFTA........... relations +15
Not a Marxist nation............... relations +5
Diplomacy: cordial.................. relations +15
--------------------------------------------------
New relation classification: -85 [Wary of commie appearance and associations]
Policy reccomendation: positive approach. Send flower arrangements.

***

Doorstep of Ecopoeia UN office
A small floral arrangement is found on the floor before the office of Mathieu Vergniaud with nice-smelling flowers. A ribbon is attached to the thing, with three banners: purple-white-green. There is no name attached to the ribbon, but the delegate is left to figure it out for himself.

OOC: -85, eh? Wonder how far the scale goes...

IC: Mathieu Vergniaud stared at the abundant flora in front of the door to his office. He blinked and looked either side of him down the long corridor. Varia Yefremova tapped on his shoulder. He turned around to see a broad grin on her face.

"An admirer, hmm?"

"Ah..."

"Well, come on - who's it from?"

They checked the flowers. No name, just an arrangement of ribbons that set alarm bells ringing in Varia's head.

"Mathieu... have you been fraternising with the Knootians? Female delegate, perhaps? Pretty?" She shook her head. "I know I've been encouraging you to be more diplomatic and less of a... well, less of a pompous arsehole, but still..."

"Ah..."

Varia sighed. "Well, let's hope no one from the CDQ saw this. We could get asked some very uncomfortable questions. Look, sort these out and meet me in my office in ten minutes, we need to go through the latest proposals."

Mathieu was left standing in the corridor on his own. he picked up the flowers and entered the office. He paused, uncertain, by the bin. With a shy grin and a nervous sideways glance, he placed the flowers in a vacant vase on his desk, gazed appreciatively at them and hoped to God that the East Hackney delegate didn't pop in for a chat this week.

OOC: Ahem. With that, I leave you to your discussions!

OOC:
-200 to +200, Europa Universalis scale. :)

Anyway, this thingy took my UN time today: A research thingy into the negative Economic Impact of UN resolutions and other stuff. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354337)

This just proves the need for pro-business resolutions.

Anyway, are there more comments or should I just put up a draft now?

We support the majority of the proposed ideas. Sophista, through some miracle that we don't fully understand, has managed to develop a thriving economy despite the best efforts of the United Nations, and we'd hate to see it torn apart because of frivilous environmental resolutions.

That said, I see a relatively easy proposal to write that no one seems to be talking about. Why not establish a WTO-esque organization exclusively for UN members? Or ban protective tariffs betwee UN members? Encouraging trade in general is easy, and considering the membership of the UN, it would be justifiable to label such a proposal as strong. Certain exceptions could be made for nations engaging in war crimes, comitting atrocities, etc., but that's still not much to ask.

We support the majority of the proposed ideas. Sophista, through some miracle that we don't fully understand, has managed to develop a thriving economy despite the best efforts of the United Nations, and we'd hate to see it torn apart because of frivilous environmental resolutions.Da, Sophista, I too seem to have a faily good economy for all my time here. Shocking, isn't it ? ;) And alking of environmental resolutions ...

* Looks at current proposal at open vote.

!
(o_O)
| |

That said, I see a relatively easy proposal to write that no one seems to be talking about.Well, you've opened your mouth my friend,Why not establish a WTO-esque organization exclusively for UN members? Or ban protective tariffs betwee UN members?And now you have put your foot in it, go on, get cracking, heh. :D Well, I like it. WTO a-la U.N. could be very good thing.Encouraging trade in general is easy, and considering the membership of the UN, it would be justifiable to label such a proposal as strong. Certain exceptions could be made for nations engaging in war crimes, comitting atrocities, etc., but that's still not much to ask.It would certainly be a nice change. A healthy economy is a happy nation. That per capita has to come from some-where, and not every-body wants large as 1337 taxes.

I'd conclude that these ideas of Knoot's and your own provide some very positive potential for the more economically minded players, of whose sway I do not think has yet being presented as it may be a-la the voting-bloc.

Bravo ! :)

* I shall be keeping an eye on things as they develop and will provide any assistance I may be at liberty to do so to, well, assist !

We support the majority of the proposed ideas. Sophista, through some miracle that we don't fully understand, has managed to develop a thriving economy despite the best efforts of the United Nations, and we'd hate to see it torn apart because of frivilous environmental resolutions.

That said, I see a relatively easy proposal to write that no one seems to be talking about. Why not establish a WTO-esque organization exclusively for UN members? Or ban protective tariffs betwee UN members? Encouraging trade in general is easy, and considering the membership of the UN, it would be justifiable to label such a proposal as strong. Certain exceptions could be made for nations engaging in war crimes, comitting atrocities, etc., but that's still not much to ask.

Oh, yes, I would most certainly support such ideas. :) By all means make drafts. I did the same thing with the Knootian International Stabilisation Treaty, sorta. (Everyone who wants to be a member of such a thing is welcome to inquire with me)

The pinch I do see is getting enough support for such proposals. I have seen many proposals for lowering or scrapping tariffs fail to get enough delegate support in the past. Perhaps this is because there was not enough campaigning but I fear that those <CENSORED> delegates will only support proposals if they contain the world ‘sustainable’. There has been a lot of unjustified antiglobalist scaremongering about free trade and the WTO even though both promote economic stability and prosperity. (Especially the WTO has received too much bad publicity IMO) So maybe the proposals would have to be rephrased a bit to not actually contain the wordsw “WTO” and “Free Trade”. But that is just my take on it.

Thanks also for the support, Komokom ;)

How does Sustainable Trade Organisation sound?

With regards to the establishment of a UNWTO-equivalent, my nation would have no objection provided that it did not have the effect of illegalising or compromising the integrity of independent trade agreements such as the International Fair Trade Agreement. My hope and expectation is that any proposal drafted here would not be so prohibitive.

I believe that it is worth noting that non-capitalist nations should not necessarily fear 'free trade' measures. There will always be loopholes and, besides, many trade 'barriers' are effectively on a voluntary basis for nations existing outside of agreements such as IFTA. Leave enough grey in the proposal and there will be good reason for us all to be content.

Kind regards.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Since we have a trading organisation of our own, (KIST) it would only seem logical that separate trade agreements can be agreed upon. However, we do believe that purposefully making loopholes in legislation is not a good idea.
~Some government official

OOC: You can't make the UN pro-business. Even if you managed to somehow squeaze a pro-business resolution, thats one out of how many anti-business resolutions? A lost cause, Knoot my friend.

Well, I mention loopholes as they are inevitable due to the restrictions on content placed by the character limit. However, I agree that we should them as far as possible. Let me clarify: proposals should allow sufficient leverage for nations with potentially clashing economic ideologies to find a means to be compliant without compromising their political integrity.

Did I say clarify? I hope it made sense...

Kind regards

OOC: You can't make the UN pro-business. Even if you managed to somehow squeaze a pro-business resolution, thats one out of how many anti-business resolutions? A lost cause, Knoot my friend.
Meh. I can try. If it does not work then at least it will have proven the rottenness of the way the UN functions clearly for all to see. But I'm an optimist ;)

Well, I mention loopholes as they are inevitable due to the restrictions on content placed by the character limit. However, I agree that we should them as far as possible. Let me clarify: proposals should allow sufficient leverage for nations with potentially clashing economic ideologies to find a means to be compliant without compromising their political integrity.

Did I say clarify? I hope it made sense...

Kind regards

Yeah, that makes sense. Of course, the people proposing the environmental resolutions never ask about our political integrity. :headbang: Anyway, yeah, I agree with the general rule of "unless seperate agreements are mutually agreed upon", which would be the case with IFTA.

Well, there's a wider point here, which is that there's less need for a pro-business resolution than for environmental ones. Nations are by and large quite capable of building a prosperous economy, including multilateral treaty arrangements, without the need for UN action. But UN action is the only effective way to tackle issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, since unilateral action to reduce emissions only harms that nation to no great benefit.

Which is not to say that we'd oppose resolutions to bolster the global economy, simply that some nations seem to believe that for every environmental resolution there should be a pro-business resolution, which isn't necessarily true.

This wider point does not apply. The UN is of a larger scale then any multilateral treaty, and the ‘benefits’ of a planetwide regulatory bureaucracy that mini-manages a range of environmental issues is recognised. However the benefit of scale applies equally to pro-business and Free Trade resolutions because the same cascade effect exists. A nation unilaterally lowering tariffs also suffers if its example is not followed. A Virtual Market would be totally ineffective if used by just one nation. Furthermore, if a larger block of nations is subjected to a resolution that improves their economies, the resolution becomes exponentially more effective

As I would expect from an anticapitalist nation such as yours, you simply have different priorities and are using this argument to hide this. At least you should proclaim openly that actively supporting businesses is not part of the anticapitalist agenda and that supporting trees and the supranational welfare state is part of this agenda. After all, when bolstering trade is being discussed in these halls it wastes precious terms reserved for talking about your environmental initiatives, no?

Fact is: as it stands the whole body of UN legislation has a negative impact on the economies of UN member nations and your nation seems to be hesitant to restore some balance.

OOC: You can't make the UN pro-business. Even if you managed to somehow squeaze a pro-business resolution, thats one out of how many anti-business resolutions?
Almost every pro-business proposal I've ever seen has included some attempt to remove national sovereignty overrides from the UN. Since that's a game mechanics violation, they fail or get deleted. If you just leave that part out and work around the fact that the UN does impinge on sovereignty, I see no reason why it wouldn't pass.

The current crop of UN Forum readers seem to be more interested in passing good law than agenda-specific law. Give 'em a chance.

Knootoss, try to stick to the issues and avoid random and ill-founded ad hominem attacks, there's a good chap.

Evidently we shall have to spell it out. We are not against measures to boost the economy; a simple look at our nation's All-Consuming economy will show that. We are against measures to prop up capitalist economies by allowing them to destroy the environment and plunder developing nations in the name of free trade. We will support responsible measures to strengthen the global economy to the benefit of all.

((You are the delegate for the Anticapitalist Alliance. Considering the past, I´d think my char was quite restrained there.))

"Does the East Hackney still maintain that environmental resolutions require UN action while economic matters can be arranged in multilateral treaty arrangements as we felt was implied in a previous statement?"
~UN Rep Koopman, interrupting the East Hackney representative

((I guess I should be putting up draft resolutions now))

bump

Jesus H. Christ!

Are you kidding? Has anyone mentioned how devastating part-time is for the people? Let’s say a single mother of two has to work two part-time jobs because it is cheaper to higher part-time workers. This mother has no healthcare, because here in the U.S businesses do not have to provide insurance to part-time workers. Her only son develops cancer from a corporations toxic waste dumping (or is injured somehow). She has no insurance, and can’t afford it. Ya, everyone is happy right? Why should the corporation care about this mother, she is only a part-time worker. Because her son might die, and she gets paid diddly, she won’t work as hard. This then means that if the company wants to keep up with competition, it has to higher more people. This vicious cycle will continue because it is extremely likely that someone born into poverty will stay into poverty. The daycare system would work, except that with the situation above, people would be hard pressed to pay for the daycare through taxes.

Personally I like daycare. This does mean that taxes would be higher. DONT BE AFRAID OF TAXES! If you make enough money, taxes don’t affect you. Let me take the situation above. If the company was forced to pay a minimum wage of, oh say above nine dollars, then the mother could survive. This would increase productivity by a huge amount. The government could pitch in some. Then, universal healthcare. Ok say taxes are skyrocketing. But, the people would be much happier, and safer. Then you dump some more cash into education, help pay to get people through college, maybe even make it "free." This would mean more taxes, but what if we take some money out of the military? Let me take the 2004 budget for the U.S. The military gets about 360 billion, and homeland security gets 30 billion. Education however, only gets 40 billion. You take 60 billion out of the military, and get ride of Homeland Security, you get 90 billion. Wow, you could more than triple the education budget! This was just an example. If you really needed more money, legalize marijuana. When you legalize marijuana, you can tax the crap out of it. If it was legal, it would be cheaper because of competition. Then you tax it enough so that it is still cheaper than it is now, but not by much. YAY! There yaw go, business is happy because they have more productive workers, and the people get paid enough, have "free" healthcare and education. Well there you have it, businesses have more productive workers, and the people get what they need. If you just watch the taxes, you might even be able to balance the budget enough to help get the U.S out of Bushes debt.

Jesus H. Christ !

JUMPING JUDAS ! :rolleyes:

And that at this time sums up my opinion to all that jazz you have posted.

Suffice to contribute : N.S. is not an analogue of the Real Life United States of America, as far as we are concerned, Bush, nor his debt, exist here. In fact, nor does their budget. I could explain this better, but I must leave it to others, as its 12:20 AM here and I need ... sleep ... soon ... zzz ...

* Some-body, I implore you, educate yonder poor soul to the situation of this olitical simulation ...

The Knootian looks extremely confused. "What is this... America... you speak of? I know that Menelmacari America and California and Alaska are on the same continent, but why are you implying that they are a single nation?"

He shrugs it off. "Anyway, I think many of the issues you raise have much to do with what we call "flanking policies" and they have little to do with parttime work. If your nations government feels that minimum wages are too low and forcing people to take two parttime jobs then you can simply raise the minimum wage."

He coughs. "I find your... sorry tale... having more to do with the situation in this imaginary land of yours as a whole then with parrtime work in particular. If you feel that insurance is too expensive then take measures to remedy that situation."

He rolls with his eyes a bit. "Anayway, if you 'like' healthcare then you should be very happy that it is incorporated in this resolution, no?"

Um, how bout... NO! Where in this proposal does it talk about healthcare? I see "care" and "daycare" but no healthcare. Further noting, if someone works only, let’s say four hours a day, that person can’t live off of that. Even if they get fifteen dollars an hour, they would still have to get another job. When a company hires part time workers, they will have less incentive to give that person a raise. The reason being that, when you work a part time job, then you won’t be as productive. Another reason they won’t be as productive is because they themselves have to pay for insurance (unless there is universal healthcare). Also, why would the company provide services (daycare, healthcare) for those they don’t care about (part time workers)?

I would like to note, that this country I "made up" is an actual country in a parallel universe.

Well, well, well, what do you have to say to that Mr. Aram Koopman?

So what do you want? Endorsements? Everyone likes money so lets turn this shit into some resolutions. We don't need any radical change we just want to see some cash flowing.

*goes a-drafting :) *

Three resolutions have been drafted:

Promoting part-time work (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356529)

International Contract Law (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356542)

The Virtual Market (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356547)

Please comment on these draft resolutions. Once they have been submitted, I hope of course that you will endorse them.