NationStates Jolt Archive

***The honourable representative for Penguitalia takes the stand and addresses the house.

"Ladies and gentlemen; members and delegates of the assembly. The state of Penguitalia humbly requests your support on the issue of Free Trade; to whit- the abolision of many barriers to trade such as tariffs, duties, and government subsidies.

While the huge economic powerhouses flood the global markets with their cheap goods, impoverished developing nations are unable to compete fairly as their goods and services are restricted by unfair legislation in many of the most developed nations.

The Global Free Trade Act would outlaw many practises such as massive government subsidies for non-essential industries, tariffs, import restrictions and quotas- not only allowing all nations to compete fairly in the global marketplace but in turn allowing full economic development for all nations that desire it.

Please, put your support behind the proposal and join me in making the world a fairer, more free, marketplace."

***The delegate from Penguilalia bows slightly then leaves the stand to resume sitting.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Proposal is currently located at: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/11346/page=UN_proposal/start=0

Full proposal name is: Global Free Trade Act
Type: (A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.)
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Penguitalia
Description:
1) Realising that powerful economic nations use unfair barriers to trade in order to maintain domination of the global marketplace.

2) Futhermore, accepting that many nations will never develop economically, politically, socially or culturally as they might whilst limited by unfair barriers to trade.

3) It is therefore put that the global community, to whit, the United Nations, must do its upmost to ensure free trade between all nations, and in doing so,

i) Makes it unlawful for any signatory national government to impose tarifs on imports,


ii) Limits signatory national government subsidies to industries essential to the wellbeing of the citizens of that nation;

Providers of
a) Healthcare
b) Agriculture
c) Housing
d) Education

iii) Restricts governments from imposing other restrictions upon imports, including but not limited to
a) Limits
b) Quota
c) Duties
d) Regulations

iv) Establishes the right of nations, in the interests of free trade, to impose sanctions on other nations found to be in violation of this act, including but not limited to
a) Reciprocal tariffs, duties and legislation from all other signatory governments
b) Fines

4) It is held self-evident that these measures will increase financial competition between all nations, reduce unfair taxes and tariffs and thus allow all member nations to compete fairly in the global marketplace.

Approvals: 3 (Sinns right hand, JS Nijmegen, Danzeemania)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 138 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Fri Dec 3 2004

My thanks for your time.

Yeehaw! A neoliberal proposal! Where's Knootoss when you need him? :D

Indeedy... neoliberalism, combating neocons with peace love and very big sticks :D

Indeedy... neoliberalism, combating neocons with peace love and very big sticks :D

So I was supposed to use peace and love too? Oh dear. :eek:

iii) Restricts governments from imposing other restrictions upon imports, including but not limited to
a) Limits
b) Quota
c) Duties
d) Regulations

Aside from the prohibition on regulations on imports (I need to make sure there's no false advertising, and that the goods come from a nation that is a UN member) I wholeheartedly support this resolution and wish you the absolute best of luck in getting it passed. This resolution could bring about trade that is Free AND Fair!

Aside from the prohibition on regulations on imports (I need to make sure there's no false advertising, and that the goods come from a nation that is a UN member) I wholeheartedly support this resolution and wish you the absolute best of luck in getting it passed. This resolution could bring about trade that is Free AND Fair!

The problem with regulations on imports is that nations use them as an excuse to detain and impound imported goods within warehouses until they pass their use-by date, or declare that the goods fail to meet internal guidelines regarding labeling etc and have them shipped back to the country of origin- all in the interests of protecting their own internal industry.

However, your support is greatly appriciated and much needed, the PRP gives you its thanks!

The DRA is supportive of the idea of free trade. However, the DRA would like to see a clause in this resolution that contains some form of anti-dumping law in order to help keep trade fair. The DRA believes fair trade is even more important than free trade. The DRA hopes that nations will keepthe principle of fair trade in mind when dealing with trade issues.

...even if its a wussy centrist not particulary shocking plan. After all: complete unrestricted international trade lets me export my (nuclear) arms and narcotics production all over.

Still its actually just common sense, real business men know how to work around all kinds of idiotic bureaucracy anyways... (see the cocaine trade for example) so why pretend restrictions work. The only ones that suffer are the honest traders... though I guess they are bound to suffer anyways. (survival of the fittest being in effect.)

:cool:

The holy empire of tackies support the idea of free trade!

Thanks for the voices of support, folks =)

The Republic of Kingsland would never support such an open market. Tariffs and duties are one of many ways of which to control the populace through political and economical measures. I realise that this may make the case for you, but as an Authoritarian type government we would never support this proposal.

...even if its a wussy centrist not particulary shocking plan. After all: complete unrestricted international trade lets me export my (nuclear) arms and narcotics production all over.

Still its actually just common sense, real business men know how to work around all kinds of idiotic bureaucracy anyways... (see the cocaine trade for example) so why pretend restrictions work. The only ones that suffer are the honest traders... though I guess they are bound to suffer anyways. (survival of the fittest being in effect.)

:cool:


I'd say that I agree, I like nucs, assuming they are not pointing my way. (Wonders if SCO-Land needs any furniture restored.) :p

In this proposal, why is there no restriction on inhumane sweatshops or wages led by corporations and businesses?

As the elected UN representative of a developing nation, I feel well placed to offer comment on this proposal. I would be quite happy to see developed countries forced to cease their destructive use of subsidies and tariffs, measures that serve only to fatten their producers and impoverish nations like my own.

However...

The world's wealth is not in balance. The sudden withdrawal of trade barriers on all sides will not magically bring poor countries out of the mire of debt and poverty. There will still be a trade gradient that slopes in favour of the nations that already have wealth. Were this proposal to allow for poor countries to maintain their own trade barriers, I would be more inclined to support it (and even then there would be problems - how would you classify nations with regards to their wealth or level of development?).

Putting aside that objection, I also cannot support:

1) the exclusion of transport and security from the list of industries that will be allowed to receive government subsidies;
2) the removal of national government's ability to regulate almost all industries - there are dangerous implications here for the environment and workers' rights, for example.

Economics is not a science. You cannot plug numbers into formulae and get simple answers that solve tangible real-world problems. The global capitalist dream is no more viable than the global communist dream. Please do not sacrifice nations like Ecopoeia on the altar of neoliberal orthodoxy.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Economics is not a science. You cannot plug numbers into formulae and get simple answers that solve tangible real-world problems.

True.

The global capitalist dream is no more viable than the global communist dream.

I agree, but would note that your position very much depends on what you see as "viable".

Please do not sacrifice nations like Ecopoeia on the altar of neoliberal orthodoxy.

Now on a personal level, that very much touches me. On a more impersonal level, I don't really care if the modern liberal/progressive nations get screwed by the UN, considering what has been done to conservative/capitalist nations in the UN.

2) the removal of national government's ability to regulate almost all industries - there are dangerous implications here for the environment and workers' rights, for example.

The proposal doesn't say anything like that.



Economics is not a science. You cannot plug numbers into formulae and get simple answers that solve tangible real-world problems. The global capitalist dream is no more viable than the global communist dream. Please do not sacrifice nations like Ecopoeia on the altar of neoliberal orthodoxy.

Its the developing nations that will be helped by this resolution, silly. This will allow poor nations that lack all the extra cash rich nations spend on subsidies to compete and bring in wealth. Trade barriers do not help poor nations- it is the rich ones that set them up. This trade gradient is an artificial production of the mercantilist market.

Go visit pretty much any poor nation and ask them if they want free trade or not.

Addressing several points made:

1) Sweatshops do not violate the principals of free trade. They are immoral yes, but do not actually violate the free-market. As such, additional legislation should be drawn up to limit these practises. In addition, a number of UN resolutions in existance already prohibit certain forms of sweatshop-like behaviour; such as the 40-hour week and the ban on child labour.

2) The Act does not stop nations from regulating their industries. It merely stops nations from forming bogus regulations designed to make goods from other nations more expensive or less attractive to the consumers within their borders. For example, it is common practise in some nations to insist that all imports conform to strict labeling guidelines, in order that the manufactorers must spend more on labeling and therefore increase the price of the product- making "home-made", non-imported good seem cheaper in comparison.

3) The Act does not outline the way for global capitalism. It merely states that given the current situation, where the majority of nations compete on the international markertplace, all nations should be allowed to compete fairly- that *small, developing nations* are able to complete on equal terms with huge economic powerhouses. As it is large economically powerful capitalist nations who can afford to restrict imports, it is those nations that do so- not small, poor nations.

4) The Act is not a sacrifice of anything. Greater competition between nations benefits all- liberals and conservatives alike.

I agree, but would note that your position very much depends on what you see as "viable".
Heh, there's me being all woolly and centrist. I'm attacking a right-twing proposal but offering a sop to the right by attacking the left as well.

Now on a personal level, that very much touches me. On a more impersonal level, I don't really care if the modern liberal/progressive nations get screwed by the UN, considering what has been done to conservative/capitalist nations in the UN.
Ah, but us liberal/progressive nations (aren't free traders also liberals?) don't all try and screw the conservative/capitalist nations through the UN. Hence Ecopoeia's (hopefully) centrist approach to UN policy-making.

The proposal doesn't say anything like that.
On the contrary:

iii) Restricts governments from imposing other restrictions upon imports, including but not limited to
a) Limits
b) Quota
c) Duties
d) Regulations

We would not be able to regulate imports. This impacts environmental legislation, etc.

Its the developing nations that will be helped by this resolution, silly. This will allow poor nations that lack all the extra cash rich nations spend on subsidies to compete and bring in wealth. Trade barriers do not help poor nations- it is the rich ones that set them up. This trade gradient is an artificial production of the mercantilist market.
Patronise me all you wish, but I stand by my statement. Opening up markets to the extent proposed in this would-be resolution puts a severe restriction on developing nations' abilities to protect their industries.

If the playing field were flat when markets were opened, this wouldn't be a problem. They're not, though, and therefore it is.

Go visit pretty much any poor nation and ask them if they want free trade or not.
Did I not state clearly that Ecopoeia is a poor nation?

Ah, but us liberal/progressive nations (aren't free traders also liberals?) don't all try and screw the conservative/capitalist nations through the UN. Hence Ecopoeia's (hopefully) centrist approach to UN policy-making.

1. Free Traders can either be social conservatives or social liberals. I haven't seen a definite trend in either direction.

2. It's not that every single liberal nation uses the UN to screw conservative and capitalist nations, it's that the vast majority do. Hence my making the distinction between my feelings on a personal level and on an impersonal level. You are one of those liberals that tries not to walk all over the conservatives and capitalists, so I would actually feel sorry for you and your nation. It's just that I would feel that most liberals in the UN as a whole would be getting a nice taste of their own medicine if this thing were to become a resolution and pass.

Hmm, I haven't been paying much attention recently, so I won't deny your points, Mr Jones. The irony is that many outwardly socialist nations would share conservative grievances over a good number of 'liberal' resolutions, though possibly on different grounds.

I apologise to the representative from Penguitalia for not responding to their replies at this moment I'm [insert IC reason here; OOC: I'm off to the pub!], but I'm sure I'll address their points on my return.

I'm still not sure I understand, Ecopoeia. It seems as though a poor nation would be among the first to demand that subsidies and tarrifs be eliminated. All they do is put a little more money in the pockets of the already-wealthy and make it so nations that can't afford massive subsidies and don't have huge enterprises built up can afford to purchase goods and are able to sell goods. Free trade is a leveling factor, and this means that the wealth will flow towards nations with less current wealth. Removing a tarrif is like removing a dam- it allows the free flow of water to flood the previously dry areas and create balance.

As far as the regulations on imports go, it does not say you will be barred from having any regulations on goods, but simply that you may not have particular regulations that hinder free trade. I've asked that this section be re-written so that will be made more explicit, and I hope you'll join me in calling for this tweak.

I am in two minds.

On the one is that I must help the nations in my region grow and prosper.

I feel that the free trade act would prevent this, as it depleats the ability for their governments to draw funds from imports, which I believe to be a legitimate source of income. Although they are small themselves, their growth is steady.

My other mind is more selfish in nature. It would grant free trade. I am of the mind where I let people do as they please. Sometime I put my foot down, but mostly I just let them go.

If international trade is deregulated then anything and everything would be could be imported/exported without any restrictions. What most interests me about that, it would enable free and easy drug trafficking. Since drugs are legal here (even outside of medicinal use, under my control of course), it would be wrong of me to disagree with this proposal.

But then again, I won't allow slavery. Hmmm.

I think I like to control where the drugs come from. I think I like to watch tapes of customs officials patting down people they suspect.

I'm afraid I cannot support this proposal.

***The honourable representative for Penguitalia takes the stand and addresses the house.

"Ladies and gentlemen; members and delegates of the assembly. The state of Penguitalia humbly requests your support on the issue of Free Trade; to whit- the abolision of many barriers to trade such as tariffs, duties, and government subsidies.

While the huge economic powerhouses flood the global markets with their cheap goods, impoverished developing nations are unable to compete fairly as their goods and services are restricted by unfair legislation in many of the most developed nations.

The Global Free Trade Act would outlaw many practises such as massive government subsidies for non-essential industries, tariffs, import restrictions and quotas- not only allowing all nations to compete fairly in the global marketplace but in turn allowing full economic development for all nations that desire it.

Please, put your support behind the proposal and join me in making the world a fairer, more free, marketplace."

***The delegate from Penguilalia bows slightly then leaves the stand to resume sitting.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Proposal is currently located at: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/11346/page=UN_proposal/start=100

Full proposal name is: Global Free Trade Act
Type: (A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.)
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Penguitalia
Description:
1) Realising that powerful economic nations use unfair barriers to trade in order to maintain domination of the global marketplace.

2) Futhermore, accepting that many nations will never develop economically, politically, socially or culturally as they might whilst limited by unfair barriers to trade.

3) It is therefore put that the global community, to whit, the United Nations, must do its upmost to ensure free trade between all nations, and in doing so,

i) Makes it unlawful for any signatory national government to impose tarifs on imports,

ii) Limits signatory national government subsidies to industries essential to the wellbeing of the citizens of that nation;

Providers of
a) Healthcare
b) Agriculture
c) Housing
d) Education

iii) Restricts governments from imposing other restrictions upon imports, including but not limited to
a) Limits
b) Quota
c) Duties
d) Regulations

iv) Establishes the right of nations, in the interests of free trade, to impose sanctions on other nations found to be in violation of this act, including but not limited to
a) Reciprocal tariffs, duties and legislation from all other signatory governments
b) Fines

4) It is held self-evident that these measures will increase financial competition between all nations, reduce unfair taxes and tariffs and thus allow all member nations to compete fairly in the global marketplace.

Approvals: 3 (Sinns right hand, JS Nijmegen, Danzeemania)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 138 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Fri Dec 3 2004

My thanks for your time.


Good resolution. Goes to show you can be right for all the wrong reasons.

Eco,

Free traders are neoconservatives, not liberals, in America at least. Labor unions tend to not like it when unskilled labor gets exported to poor countries.

Liberals tend to adhere to what is considered fair trade. Which they see as a new concept that incorporates all of the costs of production into the final price, proclaiming it as a new concept not covered by neoclassical economics.

Or, if you prefer, republicans tend to support free trade whereas democrats do not, in terms of party platforms. It depends on whether you want a global interconnected economy, or polarized nationalist economies.

In either event, if you care about the environment you might want to reconsider your viewpoint. Lesser developed countries overlook environmental concerns to build economic prosperity; without tarrifs they can pollute like crazy to supply goods to countries who must accept their products.

That's my two crags on the matter.

Addressing the three points most recently made:

1) Obviously goods that are illegal in member nations (whether they be slaves, drugs, fluffy kittens or bottled sperm-whale juice) ar not covered on the "restrictions on imports". If possession of a good is illegal, anyone trying to bring it in could obviously be picked up on possession charges.

2) While yes, small nations are unable to gain revenue from tariffs, the quanitity of revenue gained from such tariffs is usually extremely small- and far far outweighed by the benefits of being able to freely export goods to nations that previously kept their internal markets closely regulated in order to keep outsiders out.

3) Less economically developed nations will be prone to pollute like crazy regardless of whether or not they are allowed to export their goods to every nation within the Free Trade zone (ie, the UN). Many nations pollute as a side effect of simply trying to promote internal growth. Whether or not the GFTA will cause more, smaller, nations to pollute is completely unassertainable; it is the place of other legislation to control the enviromental effects of economic growth- not this Bill's.

Interesting points, one and all. If I may, I would like to disown my rhetoric concerning altars and sacrifices; it appears the bombastic tendencies of my Deputy (Mathieu Vergniaud - please see Meet the Reps if you desire more info) have rubbed off on me.

I am gratified to see that the proponents of this agreement have the best of intentions. I can see that we are in accord with regards to our objectives. It simply comes down to differences in how we see fit to achieve them. Put simply, I disagree with your contention that free trade will bring balance and enrich the impoverished. Ecopoeia is a firm advocate of fair trade; sadly this does not always run parallel with free trade.

I take issue with the suggestion that the alternative to a global interconnected economy is or 'polarized nationalist economies'. Nationalist? Not at all - Ecopoeia and most (if not all) of its allies simply do not fit this description.

I wish you well with your endeavour, but I hope you understand that I will not support it.

Kind regards
Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

OOC: AP, the Republicans are rampant mercantilists (and the Democrats are little better). Have a read up on US activities in the WTO to get an idea.

OOC: AP, the Republicans are rampant mercantilists (and the Democrats are little better). Have a read up on US activities in the WTO to get an idea.

OOC: Aye. The only real capitalist party that I know of in the USA is the Libertarian Party.

Free Trade is actually neither left nor right wing... In the UK, the Liberal Party introduced the Free Trade Act in order to end protectionism, opening up the slave-trade to other nations in the interest of gaining access to their markets.

However, protectionism (the use of tariffs etc) tends to be a more "capitalist" approach to industry- even though the removal of protectionism and opening up global markets to free trade is often seen as a capitalist act...

Either way, the Act needs more supporters! It's now on the first page of UN proposals, and it will benefit everyone... attaboys! (and girls). (and those of uncertain or undetermined gender).

Addressing the three points most recently made:

1) Obviously goods that are illegal in member nations (whether they be slaves, drugs, fluffy kittens or bottled sperm-whale juice) ar not covered on the "restrictions on imports". If possession of a good is illegal, anyone trying to bring it in could obviously be picked up on possession charges.

2) While yes, small nations are unable to gain revenue from tariffs, the quanitity of revenue gained from such tariffs is usually extremely small- and far far outweighed by the benefits of being able to freely export goods to nations that previously kept their internal markets closely regulated in order to keep outsiders out.

3) Less economically developed nations will be prone to pollute like crazy regardless of whether or not they are allowed to export their goods to every nation within the Free Trade zone (ie, the UN). Many nations pollute as a side effect of simply trying to promote internal growth. Whether or not the GFTA will cause more, smaller, nations to pollute is completely unassertainable; it is the place of other legislation to control the enviromental effects of economic growth- not this Bill's.

1) Without a a trade ban we would allowing individuals to enter the NS with the product, then arresting them for transport. This could lead to trapping of deliverymen who deliver goods to several NS, containing substances that are not legal in AP, but Legal in other NS.

2) If you are a developing country without an export market and are trying to keep market prices up to encourage internal industry growth in accordance with UN Resolutions, this proposal kills your economy as competitive prices will be under the native industries marginal and average costs of production.

3)Polluting Developing nations. With an export market there is an incentive to increase production, which increases pollution beyond that if they were merely meeting internal demands for products. So, yes, there is an effect to pollution created by this bill. It is a direct externality of it. Any mandates on environmental concerns will require new technologies, expensive ones, that will result in lower wages to meet profits.

Again, this resolution is right for all the wrong reasons. Such a bill burdens developing nations more than it benefits them, creating incentives for unfair labor practices and production without pollution abatement.

OOC: With respect to the WTO. If you are discussing what happens when a nation that uses slave labor/indentured servitude to boost its competitiveness in the international cotton market, hires the economist who developed the american subsidy program, to blast that same subsidy program as it changes in response to such practices, at a meeting of the WTO, then yes, I am very cognizant of the WTO.

However, my knowledge goes beyond that of interest group papers and news articles.

Texan: Agreed.

Seeing as this is a global, not UN Free Trade Act, it is vulnerable to what would usually be mutually exclusive arguments as it hinders our ability to impose trade resrictions on rogue nations, while they maintain that ability.

Those externalities thought to be covered by other UN Resolutions will not be stopped.

This is akin to weapons ban resolution.

Removals of subsidies or trade restrictions across the board would only benefit nations with developed economies, as they have the commercial capacity to come into a nation with no developed economy and 'take over'. There must be a period of time when LEDC's are allowed to matintain subsidies until such a point where their internal industries are able to compete on a world market.

If a second draft were to:

1) Limit the resolution solely to UN nations, allowing barriers to trade to be maintained against UN nations,

2) Further widen the scope of industries not to be covered by the proposed ban on government subsidies,

3) In more detail list which regulations regarding imports would and would not be considered legal,

4) Introduce an intiative to prevent:
a) dumping of cheap goods by massive economies,
b) over-pollution by small economies,

Would the resolution be more acceptable to delegates?