NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratic States of Schroyer proposes a complete ban of tariffs worldwide.

Recognizing that free trade is important to economic stability worldwide, the Democratic States of Schroyer feels it necessary for all nations of the world to unite and protect their economic viability. This may be accomplished by a UN supported Tariff Ban Treaty.

It has been observed that some nations prefer to adopt tariffs in an effort to equalize prices of goods and services, and to boost government income. However, this puts a crimp in free trade, and stunts economic growth due to the government removing money from the trade system.

Removing tariffs worldwide will promote fair international competition, which will increase the quality of life for all citizens in every nation, and provide incentives for corporations to produce better products.

All those who wish to help the free trade in this global economy are urged to voice their opinion, as the Democratic States of Schroyer seek to bring this issue to a UN vote.

I vote against this, as Tariffs are a good source of income to eleviate tax on the citizens.

Go ahead. I can just cut off trade with everyone and enjoy the fact I don't actually need to do it. One of the advantages of where my nation is.

Go ahead. I can just cut off trade with everyone and enjoy the fact I don't actually need to do it. One of the advantages of where my nation is.

In a global economy, it is not wise to resort to isolationism, unless you wish for your country's economy to wither in obscurity.

In a global economy, it is not wise to resort to isolationism, unless you wish for your country's economy to wither in obscurity.

I'm about 2000 lightyears from Earth and own three inhabitable planets. My economy does not require outside trade and the only thing I export are raw materials while my imports are limited to trinkets that my nation is more than capable of producing. I'm not worried about global economies.

I use tariffs as a source of income for funding television shows. Minus that income, they'll easily get funding from one of over a hundred other sources. So, really, no worries there.

In a global economy, it is not wise to resort to isolationism, unless you wish for your country's economy to wither in obscurity.

Global?

We pick and choose who we trade with, and dictate the terms of trade with those that we do.

You either take the terms, or leave them; if you leave them, we take our goods to a different market, where we still sell them, WITH our tax.

Tariffs are not opposed to free market economics, they are ESSENTIAL to them, removing tax from trade, puts the larger burden upon your people, and therefore reduces your economic power, since people are the core of your economy, and not outside trade partners (who you can force into trade withyou, through sheer market will of the people).

This is the difference between Kensyan Capitalism (what you propose)
And Free-Market capitalism, which we support.

DLE's and my economic power, could swallow you whole...

DLE's and my economic power, could swallow you whole...

Your's and mine? How about just one of our's?

DLE Economic Power: Frightening
DLE Budget (according to http://www.sunsetrpg.com/nsxmlparser.php): $3,029,313,715,592

Tekania Economic Power: Powerhouse
Tekania Budget: $19,511,774,621,145

Schroyer Economic Power: Thriving
Schroyer Budget: $20,349,746,256

My waste is more than nine times his budget. And at his age, I still had a better economy.

I used the above source instead of Thirdgeek because Thirdgeek was hacked.

That's just budgets too, not Total Production....

Tekania:
Total Production:$21,186,544,895,775
Total Budget:$19,511,774,621,145
Private Consumption:$4,054,518,030,190
Currency Value:1 Credit = $1.77

DemonLordEnigma:
Total Production:$13,218,133,757,203
Total Budget:$3,029,313,715,592
Private Consumption:$10,566,317,788,312
Currency Value:1 fingerbone = $2.11

Schroyer:
Total Production:$164,722,605,075
Total Budget:$20,349,746,256
Private Consumption:$144,779,853,744
Currency Value:1 shoe = $1.43

Like many people you seem to think that free trade is inherently good for some reason and ignore the fact that in economics, there are many factors you have to consider, and it's clear that you haven't considered them.

I suggest you learn a bit more about economics before spouting off more of the blind ideological rubbish you have already spouted off.

Like many people you seem to think that free trade is inherently good for some reason and ignore the fact that in economics, there are many factors you have to consider, and it's clear that you haven't considered them.

I suggest you learn a bit more about economics before spouting off more of the blind ideological rubbish you have already spouted off.

I have taken college courses in economics, being that I am, in fact, a college student. Everyone has their own opinions about how the economy should be run, and these are mine. You don't have to like them.

However, I do believe that free trade promotes healthy competition that benefits the consumer. And while I have indicated my reasoning, you still have yet to make a valid argument.

This is an open forum. I highly suggest you support your opinions or risk looking like a jackass.

But you haven't shown your reasoning. You make the assumption that competition automatically benefits people without showing WHY this is beneficial. And especially with this -

In a global economy, it is not wise to resort to isolationism, unless you wish for your country's economy to wither in obscurity.

When you make that kind of statement, I think I can be forgiven for thinking you were nothing more than a blind free-trade ideologist.

There are many reasons for governments to impose tariffs, more than just protectionism, which by the way, is a very valid reason despite your mischaraterization of it. If my nation's economy was dependent on coal mining, for instance, I would hardly want to allow cheap coal imports to undercut the prices, wreck the local industry, cause massive job losses, and then wreck my economy.

You also don't explain how tariffs "stunt economic growth", or even why this necessarily is a bad thing. It is my opinion that economic growth is only a means to an end, that end being to enhance the standard of living of the population as a whole, and not an end in itself. Therefore economic growth is not in itself desireable if it doesn't benefit the general populace and enhance the standard of living as a whole.

Another wrong assumption is that removing tariffs gives "fair competition". And this is especially strange considering that at this point you already acknowledged that governments use them to "equalize" things, which in my interpretation, correct me if I'm wrong, means that they use protectionism to ensure fairness. So aren't you contradicting yourself?

If you were to remove all tariffs, international competition would be anything but fair. Different nations have different costs of living, different costs of production, different exchange rates, and all of this means that there are costs of doing business, such as land and labour costs, which simply cannot be fair.

Delving into a RL example, there is little that the United States can do to make its textile industry competitive with China's, because of the simple fact that things cost more, labour costs more, equipment costs more, and without something radical happening in the economic situation, which would be ill-advised in any case, this cannot be changed. There are cost differences you can't control when you're talking about international trade. You don't seem to recognize this.

And finally, you need to remember that there are many nations in the UN with a wide variety of economic systems and situations, and that what might work for some nations won't work in others and might in fact be detrimental to them. Governments need the income from tariffs, they have a right to protect their industries, and you are wrong to say that isolationism necessarily damages a nation's economy. And finally, think how implausible doing such a thing in the real world would be. Maybe you're starting to see the basic problem with this proposal?

There are many reasons for governments to impose tariffs, more than just protectionism, which by the way, is a very valid reason despite your mischaraterization of it. If my nation's economy was dependent on coal mining, for instance, I would hardly want to allow cheap coal imports to undercut the prices, wreck the local industry, cause massive job losses, and then wreck my economy.


Instead of constantly looking over your shoulder, and fearing honest competition, wouldn’t it be better to either produce a better product, or specialize your industry into something that could be equally as competitive?


You also don't explain how tariffs "stunt economic growth", or even why this necessarily is a bad thing. It is my opinion that economic growth is only a means to an end, that end being to enhance the standard of living of the population as a whole, and not an end in itself. Therefore economic growth is not in itself desireable if it doesn't benefit the general populace and enhance the standard of living as a whole.


I’m sorry if I failed to explain how it stunts economic growth. To me, the tariff is a crutch. What drives people to perform better? What motivates corporations to make a higher quality product more efficiently?

You’ve heard me say it before: competition.

This is what drives people to do better. It gives them pep in their step, knowing that they can’t be saved by such petty economic crutches like a tariff. Furthermore, any time you tax something, that takes money that consumers could have spent on other goods and services that would otherwise improve their lives. Some might argue that it’s better than taxing them elsewhere. But I failed to grasp HOW EXACTLY TAXES ARE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.

They might answer “Government spending,” but we all know how inefficient that can be, as the bureaucracy usually eats that money up in the process. I think it’s better to let the consumer decide where to spend HIS money, not have the government decide where to spend HIS money.


Another wrong assumption is that removing tariffs gives "fair competition". And this is especially strange considering that at this point you already acknowledged that governments use them to "equalize" things, which in my interpretation, correct me if I'm wrong, means that they use protectionism to ensure fairness. So aren't you contradicting yourself?

If you were to remove all tariffs, international competition would be anything but fair. Different nations have different costs of living, different costs of production, different exchange rates, and all of this means that there are costs of doing business, such as land and labour costs, which simply cannot be fair.


I said “in an effort to equalize,” there is a difference. I was implying that while the prices are “equal” and comparable on paper, the prices are not “fair,” because the consumer is being denied a product which would improve his quality of life. Denying consumers a fair market price… How does any of that fit the definition of fair?


Delving into a RL example, there is little that the United States can do to make its textile industry competitive with China's, because of the simple fact that things cost more, labour costs more, equipment costs more, and without something radical happening in the economic situation, which would be ill-advised in any case, this cannot be changed. There are cost differences you can't control when you're talking about international trade. You don't seem to recognize this.


I do recognize this. I simply don’t care.

Maybe the US should move out of the textile industry into something more fruitful for its people, instead of exercising futility in a market that they can’t compete in. Otherwise, buck up, and start working harder. A tariff ban is a no-tears policy.


And finally, you need to remember that there are many nations in the UN with a wide variety of economic systems and situations, and that what might work for some nations won't work in others and might in fact be detrimental to them. Governments need the income from tariffs, they have a right to protect their industries, and you are wrong to say that isolationism necessarily damages a nation's economy. And finally, think how implausible doing such a thing in the real world would be. Maybe you're starting to see the basic problem with this proposal?

Considering the previous supporting statements I have made, I think I have adequately shown that tariffs hurt consumers in the long run. How is that beneficial to any nation? If the governments have a problem with income, then perhaps they should work on making their governments more efficient, or learn to cope with less. Cut the fat.

Isolationism does more than just hurt a nations economy. It also hurts their performance in world diplomacy. If you adopt to isolationism, you fail to recognize that there are other countries out there, that could either benefit you as a trade partner, or even hurt you in armed conflict. It’s called Globalization, and no one is immune to it.

I do recognize this. I simply don’t care.

Here's the apalling thing - you do not care about the simple facts and the consequences of what would happen if your resolution were to become reality!

Another thing you don't consider - your goal is to increase international trade. However, nations which don't want to let unfair competition destroy their economies will drop tariffs... and ban imports from certain nations completely. The nation dependent on coal production will ban all coal imports, etc. Say, isn't this opposite your aims?

Wait, you simply don't care. Never mind then.

The rest of this post is an aside to the actual resolution at hand, though it does have some relation to the issue of international trade. Thank you for your kind attention.

Instead of constantly looking over your shoulder, and fearing honest competition, wouldn’t it be better to either produce a better product, or specialize your industry into something that could be equally as competitive?

*smacks head* Why yes, how could I forget that it is very easy and takes very little effort to radically switch the focus of your economy?

I would also object to the adjective "honest". Not necessarily.

What drives people to perform better? What motivates corporations to make a higher quality product more efficiently?

You’ve heard me say it before: competition.

This is what drives people to do better. It gives them pep in their step, knowing that they can’t be saved by such petty economic crutches like a tariff.

Yes competition is necessary, but it is not a magical elixir that makes all economic problems go away. Product quality can also improve even in a situation without competition. It will be illustrated 5 paragraphs down. Read on.

Furthermore, any time you tax something, that takes money that consumers could have spent on other goods and services that would otherwise improve their lives.

People are more than just "consumers" and perhaps it should be pointed out that an economy reliant on consumption and spending is normally unsustainable and also very unstable. People, or consumers if you want to call them that, are also employees. Variety and product quality aren't something you can appreciate if your job pays badly and has lousy conditions, or if you don't have a job because foreign companies with lower costs drove local enterprises out of business. And wouldn't that be even worse for consumer spending?

What about socialist and communist economies, many of which exist in NSWorld? Why should they be worried about people spending money?

They might answer “Government spending,” but we all know how inefficient that can be, as the bureaucracy usually eats that money up in the process. I think it’s better to let the consumer decide where to spend HIS money, not have the government decide where to spend HIS money.

Your government's inefficient? Then do something about it. Don't whinge about wastage, do something to curb it. And that's not necessarily "make do with less"...

There are things that governments spend on which individuals don't. And these things, unlike a blender or a TV, are actually essential. Things like roads, electricity supply, airports, healthcare, schools, water supply, can't forget water supply, social welfare to stop people from starving to death, police, ambulances, telephone lines...

And that's just public services. How about a certain technological advance which came about thanks to government spending? Hint: you're using it right now. And I think it's safe to say that the Internet didn't come about because people at the US military were driven by competition.

Technology for dried foods is adapted from technology NASA developed. Much of medical and scientific research is funded by government money Commercial aviation began using WW1 bombers which government money paid for, indeed, government money still funds some carriers today. Both Boeing and Airbus are subsidised by tax money because otherwise they wouldn't make profits fast enough to be able to develop new and better aircraft. And then there's the tax money that goes into making sure that the airlines aren't scrimping on maintenance, which is all-to-tempting given the current competitive climate.

Are you still going to say that tax money is not necessarily good for the economy? Bad roads are not good for the economy. Blackouts because of utility cutbacks are bad for the economy. Remember the one which took out everything between Toronto and New York? How much money was lost because of it? Need I go on?

Ah, the American aviation industry is a prime example of how competition isn't always good. It's turned a profitable industry into a pit of despair for people, whether on the consumer or the employee end. The competition from low-cost carriers has caused a race to the bottom from the "legacies" in terms of product quality (under the guise of cost-cutting), which isn't good for the consumers who now pay less for, shall we say, absolute crap.Meanwhile US Airways is about to disappear off the face of the earth taking thousands of jobs with it and aviation employees are generally getting the big-time shaft as their employers struggle to remain afloat.

I said “in an effort to equalize,” there is a difference. I was implying that while the prices are “equal” and comparable on paper, the prices are not “fair,” because the consumer is being denied a product which would improve his quality of life. Denying consumers a fair market price… How does any of that fit the definition of fair?

Because there is more to being "fair" than paying a low price at the supermarket. One hypenated word: Wal-Mart. It offers low prices and is reputed for having the worst labour practices in the world - both in terms of the people who work in the stores and the people who work in the Chinese sweatshops.

Considering the previous supporting statements I have made, I think I have adequately shown that tariffs hurt consumers in the long run.

The people's ability to consume is not the only thing that matters. You also have to balance the harm of higher prices against the benefit of better employment conditions, which can be hurt and hurt bad if protectionism is completely abolished.

Isolationism does more than just hurt a nations economy. It also hurts their performance in world diplomacy. If you adopt to isolationism, you fail to recognize that there are other countries out there, that could either benefit you as a trade partner, or even hurt you in armed conflict. It’s called Globalization, and no one is immune to it.

DemonLordEnigma, this one's for you.

My hands hurt, I'm out of coffee, and I can't sleep. Really bad combination for someone to be a mejnotis. Annoy me enough and I'll translate that into English for you.

Instead of constantly looking over your shoulder, and fearing honest competition, wouldn’t it be better to either produce a better product, or specialize your industry into something that could be equally as competitive?

Let's see here: Shift the entirety of my economy towards producing a few products when the economy naturally evolved over the last three thousand years to cover everything or leave it alone and benefit from having an economy that could beat yours blindfolded with all limbs cut off and fighting in a hurricane? I think I'll stick with mine. It makes much more sense and doesn't leave me vulnerable to economic attacks.

I’m sorry if I failed to explain how it stunts economic growth. To me, the tariff is a crutch. What drives people to perform better? What motivates corporations to make a higher quality product more efficiently?

You’ve heard me say it before: competition.

Take 1880s US in real life for an example of how that can be exploited to produce the opposite effects. It's also what is currently causing the US to lose most of its factories and even starting to lose its white-collar jobs as well. Sometimes, competition is a bad thing.

This is what drives people to do better. It gives them pep in their step, knowing that they can’t be saved by such petty economic crutches like a tariff. Furthermore, any time you tax something, that takes money that consumers could have spent on other goods and services that would otherwise improve their lives. Some might argue that it’s better than taxing them elsewhere. But I failed to grasp HOW EXACTLY TAXES ARE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.

They might answer “Government spending,” but we all know how inefficient that can be, as the bureaucracy usually eats that money up in the process. I think it’s better to let the consumer decide where to spend HIS money, not have the government decide where to spend HIS money.

The military in my nation competes with the big businesses for employees. So, that is one case where government spending directly affects the economy. Doesn't common sense say there might be other ways, such as government-operated industries? I don't use those myself, but I hear they also work.

I said “in an effort to equalize,” there is a difference. I was implying that while the prices are “equal” and comparable on paper, the prices are not “fair,” because the consumer is being denied a product which would improve his quality of life. Denying consumers a fair market price… How does any of that fit the definition of fair?

How would some useless trinket from a technologically inferior nation that can't even figure out a simple thing as how to put a colony on Mars help improve the lives of my citizens? Maybe if I made it legal to keep humans as pets and removed them from the sentient list some unique market item would pop up that Earth can provide.

I do recognize this. I simply don’t care.

Maybe the US should move out of the textile industry into something more fruitful for its people, instead of exercising futility in a market that they can’t compete in. Otherwise, buck up, and start working harder. A tariff ban is a no-tears policy.

Working harder doesn't work when you compare the wage laws and other laws of what constitutes safe products in the US to the places they are exporting those jobs to. Once again, a case of something affecting economics you haven't bothered to consider. Try passing exconomics in college before arguing with those of us out working in the real world.

Considering the previous supporting statements I have made, I think I have adequately shown that tariffs hurt consumers in the long run. How is that beneficial to any nation? If the governments have a problem with income, then perhaps they should work on making their governments more efficient, or learn to cope with less. Cut the fat.

No, you have shown you do not bother to consider all of the millions of influences upon economics and the fact you are also ignoring the differences in nations in the NSUN.

Isolationism does more than just hurt a nations economy. It also hurts their performance in world diplomacy. If you adopt to isolationism, you fail to recognize that there are other countries out there, that could either benefit you as a trade partner, or even hurt you in armed conflict. It’s called Globalization, and no one is immune to it.

The only nations that can actually hurt me in armed conflict happen to be my allies. The rest are easily turned into radioactive dust long before they even reach my nation.

How does isolationism help? Since my industries produce everything my nation needs and all I need to do is mine the hundreds of lifeless planets rich in metals and other important materials, what it does is cause my resources to last longer and keeps out inferior technology. About the only thing Earth has to offer that I do not produce or have not surpassed is slaves, and slavery is illegal in DLE. So, really, Earth is just a place my people like to visit because it is nearby and has people willing to buy metals, even though we don't actually need the money. I could glass the entire planet and get the same benefit after as before.

Now, and you're going to love this, I have evidence that your statement about people not being immune to a global economy is false. What evidence? The fact I am. All I have to do is stop trade and, suddenly, nothing changes other than my ships saving a bit of fuel and my nation having more materials later on. And get this: The changes in price you suffer from don't bother me. I either sell it at a certain price (or higher if I don't particularly like you) or I don't sell it to you at all and I take it to someone who will buy at that price. And I don't even have to visit Earth to sell those metals, as several of my allies need metals as well and they are mostly no where near Earth. And even if a nation wants to hurt me, they have several thousand unmappable lightyears in total area to search before they can even find my nation, and by that point the natural elements of my region of space should have either exterminated their forces entirely or reduced them so far I don't even break a sweat destroying them.

Little secret: A global economy doesn't apply to everyone.

Maybe the US should move out of the textile industry into something more fruitful for its people, instead of exercising futility in a market that they can’t compete in. Otherwise, buck up, and start working harder. A tariff ban is a no-tears policy.

It can compete, just not against slave labor. So, tarrifs, trade sanctions, and subsidies hurt the economies of those in the textile industry who use slave labor by artificially lowering the price. So as to increase human rights in the slave nation, so that they can recieve the economic benefits of actual honest competition in the future. Wages are relative to a nation, and can be used for competition. However, slavery can not be accepted. Do an in-depth analysis of the cotton fiasco.

That's just budgets too, not Total Production....

Tekania:
Total Production:$21,186,544,895,775
Total Budget:$19,511,774,621,145
Private Consumption:$4,054,518,030,190
Currency Value:1 Credit = $1.77

DemonLordEnigma:
Total Production:$13,218,133,757,203
Total Budget:$3,029,313,715,592
Private Consumption:$10,566,317,788,312
Currency Value:1 fingerbone = $2.11

Schroyer:
Total Production:$164,722,605,075
Total Budget:$20,349,746,256
Private Consumption:$144,779,853,744
Currency Value:1 shoe = $1.43

Hm. Interesting. I, on the other hand, have aggressively annihilated tariffs at every opportunity:

Hack:
Total Production:$175,308,533,145,976
Total Budget:$23,341,209,701,179
Private Consumption:$152,434,147,638,821
Currency Value:1 chit = $2.23

Allow me to add a third one:
Income Tax Rate: 0%

In other words, these calcs rely pretty heavily on population.

Another thing you don't consider - your goal is to increase international trade. However, nations which don't want to let unfair competition destroy their economies will drop tariffs... and ban imports from certain nations completely. The nation dependent on coal production will ban all coal imports, etc. Say, isn't this opposite your aims?


It would until those countries start to have severe economic problems, and then have no choice to submit to the calling of international trade. A country can’t produce everything on their own, it’s highly impractical. They will have to trade eventually or the standard of living will decline dramatically.


*smacks head* Why yes, how could I forget that it is very easy and takes very little effort to radically switch the focus of your economy?

I would also object to the adjective "honest". Not necessarily.


It’s a horrible idea for any country to hinge its economic stability in a market that it can not compete in. Also, how realistic is it that a country will produce ONE and only ONE product? Not at all. If one single industry isn’t doing so well, and it forces the entire nation into a depression, that’s just bad policy. There is something to be said for diversity.


People are more than just "consumers" and perhaps it should be pointed out that an economy reliant on consumption and spending is normally unsustainable and also very unstable. People, or consumers if you want to call them that, are also employees. Variety and product quality aren't something you can appreciate if your job pays badly and has lousy conditions, or if you don't have a job because foreign companies with lower costs drove local enterprises out of business. And wouldn't that be even worse for consumer spending?


I think some people are getting the idea that if the proposal would be put into action, the divide between rich and poor would widen, everyone would be working in sweatshops, and there would be a small elite class that inherits all the money. This is not the case.

People/ Consumers/ Employees and Corporations must exist in a mutually beneficial relationship for any economy to foster growth. That is, if workers are being paid little to none, how can they be expected to go out and purchase goods and services, so that the economy keeps moving along?

Over time, sweat shops will have to close down because their income will be severely stunted by the lack of consumer funds. A world of sweatshops does not make for a reasonable economic model.

Also, there is a great deal to be said for product locality and availability. For instance, there are two gas stations in a town, station X at the north end, station Y at the south. Station X has local oil, station Y has imported oil. Station X is two cents a gallon more expensive than station Y. You live at the north end of town, but you choose station X instead, because you don’t want to drive across town for station Y oil.

Imported products are harder to come by, precisely because they are imported. That provides an inherent advantage to local competition. In many cases, it balances out the low cost of overseas production.


What about socialist and communist economies, many of which exist in NSWorld? Why should they be worried about people spending money?


Governments that fail to account for economics also fail to account for the well being of their citizens. Soviet Russia is an example that demonstrates this. It’s also not a reasonable economic model.


Are you still going to say that tax money is not necessarily good for the economy? Bad roads are not good for the economy. Blackouts because of utility cutbacks are bad for the economy. Remember the one which took out everything between Toronto and New York? How much money was lost because of it? Need I go on?


Infrastructure is key for every nation, and governments provide most of the infrastructure support. But why couldn’t corporations pick up the tab? There are many corporations that already provide infrastructure to its customers. For instance, SBC laying down telephone and high speed data lines, NBC providing broadcast towers, Verizon Wireless providing communications infrastructure…

Why not have Shell oil pave the roads for its customers? Why not have Evian sponsored tap water?

Corporations are more than able to provide these services. Furthermore, corporations often provide superior results in these tasks. Compare public and private schools. Socialized and privatized healthcare. Need I go on?


Ah, the American aviation industry is a prime example of how competition isn't always good. It's turned a profitable industry into a pit of despair for people, whether on the consumer or the employee end. The competition from low-cost carriers has caused a race to the bottom from the "legacies" in terms of product quality (under the guise of cost-cutting), which isn't good for the consumers who now pay less for, shall we say, absolute crap.Meanwhile US Airways is about to disappear off the face of the earth taking thousands of jobs with it and aviation employees are generally getting the big-time shaft as their employers struggle to remain afloat.


Given the current state of the industry, wouldn’t you say there is a greater demand for low cost carriers anyway? Perhaps that’s what consumers want. Maybe, to stay competitive, US Airways should adjust their business plan to ensure their success in the future, instead of beating their heads against a brick wall.


Because there is more to being "fair" than paying a low price at the supermarket. One hypenated word: Wal-Mart. It offers low prices and is reputed for having the worst labour practices in the world - both in terms of the people who work in the stores and the people who work in the Chinese sweatshops.


As stated earlier, a world of sweatshops doesn’t make economic sense. Meanwhile, those that are unhappy with working in sweatshops should learn a profession - if they desire to improve their living conditions. I think that qualifies as a fair trade off.


The people's ability to consume is not the only thing that matters. You also have to balance the harm of higher prices against the benefit of better employment conditions, which can be hurt and hurt bad if protectionism is completely abolished.


I see no reason why the balance couldn’t be maintained without tariffs.


Take 1880s US in real life for an example of how that can be exploited to produce the opposite effects. It's also what is currently causing the US to lose most of its factories and even starting to lose its white-collar jobs as well. Sometimes, competition is a bad thing.


Let me ask you, on a personal level, do you work in a factory? Is a factory job something that you strive to earn in your career path?

My suggestion to those who lost their factory jobs - learn a new profession. If you are too ignorant to learn a new profession, then you are shit out of luck.


The military in my nation competes with the big businesses for employees. So, that is one case where government spending directly affects the economy. Doesn't common sense say there might be other ways, such as government-operated industries? I don't use those myself, but I hear they also work.


Doesn’t common sense say that government operated anything results in something with inferior quality? Like socialized healthcare…


How would some useless trinket from a technologically inferior nation that can't even figure out a simple thing as how to put a colony on Mars help improve the lives of my citizens? Maybe if I made it legal to keep humans as pets and removed them from the sentient list some unique market item would pop up that Earth can provide.


Wow, and I thought I was a nerd…

If you have no use for the human race, then why the hell are you in the UN forum?


Working harder doesn't work when you compare the wage laws and other laws of what constitutes safe products in the US to the places they are exporting those jobs to. Once again, a case of something affecting economics you haven't bothered to consider. Try passing exconomics in college before arguing with those of us out working in the real world.


If by “exconomics,” you mean “economics,” yes I have passed it. I have also passed various English courses, but it doesn’t seem you have done that yet. And I have also been a part of the working “real” world, so their goes both of your theories. You shouldn’t make such broad judgments, it makes you look ignorant.

And if consumers don’t care about safe products, that’s a consumer issue. It’s not up to the US or the UN to dictate consumer tastes.


No, you have shown you do not bother to consider all of the millions of influences upon economics and the fact you are also ignoring the differences in nations in the NSUN.


Show me an influence worth considering, and I’ll consider it.


Little secret: A global economy doesn't apply to everyone.


Little secret: Get in touch with reality.

In the real world, your situation doesn’t exist, and will never exist, because it’s entirely beyond the laws of the natural world, diplomacy, and economics. This nullifies your argument, and makes every word you have said essentially worthless.

If anyone is looking for hard evidence:

Hm. Interesting. I, on the other hand, have aggressively annihilated tariffs at every opportunity:

Hack:
Total Production:$175,308,533,145,976
Total Budget:$23,341,209,701,179
Private Consumption:$152,434,147,638,821
Currency Value:1 chit = $2.23




I rest my case.

Let me ask you, on a personal level, do you work in a factory? Is a factory job something that you strive to earn in your career path?

My suggestion to those who lost their factory jobs - learn a new profession. If you are too ignorant to learn a new profession, then you are shit out of luck.

In real life? I'm a director of marketting. Part of my job involves dealing with useless information and delegating work to others. The other part is dealing with approving which idiotic ideas become commercials or ads (the stupid commercials you see on TV are actually often the cream of the crop), and spending the rest of my day trying to find some job satisfaction without harming the company in the process. 4 years of college with majors in English (creative path) and business to end up in a job where I have realized you don't actually need a college degree to actually produce quality and a college degree doesn't guarantee quality.

Doesn’t common sense say that government operated anything results in something with inferior quality? Like socialized healthcare…

Depends on the government.

Wow, and I thought I was a nerd…

If you have no use for the human race, then why the hell are you in the UN forum?

Because my nation enjoys manipulating others from a distance to its own ends and happens to be very nosey. Plus, the show "Stupid Human Tricks" (airs every Wednesday at 1600 hours on EBN) uses the DLE delegation in the UN building as its base of operations.

If by “exconomics,” you mean “economics,” yes I have passed it. I have also passed various English courses, but it doesn’t seem you have done that yet. And I have also been a part of the working “real” world, so their goes both of your theories. You shouldn’t make such broad judgments, it makes you look ignorant.

Considering how much typing I had done that night, feel glad I bothered to take the time to spell most of the words correctly. And obviously you do not have real world working experience, or you would understand the important facts about why such controls as tariffs exist, though I'll save that for the next quote.

And if consumers don’t care about safe products, that’s a consumer issue. It’s not up to the US or the UN to dictate consumer tastes.

Consumers do care. However, they care more about cheap products. The problem you are failing to realize (which was covered in high school economics when I went to school, though it is beginning to look like such standards have fallen) is that it is not up to the consumers to make the products. It is up to the corporations. If all of the corporations make dangerous products, then the consumers are going to buy dangerous products.

Another thing you are not bothering to take into consideration is a simple fact: People, on the whole, are incredibly stupid and greedy. Take the snake-oil salesmen of the 1800s, the selling of "blessed" items and "Church pardons" throughout history, the robber-barons of the early 1900s US, and the herbal remedy and internet scam phenomena that have popped up in the recent era. The problem here is that the common consumer cannot be trusted to make informed decisions and the corporations cannot be trusted to inform and not take advantage of consumer stupidity.

You want another example? This Halloween, there was a scandal involving imported chocolates that were found to contain potentially-dangerous amounts of lead in them.

Show me an influence worth considering, and I’ll consider it.

Off the top of my head: Supply, demand, cost to produce, cost to transport, tariffs, taxes, wages paid to employees, utilities, weather, natural disasters and accidents, opinions of other nations, quality of product, and profits sought.

Little secret: Get in touch with reality.

I am in touch with reality. I also know that you are not bothering to take into account or are outright ignoring quite a bit in favor of something that really doesn't have a good arguement behind supporting it.

In the real world, your situation doesn’t exist, and will never exist, because it’s entirely beyond the laws of the natural world, diplomacy, and economics. This nullifies your argument, and makes every word you have said essentially worthless.

No, you just proved your proposal is not worthy of NSUN consideration. Why? Because NS is not reality. Your proposal only affects the NSUN, of which my Empire is a member of (even if only one territory is in the UN). In NS, my scenario is far from unique, and similar scenarios of people being immune to a global economy for one reason or another are actually quite common. You have to deal with the physics and realities of NSUN in the cases where it overrides reality, and this is one of those cases.

Your arguement is invalid due to not logically considering the fact NS has several rules, scenarios, and examples that differ from reality. Thus, your proposal has no logical base on which to rest and is thereby rejected as not worthy of consideration.

If anyone is looking for hard evidence:





I rest my case.

Case not supported by evidence, due to evidence take out of context. The context:

Allow me to add a third one:
Income Tax Rate: 0%

In other words, these calcs rely pretty heavily on population.

Due to him having no income tax and a lack of statistics for other tax rates provided, the evidence leans towards Hack pointing out the idea the calculator is actually illogical to use and, thus, that in all actuallity he has no actual government budget.

When you are ready to provide an arguement worthy of consideration, we'll still be here.

A country can’t produce everything on their own, it’s highly impractical. They will have to trade eventually or the standard of living will decline dramatically.

Up to this point, you have not even shown how this is going to happen. And it isn't impractical. A self-sufficient economy is in fact desirable. It's simply that when trade is easier without too much of an detrimental impact, there is no point.

It’s a horrible idea for any country to hinge its economic stability in a market that it can not compete in.

That can't always be helped. But even so, why is it a problem for a country to act to protect its economic interests?

I think some people are getting the idea that if the proposal would be put into action, the divide between rich and poor would widen, everyone would be working in sweatshops, and there would be a small elite class that inherits all the money. This is not the case.

WHAT? You are misreading me horribly if you think I'm going in that direction. In any case, strawmanning isn't going to get you anywhere.

That is, if workers are being paid little to none, how can they be expected to go out and purchase goods and services, so that the economy keeps moving along?

Not all economies are dependent on consumer spending. In fact, it would be reasonable to say that such economies are in fact undesirable because of the excessive consumption of resources they cause - case in point, United States of America.

You have also not answered the point that successful communist and socialist economies exist in NSWorld, and no, dismissing communism on the basis of the failure of an economy which was raped and pillaged by a dictator and wasn't really communist in the first place isn't an adequate response.

Imported products are harder to come by, precisely because they are imported. That provides an inherent advantage to local competition. In many cases, it balances out the low cost of overseas production.

Well then, it should be impossible for Wal-Mart, which imports the vast majority of its products from China into the USA, to have the prices it does.

Infrastructure is key for every nation, and governments provide most of the infrastructure support. But why couldn’t corporations pick up the tab? There are many corporations that already provide infrastructure to its customers. For instance, SBC laying down telephone and high speed data lines, NBC providing broadcast towers, Verizon Wireless providing communications infrastructure…

Corporations are more than able to provide these services. Furthermore, corporations often provide superior results in these tasks. Compare public and private schools. Socialized and privatized healthcare. Need I go on?

I cannot help but burst out laughing at this. Privatization of utilities has failed in ranges from small to huge almost everywhere from South America to Europe; in the US just think California, and Enron. You also cannot compare public schools to private schools - that is like comparing Saks Fifth Avenue and K-Mart. Private schools cater to a premium market, while public schools offer the basic service. Likewise the difference between public and private healthcare.

There's a simple reason for this - where public services are concerned, they should be run for public benefit, not private profit. I don't want my electricity, gas, or water company to be worried about fleecing me. Because that's how privatisation efforts have turned out.

Hahahahah he thinks Evian should be allowed to provide TAP WATER! EVIAN, which sells tiny little bottles for $3! Hahaha... sorry, couldn't help myself.

Given the current state of the industry, wouldn’t you say there is a greater demand for low cost carriers anyway? Perhaps that’s what consumers want. Maybe, to stay competitive, US Airways should adjust their business plan to ensure their success in the future, instead of beating their heads against a brick wall.

Once again, Saks Fifth Avenue versus K-Mart. Premium versus bare-bones.

My suggestion to those who lost their factory jobs - learn a new profession. If you are too ignorant to learn a new profession, then you are shit out of luck.

Sure, you talk big on the Internet. Try telling that to someone who is actually in that position.

Doesn’t common sense say that government operated anything results in something with inferior quality? Like socialized healthcare…

All things considered, I'd say the Canadian system beats the pants out of the American system. Affordable quality if you're patient, and if the wait gets too long the government pays to send you private. This is of course debatable, and I know the healthcare system in Canada has serious issues - but to say it has inferior quality just because the government runs it is just stupid.

It is not, in fact, common sense that government operated is less quality. Quality has in many cases deterioated after privatization, once again, I point to California's power supply system. Don't make blanket statements if you can't back them up.

And if consumers don’t care about safe products, that’s a consumer issue. It’s not up to the US or the UN to dictate consumer tastes.

What DLE said. And if the consumer taste is for dead babies, I think I'd be stepping in to dictate things.


If anyone is looking for hard evidence:


Dear Lord, were you serious?

I wonder if he realizes my government-produced goods, rare though they are, are actually of higher quality than that available to the public. Of course, I use fully automated factories overseen by advanced AIs for government factories, so I would say I have better quality control.

Tekanian tariff policies exist to remove the posibility of local industry from carrying their production out of state. Thereby bolstering local economy.

Such that, business' which move out of the state, no longer can complete with business residing in the state, thereby increasing tekanian national exports, and decreasing the need for imports. Thereby increasing the amount this Republic provides to the world, while making it still viably, and functionally, internally, economicaly efficient.

Oh yes, I was trying to remember this... if you want a prime example of quality without private funds, think the BBC. I think it is safe to say that especially with American news outlets like CNN turning into US Army cheerleaders, this is the most trusted news source in the developed, if not the entire world, and they air some excellent programming.

Great. Another economic theorist dwelling in cloud cuckoo land.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: Let's have a bit less of this stat-stroking, hmm? The calculators are hardly sophisticated.