NationStates Jolt Archive

Fair Trade Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Toast Coverings

Description: KNOWING that third world countries are often paid extremely low amounts of money for their natural resources such as tea, coffee etc.

NOTES that third world countries need economic co-operation and support in order to decrease poverty in their nation.

REALISING that nations will still need to pay shipping costs of the imports.


REQUESTS that third world nation goods may not be purchased by first world nations for less than 20% of the final recommended retail price in the first world nation.

An exception from this act would include goods that may be plentiful in one area and rare in another, in this case, the goods pay be purchased for as little as 5% of the recommended retail price in the nation that the goods will be sold in.

I am currently seeking further approval for this proposal and would greatly appreciate support for it. If see something that should be ammended perhaps mention it now and I can ammend it if I resubmit it.

Is what you suggest even possible?

I don't see any reason why it isn't, give me an example otherwise I have no idea what's wrong with it.

Well for one thing, I didnt know I was trading with other nations.

Reduce barriers to free trade?

This resolution would add a pretty significant barrier to it.

What do you have against poor people in third world countries, that you want them to starve to death?

I think you're missing the point. Goods are bought from farmers who grow tea and coffee for extremely low prices because every rich nation refuses to pay them a reasonable amount, which means they have to accept the offer.

But if they can sell it for a more reasonable price, they can afford to support themselves and pay their workers (who are paid around 40p a day which is about 77 cents) proper wages.

And I realised I made a mistake with the resolution title, but after looking at the resolution for hemp production, I thought that it wouldn't be an expense to the industry, and more of a benefit, I guess you could think of this as levelling it out, so to speak.

Also, you have to remember that it will benefit some nations economy.

While it is unfair to the poor farmers and others of that ilk who get stiffed, I do not think its the UN's job to micromanage our economies; Though they may control some aspects of it.

I do not see why we should pay more money for products that third world nations make, we grant them loans, their are world organizations at work in the third world countrys to help them eg. U.N. and we give them good help on how to be more sufficiant with their products, manufacturing and work force based on our experiance.
This could be for many a major barrier.
This can hardly be called a free trade act.

I object to the term "third world nation".

I think you're missing the point. Goods are bought from farmers who grow tea and coffee for extremely low prices because every rich nation refuses to pay them a reasonable amount, which means they have to accept the offer.

But if they can sell it for a more reasonable price, they can afford to support themselves and pay their workers (who are paid around 40p a day which is about 77 cents) proper wages.

And I realised I made a mistake with the resolution title, but after looking at the resolution for hemp production, I thought that it wouldn't be an expense to the industry, and more of a benefit, I guess you could think of this as levelling it out, so to speak.

Also, you have to remember that it will benefit some nations economy.
I think the ambassador from Toast Coverings needs a solid grounding in basic economics.
1. Farmers sell their products for a reasonable price. If they charged more, the final cost to consumers in industrialized nations would be proportionately higher, and those people would start finding something else to consume.

ii. even in the third world, farmers break down into two categories: the ones who are too stupid to do anything more productive, and the ones who are leeching off government welfare. There is no other category of farmer.

Why?
All countrys on the African continent are third world nations. I am not talking about "third reich" nations ok.

PC feels: If the price for doing business in third-world countries were raised, there wouldn't be nearly as much incentive for your nation to do business there. Thus, your nations business would do less business there. Third-world countries would most probably receive less business overall, even though they get more "per business". So, maybe it'll increase the amount received by third-world countries a little, but most probably the effect would be limited to a change in the distribution of the current amount of incoming money.

Again, "third-world" is an antiquated and inappropriate term to describe developing nations.

Well ok, what ever. I don't think that their is something wrong with saying "third world nation" but lets get back to the topic.

Regards,

Why?
All countrys on the African continent are third world nations. I am not talking about "third reich" nations ok.

The proper terms are LEDC and MEDC (less/more economically developed country). And you need to define them.

Also, the issue is not MEDCs buying stuff from LEDCs for unfair prices, it's more often TNCs buying stuff from producers in LEDCs for unfair prices. I'm pretty sure that TNCs could get around your current text simply by having a "branch" based in an LEDC, so that the trade was technically within the developing world.

Look I just said that to make a point. But you are right, I stand corrected. Lets get back to the topic.

TNC -- I assume that is an acronym for "transnational companies/corporations"?

The ability of a nation state to regulate (and tax) transnational or multinational business entities is perhaps a ripe area for consideration. I've been giving this area some thought, but I'm no where near ready to propose anything; but it seems that legislation that establishes the jurisdictional authority of the UN or of its member states to reach transnational or multinational business entities would have to be a first step in order to facilitate progress of trade matters. Nation to nation agreements or multinational agreements deal with the trade activities of the national states involved, and not the private or quasi-public entitles that engage in trade between national jurisdictions. It might be useful to first establish what can and cannot be addressed under the UN procedures in the area of global and multilateral trade relationships.

Look, the way I see it, if you increase the amount businesses have to pay for these commodities, the businesses will simply buy from somewhere were they can get the same amount for less. This means they'll stop buying from the 3rd world nations altogether, and the already fragile economies of these nations will collapse even further. Remember, it might seem like they are paid very little, but it's still all they have to get by on.


Since when is "3rd world nation" inappropriate? I do prefer something a little more descriptive, like "backwards nation". I don't see why either would really be offensive, as it's generally true. Ironically, my entire nation finds the idea of "political correctness" deeply offensive.

Since when is "3rd world nation" inappropriate? I do prefer something a little more descriptive, like "backwards nation". I don't see why either would really be offensive, as it's generally true. Ironically, my entire nation finds the idea of "political correctness" deeply offensive.
Good to hear that I am not the only person that finds nothing wrong with saying "third world nation" . People go to far when they are talking about political correctness, Its like you cant say anything today without being an jerk or whatever.

Good to hear that I am not the only person that finds nothing wrong with saying "third world nation" . People go to far when they are talking about political correctness, Its like you cant say anything today without being an jerk or whatever.
You know, "jerk" isn't really an appropriate term to use in a forum like this.

Ye okay, sorry. Just said it to make a point, should have used another word.

In the U.S. the commodies market works like this: A price is set for a crop or product (wheat, beans, pork bellies, whatever) and paid up front. The farmer plants or grows or whatever his product during the growing season with that money. When the commodity is ready to go to market, it effectivly belongs NOT to the farmer, but to the person who paid the price at the beginning of the season so the farmer COULD grow it.

Sometimes that person wins, because the price at market is higher than what he paid, and sometimes he loses because it's the same or lower.

In nations without the benefit of mass production most of the work is done by hand in soil that could produce more if it was tended differently. The farms or plantations are owned by large corporations or combines and they actually do charge more, but that money does not trickle down to the under educated and un trained in any other labor migrant workers.

When I was a child I worked along side my father as a migrant worker picking strawberries. We were paid by the flat, 1.00 a flat. The owner of the strawberries was paid 2.00 a flat, the warehouse sold them to the stores for 3.00 a flat and the stores sold them to you for 2.75 a pint (12 of which fit in a flat).

Raising the price of the product does not help the workers themselves. Educating them in soil, waste, processing, health and general education does. Raising the price of the product gives more money to the middle men.

OK, I will admit that I have written the proposal poorly, and I will resubmit it with additional facts and information for those in the dark about fair trade, I didn't realise not many people knew about it on nationstates.

Here is a draft of the new proposal I shall submit:


Fair Trade Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Toast Coverings

World trade could be a powerful force for poverty reduction. Many poor people could work themselves out of poverty by selling their products to rich countries at a decent price but unfortunately the injustice of the world trade system is stopping this from happening.

All the world's a marketplace, and all of us use it, whether as producers or consumers. In the globalised world of the 21st century, trade is one of the strongest ties that binds us.
'International trade' conjures images of big multinational companies, rivalries between economic superpowers, and impenetrable negotiations at the World Trade Organisation.
But for millions of people trade isn't just an abstract notion. The terms on which they participate in world markets can determine whether or not their families have enough to eat, whether they can afford to send their children to school, and whether their basic employment rights are respected.

This proposal is calling on nations governments, institutions, and multinational companies to change the rules so that trade can become part of the solution to poverty, not part of the problem.


This proposal demands the following changes:

1. Rich countries to remove barriers to imports for all low-income countries.

2. A comprehensive ban on agricultural export subsidies, which would end the cycle of over-production and export dumping by rich countries.

3. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans, which force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people.

4. Action to stabilise prices for primary commodities at higher levels, and pay more to small farmers.

5. Fair patent rules which ensure that poor countries are able to afford new technologies and basic medicines, and that farmers are able to save, exchange, and sell seeds.

6. Better employment standards, especially for women.

7.A more democratic World Trade Organisation which gives poor countries a stronger voice.

8.Governments in the developing world to adopt national and regional policies that help poor people to access markets and benefit from trade



As you can see, many of these items would free the market for third world nations (I don't think this is politically incorrect, and I see at least two other people who agree with me on this topic) so the title is appropriate.

It's not just a matter of political correctness, it's also that MEDC and LEDC are more formal, accurate terms.

Also, I don't think we've established a WTO, an IMF or a World Bank. You should talk about "loans to LEDCs from MEDCs or international organisations" and scrap 7.

Also, where are we drawing the line between MEDCs and LEDCs? You need to include a defining barrier, or say that a board of experts appointed by the General Assembly will determine which nations are which.

With clause 3, the current wording forbids any and all conditions attached to loans. Delete the comma and change "which" to "that".

I do like that you aren't going into the economic minutae, these broad principles allow individual nations and organisations to find the best way to fulfil the aims in their cases, while the wording ("demands") means there's a lot of international pressure to follow the spirit of the resolution.

OOC:This text sounds familiar. Are parts of it from the make poverty history campaign?

OK, I will admit that I have written the proposal poorly, and I will resubmit it with additional facts and information for those in the dark about fair trade, I didn't realise not many people knew about it on nationstates.

Here is a draft of the new proposal I shall submit:

This shall be interesting.

Fair Trade Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Toast Coverings

Good. Simple, catchy name, strength and category right for intentions, and is followed by an actual arguement worthy of bothering to even read. So far, you're starting out good.

World trade could be a powerful force for poverty reduction. Many poor people could work themselves out of poverty by selling their products to rich countries at a decent price but unfortunately the injustice of the world trade system is stopping this from happening.

All the world's a marketplace, and all of us use it, whether as producers or consumers. In the globalised world of the 21st century, trade is one of the strongest ties that binds us.
'International trade' conjures images of big multinational companies, rivalries between economic superpowers, and impenetrable negotiations at the World Trade Organisation.
But for millions of people trade isn't just an abstract notion. The terms on which they participate in world markets can determine whether or not their families have enough to eat, whether they can afford to send their children to school, and whether their basic employment rights are respected.

This proposal is calling on nations governments, institutions, and multinational companies to change the rules so that trade can become part of the solution to poverty, not part of the problem.

Nice, concise arguement that provides a lot of information. Most people will probably vote yes after that.

This proposal demands the following changes:

1. Rich countries to remove barriers to imports for all low-income countries.

Why? I have the same barriers for imports from all nations, no matter their economic status. Why should I make an exception for poorer nations just because they are poor?

2. A comprehensive ban on agricultural export subsidies, which would end the cycle of over-production and export dumping by rich countries.

I'll leave this for others, as I don't care one way or the other about it.

3. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans, which force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people.

See previous.

4. Action to stabilise prices for primary commodities at higher levels, and pay more to small farmers.

Define "primary commodities."

5. Fair patent rules which ensure that poor countries are able to afford new technologies and basic medicines, and that farmers are able to save, exchange, and sell seeds.

As long as it is technology of their chosen level and they are not trying to buy it from me, I don't care. I don't sell tech.

6. Better employment standards, especially for women.

The head of my defense department is traditionally female. She also has the dictator's right ear. Not a problem in DLE, so I have neither way I can go on this one until I've seen further arguements.

7.A more democratic World Trade Organisation which gives poor countries a stronger voice.

See my reply to #2.

8.Governments in the developing world to adopt national and regional policies that help poor people to access markets and benefit from trade

Hmm. May be good, may be bad.

As you can see, many of these items would free the market for third world nations (I don't think this is politically incorrect, and I see at least two other people who agree with me on this topic) so the title is appropriate.

I'll think about your proposal for awhile.

Maybe clause 1 should be watered down somewhat so as to allow for reasonable restrictions (e.g those allowed for by the epidemic control resolution). How about:

"1. MEDCs to make all reasonable reductions of restrictions to imports from LEDCs."

EDIT: This might help with objections such as DLE's

6. Better employment standards, especially for women.

We feel this is unfair, undefined, and sexist.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

whoo, a lot of things to address here, here it goes,



OOC:This text sounds familiar. Are parts of it from the make poverty history campaign?

Yes, I adapted it from fair trade sources, that way I don't get pedantic people pointing out tiny faults.

I will address the points that have been called into question and I have made ammendments using my own ideas and suggestions from this board

1. This could be changed to "Rich countries to remove barriers to imports that dicriminate against low income countries"

2. No complaints as of yet.

3. I have taken Myopia's advice and have changed it to "3. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans that force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people. "

4. I'm guessing, DemonLordEnigma, that you wanted me to specify the trade goods, unfortunately, this will change from country to country, so I'm not sure how else to do it, unless you wanted me to replace primary commodities as the "top 10 exports" or something.

5. DLE I am not sure what you mean by technology at "their chosen level" , and as there are no other objections, I will leave it untouched.

6. We feel this is unfair, undefined, and sexist. Our nation recognises that in other nations women have fewer rights than men, we are not implying that women should have more rights than men, but they will a bigger improvement than mens, to raise it to the same standard, but I have found a convienient way of defining it.

Ammended Clause 6: Enforced employment standards to be put in place that comply with "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution or the "End Slavery" resolution.

7. For number 7, I have scrapped the original idea as suggested, and substituted it with this one.

"For the countries economic status as LEDC (less economically developed countries) or MEDC (more economically developed countries) to be defined by their Gross Domestic Product. If below the global average (mean), they are classed as a LEDC and if they are above the global average they will be classed as a MEDC."

8. Perhaps this needs to be more specific but I will worry about that later.


To all who have given me constructive criticism, you have my thanks.
Federation of Toast Coverings

A much better resolution. Or... several resolutions, really. Going for the Unified Field Theory of international trade on this one, eh?

Some nits to pick:


This proposal demands the following changes:

1. Rich countries to remove barriers to imports for all low-income countries.

This isn't necessarily adviseable for food. Health regulations are barriers, but they're still good things (even the ones about cheese having to be made with pasteurized milk, which turn me into an international smuggler). Pest-control regulations too. I'll give you 5 for 9 many people would say that anti-GM regulations are good thing too. These are all barriers to free trade.

When you start talking about textiles you run into a whole different set of problems. Anti-sweatshop laws are barriers, for instance. So are quotas placed on a south asian country to try to help out some subsaharan basket case country.

What about things like diamonds or germanium (a major export of the war-torn eastern regions of the Congo, if I'm not mistaken). Your proposal would smack down the anti-blood jewels laws it took the world so long to establish.

If this stuff were easy, it would have been done a long time ago in the real world.


2. A comprehensive ban on agricultural export subsidies, which would end the cycle of over-production and export dumping by rich countries.

Well, we might have better luck getting this one through in the game... in the real world government leaders are going to be killed over this issue.


3. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans, which force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people.

Oh, sure! Let's just legislate that we give our money away with no strings attached to the corrupt and/or incompetent governments that ruined their currencies in the first place!


4. Action to stabilise prices for primary commodities at higher levels, and pay more to small farmers.

Stabilize, maybe. At higher levels? How can you think that's possible? I beg you to take some economics classes.


5. Fair patent rules which ensure that poor countries are able to afford new technologies and basic medicines, and that farmers are able to save, exchange, and sell seeds.

Ah. So Montsano should be forced to give away their GM crops. Wouldn't really help anyway, would it? Because you euros won't let those crops into your countries!

Abolition of property rights (yes, that's what you're talking about) was always a bad idea. It didn't work for any of the communist countries that tried it, it just doesn't work.


6. Better employment standards, especially for women.

We already legalized prostitution. :eek:

7.A more democratic World Trade Organisation which gives poor countries a stronger voice.

Tee hee hee! Right, make it more "democratic" by removing the voice of the democracies. Only corrupt juntas should have a voice.

8.Governments in the developing world to adopt national and regional policies that help poor people to access markets and benefit from trade

Um. Oh nevermind. Asshelmetta will not support this resolution in any form.

6. Our nation recognises that in other nations women have fewer rights than men, we are not implying that women should have more rights than men, but they will a bigger improvement than mens, to raise it to the same standard, but I have found a convienient way of defining it.

Ammended Clause 6: Enforced employment standards to be put in place that comply with "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution or the "End Slavery" resolution.

In nations where women are treated equally (all UN Nations) this is detrimental.
Thanks for the edit.

All UN nations are required to follow "The 40 Hour Workweek" and "End Slavery" so the amendment is useless.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

perhaps I should put "Inspections to be made to confirm that the workplaces comply with "The 40 Hour Workweek" and the "End Slavery" resolutions. A fine will be issued for the first and second warning to the people responsible, the second one carrying a fine depending on the violation, if they continue to violate the resolutions, the company will disbanded and money will be sought from the company to subsidise people who have suffered job losses."

A bit long and complicated, any improvements to this will be considered and likely to be implemented.

Asshelmetta, a lot of the points you mentioned have been addressed, in a post I made a few minutes before yours, but you probably didn't see this.

1. This could be changed to "Rich countries to remove barriers to imports that dicriminate against low income countries"

Which shoots down my only real complaint.

4. I'm guessing, DemonLordEnigma, that you wanted me to specify the trade goods, unfortunately, this will change from country to country, so I'm not sure how else to do it, unless you wanted me to replace primary commodities as the "top 10 exports" or something.

Actually, I was just wondering what you meant to make sure I am clear on it. No objections to this point.

5. DLE I am not sure what you mean by technology at "their chosen level" , and as there are no other objections, I will leave it untouched.

Every nation chooses whether to go with the standard of using modern tech or using a different tech level. In that case, the only objection I can come up with on this while looking at my nation is more one I would use against individual nations and not really a valid arguement against this.

6. Our nation recognises that in other nations women have fewer rights than men, we are not implying that women should have more rights than men, but they will a bigger improvement than mens, to raise it to the same standard, but I have found a convienient way of defining it.

No problem with that.

Ammended Clause 6: Enforced employment standards to be put in place that comply with "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution or the "End Slavery" resolution.

[quote]7. For number 7, I have scrapped the original idea as suggested, and substituted it with this one.

"For the countries economic status as LEDC (less economically developed countries) or MEDC (more economically developed countries) to be defined by their Gross Domestic Product. If below the global average (mean), they are classed as a LEDC and if they are above the global average they will be classed as a MEDC."

Still leaves me with no objections.

8. Perhaps this needs to be more specific but I will worry about that later.

As far as I can see, this isn't a major worry of the proposal

To all who have given me constructive criticism, you have my thanks.
Federation of Toast Coverings

You're welcome.

You know, "jerk" isn't really an appropriate term to use in a forum like this.

Do tell why not, I'm fascinated.

Maybe clause 1 should be watered down somewhat so as to allow for reasonable restrictions (e.g those allowed for by the epidemic control resolution). How about:

"1. MEDCs to make all reasonable reductions of restrictions to imports from LEDCs."

EDIT: This might help with objections such as DLE's

Gee, and the problem there would be - no one who lives in the real world understands what acronyms mean without a definition given, so this one would be given to widespread "pass over" by the Delegates as they don't want to have to figure things out.

"Third World" works better. OR defining terms in the opening phrases.

My argument with Third World isn't strictly based on the issue of political correctness. My argument is based on political EXACTNESS and the antiquation of the term. "Third World" has its origins in France in the 1950's. It was used to describe the Cold War world based on an analogy of the social structure that existed during the French Revolution. Without going into that analogy, it refers to the First World being the democratic nations, the Second World as the Communist superpower (i.e. Soviet Union), and the Third World as the under-developed, pre-industrial nations. If you follow this study to the letter, the Second World no longer exists. Simply, this is an out of date term. The Cold War is over. It's time to use correct and specific terminology.

Yes, "third world" can be interpreted as a derogatory term, despite your collective irritation with political correctness. You could certainly pick better word choice, if you're seeking a genuine consensus of the UN body. We are attempting to be as real as possible in this world-in-a-bottle. And yes, that means being careful not to offend the nations and people you are seeking to help.

Call me a jerk if you want, but I'm a correct jerk.

"Universe in a bottle" is a better term, considering some of the senior posters on this site.

Actually, I doubt the Second World has actually died off. It's just been replaced by successful non-democratic nations of a greater variety.

My history professors always groaned when "third world" was used. There are terms that should die. It is one of them.

If the terms that should have died did, we'd be writing in a far different language right now. It's part of the evolution of the language.

No, it's not. It's the bastardization of the English language. Read "Politics and the English Language", if you care.

I don't care. And I don't like Politically Correct Language either.

Oh - Peaonusahl? As far as "not offending" - cram the idea into a can of beans and toss it over the side. Vastiva is not about to play fuzzy-wuzzle good feelings with anyone; If the UN was about "not offending" anyone, none of the resolutions would have passed, as they all offend someone. We believe this body should effect positive change, not give two hoots about everyones hurt feelings.

"Your country's economy is a shambles, your government is criminal, you have no rights whatsoever - but hey, things are wonderful!" - NOT. This helps no one. Blunt, direct, baldfaced terms which directly address the situation are what is called for, not namby-pamby feely-good crap.

No, it's not. It's the bastardization of the English language. Read "Politics and the English Language", if you care.

So was the word "you" moving from the formal second person to being the entirety of the second person.

perhaps I should put "Inspections to be made to confirm that the workplaces comply with "The 40 Hour Workweek" and the "End Slavery" resolutions. A fine will be issued for the first and second warning to the people responsible, the second one carrying a fine depending on the violation, if they continue to violate the resolutions, the company will disbanded and money will be sought from the company to subsidise people who have suffered job losses."

A bit long and complicated, any improvements to this will be considered and likely to be implemented.

Asshelmetta, a lot of the points you mentioned have been addressed, in a post I made a few minutes before yours, but you probably didn't see this.
Could you either edit the initial post of the thread to reflect the latest version of this proposal, or repost it here?

I can't figure out what you've changed, what remains, and which of my concerns you feel you've addressed.

I don't care. And I don't like Politically Correct Language either.

Oh - Peaonusahl? As far as "not offending" - cram the idea into a can of beans and toss it over the side. Vastiva is not about to play fuzzy-wuzzle good feelings with anyone; If the UN was about "not offending" anyone, none of the resolutions would have passed, as they all offend someone. We believe this body should effect positive change, not give two hoots about everyones hurt feelings.

"Your country's economy is a shambles, your government is criminal, you have no rights whatsoever - but hey, things are wonderful!" - NOT. This helps no one. Blunt, direct, baldfaced terms which directly address the situation are what is called for, not namby-pamby feely-good crap.



You missed the first part of my argument, which doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm for blunt, direct, baldfaced terms if they are accurate. Third World is a term that deserves to die. It is not consistent with the modern world, nor the NS modern world. You need to better define Third World. Update it.

I'll leave this proposal for the dogs. Good day.

So was the word "you" moving from the formal second person to being the entirety of the second person.

I never met a second person I didn't like. :D

Could you either edit the initial post of the thread to reflect the latest version of this proposal, or repost it here?

I can't figure out what you've changed, what remains, and which of my concerns you feel you've addressed.

Of course,

PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS SO FAR

Fair Trade Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Toast Coverings

World trade could be a powerful force for poverty reduction. Many poor people could work themselves out of poverty by selling their products to rich countries at a decent price but unfortunately the injustice of the world trade system is stopping this from happening.

All the world's a marketplace, and all of us use it, whether as producers or consumers. In the globalised world of the 21st century, trade is one of the strongest ties that binds us.
'International trade' conjures images of big multinational companies, rivalries between economic superpowers, and impenetrable negotiations at the World Trade Organisation.
But for millions of people trade isn't just an abstract notion. The terms on which they participate in world markets can determine whether or not their families have enough to eat, whether they can afford to send their children to school, and whether their basic employment rights are respected.

This proposal is calling on nations governments, institutions, and multinational companies to change the rules so that trade can become part of the solution to poverty, not part of the problem.


This proposal demands the following changes:

1. Rich countries to remove barriers to imports that dicriminate against low income countries.

2. A comprehensive ban on agricultural export subsidies, which would end the cycle of over-production and export dumping by rich countries.

3. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans that force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people.

4. Action to stabilise prices for primary commodities at higher levels, and pay more to small farmers.

5. Fair patent rules which ensure that poor countries are able to afford new technologies and basic medicines, and that farmers are able to save, exchange, and sell seeds.

6. Inspections to be made to confirm that the workplaces comply with "The 40 Hour Workweek" and the "End Slavery" resolutions. A fine will be issued for the first and second warning to the people responsible, the second one carrying a fine depending on the violation, if they continue to violate the resolutions, the company will disbanded and money will be sought from the company to subsidise those who have suffered job losses.

7. For the countries economic status as LEDC (less economically developed countries) or MEDC (more economically developed countries) to be defined by their Gross Domestic Product. If below the global average (mean), they are classed as a LEDC and if they are above the global average they will be classed as a MEDC.

8.Governments in the developing world to adopt national and regional policies that help poor people to access markets and benefit from trade.

Fair Trade Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Toast Coverings
Okay.
World trade could be a powerful force for poverty reduction. Many poor people could work themselves out of poverty by selling their products to rich countries at a decent price but unfortunately the injustice of the world trade system is stopping this from happening.
*sob*

All the world's a marketplace, and all of us use it, whether as producers or consumers. In the globalised world of the 21st century, trade is one of the strongest ties that binds us.[quote]
Overdramatic. Needless. More then one world, different centuries. Cut it out, it does nothing.

[quote]'International trade' conjures images of big multinational companies, rivalries between economic superpowers, and impenetrable negotiations at the World Trade Organisation.
But for millions of people trade isn't just an abstract notion. The terms on which they participate in world markets can determine whether or not their families have enough to eat, whether they can afford to send their children to school, and whether their basic employment rights are respected.
Once again save it for the novelisation.

This proposal is calling on nations governments, institutions, and multinational companies to change the rules so that trade can become part of the solution to poverty, not part of the problem.
Okay...


This proposal demands the following changes:

1. Rich countries to remove barriers to imports that dicriminate against low income countries.
Discriminate. Undefined. You could just declare yourself poor.
2. A comprehensive ban on agricultural export subsidies, which would end the cycle of over-production and export dumping by rich countries.Comprehensive? Is that necessary?

3. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans that force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people
Kill this. IMF-World Bank doesn't exist.

4. Action to stabilise prices for primary commodities at higher levels, and pay more to small farmers.
Okay.

5. Fair patent rules which ensure that poor countries are able to afford new technologies and basic medicines, and that farmers are able to save, exchange, and sell seeds. Okay.

6. Enforced employment standards to be put in place that comply with "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution or the "End Slavery" resolution.
Kill it. Redundant, they already do.

7. For the countries economic status as LEDC (less economically developed countries) or MEDC (more economically developed countries) to be defined by their Gross Domestic Product. If below the global average (mean), they are classed as a LEDC and if they are above the global average they will be classed as a MEDC.
Good.

8.Governments in the developing world to adopt national and regional policies that help poor people to access markets and benefit from trade.
Okay.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

sorry, i made a mistake with the number 6 on the last one, its been edited now though

Discriminate. Undefined. You could just declare yourself poor.

You are classed as an LEDC or MEDC as shown in clause 7, perhaps change low income countries to LEDC to avoid complications.



IMF-World Bank doesn't exist

I will remove the IMF World Bank part so it talks about loans in general.


I don't think the comprehensive needs to be removed so that will remain for now

That should be fine. Thank you.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

7. For the countries economic status as LEDC (less economically developed countries) or MEDC (more economically developed countries) to be defined by their Gross Domestic Product. If below the global average (mean), they are classed as a LEDC and if they are above the global average they will be classed as a MEDC.

Problem - what about smaller MEDCs and massive LEDCs? Their GDPs don't reflect their levels of development. I'd prefer a more in-depth analysis of development by economists and other experts, but at least make it GDP per capita.

Also, I'm not desperately happy about the fairly arbitrary cut-off point at the mean, but since I don't really know much about economics, I can't really suggest anything better, so I guess I'll settle.

Gee, and the problem there would be - no one who lives in the real world understands what acronyms mean without a definition given, so this one would be given to widespread "pass over" by the Delegates as they don't want to have to figure things out.

"Third World" works better. OR defining terms in the opening phrases.

I did say earlier in the thread that the author would have to define them.

Another RL thing needs removing:

impenetrable negotiations at the World Trade Organisation.

Don't think we have one.

Don't think we have one.

Actually, we do. I have an embargo against them for the time being. Mainly because I can, and also because I think the name is arrogant.

Of course, they're not an official UN organization.

It's a mute point but free trade and fair trade are not the same thing, perhaps the resolution would be better filed under "Increasing basic income equality/welfare" for example. If you do continue under the free trade aspect, instead of:

"2. A comprehensive ban on agricultural export subsidies, which would end the cycle of over-production and export dumping by rich countries. "

Could I suggest a ban on all subsidies, regardless of agriculture/industry or imports/exports. By banning only export subsidies, domestic subsidies will still exist, so while in foreign markets there may be competition, domestically, domestic products will still prosper.

And

"3. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans that force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people"

These conditions are put in place so that there is economic progress in the countries so that there is hope that the loan may be repaid as the economy gets stronger, I would also note that if countries do not move towards a market-based system then it could hardly be contrived as a free-trade proposal. Again this is why an increasing basic income/welfare filing would be more accurate.

Well, I don't see that you've really addressed my concerns.
nice preamble, though


[I]1. Rich countries to remove barriers to imports that dicriminate against low income countries.

Senseless. Horrible, really. As worded, this will be used to target agricultural quality and hygiene regulations. Replace "barriers to imports" with "import quotas" and you might be on to something.


2. A comprehensive ban on agricultural export subsidies, which would end the cycle of over-production and export dumping by rich countries.

Make sure the ban applies to "poor" countries too.


3. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to IMF-World Bank loans that force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people.

I can't support a resolution that includes this provision or anything like it. I said before, and I'll say again: without strict conditions, these "loans" are enablers of corrupt governments.


4. Action to stabilise prices for primary commodities at higher levels, and pay more to small farmers.

Look, there is no action that will stabilize commodities at higher levels. If they were worth more, they'd be going for more. That sentence just has the reek of ignorance.

Oh, and pay more to small farmers? Like, pygmies and munchkins?
What does that mean? How is the UN to regulate the dividing line between a poor subsistence farmer, a gentleman farmer who has other income, and a highly successful family farm? Note that I didn't include the obvious outliers here. But how is it appropriate for a UN resolution to have this wording?

Strike everything after the word "commodities", and you have something achieveable. And something laudable, even.


5. Fair patent rules which ensure that poor countries are able to afford new technologies and basic medicines, and that farmers are able to save, exchange, and sell seeds.

On the one hand, that's just stealing. Plain and simple.
On the other hand, why are you still going on about seeds? What do you have against Montsano, anyway?

Restrict the scope of it to "life-saving medecines", add something about safeguards against export from the subsidized countries, lose technology and seeds from the wording, would be my advice.


6. Inspections to be made to confirm that the workplaces comply with "The 40 Hour Workweek" and the "End Slavery" resolutions. A fine will be issued for the first and second warning to the people responsible, the second one carrying a fine depending on the violation, if they continue to violate the resolutions, the company will disbanded and money will be sought from the company to subsidise those who have suffered job losses.

While you're at it, you should maybe mandate the fine for speeding, and the minimum jail time for jaywalking.

No, seriously. This level of detail is wholly inappropriate. And, as you point out, there are already two resolutions in force to deal with this. It is redundant; take it out.


7. For the countries economic status as LEDC (less economically developed countries) or MEDC (more economically developed countries) to be defined by their Gross Domestic Product. If below the global average (mean), they are classed as a LEDC and if they are above the global average they will be classed as a MEDC.

???
Are you trying to insult my little country? We'll catch up eventually!


8.Governments in the developing world to adopt national and regional policies that help poor people to access markets and benefit from trade.
Um, yeah.

OK, so I've repeated many of the same arguments. And I've tried to give positive feedback on several of your points.

Replace "barriers to imports" with "import quotas" and you might be on to something.

But then complete barriers would most likely stay in place


Make sure the ban applies to "poor" countries too.

It is highly unlikely that a "poor" country would ever over produce and be able to afford to dump their materials on foreign soil, and the ban doesn't exclude LEDC's countries, it merely states that it will stop the MEDC's doing it.
But I will replace the word rich, with MEDC, and define MEDC's and LEDC's early on in the resolution.

I can't support a resolution that includes this provision or anything like it. I said before, and I'll say again: without strict conditions, these "loans" are enablers of corrupt governments.


This only excludes loan conditions that force the markets open. Other conditions are acceptable.






Look, there is no action that will stabilize commodities at higher levels. If they were worth more, they'd be going for more. That sentence just has the reek of ignorance.

Oh, and pay more to small farmers? Like, pygmies and munchkins?
What does that mean? How is the UN to regulate the dividing line between a poor subsistence farmer, a gentleman farmer who has other income, and a highly successful family farm? Note that I didn't include the obvious outliers here. But how is it appropriate for a UN resolution to have this wording?



How about, "Stabilizing commodities by setting a minimum price that is reasonable, thus paying more to the primary sector." This is what I believe is called NORM's view on trying to help the economy.



On the one hand, that's just stealing. Plain and simple.
On the other hand, why are you still going on about seeds? What do you have against Montsano, anyway?


This is a bit confusing, you have given a con argument, and then said "on the other hand" and moved onto something entirely different, you could have said, "On the other hand, it's preventing people from using ideas that could help them earn enough to live on."

Seed exchanges are important to enhance agriculture and increase the choices of crops


Restrict the scope of it to "life-saving medecines", add something about safeguards against export from the subsidized countries, lose technology and seeds from the wording, would be my advice.

The technology is important to allow them to progress to a higher level.




No, seriously. This level of detail is wholly inappropriate. And, as you point out, there are already two resolutions in force to deal with this. It is redundant; take it out.


Agreed


???
Are you trying to insult my little country? We'll catch up eventually!



This resolution is designed to help LEDC's catch up, also our economy isn't so well either.

Myopia, I think that the GDP per capita is a good idea, and it has been implemented, also, if a nation wants, it can request an in depth report if they feel they have been poorly represented. And I agree about the cut off, as a major problem may be an LEDC having a rising economy thanks to the resolution, and then suffer when they are classed as an MEDC and certain policies change.
But I do not know how to avoid this and I am open to suggestions.


Finally, Leg-ends, I realise free trade and fair trade are not the same, but some aspects of this proposal are freeing up the market whilst some are restricting it, but I think it causes more progression than recession, so perhaps I could decrease the strength. Would that be an improvement?

Fair Trade Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Toast Coverings

World trade could be a powerful force for poverty reduction. Many poor people could work themselves out of poverty by selling their products to rich countries at a decent price but unfortunately the injustice of the world trade system is stopping this from happening.
All the world's a marketplace, and all of us use it, whether as producers or consumers. In the globalised world of the 21st century, trade is one of the strongest ties that binds us.

'International trade' conjures images of big multinational companies, rivalries between economic superpowers, and impenetrable negotiations at the World Trade Organisation.
But for millions of people trade isn't just an abstract notion. The terms on which they participate in world markets can determine whether or not their families have enough to eat, whether they can afford to send their children to school, and whether their basic employment rights are respected.
This proposal is calling on nations governments, institutions, and multinational companies to change the rules so that trade can become part of the solution to poverty, not part of the problem.
This proposal demands the following changes:

1. For the countries economic status as LEDC (less economically developed countries) or MEDC (more economically developed countries) to be defined by their Gross Domestic Product per capita. Though if a nation feels that their GDP per capita doesn't reflect their true status, it may request a more in depth economic analysis. If below the global average (mean), they are classed as a LEDC and if they are above the global average they will be classed as a MEDC.
2. MEDC countries to remove barriers to imports that dicriminate against LEDC countries

3. A comprehensive ban on agricultural export subsidies, which would end the cycle of over-production and export dumping by MEDC's.

4. An end to the practice of attaching conditions to loans that force poor countries to open their markets regardless of the impact on poor people.

5. Stabilizing commodities by setting a minimum price that is reasonable, thus paying more to the primary sector.

6. Fair patent rules which ensure that poor countries are able to afford new technologies and basic medicines, and that farmers are able to save, exchange, and sell seeds.

7.Governments in the developing world to adopt national and regional policies that help poor people to access markets and benefit from trade

Tidying up
1. For the countries economic status as LEDC (less economically developed countries) or MEDC (more economically developed countries) to be defined by their Gross Domestic Product per capita. Though if a nation feels that their GDP per capita doesn't reflect their true status, it may request a more in depth economic analysis. If below the global average (mean), they are classed as a LEDC and if they are above the global average they will be classed as a MEDC.
Change the bolded section to:

If a nation is below the global mean in terms of GDP per capita, it is classified as an LEDC. If above, it is classified as an MEDC. Should a nation feel that its GDP per capita does not reflect its true status, it may request a more in depth economic analysis.

Reads better, at least to me. You should probably go through and check your singular/plural through the whole proposal as well, reads better if a nation is addressed as singular only rather than switching between singular and plural.

Oh, and a nice splitting-hairs question: what happens to the nations that are on the mean? To how many significant figures are you willing to check?

2. MEDC countries to remove barriers to imports that dicriminate against LEDC countries

should be rewritten as:

2. All MEDC countries must remove all trade barriers which discriminate against LEDC countries

This prevents discriminatory export tariffs as well as import tariffs.

Beyond that, we support the proposal.

Finally, Leg-ends, I realise free trade and fair trade are not the same, but some aspects of this proposal are freeing up the market whilst some are restricting it, but I think it causes more progression than recession, so perhaps I could decrease the strength. Would that be an improvement?
I see no problem with reducing the strength, I would prefer to maintain the current strength and maybe alter the wording and regulations of the resolution to reflect the current strength, but it's your call after all.

Actually, we do. I have an embargo against them for the time being. Mainly because I can, and also because I think the name is arrogant.

Of course, they're not an official UN organization.

Are they the same kind of thing as the RL WTO? If not, I'd scrap references.

Senseless. Horrible, really. As worded, this will be used to target agricultural quality and hygiene regulations.

No. If you discriminate against producers with poor quality standards, that's discrimination against poor quality, not against LEDCs. It just happens that LEDCs will tend to suffer more from such restrictions.


As to the category, ask a mod to tell you what would be best before you submit the proposal.

Are they the same kind of thing as the RL WTO? If not, I'd scrap references.

Not really. I agree with you on scrapping the references.

I took Enns suggestion, and about the countries who fall on the mean, I wasn't sure how to overcome the problem, really there should be a blurry area for the people who fall in the 45% to 55% area. Perhaps an in depth report on those people to determine if they need support or not, this is one of the last problems that I can see.

I have used Vastivas phrasing as well and due to demand, I scrapped the WTO reference.

I may leave the category as it is, because to be honest, I feel the Support Hemp proposal should've really been a boost to the economy rather than a hinderance, so it's almost like two wrongs make a right. And this will have economic progression in itself anyway.

Can anyone suggest a time to submit my proposal that will get most people noticing it? I was thinking perhaps thursday so that it will be at the front of the proposal list at the weekend.

Thanks again for everyones help.

I would suggest getting a mod's approval for the category before submitting. There's nothing worse than finding out you've got a black mark because your proposal was in the wrong category.

In your reply, you revealed your small-spirited intentions, you disengenuous, misanthropic intellectual dwarf.

All you really want to do is make successful people pay for your mismanagement of your country. This is not a "fair trade" act, you cauliflower-faced hermaphrodite; this is armed robbery.

Your intellectual integrity is corrupted by the envy that eats away at your shrivelled self-worth. You view successful people as being at fault for your own failures and wildly self-destructive life choices.

I have told you how I feared your resolution would be used to promulgate dire injustice, and you reaffirmed that that was your intention, you dysfunctional warthog. You have admitted, nay, proclaimed!, that your intention is to steal the hard-won fruits of the industrious. You claim that your only intent is to lessen the suffering of the incompetent, but it is obvious that you only intend to destroy, you perfidious malcontent.

There will be war over this.

That, or a limp-wristed slapping match.

In your reply, you revealed your small-spirited intentions, you disengenuous, misanthropic intellectual dwarf.

All you really want to do is make successful people pay for your mismanagement of your country. This is not a "fair trade" act, you cauliflower-faced hermaphrodite; this is armed robbery.

Your intellectual integrity is corrupted by the envy that eats away at your shrivelled self-worth. You view successful people as being at fault for your own failures and wildly self-destructive life choices.

I have told you how I feared your resolution would be used to promulgate dire injustice, and you reaffirmed that that was your intention, you dysfunctional warthog. You have admitted, nay, proclaimed!, that your intention is to steal the hard-won fruits of the industrious. You claim that your only intent is to lessen the suffering of the incompetent, but it is obvious that you only intend to destroy, you perfidious malcontent.

There will be war over this.

Right, fine, vote against it, that's -1 vote for it, this is how a democracy works, unfortunately, it's not just up to you and a list of insults will not deter me from submitting this proposal.

Enn, do you know a mod I can contact?

So you're putting this in as free trade, right? I will watch carefully, cos my Fair Trade proposal ran into some debate on this topic. (It was to do with international debt) I classed it as Free trade, but there was some debate whether it should not be Social justice. If this gets through it will set a very interesting precedent for fair trade proposals.

Erm, contacting mods. I haven't tried a proposal for a while so I'm not sure of the ground rules for contacting mods about proposals.
You could try TGing The Most Glorious Hack to look over your proposal here (and make sure in your TG that you point out which draft is the final version). Make a point of asking whether the category and strength fit the proposal.

But as I said, I'm not sure whether the mods really want to be TGed. I'll ask around, try and find out what you should do.

When I was working on my SETI proposal, I TG'ed Cogitation for help and s/he was helpful.