NationStates Jolt Archive

I have here, a draft of a resolution I may propose to the UN:

category: free trade
strength: significant

SEEKING to establish mutual economic co-operation between UN member states.

EMPHASIZING that the United Nations organisation aims to achieve economic advancement to all people’s living; to promote better standards of life in larger freedoms. And for these ends, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.

BELIEVING that, members of the UN should uphold these UN values.

AFFIRMING that free trade has comparative advantage for all participating nations. Free trade promotes economic advancement, improves standards of life, encourages nations to live together in peace with one another and, therefore, maintains international peace and security.

CONCERNED that, at present, not all UN member states trade freely with each other. That free trade is restricted by tariffs and import quotas, not to mention bureaucracy. Thus resulting in a general decline in international competitiveness, the development of monopolies and, therefore, a poorer deal for consumers the world-over.

REQUESTS, in accordance with UN objectives, that restrictive practices to free trade between UN member states be prohibited, and a UN free trade zone established.

RECOMMENDS that the following steps be taken to achieve this:

1. Trade tariffs between UN member states be abolished.

2. Import quotas (limitations imposed on import quantities of foreign goods) also be prohibited between UN member states, in the interests of promoting free and fair trade.

3. UN member-states limit unnecessary bureaucracy and red-tape (form filling) that may slow or hinder trade between other UN member-states.

NOTES that, this resolution only applies to trade between UN member-states. UN member-states can still adopt their own trade policies with regard to nation states outside the UN.

Tell me, what do my fellow UN members think about this?

Texcellent! My regional delegate will probably approve this. :)

this is not a good idea, it will make that only capitalist states can be member of the UN, which is not a good case!

Texcellent!
Did you really just say that?

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Did you really just say that?

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Certainly. :)

this is not a good idea, it will make that only capitalist states can be member of the UN, which is not a good case!

In reply to the first objection. The resolution does not make it that only capitalist states can be member of the UN.

Free trade is not an economic system. True, that laissez faire economics is a liberal idea, but it is not an economics system. Communist countries and all moderate left-wing countries trade with each other.

Free trade areas merely break down barriers to trade.

A UN resolution that makes sense!

It'll never pass, you realize.

Is that a joke?

A UN resolution that makes sense!

It'll never pass, you realize.

The problem will be getting enough delegate approvals. If it makes quorum, I think it has a decent chance because there are alot of UN members who don't read it carefully, so if it sounds nice, they'll vote for it.

I want to know though, do you agree with it?

I want to know though, do you agree with it?

I agree with the basic premise. And it's legislation that directly addresses an international issue. So, yeah.

if it still allows exceptions (for trade embargos etc.) I'm all for it

Yes, no mention of trade embargo being prohibited within the resolution.

Essentially, a trade embargo is when a nation refuses to export any good or commodidty to another nation full stop, correct?

In which case, tariffs don't come into it.

My people cannot support such a broad ranging trade policy. We have sensitive economic interests to consider, and we are not persuaded that the UN General Assembly has our best economic interests at heart. If economic conditions require some fine-tuning or tweaking, this legislation will effectively tie our hands. The imposition of trade tariffs and regulations is a matter that should remain solely within the discretion of the King.

We cannot support such a measure as is represented by this draft.

As a UN member (I assume) your nation should believe in the principals of free trade, for the reasons stated within the resolution.

The resolution notes that any nation within the UN may still persue other trade policies with regard to states not within the UN free trade area.

As a UN member (I assume) your nation should believe in the principals of free trade, for the reasons stated within the resolution.

The resolution notes that any nation within the UN may still persue other trade policies with regard to states not within the UN free trade area.

People agree with (and disagree with) principles in differing degrees. For instance, to quote the draft:

EMPHASIZING that the United Nations organisation aims to achieve economic advancement to all people’s living; to promote better standards of life in larger freedoms.

Of course I agree that we are all aiming to achieve economic advancements of all people's living, but my government will cease to exist before it will permit the sacrifice of the economic stability of our own nation's peoples for the opulent lifestyles of some other nation. We may well be wiling to make some sacrifices (as evidenced by our mere membership in the UN), but we need the flexibility to ensure that our economy is not unduly wrecked.

Some nations will be more adversely affected than others! And Cascadians would prefer to reserve the right to prevent our economy from being wrecked by a broad ranging trade policy that fails to account for the nuances of global trade!

Nations beware!! For it could be your economy that is sacrificed for the benefit of some other nation's opulent upper class!

I think you failed to recognise one thing in your reply. You did not address my last point referring to the fact that the resolution only affects trade between UN member states.

Your country may adopt whatever protectionist and self-defeating trade policy it wishes with regard to nations outside the UN.

I think you failed to recognise one thing in your reply. You did not address my last point referring to the fact that the resolution only affects trade between UN member states.

Your country may adopt whatever protectionist and self-defeating trade policy it wishes with regard to nations outside the UN.

No, my argument is the same. Your proposal, if adopted, would impose a wide ranging trade policy without any regard to the implications it may have on the respective member states.

As to your second comment -- I might consider it if you were an employee in the Royal Ministry of Economics. Since you are not, however, your comment bears no weight on the types of economic policies we will (or will not) pursue.

This proposal, if enacted into law, will absolutely ruin the economies of countless member states -- all because it is so rigid and inflexibile that it will not allow for the complexities of the world's economy.

Again, each member nation needs to consider very carefully their position on this proposal, lest an economic crisis greet your nation on the morning newscast in the very near future.

Quote:

This proposal, if enacted into law, will absolutely ruin the economies of countless member states -- all because it is so rigid and inflexibile that it will not allow for the complexities of the world's economy.

Let me propose to you the economic arguments behind the resolution.

Firstly, how exactly will the abolishen of tariffs between member states ruin economies?

The benefits of free trade are widely agreed between economic experts. I have read them as:

Free trade encourages competition between firms because no competitive restrictions are placed on rival goods by governments.

This prevents the development of national monopolies. Monopolies, due to a lack of competition, become inefficient.

Healthy competition between firms ensures a better deal for consumers in the form of lower prices.

The abolishen of the tariffs (taxes) themselves reduces the amount of money consumers have to pay for foreign imports.

Economists also point to the fact of comparitive advantage.

The argument essentially states that nation's best specialise in producing goods that they are most efficient at producing. This leads to an increase in output. When they trade with each other, there is a general increase in output.

You do not, my friend, need to be a minister of economics to know these things.

If you like, I can add a 4th recommendation to the resolution.

Quote:

This proposal, if enacted into law, will absolutely ruin the economies of countless member states -- all because it is so rigid and inflexibile that it will not allow for the complexities of the world's economy.

Let me propose to you the economic arguments behind the resolution.

Firstly, how exactly will the abolishen of tariffs between member states ruin economies?

The benefits of free trade are widely agreed between economic experts. I have read them as:

Free trade encourages competition between firms because no competitive restrictions are placed on rival goods by governments.

This prevents the development of national monopolies. Monopolies, due to a lack of competition, become inefficient.

Healthy competition between firms ensures a better deal for consumers in the form of lower prices.

The abolishen of the tariffs (taxes) themselves reduces the amount of money consumers have to pay for foreign imports.

Economists also point to the fact of comparitive advantage.

The argument essentially states that nation's best specialise in producing goods that they are most efficient at producing. This leads to an increase in output. When they trade with each other, there is a general increase in output.

You do not, my friend, need to be a minister of economics to know these things.

If you like, I can add a 4th recommendation to the resolution.

Even if one accepts all these economic theories as true, it would force all member nations into immediate compliance with the directive. What economic theories and assumptions often fail to take into account is that the real world operates with some friction; namely, that there are real people with real investments, jobs, and families in any nation's current industry.

Many nations will find that their most valued industries will vanish leaving vast areas of unemployment -- and the workers in such industries will need to be retrained.

One does not need to be a Minister of Economics to know that retraining cannot occur overnight. Who, then, is to pay for the massive unemployment rates to be caused by this proposal? Who will pay for the workers to be retrained? The member states who have already lost their industry, which produced economic value in the first instance.

Thus, this proposal will wreck the economies of some member states, and the wrecking will come as a continuous cascade. First, the loss of jobs; second, the welfare needed to care for the unemployed (or you could just let them starve); third, the cost needed to reeducate and transition into some other industry that economists claim is more "efficient" (but, in reality, may or may not even exist in the member state -- which is falling deeper into an economic crisis even as it struggles to find its way out the economic abyss in which this measure would cast them).

No, no, no! Not in Cascadia Atlanticus!

Even as a country with a trade deficit, I can't help but feel this is a bad idea.

How does free trade stimulate the growth of an economy? As far as I can tell, that could have the opposite effect. If there's no money to be made off of exports, then there's no reason to do so; and if imports are free, most countries are going to want to get what they can from other countries producing other goods, as it'd certainly be cheaper than manufacturing goods in their own country - of course, most other countries wouldn't export either, because they don't see a benefit of doing so, either. In that scenario, international trade would stagnate entirely.

The only way the system works is with the smaller economies that are not self-sufficient; they need to export to maintain their economy. Therefore, they could strike deals with other countries that need to export to maintain their economy. However, that system requires a steady web of production, exporting, and importing to and from every country in the UN (as well as an increase in the necessity of priced trade with non-UN nations to fall back on).

If one link in the chain were to be broken, it could have diastrous effects all over the UN. If my economy took a hit because another country had a decline in production in a key resource I imported from them, that blow to the economy could cause problems in my economic relations with others.

Maybe there's something key that I'm missing here, but it seems like far too great of a risk.

You fail to make a valid argument as to how free trade would cause your industries to vanish.

Free trade encourages industry, not discourages it. That is why I made the proposal in the first place.

The resolution only recommends that UN states be required to do 3 things. Abolish tariffs on goods traded between them. Remove import quotas on goods traded between them. And, to their best efforts, reduce unecessary red tape that might restrict trade between them. Asides from these things, UN member states can do anything else to protect their domestic industries. E.g. subsidising exports etc.

And I make this point once more, because you do not seem to have acknowledged it.

That the resolution only applies to UN member states. You may adopt any trade policy you wish with regard to nations outside the UN free trade zone.

If you wish, I can add a 4th recommendation if it would make it more acceptable to you.

Maybe there's something key that I'm missing here, but it seems like far too great of a risk.

Here, here. That's precisely the point, in my opinion. It's just too risky to try to regulate the trade of all the UN nations with one, inflexible principle. Too risky for individual nations, and too risky for trade in general.

And I make this point once more, because you do not seem to have acknowledged it.

That the resolution only applies to UN member states. You may adopt any trade policy you wish with regard to nations outside the UN free trade zone.


I addressed this point when I said that the proposal is still unacceptable because it unduly restrains nation's abilities to tweak trade policy to address the nuances of its national needs.

Here, here. That's precisely the point, in my opinion. It's just too risky to try to regulate the trade of all the UN nations with one, inflexible principle. Too risky for individual nations, and too risky for trade in general.

Why? The wording is such that you can ignore it for RP purposes. And the passage of the proposal would help your economic game stats.

Even as a country with a trade deficit, I can't help but feel this is a bad idea.

How does free trade stimulate the growth of an economy? As far as I can tell, that could have the opposite effect. If there's no money to be made off of exports, then there's no reason to do so; and if imports are free, most countries are going to want to get what they can from other countries producing other goods, as it'd certainly be cheaper than manufacturing goods in their own country - of course, most other countries wouldn't export either, because they don't see a benefit of doing so, either. In that scenario, international trade would stagnate entirely.

The only way the system works is with the smaller economies that are not self-sufficient; they need to export to maintain their economy. Therefore, they could strike deals with other countries that need to export to maintain their economy. However, that system requires a steady web of production, exporting, and importing to and from every country in the UN (as well as an increase in the necessity of priced trade with non-UN nations to fall back on).

If one link in the chain were to be broken, it could have diastrous effects all over the UN. If my economy took a hit because another country had a decline in production in a key resource I imported from them, that blow to the economy could cause problems in my economic relations with others.

Maybe there's something key that I'm missing here, but it seems like far too great of a risk.

Yes you are missing something key here. You don't seem to understand what free trade is.

As you seem largely ignorant of economics allow me to explain.

Free trade, does NOT actually mean FREE TRADE. It means the abolishen of tax on imported goods and other restrictions. They still have to pay for the imported goods - just not with tax on top. Understand now?

You fail to make a valid argument as to how free trade would cause your industries to vanish.


We don't need a valid argument. Arguments are theoretical.

We need a valid example. Examples are practical (and are therefore more conclusive on this issue).

And the world abounds with examples of free trade agreements that have caused the exodus of jobs into countries that can produce the goods cheaper, for whatever reasons.

Leaving the workers of the country that previously produced such goods without jobs -- and then, the retraining disaster.

Some of this can be ameliorated, at least in part, by sensible regulations concerning some tariffs and/or quota regulations.

Make no mistake about it; jobs have been lost due to inflexible and miscalculated "free" trade agreements, and they will also be lost in the wake of legislation of this sort.

Fellow nations, please heed this warning!

While free trade has many benefits as you have said (such as improved productivity etc.), totally free trade has some drawbacks.

Free Trade, by it's very nature encourages countries to specialise in production of only one or two goods. While this, in normal circumstances, increases productivity and benefits the world as a whole, it leaves a country highly unflexible to any slight changes in world demand.

If demand for the good a country produced evaporated that country would face extraordinary levels of unemployment, leading quite possibly to the collapse of the government, as the governments income through taxation would become almost non-existant.

Also the Resolution does not take into account any compensation for the countries that would lose substantial sources of employment as
production was outsourced to cheaper labour markets. This would have a dual impact; it would increase levels of employment in third world countries while drastically decreasing employment in first world countries. Destroying the main markets for the good being produced , thus leaving the world's economy highly unstable.

In order to secure higher levels of living for the people of my country, i would like to have the right to put tariffs on imports in order to stimulate home industries and internal economic growth, which is why i would be unable to support this resolution.

So, you want to take this debate out into the real world, do you?

I would prefer not to, but I guess I now have to. You say you don't need valid arguments. Well, you do actually. Valid arguments are arguments that are based on facts, not fiction.

1.) Jobs are lost in a variety of ways. Free trade results in economic growth. And economic growth means job creation.

2.) And, as for real world examples, I point to GATT. The general agreement on trade and tariffs. Essentially, this was a body established in the 70's to reduce international trade tariffs and promote free trade. Why? For the reasons I have presented to you.

By the way, you should not be asking for real world examples anyway. This is nationstates, not the real world.

So, you want to take this debate out into the real world, do you?

I would prefer not to, but I guess I now have to. You say you don't need valid arguments. Well, you do actually. Valid arguments are arguments that are based on facts, not fiction.

1.) Jobs are lost in a variety of ways. Free trade results in economic growth. And economic growth means job creation.

2.) And, as for real world examples, I point to GATT. The general agreement on trade and tariffs. Essentially, this was a body established in the 70's to reduce international trade tariffs and promote free trade. Why? For the reasons I have presented to you.

By the way, you should not be asking for real world examples anyway. This is nationstates, not the real world.

OOC: Nobody was talking about the real world. When talking about the "world" in character, one means the NS "world." Just as when I refer to my "government," I mean my NS "government."

Merely imagination, fun & games.

How cute. Someone who wants to promote peace between all nations decides to directly insult another country (due to a simple misunderstanding in terminology), who expresses their thoughts peacefully and concisely. Practice what you preach.

I had prepared a fairly decent counteraction to your statement, but Liberated Free States said pretty much everything I wanted to - particularly with his/her/their statement that a free trade system encourages a country to specialize in a specific industry. What if a country has difficulty encouraging enough trade with their industries to counterbalance their imports? Powerhouse economies are going to theoretically be able to dominate the smaller countries, due to their massive amounts of production in various fields.

Quote

And the world abounds with examples of free trade agreements that have caused the exodus of jobs into countries that can produce the goods cheaper, for whatever reasons.

Explain this comment then.

Quote

And the world abounds with examples of free trade agreements that have caused the exodus of jobs into countries that can produce the goods cheaper, for whatever reasons.

Explain this comment then.

OOC: I did. It's called imagination, fun & games.

That's what all of this is about.

IC: King Solomon's Ministries of Economics has compiled extensive data concerning the catastrophic loss of jobs in the wake of voluntary "free" trade agreements in other regions.

I had prepared a fairly decent counteraction to your statement, but Liberated Free States said pretty much everything I wanted to - particularly with his/her/their statement that a free trade system encourages a country to specialize in a specific industry. What if a country has difficulty encouraging enough trade with their industries to counterbalance their imports? Powerhouse economies are going to theoretically be able to dominate the smaller countries, due to their massive amounts of production in various fields.

I must say, I quite agree! That is what I intended with my comments concerning sacrificing one's economy for the benefit of some other wealthier nation's opulent lifestyles.

Not every nation in the NSUN is a "free" or democratic nation. We do not all wish to have free trade, tariffs and quotas may be neccessary to our economic situation. This proposal is ridiculous, it is unfair to expect for all UN members to be bound by the same rules of trade.

While free trade has many benefits as you have said (such as improved productivity etc.), totally free trade has some drawbacks.

Free Trade, by it's very nature encourages countries to specialise in production of only one or two goods. While this, in normal circumstances, increases productivity and benefits the world as a whole, it leaves a country highly unflexible to any slight changes in world demand.

If demand for the good a country produced evaporated that country would face extraordinary levels of unemployment, leading quite possibly to the collapse of the government, as the governments income through taxation would become almost non-existant.

Also the Resolution does not take into account any compensation for the countries that would lose substantial sources of employment as
production was outsourced to cheaper labour markets. This would have a dual impact; it would increase levels of employment in third world countries while drastically decreasing employment in first world countries. Destroying the main markets for the good being produced , thus leaving the world's economy highly unstable.

In order to secure higher levels of living for the people of my country, i would like to have the right to put tariffs on imports in order to stimulate home industries and internal economic growth, which is why i would be unable to support this resolution.

It is true that, free trade does not necessarily cure the world's economic problems. But it tackles them.

You say that, if demand for a good that a country produces falls, this will result in unemployment. While that may be true. Adopting a protectionist policy would hardly cure the situation.

Protectionism discourages competition, and without competition, your industries will not flourish, but become inefficient.

If anything, I was concerned that my resolution would be to the benefit of the established MEDC countries and detriment of the third-world. However, you argue here that third-world countries would benefit, not a bad thing, since the whole point of my resolution is to encourage economic advancement.

I have another recommendation that I have not included within the draft copy here. It was that, more economically advanced nations provide subsidies to Less economically developed nations that would enable them to develop their industries. How much more acceptable would that make the resolution?

Finally, I would like to add that the resolution offers a degree of flexibility, in that the creation of a UN free trade zone only affect trade between member states. In which case, you can still adopt protectionist policies with nations outside the UN.

SEEKING to establish mutual economic co-operation between UN member states.

Why?

EMPHASIZING that the United Nations organisation aims to achieve economic advancement to all people’s living; to promote better standards of life in larger freedoms. And for these ends, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.

Which can be done without my nation trading with inferiors.

BELIEVING that, members of the UN should uphold these UN values.

Some of us actually do.

AFFIRMING that free trade has comparative advantage for all participating nations. Free trade promotes economic advancement, improves standards of life, encourages nations to live together in peace with one another and, therefore, maintains international peace and security.

Uh, no.

Free trade means I have to allow in inferior products that fail to meet my own safety requirements from less developped nations that hold a less evolved species. All this does is flood my markets with what amounts to low quality junk just because you think it will improve international relations.

This will cause the exact opposite of encouraging peace and security in my nation. My corporations will lose out to corporations who lack my standards and who pay people less money than my nation does, meaning a loss of jobs. Jobs start going down, people are going to start wanting the blood of who is responsible, and it won't be me. The only other solution is to send them to fight the nations that are the cause, which means you'll be seeing quite a few more wars and a lot more deaths. And if I have to do that, no guarantees my soldiers will listen to the Eon Convention.

I know my people, and I know this will lead to war, whether with someone else or civil. And I'm not going to let a civil war happen. Your nation will be the first target, and no guarantees when I'll stop or if there will be anyone left afterwards.

CONCERNED that, at present, not all UN member states trade freely with each other. That free trade is restricted by tariffs and import quotas, not to mention bureaucracy. Thus resulting in a general decline in international competitiveness, the development of monopolies and, therefore, a poorer deal for consumers the world-over.

I mostly don't trade because my economy is almost entirely self-sufficient. I trade a few metals for robots and a certain resource, but otherwise I have no need for outsiders. And considering the shoddy, half-assed products Earth has in comparison to my own, I'm not in any hurry to change that. And the reason I call them such is that, by DLE standards, they are.

At least you can say I treat everyone equally. If you want the metals I sell, I'll accept cash.

REQUESTS, in accordance with UN objectives, that restrictive practices to free trade between UN member states be prohibited, and a UN free trade zone established.

See above for the results.

RECOMMENDS that the following steps be taken to achieve this:

1. Trade tariffs between UN member states be abolished.

2. Import quotas (limitations imposed on import quantities of foreign goods) also be prohibited between UN member states, in the interests of promoting free and fair trade.

3. UN member-states limit unnecessary bureaucracy and red-tape (form filling) that may slow or hinder trade between other UN member-states.

See above. This won't result in something that will have the goals you are looking for.

NOTES that, this resolution only applies to trade between UN member-states. UN member-states can still adopt their own trade policies with regard to nation states outside the UN.

My policies with outside the UN are the same as inside the UN. Everyone is treated equally.

Tell me, what do my fellow UN members think about this?

I think I've made my opinion well known by now.

This resolution would only benefit third world countries in the short term. Unlimited free trade would lead to a see-sawing world economy. Where the third world would benefit at the expense of the first world, however this would be short lasting as the market in the first world for goods produced in the third would disappear as unemployment grew in the first world. This would eventually end up at a point of equilibrium where the third and first worlds approached something like equality, this would be at the expense of first world countries as they would lose thier high standards of living.

Obviously this would be very unpopular with the general public and would result in governments losing power. Which is what governments want to avoid at all costs. Also while I support in principle the idea of subsidising poor countries to encourage their industries to grow, this would not be popular with the vast majority of countries and is so likely to be unsuccessful.

Governments would come under great pressure from the populace if this resolution was put into place as the majority of the public do not understand that free trade will eventually benefit them. They would be put off by the initial job losses and it would be hard to convince the public that things would improve. These factors would make the resolution unworkable as the people expect their government to protect local jobs.

In some countries, it's actually worse than that. They would, due to high standards for products made locally, continue to lose in the economic battle until they either did away with the standards, thus further disadvantaging the people, or took drastic action. My people won't accept a loss of standards, some of which they have held for millenia. And when I take drastic options, people die in the millions, and you know I'll make sure it isn't my people.

Uh, no.

Free trade means I have to allow in inferior products that fail to meet my own safety requirements from less developped nations that hold a less evolved species. All this does is flood my markets with what amounts to low quality junk just because you think it will improve international relations.

This will cause the exact opposite of encouraging peace and security in my nation. My corporations will lose out to corporations who lack my standards and who pay people less money than my nation does, meaning a loss of jobs. Jobs start going down, people are going to start wanting the blood of who is responsible, and it won't be me. The only other solution is to send them to fight the nations that are the cause, which means you'll be seeing quite a few more wars and a lot more deaths. And if I have to do that, no guarantees my soldiers will listen to the Eon Convention.

I know my people, and I know this will lead to war, whether with someone else or civil. And I'm not going to let a civil war happen. Your nation will be the first target, and no guarantees when I'll stop or if there will be anyone left afterwards.

Do you actually understand what free trade is?

If, as you say, that your products are of such superior quality, then, it stands to reason, that, you should have no need to protect your industry from foreign competion, since people will only buy your superior products, right?

And, should your products be so superior, then you will, because of the free trade zone, be able to export your superior goods to other UN member states without any fear than they will be able to increase the price of your goods through adding tax. This will mean that your coroporations would be able to sell their much superior goods in other lands, freely and fairly, and, as a result, make much more money. Get it?

This will make alot of enemies. The purpose of the UN is to create peace. This will make alot of countries ineligble for the UN and I belive that as long as the country strives for peace in the world it belongs in the UN.

Thank You,

Krazie
The Republic of Krazie

Liberated free states, you are also wrong about the resolution benefitting the third-world.

Essentially, the free trade resolution wll most benefit the most economically advanced nations because their industries are much more developed and competative.

If any situation occurred whereby equaltiy was reached between the MEDC's and LEDC's that would represent a considerable succes for the resolution. Since, the whole aspiration of the resolution is for economic advancement.

If a state of equality occurred, then living standards would be higher. As, competition is the very essence of capitalism, through competing with each other as equals will inevatably raise business standards.

Anyway, enough of this hypothetical talk.

What I want is concrete advice on how the resolution could be improved.

As a UN member (I assume) your nation should believe in the principals of free trade, for the reasons stated within the resolution.

where does it say that in the nsun charter?

out of curiosity, how would this affect health and safety requirements? anti-sweatshop regulations? cultural patrimony?

I assume that the role of the NSUN like the real world UN, is to uphold international peace.

furthermore, what about the big hole: subsidies to domestic producers?
this doesn't really seem to address that.

while i'm philosophically in favor of this resolution, i am concerned that it limits sovereignty too much.
my nation severely limits imports from, and imposes high tariffs on imports on products from, nations we hate. like Pilot.

as i read this, our choices would be an all-out embargo against Pilot (and they nuked my last country over less than that), or treating them like bosom buddies.

i would need a much stronger military and extensive regional alliances before i could support this proposal.

What I want is concrete advice on how the resolution could be improved.

With all due respect, and given the commentary on the draft so far, I suggest the best way to improve this resolution is, quite simply, to abandon it.

Nations are capable of looking after their own economic affairs, and they can do so in a way that is much more attentive to their own national needs than the approach of this proposal.

The problem with economics is that so much of it is theory and is open to different interpretations which is why economics theory does not always go along with what actually happens.

I would say that due to the current responses to this proposal, the best idea would probably be to scrap this one and start again. This proposal is unlikely to get enough support to become UN law.

You understand that this resolution only recommends three things.

that tax on goods between UN member states be removed.

that import quotas be removed

that unecessary red tape that may hinder trade be removed.

Everything else like trade embargoes are still perfectly legitamate actions.

And remember, it only apples to trade with other UN member states.

I ask you to suggest any improvements that can be made to the resolution.

You understand that this resolution only recommends three things.

that tax on goods between UN member states be removed.

that import quotas be removed

that unecessary red tape that may hinder trade be removed.


These are the only bargaining chips my nation has to conduct its international economic affairs! I oppose the infringement of any one of them, much less all of them!

The only way I could support this resolution is if you removed each of these three provisions.

Uh, no.

Free trade means I have to allow in inferior products that fail to meet my own safety requirements from less developped nations that hold a less evolved species. All this does is flood my markets with what amounts to low quality junk just because you think it will improve international relations.

This will cause the exact opposite of encouraging peace and security in my nation. My corporations will lose out to corporations who lack my standards and who pay people less money than my nation does, meaning a loss of jobs. Jobs start going down, people are going to start wanting the blood of who is responsible, and it won't be me. The only other solution is to send them to fight the nations that are the cause, which means you'll be seeing quite a few more wars and a lot more deaths. And if I have to do that, no guarantees my soldiers will listen to the Eon Convention.

I know my people, and I know this will lead to war, whether with someone else or civil. And I'm not going to let a civil war happen. Your nation will be the first target, and no guarantees when I'll stop or if there will be anyone left afterwards.

Do you actually understand what free trade is?

If, as you say, that your products are of such superior quality, then, it stands to reason, that, you should have no need to protect your industry from foreign competion, since people will only buy your superior products, right?

And, should your products be so superior, then you will, because of the free trade zone, be able to export your superior goods to other UN member states without any fear than they will be able to increase the price of your goods through adding tax. This will mean that your coroporations would be able to sell their much superior goods in other lands, freely and fairly, and, as a result, make much more money. Get it?
You're a new member. I'm a new member. Please don't take it wrong if I explain a couple things I've figured out.

If you haven't done so, change your forum settings to show sigs. Then click on the links people provide in their sigs.

DLE is arguing in character; if it doesn't make sense, it's because his interplanetary empire is in the future. Us present-era countries have little of value to the future time people.

Other countries are swords & sorcery fantasy kingdoms - elves, dragons, the whole bit. Trade between a techno empire and a magical kingdom could be nothing but disruptive to the games these people are playing.

You understand that this resolution only recommends three things.

that tax on goods between UN member states be removed.

that import quotas be removed

that unecessary red tape that may hinder trade be removed.

Everything else like trade embargoes are still perfectly legitamate actions.

And remember, it only apples to trade with other UN member states.

I ask you to suggest any improvements that can be made to the resolution.
another game-play point:

this is what regions are for. this proposal is a perfectly appropriate one to push within your region.

another game-play point:

this is what regions are for. this proposal is a perfectly appropriate one to push within your region.

Asshelmetta's approach would also allow for greater flexibility to deal with the nuances of national and regional trade. I agree that this issue is best left to regulation at the national, regional and alliance level -- not wide ranging, unflexible regulation at the UN level.

How would I pust it at regional level?

Do you actually understand what free trade is?

Studied it in college as a requirement for my real-life job.

If, as you say, that your products are of such superior quality, then, it stands to reason, that, you should have no need to protect your industry from foreign competion, since people will only buy your superior products, right?

Superior products are also higher priced. The products that get bought most often are also usually the cheaper products. Basic fact of economics.

And, should your products be so superior, then you will, because of the free trade zone, be able to export your superior goods to other UN member states without any fear than they will be able to increase the price of your goods through adding tax. This will mean that your coroporations would be able to sell their much superior goods in other lands, freely and fairly, and, as a result, make much more money. Get it?

Actually, you fail to get it on this issue. You want a real life example? Try the US steel industry.

The US steel industry used to produce surperior steel, which was used in many products in the US. Then, the US openned up to allowing inferior steel from other nations. The inferior steel, being cheaper, managed to pretty much destroy the US steel industry. The last US steel industry I can name closed about a decade or so ago.

You're also ignoring the differences between technology levels in this. A nation such as my own has many technologies not invented yet in many Earth nations. Open trade means Earth nations getting ahold of technologies they are not ready for yet. The resulting culture contamination will do far more damage than good.

How would I pust it at regional level?

I would suggest asking your regional members if they would like to abolish tariffs & quotas, and other regulations.

And then the rest of us can negotiate inter-regionally as well.

DLE is arguing in character; if it doesn't make sense, it's because his interplanetary empire is in the future. Us present-era countries have little of value to the future time people.

Actually, I'm a mix of post-modern, future, and fantasy techs. You'll still find bullets in my guns, a good missile launcher tends to require reloading after every shot, and the common vehicles privately owned have a version of nuclear reactors we can produce now.

I notice from looking at your sigs, that you are not a UN member demon. Correct?

How would I pust it at regional level?
Your region's forum is
http://s3.invisionfree.com/England

I notice from looking at your sigs, that you are not a UN member demon. Correct?
This should be good!

Free trade means I have to allow in inferior products that fail to meet my own safety requirements from less developped nations that hold a less evolved species. All this does is flood my markets with what amounts to low quality junk just because you think it will improve international relations.


I disagree. Free trade does not mean compromising on security or standards, it just means that you can not impose punative and insane tarrifs on other nations so that all nations trade on the same footing.

Free trade can also raise standards. Countries producing goods that are inferior to another country's goods would be forced to raise their products to compete.

I disagree. Free trade does not mean compromising on security or standards, it just means that you can not impose punative and insane tarrifs on other nations so that all nations trade on the same footing.

Free trade can also raise standards. Countries producing goods that are inferior to another country's goods would be forced to raise their products to compete.
Free trade pretty much means you have to compromise on safety standards.
More than that, it means no labor standards.

This is too broad.

Free trade pretty much means you have to compromise on safety standards.
More than that, it means no labor standards.

This is too broad.

Why?
(Not why is it too broad, but why do you have to compromise anything?)

Why?
(Not why is it too broad, but why do you have to compromise anything?)


TilEnca, this was DLE's example:


The US steel industry used to produce surperior steel, which was used in many products in the US. Then, the US openned up to allowing inferior steel from other nations. The inferior steel, being cheaper, managed to pretty much destroy the US steel industry. The last US steel industry I can name closed about a decade or so ago.

You're also ignoring the differences between technology levels in this. A nation such as my own has many technologies not invented yet in many Earth nations. Open trade means Earth nations getting ahold of technologies they are not ready for yet. The resulting culture contamination will do far more damage than good.

This should help illuminate the issue some.

[DLE, hope you don't mind me quoting your post as authority on the issue here]

TilEnca, this was DLE's example:



This should help illuminate the issue some.

[DLE, hope you don't mind me quoting your post as authority on the issue here]

Not really. This proposal states that

1) Tariffs are gone
2) Qutoas are gone
3) Red tape is gone

Tell me how - under these rules - I would be forced to accept substandard goods? Why my shops would be forced to sell something that would not reach my safety standards? Tell me where it says I have to actually trade with anybody? All it does is say that if I do trade, I have to not charge tarriffs, not put limits on, and simplify the way I do the trading. No where does it say I have to accept stuff from GeminiLand if that stuff is dangerous, below what I consider an acceptable standard or (basically) crap.

Or have I missed something about the proposal?

Not really. This proposal states that

1) Tariffs are gone
2) Qutoas are gone
3) Red tape is gone

Tell me how - under these rules - I would be forced to accept substandard goods? Why my shops would be forced to sell something that would not reach my safety standards? Tell me where it says I have to actually trade with anybody? All it does is say that if I do trade, I have to not charge tarriffs, not put limits on, and simplify the way I do the trading. No where does it say I have to accept stuff from GeminiLand if that stuff is dangerous, below what I consider an acceptable standard or (basically) crap.

Or have I missed something about the proposal?

The quality of goods is DLE's argument. I yield the floor to DLE to tackle these issues.

I would like to note, however, that I remain opposed to the resolution on other grounds explicated at length hereinabove.

I've got to remind you all again that this proposal has no teeth. It "recommends" things be changed. It's harmless, but it should be failed, because of that.

I notice from looking at your sigs, that you are not a UN member demon. Correct?

Look up the nations listed in the factbook as members of the DLE Empire. Or, better yet, actually bother to check the thread on here about UN members.

I disagree. Free trade does not mean compromising on security or standards, it just means that you can not impose punative and insane tarrifs on other nations so that all nations trade on the same footing.

If that was all I did, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But, that's not all it does. Let me post the part that says otherwise.

2. Import quotas (limitations imposed on import quantities of foreign goods) also be prohibited between UN member states, in the interests of promoting free and fair trade.

Under that definition, you cannot limit imports from any nation. This means you cannot block an import from any nation for any reason, including if it is an inferior or particularly damaging product.

I could, for example, try to export food full of mercury to GeminiLand from Tiamat Taveril, assuming GeminiLand is a UN member. When GeminiLand tries to block the import, I point out he is enforcing a quota, which is illegal under this proposal. When he tries to use paperwork to stop me, I point out the part about paperwork. A few days later, several GeminiLanders die from mercury poisoning.

Worse, I can make sure the food is infected with a dangerous and possibly genocidal virus. Considering Tiamat Taveril is selling a product it got from DLE the nation, Tiamat Taveril doesn't have to know it is infected.

Free trade can also raise standards. Countries producing goods that are inferior to another country's goods would be forced to raise their products to compete.

See my US steel industry example. It shows how companies selling inferior goods can manage to drive out the companies selling superior goods.

Not really. This proposal states that

1) Tariffs are gone
2) Qutoas are gone
3) Red tape is gone

Tell me how - under these rules - I would be forced to accept substandard goods?

The quotas and red tape issues. The moment you try to refuse it, you are setting up a quota or throwing red tape in the way. You're only other alternative is to destroy the source of the goods, and that's a military action most of the time.

Here's a definition of the word:

Main Entry: quo·ta
Pronunciation: 'kwO-t&
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin, from Latin quota pars how great a part
1 : a proportional part or share; especially : the share or proportion assigned to each in a division or to each member of a body
2 : the number or amount constituting a proportional share

In economics, when you place quotas on goods from other countries, you are telling them you are only allowing them a limited share of your economy. Refusing to allow a nation's goods is telling them they have a share limited to nothing in your nation.

Why my shops would be forced to sell something that would not reach my safety standards?

Simple economics. They wouldn't be forced to, but they most likely would. If you can get the product a little bit cheaper, you can try to make more profit off of it.

Tell me where it says I have to actually trade with anybody?

Refusing to trade is setting up a quota on everyone.

All it does is say that if I do trade, I have to not charge tarriffs, not put limits on, and simplify the way I do the trading. No where does it say I have to accept stuff from GeminiLand if that stuff is dangerous, below what I consider an acceptable standard or (basically) crap.

See above.

Or have I missed something about the proposal?

I think you have in this case. Go to what I have said above.

I've got to remind you all again that this proposal has no teeth. It "recommends" things be changed. It's harmless, but it should be failed, because of that.

I know. However, in this case I wish to utterly destroy it instead of allowing it even a chance to live. These recommendations are, frankly, suicidal for a nation to follow.

Greetings again, fellow UN members, and non-UN members as it would seem.

I am pleased to see that the debate on this proposal has continued in my absence.

I hope that I can now, once more, add my weight to the discussion.

Firstly,

I've got to remind you all again that this proposal has no teeth. It "recommends" things be changed. It's harmless, but it should be failed, because of that.

This is an interesting statement to make. Since, it contradicts earlier remarks made by CA, and others, about it severly limiting his nations nations bargaining chips with regard to trade and taking away national sovereignty.

I believe that, if a proposal is harmless, then, it stands to reason that it should be passed if it will have little or no effect on the UN member states. The main argument against the proposal has been than it would be harmful.

I quote demonlord.

These resolutions are, frankly, suicidal for a nation to follow.

Before I start, addressing the issues raised by demonlord, I must ask him again if he is a UN member. I looked at his profile at it appears not. In which case, why are you even talking about a UN resolution, since it would not apply to you anyhow?

Anyway, with regard to import quotas.

The resolution does not say that UN member states have to trade with each other. It encourages that UN member states trade with each other.

For example, if a UN member state does not wish, or need to import Uranium, it does not have to. Import quotas are a cap on the quantinty of any particular good that exporters are allowed to export to the nation. They are imposed on foreign goods and therefore give unfair advantage to home producers.

A quota is a limit, not an outright restriction. A trade embargo enforces outright restrictions, not limits. This is a fine line, but there is a difference. The resolution does not prohibit the right to trade embargoes. It just states that, if a UN nation does choose to import a particular good from another UN nation, that it allows for market forces to determine the level of demand for the good, not the nation's government.

If you wish, I can clarify this point within the resolution.

Do you still believe it warrants outright removal?

The authoring nation has conceded (and other nations have pointed out) that this proposal would have no effect if passed. That the only thing it would do is take up space on the shelves on which enacted resolutions sit.

Why, then, would we enact this into law?

If its an issue we want to discuss but not enact into law, we have the forums for that. We have other proposals that will actually have a legal effect when they are actually enacted, and if this "law" goes into the queue, then those meaningful proposals will have to wait behind something that really won't legally matter if passed anyway.

Now that's the practical argument against such a hortatory proposal.

The strategic argument is as follows:

If the UN shows any kind of offiical recongition of these suicidal trade policies, that will perhaps begin the slippery slope of actual binding resolutions in the future. The ideas codified in this draft represent economic crisis for Cascadia Atlanticus and many other nations, again, as thoroughly explicated herinabove.

We cannot, therefore, support these ideas in any form, binding or non-binding.

*The Representative of King Solomon stands up, nods, and exits the Discussion Chamber*

Nobody conceded it would have no effect, quite the opposite, in fact, you yourself just said that it was a suicidal trade policy - if you honestly believe this, then you must believe it will have effect.

Somebody said that it was harmless. It was not said that it would have no effect, but that it would have little or no harmless effect. That is what I meant by saying it.

The effect it would have, I believe, would be a positive.

Greetings again, fellow UN members, and non-UN members as it would seem.

I am pleased to see that the debate on this proposal has continued in my absence.

I hope that I can now, once more, add my weight to the discussion.

I see no nonmembers here. But I actually have a list of members.

Firstly,



This is an interesting statement to make. Since, it contradicts earlier remarks made by CA, and others, about it severly limiting his nations nations bargaining chips with regard to trade and taking away national sovereignty.

It is. All resolutions that only provide recommendations actually do nothing. However, many of us are arguing against it because those recommendations are suicidal.

[/quote]I believe that, if a proposal is harmless, then, it stands to reason that it should be passed if it will have little or no effect on the UN member states. The main argument against the proposal has been than it would be harmful.[/quote]

Resolutions with no teeth are not worth the electrons they were bothered to make. Resolutions with dangerous recommendations are best utterly destroyed.

I quote demonlord.

These resolutions are, frankly, suicidal for a nation to follow.

Try quoting what I actually said instead of editting it to fit you. You just lost some credibility.

I said, and I quote, "These recommendations are, frankly, suicidal for a nation to follow."

Considering it is the post just above yours, you have no excuse.

Before I start, addressing the issues raised by demonlord, I must ask him again if he is a UN member. I looked at his profile at it appears not. In which case, why are you even talking about a UN resolution, since it would not apply to you anyhow?

Once again, I remind the suicidal delegate from Adamsgrad to bother reading the topic on who is and who is not a member. The list at the top of the topic should be more than enough to help the delegate realize that bothering to read a topic he posted on would show how this question is not only answered but adds to the increasing questions about his credibility.

Anyway, with regard to import quotas.

The resolution does not say that UN member states have to trade with each other. It encourages that UN member states trade with each other.

For example, if a UN member state does not wish, or need to import Uranium, it does not have to. Import quotas are a cap on the quantinty of any particular good that exporters are allowed to export to the nation. They are imposed on foreign goods and therefore give unfair advantage to home producers.

Not allowing any goods is putting "a cap on the quantity of any particular good" allowed in. The cap happens to be a cap of zero.

A quota is a limit, not an outright restriction.

Not matching the reality of it. The reality of it is that a quota is an outright restriction. It restricts the nation to a certain quantity.

A trade embargo enforces outright restrictions, not limits.

Not accurate. An outright restriction is not indicative of not allowing any goods in. That's a ban. A restriction and a limit are the same thing.

Oh, a ban just happens to be a restriction that allows nothing instead of a restriction that allows a few.

This is a fine line, but there is a difference. The resolution does not prohibit the right to trade embargoes.

See above.

It just states that, if a UN nation does choose to import a particular good from another UN nation, that it allows for market forces to determine the level of demand for the good, not the nation's government.

Um, that creates a problem. You see, DLE's government, particularly the military, is the center of DLE's economy. The government pretty much determines the demand of everything, while at the same time it maintains a freemarket economy.

If you wish, I can clarify this point within the resolution.

Do you still believe it warrants outright removal?

Clarify it.

Also, I still know the proposal deserves being thrown in the trash.

I made a mistake, I meant recommendations. Poor misquote.

To be quite frank, as you are not a UN member, I do not give a monkies about what you think about the draft.

Secondly, (hope I get the quote right) I quote you here:

In economics, when you place quotas on goods from other countries, you are telling them you are only allowing them a limited share of your economy. Refusing to allow a nation's goods is telling them they have a share limited to nothing in your nation.

Do you want to look up the dictionary definition of the word "share"? Because, to share something means, to allocate a proportion of something (trade) to somebody else. It is impossible to have a share limited to nothing, since, you would not have a share, full stop.

Import quotas allocate restriction on how many imports of a particular item be let in to a country. This allows for a certain, share, only.

A trade embargo does not allow any share.

import quotas are used to limit the amount of trade, not remove entirely.

They are not used in relation with trade embargoes. Trade embargoes mean that exports to other nations are stopped.

To remove import quotas would therefore, not allow for the restriction of quantities of specific goods imported, but, still allow for the nation to decide who they trade with.

Two server problems prevented me from giving this the smackdown it deserves earlier.

I made a mistake, I meant recommendations. Poor misquote.

Try to use the quote function. We've had problems in the past with people intentionally misquoting and paraphrasing in attempts to alter things to their side.

To be quite frank, as you are not a UN member, I do not give a monkies about what you think about the draft.

You should feel insulted that I have to explain this.

Okay, this is how you go about finding the truth of this matter. First, you click on the factbook link in my sig and read it. All of it. In fact, read it six times. Note the nations I mention as being in the DLE Empire. Now, you go onto NS and look up each name. write down which one has the UN Member tag. Then, you go to this topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391548) and read the first four lines of the first post. Next, you click on the Edit menu at the top of your screen, move your cursor down to the Find option, click on it, type in "DemonLordEnigma" (remove the quotation marks first) and click the "Find" button. You then click the "Find Again" button and note what name is in parenthesis after it. Combine that information, the information you got from looking up that name, and what information you got from the top of the post.

If you still have trouble figuring out the truth of my status with the UN, let me know and I'll lower the explanation two grade levels.

Just so you know, when someone has posted on a topic I point them to and still doesn't get it when I obviously point them towards that topic, I tend to get evil. Nothing personal intended.

Secondly, (hope I get the quote right) I quote you here:

In economics, when you place quotas on goods from other countries, you are telling them you are only allowing them a limited share of your economy. Refusing to allow a nation's goods is telling them they have a share limited to nothing in your nation.

Do you want to look up the dictionary definition of the word "share"? Because, to share something means, to allocate a proportion of something (trade) to somebody else. It is impossible to have a share limited to nothing, since, you would not have a share, full stop.

Let's look up your word and see how accurate it is for this.

7 entries found for share.
To select an entry, click on it.
share[1,noun]share[2,noun]share[3,verb]lion's sharemarket shareordinary sharetime-sharing

Main Entry: 3share
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): shared; shar·ing
transitive senses
1 : to divide and distribute in shares : APPORTION -- usually used with out or with
2 a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common
3 : to grant or give a share in
intransitive senses
1 : to have a share -- used with in
2 : to apportion and take shares of something
- shar·er noun
synonyms SHARE, PARTICIPATE, PARTAKE mean to have, get, or use in common with another or others. SHARE usually implies that one as the original holder grants to another the partial use, enjoyment, or possession of a thing <shared my toys with the others>. PARTICIPATE implies a having or taking part in an undertaking, activity, or discussion <participated in sports>. PARTAKE implies accepting or acquiring a share especially of food or drink <partook freely of the refreshments>.

Hmm. Nothing in there indicates the division of something a person gets cannot be equal to zero, so that doesn't rule out my arguement. But, it does refer to the noun form of "share," so let's look at that.

Main Entry: 2share
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English scearu cutting, tonsure; akin to Old English scieran to cut
1 a : a portion belonging to, due to, or contributed by an individual or group b : one's full or fair portion
2 a : the part allotted or belonging to one of a number owning together property or interest b : any of the equal portions into which property or invested capital is divided; specifically : any of the equal interests or rights into which the entire capital stock of a corporation is divided and ownership of which is regularly evidenced by one or more certificates c plural, chiefly British : STOCK 7c(1)

Since you cannot actually own a portion of an economy (just dominate it) and economic shares are not divided equally, definition number two and the first part of the first definition are ruled out. But the second part of the first definition isn't. It refers to them having a portion, either their full portion or their fair portion. Well, let's look these up.

Main Entry: 1full
Pronunciation: 'ful also 'f&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German fol full, Latin plenus full, plEre to fill, Greek plErEs full, plEthein to be full
1 : containing as much or as many as is possible or normal <a bin full of corn>
2 a : complete especially in detail, number, or duration <a full report> <gone a full hour> b : lacking restraint, check, or qualification <full retreat> <full support> c : having all distinguishing characteristics : enjoying all authorized rights and privileges <full member> d : not lacking in any essential : PERFECT <in full control of your senses>
3 a : being at the highest or greatest degree : MAXIMUM <full speed> <full strength> b : being at the height of development <full bloom>
4 : rounded in outline <a full figure>
5 a : possessing or containing a great number or amount -- used with of <a room full of pictures> <full of hope> b : having an abundance of material especially in the form of gathered, pleated, or flared parts <a full skirt> c : rich in experience <a full life>
6 a : satisfied especially with food or drink b : large enough to satisfy <a full meal>
7 archaic : completely weary
8 : having both parents in common <full sisters>
9 : having volume or depth of sound <full tones>
10 : completely occupied especially with a thought or plan <full of his own concerns>
11 : possessing a rich or pronounced quality <a food of full flavor>
- full·ness also ful·ness /'ful-n&s/ noun
- full of it : not to be believed
synonyms FULL, COMPLETE, PLENARY, REPLETE mean containing all that is wanted or needed or possible. FULL implies the presence or inclusion of everything that is wanted or required by something or that can be held, contained, or attained by it <a full schedule>. COMPLETE applies when all that is needed is present <a complete picture of the situation>. PLENARY adds to COMPLETE the implication of fullness without qualification <given plenary power>. REPLETE implies being filled to the brim or to satiety <replete with delightful details>.

Main Entry: 1fair
Pronunciation: 'far, 'fer
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English fager, fair, from Old English fæger; akin to Old High German fagar beautiful
1 : pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
2 : superficially pleasing : SPECIOUS <she trusted his fair promises>
3 a : CLEAN, PURE <fair sparkling water> b : CLEAR, LEGIBLE
4 : not stormy or foul : FINE <fair weather>
5 : AMPLE <a fair estate>
6 a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with> b (1) : conforming with the established rules : ALLOWED (2) : consonant with merit or importance : DUE <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
7 a : PROMISING, LIKELY <in a fair way to win> b : favorable to a ship's course <a fair wind>
8 archaic : free of obstacles
9 : not dark : BLOND
10 : sufficient but not ample : ADEQUATE <a fair understanding of the work>
11 : being such to the utmost : UTTER <a fair treat to watch him -- New Republic>
- fair·ness noun
synonyms FAIR, JUST, EQUITABLE, IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, DISPASSIONATE, OBJECTIVE mean free from favor toward either or any side. FAIR implies an elimination of one's own feelings, prejudices, and desires so as to achieve a proper balance of conflicting interests <a fair decision>. JUST implies an exact following of a standard of what is right and proper <a just settlement of territorial claims>. EQUITABLE implies a less rigorous standard than JUST and usually suggests equal treatment of all concerned <the equitable distribution of the property>. IMPARTIAL stresses an absence of favor or prejudice <an impartial third party>. UNBIASED implies even more strongly an absence of all prejudice <your unbiased opinion>. DISPASSIONATE suggests freedom from the influence of strong feeling and often implies cool or even cold judgment <a dispassionate summation of the facts>. OBJECTIVE stresses a tendency to view events or persons as apart from oneself and one's own interest or feelings <I can't be objective about my own child>. synonym see in addition BEAUTIFUL

Main Entry: 1por·tion
Pronunciation: 'pOr-sh&n, 'por-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin portion-, portio; akin to Latin part-, pars part
1 : an individual's part or share of something: as a : a share received by gift or inheritance b : DOWRY c : enough food especially of one kind to serve one person at one meal
2 : an individual's lot, fate, or fortune : one's share of good and evil
3 : an often limited part set off or abstracted from a whole <give but that portion which yourself proposed -- Shakespeare>
synonym see PART, FATE

If a person has a share of zero, they obviously have their complete share, so the first definition is dealt with. Considering economies are never impartial, the others of "fair" that do apply must be the ones. And I see no evidence any of them preclude the number zero as being fair. And none of them preclude the division someone gets as being zero.

You might argue that it must be a quantitative amount you can actually measure. Well, zero is a measurement of nothing and is a quantitative way of saying nothing.

So far, no evidence to support the idea a share of an economy has to be above zero. Also, I see no evidence of your claim of impossibility.

Import quotas allocate restriction on how many imports of a particular item be let in to a country. This allows for a certain, share, only.

And the idea of a share does not exclude a share being equal to zero, though, when related to economies.

A trade embargo does not allow any share.

A trade embargo is setting a nation's shares in your economy to zero and enforcing it.

Also, some of us practice a form of "limited trade." This is where we will trade certain items, but nothing else, and place that restriction on all trades. That's actually quite common for a policy.

import quotas are used to limit the amount of trade, not remove entirely.

You don't call allowing nothing from a certain country a limitation?

They are not used in relation with trade embargoes. Trade embargoes mean that exports to other nations are stopped.

No, trade embargos mean that exports, sometimes only of a certain type, to your nation are stopped, usually backed up by military force. In some cases allianced innitiate trade embargos. However, that is limiting the shares in your economy to zero, which through a technicallity you have made illegal.

To remove import quotas would therefore, not allow for the restriction of quantities of specific goods imported, but, still allow for the nation to decide who they trade with.

Contradiction. If you are refusing to trade with a nation, you are restricting the quantities of specific goods (in this case, all of them) to zero into your nation.

Well. Let me see. I think this proposal is a horrible idea for the the UN and would be catistrophic to many nations with weak economies. But then I realize that my own nation would make a killing on the global market if it came into effect. So, it is in the best interests of my nation to support this proposal. As a delagate, many of the nations in my region would be ruined, to include allies. Therefore, I must oppose it.

Free trade is often offered a panacea for all economic ills that a nation may be suffering. However, the circumstances of the nation should be taken into account before prescribing such a uniform solution. Developing countries (such as Ecopoeia) are dependent on protective instruments to ensure that their own industries aren't swept aside by richer foreign organisations.

We would consider a proposal that sought to open up developed markets while allowing developing countries the right to preserve their own. However, this would generate its own problems, since we would then have categorising to worry about.

Furthermore, existing trade blocs such as the International Fair Trade Agreement may be irrevocably compromised by this and similar legislation, possibly leading to mass resignations from the UN.

We are unlikely to support any legislation of this ilk, but encourage you to pursue regional alternatives.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Below is amended draft, taking into account issues raised within thread.

category: free trade
strength: significant

SEEKING to establish mutual economic co-operation between UN member states, in the intersts of promoting international harmony and peace between member states.

EMPHASIZING that the United Nations organisation aims to achieve economic advancement to all people’s living; to promote better standards of life in larger freedoms. And for these ends, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.

BELIEVING that, members of the UN should uphold these UN values.

AFFIRMING that free trade has comparative advantage for all participating nations. Free trade promotes economic advancement, improves standards of life, encourages nations to live together in peace with one another and, therefore, maintains international peace and security.

CONCERNED that, at present, not all UN member states trade freely and fairly with each other. That free trade is restricted by tariffs and import quotas, not to mention bureaucracy. Thus resulting in a general decline in international competitiveness, the development of monopolies and, therefore, a poorer deal for consumers the world-over.

REQUESTS, in accordance with UN objectives, that restrictive practices to free trade between UN member states be prohibited, and a UN free trade zone established.

PROCLAIMS that the following steps be taken to achieve this:

1. Trade tariffs between UN member states be abolished.

2. Import quotas (limitations imposed on import quantities of foreign goods) also be prohibited between UN member states, in the interests of promoting free and fair trade.

3. UN member-states limit unnecessary bureaucracy and red-tape (form filling) that may slow or hinder trade between other UN member-states.

4. Economically advanced nations be required to provide subsidies for nations with fragile or developing economies.

EXCEPTS that trade embargoes remain legitimate actions between UN member states.

NOTES that, this resolution only applies to trade between UN member-states. UN member-states can still adopt their own trade policies with regard to nation states outside the UN.

I am not in the mood to go to all the steps you mention, DL, simply to find out your exacty UN members status.

It would be far easier for me if you could just make it clear for me here.

You are getting silly with regard to the use of the word share

The word share obviously means to share something with somebody else.

A 0 share would mean to have no share at all. Therefore, if not allocated a specific number, above zero, then you do not have a share. Does that make sense to you? Try to keep things simple.

Trade embargoes concern what you export to other nations. Not what you import. This is left to the discretion of the nationstates. It stands to reason that, if you launch a trade embargoe against one nation, then they will respond and stop exporting goods to you. Import quotas are therefore, irrelevent with regard to trade embargoes.

Below is amended draft, taking into account issues raised within thread.

category: free trade
strength: significant

SEEKING to establish mutual economic co-operation between UN member states, in the intersts of promoting international harmony and peace between member states.

EMPHASIZING that the United Nations organisation aims to achieve economic advancement to all people’s living; to promote better standards of life in larger freedoms. And for these ends, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.

BELIEVING that, members of the UN should uphold these UN values.

AFFIRMING that free trade has comparative advantage for all participating nations. Free trade promotes economic advancement, improves standards of life, encourages nations to live together in peace with one another and, therefore, maintains international peace and security.

CONCERNED that, at present, not all UN member states trade freely and fairly with each other. That free trade is restricted by tariffs and import quotas, not to mention bureaucracy. Thus resulting in a general decline in international competitiveness, the development of monopolies and, therefore, a poorer deal for consumers the world-over.

REQUESTS, in accordance with UN objectives, that restrictive practices to free trade between UN member states be prohibited, and a UN free trade zone established.

PROCLAIMS that the following steps be taken to achieve this:

1. Trade tariffs between UN member states be abolished.

2. Import quotas (limitations imposed on import quantities of foreign goods) also be prohibited between UN member states, in the interests of promoting free and fair trade.

3. UN member-states limit unnecessary bureaucracy and red-tape (form filling) that may slow or hinder trade between other UN member-states.

4. Economically advanced nations be required to provide subsidies for nations with fragile or developing economies.

EXCEPTS that trade embargoes remain legitimate actions between UN member states.

NOTES that, this resolution only applies to trade between UN member-states. UN member-states can still adopt their own trade policies with regard to nation states outside the UN.

King Solomon is very nearly offended that the nation of Adamsgrad would claim to address the very serious issues raised herinabove by submitting a draft that would still wreck his economy. Perhaps you could explain how this draft has been amended in such a way that would alleviate the conerns of the many nations regarding impending economic collapse? Or is it really true that the nation of Adamsgrad is totally unconerned with the economnic collapse these measures would bring to a substantial number of nations in the UN? (And please do not tell us that the redistribution program you've proposed is the solution; for we do not need handouts from other nations, as we are currently self-sufficent. Furthermore, we are not persauded that it is not our nation who will end up bearing the economic brunt of this proposal and shelling out payments to other nations!)

Unfortunately, this causes Cascadia Atlanticus to worry about the same credibility issues that DLE raised hereinabove.

Finally, King Solomon would point out that such a divisive trade policy threatens the integrity of the United Nations because it will force some nations to leave to escape the suicidal policies endorsed by any such proposal. If this terrible consequence should occur, then the other princples for which the UN stands will be severely diluted, in the sense that the UN's influence around the globe will be significantly lessened. All because one nation was absolutely determined to force one uniform, inflexible, and unsophisticated trade regulation upon every other nation within the UN.

Surely this cannot be countenanced!

Finally, King Solomon would point out that such a divisive policy threatens the integrity of the United Nations because it will force some nations to leave to escape the suicidal policies endorsed by any such proposal. If this terrible consequence should occur, then the other princples for which the UN stands will be severely diluted, in the sense that the UN's influence around the globe will be significantly lessened. All because one nation was absolutely determined to force one uniform, inflexible, and unsophisticated trade regulation upon every other nation within the UN.

Surely this cannot be countenanced!

Surely it can. Take out the phrase "trade regulation" in your post and replace it with another. "Environmental regulation" and "social policies" are good examples. The UN seems not to mind doing what you just ranted against when it comes to other areas of policy. So why not this one, I wonder?

Surely it can. Take out the phrase "trade regulation" in your post and replace it with another. "Environmental regulation" and "social policies" are good examples. The UN seems not to mind doing what you just ranted against when it comes to other areas of policy. So why not this one, I wonder?

There is a very important difference. We Cascadians don't mind the environmental and social regulations, as they don't threaten to ruin our economy for the benefit of some other, wealtheir nation.

To summarize the arguments explored herein yet again, a proposal such as this one would ruin my economy. And I just can't have my people starving and my government shut down for lack of taxable income. Plain and simple.

We support the social policies of the UN (as do a number of other nations with economic concerns, to be sure), but it'll be a sad day when the UN becomes an economic policy club that unfairly runs away a significant bloc of nations by threatening their economic stability. A sad day for prosperity. A sad day for equality. A sad day for peace. A sad day for justice. And a sad day for unity.

A very sad day, indeed.

Did you not notice the new 4th proclamation within the proposal? It proclaims that the more economically advanced nations be required to provide assistance, in the form of subsidies, to help develop the industires within countries with fragile or developing economies.

This provision would boost your country's economic chances, would it not?

Did you not notice the new 4th proclamation within the proposal? It proclaims that the more economically advanced nations be required to provide assistance, in the form of subsidies, to help develop the industires within countries with fragile or developing economies.

This provision would boost your country's economic chances, would it not?

Adamsgrad, did you not notice the follwing response I posted earlier?

(And please do not tell us that the redistribution program you've proposed is the solution; for we do not need handouts from other nations, as we are currently self-sufficent. Furthermore, we are not persauded that it is not our nation who will end up bearing the economic brunt of this proposal and shelling out payments to other nations!)

First, Cascadians will not accept handouts from other nations that deem our economies "fragile" or "developing." The classification of our national economy is solely ours to make. We do not need to be demeaned by our other fellow nations.

Second, Cascadians are not persuaded that the undefined and extraordinarily vague phrases "Economically advanced nations" and "fragile or developing economies" will not end up requiring Cascadians to make some payments to some other nation, while at the same time suffering the consequences of these suicidal policy notions. If this is what is due to us, why doesn't the UN just invade my people and oppress them now? The result would indeed be the same.

Nay; for the umpteemth time, we do come and say: we cannot support this. And we are growing quite weary over debating our economic situation and policy in the UN forums, for we have pressing issues to deal with on the national scene -- where such issues should be handled.

As much as Cascadians love the laudable goals of the UN, we would effectively be forced to leave if this proposal -- or anything like it -- becomes UN law. Please don't force us to leave.

Adamsgrad recognises the fact that you are entitled to your own opinion, but, would like to add one last thing.

It is just a pity that, the proposal is not allowed to propose that national governments persuing piss-poor economic policies that harm national economies be ousted. I guess that would be going a tad too far.

Yours,

Adamsgrad.

Free trade creates healthy economies. That is why the U.N ranks Santa Barbara's economy as in the world's top ten or fifty for <insert industrial sector here>. Competition and free trade bring prosperity!

It is no surprise then, that anticapitalists and authoritarians such as Cascadia Atlanticus wish to live in la-la land, refusing to even acknowledge the fact (as reported by no less an authority than the UN itself) that their economies may be 'fragile' or 'developing.'

No, their real agenda is clear. They don't mind social oppression at the hands of the UN, but they fear their economy might be "ruined." But is that it? With free trade a CLEAR benefit to nations economies, are we to assume Cascadians are just ignorant or anticapitalist? I think not.

To summarize the arguments explored herein yet again, a proposal such as this one would ruin my economy. And I just can't have my people starving and my government shut down for lack of taxable income.

The problem with a free trade resolution - for Cascadia Atlanticus - is not economic depression (since free trade would have the opposite effect). The problem is that the principles of free trade would make it more difficult for Cascadia Atlanticus to get what they are ACTUALLY concerned about - TAXABLE INCOME. Obviously, in countries where the concept of free trade, and free market economics run strong, people are less willing to be taxed.

Therefore Cascadia Atlanticus, like most authoritarians, just wants to maintain their stranglehold on their nation and people in order to have plenty of government funds for "social" works, like oppression of entrepeneurship and freedom. They don't care about their nations economy - only the tax dollars in their government coffers.

SUPPORT FREE TRADE!

I've seen proposals like this before, and they all make the same blanket assumption: That all nations are at the same economic starting point. Only at this point would free trade be good.

The problem is that Free Trade means that countries with smaller economies cannot protect themselves against countries with large economies. Taking steel manufacturing, for example. Say country A has just come into the world, and B has been around for ages, with a correspondingly large economy. Now A may make steel as just as good as B, but as B can make more of it and supply its own needs while still exporting to A, it will undercut A's prices, putting A's steel industry out of business. The only way A can respond to this is by lowering prices, and consequently production costs, which means a reduction in wages or safety in order to maintain profits. This loss of the steel industry means that A has to import all it's steel, putting it into 'steel deficit' ;now apply this idea to a national economy and you end up with a national trade deficit. Big problems all round.

Now, if A had been able to introduce protectionist measures to allow it's steel business to survive and grow to a level competitive to B's; then, and only then, would free trade become a viable possibility. This is the problem that most free trade measures fail to address.

4. Economically advanced nations be required to provide subsidies for nations with fragile or developing economies.
This seems a lot pointless, why not just scrap the entire resolution and start a new one with this, or somehting similar, as its premise.

Free trade creates healthy economies. That is why the U.N ranks Santa Barbara's economy as in the world's top ten or fifty for <insert industrial sector here>. Competition and free trade bring prosperity!

It is no surprise then, that anticapitalists and authoritarians such as Cascadia Atlanticus wish to live in la-la land, refusing to even acknowledge the fact (as reported by no less an authority than the UN itself) that their economies may be 'fragile' or 'developing.'

No, their real agenda is clear. They don't mind social oppression at the hands of the UN, but they fear their economy might be "ruined." But is that it? With free trade a CLEAR benefit to nations economies, are we to assume Cascadians are just ignorant or anticapitalist? I think not.



The problem with a free trade resolution - for Cascadia Atlanticus - is not economic depression (since free trade would have the opposite effect). The problem is that the principles of free trade would make it more difficult for Cascadia Atlanticus to get what they are ACTUALLY concerned about - TAXABLE INCOME. Obviously, in countries where the concept of free trade, and free market economics run strong, people are less willing to be taxed.

Therefore Cascadia Atlanticus, like most authoritarians, just wants to maintain their stranglehold on their nation and people in order to have plenty of government funds for "social" works, like oppression of entrepeneurship and freedom. They don't care about their nations economy - only the tax dollars in their government coffers.

SUPPORT FREE TRADE!

This argument is an affront to any nation that ever wishes to tax its citizens for any purpose.

I urge every nation that values its sovereign authority to tax its peoples for the common good to vote against the proposal on this additional basis as well.

Oh ... and Cascadians? Authoritarians?

If the representative from Santa Barbara would care to view the Cascadian UN profile, they would undoubtedly see that Cascadia is an "inoffensive centrist democracy." Whatever taxes we impose are done so at the will of the people.

Your nation's reckless disregard for the facts coupled with your nation's disregard for the delicate and intricate economic circumstances of different nations strips your nation of all credibility in this debate, as far as Cascadians are concerned.

There is a very important difference. We Cascadians don't mind the environmental and social regulations, as they don't threaten to ruin our economy for the benefit of some other, wealtheir nation.

To summarize the arguments explored herein yet again, a proposal such as this one would ruin my economy. And I just can't have my people starving and my government shut down for lack of taxable income. Plain and simple.

It would not ruin your economy. Look at the way the resolution is written and how increasing economic freedoms will help your game stats.

We support the social policies of the UN (as do a number of other nations with economic concerns, to be sure), but it'll be a sad day when the UN becomes an economic policy club that unfairly runs away a significant bloc of nations by threatening their economic stability. A sad day for prosperity. A sad day for equality. A sad day for peace. A sad day for justice. And a sad day for unity.

A very sad day, indeed.

Nice rhetoric.

You mentioned that you don't mind environmental regulations. Well guess what? Other nations do, and it's because we don't want the UN fucking up our economies. This proposal is written in such a way that allows for national sovereignty. That means that you can still do whatever the hell you want. I don't recall being given that courtesy with the environmentalist bullshit resolutions that have been passed. You're getting a better opposition resolution than conservatives or capitalists get from the UN, so don't expect a whole lot of sympathy from me.

This argument is an affront to any nation that ever wishes to tax its citizens for any purpose.


It is? Perhaps you mis-read. I was not referring to "any nation" that taxes its citizens. Rather, I was referring to "your" nation, which taxes 2 out of every 3 dollars its citizens manage to make, and which you wish to see it continue doing, even at the cost of your economy or your people's freedom.

I urge every nation that values its sovereign authority to tax its peoples for the common good to vote against the proposal on this additional basis as well.

What basis? The basis that you think my argument was an "affront" to any nation that taxes for any reason? Well, since I've already explained how it wasn't, it appears you have no additional basis.

Oh ... and Cascadians? Authoritarians?

When you argue in favor of government control, when you argue in favor of general taxation "for the common good" (wink wink, Stalin, Mao, Hitler), when you argue against the freedom of people to make their own business and finance decisions, when you attempt to maintain the government monopoly on wealth you argue for an authoritarian, oppressive, greedy government which only has to pretend it's doing something for the common good now and then, for it to get away with hoarding/abusing vast sums of wealth and power.

If it talks like a spade, if it champions spade supremacy, I call it a spade.

If the representative from Santa Barbara would care to view the Cascadian UN profile, they would undoubtedly see that Cascadia is an "inoffensive centrist democracy." Whatever taxes we impose are done so at the will of the people.

Ah! So the UN Profiles are good enough to judge how much will people have, but not how much wealth eh? ;) Flexible, aren't we! Earlier the UN wasn't fit to judge an economy, now it can judge your political system?

SO much in history can be done "at the will of the people," especially when you have a powerful government that has so much money relative to its citizens it can easily brainwash the hapless masses into voting for pretty much anything. Besides, are you really claiming that there was a direct democratic vote on whether to increase or decrease taxes?

Your nation's reckless disregard for the facts coupled with your nation's disregard for the delicate and intricate economic circumstances of different nations strips your nation of all credibility in this debate, as far as Cascadians are concerned.

Which facts? You know, you haven't addressed a one of my actual points, though you've tried to pick a nasty nit or two. I'm not seeing much credibility.

My proposal has supporters, it seems.

Come friends, rally my course!

I might consider limiting the scope of the resolution a bit, maybe so it just applies to manufactured goods or something like that.

It is? Perhaps you mis-read. I was not referring to "any nation" that taxes its citizens. Rather, I was referring to "your" nation, which taxes 2 out of every 3 dollars its citizens manage to make, and which you wish to see it continue doing, even at the cost of your economy or your people's freedom.

We do not wish to get into a contest about which of our nation's policies is the best. We will breifly note, however, that our people prefer some of our policies to some of yours. For instance, the people of my country are pleased to contribute portions of their incomes (which they now actually have, unlike they would if any such proposal as this comes into being) for certain other benefits, including a complete lack of crime. Of course you must recall the following from my nation's nationali profile "Crime -- especially youth-related -- is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare."

Could the same be said of your nation? Hardly. For all the corporate luxuries and excesses you offer to the upper class, "the streets are increasingly clogged with poverty-stricken beggars, and only the rich can afford the latest medical innovations." Cascadians do not wish to live in a society that looks like this.

And this further underscores another point. Proposals such as this speak do not create unity within the UN; otherwise, I should rather suspect that our first meeting would have been under much more cordial terms.



What basis? The basis that you think my argument was an "affront" to any nation that taxes for any reason? Well, since I've already explained how it wasn't, it appears you have no additional basis.

When you argue in favor of government control, when you argue in favor of general taxation "for the common good" (wink wink, Stalin, Mao, Hitler), when you argue against the freedom of people to make their own business and finance decisions, when you attempt to maintain the government monopoly on wealth you argue for an authoritarian, oppressive, greedy government which only has to pretend it's doing something for the common good now and then, for it to get away with hoarding/abusing vast sums of wealth and power.

If it talks like a spade, if it champions spade supremacy, I call it a spade.



How much to tax citizens is not a matter for the UN -- it is a matter for the will of the people, pursuant to democratic processes. It's really quite strange how a country that has "outlawed" all political freedoms could find the time to critricize the choices of a democratic majority in another, peace and freedom loving nation.

And we very much resent the comparison to these outrageous dictotors you have listed. The people of Cascadia, pursuant to a national referendum, have decided that this warrants a policy of ingoring the nation of Santa Barbara, forthwith, until such time as a public apology might be issued.


Fellow nations, do not be decieved! For the latest nation in the very small minority that has fully supported this proposal is one of the large, economically powerful nations (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Santa_Barbara)that stand to benefit from free trade, while other nations stand to lose very much. Including the very jobs that sustain every day living.

The UN should not be the place for enacting divisive economic special interests legislation that would force nations to leave. Other nations have spoken of a mass exodus from the UN in the wake of legislation of this sort, and Cascadians would be sad, yet obligated, to join them.

Goodness me, there's a lot of hot air in this debating hall.

I love it!

This proposal was aimied at achieving an economically strong block of UN member states. It was in no way proposed with economic special interests in mind.

It can be argued that the original proposal that was posted, could be considered discrimanatory towards less economically developed countries. However, I believe that the 4th recommendation addresses that.

I believe that, the success of a UN free trade area would encourage other nations to join the UN.

Obviously, oppressive nations, such as yourself, CA, would not agree to it, and may leave. But hey, let's face it, should nations like yourself really be a part of the UN?

By the way, how do you create those rather cool web pages, that santa Barbara has?

Obviously, oppressive nations, such as yourself, CA, would not agree to it, and may leave. But hey, let's face it, should nations like yourself really be a part of the UN?

This unabashed libel is unbelievable. Cascadians? Oppressive? What an outrage!

My nation will not have its integrity impugned in this manner.

Should every other inoffensive centrist democracy leave the UN? Should every other nation that values the princples upon which this insitution was founded leave? Should every other nation that has voiced its displeasure with this specific proposal leave?

And to the extent that you would try to force nations outside of the UN, this is even more concrete evidence that you seek to transform the UN into an economic special interests club, for whom wealthy capitalist nations are the sole beneficiary.

It can be argued that the original proposal that was posted, could be considered discrimanatory towards less economically developed countries. However, I believe that the 4th recommendation addresses that.

It most assuredly does not, as there is currently no definition given concerning which nations will be considered "economically advanced," and which will be considered "fragile" or "developing." Indeed, there is no clarification at all given concerning the amount of these so called "subsidies." How could any nation support a proposal under which they cannot tell what they would be liable to pay out to other nations? And why would a nation with a "developing" economy agree to take an economic blow, only to be promised to become dependent upon the expected good graces of some other wealthy nation?


I believe that, the success of a UN free trade area would encourage other nations to join the UN.



I think it's time to review, here. Quoting Ecopoeia:


Furthermore, existing trade blocs such as the International Fair Trade Agreement may be irrevocably compromised by this and similar legislation, possibly leading to mass resignations from the UN.

We are unlikely to support any legislation of this ilk, but encourage you to pursue regional alternatives.

Mass resignations, indeed. Adamsgrad, if you are going to sell this proposal, you are going to more proof of your assertions (such as the prediction that it will increase UN membership) -- and less condescending remarks to other nations -- before they will be counted as convincing.

By the way, how do you create those rather cool web pages, that santa Barbara has?

OOC: Go to the NS Wiki Website and edit away.

Because some nations have seen fit to insult my nation's sovereignty, I have decided to excerpt herein some notable responses from other nations. Let the words of my fellow nations form the argument for this posting!

---------

this is not a good idea, it will make that only capitalist states can be member of the UN, which is not a good case!

----------

Even as a country with a trade deficit, I can't help but feel this is a bad idea ....

***
Maybe there's something key that I'm missing here, but it seems like far too great of a risk.

----------


****

Free Trade, by it's very nature encourages countries to specialise in production of only one or two goods. While this, in normal circumstances, increases productivity and benefits the world as a whole, it leaves a country highly unflexible to any slight changes in world demand.

If demand for the good a country produced evaporated that country would face extraordinary levels of unemployment, leading quite possibly to the collapse of the government, as the governments income through taxation would become almost non-existant.

****

In order to secure higher levels of living for the people of my country, i would like to have the right to put tariffs on imports in order to stimulate home industries and internal economic growth, which is why i would be unable to support this resolution.

-----------


***

I had prepared a fairly decent counteraction to your statement, but Liberated Free States said pretty much everything I wanted to - particularly with his/her/their statement that a free trade system encourages a country to specialize in a specific industry. What if a country has difficulty encouraging enough trade with their industries to counterbalance their imports? Powerhouse economies are going to theoretically be able to dominate the smaller countries, due to their massive amounts of production in various fields.

--------

Not every nation in the NSUN is a "free" or democratic nation. We do not all wish to have free trade, tariffs and quotas may be neccessary to our economic situation. This proposal is ridiculous, it is unfair to expect for all UN members to be bound by the same rules of trade.

----------

In some countries, it's actually worse than that. They would, due to high standards for products made locally, continue to lose in the economic battle until they either did away with the standards, thus further disadvantaging the people, or took drastic action. My people won't accept a loss of standards, some of which they have held for millenia. And when I take drastic options, people die in the millions, and you know I'll make sure it isn't my people.

-----------

This will make alot of enemies. The purpose of the UN is to create peace. This will make alot of countries ineligble for the UN and I belive that as long as the country strives for peace in the world it belongs in the UN.

Thank You,

Krazie
The Republic of Krazie

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

The problem with economics is that so much of it is theory and is open to different interpretations which is why economics theory does not always go along with what actually happens.

I would say that due to the current responses to this proposal, the best idea would probably be to scrap this one and start again. This proposal is unlikely to get enough support to become UN law.
---------------

Free trade pretty much means you have to compromise on safety standards.
More than that, it means no labor standards.

This is too broad.
------------------

I've got to remind you all again that this proposal has no teeth. It "recommends" things be changed. It's harmless, but it should be failed, because of that.

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

I know. However, in this case I wish to utterly destroy it instead of allowing it even a chance to live. These recommendations are, frankly, suicidal for a nation to follow.

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

Well. Let me see. I think this proposal is a horrible idea for the the UN and would be catistrophic to many nations with weak economies. But then I realize that my own nation would make a killing on the global market if it came into effect. So, it is in the best interests of my nation to support this proposal. As a delagate, many of the nations in my region would be ruined, to include allies. Therefore, I must oppose it.
-------------------

Free trade is often offered a panacea for all economic ills that a nation may be suffering. However, the circumstances of the nation should be taken into account before prescribing such a uniform solution. Developing countries (such as Ecopoeia) are dependent on protective instruments to ensure that their own industries aren't swept aside by richer foreign organisations.

We would consider a proposal that sought to open up developed markets while allowing developing countries the right to preserve their own. However, this would generate its own problems, since we would then have categorising to worry about.

Furthermore, existing trade blocs such as the International Fair Trade Agreement may be irrevocably compromised by this and similar legislation, possibly leading to mass resignations from the UN.

We are unlikely to support any legislation of this ilk, but encourage you to pursue regional alternatives.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN
------------------------------

I've seen proposals like this before, and they all make the same blanket assumption: That all nations are at the same economic starting point. Only at this point would free trade be good.

The problem is that Free Trade means that countries with smaller economies cannot protect themselves against countries with large economies. Taking steel manufacturing, for example. Say country A has just come into the world, and B has been around for ages, with a correspondingly large economy. Now A may make steel as just as good as B, but as B can make more of it and supply its own needs while still exporting to A, it will undercut A's prices, putting A's steel industry out of business. The only way A can respond to this is by lowering prices, and consequently production costs, which means a reduction in wages or safety in order to maintain profits. This loss of the steel industry means that A has to import all it's steel, putting it into 'steel deficit' ;now apply this idea to a national economy and you end up with a national trade deficit. Big problems all round.

***



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

I urge everyone who disagrees witht the draft discussed in this thread to consider the counter-draft presented in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8044214#post8044214)

Ah well, like I said. A proposal that makes sense generally won't pass.

The United Nations has long become a tool for oppressive authoritarians and socialist control freaks to pursue their world domination agenda by crippling national economies under the yolk of a common... "union."

That is why I left the UN long ago, and why my economy is NOT in ruins (and has a free market).

On the contrary, Kelssek is practically socialist and heavily taxes its private companies, yet has a strong economy and recently its population was ranked as among the happiest in the world (7,068th). Income inequality is low, as is poverty, and our schools are well-funded enough to provide all students with personal laptop computers.

It's not because our policies are necessarily superior. Lots of free-market capitalist nations, or communist nations, also can boast similar, or better results. It's simply that we've found our own solutions to our own problems.

And so should all economies.

We can all do without the pure propaganda that just seeps out of this proposal - equating personal freedom with the free market, for example, or implying that free trade is necessarily good, when in reality and IC, it has caused unemployment and poverty, especially for people working in manufacturing and primary industry.

At least the solution for us is simple - we'll simply embargo all non-IFTA members, as we already do, albeit unofficially - we simply don't trade with them. And if the worst happens and this ill-advised proposal passes, we'd advise nations who need to protect their populations' livelihoods to do the same.

I concur with the analysis presented by the delegate from Kelssek.

I would like to be made aware of the details within the international fair trade agreement.

http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?

Scroll down to "International Fair Trade Agreement"

Read it, and quite frankly, can't see why the draft proposal would be counter to, and undermine the IFTA.

Some might say that in a highly competitative market place, labour would be vulnerable to exploitation. But lets just say that, the increased competition between firms would lead to lower prices. What does that mean? Inflation kept in check, and an actual increase in workers real-wages!

Very hard to appreciate lower prices when you don't have a job or any wages because said low-priced products and competition killed your employer's industry.

The issue is not that it undermines the goals of the IFTA, and yes, it does. Even if we were not IFTA members, we would still be very wary about this for the simple threat it poses to our economy. We also are opposed to economies based on unsustainable consumerism - we're not about to support something that will encourage that.

Our chief issue is that it forces a flawed economic policy on many nations who may not be aware of the potential problems, and who may not be equipped to deal with them. We know the problems, and we are powerful enough to simply embargo people we don't want to trade with. Other nations don't. They may be subject to bullying by a more powerful nation, or may simply not know the implications free trade has for their economy.

Too often we forget that these consumers are also people, and they are also employees. Disregard that, as many consumer-sovereignity and free-trade people tend to do with the "lower prices is all that matters" argument, and you're closer to economic disaster.

Reduction of Trade Barriers
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Itchyakneesa

Description: Due to an increasing demand on nations to export a level closer to their import levels. I hereby propose a losening of international trade barriers between nations. Easier tradeing, allows for better relations with neighboring countries, stimulates worldwide economy, and opens up doors for new products to reach open markets, thus creating more opportunities for success on all levels.

Approvals: 28 (Gaiah, Black Shirt Unionists, The Dancing Butterfly, Bordoria, Green Forrest People, Zomnkeria, Iznogoud, Rekistan, Squirrelmania, New Chelyabinsk, WZ Forums, The Marine Infantry, Kubersland, Zoidburg XIX, Mobile Suits, Yew Island, Magiqa, Signamarcheix, Jake 4, Ameliastan, Sulon, Scattered Islands, North Koster, Bucellarion, Dark nipple people, Marsovia, Greater Kamigawa, Neethis)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 118 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jan 29 2005

Is this UN proposal not just an outright, but somewhat limited, copy of my Free trade draft?

You note that is has 28 approvals.

Reduction of Trade Barriers
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Itchyakneesa

Is this UN proposal not just an outright, but somewhat limited, copy of my Free trade draft?

You note that is has 28 approvals.

First, I've noted that sometimes players do copy other people's proposals and submit them as their own. This happened to Hirota's recent resolution. If you see this happening, it would be appropriate to post on the moderation forum.

One of the reasons to post your draft proposal here first is so the mods can see a time stamp. If somebody then copies your proposal, you can point to the text here first.

I'm not saying this is a copy, but it sounds like that could be the case ... though I honestly hope not.

As for this particular proposals current endorsement count, it made it half way (implying that there may have been a telegram campaign going on):

Approvals: 73 (Gaiah, Black Shirt Unionists, The Dancing Butterfly, Bordoria, Green Forrest People, Zomnkeria, Iznogoud, Rekistan, Squirrelmania, New Chelyabinsk, WZ Forums, The Marine Infantry, Kubersland, Zoidburg XIX, Mobile Suits, Yew Island, Magiqa, Signamarcheix, Jake 4, Ameliastan, Sulon, Scattered Islands, North Koster, Bucellarion, Dark nipple people, Marsovia, Greater Kamigawa, Neethis, Pasquazzo, Beach Bay, Navillus, Oleria, The Derrak Quadrant, Acada Demada, Aeternus Libertas, Arendstan, JohanGi, Saotao, The Iroqouis, Twinkly Stars, Pacific Territories, Slick Shoes, WoS-Badrang, Cunnyfuntbooboo, Duinlandia, Dizziness, Roman fencers, Pansophia, Yallam, Native Quiggles, Legnarennat, Zen Unbounded, Windleheim, Kemdoph, The Starr Empire, Sirap, Egore, Volvonce, The Cariebbean, Aston, Disagreeable, Culex, Rabid Parrots, Domintora, Naval Snipers, Southern Caladan, Arore Silvertongue, The Russian Empire, Cebolla, The Bankers Union, Arch Nemesis, The Mecca Islands, Interestingians)

I want to not that I've actually telegrammed with several of these Delegates and found them to be extremely polite and helpful.

Excuse my late reply. Technology is a terrible mistress with a short temper. Sadly, her offspring are being managed by idiots. Had to switch ISPs.

I am not in the mood to go to all the steps you mention, DL, simply to find out your exacty UN members status.

It would be far easier for me if you could just make it clear for me here.

In order to make it any more clearer, I would have to grunt. The information is available, and this time around I'm not in the mood to walk someone through to wisdom. If you wish the truth, trod the path.

You are getting silly with regard to the use of the word share

No, I'm being realistic with my use of it and demonstrating how easily someone can twist this around to screw others.

The word share obviously means to share something with somebody else.

The word means a whole lot more than that. Try reading the dictionary definitions I posted.

A 0 share would mean to have no share at all. Therefore, if not allocated a specific number, above zero, then you do not have a share. Does that make sense to you? Try to keep things simple.

Keeping things simple doesn't apply in a game where people will actively try to screw others over, and this is that type of game. Hell, I've destroyed nations for less than what you have done in this topic.

You have to keep in mind that people will use this to try to screw over others, and your proposals are either giving them the tools to do so or outright actively screwing people over. Hell, your last draft included an option that punishes nations for being economically powerful.

You must remember that zero is a number and that your interpretation is not supported by the definitions of the word "share."

Trade embargoes concern what you export to other nations. Not what you import. This is left to the discretion of the nationstates. It stands to reason that, if you launch a trade embargoe against one nation, then they will respond and stop exporting goods to you. Import quotas are therefore, irrelevent with regard to trade embargoes.

Not supported by logic. An embargo is on something comming into your nation or going out in relation to the economy of another nation. The US, for example, has an embargo on Cuban cigars. The US doesn't produce the cigars, but prevents them from being imported. DLE has trade embargos on just about everything to protect itself.