NationStates Jolt Archive

(Sorry if this got posted twice, I had some connection problem or something when I first tried to post it)

This is the first draft of a resolution I hope to submit to the UN. I haven't submitted it yet: I would like to get some feedback from others and polish it up some before starting that process. Any constructive criticism is welcome. Thank you.

- Windleheim


Resolution "UN Tariff Accords"
Type: Free Trade, Stength: Strong

WHEREAS it is economically inefficient for a state to try to produce all the goods and services it needs, and

WHEREAS use of comparative advantage in production, combined with trade, increases economic efficiency for all states involved, creating greater consumer choice at lower cost, and

WHEREAS trade is most efficient when unrestricted between states, and

WHEREAS it is in the best interest of all states to increase their economic efficiency and take part in the global marketplace,

BE IT RESOLVED by the United Nations that all member states will reduce tariffs on imports and exports by no less than fifty percent (50%), with a future goal of complete removal of all tariffs.

(Sorry if this got posted twice, I had some connection problem or something when I first tried to post it)

This is the first draft of a resolution I hope to submit to the UN. I haven't submitted it yet: I would like to get some feedback from others and polish it up some before starting that process. Any constructive criticism is welcome. Thank you.

Eh, no problems. It happens.

Oh, don't be surprised if I'm evil. I just am.

WHEREAS it is economically inefficient for a state to try to produce all the goods and services it needs, and

DLE produces all of the goods and services it needs and yet has one of the strongest economies in NS. Not a problem. I would say it depends on the nation.

WHEREAS use of comparative advantage in production, combined with trade, increases economic efficiency for all states involved, creating greater consumer choice at lower cost, and

While lowering quality of products and potentially damaging an economy further by destroying native businesses...

WHEREAS trade is most efficient when unrestricted between states, and

Never seen it as efficient being that way. Matter of opinion.

WHEREAS it is in the best interest of all states to increase their economic efficiency and take part in the global marketplace,

It is in the best interests of DLE to tell the global marketplace to go rent a cheap hotel room with itself and spend the night making babies, not participate in it. I find my economy is efficient without said participation and that it is so strong because of that same thing.

BE IT RESOLVED by the United Nations that all member states will reduce tariffs on imports and exports by no less than fifty percent (50%), with a future goal of complete removal of all tariffs.

I oppose, for reasons stated above.

Basically, scrap it.

(Sorry if this got posted twice, I had some connection problem or something when I first tried to post it)

This is the first draft of a resolution I hope to submit to the UN. I haven't submitted it yet: I would like to get some feedback from others and polish it up some before starting that process. Any constructive criticism is welcome. Thank you.

- Windleheim


Resolution "UN Tariff Accords"
Type: Free Trade, Stength: Strong

WHEREAS it is economically inefficient for a state to try to produce all the goods and services it needs, and

WHEREAS use of comparative advantage in production, combined with trade, increases economic efficiency for all states involved, creating greater consumer choice at lower cost, and

WHEREAS trade is most efficient when unrestricted between states, and

WHEREAS it is in the best interest of all states to increase their economic efficiency and take part in the global marketplace,

BE IT RESOLVED by the United Nations that all member states will reduce tariffs on imports and exports by no less than fifty percent (50%), with a future goal of complete removal of all tariffs.
All of my nationstates believe in liberal capitalism so strongly that none of them have any tariffs. I don't believe any nationstates in my region have any tariffs.

So how would I cut them in half?
I'd be more in favor of total elimination of tariffs.
OOC: This is make-believe, right? No entrenched interest groups (farmer welfare queens) to satisfy. Cut the tariffs to 0.

As tarriffs are not established by any U.N. resolution or game rule, they are therefore only a matter of the roleplaying perspective. Which means that nations have complete control over their tariffs. Which means that if this resolution ever achieved quorum, those nations would simply raise their tarrifs by 200 percent a day before it passes. Or 8000 percent. It really doesn't matter, since there's no guarantee they won't raise them again immediately after the resolution takes effect, seeing as there is no permanence to the wording, only a "future goal". If I have a future goal of eliminating tariffs, I could very easily raise my tariffs by billions of dollars so that one stupid nation could pay me enough to abolish them.

You're trying to abolish something that no one even considers, and in putting it into a U.N. resolution and therefore the game's rules you will actually create more tariffs.

(Sorry if this got posted twice, I had some connection problem or something when I first tried to post it)

This is the first draft of a resolution I hope to submit to the UN. I haven't submitted it yet: I would like to get some feedback from others and polish it up some before starting that process. Any constructive criticism is welcome. Thank you.

- Windleheim


GREAT! The UN needs more proposal writers who are open to constructive criticism, and who post in here for feedback, and who are willing to stick with their ideas and who...

Anyway, your post didn't wasn't doubled, so "it's cool dawg" ;)


Resolution "UN Tariff Accords"
Type: Free Trade, Stength: Strong


Always keep in the back of your mind as you make changes to your proposals that various tweakings might change the strength of it, I don't know if it deserves "strong" yet (it is the strongest strength, so it should be used only in moderation), but that decision probably could wait for later drafts.


WHEREAS it is economically inefficient for a state to try to produce all the goods and services it needs, and

WHEREAS use of comparative advantage in production, combined with trade, increases economic efficiency for all states involved, creating greater consumer choice at lower cost, and

WHEREAS trade is most efficient when unrestricted between states, and

WHEREAS it is in the best interest of all states to increase their economic efficiency and take part in the global marketplace,


Ooh, a very good construction here. If you'll humor me digresing a little, one of the things I like a lot about your opening here is that it uses some very rational, classical ideas of development and exploration of ideas. When I say "rational, classical" I mean Viennese-Classical: as in Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven (heroic and pre-heroic mostly). They used something called Sonata-Allegro form which is a complex framework to set up a conflict using opposing key areas as "opposing" characters. to makea long story short, there's a middle stage where the two (traditionally two) themes are developed. This middle segment is where all the "action" occurs. Its followed by a "recap", so it's something like taking a stroll around the block.

Your opening clauses here remind me a lot about those. First, it doesn't let go of old ideas until a new idea is fimly established. This is a very Enlightenment-like thing to do: don't push the listener into new waters until he's acclimated somewhat. One of your statements will reference a previous one and add something new, which is referenced by the next statement and built upon even further. It's something like a mathematical proof. Very good logos. The second thing that reminded me of Sonata-Allegro is the fact that it comes back to where it began. "WHEREAS it is economically inefficient for a state..." comes around and around to end up as "WHEREAS it is in the best interest of all states to increase their economic efficiency..." and you make a well supported claim of how nations can do that.

Okay, if you want the short of it, I like the rhetorical strategies used here. I like the overall form. I don'y think much should be changed here, really.

The one thing you might want to change are the capitalized words. WHEREAS is a very good descriptor of fact, and it tends to lend a detatched voice, but a proposal should "act" more than by just making a list of WHEREAS's. If you substituted some active words such as "OBSERVING" or "BELIEVING" or "NOTING" or "DECIDING" in place of those WHEREAS's, it might lend even more weight to your well constructed clauses there.

Anyway, onward!

BE IT RESOLVED by the United Nations that all member states will reduce tariffs on imports and exports by no less than fifty percent (50%), with a future goal of complete removal of all tariffs.

Here's the place I think could use the most enlargement. Right now it does two things, stated very succinctly: cuts tariffs to and from UN states in half and makes nations set a goal to end tariffs altogether. I thyink both of these ideas are admirable and probably palatable by the majority of the UN. However, I think they need a little more fleshing out.

You might want to consider one of my favorite approaches to these "real" clauses: terraced clause strengths.

According to terraced clause strengths principles, your first statement should be the most forceful, with the following decreasing in forcefulness and requirement--increasing in platform and direction and rhetoric. The first one should (if you want it passed) be the most moderate. The UN, though it can be used as such, isn't a proper place to force member states into a certain avenue of political thought.

Popular starting words for these clauses are "DECLARES", "REQUIRES", "DETERMINES", "RESOLVES", and perhaps "DECIDES". You can pick one which is more a declaration of intent (DECLARES tariffs contrary to the success of the modern global economy) or more forceful (DECLARES tariffs disallowed) but either way you need to make it the real zenith of you proposal. I think an appropriate "first real action clause" for this proposal would be something like "REQUIRES nations to decrease current tariffs levels by fifty percent (50%) within two years" or somesuch.

After your first clause, you could have something that STRONGLY URGES or STRONGLY ENCOURAGES, because it's starting to back off of the "making UN members" area, and entering in to the "advising as prudent" area. OR, you could extend your first clause. I think an appropriate second clause here would be "RESOLVES that all member nations earnestly set off to end all tariffs, with a target date in ten years". I think this would do your second clause some good. "Earnestly" and "target date" are pretty non-abrasive, yet they tell member nations that we want this to happen, even though we're willing to work with them on it. An alternative (even less intrusive) would be "RESOLVES that all member nations continue to decrease their tariffs until they have none" or something.

After that, it's pretty much whatever you want, so long as it doesn't "force" anything--at least, that's the "terraced clause strengths" theory. Possible entries here are "URGES nations to retain jobs within their borders by increasing worker satisfaction and offering tax incentives to employers who keep jobs in-country", and "ENCOURAGES nations in general regions to cooperate on de-tariff plans, so as to most stabilize regional economies".

You could also organize a committee--very handy when dealing with the "but what if!" questions to a proposal.

All said and done, my proposed changes end up something like this:



Resolution "UN Tariff Accords"
Type: Free Trade, Stength: Strong
[b]The United Nations, [added]

DETERMINING/FINDING/CONCLUDING it is economically inefficient for a state to try to produce all the goods and services it needs, and

DECLARING/NOTING/MAINTAINING use of comparative advantage in production, combined with trade, increases economic efficiency for all states involved, creating greater consumer choice at lower cost, ["and" removed]

NOTING/UNDERSTAINDING/RETAININGtrade is most efficient when unrestricted between states, ["and" removed]

DECIDING/DECLARING/CONCLUDINGit is in the best interest of all states to increase their economic efficiency and take part in the global marketplace; [punctuation changed]

1. RESOLVES that all member states will reduce tariffs on imports and exports by no less (fewer?) than fifty percent (50%) in the next two years;

2. DETERMINES, as a goal, the complete removal of all tariffs;[reworded]

3. MANDATES general regions/groups of member nations work together to create effective strategies to decrease tariffs between them, and follow those stategies;

4. ENCOURAGES member nations to protect jobs within their borders through tax incentives and labor initiatives;

5. SO on and so forth for as long as you like

I realize not all these ideas, if any, have merit. So, feel free to take ideas away from, include or do anything you want with my advice. Writing the proposal is one of the most fun parts or proposals. The next most fun part is the telegram campaign--which you'll need if you want it to pass.

Good Luck!

DLE produces all of the goods and services it needs and yet has one of the strongest economies in NS. Not a problem. I would say it depends on the nation.

And being at another planetary system and combining the resources of at least one entire planet and more than one nation has nothing to do with this?

It is in the best interests of DLE to tell the global marketplace to go rent a cheap hotel room with itself and spend the night making babies, not participate in it

Actually, the global market is completely irrelevant to you as you aren't on the planet.

I find my economy is efficient without said participation and that it is so strong because of that same thing.

And I have no tarrifs and no taxes. Want to compare GDPs?

Basically, scrap it.

No, not quite. The Proposal needs improvement, yes, but you can't expect all 30,000 UN nations to know the particular quirks of your nation. Since you have placed yourself in a galaxy far, far away, you should probably realise that 99% of all proposals are not going to apply to you. That doesn't mean they should all be "scrapped".

No, not quite. The Proposal needs improvement, yes, but you can't expect all 30,000 UN nations to know the particular quirks of your nation. Since you have placed yourself in a galaxy far, far away, you should probably realise that 99% of all proposals are not going to apply to you. That doesn't mean they should all be "scrapped".

I just want to say thank you!

And I'd like to add a suggestion. If a player finds that a resolution isn't to his or her liking, instead of posting some rebuttal on each individual sentence talking about how wrong this draft text is for your roleplay, try making suggested changes that would be acceptable. It is a bit more of a challenge, but often many of the proposed changes actually might enhance the resolution for other player's roleplay as well.

It is incredibly easy to invent a roleplay that pretty much makes most UN resolutions pointless, and it is easier to debate from that position. I say take the harder path and start suggesting rewrites.

When the Space Defense Initiative resolution hit the floor in April 2004, instead of nitpicking the resolution in the draft phase, I came up with a series of amendments. SCOC OJ's resolution failed by a pretty significant vote, but my amendments weren't really heeded. So a few months later when the North Pacific was invaded, I brought the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution to the floor, based largely on my scrubbed amendments.

Roleplaying can be fun, but actually getting in and writing a resolution can be as well. I know my sig file lists a few resolutions I've authored or co-authored, but it is by no means a complete list. My point is, any player can have the same impact on the UN. I happen to be very pleased with the UN, because most proposal authors are friendly and are looking for our (UN regulars) help. Not our attacks and complaints.

Utlimately I'd really like to give everybody the chance for their basic idea to turn into a debate that draws non-UN regulars into the fray as well. I've telegrammed for and encouraged proposal author's whos basic ideas I disagree with, just so they'd get a fair chance. The exception of course here is when I've campaigned against some of the "Dude, this tidal wave resolution is suxor man!" repeals. But I've pointed out before in the repeal writing guide that I'd much rather see repeals limited to sensible arguments, and if people are just looking for something to say, I'd rather them come up with some new resolution instead. :)

Thanks Powerhungry Chipmunks! That's exactly the sort of critique I was looking for. Having participated in student congress I had a general idea of resolution-writing language, but nobody's perfect. So everyone else, keep 'em coming! I can always use more creative input.

OOC: Hurrah! Finally someone who is actually putting up a draft before submitting, rather than the usual other way round! Oh, and please don't take offence at what I'm going to say in-character.

IC: Enn is extremely unlikely to support this. Tariffs are one of the things keeping Enn's economy ticking over at all, so I doubt we'll sign up any time soon.

Please define "tariff".

Does it only apply to import taxes?
Does it only apply to percentage taxes?
Is it separate from import quotas?
Are anti-dumping laws included or excluded from your tariff reform?
Are product safety, health standards, or anti-sweatshop laws considered tariffs?