Windleheim
24-02-2005, 02:38
I submitted the following proposal today. Let the nitpicking and arguing begin ;)
UN Tariff Accords
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Windleheim
Description: ASSERTING that it is economically inefficient for a state to try to produce all the goods and services it needs, due to scarcity and the law of diminishing marginal returns;
RECOGNIZING that the use of comparative advantage in production, combined with trade, increases economic efficiency for all states involved, creating greater consumer choice at lower cost;
MAINTAINING that trade is most efficient when unrestricted between states;
DETERMINING that tariffs, defined as an added tax on the value of a good or service imported from or exported to another state, restrict trade between states;
CONCLUDING that it is in the best interest of all states to increase their economic efficiency and take part in the global marketplace, this resolution:
1. DECLARES that removal of import and export tariffs is in the best interest of all member nations;
2. REQUIRES all member states to permanently reduce their import and export tariffs by a minimum of fifty percent (50%) within six months of the passage of this resolution;
3. CREATES an oversight committee to monitor compliance of member states;
4. URGES the formation of regional free trade zones that further reduce and/or eliminate tariffs between states;
5. ENCOURAGES member states to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.
I know that free trade is a contentious issue, and that people are sharply divided on the issue, and both sides have very pertinent reasons for believing as they do. If, to start, I can offer just one argument against protectionism.
Say that to make a profit, a domestic cobbler must charge $50 per pair of shoes. And suppose that to make the same profit, a foreign cobbler only has to charge $40. To protect the domestic cobbler, the government passes a tariff on foreign shoes, let's say a $20 dollar tariff. Now the foreign shoes cost $60. But the domestic shoes don't stay at $50. They jump up to $59.99, or close to it, because so long as the domestic price is less than the effective price on the foreign shoes, the domestic cobbler wins, and consumers suffer higher prices.
You need only look back in history to see the problems protectionist tariffs have caused (the "Tariff of Abominations" in the 1820s and the "Glass-Steagle Tariff" (I think that was the name) of the Hoover administration, just to name a couple).
But I'll let you all start hacking each-others' economic beliefs apart, now. :D
UN Tariff Accords
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Windleheim
Description: ASSERTING that it is economically inefficient for a state to try to produce all the goods and services it needs, due to scarcity and the law of diminishing marginal returns;
RECOGNIZING that the use of comparative advantage in production, combined with trade, increases economic efficiency for all states involved, creating greater consumer choice at lower cost;
MAINTAINING that trade is most efficient when unrestricted between states;
DETERMINING that tariffs, defined as an added tax on the value of a good or service imported from or exported to another state, restrict trade between states;
CONCLUDING that it is in the best interest of all states to increase their economic efficiency and take part in the global marketplace, this resolution:
1. DECLARES that removal of import and export tariffs is in the best interest of all member nations;
2. REQUIRES all member states to permanently reduce their import and export tariffs by a minimum of fifty percent (50%) within six months of the passage of this resolution;
3. CREATES an oversight committee to monitor compliance of member states;
4. URGES the formation of regional free trade zones that further reduce and/or eliminate tariffs between states;
5. ENCOURAGES member states to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.
I know that free trade is a contentious issue, and that people are sharply divided on the issue, and both sides have very pertinent reasons for believing as they do. If, to start, I can offer just one argument against protectionism.
Say that to make a profit, a domestic cobbler must charge $50 per pair of shoes. And suppose that to make the same profit, a foreign cobbler only has to charge $40. To protect the domestic cobbler, the government passes a tariff on foreign shoes, let's say a $20 dollar tariff. Now the foreign shoes cost $60. But the domestic shoes don't stay at $50. They jump up to $59.99, or close to it, because so long as the domestic price is less than the effective price on the foreign shoes, the domestic cobbler wins, and consumers suffer higher prices.
You need only look back in history to see the problems protectionist tariffs have caused (the "Tariff of Abominations" in the 1820s and the "Glass-Steagle Tariff" (I think that was the name) of the Hoover administration, just to name a couple).
But I'll let you all start hacking each-others' economic beliefs apart, now. :D