NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like peoples opinion on this proposal. I also plan to add a section that removes previous UN acts that violate this proposal.

"World Free Trade Act

This proposal would remove all tariffs and subsidies held by UN members

RECONGNIZING that in a free market system, people will generally buy what they want, and subsidies simply take money from companies that could make a profit (through taxation) and give it to failing companies that people do not want to buy the products of (because of subsidies)

RECONGNIZING that tariffs make it harder for citizens in small countries to buy goods within their product ranges, reduces the overall amount of jobs, and generally reduces the economic weight of nations that use subsidies.

REALIZING that subsidizing agriculture makes food cheaper, but charity would provide it to the most desperate individuals

ALSO REALIZING that if agriculture cannot make a profit, then it is generally because people do not want the food, and people who have jobs that would be jeopordized by this act would be able to find other jobs that would been created by the economic boom this act would provide.


THEREFORE ASKS FOR the removal of all tariffs and subsidies held by UN members. It is an attempt to put all nations on an equal playing ground in the world of the free market, to increase individual economic freedom, to reduce taxation on people that would be otherwise used to fund corporations through subsidies, to give smaller businesses a chance to take on larger corporations that would recieve greater subsidies, and to increase the overall economic condition of the world."

I'm not sure whether or not this makes enough sense, or whether it ignores something else that need to be addressed.

I have some serious reservations about the removal of tariffs. Tariffs can be huge help to a nations industry by allowing a more competitive market. I would agree that some limits should be placed on them, but not a complete removal.

What would happen if because there were no tariffs citizens of your nation decided to buy products from other nations. Nations where the prices for those products are much lower. You would lose a lot of profit due to this and could effectively cripple your economy. So do you want pass this proposal knowing that it could and would effectively cripple economies upon passage? I understand the good intentions of this proposal but it brings about a very unwanted disadvantage that I oppose.

we support the concept, but have two reservations:
1) the fact that there will be complaints from industries of our nation that they dont have protection due to removal of tariffs, and
2) it should be volentary. a country should not be forced to participate in a proposal such as this if they do not want to. as pointed out, it can cripple economies, and some countries are hesitant to join.
we regretfully do not support this proposal.

we regretfully do not support this proposal.
Same here. Except for the "regretfully" part.

I must now realize that I am not talking to economists...

Tariffs are mainly needed because of subsidies and price fixing, something this also removes. This reduces needless taxation. Tell me one way in which tariffs help the world, and I will give you my liver. They are simply a trade barrier. If a person wants to buy something from somewhere else, let them. If your region cannot produce as efficiently, let them move on to some other industry instead of wasting their money on this one which obviously does not work (because it needs to be subsidized to survive). Tariffs, subsidies, and price fixing NEVER help. Just take a look at any nation that uses them extensively. The VAST majority of them are third world nations that would otherwise be competing with developed ones today, were it not for the governement getting in the way of the economy.

This effectively turns the UN into a free trade zone, one that isn't corrupted by good-intentioned, but wrong, nations.

Tell me one way in which tariffs help the world, and I will give you my liver.
They don't help the world, they help me. But if you want to get rid of your liver, you can donate it to the UNWODC. :)

"They don't help the world, they help me. But if you want to get rid of your liver, you can donate it to the UNWODC. "

How much are ya' willin' to pay?

Anyway, they don't help you. The other governements are limiting your citizens economic freedom to buy cheaper goods. Since they are forced to buy more expensive goods, they receive less of their wages (spending something is suspiciously simialar to not earning it). If you have a failing industry, let it fail. Try to go into something different, and let your people move there. If it's failing, there is a REASON, and that is that none of YOUR people want to buy its stuff.

I think it's right to put limitations on tariffs. You can't really take them away they are somewhat necesarry. I mean if some country wants to come over and sell their product, and it's cheaper who would buy the same thing made in my country for more. With tariffs we basically get money when they sell goods, and we end up selling more of our goods because people will go for the cheaper one. The tariff forces the outsider to charge more. This doesn't do much good for the people but for the economy it is necessary. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

I would like peoples opinion on this proposal. I also plan to add a section that removes previous UN acts that violate this proposal.


That isn't allowed under UN proposal rules. If you want to repeal a previous reasolution you need to submit a repeal. To propose new legislation, you submit a proposal. Repeals aren't allowed to propose new legislation, and proposals aren't allowed to repeal previous resolutions.

My objections to previous attempts at this apply now.

1. Health and safety standards are too important in matters of food to say no regulation is permitted. And you're either saying no regulation is permitted, or you're saying disguise your tariffs and subsidies as health and safety standards.

2. Trade is also a matter of foreign policy. Asshelmetta places a full embargo on any products originating from, manufactured in, or passing through Pilot. We have in place 150% tariffs against any items from Jeianga. These particular barriers are well-deserved and must be maintained. Rewrite your resolution to allow them.

the idea of free trade should be left to regions and the diplomacy between countries. some have tariffs in place for various reasons, from protection of industries, to embargos as ashelmetta pointed out. also, as PC point out, you had said that
I would like peoples opinion on this proposal. I also plan to add a section that removes previous UN acts that violate this proposal.
if this was submitted with your proposed section, i would question the legality of the proposal

I must now realize that I am not talking to economists...
OOC: yes this is true. it is a political sim, a game, and has no basis in reality.

Someone said:

1. Health and safety standards are too important in matters of food to say no regulation is permitted. And you're either saying no regulation is permitted, or you're saying disguise your tariffs and subsidies as health and safety standards.

The market will generally take care of such things, but I haven't provided any provision against health regulations and such, so I don't know what you're talking about. Besides, let's just abandon role-playing, you and I BOTH know that those things don't exist in the nationstates world.

OK, I've changed my wording. Now the proposal reduces tariffs and subsidies to no more than 25% instead of banning them outright. I submitted it last night at 10:00 PM and it already has five signatures, which is more than any other proposal within the area of two screens. WOOHOO! Maybe I'll get my first resolution through.

:sniper: Does anyone else agree that snipers suck?

New UN proposal: Ban Sniper's on UN Forum

FACT: People who use sniper's SUCK
We therefore ask that they be banned.

Just take a look at any nation that uses them extensively. The VAST majority of them are third world nations that would otherwise be competing with developed ones today, were it not for the governement getting in the way of the economy.

Are you sure you haven't got your cause/effect wrong? In other words, are you sure that this situation isn't because rich countries benefit from open trade while poor countries benefit from restricted trade?

The "rich" nations were the first to industrialise, and that they then used their power to exploit and profit from the poor countries, their raw materials particularly. This was called imperialism and it existed through the 19th and early 20th century. The economic gap between colonizers and colonies still exists today. The key was industrialisation, not trade policies.

Tell me one way in which tariffs help the world, and I will give you my liver.

Tariffs on cigarettes discourage their purchase and help to pay for the social costs and burden on the healthcare budget they cause. Yoink!

Also, perhaps you have heard of something called "occupational immobility of labour". Changing jobs isn't as easy as free-traders like you would like to think.

I have to go off now, so I hope some other lefties take up the torch...

Another free-trade proposal. It seems like a lot of people want tariffs to be removed - and I would be one of them.

However, if the purpose of this is to put nations on an equal playing field, then it could have the reverse effect. Less economically developed nations sometimes depend on tariffs to protect their new industries from potentially harmful competition.

You say as much in your resolution:

RECONGNIZING that tariffs make it harder for citizens in small countries to buy goods within their product ranges, reduces the overall amount of jobs, and generally reduces the economic weight of nations that use subsidies.

This is something that needs to be addressed, don't you think?

As the Colony's name suggests, the Governor of Cobdenia believe strongly in Cobdenism (international free trade coupled with capitilism leading to world peace). I strongly suggest the following amendments/additions:

REALISING that free trade allows less developed countries, which typically have far lower wage rates then the developed world, to grow economically through the inevitable outsourcing of jobs to these countries

REALISING that free trade lowers prices significantly, making essential and luxury products more affordable to those on lower incomes throughout the world

REALISING that free trade is the ultimate insurance of international world peace, as it makes war impossible as no nation would have the ability to be self sufficient


HE Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe KCMG DFC
HM Governor to Cobdenia

REALISING that free trade allows less developed countries, which typically have far lower wage rates then the developed world, to grow economically through the inevitable outsourcing of jobs to these countries

And what about the people in the developed world? They don't need jobs?

REALISING that free trade lowers prices significantly, making essential and luxury products more affordable to those on lower incomes throughout the world

That trade lowers prices is reasonable, but do you consider the impact that imports have on the local economy? If products are more affordable, but no one can buy them because the entry of the products into the market made their employers unviable and they all have no income... you see the problem here? Tariffs and trade barriers are important aspects of economic protection and a nation should have the right to protect its own people and economy.

REALISING that free trade is the ultimate insurance of international world peace, as it makes war impossible as no nation would have the ability to be self sufficient

Idealistic idiocy. This assumes that everyone's economy is completely intertwined with everyone else's. And given the diversity of the UN in this regard and the sheer quantity of nations in the world, this isn't even possible.
Even if it was, do you think that really will happen? To put it in a real-world context, can you imagine Colombia holding off the US by saying "If you attack us, we will CUT OFF YOUR COFFEE SUPPLY!! TAKE THAT, STARBUCKS! MWHAHAHAH!!" More likely the US will say, "I can live with that. Let's import our coffee from Jamaica now. BOOM."

PS Anyone want to endorse my colonies bid to join the UN?
Not needed. You should receive an email in about a day.

quote:
And what about the people in the developed world? They don't need jobs?

You fail to see things in the long run. Using a real world example of the EU (I know this is against the rules; I am merely using it to explain how Cobdenism works) manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to Spain and Poland, but there has been a massive surge in service sector jobs (financial transactions, insurance etc) in Great Britain. Protecting outdated, old fashioned and overly expensive jobs is an anachronism

quote:
Idealistic idiocy....."I can live with that. Let's import our coffee from Jamaica now. BOOM."
To use your example, If Colombia were to declare war on the USA it would lose a major market for the export of it's coffee, bankrupting the country and making it unable to go to war with the USA.
How about another example (again, I know I shouldn't do this), France and Germany? Between 1800-1950 they went to war with one another too many times to count, including two of the most deadly wars ever. The EU (or, as it was then, the Common Market) was founded exactly under the principles you have called idiological idiocy, and yet how many times have France and Germany gone to war since 1950? None. Could France and Germany go to war? Perhaps, but the damage to their economy would be terrible.

I see someone mentioned cigarettes. Yet I see no liver being transferred.
Come on now economist ;)

To use your example, If Colombia were to declare war on the USA it would lose a major market for the export of it's coffee, bankrupting the country and making it unable to go to war with the USA.
How about another example (again, I know I shouldn't do this), France and Germany? Between 1800-1950 they went to war with one another too many times to count, including two of the most deadly wars ever. The EU (or, as it was then, the Common Market) was founded exactly under the principles you have called idiological idiocy, and yet how many times have France and Germany gone to war since 1950? None. Could France and Germany go to war? Perhaps, but the damage to their economy would be terrible.

Yes, but do you have any idea of how big and diverse the NS World is?

Let me give you an example. Vastiva exports just over eighteen million barrels of crude oil per day. This is utterly meaningless in context of the three hundred thousand nations out there. We could produce one hundred times the amount, it would still mean nothing.

If one nation decided not to import from VALOREC - so? I guarantee customers are out there. Economic damage? What's that? From one nation ignoring us? From ten?

Not going to happen. The size of the planet defeats the ability to so entwine economies they strangle each other.

You fail to see things in the long run. Using a real world example of the EU (I know this is against the rules; I am merely using it to explain how Cobdenism works) manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to Spain and Poland, but there has been a massive surge in service sector jobs (financial transactions, insurance etc) in Great Britain. Protecting outdated, old fashioned and overly expensive jobs is an anachronism

Shifting to emphasise on a different economic sector needs to be a gradual process. Economies do not switch from manufacturing to services overnight. People need different sets of skills, the education system needs to be tweaked, and so on. You can't just let the manufacturing sector collapse and move everyone into banking the next day. As I said before, what will all the manufacturing workers do? They can be retrained and "go back to school", but in the meantime where will their income come from? Don't say welfare - because of the sudden drop in the number of taxpaying citizens, you'd likely have a budgetary crisis and won't be in shape to provide for all of them while they retrain. You might not even have enough funds to pay for them to be retrained, which you're going to have to do, or face an unemployment crisis.

Do a search for "occupational immobility of labour". You might learn something.

And to some degree you still will need primary industry to make the most of your resources. If there are no miners, where are you going to get aluminium and tin from? If there are no farmers, where is your food going to come from? Trade? Is it really in the best interests of a nation to be completely reliant on its neighbour for food?

The EU (or, as it was then, the Common Market) was founded exactly under the principles you have called idiological idiocy, and yet how many times have France and Germany gone to war since 1950? None. Could France and Germany go to war? Perhaps, but the damage to their economy would be terrible.

You might remember a certain event in history called the Cold War?

Don't underestimate the irrationality of world leaders. There's no reason or rationality in war. In fact invading might be even better. If you had the army to back you up, ignoring all other factors, wouldn't you prefer control over an oil field to trading for its oil? That's pretty much what happened in the era of imperialism and colonialism. The British needed rubber. Rubber was available in Malaya. They had superior military might. So they took control of Malaya. No need for all that messy trade.

I see someone mentioned cigarettes. Yet I see no liver being transferred.

Quite right. WHERE'S MY LIVER! I DEMAND LIVER!

Kelssec, I understand and agree with many of your concerns (especially those of labour immobilty and the subsequent unemployment), and I never said it will not cause problems to many countries in the short term. It will also cause a huge boost to other countries in the short term. In the long run, however, it is the belief of Cobdenia that free trade can only be beneficial to all nations.
Vastivam, you mention an understandable problem. This could be countered by sanctions against any country declaring war without good reason. That would bankrupt them. This will have to be decided on a case by case basis, of course.

It will also cause a huge boost to other countries in the short term.

At the cost of others. Probably at HUGE cost to some others. You might be able to accept that, but sorry, we can't accept that.

In the long run, however, it is the belief of Cobdenia that free trade can only be beneficial to all nations.

Not for us, it won't. As a developed, industrialized economy, we have high standards and thus costs of living. Labour costs are artificially high due to our living wage laws. The cost of doing business is higher because we have stricter environmental, product safety, worker rights, etc. standards. Our manufacturing sector, which comprises a quarter of our GDP and employs 20% of our workforce, simply cannot compete with less developed nations. It is like an American clothes factory complying with all the laws and regulations, trying to compete with a Chinese sweatshop breaking every law that gets in the way of keeping costs down.

Even in the services sector, where we can justify the higher prices with better quality, we would be hard-pressed to compete with countries whose costs are simply lower than anything we can afford at decent wages, which for us are higher because of our level of development. Put it in RL terms: An American paid US$60,000 a year would be about middle class. A Cameroonian paid US$60,000 a year would be in the upper middle, if not upper class.

The long term effect on us, therefore, would be very undesirable. Our wages would be pressured downwards and businesses would have to drastically cut costs to compete. Not only is quality going to decrease as a result, you'll see greater incidence of lawbreaking and Wal-Mart style labour practices.

However, however much they cut, our businesses simply cannot cut enough costs to be able to match the prices of the imports that flood in. Common sense will tell you that people will buy the imports instead of locally produced goods. So the local businesses sell less and make less money. Result? Layoffs. An unemployment crisis. The government's tax revenue evaporates because there's less income to tax. Our economy tanks.

By this point, it'll be election time and the pacifist Green Party will likely be tossed out because they didn't have the good sense to quit the UN. The Liberal Party takes power, or maybe even the Conservatives, and those guys will have no qualms about distracting the people from problems at home by sending the Kelssek army, which, by the way, is slightly over 5 times the size of your entire population as of this moment, on a "righteous crusade against economic tyranny".

Long term effects good? I beg to differ.

Vastivam, you mention an understandable problem. This could be countered by sanctions against any country declaring war without good reason. That would bankrupt them. This will have to be decided on a case by case basis, of course.

Who, exactly, will enforce these sanctions? Remember, UN members are the minority.

Long term effects good? I beg to differ.
I would consider those all short term problems(both you and I would be dead in what I consider to be the long term), and these concerns are entirely valid. The reason I consider these concerns short term is because in the long run minimum labour laws could (and in my opinion should) be implemented by the UN.
For example, a clause could be added to this resolution stating that all nations must implement a minimum wage of four Pounds Cobden, allowing all citizens to join and form trades unions, perhaps some working time legislation, all of which would be a minimum (for example, if Kelssek wants a minimum wage of £5, that would be allowed, but a minimum wage of £3 would not be) . As time goes on, further resolutions could be introduced that increase such regulation, for example rasing minimum wage.
Another example of how Free Trade may benefit your country in the long is that your country may shift its emphasis from the relatively low paid industrial sector to the better paid service sector. Your high taxation (?) may be your saving grace, as I'm sure it means you have high education standards which will give you a comparative or absolute advantage in service sector industries. Surely you would rather your population were all insurance salesmen and stockbrokers than automobile factory workers and farmers?

Who, exactly, will enforce these sanctions? Remember, UN members are the minority.
Of course we can only enforce this on UN members, as the proposition is only relevent to UN members.

distracting the people from problems at home by sending the Kelssek army, which, by the way, is slightly over 5 times the size of your entire population as of this moment, on a "righteous crusade against economic tyranny".
Hey, I wasn't the one who proposed the resolution. Attack Talose instead!

HE Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe KCMG DFC
HM Governor to Cobdenia

OoC:
Of course, the best solution would be to introduce a single World Free Trade Area, but apparently that isn't do-able on NationStates ( :( )

Another example of how Free Trade may benefit your country in the long is that your country may shift its emphasis from the relatively low paid industrial sector to the better paid service sector. Your high taxation (?) may be your saving grace, as I'm sure it means you have high education standards which will give you a comparative or absolute advantage in service sector industries. Surely you would rather your population were all insurance salesmen and stockbrokers than automobile factory workers and farmers?

We are already predominantly a service-sector economy. But realistically speaking, we and most everyone else will still need the primary and secondary industry. We still need farmers to grow food, fishing fleets to catch the fish, people to work on the aluminium mines, uranium mines, nickel mines, oil rigs, and the workers to take the aluminium and build the airplanes, take the steel and build the cars, take the materials and build the buildings, take the crude oil and refine it into petrol and plastic. Why should we trade for them when we can get them right here cheaply and also provide gainful employment for a quarter of our workers?

There also still have to be decent, basic skills occupations for people whose education can't get them a better job. The best education systems still have dropouts and failures. It can't be a case of "drop out of school and you'll spend your life in a homeless shelter". In any case that would be wasting of important labour resources.

Some manufacturing sector jobs also do require technical skills. Certain mechanical skills, which require training, are needed to put an airplane consisting of millions of parts together. In Kelssek the higher-end manufacturing jobs will put you in the lower middle to middle class, and the minimum wage will get you enough to support a small family and get to your job on public transit. It's not as if working on an assembly line condemns you to staving off the landlord and depending on a welfare cheque for your groceries.

It works for us, and quite well. We consistently rank highly on happiness, low on wage inequality, our economy rates as "very strong", and poverty is almost zero. You propose to kick over the house of cards we've carefully built. Other nations' economic problems are theirs to solve whichever way they want. There are literally thousands of nations out there, surely you can find one willing to trade with you what you want for a price you want.

Of course we can only enforce this on UN members, as the proposition is only relevent to UN members.

So then your aims of world peace through free trade are, ignoring other questions of their viability, not achieveable through this resolution, or through the amendments you propose, correct?

Hey, I wasn't the one who proposed the resolution. Attack Talose instead!

What, us peaceful Green Party leftists? Attack people? We take offence at your insinuations, sir! *whistles innocently, admires mural on other side of room*

Why should we trade for them when we can get them right here cheaply and also provide gainful employment for a quarter of our workers?
Well, if you can get such resources and products cheaper using free trade that is, of course, beneficial to your nation. As with the question of the 1/4 of your workforce, there are such things as unskilled service sector jobs, such as retail (RL: The largest sector of employment in the UK is retail). Plus the fact that, 1/4 of your jobs would constitute a serious decline in unemployment in nearly every developing country!


So then your aims of world peace through free trade are, ignoring other questions of their viability, not achieveable through this resolution, or through the amendments you propose, correct?

You are quite right to point this out. I should have stated that it could only be peace between members of the UN; which is as close to world peace as one can get.

I think one can sum up the argument fairly neatly with this:
If your country is altruistic (general small countries and poor, large, democracy), you are pro this resolution. However, if your country is more self centred (generally all large democratic nations and small dictatorships) then you are against this resolution

There are literally thousands of nations out there, surely you can find one willing to trade with you what you want for a price you want.
How does one do that? Is it realistic?


HE Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe KCMG DFC
HM Governor to Dominion of Cobdenia

OoC OT PS: To satisfy my curiosity, what nationality are you? It's just that I noticed you spelt aluminium, and labour correctly, yet spell aeroplane the US way (airplane)

I can't believe nobody's bothered to point out that forcing free trade on a nation is a blatant violation of sovereignty. This proposal falls far outside the UN's jurisdiction, at least as I currently understand it.

I do agree with you to some extent, Olwe, and I would rather a new International Free Trade Organisation were to be set up. However, as that is not possible the Dominion of Cobdenia has to go through the UN. As far as I can know, there is no way for our dominion to achieve it's free trade aims without such a proposal

Well, if you can get such resources and products cheaper using free trade that is, of course, beneficial to your nation. As with the question of the 1/4 of your workforce, there are such things as unskilled service sector jobs, such as retail (RL: The largest sector of employment in the UK is retail). Plus the fact that, 1/4 of your jobs would constitute a serious decline in unemployment in nearly every developing country!

Price is not what we care about. We joined the IFTA, effectively cutting off any trade with all but 79 countries (of the several hundred thousand), because our priorities are not lower prices, but employee rights, leftist ideals, and fair trade. Effectively, by the terms of the treaty, we refuse to trade with anyone not guarenteeing its workers a living wage, the right to unionise, a 40-hour work week, safe working conditions, a share in the company, and equal rights.

Yes, there are basic occupations in services. But you're still asking me to let 1/4, if not more, of my economy collapse, let jobs evaporate, and have over 20% unemployment! The services sector, already very large and employing 70% of the workforce, simply cannot expand fast enough to avert that. 20% of our workforce is 200 million jobs.

We're all for helping others, but we're not going to have an economic crisis just because the poor, poor developing countries need jobs. 200 million is a fraction of a drop in the bucket in this world and would not contribute much, anyway. In the meantime we are royally screwed.

I think one can sum up the argument fairly neatly with this:
If your country is altruistic (general small countries and poor, large, democracy), you are pro this resolution. However, if your country is more self centred (generally all large democratic nations and small dictatorships) then you are against this resolution

We aren't doing this because we're "self-centred", though it's understandable that you would see it that way because I haven't touched on how the powerful countries would be able to exploit the living hell out of poor countries with "free trade" in place.

If labour conditions are degraded by the need to compete in developed countries with labour regulations and safety restrictions, what about poor countries which don't even have them and frequently lack the funds or will to enforce them? The rich multinationals move out of the developed countries because they want lower costs. They're not going to give the workers in a poor country the same pay, conditions, and benefits they give to the workers in the developed country.

How does one do that? Is it realistic?

Considering that Kelssek's government is carefully monitoring the outcome of peace talks between a modern tribal nation and a nation consisting of a hive mind spanning several planets which also upset Infinite Loop by moving military spaceships through a jointly-administered jumpgate without permission, after a recent war between them which began when Packilvania set up a hive linking thingy in their capital and made their Cyclon robots go crazy, yes.

If you feel the need to you can RP trade talks by inviting people through RP, in the "NationStates" forum. Or you can just assume it is taking place in the background.

To satisfy my curiosity, what nationality are you? It's just that I noticed you spelt aluminium, and labour correctly, yet spell aeroplane the US way (airplane)

If you look at my nation page or (cheap plug warning) the website linked below, I think it'll be pretty obvious. Though to be honest whether I say "airplane" or "aeroplane", or say "boot" instead of "trunk", etc. depends on many factors, including humidity and the position of the moons of Jupiter. Which is to say it just happens randomly.

Vastivam, you mention an understandable problem. This could be countered by sanctions against any country declaring war without good reason. That would bankrupt them. This will have to be decided on a case by case basis, of course.

Vastiva dares you to sanction us. Wait, you could be sanctioning us... I'm not sure we'd notice. We export to 526 nations at the moment, which keeps us somewhat busy. But if you have sanctioned us, do forward word, we'll get around to responding to it.

In short - sanctions from you, or even the entire UN, would have a negligible effect on Vastiva's economy. We would not by any stretch of the imagination "go bankrupt" - I doubt very much if we would even notice. With our Polar Crown at a record (1 PC = 2.7183 USD) in international currency markets, we're very happy where we are.

I can't believe nobody's bothered to point out that forcing free trade on a nation is a blatant violation of sovereignty. This proposal falls far outside the UN's jurisdiction, at least as I currently understand it.

I agree with you, but the "national sovereignity" argument is much too overused and you never know which side of it you'll find yourself on. That is the reason I and many others, I'm guessing, refrain from using it.

If labour conditions are degraded by the need to compete in developed countries with labour regulations and safety restrictions, what about poor countries which don't even have them and frequently lack the funds or will to enforce them? The rich multinationals move out of the developed countries because they want lower costs. They're not going to give the workers in a poor country the same pay, conditions, and benefits they give to the workers in the developed country.

In the beginning you are quite right, the citizens are exploited. However, with the massive influx of inward investment governments of less developed nations are, in the long run, able to introduce and afford worker rights legislation. RL Example, Spain was very backward in the 1970; no workers rights, large agricultural sector, etc. When it joined the EU, many manufacturing companies opened new factories in Spain to exploit this. Now, 30 years later, Spain has good labour laws, and a wealthy and healthy economy.
The other thing to note, which should placate your fears somewhat, is that in RL companies outsource very slowly, and jobs are created at roughly the same rate they are outsourced. Building and equipping a factory is expensive; and what often happens is that a company, when it has decided to build a new factory, decides to build it in a country in which the resource costs are lower, while keeping the original factory in the home country open so as to exploit economies of scale. In the long run, the original factory will probably close down as it will certainly become unprofitable, but in the meantime other countries will have invested in your country (as it will have an absolute or comparitive advantage in something), keeping the unemployment rate fairly steady.
The other thing to note is that, while the people of a underdeveloped country are certain to be exploited by conglomerates for a short while, the people would rather be exploited then go back to the poverty that they had before (RL: if Indonesians thought they were better off working on their farms then in a factory, surely they would go back to farming?) Fair trade is all well and good, but as you claimed (and I agree with) that it is impossible due to the lack of funds of developing national governments. By being against free trade, you are condemning those of developing countries to living in poverty on their own farm; at least with free trade there livelyhood can and would improve (slightly in the short run, by a great deal in the long run). I therefore think that calling Kelssek self centred was accurate...

HE Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe KCMG DFC
HM Governor-General to the Dominion of Cobdenia

PS. I urge you to visit my post about diplomatic immunity. You have proven yourself to be a master debator, and would like your opinions. If you like what you see, the people of Cobdenia would not only greatfully recieve your ambassador, but I would arrange it that, if you desire to make a head of government visit, that you be accorded the same status.

PS. OoC. Should of visited Kelssek sooner; that would have made it bloody obvious really!

RL Example, Spain was very backward in the 1970; no workers rights, large agricultural sector, etc. When it joined the EU, many manufacturing companies opened new factories in Spain to exploit this. Now, 30 years later, Spain has good labour laws, and a wealthy and healthy economy.

I will then toss in the example of Wal-Mart's Chinese sweatshops and the general labour practices prevalent in India and in many African nations, where appalling conditions exist which the American corporations they supply (usually truthfully, since many of them do cover it up and many of the corporations don't bother to check) deny any knowledge of. Many years of this has not yielded much change to the better for those employees. Do you honestly believe these Chinese sweatshops will result in long-term benefit for the workers?

The other thing to note, which should placate your fears somewhat, is that in RL companies outsource very slowly, and jobs are created at roughly the same rate they are outsourced...

People's jobs are still going to be lost forever, and they will not have much of an opportunity to get a new job. Can you guarentee the new jobs will be even created in the first place? The service industry will not expand just because there's an increase in supply for the labour market. Supply does not necessarily create demand.

but in the meantime other countries will have invested in your country (as it will have an absolute or comparitive advantage in something), keeping the unemployment rate fairly steady.

Companies in a position to engage in foreign investment probably won't like our corporate taxation system, which taxes the declared profit above $100 million at 90%. It's also a very different economic culture where the ideal is a small profit and corporations believe they exist to serve their customers and the community, and "profit" is only a means to the end of their continued existance. Foreign investors don't like us and we don't like non-IFTA foreign investors either. In any case our home-grown businesses are big and numerous enough to keep the economy running.

If you are going to say, be more favourable to foreign investment so they can replace the home-grown jobs that do flee, well, why should we change? You're the one who wants to change things, so logically you should provide the reasonings behind the change. And so far you haven't satisfied us that there will be any global benefit worth beggaring ourselves for.

The people would rather be exploited then go back to the poverty that they had before (RL: if Indonesians thought they were better off working on their farms then in a factory, surely they would go back to farming?)

You give people a choice between exploitation and living at the subsistence level, and you say we're being selfish by being against free trade?

Fair trade is all well and good, but as you claimed (and I agree with) that it is impossible due to the lack of funds of developing national governments. By being against free trade, you are condemning those of developing countries to living in poverty on their own farm; at least with free trade there livelyhood can and would improve (slightly in the short run, by a great deal in the long run). I therefore think that calling Kelssek self centred was accurate...

I would not be against free trade if I believed it would actually benefit the poverty-stricken people and countries you speak of. It is not selfish motivations. I am against it because I believe it will make matters worse for all concerned. I am a leftist because I do not believe you can solve economic problems with right-wing solutions, economies, especially capitalist ones, must be carefully steered for the benefit of the people who participate in it.

If you want to ask what I would do to help instead of imposing free trade on the UN, my answer would be financial aid to build up the education system and financial grant programs to encourage local entrepreneurship, providing guidance, advice, and money to the people who want to start their own businesses. I prefer to help them build themselves up, with home-grown corporations and increased educational opportunities rather than ramming multinationals who only care about them as cheap labour down their throats.

Without wishing to sounds like I am "copping out", I believe this is turning into the bog standard capitalism vs socialism argument, plus covering a lot of ground we've covered before.
However, as we are both democratic (well, Cobdenia is democratic-ish, but purely to prevent the evil forces of Dr Vijay C. J. Petrehpetel's evil terrorist hoards gaining control), I hope we can both agree that this resolution should be proposed, and voted on diplomatically. I shall be voting for it, yourself against it. I believe that, during the course of our discussion we have covered the majority of the arguments on either side.
This disagreement aside, I hope that our nations can work together on other issues and concerns, and harmony between the peoples of Cobdenia (excluding D. Vijay C. J. Petrehpetel et al) and Kelssek can flourish.
That is too say, please don't invade our dominion!

No, I don't see it as a cop-out, in fact I have quite a bit of respect for you. You've made a good entry into the UN, unlike some others I could think of.

And I have respect for you. You argue your view coherently, methodically, and intelligently. I'm glad I had an opponent in this discussion; I think it is good for undecided nations have the ability to see two sides to any argument. In fact, if I hadn't have had an opponent, I would have argued the your side despite not believing in it!

The Armed Republic of Northern New Hampshire stands as always in favor of expanding individual freedom and autonomy among all peoples. Moreover, we celebrate and encourage the furthering of global ties which create and foster a true world community.

However, because the state must stand as the ultimate guardian of civil liberties, its right to utilize national resources in defense of the people must not be sacrificed. At times, a government beholden to national interest must seek protectionist measures to support its people. Let us keep this option open for developing nations, while at the same time ENCOURAGING, but not REQUIRING, a general freeing up of trade among all nations. Although The Armed Republic of Northern New Hampshire applauds those peoples that possess the economic strength to open their borders to the world, we stand firmly behind the right of nations to control the resources in their territory as they see fit.

Also of note, there exist in the world horrible regimes that oppress their people through their monopoly over national wealth. This act, would make it impossible for the UN community to take economic measures against such hideous governments.

EDIT: Changed as mentioned... but language was just a side note.

It's your first post, so I'll just be nice and tell you that all UN resolutions are, technically, binding, though the language may say otherwise. It is simply how the game works; it blindly changes the stats of all UN nations according to the type and strength of the resolution. Read the FAQ and the stickies.

I do have some problems with removal/ban of tariffs, they have been a major help to rebuilding and controlling my economy.

Also, not everyone wants a free-market. There has been a major outbreak of socialism, so this is obvious not a 100 percentile range. Command markets are more useful and efficient generally, I'll stay with mine, thanks for asking.

I do have some problems with removal/ban of tariffs, they have been a major help to rebuilding and controlling my economy.

Also, not everyone wants a free-market. There has been a major outbreak of socialism, so this is obvious not a 100 percentile range. Command markets are more useful and efficient generally, I'll stay with mine, thanks for asking.

Oh, and I suppose the former USSR was an excellent example of an efficient command-economy, was it?

Besides, removal of tariffs has got nothing to do with the type of economy your nation adopts. It merely removes a barrier to free-trade.

Whether you are a Communist or capitalist state, you will need to trade with other nations.

I do agree with you to some extent, Olwe, and I would rather a new International Free Trade Organisation were to be set up. However, as that is not possible the Dominion of Cobdenia has to go through the UN. As far as I can know, there is no way for our dominion to achieve it's free trade aims without such a proposal

(OOC: Sorry about the late reply, I'm only on once a day. :()

IC: Yes, but this way of thinking mistakenly assumes that the entire UN has "free trade aims". Not every UN member is a rabid capitalist... in fact, I'd imagine that the capitalist/socialist division here is pretty close to right down the middle, which means that nearly half of the UN is probably nauseated by this proposal.

In the case of so-called "free" trade, I've found that "free" is a misnomer. Until one is free from greed, they're not truly free.

As much as I respect the Dominion of Cobdenia (and from what I've seen there's a lot to respect), I cannot support this proposal.

Piñata
Grand Duke of Olwe, Overlord of the East Conclave and Commissioner of the Conclave Regional Quidditch League

Your Grace The Grand Duke of Olwe,
While we disagree with your views, it really depends upon whether you are a capitalist or a socialist nation as to whether you are for or against this resolution; as you are the opposite of us in this respect, we do understand your lack of support. However, we would like to see it reach quorum and voted upon; Cobdenia has strong beliefs in democracy in this issue. We have no wish to impose a minority belief upon the majority; if this comes to quorum I shall petition my own Regional Delegate to support it, but I shan't petition any other regional delegates (which I may do with my Diplomatic Immunity proposal; I hope I can count on the support of your regional delegate The Dominion of Ragbralbur on this issue. We promise to grant Your Grace and His Excellency the Governor-General of Ragbralbur such immunity if you or he ever decides to visit our small dominion ;) )
Yours Faithfully
HE Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe KCMG DFC
HM Governor-General to the Dominion of Cobdenia

Although I have no idea how the Prime Minister of Ragbralbur will vote on either of these proposals you've drafted (he surprises me a lot of the time), I can state for a certainty that I, at least, will support the diplomatic immunity one. Thank you for debating this issue so intelligently, Your Excellency (I hope I got the title right)... it's always good to speak to someone who knows what they're talking about, even if they don't agree with me. :D If you ever need the intervention of a wizard, please don't hesitate to ask for help from myself or one of my advisors. You've made yourself a potential friend and ally today.

Sincerely,
Piñata