NationStates Jolt Archive

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 limit their import and export tariffs to a maximum of ten percent (10%) 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.


Well, feel free to comment/argue/rant/whatever. And if anyone out there likes this proposal enough that they'd like to run a telegram campaign, more power to you. I tried doing that once, and I don't have the patience for it. Ciao. :)

Well, feel free to comment/argue/rant/whatever. And if anyone out there likes this proposal enough that they'd like to run a telegram campaign, more power to you. I tried doing that once, and I don't have the patience for it. Ciao. :)

If you changed it a little bit, I'd be inclined to vote for it. My commentary is in red.

Example:

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 by states;

I changed the word "between" to "by" in the above clause because there's nothing wrong trade being restricted between states if those restrictions are set by the individuals doing the trading.

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. URGES the formation of regional free trade zones that further reduce and/or eliminate tariffs between states;

I eliminated your #2 clause because if the current resolution passes (and it's likely to do so) then it will be illegal unless you define tariffs as a non-tax item.

Disclaimer: This is based on my own interpretation of the legislation.

3. ENCOURAGES member states to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.

I eliminated your #3 clause because you will lose votes to those of us who are opposed to more UN bureaucracy.

You also may want to add a clause recognizing that restrictions on trade are sometimes necessary for security reasons.

I like the proposal a lot, i was thinking of writing one similar to this but this one will do just fine, i agree with the amendments made by texan hotrodders. Good proposal, my support is guarenteed :p

I am concerned that this will only increase poverty in those qountries who are poor.

Just because you will be able to trade easier and get more out of it, there is no guarantee that rich or fortunate states (states rich with various resources) will trade with states of lower economic power of several reasons.

These could be:
1. Racism towards the country,

2. Because some countries have too little to offer for anyone to be interested in trade agreements with them.

and so on.

Passing this proposal as a resolution would mostlikely make the world even more economically unequal, richer´states get richer and poorer states get poorer, since those states who get a lot of trade will take over the market from those who get little or no, making it their sake to decide which states get trade.
This could make it even harder for the UN in its quest to make the world more equal (which at least our country recognizes is a purpose of the UN).

I am concerned that this will only increase poverty in those qountries who are poor.

Just because you will be able to trade easier and get more out of it, there is no guarantee that rich or fortunate states (states rich with various resources) will trade with states of lower economic power of several reasons.

These could be:
1. Racism towards the country,

2. Because some countries have too little to offer for anyone to be interested in trade agreements with them.

and so on.

Passing this proposal as a resolution would mostlikely make the world even more economically unequal, richer´states get richer and poorer states get poorer, since those states who get a lot of trade will take over the market from those who get little or no, making it their sake to decide which states get trade.
This could make it even harder for the UN in its quest to make the world more equal (which at least our country recognizes is a purpose of the UN).


Economics can rule out what you have said. Poor countries have to offer a number of things, natural resources, cheap labour and comparative advantage.

A poor country will be able to produce products like agricultural goods and textiles much cheaper than rich countries as wages are too high in rich countries.

Passing this proposal would prevent rich countries imposing tariffs and quotas on poor countries products, meaning poor countries could trade more and sell more goods, earning more money.

[OOC] If this were applied to the real world, poor countries would benefit enormously from access to rich markets.

I'm against this. Primarly because tarif is used to penalize outsourcing of vital industries in the Constitutional Republic. While I sympathize with other states. Tekania comes first the hearts and minds of Tekanians.

Very well written, very good idea at heart, I'm against it.

If tariffs were aboloshed or massively lowered, formerly intranational companies would surely buy all of their resources from companies in other nations that sold it for a lot cheaper. The problem with that is that it takes money from the economy where the intranational company is located, hurting it greatly in the long run. It also kills the demand for jobs related to producing the resources that are now being bought for cheaper extra-nationally, and therefore results in massive unemployment for those in said intranational company's nation to top off the hit to economy. This would also hurt the people of the less wealthy countries where the goods were now being bought from, because they would be in nations with crippled economies or oppressed citizens where they have no choice but to work hard, and now they would have to work ten times harder to keep up with the demand for resources. I'm sorry, but the costs outweigh the benefits massively when it comes to totally free trade, and that's what this bill suggests with the soon-to-be-illegal ten percent max removed. I'm sorry, but if this passed I would have to order embargoes on ninety percent of the products my nation deals with, for the sake of my economy and my people's jobs.

I would be inclined to vote for this proposal. Historically, protectionism, which usually goes hand-in-hand with unfair subsidies, always leads to greater inequality between nations, as the protectionist and subsidised nations are able to dump their cheaper products on the world market, whilst closing their own markets to competition from poorer nations. Lightly regulated international trade will tend to create greater wealth for everyone. In the case out outsourcing, we simply have to adjust our national economies to cope with changing markets and adopt other measures to prevent it, such as reducing taxes.

Very well written, very good idea at heart, I'm against it.

If tariffs were aboloshed or massively lowered, formerly intranational companies would surely buy all of their resources from companies in other nations that sold it for a lot cheaper. The problem with that is that it takes money from the economy where the intranational company is located, hurting it greatly in the long run. It also kills the demand for jobs related to producing the resources that are now being bought for cheaper extra-nationally, and therefore results in massive unemployment for those in said intranational company's nation to top off the hit to economy. This would also hurt the people of the less wealthy countries where the goods were now being bought from, because they would be in nations with crippled economies or oppressed citizens where they have no choice but to work hard, and now they would have to work ten times harder to keep up with the demand for resources. I'm sorry, but the costs outweigh the benefits massively when it comes to totally free trade, and that's what this bill suggests with the soon-to-be-illegal ten percent max removed. I'm sorry, but if this passed I would have to order embargoes on ninety percent of the products my nation deals with, for the sake of my economy and my people's jobs.


Completely disagree, protectionism has been tried and it seems not to work very well. Complete free trade worldwide has not been tried and in economic theory would work and have enormous benefits for EVERYONE

Completely disagree, protectionism has been tried and it seems not to work very well. Complete free trade worldwide has not been tried and in economic theory would work and have enormous benefits for EVERYONE

Saying something would work "in economic theory" is very rough. My points were completely in accordance with economic reality, and there are other "economic theories" that say completely free trade would cave in the economies of every nation and result in the requirement of large-scale international communism. That doesn't mean the theory is correct; that's why it's a theory. And I just explained why it would not have enormous benefits for everyone... put a little substance into your reply.

Besides, putting a 25% tariff on a product that costs 30% less to buy from another nation is hardly protectionism, it just discourages large companies from going to extra-national companies for the purpose of protecting jobs in my nation, and protects my economy as well - one's economy always performs better when one's money remains circulating in said economy. Protectionism would be if I upped that tariff to 45% so that companies in my nation really had no other choice but to buy intranationally.

I'm against it, looking at both rich and poor nations. A reduction/elimination of tariffs relly serves large companioes that turn multinational.

Small countries-elimintation of tariffs invites corporate involvement and development of resources, which is a good thing. The problem is this, as shown by historical precedent, leads in two directions. Either a single-faceted economy grows, based on one product or service(banana republics, Cuba with sugar), or a strong economy develops, however the structure allows for the elite to take all of the profits, leaving the populace poor as the company has absorbed all resources and thus avenues of employment(Gilded age, 90's Russia).

Large countries-loss of taxes as large compaines relocate to small nations without taxes or regulations. Loss of jobs due to outsourcing or due to decreased revenue. Also, in the consumer market the stores are flooded with cheap products developed in poor countries, further hurting the still-national corporations.

A free-trade system can work between countries with viable, developed economies, but forcing it onto all nation leads to a wide schism between nations with developed economies and nations without. Speaking as a nation without a stable economy I feel that this proposal is detrimental to all small or developing nations and to the working populace of already developed nations. If you wish to prop up the multinationals, go ahead. Free trade can be a good thing and should be encouraged in the proper situations, but cannot be mandated between nations with widely varying economies.

Saying something would work "in economic theory" is very rough. My points were completely in accordance with economic reality, and there are other "economic theories" that say completely free trade would cave in the economies of every nation and result in the requirement of large-scale international communism. That doesn't mean the theory is correct; that's why it's a theory. And I just explained why it would not have enormous benefits for everyone... put a little substance into your reply.

If you want substance;

Hong Kong and Singapore are conspicuous unilateral free traders, as is New Zealand. Those countries have done exceptionally well economically.

After the Wall Street crash, which led to a worldwide slump in economic growth, the world reverted to protectionism. Trade fell even faster, causing more unemployment and prolonging the downturn. Some countries turned to dictators like Hitler for economic and political salvation.

And if free trade is so bad, then why do most nations of the world want to set up or join free trade zones? Most of europe wants to join the EU. The G20 want to set up a free trade zone. Poor countries in the WTO want free trade and access to the rich countries markets. South east Asian countries want to set up a free trade zone. Free trade benefits everyone, it is why it is highly sought after by lot of countries, rich and poor

I'm against it, looking at both rich and poor nations. A reduction/elimination of tariffs relly serves large companioes that turn multinational.

Small countries-elimintation of tariffs invites corporate involvement and development of resources, which is a good thing. The problem is this, as shown by historical precedent, leads in two directions. Either a single-faceted economy grows, based on one product or service(banana republics, Cuba with sugar), or a strong economy develops, however the structure allows for the elite to take all of the profits, leaving the populace poor as the company has absorbed all resources and thus avenues of employment(Gilded age, 90's Russia).

Large countries-loss of taxes as large compaines relocate to small nations without taxes or regulations. Loss of jobs due to outsourcing or due to decreased revenue. Also, in the consumer market the stores are flooded with cheap products developed in poor countries, further hurting the still-national corporations.

A free-trade system can work between countries with viable, developed economies, but forcing it onto all nation leads to a wide schism between nations with developed economies and nations without. Speaking as a nation without a stable economy I feel that this proposal is detrimental to all small or developing nations and to the working populace of already developed nations. If you wish to prop up the multinationals, go ahead. Free trade can be a good thing and should be encouraged in the proper situations, but cannot be mandated between nations with widely varying economies.

Well done, just don't forget that in smaller countries people would be worked to death to keep up with massively increased demand, another way it would hurt them.

Well done, just don't forget that in smaller countries people would be worked to death to keep up with massively increased demand, another way it would hurt them.
Now there's a statement with little to no substance :rolleyes:

Well there are short term disadvantages to free trade, in the long term there are only advantages.
Well done, just don't forget that in smaller countries people would be worked to death to keep up with massively increased demand, another way it would hurt them.
The "Forty hour work week" and "The right to trades unions" prevent this from happening.

OoC:
Example: Farming subsidies and trade tariffs in RL are forcing farmers in the third world to reduce the price of their products to a level where they are making a loss, as the tariffs place artificially high prices on their products. If tariffs were removed, American products would be more expensive, thus allowing the third world to sell their produce at a price that is competitive to that of the US prices and make a profit. Taking into account that the US has a population of about 300,000,000 with 0.7% working in farming, fishing and forrestry, compared to a population in Africa of 720,000,000,000 with roughly 30% of the people working in agriculture you realise that such a policy would lead to temporary problems for 2,100,000 Americans but bring long term benefits for 216,000,000,000 Africans.
QED

If you want substance; First of all, this is all out of character and we should be dealing with economic fact, but I'll reply anyway.

Hong Kong and Singapore are conspicuous unilateral free traders, as is New Zealand. Those countries have done exceptionally well economically.

The U.S. has done better.

After the Wall Street crash, which led to a worldwide slump in economic growth, the world reverted to protectionism. Trade fell even faster, causing more unemployment and prolonging the downturn. Some countries turned to dictators like Hitler for economic and political salvation.

Are you talking about the '29 crash? How old are you, Wegason? Anyway, when protectionism gets too out of control, it becomes a bad thing, but the same is the case with free trade, only it can be much worse, as I've shown. I would support a bill which limited tariffs to a maximum percentage in each situation that offset the benefit of buying foreign products for a certain nation, effectually preventing total protectionism without reverting to total free trade.

And if free trade is so bad, then why do most nations of the world want to set up or join free trade zones? Most of europe wants to join the EU. The G20 want to set up a free trade zone. Poor countries in the WTO want free trade and access to the rich countries markets. South east Asian countries want to set up a free trade zone. Free trade benefits everyone, it is why it is highly sought after by lot of countries, rich and poor

Quite frankly, Europe's economic policy is ridiculous, and it's screwing things up for many nations. But, aside from that, "if free trade is so good," why is the U.S. economically superior to almost every nation in the EU? Don't even bring up gas prices, that's China's fault for deciding to start industrializing and increasing petroleum demands tenfold.

Besides, putting a 25% tariff on a product that costs 30% less to buy from another nation is hardly protectionism, it just discourages large companies from going to extra-national companies for the purpose of protecting jobs in my nation, and protects my economy as well - one's economy always performs better when one's money remains circulating in said economy. Protectionism would be if I upped that tariff to 45% so that companies in my nation really had no other choice but to buy intranationally.

I believe we are in agreement on this issue.

The purpose of protectionism is to protect the economic power of our own people's. Tariff allows the Republic to "level" the field (so to speak) against attempts at outsourcing. We place tariff's on "imported" goods. While leaving exports alone. This protects local jobs, and ensures greater employment to our own people. This also gives this Republic a massive trade surplus. (exporting more than we import).... This has given us a massively frightening economy... I could care less what this "free-trade" theory supposes. Practicallity and realism dictate the opposite of what the theory stipulates.

OoC:
Example: Farming subsidies and trade tariffs in RL are forcing farmers in the third world to reduce the price of their products to a level where they are making a loss, as the tariffs place artificially high prices on their products. If tariffs were removed, American products would be more expensive, thus allowing the third world to sell their produce at a price that is competitive to that of the US prices and make a profit. Taking into account that the US has a population of about 300,000,000 with 0.7% working in farming, fishing and forrestry, compared to a population in Africa of 720,000,000,000 with roughly 30% of the people working in agriculture you realise that such a policy would lead to temporary problems for 2,100,000 Americans but bring long term benefits for 216,000,000,000 Africans.
QED

This is hardly the case and I think you know it. It would bring longterm benefits to the African government and to large African companies, and money that came from our supporting of African industries would go the same place that all our financial aid for the support of Africa's people goes - straight to African "elected" officials and political leaders.

This is hardly the case and I think you know it. It would bring longterm benefits to the African government and to large African companies, and money that came from our supporting of African industries would go the same place that all our financial aid for the support of Africa's people goes - straight to African "elected" officials and political leaders.

OOC:That and, why should we harm 2,100,000 of our own people to help others? Sorry, my fellow United States citizens come first.

IC: The same applies to Tekania. I'd rather ensure the welbeing of Tekanian citizens, than support foreign citizens.

The U.S. has done better.
Higher social inequality, massive debt, huge trade deficit, your GDP per capita is fourth. If free trade is so bad then why does the US have so many unilateral free trade agreements and is part of NAFTA? :rolleyes:

Are you talking about the '29 crash? How old are you, Wegason? Anyway, when protectionism gets too out of control, it becomes a bad thing, but the same is the case with free trade, only it can be much worse, as I've shown.
As you've shown? You stated your opinion on the matter, you did not show it.

Quite frankly, Europe's economic policy is ridiculous, and it's screwing things up for many nations. But, aside from that, "if free trade is so good," why is the U.S. economically superior to almost every nation in the EU? Don't even bring up gas prices, that's China's fault for deciding to start industrializing and increasing petroleum demands tenfold.

Lets do GDP per capita again,
Luxembourg 45 778 $ EU member
Norway 42 222 $ Special agreement with EU
Switzerland 36 828 $ Special agreement with EU
United States 36 731 $

Figures are 2002 as the only 2003 and 2004 figures i found were estimated.

Gas prices was not something i was going to bring up but since you did, the reliance of the US on oil and gas is a problem. It is not China's fault that it wants to industrialise, China is perfectly entitled to.

Oh and how is the EU's economic policy 'ridiculous'. It has faults, i do not agree with a lot of it, after all i am a complete free trade advocate and the EU falls short of that with its CAP policy. The US subsidises its farmers much more i believe, that is a ridiculous policy. Producing goods it does not need to when it could buy them in cheaply from abroad (Africa as someone previously mentioned) and save billions of dollars from not subsidising expensive and inefficient american farmers.

This is hardly the case and I think you know it. It would bring longterm benefits to the African government and to large African companies, and money that came from our supporting of African industries would go the same place that all our financial aid for the support of Africa's people goes - straight to African "elected" officials and political leaders.

What large african companies? The money would go to the poor farmers of africa and bring them wealth and prosperity. American farmers can be employed in other areas through training. African farmers can not.

Someone who puts 2.1 million American farmers first over hundreds of millions of africans is saying two things. That they support giving billions of taxpayers money to 2.1 million americans to produce expensive food crops and they value an african person to be 100 times less valuable than an american. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Read Jagdish Bhagwati's “Free Trade Today”; Douglas Irwin's “Free Trade Under Fire” Or subscribe to the economist magazine.

Higher social inequality, massive debt, huge trade deficit, your GDP per capita is fourth. If free trade is so bad then why does the US have so many unilateral free trade agreements and is part of NAFTA?

I don't know why the hell we're a part of NAFTA, for one, and for two, the vast majority of our free trade agreements are on specific products with specific nations, not with every nation in the [expletive deleted] world. Of course we have higher social inequality, we're capalists, you worry about your own ass over here. the UK has massive debts, too; the U.S. has more strictly because we are bigger and we do more internationally.


As you've shown? You stated your opinion on the matter, you did not show it.

The following was an opinion?

If tariffs were aboloshed or massively lowered, formerly intranational companies would surely buy all of their resources from companies in other nations that sold it for a lot cheaper. The problem with that is that it takes money from the economy where the intranational company is located, hurting it greatly in the long run. It also kills the demand for jobs related to producing the resources that are now being bought for cheaper extra-nationally, and therefore results in massive unemployment for those in said intranational company's nation to top off the hit to economy. This would also hurt the people of the less wealthy countries where the goods were now being bought from, because they would be in nations with crippled economies or oppressed citizens where they have no choice but to work hard, and now they would have to work ten times harder to keep up with the demand for resources. I'm sorry, but the costs outweigh the benefits massively when it comes to totally free trade, and that's what this bill suggests with the soon-to-be-illegal ten percent max removed. I'm sorry, but if this passed I would have to order embargoes on ninety percent of the products my nation deals with, for the sake of my economy and my people's jobs.

Yeah, that sounded pretty opinionated to me. Wait, no it didn't.

Lets do GDP per capita again,
Luxembourg 45 778 $ EU member
Norway 42 222 $ Special agreement with EU
Switzerland 36 828 $ Special agreement with EU
United States 36 731 $

Okay, let's look at how EU members would rank as states in the U.S.A., shall we? With more current figures, too.

U.S.A: $40,100
Luxembourg: $58,900
Norway: $40,000
Switzerland: $33,800

Now we're second, but nice try. I will give you that Luxembourg does boast a very, for lack of a better word, kick-ass GDP per capita right now.

Now, let's look at some other EU members, instead of comparing the U.S. to the top three, which completely clouds the facts.

U.S.A: $40,100
Denmark: $32,200
Ireland: $31,900
Austria: $31,300
Belgium: $30,600
The Netherlands: $29,500
Finland: $29,000
Sweden: $28,400

I could go on and on, but I'm really to lazy.

Gas prices was not something i was going to bring up but since you did, the reliance of the US on oil and gas is a problem. It is not China's fault that it wants to industrialise, China is perfectly entitled to.

It's entitled to, yes, but they are largely at fault for oil prices being on the rise. Yes, our reliance is a problem, and we should be shredding Alaska for every ounce of oil it has, but all the liberal environmentalists won't let us.

Oh and how is the EU's economic policy 'ridiculous'. It has faults, i do not agree with a lot of it, after all i am a complete free trade advocate and the EU falls short of that with its CAP policy.

Okay, how about the fact that most of its member nations are not doing very well economically compared to slightly more protectionist nations, like the United States? How about the fact that England still hasn't adopted the euro when it is one of the most influential European countries, while many of the European nations have?

The US subsidises its farmers much more i believe, that is a ridiculous policy. Producing goods it does not need to when it could buy them in cheaply from abroad (Africa as someone previously mentioned) and save billions of dollars from not subsidising expensive and inefficient american farmers.

If you wanted millions of your own people to lose their jobs and tons of money to leave your economy instead of remaining in circulation in the U.S., I guess that would be a good idea.

What large african companies? The money would go to the poor farmers of africa and bring them wealth and prosperity. American farmers can be employed in other areas through training. African farmers can not.

This is just completely incorrect, both private Americans and the U.S. government already give African nations billions of dollars a year, and I would be surprised if a fourth of that actually reaches the African people. Most goes straight into the pockets of political authorities there.

Someone who puts 2.1 million American farmers first over hundreds of millions of africans is saying two things. That they support giving billions of taxpayers money to 2.1 million americans to produce expensive food crops and they value an african person to be 100 times less valuable than an american. :rolleyes:

The African people are not America's primary concern. Americans are.

EDIT: Read Jagdish Bhagwati's “Free Trade Today”; Douglas Irwin's “Free Trade Under Fire” Or subscribe to the economist magazine.

Gee, Free Trade Today and Free Trade Under Fire sound like very legitimate, unbiased sources. As for economist magazines, I have the internet for research and casual reading, and I think my points here are proof enough that I am very economically competent without reading magazines put out by highly proprietary companies.

It is our understanding that the edits made to the proposal by Texan Hotrodders remove the only actual requirement in the original proposal, the ten-percent tariff maximum. They leave a declaration which you may or may not agree with but which actually does nothing, an urging to make free-trade zones (again, not a requirement but a suggestion), and an encouragement to eliminate other trade-harming things (again, no requirement). Those of you who agree with his position, why are you arguing that there will be an elimination of tariffs?

Cwruland supports the proposal in its original fashion, excepting the formation of an oversight committee.

It is our understanding that the edits made to the proposal by Texan Hotrodders remove the only actual requirement in the original proposal, the ten-percent tariff maximum. They leave a declaration which you may or may not agree with but which actually does nothing, an urging to make free-trade zones (again, not a requirement but a suggestion), and an encouragement to eliminate other trade-harming things (again, no requirement). Those of you who agree with his position, why are you arguing that there will be an elimination of tariffs?

Cwruland supports the proposal in its original fashion, excepting the formation of an oversight committee.

OOC Okay, I can't reply to this in character, but out of character it will significantly impact our nations' statistics regardless of whether it actually does anything because it is given a significant rating.

It's entitled to, yes, but they are largely at fault for oil prices being on the rise. Yes, our reliance is a problem, and we should be shredding Alaska for every ounce of oil it has, but all the liberal environmentalists won't let us.

How is shredding alaska for every bit of oil reducing your reliance on oil?


Okay, how about the fact that most of its member nations are not doing very well economically compared to slightly more protectionist nations, like the United States? How about the fact that England still hasn't adopted the euro when it is one of the most influential European countries, while many of the European nations have?

Europe has not done well economically due to the euro, a stupid idea it was, the UK (not england, it is the UK) has been doing much better because we are not in the euro. As i said, some european policy is stupid, the euro being one of them.



If you wanted millions of your own people to lose their jobs and tons of money to leave your economy instead of remaining in circulation in the U.S., I guess that would be a good idea.

Like i said if you read properly, those millions can be employed in other sectors, like British manufacturing workers re-training and going into other fields after the demise of the UK manufacturing sector. Money will not only leave the economy under free trade but come in as well, it works both ways :rolleyes:

If you read what i said, your government would save billions of dollars from removing farm subsidies and would therefore have more money to spend or give back in tax cuts. More money would remain in the economy anyway if there was free trade as you could buy agricultural goods from abroad cheaply, much cheaper than you currently pay.

The African people are not America's primary concern. Americans are. So why invade Iraq? Why invade Vietnam? Not really in american's interest.



Gee, Free Trade Today and Free Trade Under Fire sound like very legitimate, unbiased sources. As for economist magazines, I have the internet for research and casual reading, and I think my points here are proof enough that I am very economically competent without reading magazines put out by highly proprietary companies.

Those books were written by Professors. Both volumes are from Princeton University Press. Mr Bhagwati, a professor at Columbia University wrote Free Trade Today. Mr Irwin is a professor at Dartmouth and a leading economic historian.

Your points are proof you are economically competent? In your eyes maybe, not mine.

How is shredding alaska for every bit of oil reducing your reliance on oil?

I meant reliance on foreign oil. If we shredded Alaska, we'd be less dependant and more self-reliant. I worded that poorly, my mistake.

Like i said if you read properly, those millions can be employed in other sectors, like British manufacturing workers re-training and going into other fields after the demise of the UK manufacturing sector. Money will not only leave the economy under free trade but come in as well, it works both ways :rolleyes:

Wrong, free trade does not result in money going into a wealthy nation nearly as much as it results in money leaving it, because it is cheaper for other nations to buy from poorer or more oppressive nations. :rolleyes:

If you read what i said, your government would save billions of dollars from removing farm subsidies and would therefore have more money to spend or give back in tax cuts. More money would remain in the economy anyway if there was free trade as you could buy agricultural goods from abroad cheaply, much cheaper than you currently pay.

No, money would still leave, overall, just not as much as is being spent here. The difference is, the amounts of money being spent intranationally remain in the hands of the United States people.

So why invade Iraq? Why invade Vietnam? Not really in american's interest.

Vietnam, because we had a stance of stopping communism at the time, even though I disagree with Vietnam because it was handled mainly by some of the stupidest people we've ever had in office, like LBJ. Iraq we went into on faulty intelligence because many of our CIA officials told us that Iraq had WMDs, M6 told us that Iraq had WMDs, and Russian Intel told us that Iraq had WMDs. Seeing as Saddam had demonstrated before that he was willing to use WMDs, even on his own people - the Kurds, specifically - and therefore it was not worth the risk to wait to see if all three of those intelligence agencies were wrong. Also, Saddam was closely tied to various terrorist regimes. For instance, he was an avid supporter of Hezbollah, and also gave thousands of dollars in support of the families of suicide bombers in Palistine. I won't even go into his or his sons disgusting personal habits.




Those books were written by Professors. Both volumes are from Princeton University Press. Mr Bhagwati, a professor at Columbia University wrote Free Trade Today. Mr Irwin is a professor at Dartmouth and a leading economic historian.

Oh, and I suppose University professors are some of the least biased people in the world. Think about what the hell you're saying.

Your points are proof you are economically competent? In your eyes maybe, not mine.

Hmmm, have I said something that would suggest otherwise? All I've seen you do is present one-sided statistics, which I corrected; present unsupported theories, which I countered with theories suggesting the opposite; and suggest reading material by University professors, the titles of which suggest extreme bias.

A more helpful bill, if I might propose a compromise that would work much more effectively than universal free trade, would be one that promoted free trade between nations that were equal in GDP per capita, or less than five percent (5%) apart. That would result in more equal benefits from free trade, and probably be beneficial to all nations, not just minimally beneficial to poor ones.

OOC: Be careful about using RL Examples. I'm sure you have noticed they don't get treated seriously by some other nations.

I suppose you could have a look for a NS nation with the same name as the RL nation you are referring to, but that is still a pretty flimsy justification :)

OOC: Be careful about using RL Examples. I'm sure you have noticed they don't get treated seriously by some other nations.

I suppose you could have a look for a NS nation with the same name as the RL nation you are referring to, but that is still a pretty flimsy justification :)

Out of character, I agree - I argued strictly on principal and economics, however when the opposition starts making real-life references to back up their claims, you must also back up yours with real-life references so that you do not seem less knowledgeable than they. I would refer anyone that hasn't been keeping up on this stuff to my original post, #11, before Feymore made subtle real-life references, and before Wegason based his entire argument on them.

Very well written, very good idea at heart, I'm against it.

If tariffs were aboloshed or massively lowered, formerly intranational companies would surely buy all of their resources from companies in other nations that sold it for a lot cheaper. The problem with that is that it takes money from the economy where the intranational company is located, hurting it greatly in the long run. It also kills the demand for jobs related to producing the resources that are now being bought for cheaper extra-nationally, and therefore results in massive unemployment for those in said intranational company's nation to top off the hit to economy. This would also hurt the people of the less wealthy countries where the goods were now being bought from, because they would be in nations with crippled economies or oppressed citizens where they have no choice but to work hard, and now they would have to work ten times harder to keep up with the demand for resources. I'm sorry, but the costs outweigh the benefits massively when it comes to totally free trade, and that's what this bill suggests with the soon-to-be-illegal ten percent max removed. I'm sorry, but if this passed I would have to order embargoes on ninety percent of the products my nation deals with, for the sake of my economy and my people's jobs.

We are curious how you would like us to convince our people to accept free trade when it would obviously hurt certain industries that we are currently strong in.

We inpose tariff to "level" the playing feild in our nation on certain products and industries. We already have free trade agreements with several other nations, both UN and non-UN members.

This is part of our nations international diplomacy. This is how we use leverage and others use leverage against us. This is how we do business with allies and opponets alike. Tariffs are used as barganing chips.

No. I would have to say forceing us to use free trade would do more harm then good. Every nation should be allowed to chose how it will interact with other nations.

Vanhalenburgh farmer are currently highly efficent. Modern technologies and years of agricultural training allows them to produce massive amounts of food year round. We do currently pay them not to farm at their maximum to prevent food prices from plummeting into nothing because of high supplies. How would it benifit a poorer nation if the food prices were driven down, how could they compete with a farmer who could produce 3 crops a year to their one?

I am afraid we can not support this.

Henry Peabody
Minister to the UN

We are curious how you would like us to convince our people to accept free trade when it would obviously hurt certain industries that we are currently strong in.

We inpose tariff to "level" the playing feild in our nation on certain products and industries. We already have free trade agreements with several other nations, both UN and non-UN members.

This is part of our nations international diplomacy. This is how we use leverage and others use leverage against us. This is how we do business with allies and opponets alike. Tariffs are used as barganing chips.

No. I would have to say forceing us to use free trade would do more harm then good. Every nation should be allowed to chose how it will interact with other nations.

Vanhalenburgh farmer are currently highly efficent. Modern technologies and years of agricultural training allows them to produce massive amounts of food year round. We do currently pay them not to farm at their maximum to prevent food prices from plummeting into nothing because of high supplies. How would it benifit a poorer nation if the food prices were driven down, how could they compete with a farmer who could produce 3 crops a year to their one?

I am afraid we can not support this.

Henry Peabody
Minister to the UN

Representative Peabody,

Vastiva will gladly pre-purchase the excess at market prices, allowing you to stop paying them to "not produce". I am sure the particulars can be worked out by those who have more interest in them.

Namaste,

Caliph Suleman ben Ghaziri al-Din
Vastivan Ambassador to the United Nations
Humble Servant of His Magnificence, the Sultan of Vastiva

***

Most certainly, we do not support this bill, as we do not support tarriffs of any sort.

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;

We find this to not be true. If we ever manage to completely drain an Age of the necessary resources, we simply sell it to private ownership and Write another. With all of our necessities taken care of by the various Ages and the amount of resources we have, the fact we control the quality of all products and our people are the ones who make them makes it very efficient.

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;

The cost itself is actually raised, as instead of just paying to those in our nation we have to pay others. And, worse, we'll have to waste resources on getting other nations up to par and having compatible technology.

MAINTAINING that trade is most efficient when unrestricted between states;

Are you sure of that?

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;

That's kinda the point.

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:

We haven't taken part in the global market, and in what way are we hurt? If we were to sell on the global market some of the items we sell here, entire industries would go under. What use is it to buy a cell phone when you can have something on your wrist that acts as a personal computer, a cell phone, a camera, and personal ID while always being up to date and only having to be bought once in your lifetime. The space agencies would go under just from our Linking Books, as why would you build a ship to go to a planet when you can simply Write a Book that allows you to instantaneously travel there? And we mean that literally. Hell, police forces in most nations don't know how to deal with a criminal that can rob a bank and escape to another planet before they even have a chance to get the bank surrounded.

1. DECLARES that removal of import and export tariffs is in the best interest of all member nations;

It floods our market with inferior and incompatible technology, a needless waste of resources.

2. REQUIRES all member states to permanently limit their import and export tariffs to a maximum of ten percent (10%) within six months of the passage of this resolution;

As you did not specify 10% of what, we're going to assume you mean 10% of our current tariffs, which were just raised to 625,000,000%.

3. CREATES an oversight committee to monitor compliance of member states;

They sound important. I'll start ignoring them immediately.

Another Useless Committee phenomenon in action.

4. URGES the formation of regional free trade zones that further reduce and/or eliminate tariffs between states;

Great. We hereby define DLE territory as being such, but only for whatever is in DLE territory. You want to not pay the tariffs? Let us annex you.

5. ENCOURAGES member states to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.

Sure. You get your technology up to our level and compatible, and we'll trade. If not, it remains a barrier. And, no, we won't change our technology to suit yours.

[OOC] If this were applied to the real world, poor countries would benefit enormously from access to rich markets.

[OOC]
No they would not since the rich countries would only benefit from trade more since they could easier trade among themselves.


[ON]
You have missed the point. The important is not poor countries getting it poorer, but countries with few resources getting less trade.

[OOC: Come one, this is turning into a General debate. Ugh. I really disagree with Wegason, but this is not the appropriate forum.]

I'm not the first Ecopoeian representative to comment on proposals such as this and I'm sure I won't be the last. I hope what follows is a comprehensive and coherent outline of my nation's principle objections to the proposal and to unrestricted free trade at large.

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;
Just a passing comment, but there is an assumption that in a 'non-capitalist' system, the state is solely responsible for the provision of goods and services. This is simply not the case. Ecopoeia is testament to this; the internal economics of my nation is confusing, to say the least, but most participate in a co-operative system.

MAINTAINING that trade is most efficient when unrestricted between states;
This is a rather nebulous statement. What constitutes 'efficient' here? Why is efficiency necessarily the overriding consideration?

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;
A restriction of trade is not intrinsically a 'bad thing'. Is it wrong to restrict trade with ruthless human rights abusers?

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:
Again the emphasis on efficiency. All things being equal, yes; however, what are the costs - social and otherwise - of such increased efficiency?

1. DECLARES that removal of import and export tariffs is in the best interest of all member nations;
And here is the crux of our disagreement. I support the removal or reduction of certain tariffs - namely most of those imposed by richer nations - but not all. What does a developing nation - like Ecopoeia - have to gain from doing so?

2. REQUIRES all member states to permanently limit their import and export tariffs to a maximum of ten percent (10%) within six months of the passage of this resolution;
'Permanently'? What of unusual and extreme circumstances, such as war?

4. URGES the formation of regional free trade zones that further reduce and/or eliminate tariffs between states;
At least regional groups are small enough to give dissenting nations the opportunity to veto such moves. The voice of a nation like Ecopoeia is easily lost in an organisation of over thirty thousand nations.

5. ENCOURAGES member states to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.
This is weak, so causes no real problems for us. However, this clause does suggest that non-tariff barriers are intrinsically bad. Again, is it wrong to restrict trade with ruthless human rights abusers? Or at the very least attach conditions for trade?

The wider argument against proposals of this ilk is that there is an underlying assumption that uniform deregulation of trade is good for all. This would only be the case (and I would still dispute even this, but will not do so here) if we had a level global [OOC: alright, universal - for the offworlders] playing field. We patently do not. If Ecopoeia were forced to open its markest to outside forces, then our local producers, etc would be annihilated.

We have different priorities. In terms of consumer goods, etc, Ecopoeians have simple needs. 'Enough is as good as a feast'. The community spirit engendered by our small, egalitarian, localised economic systems is far more valuable to us than a buoyant GDP (a poor measure of wealth if ever there was one). External trade and tariffs are subject to community approval - the state does not assert itself unduly in this regard.

Ultimately, the only clauses in this resolution that we find irrevocably objectionable are 2 and 3 (the latter only because of the existence of 2). Otherwise, the philosophy expressed is troubling, but doesn't force nations like Ecopoeia to take any distasteful action. Amend 2 to exempt developing nations (though how would this be measured?*) and we would possibly abstain, rather than vote against the proposal should it achieve quorum.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

*OK, so we could argue that this would be defined in appendices, otherwise no trade proposal could conceivably be legislated on by the NSUN because of the subtleties required.

I am against this proposal. Simply put, the elimination of tariffs on incoming goods into my country might lead to the elimination some of my countries industries.

Though it may help developing nations, the possible job loss in developed nations is of particular concern to me. A working class guy's feeling good about helping developing nations will be cancelled out by his feeling bad about having to have all his family's belongings moved out by the end of the month when the work starts drying up.