NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi everyone. I'd be interested to see what people make of this. It's something that our region is considering submitting as a whole (with the delegate doing the actual submission).

I think it's all fairly self-explanatory, but please feel free to ask questions.


END TO AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES

A resolution to ease global poverty and increase economic fairness.

OBSERVING the widening gap between the wealthy and impoverished nations of this world;

OBSERVING the excess agricultural produce that is grown in the wealthier countries of the world, and which is sold in the poorer countries at a price with which their domestic markets cannot compete, a process known as 'dumping';

REASONING that agriculture should be, for many underdeveloped economies, the primary realistic industry from which they can earn money through exports and thereby raise themselves out of poverty;

NOTING that agricultural subsidies are economically disadvantageous to those countries that apply them, helping only farmers at the expense of the general taxpayers of the countries that apply them, and exist primarily for political reasons;

RESOLVES to bring to an end the system of agricultural subsidies that prop up the agricultural industries of wealthy nations by no later than 2015;

And hereby ESTABLISHES the Agricultural Trade Equality Board. It's function will be:

I To monitor whether states are, directly or indirectly, subsidising their agricultural production;

II To report to the United Nations whenever a state is found to have subsidised its agricultural production;

III To issue formal Declarations of Breach when a state has subsidised agricultural production to a degree exceeding the maximum level at that time. The maximum level will start at the current level at the passing of this resolution and reduce each year on an even sliding scale to zero by 2015;

And where such a Declaration has been issued then any and all nations will be entitled to levy proportionate and prejudicial trade barriers against the state in breach without fear of sanction from any international body overseeing global trade.




Also, could someone enlighten me about the categories of resolution, and what effect it would have? Where can I find a list of categories? I couldn't see it in the big sticky. Thanks in advance.

Damn you, this was the same idea as I had for my next proposal!

It would probably be free trade, significant, as it reduces barriers to trade.

The two things I would change are:

Change 'by 2015' to 'within twenty years'; ten years is too short and by specifying an actual date you might end up with problems with past tech anf future tech nations.

And hereby ESTABLISHES the Agricultural Trade Equality Board. It's function will be:

I To monitor whether states are, directly or indirectly, subsidising their agricultural production;

II To report to the United Nations whenever a state is found to have subsidised its agricultural production;

III To issue formal Declarations of Breach when a state has subsidised agricultural production to a degree exceeding the maximum level at that time. The maximum level will start at the current level at the passing of this resolution and reduce each year on an even sliding scale to zero by 2015;

And where such a Declaration has been issued then any and all nations will be entitled to levy proportionate and prejudicial trade barriers against the state in breach without fear of sanction from any international body overseeing global trade.

Not certain you need this. All UN resolutions are mandatory; and a number of countries dislike commitees as they waste money. You also go into too much detail about how it would function.

OBSERVING the widening gap between the wealthy and impoverished nations of this world;

Not another one of these...

OBSERVING the excess agricultural produce that is grown in the wealthier countries of the world, and which is sold in the poorer countries at a price with which their domestic markets cannot compete, a process known as 'dumping';

The solution is simple: The poorer countries refuse to accept agricultural products from richer nations.

REASONING that agriculture should be, for many underdeveloped economies, the primary realistic industry from which they can earn money through exports and thereby raise themselves out of poverty;

Actually, agricultural should be the least of their worries. What they should be focused on is industrial, particularly the items the richer nations don't produce but still need. Textiles, if of a high-enough quality, would be particularly popular. So would ammunition, if cheap enough and with a low rate of misfire.

NOTING that agricultural subsidies are economically disadvantageous to those countries that apply them, helping only farmers at the expense of the general taxpayers of the countries that apply them, and exist primarily for political reasons;

Or primarily for economic reasons, such as preventing their markets from being flooded and allowing them to take advantage of other nations.

RESOLVES to bring to an end the system of agricultural subsidies that prop up the agricultural industries of wealthy nations by no later than 2015;

Remove the date. The full force of UN resolutions go into affect as soon as they are passed.

And hereby ESTABLISHES the Agricultural Trade Equality Board. It's function will be:

Ah, yes. The Another Useless Committee phenomenon. Committees are not the solution to every single problem. Remove this portion.

I To monitor whether states are, directly or indirectly, subsidising their agricultural production;

II To report to the United Nations whenever a state is found to have subsidised its agricultural production;

III To issue formal Declarations of Breach when a state has subsidised agricultural production to a degree exceeding the maximum level at that time. The maximum level will start at the current level at the passing of this resolution and reduce each year on an even sliding scale to zero by 2015;

Remove this portion as well.

And where such a Declaration has been issued then any and all nations will be entitled to levy proportionate and prejudicial trade barriers against the state in breach without fear of sanction from any international body overseeing global trade.

Which still doesn't cover the issue of a nation having too much produce and selling it to smaller nations at a price the smaller nations can't compete with.

I was also thinking about a resolution along these lines about two weeks ago, wish i had written it now.

This would definately be free trade and a significant rating in my opinion, i would support this with the amendments

Not another one of these...

The solution is simple: The poorer countries refuse to accept agricultural products from richer nations.

No, because then third world countries will still not be able to export their produce.

Actually, agricultural should be the least of their worries. What they should be focused on is industrial, particularly the items the richer nations don't produce but still need. Textiles, if of a high-enough quality, would be particularly popular. So would ammunition, if cheap enough and with a low rate of misfire.

Ah, I see. So they just just knock together some armament factories should they? I wonder why RL thrid world countries haven't done that already...? The fact is that agriculture is relaively simple to do, and the best first rung on the ladder.

Or primarily for economic reasons, such as preventing their markets from being flooded and allowing them to take advantage of other nations.

Ah, I see. A protectionist. That explains much. Well, protectionism does not actually help to protect whole economies, only specific industries at the expense of the rest of that economy. In RL it would be better for the US as a whole to get rid of agricultural subsidies because they wouldn't have to pay through the nose for their food via tax, though it would harm farmers.

Remove the date. The full force of UN resolutions go into affect as soon as they are passed.

I will remove the date, but I'd need to put a 20-year limit on as suggested. This resolution clearly could not be implemented immediately all at once.

Ah, yes. The Another Useless Committee phenomenon. Committees are not the solution to every single problem. Remove this portion.

I think I will actually.


Which still doesn't cover the issue of a nation having too much produce and selling it to smaller nations at a price the smaller nations can't compete with.

It acts as a deterrent to the subsidies, thereby hopefully reducing them and preventing the dumping. So it does cover exactly that.

Here is an updated version, trimmed down without the Board:


END TO AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES

A resolution to ease global poverty and increase economic fairness.
Free Trade - Significant.

OBSERVING the widening gap between the wealthy and impoverished nations of this world;

OBSERVING the excess agricultural produce that is grown in the wealthier countries of the world, and which is sold in the poorer countries at a price with which their domestic markets cannot compete, a process known as 'dumping';

REASONING that agriculture should be, for many underdeveloped economies, the primary realistic industry from which they can earn money through exports and thereby raise themselves out of poverty;

NOTING that agricultural subsidies are economically disadvantageous to those countries that apply them, helping only farmers at the expense of the general taxpayers of the countries that apply them, and exist primarily for political reasons;

RESOLVES to bring to an end the system of agricultural subsidies that prop up the agricultural industries of wealthy nations within 20 years;

And AUTHORISES any and all nations to levy proportionate and prejudicial trade barriers against any state in breach of this resolution without fear of sanction from any international body overseeing global trade, to act as a detterent against agricultural trade distortions.

I have absolutely nothing against the revised version. Good work.

So let me get this straight, you want me to stop paying my farmers not to plant so that third world markets will be able to be more competative?

I do not see how this will work. Currently Vanhalenburgh farmers only produce about half of the possible production of goods. If we stop the subs they will most like be produceing at their fullest capability thus flooding the market even more and driving down prices so that only the farms of technicaly advanced nations (such as ours) would be able to make a profit because of the ability to produce more for less.

I do not see this being a benifit to undeveloped nations. Their best bet is to use tariffs on incomming goods to level the playing feild. Third world nations do not have access to the advanced machines (reduces the need for paying for manpower to pick, plant, etc.), agricultural education (The best crops to rotate, understanding the chemical balances needed to produce more faster), and scientific advancements (Better fertilizers, Greenhouses, genetics, preservation technics to make the goods last longer, etc) that developed nations have. They would find themselves producing inferior goods that cost more to make and do not last as long.

We feel that removal of the subs would not benifit at all.

Minister to the UN
Hanry Peabody

Subsidised agriculture leads to artificially low prices, which mean that if any third world country wishes to export to the first world, they have to sell at less then the real market rate in order to compete. In many circumstances, they have to sell at a loss to make any money whatsoever.

OoC: it actually costs more to produce cotton in the US than the price it is sold at due to subsidies; it is actually sold at price less than world market rates, therefore making it impossible for other nations to sell in the US

OOC: The subs keep the prices up not down. You use cotton and it is a very good example to make your point. Cotton production in the US is not where it used to be because many farmers have moved to more profitable goods like Soy. Our farm uses only 1/3 of our land for farming, if the Government were to removed the subs we would use 100% of the land for production to make up the lost income. Flooding the market and driveing prices down because every other farm in the US (and the world) would be doing the same. We can produce 3 crops a year if we set our minds to it and can also use our green houses to pre-produce seedlings over the winter months so that in the spring our crop is already 30% to 40% ready.

IC: We understand the need to help thrid world nation to be more competative. We think that by useing tariffs and concentraiting in their their markets first they could set themselves up. Maybe some sort of agricultural aid system could be established to get modern equipment and training to these third world nations first. Also one more thing to consider, many of these nation are in locations that do not favor argiculture. Trainign for other carreers might be in order.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

No, because then third world countries will still not be able to export their produce.

Passing this won't change that.

Ah, I see. So they just just knock together some armament factories should they? I wonder why RL thrid world countries haven't done that already...? The fact is that agriculture is relaively simple to do, and the best first rung on the ladder.

Agriculture is also not a business that bigger nations make their money on. The problem with focussing on agriculture is that they tend to get stuck there and don't ever develop farther. That's part of why we set up our agricultural system last.

Ah, I see. A protectionist. That explains much. Well, protectionism does not actually help to protect whole economies, only specific industries at the expense of the rest of that economy. In RL it would be better for the US as a whole to get rid of agricultural subsidies because they wouldn't have to pay through the nose for their food via tax, though it would harm farmers.

The last time the US lacked subsidies, the Dust Bowl happened. Subsidies evolved in the US as a form of survival, in that they are helping protect the environment so they can still grow food. Without subsidies, the agricultural portion of the US economy collapses within a year and the nation starves. That's how close the nation is to falling apart at any moment. Any comments otherwise are mostly bravado or propaganda.

With us, we don't use subsidies. We simply grow what we need. We use subsidies because the industry is, due to our economic setup, a monopoly. Check our government setup to see how that works.

I will remove the date, but I'd need to put a 20-year limit on as suggested. This resolution clearly could not be implemented immediately all at once.

It's either all-at-once or not-at-all. That's the UN.

It acts as a deterrent to the subsidies, thereby hopefully reducing them and preventing the dumping. So it does cover exactly that.

No, by removing the subsidies you get nations such as mine that will go crazy in food production. Having an insane excess of food and no way to store half of it, we're going to dump it on nations with weaker economies at prices they can't compete with. After all, would you rather buy a local apple for about 25 cents, or a DLE high-quality bred-to-perfection apple for five cents? With our total land mass set aside for farming, we could crush half of the agricultural business in the UN within a year. We use the subsidies to prevent that, but are not afraid to destroy more economies than you dare count if we have to.

Passing this won't change that.

Well, I think it will, because their overheads will be far lower, and they will be able to produce food more cheaply. But that all depends on the points to follow...


Agriculture is also not a business that bigger nations make their money on. The problem with focussing on agriculture is that they tend to get stuck there and don't ever develop farther. That's part of why we set up our agricultural system last.

I agree that rich nations don't make money on it, which is partly why I particularly object to the system that prevents other benefitting. I disagree about getting stuck. It is impossible for a country to leap in with industrial production when it has no means of acquiring capital to begin with. Agriculture requires relatively little technology and capital investment compared to armament production.


The last time the US lacked subsidies, the Dust Bowl happened. Subsidies evolved in the US as a form of survival, in that they are helping protect the environment so they can still grow food. Without subsidies, the agricultural portion of the US economy collapses within a year and the nation starves. That's how close the nation is to falling apart at any moment. Any comments otherwise are mostly bravado or propaganda.

I might consider adding an environmental exception. But as for the agricultural economy, I'm not arguing that it won't be harmed - it will be. But everyone else will benefit. And it is quite wrong that the US would starve. The UK hasn't been able to feed itself since the 18th century, and it's done fine by importing food. The US would actually get cheaper food, in effect, because the amount of tax that goes into subsidies outweighs the lower prices achieved through subsidies, by inexorable economic logic.


It's either all-at-once or not-at-all. That's the UN.

OOC: If this a point about the game mechanics then I see where you are coming from, but I don't think the slight diparity between the way the resolution will be implemented in the game and the actual way it would be implemented under the resolution justifies making the resolution harmful.


No, by removing the subsidies you get nations such as mine that will go crazy in food production. Having an insane excess of food and no way to store half of it, we're going to dump it on nations with weaker economies at prices they can't compete with. After all, would you rather buy a local apple for about 25 cents, or a DLE high-quality bred-to-perfection apple for five cents? With our total land mass set aside for farming, we could crush half of the agricultural business in the UN within a year. We use the subsidies to prevent that, but are not afraid to destroy more economies than you dare count if we have to.
Our farm uses only 1/3 of our land for farming, if the Government were to removed the subs we would use 100% of the land for production to make up the lost income. Flooding the market and driveing prices down because every other farm in the US (and the world) would be doing the same.

I can see where you are coming from with these, but I disagree with what the effects of ending subsidies would be. Currently wealthy nations tend to export crops. Without the subsidies they might try to produce more crops, but those crops would still be more expensive to produce overall, therefore more expensive to sell and therefore harder to export. It is price, not volume, that is key to fair competition.

Anyway, I'm not surprised to see that the turkey's are unhappy about Christmas, but this has to be looked at from more than a farm perspective. ;)


IC: We understand the need to help thrid world nation to be more competative. We think that by useing tariffs and concentraiting in their their markets first they could set themselves up. Maybe some sort of agricultural aid system could be established to get modern equipment and training to these third world nations first. Also one more thing to consider, many of these nation are in locations that do not favor argiculture. Trainign for other carreers might be in order.

You're right that it won't help all countries, but alternative measures would be the subject of a different resolution, I think.

Tariffs for poorer countries in practice aren't possible, because wealthier nations inevitably retaliate in a big way. As for aid - it's alright, but ultimately, even if they had the same equipment and expertise as wealthy nations they would still not be able to compete, because they can't compete with food produced in exactly the same way but with subsidies.

Btw, I think that there are different sorts of subsidies being discussed here. The sort that I was thinking about primarily are the sort where a farmer is paid $x or equivalent for each amount of food produced. Some of you are talking about a system where farmers are paid not to grow crops.

The latter system would appear not to directly harm farmers from poorer nations, but in fact, as farmers continue to grow some food, as was said, that food is still effectively subsidised and the effect is the same - artificially cheap food stifling other agricultural industries.

As I have already argued, I believe that if the latter system was ended then food from wealthy countries would, even though the capacity is huge, not be able to compete on price with industries with lower overheads in poorer countries. So the potential for increased production would not actually harm the effect of this resolution. Although higher volume usually means lower prices, prices cannot be sustained at below a break-even level. It would in fact mean that farmers in wealthy nations would be left with large stockpiles.

That is why there is a 20 year period to allow an adjustment. Farmers could most likely switch to high-quality produce, or crops that cannot be grown in other places, or food that is better fresh and which people will pay for.

Well, I think it will, because their overheads will be far lower, and they will be able to produce food more cheaply. But that all depends on the points to follow...

Actually, the way to end it is require that richer nations simply put higher prices on the foodstuffs they sell on the markets of poorer nations. They can subsidize all they want, but subsidies won't make up for the lack of profits from your products being higher than native ones.

I agree that rich nations don't make money on it, which is partly why I particularly object to the system that prevents other benefitting. I disagree about getting stuck. It is impossible for a country to leap in with industrial production when it has no means of acquiring capital to begin with. Agriculture requires relatively little technology and capital investment compared to armament production.

A means of getting capital is to sell raw goods, which are an extremely valuable commodity that even self-sufficient nations like my own are willing to consider buying. After all, buying it may be less time-consuming (and potentially cheaper) than Writing Ages and putting in the effort to start mining colonies on them.

I might consider adding an environmental exception. But as for the agricultural economy, I'm not arguing that it won't be harmed - it will be. But everyone else will benefit. And it is quite wrong that the US would starve. The UK hasn't been able to feed itself since the 18th century, and it's done fine by importing food. The US would actually get cheaper food, in effect, because the amount of tax that goes into subsidies outweighs the lower prices achieved through subsidies, by inexorable economic logic.

Actually, the US imports vast quantities of foods, but it exports even more foods than it imports to nations such as the UK that cannot produce their own food, as well as smaller nations that are incapable due to internal setup.

OOC: If this a point about the game mechanics then I see where you are coming from, but I don't think the slight diparity between the way the resolution will be implemented in the game and the actual way it would be implemented under the resolution justifies making the resolution harmful.

OOC: It is a point about game mechanics. The only reason I bring it up is because the mods might complain on it.

I can see where you are coming from with these, but I disagree with what the effects of ending subsidies would be. Currently wealthy nations tend to export crops. Without the subsidies they might try to produce more crops, but those crops would still be more expensive to produce overall, therefore more expensive to sell and therefore harder to export. It is price, not volume, that is key to fair competition.

Anyway, I'm not surprised to see that the turkey's are unhappy about Christmas, but this has to be looked at from more than a farm perspective. ;)

I'm just stating what the effect of ending subsidies in DLE will be. You can expect a large number of nations to lose all ability to ever produce crops due to our undercutting their prices in a way that cannot be competed with. If we were to farm to max capacity, we could sell trees for insanely low prices. We don't pay our farmers to produce crops above capacity, as right now we don't have a reason to participate in the global market, though this would give us a reason.

Btw, I think that there are different sorts of subsidies being discussed here. The sort that I was thinking about primarily are the sort where a farmer is paid $x or equivalent for each amount of food produced. Some of you are talking about a system where farmers are paid not to grow crops.

For DLE, such a system is required. We have entire worlds set aside for nothing but farming, where we purposefully destroy the natural habitat to make room for continent-sized farms. With some products, we use the oceans and lakes instead of the land for the farming. Ours is an empire with a capital city underground, so we like to make sure that our people are fed and want to make sure we don't have to Write a new Age once every two generations just for food. Producing at our capacity is not something you would desire.

What I would do is simply add a definition of which type of subsidies you are talking about. As outlawing the idea of paying farmers to farm wouldn't affect us and would allow our system to continue, we are willing to back it.

The latter system would appear not to directly harm farmers from poorer nations, but in fact, as farmers continue to grow some food, as was said, that food is still effectively subsidised and the effect is the same - artificially cheap food stifling other agricultural industries.

Solve the problem with a law: Farmers subsidized to not grow food due to overabundance concerns may not sell any crops they grow, and must only grow enough crops for themselves and their family. If they happen to grow a little extra and pass it off to a few friends in trade for something else, our legal system is willing to overlook it.

As I have already argued, I believe that if the latter system was ended then food from wealthy countries would, even though the capacity is huge, not be able to compete on price with industries with lower overheads in poorer countries. So the potential for increased production would not actually harm the effect of this resolution. Although higher volume usually means lower prices, prices cannot be sustained at below a break-even level. It would in fact mean that farmers in wealthy nations would be left with large stockpiles.

You're missing something important: Sudden market floods. Farmers, having twenty years to grow crops in anticipation of being able to sell them in massive quantities, could flood the market with so much produce that it collapses, possibly overnight.

That is why there is a 20 year period to allow an adjustment. Farmers could most likely switch to high-quality produce, or crops that cannot be grown in other places, or food that is better fresh and which people will pay for.

Well, that might work for some nations, but definitely not for all.

"My Caliph? There is discussion about food on the UN floor..."
"Well, buy them a vacuum."
"Pardon, my Caliph, but they speak of removing subsidies from all UN agriculture..."

~blink~

"If this actually makes quorum, buy all the food futures you can and short the hell out of them. Then put put-options on every single supermarket and food outlet you can find."
"How many, my Caliph?"
"Did I stutter? ALL of them. If this happens, buy every single put option out there. The collapse will be monumental. And we'll be rich, I tell you, rich, rich, rich!"

~pause~

"My Caliph, you already are rich - your personal fortune is already beyond several countries GDP...."
"So?"
"Ah. Apologies, I understand perfectly."