NationStates Jolt Archive

Free Trade has been one of the most successful means of reducing poverty and increasing prosperity in the history of the world. We need a significant resolution in this area, something directed towards eliminating farm and industrial subsidies, which only impoverish the people for the good of economic self-interests. Resolutions #91 and #117, although a step in the right direction, does not go far enough.

Any suggestions or ideas?

From the Office of the President of the State of Amestria

(note, Amestria cannot introduce resolutions at present)

Free Trade has been one of the most successful means of reducing poverty and increasing prosperity in the history of the world. We need a significant resolution in this area, something directed towards eliminating farm and industrial subsidies, which only impoverish the people for the good of economic self-interests. Resolutions #91 and #117, although a step in the right direction, does not go far enough.

Any suggestions or ideas?

From the Office of the President of the State of Amestria

(note, Amestria cannot introduce resolutions at present)

We would absolutely support anything upholding Free Trade. We once had a silly idea in a fit of anti-MPH rage.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Significant

The NationStates United Nations,

DEEPLY ANNOYED by the 'rubber bracelets for political causes' trend sweeping the world,

BELIEVING that such campaigns are a waste of time,

CONVINCED that rubber could be better used making tyres or other useful products:

1. BANS the production of rubber bracelets for any cause;

2. ORDERS the destruction of all rubber bracelets currently in existence;

3. RECOMMENDS that states eliminate all those still who do not give up their bracelets or who attempt to make new ones.

Seriously though we would be very interested in helping to produce something.

Ok, so what would we be talking...making tariffs illegal? I'm not sure I'd be willing to go that extreme. Maybe just discourage them.

Ok, so what would we be talking...making tariffs illegal? I'm not sure I'd be willing to go that extreme. Maybe just discourage them.

This is a brainstorming meeting, if you have any ideas throw them out.

Ok. It's your proposal, but I do like the idea of collaborative efforts.

You should bear in mind I'm a moderate sovereigntist: I don't like the UN telling us what to do all the time. In this case, though, I don't see that as being a problem. I don't want to ban Unfree Trade...just do something that will encourage and support free trade.

We might consider attempting to reduce the level of governmental control of industry...employers' rights, or something?

Ok, so what would we be talking...making tariffs illegal? I'm not sure I'd be willing to go that extreme. Maybe just discourage them.
As long as tariffs are in place, nations will argue that they must subsidize their industries in order to help them compete. However, if you remove all tariffs then governments would be hard-pressed to sell that argument. Once tariffs are removed, the subsidy programs become unnecessary and governments would be unable to justify their continuation. Its likely that subsidies would go away as a result.

I agree. I'm just not sure whether the UN should outright abolish tariffs.

While Yelda is in the thread, its worth pointing out their GFDA proposal, which is Free Trade.

I agree. I'm just not sure whether the UN should outright abolish tariffs.

While Yelda is in the thread, its worth pointing out their GFDA proposal, which is Free Trade.
It is a touchy subject and it requires a certain amount of trust from all parties. Of course, in RL it would be done through agreements in which all parties voluntarily comply. We can't really do it that way in NS, a resolution is going to force everybody to comply. Thats why I don't mind removing tariffs, as they are international in nature, whereas subsidies are domestic in nature. I sound like a broken record.

It's really dificult to be totally free trade and sovereignty friendly.

No, after you've redefined it, I agree.

I'm not a hard sovereigntist, and I don't object to regulation of relations. So removal of tariffs sounds ok.

A tariff removal resolution suit you, Amestria?

(Proposed Resolution)

Industrial and Agricultural Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed By: (insert name)

Fully aware that although Free Trade has been one of the most successful means of reducing poverty and increasing economic prosperity in history, discredited Protectionism still maintains a strangle hold on many industrial and agricultural sectors. Protectionism is widely known to promote inefficiency and stagnant economic growth.

Therefore

-1- Tariffs shall not exceed two percent (2%).

-2- No industry/agricultural establishment may be subsidized at greater then five percent of its value (5%).


(Any thoughts?)

No, after you've redefined it, I agree.

I'm not a hard sovereigntist, and I don't object to regulation of relations. So removal of tariffs sounds ok.

A tariff removal resolution suit you, Amestria?

I would prefer to eliminate subsidies, but a simple reduction in tariffs (if not out-right elimination) has my support.

The idea I had was to write a resolution that encouraged the formation of free trade area's, and encourage the merging of existing free trade areas. Nothing mandated, although I was thinking about banning industrial subsidies whose effect is international (so farming subsidies would be disallowed, but subsidising public transport and museums would be okay).

(Proposed Resolution)

Industrial and Agricultural Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed By: (insert name)

Fully aware that although Free Trade has been one of the most successful means of reducing poverty and increasing economic prosperity in history, discredited Protectionism still maintains a strangle hold on many industrial and agricultural sectors. Protectionism is widely known to promote inefficiency and stagnant economic growth.

Therefore

-1- Tariffs shall not exceed two percent (2%).

-2- No industry/agricultural establishment may be subsidized at greater then five percent of its value (5%).


(Any thoughts?)

I have one slight minor problem with article 2, in that it therefore disallows the subsidisation of purely domestic industries, such as public transport (I mean, lets be honest, even if the Cobdenian railway network cost 1% to travel compared to Amestria, your not going to to use it as opposed to your own!)

Free Trade has been one of the most successful means of reducing poverty and increasing prosperity in the history of the world. We need a significant resolution in this area, something directed towards eliminating farm and industrial subsidies, which only impoverish the people for the good of economic self-interests. Resolutions #91 and #117, although a step in the right direction, does not go far enough.

Any suggestions or ideas?

From the Office of the President of the State of Amestria

(note, Amestria cannot introduce resolutions at present)

Fair trade is a much better way. You ensure that everyone is permitted to sell their goods at the same price, so only quality is taken in to account. Otherwise the larger, more affluent countries, will be able to undercut every developing nation in the world.

And your idea actually sounds more like fair than free :}

Fair trade is a much better way. You ensure that everyone is permitted to sell their goods at the same price, so only quality is taken in to account. Otherwise the larger, more affluent countries, will be able to undercut every developing nation in the world.
What you described IS free trade, for by removing barriers, tarriffs and subsidisation, larger nations cannot undercut the price (unless they are, in fact, naturally cheaper), and leads people to choose rationally using price and quality as criteria. If a poor nation cannot produce food as cheaply as a rich nation (which is unlikely, due to the fact that they have lower wages), then the poorer nation will be able to focus on a business it has a natural advantage in. Using a made up example:
Country A and Country B produce food and clothes, in both cases the population buy domestically only. In country A, food is more expensive than clothes, in B it is vice versa. If A and B start trading with each other without barriers, tarriffs and subsidies, then country A looses its farmers, and B it's tailors. The tailors become farmers in B, and vice versa in A. In A, the people can now afford more food, as they are at the cheaper as they were originally in B (due to the increase in the farming industry in B, which leads to lower prices due to economies of scale) and the same for clothes in A.
Result, all of A's tailors and former farmers turned tailors and all of B's farmers and tailors turned farmers can afford more clothes and food than before, and the people become richer.

Fair trade is a much better way. You ensure that everyone is permitted to sell their goods at the same price, so only quality is taken in to account. Otherwise the larger, more affluent countries, will be able to undercut every developing nation in the world.
What you described IS free trade, for by removing barriers, tarriffs and subsidisation, larger nations cannot undercut the price (unless they are, in fact, naturally cheaper), and leads people to choose rationally using price and quality as criteria. If a poor nation cannot produce food as cheaply as a rich nation (which is unlikely, due to the fact that they have lower wages), then the poorer nation will be able to focus on a business it has a natural advantage in. Using a made up example:
Country A and Country B produce food and clothes, in both cases the population buy domestically only. In country A, food is more expensive than clothes, in B it is vice versa. If A and B start trading with each other without barriers, tarriffs and subsidies, then country A looses its farmers, and B it's tailors. The tailors become farmers in B, and vice versa in A. In A, the people can now afford more food, as they are at the cheaper as they were originally in B (due to the increase in the farming industry in B, which leads to lower prices due to economies of scale) and the same for clothes in A.
Result, all of A's tailors and former farmers turned tailors and all of B's farmers and tailors turned farmers can afford more clothes and food than before, and the people become richer.


Really? Cause I associate free trade with letting everyone compete in a totally free market, where as fair trade is somewhat regulated.

Well, free markets cannot be totally free otherwise it actually fails to work. So, for example, patents laws and monopolies and mergers commisions and indeed regulations that ban tarrifs, barriers and subsidies in free trade areas are usually considered to be pro free market, even though they are regulatory, as they aid the free markets. The problem is that by regulating trade it is very hard to regulate it (other than the banning of barriers and tarriffs) in such a way that everyone is advantaged, whereas free trade leads in the long run to equal advantages to everyone (and world peace, but lets not get onto THAT theory here!)