FAILED: Auto Free Trade Agreement [Official Topic] [Archive]

Teruchev

21-11-2005, 15:58

After a month of jousting and parrying, I've submitted the UN Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile Industry, now known as the "Auto Free Trade Agreement" due to character limitations.

Auto Free Trade Agreement

The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, particularly environmentally-friendly automotive technology,

-4- URGES all member nations to ensure that unhealthy barriers to productive competition, which may include trusts and cartels, do not become a hindrance to the benefits of this resolution,

-5- EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations,

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.

The TG campaign was poorly coordinated on my part, so this can be considered a dry run (especially if the approvals come back dire :P)

Here is a link to the previous discussion thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450409

And a link to the submissions page for UN Delegates' approval:
http://www.nationstates.net/59623/page=UN_proposal/start=10

Steve Perry
President

Gruenberg

21-11-2005, 16:06

Sorry, I will TG if you want. But a dry run might be a good idea.

Teruchev

21-11-2005, 16:09

Sorry, I will TG if you want. But a dry run might be a good idea.

No apologies necessary, entirely my fault. TG away if you have some time to spare, I believe I will also try to do so tonight sometime.

Thanks.

Steve Perry
President

Yelda

21-11-2005, 18:46

Approved.

Teruchev

21-11-2005, 20:24

Compadria

21-11-2005, 21:28

Congratulations to Teruchev for being able to put this forwards. I hope that we can bring it to the floor for debate and begin the revolution of the U.N. automobile sector.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Cluichstan

21-11-2005, 21:37

Oh yes, and could Gruen and Cluich please forward me the names of those delegates they have already contacted about this?

TG me and I will provide my personal email address for this purpose.

Thanks.

Steve Perry
President

Haven't actually gotten to it yet. I was rather tied up this weekend. Sorry. However, if you send me a list of those who have already received TGs, I'll set about it tonight.

Teruchev

21-11-2005, 21:39

Haven't actually gotten to it yet. I was rather tied up this weekend. Sorry. However, if you send me a list of those who have already received TGs, I'll set about it tonight.

I'll be able to get that list to you tomorrow; check with Gruen to see how he's made out as well.

Many thanks,

Steve Perry
President

Gruenberg

21-11-2005, 21:40

I'll TG you a list of who I've done.

The Lynx Alliance

22-11-2005, 00:13

even though it goes against the wishes of our AWU, we will support this and encourage our deligate, Flibbleites, to support it reaching quarum

Teruchev

22-11-2005, 22:54

even though it goes against the wishes of our AWU, we will support this and encourage our deligate, Flibbleites, to support it reaching quarum

We thank Flibbleites, and all the other Delegates who have supported this thus far.

20 so far... but we're not done yet. I've never had any moments of self-doubt that this proposal, while having limitations (i.e. not going far enough, Groot) is a worthwhile initiative that needs to see the light of day on the floor of the General Assembly. Anyone watching the RL example of GM and Ford realize the painful effects of inefficiency and protectionism.

Let's bring this to vote, and give the UN a competitive advantage over non-UN nations.

Steve Perry
President

Gruenberg

22-11-2005, 23:02

Cluich and I are working through the delegate list. I've done about 100 so far.

Cluichstan

22-11-2005, 23:04

(OOC: Got the delegate list from Gruen (thanks!) and will start working on it when I get home.)

Cobdenia

22-11-2005, 23:05

Announcement from the Cobdenia Governor-General:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/CoAsmall.jpg
Office of the Governor-General

Due to his tireless efforts in promoting free trade, His Excellency Air Chief Marshall Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe GCS GCRC GOG, Governor-General of Cobdenia, bestows upon President Steven Parry of the Republic of Teruchev the honour of an Knight Grand Cross of The Most Fantabulous Order of Richard Cobden.
ACM C. Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe, GCS GCRC GOG
His Excellency Air Chief Marshall Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe GCS GCRC GOG,

You can now style yourself President Steve Parry, GCRC!

Teruchev

22-11-2005, 23:16

Announcement from the Cobdenia Governor-General:

You can now style yourself President Steve Parry, GCRC!

I am humbled by this great award, it is truly an honour. I would say more to this but am completely rendered speechless to be recognized for my efforts in this field.

I am also humbled to have the support of the nations of Gruenberg and Cluichstan as we move forward on issues that warrant the UN's time and consideration.

OOC: Gruen or Cluich, please TG me a list of the delegates that have not been contacted yet so that I can tackle this ASAP. Thanks.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President

Cluichstan

22-11-2005, 23:19

Teruchev

22-11-2005, 23:37

(OOC: Gruen, starting from the top of the list, has hit the first 100 or so, he says. I figured I'd start from the bottom of the list and work my way up to avoid spamming people. I believe he's working off a list you sent him, so why not start somewhere in the middle of that?)

OOC: Thanks, Cluich, Gruen has just sent me a TG with the list of delegates he has not contacted yet.

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

Teruchev

23-11-2005, 18:56

Gruen, I got your list by TG, and got through about half of it last night.

I will try and polish it off tonight.

Thanks.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President

Gruenberg

23-11-2005, 18:58

Ok, good luck. If it doesn't make it this time, I'm willing to help again: I'll have more time, next time.

Optischer

23-11-2005, 20:24

Teruchev

23-11-2005, 22:40

This is the only proposal with which I have ever fully agreed. You have this so right, that I am prepared to move to your nation, endorse you, vote for this resolution and campaign my socks off. I hope you do get this into the UN. Please Telegram me if you ever want more support.
Optischer

Optischer, your vote of confidence in this initiative warms the heart of myself and the Teruchev people.

We too hope to see the UNFTAA make the books, if not right now then soon.

Please feel free to visit the Republic of Teruchev anytime and check out our fine cultural facilities, voted 133rd best in the North Pacific region.

Steve Perry
President

Teruchev

25-11-2005, 15:48

Thanks a million to everyone who supported my first crack at submitting the UNFTAA.

I think 42 (?) approvals for a relatively-dry run is fairly respectable, and shows a level of interest in implementing this agreement.

Any suggestions for a timeline for resubmission?

Steve Perry
President

Gruenberg

25-11-2005, 15:52

Wait a week, I'd suggest. People are going to be busy this weekend with post-Thanksgiving, etc., and possibly that'll roll into next week. Also, best to give the delegates some breathing space.

Teruchev

25-11-2005, 15:56

Wait a week, I'd suggest. People are going to be busy this weekend with post-Thanksgiving, etc., and possibly that'll roll into next week. Also, best to give the delegates some breathing space.

Duly noted, although looking at all the lackluster proposals sans Gruenberg's listed in the UN this morning, it's sure tempting to stuff mine back in.

Steve Perry, GCRC (I keep forgetting that I have another title now)
President

Gruenberg

25-11-2005, 16:01

Duly noted, although looking at all the lackluster proposals sans Gruenberg's listed in the UN this morning, it's sure tempting to stuff mine back in.

Steve Perry, GCRC (I keep forgetting that I have another title now)
President

Actually, you make a point about the low proposal count at the moment. That might work to your advantage...but I'd still advise waiting till Monday, as there just aren't enough active delegates over a weekend.

Ariddia

26-11-2005, 12:17

We oppose this on principle, as it dictates a particular form of economic ideology. Though if it passes, Ariddia will be unaffected. We're a moneyless society, and all our foreign trade is handled by the State. This Resolution is not applicable in our case.

We will vote against, in any case.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Optischer

26-11-2005, 20:06

If it is against your principle, but it won't affect you, then abstain. Voting with principle is a pretty weak vote in any case.

Teruchev

26-03-2006, 23:10

The UNFTAA will be resubmitted at approx. 8:00 a.m. CST Monday March 27.

To those who have agreed to help with telegramming, I thank you and call upon your assistance this coming week.

Am I supposed to plug Fair Trade here?

Gruenberg

26-03-2006, 23:15

I'll be able to TG as many people as you want on Monday/Tuesday.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-03-2006, 23:22

I'm open for TGing this week. Check the FAIR TRADE board.
P.S. Thanks for bumping this.

Teruchev

27-03-2006, 04:46

I'm open for TGing this week. Check the FAIR TRADE board.
P.S. Thanks for bumping this.

Got my TG, Kenny?

Omigodtheykilledkenny

27-03-2006, 04:59

Sure did bro. Check the FAIR TRADE board again; I've posted an edit and a schedule for TGing.

Teruchev

27-03-2006, 16:40

Submitted. http://www.nationstates.net/98485/page=UN_proposal/start=30

Your approvals would be most appreciated, honourable delegates.

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

Omigodtheykilledkenny

27-03-2006, 16:43

Use this link: www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=auto%20free

You won't have to keep updating it.

Teruchev

27-03-2006, 16:50

Use this link: www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=auto%20free

You won't have to keep updating it.

Thanks, you lovely bastard, you.

Edit: Thanks Flibble, you're numero uno in my books.

I'll stop being corny now.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

27-03-2006, 16:55

Did you catch my edit of your TG and the TG list I created on FAIRTRADE?

[EDIT: Flibble?]

Teruchev

27-03-2006, 16:58

Did you catch my edit of your TG and the TG list I created on FAIRTRADE?

[EDIT: Flibble?]

I sure did, and addressed it on FAIRTRADE as such.

Edit: Flibbleites is the first delegate to approve this puppy, so he gets a cheap pop on the Jolt Forum, on me :p

Teruchev

28-03-2006, 16:33

bump

Teruchev

28-03-2006, 20:46

85 approvals... only 39 to go.

Keep up the good work everyone!

Should this reach quorum, tall frosty milkshakes for all.:p

Teruchev

28-03-2006, 22:51

98...only 26 to go! Any delegates who have not approved this yet, I humbly request your support.

Yes, I know I'm only doing this to bump up the thread, put your letter-writing pens away, folks.

Fonzoland

29-03-2006, 00:47

Shame on you, bumping a thread like that...

Delegate. Yo, delegate! Yes, you.

Click me. Anywhere in the post, doesn't matter, really. You know you are dying to do it. Just click me. (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=auto%20free)

Teruchev

29-03-2006, 15:45

Quorum Reached!

Take a bow, all you that helped with the TG campaign. You know who you are.

Special thanks to those that spoke up and undertook constructive criticism with my original draft last fall and subsequent drafts into 2006; it's because of people like you that made the Auto Free Trade Agreement so good that it encountered a steely silence for the last few months :p (let's see if that continues!)

Now for the hard part. To those that TGed me unequivocally opposing this measure, I invite you to join the floor debate and bring all perspectives to the table; I and others will be waiting to address your concerns.

Again, many thanks to all those who helped the UNFTAA get to the floor.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

29-03-2006, 16:21

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

St Edmund

29-03-2006, 18:48

Quorum Reached!

Congratulations!
St Edmund now (to my surprise) holds the 'delegate' position for our region, and this was one of the first proposals that we approved.

Fonzoland

29-03-2006, 20:18

Congratulations.

Cluichstan

29-03-2006, 20:25

Don't mind me. I'm just waiting around for Senator Sulla to arrive with the Iron City.

Teruchev

30-03-2006, 16:29

Don't mind me. I'm just waiting around for Senator Sulla to arrive with the Iron City.

*Taps foot impatiently* :p

Ecopoeia

30-03-2006, 20:00

OOC: Congrats, Teruchev. Is this to be the main discussion thread for the resolution when it comes to vote?

Teruchev

30-03-2006, 20:41

OOC: Congrats, Teruchev. Is this to be the main discussion thread for the resolution when it comes to vote?

It might as well be, the first page has the link to the original thread, which through Jolt's search engine I wasn't able to track down, so lucky for us I put in that link.

Palentine UN Office

31-03-2006, 03:11

Don't mind me. I'm just waiting around for Senator Sulla to arrive with the Iron City

*Taps foot impatiently* :p

*Staggers in* Sssshoorry, but dosh yoo know how mhany ssilly shuns of a shalors are already protesting thish? I had to shtep oversh a bunsh of the shorry sods to get here! I had to shtart drinking early! Hersh the Beer! *places down Iron City*

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/new_iron_city.jpg

Teruchev

31-03-2006, 05:05

Oh, I almost forgot...

Tall, frosty milkshakes in refrigerated trucks are on their way to the respective capitals of everyone who worked tirelessly to bring the UNFTAA to the floor of the GA.

Darsomir

01-04-2006, 06:55

OOC: Congrats on getting your proposal to quorum, Teruchev!

IC: Just one question. Is this going to affect Darsomir's ban on automobiles? We use motorcycles and horses for personal transpost, carriages for small groups, and trains for large groups.
If, as a result of this proposal we would have to introduce automobiles, Darsomir would be opposed. If we are still allowed to keep the ban, that will change to an abstain. Her Holiness Aristhia doesn't mind much how other nations carry out trade, noly how these things affect Darsomir.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

01-04-2006, 07:30

The only thing I can see from this proposal is that it would require your nation to remove all protective barriers on the trade of automotive products, which I assume includes motorcycles. It does not require you to have an automotive industry, per se, but since you admit to using motorcycles, I can only assume you have one, and you would thus be affected.

Darsomir

01-04-2006, 09:11

I wasn't fully clear. We import specific models of motorcycle that fit under our specific criteria. While it would be good to have a domestic industry for this, currently there is not.
Other automobiles - cars, trucks, lorries etc. - are banned. Would this state of affairs, including our ability to set criteria for importing of motorcycles, be allowed under this proposal, should it become resolution?

Johannes,
UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia, also representing Trademaster Berenon

Teruchev

02-04-2006, 02:58

I wasn't fully clear. We import specific models of motorcycle that fit under our specific criteria. While it would be good to have a domestic industry for this, currently there is not.
Other automobiles - cars, trucks, lorries etc. - are banned. Would this state of affairs, including our ability to set criteria for importing of motorcycles, be allowed under this proposal, should it become resolution?

Yes.

If your nation isn't demanding it, this resoluion won't force you to import it.

The UNFTAA would simply require the nation(s) you import your motorcycles from to drop their ridiculous tariffs, so that the fine folks of Darsomir can ride their bikes with more money in their pockets.

Golgothastan

02-04-2006, 03:04

Can I suggest you edit your first post to reflect the final, queued, draft?

Darsomir

02-04-2006, 08:19

Yes.

If your nation isn't demanding it, this resoluion won't force you to import it.

The UNFTAA would simply require the nation(s) you import your motorcycles from to drop their ridiculous tariffs, so that the fine folks of Darsomir can ride their bikes with more money in their pockets.
Ah. Thank you.

Teruchev

03-04-2006, 15:52

Can I suggest you edit your first post to reflect the final, queued, draft?

It does seem to be a little buried, allow me to repost:

Auto Free Trade Agreement

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that protectionist economic policies, by restricting the free flow of trade, seriously hinder the economic development of nations,

CONVINCED that free flow of trade greatly improves economic growth, technological development, and purchasing power, giving all nations the opportunity to specialise on their most efficient industries and acquire goods they are not equiped to produce,

CERTAIN that a common market in the trade of automotive technology and equipment will create economic development, sustainability, and technological dissemination, benefiting all member nations,

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automotive sector (UNFTAA):

-1- REQUIRES all member nations to phase out all protectionist devices in the trade of Automotive technology and equipment, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, production subsidies and import quotas;

-2- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive technology, with special emphasis on environmentally friendly technology;

-3- URGES member nations to minimise all barriers to free competition, including but not limited to trusts, cartels, dumping, price coordination, and excessive market power, ensuring they do not limit the benefits of the UNFTAA;

-4-AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of the UNFTAA;

-5- DECLARES that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five years in length.

Love and esterel

04-04-2006, 22:20

Love and esterel would like to congrats the nation of Teruchev for the quorum reached by AFTA (Auto Free Trade Agreement) and wish it success.

Free trade is a growing process worldwide, contributing to the world economic growth and the list of multilateral and bilateral FTAs is growing almost every month.
Here is an amazing list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Free_Trade_Agreements

Love and esterel is also amazed to see so many of the biggest names of the "National Sovereignty Organisation" stabbing in the back of natsov, by trying hard to force all members and by their commitment to the words “mandates” and “requires”

The following question merits to be debated:

Does AFTA sign the death of “natsov”?

Cluichstan

04-04-2006, 22:26

I thought you quit.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

04-04-2006, 22:29

Does AFTA sign the death of “natsov”?No, because trade is an international issue. It's something you fail to grasp. National sovereigntists have no problem with international agreements.

Fonzoland

05-04-2006, 03:18

LAE, welcome back. Cluich, behave. Kenny, for once we agree.

Cluichstan

05-04-2006, 12:37

LAE, welcome back. Cluich, behave. Kenny, for once we agree.

I don't know how. :p

Teruchev

06-04-2006, 04:51

Love and esterel would like to congrats the nation of Teruchev for the quorum reached by AFTA (Auto Free Trade Agreement) and wish it success.

Thank you.

Love and esterel is also amazed to see so many of the biggest names of the "National Sovereignty Organisation" stabbing in the back of natsov, by trying hard to force all members and by their commitment to the words “mandates” and “requires”

The following question merits to be debated:

Does AFTA sign the death of “natsov”?

No thank you.

If the NSO is the driving force behind this proposal, it is news to me.

Flibbleites

06-04-2006, 05:27

If the NSO is the driving force behind this proposal, it is news to me.
I believe what LAE is referring to is that several prominent NSO members, like myself, approved the proposal. LAE must still be trying to grasp the difference between intranational issues, and international issues.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Edoniakistanbabweagua

06-04-2006, 12:24

I would like to send my support to this bill.

Zav

06-04-2006, 12:35

One man's freedom is another man's tyrrany....

It is with great regret that we, the citizens of Zav, are forced to vote against this motion. Whilst believing in the notion of free trade we recognise that there can never be a utopian concept of free in a world where faithless humans (and, unfortunatetely even faithful, sometimes) are inherently selfish and use the condcept of freedom to further their own personal 'selfish' goals. This motion assumes that 'free' will really means 'free'.

There are no concessions to states wishing to control trade to exclude traders on the grounds that their products harm the enviornment nor concessions to states wishing to block trade by enemy nations in an effort to destabilise Zav's economy. We, in Zav, put our people first, not industry.

Without the addition of limitations to control free trade we cannot agree to such a motion.

This is the right way, the spiritual way.

Son of Zav.

Lape

06-04-2006, 12:48

This is a demerit on our economies. Relieving the protectionist devices from the automotive companies is a crippling strike upon any privately run businesses in our regions. It is their option, not ours, to decide where they want their products to be situated in and wether or not they wish to export. If we continually allow new automobile companies from foreign nations to sell to our citizens then local businesses will be driven away.

I shall vote against this agreement, my nation's economy does not need such a blow from foreign companies. Eliminating competition is impossible, that statement alone should be proof enough that Teruchev has no idea about the economical structures of businesses.

Sincerely,
Queen Seaver of Lape

Fonzoland

06-04-2006, 14:04

There are no concessions to states wishing to control trade to exclude traders on the grounds that their products harm the enviornment nor concessions to states wishing to block trade by enemy nations in an effort to destabilise Zav's economy. We, in Zav, put our people first, not industry.

Interesting points.

The first one is just wrong. You can ban fossil fuels, diesel cars, red cars, pink limos, or anything you wish. All this resolution does is force you to apply the same restrictions to national and imported cars. If you do so, presto, it is no longer a protectionist device. And you would do so anyway if your only concern is the environment, rather than somehow distorting competition.

The second one is an important concern, and I pondered suggesting it during the drafting stage. I decided against it, mainly for practical reasons.

Supose nations A and B are at war, and nation A is exporting cars to nation B. You are arguing that nation B would want to block this trade. True. However, I there is nothing stopping nation A from deciding to stop trade itself, and I argue that would happen in practice. After all, nation B has a much more intelligent way of handling the issue: aprehending all property of nation A without reparation. An act of war, for sure, but not illegal under international law. So, if you want to block trade with an enemy, confiscate the goods - don't pay.

This is the profitable way, the ruthless capitalist way. ;)

Lape: Sorry, your post makes no sense.

Krondor-Bas-Tyra

06-04-2006, 14:11

I must whole heartedly agree with Queen Seaver, the great ruler of Lape. The small but proud nation of Krondor-Bas-Tyra, while having a fairly strong economy, can not be dealt such a blow from economic powerhouses throughout the regions. These magnanimous empires would be able to build automobiles at wholesale and become the "Wal-Mart" of everything four-wheeled.

It is the job of every sovereign to protect its citizens and their way of life. While my nation's automotive industries are small, they do produce very reliable and well built machines. I must also point out, countries would be forced to find the "loop-hole" in this resolution that would even the playing field once again.

It should be up to individual nations to work-out their trade agreements, not have terms forced upon them from a world body of nations, some of which don't even build cars. I must therefore vote against this resolution...

Respectfully,

Emperor Argon
The Empire of Krondor-Bas-Tyra

Allemande

06-04-2006, 14:31

Doesn't this violate the gameplay restrictions on a U.N. proposal?

If a nation's primary industry is Automobile Manufacturing and this proposal passes, doesn't that compel them to reject the tarriff option when Issue #30 comes up?
The Issue
Cheap, foreign-made cars are becoming increasingly popular, causing concern in @@NAME@@'s automobile manufacturing industry.

The Debate
1. "Unless this government does something, @@NAME@@ won't have an auto industry for much longer," says auto industry union boss @@RANDOMNAME@@, in a rare public appearance alongside management. "These foreign companies employ people for a few @@CURRENCY@@s a day. The only way to level the playing field is to raise tariffs. The government would make more money, too, so it's win-win."

2. "For once, I agree with my grubby colleague here," says General Chassis CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Although I have to say, tariffs aren't the only answer. A more effective solution would be to abolish minimum wage laws. Now that would level the playing field. And we'd be able to employ more--argh, let go of my throat!"

3. "I think we need to face facts," says noted economist and chat-show regular @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We live in a global economy now, and automobile manufacturing just isn't @@NAME@@'s strong suit. There's no point taking money from taxpayers in order to line the pockets of a few greedy workers and corrupt managers in a doomed industry. Let the market takes its--argh, let go of my throat!"Technically, if this proposal passes, all U.N. members would be required to either: Choose policy option #3, or...

Dismiss the issue.Of course, the U.N. can't force a player to handle a particular issue one way or another, nor can it eject a member nation for actions taken in addressing issues (in fact, it can't eject a member at all). That's why this would (could?) be a gameplay restriction: it attempts to impose on (human) players a set of controls that could only practically be achieved by reprogramming the NS game engine (which is never going to happen).

My understanding is that U.N. resolutions can't attempt to remove (human) player choice or force modification of the fundamental game code.

Were it my resolution (I actually authored a Common Market resolution, but quit the U.N. before I could get it to quorum), I would have created a set of very visible exceptions, and then essentially argued that Issue #30's first two options were (for U.N. members, anyway) attempts to exploit those exceptions. Whether this resolution does this is a matter for some debate.

Not that this affects me; I'm not a member (for a host of reasons). I'm just asking the question; the rest of you can debate whether this is a problem with the proposed resolution or not.

Thanks for listening; I'll return to my self-imposed exile from this organisation.

Ecopoeia

06-04-2006, 14:35

OOC: Allemande, there are many issues where the options available ought to be restricted by the effects of a passed resolution. I think it's just one of those in-game contradictions that people quietly ignore...

Good to see you again, by the way.

Toobinmydik

06-04-2006, 14:42

As a person who lives his real life in the Detroit area of Michigan where we eat sleep and breath cars, I can tell you two things. Automotive unions have become greedy self-destructive entities, and large automotive companies would rather cannibalize themselves than work along with the world. World trade, while legal and supported by the US government currently, is not practiced by the us Big 3, in fact they take great measures to counter act any positive benefits!

Gruenberg

06-04-2006, 14:44

Allemande

06-04-2006, 14:49

I edited the post to add some clarification.

When I wrote my draft Common Market proposal, it essentially created a tarriff-free zone for all goods that encompassed only the N.S.U.N.; by doing this, I was reserving (and in fact, further in the text, I explicitly reserved) to members the right to impose tarriffs, quotas, duties, and such on non-members. I think this resolution does that, but I was clearer in my enunciation of that right (the present resolution seems to suggest that the reserved right is restricted to retaliatory measures).

I did the same with my proposal to establish a non-binding military alliance comprised of all N.S.U.N. members (akin to the R.L.U.N.'s Article 51); I didn't forbid N.S.U.N. members from going to war or being attacked, and didn't require members to come to each other's aid: but I did seek to create a framework whereby a player could post something in I.I. to the effect of: "Help! I'm a U.N. member and I'm being attacked! I call upon all other U.N. members to come to my aid!" IOW, a "hue-and-cry".

Again, maybe the exception is there. But it doesn't stand out, if it is.

Gruenberg

06-04-2006, 14:52

I edited the post to add some clarification.
Which is lovely, and still totally irrelevant. Issues and UN resolutions are separate parts of the game.

Ocrapistan

06-04-2006, 14:57

This nu resolushun is awsum. Non-UN kuntrez luz, and Un kuntrez win so anebode votz 4 winz. anebode who duhznt sux big tym. anebode with guhd econome wins and those with bad econome just win less. vot yes!!!!!!! huk'd on fonix dun guhd 4 mee. :D

Allemande

06-04-2006, 15:01

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.
Types of Violations MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.As I said, you folks can debate this; I just saw the proposal and thought I'd offer the comment en passant.

And (as I said earlier), with that I'll fade back into the woodwork.

Zav

06-04-2006, 15:10

Interesting points.

The first one is just wrong. You can ban fossil fuels, diesel cars, red cars, pink limos, or anything you wish. All this resolution does is force you to apply the same restrictions to national and imported cars. If you do so, presto, it is no longer a protectionist device. And you would do so anyway if your only concern is the environment, rather than somehow distorting competition.

The second one is an important concern, and I pondered suggesting it during the drafting stage. I decided against it, mainly for practical reasons.

Supose nations A and B are at war, and nation A is exporting cars to nation B. You are arguing that nation B would want to block this trade. True. However, I there is nothing stopping nation A from deciding to stop trade itself, and I argue that would happen in practice. After all, nation B has a much more intelligent way of handling the issue: aprehending all property of nation A without reparation. An act of war, for sure, but not illegal under international law. So, if you want to block trade with an enemy, confiscate the goods - don't pay.

This is the profitable way, the ruthless capitalist way. ;)

Lape: Sorry, your post makes no sense.

Profit in the heart is worth a million times profit in coin.

Thank you for your educated and erudite response. We, the people of Zav accept your response to the first point. However, we beg to differ with the second point. Attempts to destabilise an economy do not always happen in war, nor do they happen openly and transparently. Therefore nations must have the right to protect themselves from such action in war AND in peace. Although finding much we agree with in your motion, unless the motion takes into account any nation's right to defend it's citizens from aggressive capitalist activity we are forced to vote against it.

This is the right way, the spiritual way.

Son of Zav

Dielschneider

06-04-2006, 15:31

I have a great need of my tariffs to help to keep my military power strong. I cannot lose the money that comes in through imports and exports. While this bill would strengthen relations between countries, it will take away a huge source of income. While I am all for peace, I must vote against and I hope all will join me. Do not let yourself lose this source of income!!!

Vosgard

06-04-2006, 15:46

Fonzoland

06-04-2006, 16:06

vosgard's income comes almost exclusively from tariff's and sales taxes. this ammendment would be a devistating blow to our economy. in the name of free trade, please vote against this measure. if this passes, i will have no choice but to leave the un.

I bagsie your office. In case you are interested, personal possessions can be delievered to your capital city for a small charge.

Irrakathia

06-04-2006, 16:32

The small but principled nation of Irrakathia stands firmly behind this resolution. We believe strongly in governments interfering as little as is possible with the actions of citizens, buisnesses, and corporations inside our own borders, and those in other countries. It is with a nod of great respect to those who brought this proposal to the floor that we add our signature of support.

Lape

06-04-2006, 16:48

Cobdenia

06-04-2006, 17:05

Or you could lower your commercial taxes, ensure you have a comparative advantage and lure all the automobile firms to your nation and have massive investment...

Irrakathia

06-04-2006, 17:10

Based on the text of the proposal, the objection would seem to fall short; so long as any taxes levied on foreign competition are not in excess of those levied on domestic production, it is not considered a protective measure. Charging a tax on a foreign vehicle that is equal to the sales tax on a domestic vehicle would not violate this proposal in any way.

Merapi

06-04-2006, 17:18

The Kingdom of Merapi regrets being unable to agree with the resolution currently on the floor of the General Assembly.

It is the Kingdom's considered position that, while free trade is a good thing for all the reasons given in the resolution's recitals, the draft does not provide the means for attaining its own aims.

The problem is by no means with the issue of free trade as such, it is with the limitation to automotive products. Such a limitation to one industry is against the logic of free trade as an instrument beneficial to global trade and to all nations.

As the resolution recognises, the logic of free trade holds that nations are induced by free trade to import those goods that they cannot produce at competitive prices, and to concentrate their own productive economy on the things they do best (i.e. cheaply and efficiently). On this basis, every nation would export whatever it does best, and therefore profit from being in a particularly advantageous situation in that section of the world market, and it would import whatever it needs at the cheapest prices possible, because, again, the market would be naturally dominated by the nation that is most adept in any particular field.

This does not work if tariffs and subsidies etc. are only removed from one sector of the economy, in this case, the automotive industry. In that case, nations unable to produce cars at competitive prices are forced to abandon this particular part of the economy, and they do not get in return access to foreign markets for the products they produce most efficiently.

That is why the Merapin royal government find the underlying premise of this resolution flawed. It fails to do what it sets out to do, and it puts developing countries, which are generally not in a position to produce cars very efficiently, at a grave disadvantage.

The royal government is therefore considering the matter with a view to humbly advising His Majesty that the resolution be rejected.

The logic of para. 5 of the resolution has also been concluded to be difficult to grasp, and the royal government has decided to bring the matter to the notice of fellow UN members, respectfully desiring their opinion. As the esteemed governments will appreciate, para. 5 provides as follows:

'-5- DECLARES that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;'

In ordinary parlance, 'retaliatory' tariffs are applied against a member of a free trade agreement if that member fails to honour its commitments under the regime. For example, if State A levies impermissible tariffs on cigarettes from the State B, then State B may impose retaliatory tariffs on wood from State A.
The concept therefore has nothing to do with states not bound by the agreement. Such states cannot possibly violate the terms of the free trade agreement, so any tariffs imposed on goods coming from them will not be 'retaliatory' in nature.

Para. 5 may therefore mean either of three things:

1. UN members remain free to apply retaliatory tariffs.

or 2. UN members may employ retaliatory tariffs against a non-UN member whenever a non-member fails to comply, of its free will, with the requirements of this resolution, in its relations with the state considering the imposition of retaliatory tariffs.

or 3. UN members remain entirely free to apply tariffs in their relations with non-UN members.

Option 1 cannot be squared with the wording of para. 5, and it would seem to be unnecessary, given the availability of the binding arbitration of disputes (although the R.L.W.T.O. does have such a feature, and retaliatory tariffs to be formally allowed by the arbitrators in any case of a violation; the tariffs there serve to induce the primary violator to honour its obligations, and to obey the ruling of the tribunal).
Option 2 would be very surprising: there is nothing in the resolution to suggest that UN members should do anything to induce non-members to apply the standards of the resolution themselves. It would be idiosyncratic to then make provision for their failure to do so.
Option 3 seems more likely to meet the intention of the honourable drafters, and it is the considered Merapin position that the resolution should have adopted a provision clearly to this effect. Such an option would clearly reflect the multilateral nature of UN obligations, as between UN members, and not without more extending beyond said circle of beneficiaries.

The government has the honour to respectfully request explanations on the two questions raised in its deliberations. The government assures all other esteemed members of the United Nations, as any other nations whose views may kindly be brought forward, that it will give the most profound consideration to anything their Excellencies may see fit to declare.

Humbly submitted to His Majesty for release to the Royal Embassy to the United Nations, this sixth day of April, of the year two thousand and six.

[Received the Royal Assent on that same date]

Shahdov II.

By the Grace of God King of Merapi, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Alma, Lord High Steersman of the Krakatoa River, etc.

Tzorsland

06-04-2006, 18:57

If a nation's primary industry is Automobile Manufacturing and this proposal passes, doesn't that compel them to reject the tarriff option when Issue #30 comes up?

So let me try to fully digest your argument and come up with a logical conclusion. According to your argument any member of Nation States, even if they are not members of the UN, providing they have the prerequsite population can submit a "issue" to NS that can never be repealed and prohibits for all time the UN from discussing this issue?

Call me an optimist but I think not.

Actually I always thought it was the opposite, issues were modified so that they would not show up in UN members queues because of the passage of the resolution. I don't recall seeing any issues that were in blatent opposition to established UN resolutions ... although I may be wrong on this.

In any event, for the love of Violet, can we just debate the issue? :headbang:

Ironskillet

06-04-2006, 19:37

Fonzoland

06-04-2006, 22:05

I'd like to make the bill clearer for the nations so eager to accept it. Say for instance one of your cities has a registered business, "Carl's Cars". It pays forward it's taxes to the government and boosts your economical standings with each sale. A major automobile corporation, such as Ford, decides not to enter your nation as it would be restricted by tariffs and it's sales would be detered.

Fine, we shall gladly play that game.

However, once this bill is passed Ford may situate itself anywhere it pleases within your nation, perhaps a street away from, "Carl's Cars". Everyone is amazed, low prices and brand-name vehicles within their reach and they abandon all business for Carl.

By this you mean, "all consumers within my nation are able to spend less money in buying cars, and as such become richer." Right?

Based of the denial of all restrictions based on automotive companies, Ford does not owe you a penny aside from structural costs.

Untrue. If you choose not to tax foreign companies who do business in your country, that is your own ineptitude, not a UN requirement. If Ford sets up a stand in your country, you can freely tax the profits of that stand. You can freely impose the same sales taxes as you impose on domestic products.

Any sales they make will be forwarded back to them and they needn't abide nation wide taxes which are in effect for any other business in town.

Any economic activity within your nation is taxable. The value added by production in another country is taxed there. Foreign cars are taxed in Fonzoland, and will remain taxed if this resolution passes, rest assured.

Your nation is now suffering economically because all of your automobile industries have shut down due to lack of business.

Fallacious. Your scenario has two opposite effects. One is, if you want to be extreme and posit that Carl's Cars has no competitive advantages whatsoever, the death of your national innefficient auto industry. The other one is the increase in purchasing power for every consumer who drives a car. You have not made a case for the former outweighing the latter. In fact, you conveniently ignored consumer surplus altogether.

Protectionism transfers money from consumers to industrial lobbies. It does not generate wealth. As an example, suppose you have two options. Plant potatoes in your back yard for 50$, or buy them from an efficient farmer for 10$. Which do you prefer? Sure, you might become unemployed if you are not wasting time planting them, but it is a rather pointless way of wasting your time...

It will start with vehicles, then move forward with other business ventures such as department stores. You may not tax them based around this resolution.

Slippery slope fallacy, and again untrue. You may tax foreign products at the same rate you tax national products. You may tax the import/export and retail companies. You may tax consumers.

Vote against this bill.
Your nation's economical future is at stake.

Sincerely,
Queen Seaver of Lape

Ignore Queen Seaver.
Your sanity is at stake.

Anfalsanth

06-04-2006, 22:38

FONT="Comic Sans MS"]The Kingdom of Anfalsanth feels that this mesure restricts national sovernty to to large a degree; we feel that it is neccecary to protect our industries and feel pride in saeeing a "Made in Anfalsanth" lable on boxes. This is the samr for cars.

Members of the UN, as the Representitive for Anfalsanth I implore you to strike down this restrictive mensure.[/COLOR][/FONT]

The Beltway

06-04-2006, 22:47

Palentine UN Office

06-04-2006, 23:18

Palentine UN Office

06-04-2006, 23:29

Or you could lower your commercial taxes, ensure you have a comparative advantage and lure all the automobile firms to your nation and have massive investment...

Ask a liberal/socialist/commie country to lower taxes on capitalist ventures, and commercial enterprises:eek: Good Gravy, Man! How do you expect them to pay for the free rides they give their citizens. Isn't that illegal and immoral, not to mention against the laws of God and Man???:p

Palentine UN Office

06-04-2006, 23:34

Alright, I guess I can be serious now. We approve of this resolution, and thank Mr. Perry for introducing it, and those who TGed and supported it. The lowering of tarriffs benefits all citizens, by making goods cheaper, and encouraging competition between business.

Fonzoland

06-04-2006, 23:42

Cobdenia

06-04-2006, 23:44

Ask a liberal/socialist/commie country to lower taxes on capitalist ventures, and commercial enterprises:eek: Good Gravy, Man! How do you expect them to pay for the free rides they give their citizens. Isn't that illegal and immoral, not to mention against the laws of God and Man???:p

Upon hearing this, Field Marshal Sir Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock enters the fray...

"Commies? What commies? Right, Cuthbert..."

"Cyril..."

"...oh, yes, sorry Colin, now where was I? Oh yes, the reds, what? Aha! Now then, we must do something about these...these...pinkos! Right, where's Sergeant Pufferwuffer"

A large man in military uniform appeared from no-where

"Here, sir"

"Ah, there you are. Right, we have commies loose"

"Commies sir? Oh dear."

"Yes, dear. Right, send this to the the Defence Secretary. Tell him about the communists. And tell him I want a full-scale Red Alert throughout the world! Surround everyone with everything we've got! Mobilize every fighting unit and every weapon we can lay our hands on! I want... I want three full-scale global nuclear alerts with every army, navy and air force unit on eternal standby!

"Right, sir!"

"And introduce conscription!"

"Very good sir."

"And get me a cup of tea, Sergeant"

"Okie dokie"

SaintlyLand

06-04-2006, 23:53

I would like to formally and officially anounce the support of Saintlyland and the Region of Republicans for this bill. I believe it will only serve to increase trade, and lower prices for consumers while helping businesses at the same time. Competition, as history has shown, is almost always good for an economy, and the people living off of that economy.

I would like to take this time to adress one important issue that has been brought up - outside businesses moving into your country and selling their products without you getting a penny in taxes. This bill says nothing about taxes (namely, sales taxes) but everything about tarriffs. In other words, if Ford wants to sell their car for $20,000, they get all of that $20,000 from the car, but if your nation has a 5% sales tax on cars, it will still cost consumers $21,000 and $1,000 goes to your government. Instead of Ford being treated differently just because they weren't started in your nation, Ford is treated just like, to use the example given earlier, "Carl's Cars". Nations no longer can charge $50,000 on every car Ford imports, unless they charge that same percentage to Carl's Cars. Consumers get more choice, competition increases, and, as history has shown, so does the economy :)

SLaTheR-

07-04-2006, 00:28

Fonzoland

07-04-2006, 00:46

I don't get it.

If you are going to lobby for reduced trade barriars then why limit it to cars and car parts.

Why not reduce trade barriers for everything. Or create a trade commision to oversee trade as a whole.

I will vote against this bill for the reason that it is only written to benefit nations with an auto industry and does nothing for free trade overall.

I will also lobby my region Flavian Amphitheater to reject this measure as well.

When you come up with a trade agreement that is not so obviously designed to benefit so few, we will consider it.

Fair point, and a very reasonable concern.

Note, however, that there is already a free trade agreement on food, where the UN Free Trade Commission (or whatever it is called) was created. There is a free trade agreement on peaceful nuclear technology waiting to reach queue. As a member of FAIRTRADE, an organisation dedicated to bringing the benefits of free trade to UN nations, I can assure you that other industries will follow. Like you, we would prefer a global approach. But as you can see from some of the negative comments in this thread, baby steps are the most effective way to acheive our common goals. Help us take this step; you have my promise that free trade will be pushed further.

I have to disagree with two of your statements. First, nations without an auto industry benefit greatly from importing cars. Basically because, err... they don't have an auto industry. If tariffs are dropped, the consumers can buy cars and be happy.

Second, you argue that this resolution does nothing for free trade, but you are wrong. It says so right there in the title. *Points to the title* "Auto Free Trade Agreement," you see? So it must be true, this proposal promotes Free Trade.

The Second Atlantis

07-04-2006, 00:49

The one main problem that a lot of people haven't addressed is the question if two countries are at war. If two countries are at war or enemies, the best strategy in battle is to use blockades and economical warfare. However if the "Free Trade" is passed these two strategies will be illegal. Therefore in order to win a war, the only way you can win is to fight by means of combat, in which more people will die. Also sometimes, as an alternative to war, illegalizing trade with a country is used. However if free trade is passed, the only alternative to this would be war.

Another issue is that if there are no tarrifs, than taxes will increase. Countries economy will become too powerful with free trade, and as a result, "monopoly countries" will be produced, leaving poor countries poorer, and rich countries richer. It should be a nation's choice to have tariffs, not the UN's choice.

Teruchev

07-04-2006, 00:54

I don't get it.

If you are going to lobby for reduced trade barriers then why limit it to cars and car parts.

Why not reduce trade barriers for everything. Or create a trade commision to oversee trade as a whole.

I will vote against this bill for the reason that it is only written to benefit nations with an auto industry and does nothing for free trade overall.

I will also lobby my region Flavian Amphitheater to reject this measure as well.

When you come up with a trade agreement that is not so obviously designed to benefit so few, we will consider it.

This was considered during the drafting phase but determined to be unworkable so long as irrational opinion persists as it pertains to free trade. This incremental approach is regretable but at this time politically necessary.

Cars and car parts? Please look back in the discussion thread. This was amended to include the automotive sector, namely all motorized means of transport. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, it ain't just about your grandma's Buick Century.

Trust me, if this could've been a universal FTA, it would've been.

And by the way, there is a Free Trade Commission. It was created by Yelda's fine Global Food Distribution Act. This proposal builds upon that in a non-HoC way.

If you are implying that by benefitting the "few" you are referencing the author's automobile industry, perhaps take a look at the size of said industry in Teruchev next time that UN ranking comes up.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Ironskillet

07-04-2006, 01:38

Natsov has little to do with international trade...

We voted for this resolution; after all, if your car companies can't compete with those of the world, in your own nation's market, without tariffs, then those companies are probably either too young or too inefficiently run.

too young... what's the problem with being too young? All industries must start out young at some point and there needs to be a measure of protection for new and developing industries. Yes free trade is all well and good if it is a competition between two fully fledged industries as it does weed out inefficiency. But just because an industry is new does not mean it needs to be squashed by foreign industry. The nation of Ironskillet is an advocate of FAIR trade, but not FREE trade. There must be some way to allow a nation to impose laws so as to protect its industry from collapse, in order to prevent economic chaos, or to protect developing industries until they are able to at least maintain themselve on the open market.

there should be a clause that allows the institution of a tarrif to protect domestic industries, but have there be a time limit on the tarrif. Say that a company isnt doing well and needs to completely redesign itself but cannot earn the revenue to perform such an action due to lack of sales. A three year tarrif could be put into place to relieve the company of its capital dilema and make the market a better place for it. Also this tarrif must not be to the point that the domestic product is the only choice, but only so that fair competition can resume until the domestic product has fixed itself.

The Beltway

07-04-2006, 02:17

Ironskillet - Your point about emerging businesses is somewhat valid; however, that's no reason to counteract the legitimate business interests of foreign companies with the blunt tools of tariffs. Try tax breaks for small business owners, which should cover emerging businesses well.
As for inefficient businesses, why should they be trusted to be able to fix their problems in any given amount of time? Besides, bankruptcy provisions usually allow companies to restructure themselves more efficiently to better compete in the world.
As for concerns about the loss of major industries, note that this resolution solely affects trade, in one industry, that occurs between UN nations. Thus, you can close off your nation to non-UN nations. Further, you will have five years for your businesses to prepare for the shift from tariffs.

TSA - Blockades and embargos are different in nature from protectionist measures; they target all imports and exports of a single nation, and, in the case of the former option, they are not even a law so much as an act of military force. Protectionist measures, on the other hand, are designed to target specific imports and exports of all foreign nations. Thus, your first set of concerns are alleviated.
As for your other concern, this is not necessarily valid. The decrease in tariff revenue should be offset by an increase in the total of corporate and sales tax receipts, due to the increasing number of foreign corporations selling cars in your nation.

Lape

07-04-2006, 02:19

You may tax foreign products at the same rate you tax national products. You may tax the import/export and retail companies. You may tax consumers.

You have contradicted the very thing for which you are standing behind.
Stating that we may impose tariffs - which is a complete counter of this bill.
Perhaps the saying is true, "Ignorance is bliss".

Sincerely,
Queen Seaver of Lape.

LaLaland0

07-04-2006, 02:46

There is little to no reason to approve this measure. If a developing country wants to get into the automobile manufacturing business, maybe they aren't really a developing country afterall. Do you know of any struggling, on the rise countries out there who are slammed by unfair tariffs around the world? No, you don't, because they don't exist. So stop trying to cut down a valuable and necessary tool in the international market. If a country wants to keep cheap imports from flooding their market and ruining the local business, that is their choice. I'm sorry, but since there really are no countries who are in the situation that you are describing here, I can't vote for your resolution.

LaLaland0

07-04-2006, 02:49

Fine, we shall gladly play that game.

By this you mean, "all consumers within my nation are able to spend less money in buying cars, and as such become richer." Right?

Untrue. If you choose not to tax foreign companies who do business in your country, that is your own ineptitude, not a UN requirement. If Ford sets up a stand in your country, you can freely tax the profits of that stand. You can freely impose the same sales taxes as you impose on domestic products.

Any economic activity within your nation is taxable. The value added by production in another country is taxed there. Foreign cars are taxed in Fonzoland, and will remain taxed if this resolution passes, rest assured.

Fallacious. Your scenario has two opposite effects. One is, if you want to be extreme and posit that Carl's Cars has no competitive advantages whatsoever, the death of your national innefficient auto industry. The other one is the increase in purchasing power for every consumer who drives a car. You have not made a case for the former outweighing the latter. In fact, you conveniently ignored consumer surplus altogether.

Protectionism transfers money from consumers to industrial lobbies. It does not generate wealth. As an example, suppose you have two options. Plant potatoes in your back yard for 50$, or buy them from an efficient farmer for 10$. Which do you prefer? Sure, you might become unemployed if you are not wasting time planting them, but it is a rather pointless way of wasting your time...

Slippery slope fallacy, and again untrue. You may tax foreign products at the same rate you tax national products. You may tax the import/export and retail companies. You may tax consumers.

Ignore Queen Seaver.
Your sanity is at stake.

Thank you, finally someone who understands a basic economic strategy.

Rhaomi

07-04-2006, 03:10

While this resolution seems to be born of good intentions, our Republic feels compelled to vote against it. Our nation was founded on freedom, but we also believe that freedom should be reasonably restricted when it infringes on the rights of others.

The World may have its share of corporate giants, but we cannot forget the thousands of minor nations scattered at their feet. While the abolishment of protective tariffs called for by this resolution may bolster the economies of the superpowers and even the midlevel nations measureably, it will have an equal and opposite effect on the underdog. Our economies are small and fragile, still in the process of development. Because of this, our industries are not as efficient, and our products are more expensive. One of the only ways that we can support our fledgling industrial sector is with protective tariffs.

If this resolution is accepted, the doors will be thrown wide open. With the cheap products of countless superpowers freely available in our markets, there will be no incentive to buy domestic. Our industries are not well-developed enough to match the technological and economic advantage of the industrial giants, so until we develop our industry far enough, tariffs are the only way for us to effectively defend our nation's economy.

While domestic tax breaks and the like could help keep homegrown industries afloat temporarily, it would only be a stopgap measure -- if foreign cars are cheaper, then consumers will buy foreign, and domestic companies will flounder, tax break or not. And that's assuming that we would be able to afford not taxing our third-largest industry, which we can't. Plus, if unreasonably high sales taxes could discourage people from buying foreign just as effectively as tariffs, then what is the use of this resolution? So, while tariffs may be "blunt", it is one of just a few tools we small nations have to defend our markets. Why can you not trade with other, larger nations until we have developed our industries enough to join and compete in your economic bracket?

We must also object to the argument that lowering tariffs would enrich our citizenry by offering them cheaper cars. Whatever small gain is achieved in this regard will be overwhelmingly negated by the undermining of our own Auto Industry, the third-largest in Rhaomi, which is struggling to develop. What good is a variety of cheap foreign autos when a sizable portion of your population is out of a job? As you can see, this resolution would devastate us, while lining the pockets of foreign auto giants.

So, because this resolution has the potential to wreck the economies of thousands of small nations, it is clearly a violation of our economic rights. We insist on the opportunity to grow our industrial capacity at home and protect it from aggressive foreign competition. Without tariffs, our homegrown businesses will be laid to waste by unbeatable megacorporations. We cannot afford to operate without them.

LaLaland0

07-04-2006, 03:17

The nation of Ironskillet is shoked that so many feel that the opening of free trade will bring wealth to all nations. On the contrary, it opens up a playing field for capitalistic corporations. With such an open playing field the larger, more established companies have a clear and unfair advantage over smaller domestic producres. Although it does give the apperance of creating a more efficient system, in the end the same situation will occur no matter which side is chosen. If the resolution is blocked then domestic industries will be protected and grow complacent and the product will suffer. If the resolution is passed then larger, more established companies will drive out smaller competition leaving a few large companies in control of the entire market. Slowly the market will stagnate and there will be little ingenuity as the companies will create mirror image vehicles as they already do. The only way to ensure that a fair market is maintained is to have constantly shifting levels of tarrifs to protect smaller industries to let them grow and raise a product defensable on the open market and then lowering tarrifs to force larger companies to show the innovation that made them large in the first place. This resolution will perminantly put smaller domestic companies at a disadvantage. It is the principle of law in Ironskillet to have all laws be extremely flexable to ensure that the correct action may always be taken based upon the situation, this resolution is rigid in its abolition of all tarrifs protecting industry that, while beneficial to a few, may in the end harm all.;)
I agree with some of what you say here, but saying that the smaller companies will stagnate is just wrong. You forget that even though there are tariffs, the bigger companies can still enter the country. They might get less of a profit out of it (some profit is better than none, especially if the comsumer is unhappy with the current product), and there is also competition from other small domestic companies to produce the best/least expensive product. If a country wants to create this situation in its country, that is its decision, and it is none of the UN's business to say how soveriegn nations run their own economies. It's their little treat for not being taken over by another country. It's just one marketplace that isn't as open to foreign companies, what's the big deal? Anyway, vote against this issue, it's poorly thought out, and won't end up helping anyone.

Fonzoland

07-04-2006, 03:22

You have contradicted the very thing for which you are standing behind.
Stating that we may impose tariffs - which is a complete counter of this bill.
Perhaps the saying is true, "Ignorance is bliss".

Sincerely,
Queen Seaver of Lape.

No, my blissful friend. You are the one who has absolutely no idea of what a tariff is. I would post a wiki-link, or suggest you attend the fine Fonzolander National University. But you would probably not understand the former and not be admitted to the latter.

The Beltway

07-04-2006, 03:25

You have contradicted the very thing for which you are standing behind.
Stating that we may impose tariffs - which is a complete counter of this bill.
Perhaps the saying is true, "Ignorance is bliss".

Sincerely,
Queen Seaver of Lape.

Taxes are not tariffs. What is being noted is the continued legality of excise taxes on autos, not the legality of tariffs.

Rhaomi - This resolution gives your auto industry five years to properly mature. Further, you could impose moderate to high excise taxes on autos, so as to push foreign companies to invest elsewhere. Finally, you could put general penalties on all companies selling to your nation (so long as you don't forbid the sale of autos; you could, for instance, require that companies that wish to sell their products in your nation give their employees a certain amount of health care under threat of financial penalties - like with RL Maryland's "Wal-Mart law," which requires businesses over a certain size (which just happens to exclude all companies but Wal-Mart) to give their employees a certain level of health care under threat of financial penalty).

LaLaland0

07-04-2006, 03:26

Or you could lower your commercial taxes, ensure you have a comparative advantage and lure all the automobile firms to your nation and have massive investment...
And have them leave once everyone has a car in your country? Nice try, but only a quick, and very costly in the long run, fix.

LaLaland0

07-04-2006, 03:28

Taxes are not tariffs. What is being noted is the continued legality of excise taxes on autos, not the legality of tariffs.

Rhaomi - This resolution gives your auto industry five years to properly mature. Further, you could impose moderate to high excise taxes on autos, so as to push foreign companies to invest elsewhere. Finally, you could put general penalties on all companies selling to your nation (so long as you don't forbid the sale of autos; you could, for instance, require that companies that wish to sell their products in your nation give their employees a certain amount of health care under threat of financial penalties - like with RL Maryland's "Wal-Mart law," which requires businesses over a certain size (which just happens to exclude all companies but Wal-Mart) to give their employees a certain level of health care under threat of financial penalty).
Or you could just keep them out and not have to do all that extra paperwork.:)

The Beltway

07-04-2006, 03:29

And have them leave once everyone has a car in your country? Nice try, but only a quick, and very costly in the long run, fix.

The automotive industry is not of the sort to get companies to pack up and leave; a good market remains a good market. Toyota (to give an RL example) has set down roots in the US, building factories in Tennessee.

Whateveryouwanteth

07-04-2006, 03:30

Finally a resolution not founded on the filthy collective scum!
http://www.rdwarf.com/users/kioh/haxorec53.jpg

Please note peopl that this does not mean you do not have the right to tax the goods, that is a faulty argument, it means that you do not have the right to tax the goods for any other reason than you would tax your own people's goods.

I do have some issues with #3 in the resolution, but considering how that particular bit seems evasible anyway, I vote FOR this resolution, if nothing else as merely a big middle finger to the proponents of all the other resolutions we have to comply with, finally they get to be the victim :upyours: :D

The Beltway

07-04-2006, 03:33

LaLaland0

07-04-2006, 03:35

The automotive industry is not of the sort to get companies to pack up and leave; a good market remains a good market. Toyota (to give an RL example) has set down roots in the US, building factories in Tennessee.
Did you even read the original post? It said to lower taxes on the autos in general, in order to get all the companies into the country. That's great, but once they're all here, and sell their cars, do you expect the entire country to keep buying cars every five months? The majority will buy a new car soon, and then will be happy with it for a long time, meaning that the new companies will have great business for a short time, but then have almost none for a long time. Even if they try to make cars less expensive to boost sales, they are just loosing profit, and will end up leaving. So it would be a quick fix in the short run, but down the road it wouldn't work so well for the economy of the country.

LaLaland0

07-04-2006, 03:39

As for your other argument, that would involve, in my opinion, undue trampling on the rights of companies to compete; a restriction on a company's trade simply due to its being foreign is, in my opinion, a poor restriction. Besides, the concern is about large (esp. foreign) companies muscling out local competitors; a tariff hits all foreign companies, including smaller companies that couldn't muscle out local competition, but could provide for niche markets. Restrictions requiring companies above a certain size to pay higher corporate taxes would be fairer, as they affect (at least theoretically) foreign and domestic companies.
Penalizing big companies because they are big doesn't make that much sense. They earned the right to use the tactics that they use by being successful, so give them a break. And the reason for tariffs is not to penalize foreign companies either, but to protect local companies, who are more important to the economy of the country in general. It makes sense if you don't have a strong automotives industry, or you just want to keep funny sounding companies outside your borders.

Rhaomi

07-04-2006, 03:50

Please note peopl that this does not mean you do not have the right to tax the goods, that is a faulty argument, it means that you do not have the right to tax the goods for any other reason than you would tax your own people's goods.
So under this resolution, taxes on foreign and domestic auto sales have to be equal? Then we still have the same problems. Equal taxes might as well be no taxes at all (competitively speaking), so all the consumer has to base a choice on are the quality and price of the car. Foreign corporations have the little guys beat in those regards, which means that the homegrown businesses still make few sales. Allowing higher tariffs/taxes on foreign automakers while sparing domestic industry is the only way to let domestic industry grow.

I do have some issues with #3 in the resolution, but considering how that particular bit seems evasible anyway, I vote FOR this resolution, if nothing else as merely a big middle finger to the proponents of all the other resolutions we have to comply with, finally they get to be the victim :upyours: :D
So your willing to destroy the economies of countless developing nations in order to bolster your own pride? Nice.

Lape

07-04-2006, 03:56

This is ridiculous, you people make redundant statements and have little to no concept about the bullshit you hammer down quickly upon the boards.

Teruchev

07-04-2006, 04:06

Domus Terra

07-04-2006, 04:58

I dont know if any of you have relized but, and if im understanding this correctly, this is basically going to turn every nation to a sort of specialization in a cetain area. With that thought in mind, this is how most all business is run. There is little, to no place that has peoples to have to do everything to manage themselves.

We have grown beyond our ancestors of Farming just to make ends meat and building your own tools. We have come to where some make food, some make tools and so on and so forth. Because of such a thing we have grown in technology vastly.

Now concider it as such, if not just companies, but entire nations became a chain that helped, through trade, with eachother we ncould reach a level of coexsistance never before seen. Not only that but we would more rapidly grow in the feilds of science that malke life better.

For example, if there is a nation whos medical expertise are unrivaled, than cures for disease would come more quickly and, therefor, benifit man as a whole.

Fonzoland

07-04-2006, 05:20

*snip*
Go away, troll.

Krondor-Bas-Tyra

07-04-2006, 07:04

First off, when the right honorable Ambassador for Fonzoland states that my citizens would be better off by buying cheaper made cars from another nation because they would have more money in their pockets, he is assuming they would have any money at all in their pockets to begin with. For if we allowed unrestricted trade to cross our borders, especially that can lower their prices to run our businesses into the ground, then my population would not have any money to spend on said cheaper car. So my objection to this bill isn't just to protect my automobile industries, but to protect the financial well being of my people as well.

I must next address the statement by the right honorable Ambassador to Saintlyland. When you state that the government would make the same amount of money of the sales of a car made in another country, you are mistaken. You are true to assume a $20,000 car with a 5% sales tax would earn me $1,000 from a car made in my country, as well as from the same priced car from another country...but how much of that $20,000 dollar car will be paid to the employee's of say...Saintlyland can Krondor-Bas-Tyra tax as income tax? I can tax the income of my own citizens...therefore, it is economically more feasible for a government to want to keep their own citizens financially stable, so they can afford to police, protect and educate their own citizens.

I lastly will address the statement by the right honorable Ambassador to Irrakathia who states

The small but principled nation of Irrakathia stands firmly behind this resolution. We believe strongly in governments interfering as little as is possible with the actions of citizens, buisnesses, and corporations inside our own borders, and those in other countries. It is with a nod of great respect to those who brought this proposal to the floor that we add our signature of support.

I have to wonder at the particular reasoning behind this statement...you say you don't want government inference in the actions of citizens, businesses, and corporations within your border. Yet you support a resolution that has, at last count, 30,008 governments that you have just given support to have say so within your borders. They can influence your government, and its people how to live their lives. For if this passes, then you and they will be forced to abide by it, unless you withdraw from the quorum all together of course.

I thank all the right honorable Ambassadors for allowing me this opportunity to speak before them today.

Emperor Argon
The Empire of Krondor-Bas-Tyra

United Planets c2161

07-04-2006, 08:06

Although we support the eventual removal of tariffs on all products, we feel that the time is not yet right for this resolution to be put into effect. We believe this for the following reasons:

1) Problem: New Nations, and those that have developing economies often lack the ability to produce high quality products for a competitive price with regards to companies in larger, more developed nations. Eliminating tariffs opens the door for nations to move into a country and provide services for a price much lower than the local producers can compete with. This will hamper the ability of companies to gain footholds in their own countries slowing the economic growth of the nation.

1) Proposed Solution: Allow for new and developing nations to keep limited tariffs in place until the local businesses have a solid base from which they will be able to compete in the international community.

2) Problem: This resolution bans tariffs on automobiles between member nations of the NSUN. I may be unclear, but It is conceivable that one could interpret this as banning trade embargoes as well. I've read previous messages that suggest nations would want to disallow trade during times of war. Although this may be true I believe that it is more likely that a country would with to use this technique as a non-violent way of showing ones disdain for another's policies.

2) Proposed Solution: Ensure that the wording of the resolution is such that it still allows nations to prevent any incoming vehicles from a nation if there is disagreement between those nations that may be based on moral differences or displeasure at the treatement of a group of people or a nation.

As a side note, I find it curious that this trade resolution only applies to the automotive industry. Methinks the proposer has a strong auto-industry and may simply be trying to gain power in other nations economies.

Faxanadula

07-04-2006, 09:31

The Federation of Faxanadula takes a firm stance against this resolution in our unwavering efforts to end the effects of globalization.

~Prime Minister of Faxanadula

Merapi

07-04-2006, 09:55

Lalaland and Rhaomi, may I suggest for you the same thing that Teruchev did.

Realize building autos isn't your strong suit.

Focus on what you are good at, whether it's uranium mining, like in Teruchev, or any other sector.

Create a strong robust economy that is conducive to a high level of consumer spending.

Consumer spending = Buying autos

As an additional spinoff of having a strong economy, natural incentives will emerge for foreign automakers to set up assembly, research, and technical plants in your nation.

Suddenly all that fearmongering about job losses isn't such a valid point anymore, is it?

My point exactly. You are here stating the basic principle of free trade, which is that nations will be induced to give up on industries they have not mastered, and to concentrate on what they do best. Fine. Perfect. But the system only works if the free trade agreement in question applies to more than one class of products. In that case, every nation will have access to foreign markets for WHATEVER products it happens to be good at producing.

If, on the other hand, the agreement is not so broad, the consequences will be dire for a majority of the countries concerned: only those with a highly effective automotive industry will profit from having trade barriers cut from that field of the world market.
Other nations, such as those who are extremely adept at basket weaving, will NOT gain access to foreign markets. For them, the only effect of free trade in cars will be that they lose their own automotive industry.

So, the logic of the beneficial effect of free trade just does not apply if the free trade agreement is limited to one particular industry.

Merapi

07-04-2006, 10:07

If a developing country wants to get into the automobile manufacturing business, maybe they aren't really a developing country afterall.

Er, what? There are plenty of countries with an automotive industry that is really only suited to the needs of their own population and that will never sell elsewhere, and that may not even be competitive in their home markets against cheap foreign products (rendered cheap by the abolition of taxes).
Consider India: (my data is a bit old, but it may still be true; if it isn't, take it as fictitious example) they have huge tariffs on foreign cars, which means that a run-of-the-mill Mercedes costs as much a Rolls-Royce does elsewhere. This means that many Indians buy inferior products like the Hindustan Ambassador (originally conceived as the Morris Oxford, production of which in the UK ended in the 60s at the latest, at which time the car was comprehensively outdated). The abolition of all tariffs would mean that the Hindustan factory would in all probability have to close down (although government customers would presumably remain).

This is not a good thing, whether the state concerned is a developing country or not.

India also provides an example for another beneficial effect of tariffs, hinted at in some earlier posts: foreign makers will have a huge incentive to open factories in the country, so as to make their products domestic ones and thus remove the effect of the tariffs.

St Edmund

07-04-2006, 12:23

I bagsie your office. In case you are interested, personal possessions can be delievered to your capital city for a small charge.

Except for the staples which, I seem to recall, are always given to the UN Gnomes... ;)

Cluichstan

07-04-2006, 12:43

Note that you are offering your support to a liberal resolution.

OOC: The term "liberal" isn't used in the classical sense in the US.

Fonzoland

07-04-2006, 12:58

OOC: The term "liberal" isn't used in the classical sense in the US.

OOC: Yes, I am aware of that. Still, I don't like it. It is not only in the US, btw.

Cluichstan

07-04-2006, 13:01

OOC: Yes, I am aware of that. Still, I don't like it. It is not only in the US, btw.

OOC: I agree. I don't really like it much either.

Tzorsland

07-04-2006, 13:16

Let me see if I can smmarize the opposition to this resolution. Semi-isolationism through protectionism. Have I got that right?

You want the ability to impose tarrifs to defy the economic Darwin; insisting that the unfit should survive because they are your own unfit. The fit shall be forced to support the unfit, by force if necessary.

Globalism is a lot like democracy, it's a pretty rotten system but it's far better than the alternatives. Protectionism and economic isolationism does not help an ecomony. It instead causes the economic downfall of all economies, from capitalist to communist alike.

There is a valid reason for dis-proportionate tarrifs; but this is only in what amounts to economic war. Tarrifs are proper in response to unfair government subsidies. But in fact that is two sides of the same coin both nations loose under this situation.

So ignoring excessive subsidies, let us consider why nation A might consider nation B's transportation devices over that of their own nation. On the one hand, nation A might use inferior materials and thus sell at a reduced cost. Nations under the WALL-MART effect who only consider price and not quality would be drastically effected by such things, but in the end one has to blame the WALL-MART effect not nation A. Nation B could just as easily produce inferior products as well.

The second reason is the technological advantage. Nation A has developed a technology that is vastly superior to B and makes their trasnportation devices preferable to that of B. Of cours this means that technology of A is now flooding nation B, exposing the future scientists and engineers of B to the improved technology. This could result in an inversion as nation B discovers the next advane in the technology while nation A is still sitting on its technological laurels. Besides, shouldn't there be a reward to invention?

The third reason is marketing. Nation A simply creates a better brand name than Nation B. Fashion, thankfully is fleeting and brands come and go like the wind. Oddly enough, there isn't really anything in this legislation to prevent Governments from unfair sponsorship of advertising. "Look for, the [your nation here]'s label," on the soap opera channels non stop for example.

Therefore it is intitutively obvious to even a casual observer that no nation has anything to fear from globalization but ... come to think of it there is nothing to fear whatsoever. Vote YES.

Cluichstan

07-04-2006, 14:26

I find it unfathomable that this proposal is failing.

Ecopoeia

07-04-2006, 14:42

Therefore it is intitutively obvious to even a casual observer that no nation has anything to fear from globalization but ... come to think of it there is nothing to fear whatsoever. Vote YES.
Thank you for the thinly veiled insult. Malheureusement, your analysis lacks vigour, as the commentary offered by other opposing delegates testifies to. I tire of this tedious debate and leave you with the words of a spokesperson for Xikuang, an ally of ours:

The idea that any particular good, much less what is to many if not most a luxury good, should enjoy protected freedom of trade under UN mandate is ridiculous. If this wasn't conceived as a convenient targeting mechanism for those of us who refuse to buy into liberal free market capitalism/imperialistic slavedriving, its authors were thinking small.
Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: no offence intended, my deputy speaker is a narky sod.

Faxanadula

07-04-2006, 14:49

"What is free trade? In our Economics 101 courses, we learned about the benefits of free trade. Based on Ricardo’s insight regarding comparative advantage, we would be better off if we focus on what we do best and exchange things. In terms of material well-being, we would then be better off than if we isolated ourselves and tried to do everything on our own. Under the principle of comparative advantage, the factors of production—land, labour and capital—should be allocated in accordance with market forces, so that they are used most efficiently. This efficient allocation of resources would produce the greatest overall benefit.

In Economics 101, we learned some basic concepts; however, we should not get stuck there. We should refine our thinking about economics by appreciating the limitations and qualifications to be taken into account when these ideas are applied in the real world.

1. While economic theory says that all factors of production should be allowed to move freely according to market forces, in reality we generally do not allow labour to move freely. There is high labour mobility in the European Union and the economic union we call the United States, but globally such mobility is highly constrained by immigration laws, visa requirements, travel costs and discrimination.

2. Free trade theory assumes that we enter the marketplace with similar levels of economic power. It implies that after finding our separate niches, we still have comparable levels of power, and the differences among us have to do with accidents of nature and differences in taste. It does not acknowledge that free trade necessarily leads to a steadily widening gap between the rich and the poor. The process steadily increases the power of the rich over the poor.

3. Free trade theory assumes the seller is in direct contact with the buyer, negotiating terms of trade at arms length. It does not anticipate the middlemen, whose only comparative advantage is that they can facilitate or block the connection between buyer and seller. This comes at a price, often with the seller getting only a small share of the amount paid by the ultimate consumer. Innovative “fair trade” programmes for products can be viewed as attempts to restore connectedness between sellers and buyers.

4. Free trade theory is based on the idea that there are many independent actors with different initial endowments and preferences, interacting freely in the marketplace. It does not anticipate that many individual actors will be combined in more inclusive units called States, which will make trading policies on behalf of the elementary units. In market terms, the State often functions as a kind of middleman, widening the price gap between seller and buyer.

5. Free trade theory recognizes the fact that free markets are efficient mechanisms for producing wealth, but does not acknowledge that they are also excellent devices for concentrating wealth. Large enterprises may be more efficient than small ones, but even if they are less efficient, they are still attractive because they concentrate the fruits of the labour of many different people into the hands of a few.

6. Trade benefits are systematically concentrated among those who are better off. In a normally functioning market system, there is a steadily widening gap between rich and poor, and that we also find steady consolidation as larger businesses absorb smaller competitors.

7. Free trade theory assumes that people may choose to become farmers, shoemakers or barbers and function as independent entrepreneurs. It does not anticipate, however, that with increasing economic growth, the cost of entry into many enterprises becomes prohibitive for all but a very few. As wealth becomes more concentrated, the opportunities for independent entrepreneurship shrinks.

8. The high barriers to entry into many businesses mean the range of alternative opportunities is narrowed. In many places, the only opportunities are to work in subordinate positions in which a large share of the fruits of one’s labour benefits others.

9. Free trade theorists suggest that reducing obstacles to trade would more or less benefit everyone equally, but in an unequal world, in fact, it is of far greater benefit to those who have greater capacity to reach out. Freedom to travel and invest, etc. are not of much use to those who do not have the means; it is no wonder that the rich, not the poor, advocate free trade most vigorously.

Economics 101 assumed a world with no real power differentials. While that might be a reasonable conceptual starting-point, there is a need to move closer to the real world by studying political economy. There is no reason to believe that the so-called “free trade”, which is supported by the dominant members of the World Trade Organization, would result in freedom and prosperity for its weaker members. Growing differences in bargaining power, which are the inherent result of the functioning of free markets, inescapably makes those markets unfree. Economic thinking seems to have suffered from arrested development—arrested at a point that is convenient for the powerful."

-http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue3/0304p34.asp

Almost Everyone

07-04-2006, 15:00

We think it's best for us to grow and have something to trade, then we'll enter international trade in earnest.

We'll enter free trading on our terms. When it's best for our industry and our people.

(FP by the way :-)

Teruchev

07-04-2006, 16:07

Methinks the proposer has a strong auto-industry and may simply be trying to gain power in other nations economies.

Perhaps you should do your homework before engaging in drive-by smears against the author.

Teruchev's automboile sector is in the bottom 10% of the world, despite having a population of 2.2 billion.

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

St Edmund

07-04-2006, 16:08

By the way, does this clause

-6- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five years in length.

simply mean five years from the passage of the resolution, or would any nation that didn't join the UN until after the resolution had been passed still have five full years in which to complete the process?

Flibbleites

07-04-2006, 16:08

Except for the staples which, I seem to recall, are always given to the UN Gnomes... ;)
No, the Gnomes take the paper clips.

Teruchev

07-04-2006, 16:16

By the way, does this clause simply mean five years from the passage of the resolution, or would any nation that didn't join the UN until after the resolution had been passed still have five full years in which to complete the process?

Interesting you point that out. I would imagine, and correct me guys if I'm wrong, but I think that in the interest of fairness new UN nations would have to be given the full 5 year phase in period like everybody else.

St Edmund

07-04-2006, 16:21

I would imagine, and correct me guys if I'm wrong, but I think that in the interest of fairness new UN nations would have to be given the full 5 year phase in period like everybody else.

That seems reasonable to me.

Faxanadula

07-04-2006, 16:28

Irrakathia

07-04-2006, 17:18

I have to wonder at the particular reasoning behind this statement...you say you don't want government inference in the actions of citizens, businesses, and corporations within your border. Yet you support a resolution that has, at last count, 30,008 governments that you have just given support to have say so within your borders. They can influence your government, and its people how to live their lives. For if this passes, then you and they will be forced to abide by it, unless you withdraw from the quorum all together of course.

Your concerns do have some validity; allow me to address and further explain Irrakathia's position on this issue.

We stand, at the base of all things, for pure freedom, of near all types. We look to have our government legislate and mandate as little possible to our people as is necessary to protect them and their rights. The freedom of action we believe in extends to all entities except governments. We fully support measures that actively limit our and other governments ability to interfere with the freedoms of people inside our nation and others. We acknowledge that free trade and open borders opens our populace to influence from outside cultures and corporations; however, this is not what we are averse to. These other cultures and corporations, buisnesses and philosophies, have just as much right to influence our populace as we feel our populace has to influence theirs. It is the governmental bodies that we feel should have limited powers over the populace; it is our belief that the populace itself, inside our borders and without, should be free to mingle, influence, and mix as much as they desire.

Ecopoeia

07-04-2006, 17:35

I applaud most of the sentiments expressed by the Irrakathian ambassador. However, I take exception to granting businesses the rights accorded individuals. Like governments, corporations are entities that can wield great power; accountability and strong civil society are necessary to check this. We would appreciate the UN allowing us to restrict their power just as we limit our own government's. This resolution is not conducive to our efforts.

MV

Tzorsland

07-04-2006, 18:20

The Federation of Faxanadula calls upon and strongly urges all UN member nation states to vote AGAINST the current UN resolution for free trade based upon information previously cited. We as a nation strongly oppose any proposition of imposing a capitalistic belief system upon the world's financial infrastructure.

:confused: How is "Free Trade" Capitalism? The RL nation of China is a communist nation that trades with the entire world. The corporations of Dubai are all owned by the leader of the government there. Both are good cases of non Capitalist countries looking to exploit "free trade" to their advantage. There is nothing whatsoever with free market capital based economics in the notion of free trade. All forms of economics benefit under the notion of free trade. All forms of economics suffer under the notion of economic isolationism.

Ecopoeia, unless you are either a chemistry professor or a physics professor who used to repeat that expression to me all the time when I went to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute I can't see how "it is intitutively obvious to even a casual observer" was an insult to you. Even then it's not an insult, it's a homage.

Faxanadula, in the ideal theory free trade does assume similiar levels of economic power and even technology. When these are not similiar there will be an imbalance on the part of the economic power or the higher technology. The big question is that of the lesser of two evils. Does free trade promote a lesser evil to the smaller country than isolationism? The answer I believe is that it is the lesser evil to be open.

I would never argue that free trade is going to result in freedom and prosperity for everyone. (You need to do a number of things like make an international stand against multi-national corporate blackmail of small nations.) What I will argue is that free trade is still better than isolationism.

Faxanadula

07-04-2006, 18:29

The Federation of Faxandula still stands firm in its position against this resolution, but applauds the nation state of Tzorsland for its determination in the matter. We as a nation believe Free Trade to be more of an 'evil' to developing nations, and will not support such a notion.

~Prime Minister of Faxanadula

Thought and Ideas

07-04-2006, 18:36

Thought and Ideas approves of this resalution. My nation is pro- free trade.

Imperiux

07-04-2006, 18:37

Imperiux has voted against this issue.

Dotsburgh

07-04-2006, 20:16

:confused: How is "Free Trade" Capitalism? The RL nation of China is a communist nation that trades with the entire world. The corporations of Dubai are all owned by the leader of the government there. Both are good cases of non Capitalist countries looking to exploit "free trade" to their advantage. There is nothing whatsoever with free market capital based economics in the notion of free trade. All forms of economics benefit under the notion of free trade. All forms of economics suffer under the notion of economic isolationism.

Point of information: China may be officially declared as "communist," however their trade and economic structure is similar to a capitalist one. A country's form of government doesn't necessarily dictate their economic model.

Krondor-Bas-Tyra

07-04-2006, 20:28

Ironskillet

07-04-2006, 20:57

Let me see if I can smmarize the opposition to this resolution. Semi-isolationism through protectionism. Have I got that right?

So ignoring excessive subsidies, let us consider why nation A might consider nation B's transportation devices over that of their own nation. On the one hand, nation A might use inferior materials and thus sell at a reduced cost. Nations under the WALL-MART effect who only consider price and not quality would be drastically effected by such things, but in the end one has to blame the WALL-MART effect not nation A. Nation B could just as easily produce inferior products as well.

The second reason is the technological advantage. Nation A has developed a technology that is vastly superior to B and makes their trasnportation devices preferable to that of B. Of cours this means that technology of A is now flooding nation B, exposing the future scientists and engineers of B to the improved technology. This could result in an inversion as nation B discovers the next advane in the technology while nation A is still sitting on its technological laurels. Besides, shouldn't there be a reward to invention?

The third reason is marketing. Nation A simply creates a better brand name than Nation B. Fashion, thankfully is fleeting and brands come and go like the wind. Oddly enough, there isn't really anything in this legislation to prevent Governments from unfair sponsorship of advertising. "Look for, the [your nation here]'s label," on the soap opera channels non stop for example.

Many nations seem to bring to the table the idea that free trade will force nations and economic entities to choose only its best and most efficient industries to bring to the world market. The nation of Ironskillet is wary of this outcome. Even though Ironskillet has some industries it specializes in these would not last against more prosperous nations with the same specializations. We may make specailizations of our economies but when they fail and our nation will have no economy.

Tzorsland's first example is a situation that this nation does fear. It's proposed solution, however, does not fit in with the principles of Ironskillet; We would instead kindly ask them to leave.

The second example is completely off. The standard tarrif level would be maintained that at the current level the two companies would be able to compete fairly. If the foreign company had a major technological break through then they would still steal much of the market and sell a great deal of their product. Our government would only change the normal level of the tarrif if this trend continued to the point that it threatened the stability of the nation i.e. kill our industry. The foreign product would still be sold at competative prices to the domestic product. The company would be rewarded for its innovation even with tarrifs, if anything it would increase the need for innovation to break farther into our market and garner loyalty to their brand.

The third scenario laid forth has no bearing upon our discussions. a temporary flux in the market would have no effect upon the level of tarrifs. A company with a well advertised product would be rewarded with greater sales and thus through their own work gain advantage in the market, not through other factors that created imbalance at the start of the competition.

Many are veiwing that those who oppose free trade are advocating isolationism. This is not so. We simply would like to maintain a balance between free trade and isolationism

Faxanadula, in the ideal theory free trade does assume similiar levels of economic power and even technology. When these are not similiar there will be an imbalance on the part of the economic power or the higher technology. The big question is that of the lesser of two evils. Does free trade promote a lesser evil to the smaller country than isolationism? The answer I believe is that it is the lesser evil to be open.

I would never argue that free trade is going to result in freedom and prosperity for everyone. (You need to do a number of things like make an international stand against multi-national corporate blackmail of small nations.) What I will argue is that free trade is still better than isolationism.

We are not gathered here to choose between two horrible outcomes but to ensure the continued stability of our world and to generally keep from F***ing the planet to pieces. Having a mix between free trade and isolationist policies depending upon which is needed at the time is the best course of action possible. I believe that a resolution to restrict full blown isolationism would be a fine idea, but a resolution to enforce full free trade needs to be obliterated.

what is needed is not laws forcing nations to do things, but a general agreement between them, not set in stone, to work towards unity:fluffle: .

Compadria

07-04-2006, 22:37

Many nations seem to bring to the table the idea that free trade will force nations and economic entities to choose only its best and most efficient industries to bring to the world market. The nation of Ironskillet is wary of this outcome. Even though Ironskillet has some industries it specializes in these would not last against more prosperous nations with the same specializations. We may make specailizations of our economies but when they fail and our nation will have no economy.

On the contrary, free-trade will allow, in this circumstance, for a permitting of the expansion of economic opportunities. The opening of markets must be done with caution, but when done properly it can serve as a tremendous engine for growth, fuelling investment in formerly impoverished nations and permitting them to expand their domestic industries and services into the nations of others, due to the elimination of wasteful and needless barriers against their competition. I assure the honourable delegate that his economy would only fail if insufficient investment into the usage of these wonderful possibilities were practised by his nation.

The second example is completely off. The standard tarrif level would be maintained that at the current level the two companies would be able to compete fairly. If the foreign company had a major technological break through then they would still steal much of the market and sell a great deal of their product. Our government would only change the normal level of the tarrif if this trend continued to the point that it threatened the stability of the nation i.e. kill our industry. The foreign product would still be sold at competative prices to the domestic product. The company would be rewarded for its innovation even with tarrifs, if anything it would increase the need for innovation to break farther into our market and garner loyalty to their brand.

No competition can be fair under the auspices of a tariff, therefore the idea that they would protect competition is not realistic. They merely enshine inactivity and a laissez-faire attitude in the national companies and harm those who could bring valuable investment and innovations. I disagree therefore with your analysis.

The third scenario laid forth has no bearing upon our discussions. a temporary flux in the market would have no effect upon the level of tarrifs. A company with a well advertised product would be rewarded with greater sales and thus through their own work gain advantage in the market, not through other factors that created imbalance at the start of the competition.

Of course tariffs would be affected, such is the nature of the economy. If you do not adjust your tariffs, even for temporary flux, then you risk being caught out and rendered inflexible. It is better to allow flux to a certain degree through an open economy than to allow cumulated flux to build up and stress a closed or restricted economy to the point of breakage.

Many are veiwing that those who oppose free trade are advocating isolationism. This is not so. We simply would like to maintain a balance between free trade and isolationism

The two are mutually opposed, thus there can be no compromise.

We are not gathered here to choose between two horrible outcomes but to ensure the continued stability of our world and to generally keep from F***ing the planet to pieces. Having a mix between free trade and isolationist policies depending upon which is needed at the time is the best course of action possible. I believe that a resolution to restrict full blown isolationism would be a fine idea, but a resolution to enforce full free trade needs to be obliterated.

And the time now is for free trade. This resolution will benefit consumers, enrich competition and fuel manufacturing sectors worldwide. To reject it would be catastrophic and a blow for such causes.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Palentine UN Office

07-04-2006, 23:36

Note that you are offering your support to a liberal resolution.

Yep, and it promotes free trade. Capitalism, Baby!

Love and esterel

08-04-2006, 01:03

Even if our nation is not a UN Member, We hope you will allow us to express our opinion about free trade:

For us, free trade is one tool to spread innovations more widely worldwide.
And this is pretty obvious that innovations are the very fuel of economic growth.

We also think that living in a nation which encourages economic growth/innovations is best to be considered as a human right, along with others.

Cluichstan

08-04-2006, 01:54

Do NOT call this a human right.

LaLaland0

08-04-2006, 02:01

Er, what? There are plenty of countries with an automotive industry that is really only suited to the needs of their own population and that will never sell elsewhere, and that may not even be competitive in their home markets against cheap foreign products (rendered cheap by the abolition of taxes).
Consider India: (my data is a bit old, but it may still be true; if it isn't, take it as fictitious example) they have huge tariffs on foreign cars, which means that a run-of-the-mill Mercedes costs as much a Rolls-Royce does elsewhere. This means that many Indians buy inferior products like the Hindustan Ambassador (originally conceived as the Morris Oxford, production of which in the UK ended in the 60s at the latest, at which time the car was comprehensively outdated). The abolition of all tariffs would mean that the Hindustan factory would in all probability have to close down (although government customers would presumably remain).

This is not a good thing, whether the state concerned is a developing country or not.

India also provides an example for another beneficial effect of tariffs, hinted at in some earlier posts: foreign makers will have a huge incentive to open factories in the country, so as to make their products domestic ones and thus remove the effect of the tariffs.
I was supporting tariffs, saying that abolishing them not help out the fledgling economies of these so called developing countries by striking down tariffs. If you read my other posts, you will see that I was always against this measure for both its poor understanding of world economics, and poor evidence to support its usefulness.

LaLaland0

08-04-2006, 02:15

Lalaland and Rhaomi, may I suggest for you the same thing that Teruchev did.

Realize building autos isn't your strong suit.

Focus on what you are good at, whether it's uranium mining, like in Teruchev, or any other sector.

Create a strong robust economy that is conducive to a high level of consumer spending.

Consumer spending = Buying autos

As an additional spinoff of having a strong economy, natural incentives will emerge for foreign automakers to set up assembly, research, and technical plants in your nation.

Suddenly all that fearmongering about job losses isn't such a valid point anymore, is it?
Maybe you should do some research before you make broad claims. One of LaLaland0's biggest industries is the Automobile manufacturing industry, so don't say that I need to specialize my economy, it already is.

I agree that consumer spending equals buying cars, but not if the people trying to buy the cars don't have any money because they are out of work ( they used to work in my nation's automaking business). Even if the foreign automakers do set up plants in my country, I still don't get to tax them as much as I would if they were based in my country.

To be honest, I could care less about the jobs, except that I like collecting taxes, and I can't do that if none of my citizens have enough money to pay them. I understand that foreign companies would come in and fill the gap, but as I stated earlier, I don't get as much dough out of them, and there would be lag time, why change my system if it works?

And last, but certainly not least, it's my freaking country, and if I don't want foreign cars in it, than I have the right to keep them out. Besides which, I am a close personal friend of many Automobile Manufacturing execs, and I don't want to put them out of work.

Scamptica Prime

08-04-2006, 04:27

Fort Europe put this peferectly, this is too loopholed.

*Falls off chair and rolls on the floor laughing out loud*

Not a chance!

In layman(woman)s terms this means that as a nation you may NOT:

Tax imported and exported vehicles
Restrict the import and export of vehicles
Limit quantities of imported and exported vehicles
Prevent distribution of vehicles

This resolution effectivly legalises the trade of stolen vehicles, and prevents you from controlling the amount and types of vehicles entering and leaving your nation.

Positives:

The average cost of a vehicle will be so cheap that everyone will be able to afford to own a whole fleet of them. The only cost will be that of production and transporting it to its new owner, which is a small percentage of the standard cost.
That even goes for your fancy Ferraris, Porsches and Astin Martins!

Negatives:

This will ruin any econemy that relies on the import of such vehicles.
Roads will become overcrouded
Polution levels will rise
Automotive related crime will rise
The price of fuel will rise expenencially
Road maintainance requirements will rise.

The money that currently pays to control automotive crime, polution and road maintainance comes from these taxes. If you remove the taxes, there will be no money to do these things without increasing taxes in other areas.

Conclusion:

Basically, I see no benifit here, to the government or the people!

I vote NO.

I think we can manage that.

There is one other point I had noticed in this resolution.

The text refers to ALL automotive trade, however there is no distiction made between different types of automotive vehicle.
This resolution would alow free, unrestricted trade in all forms of vehicle, from sports cars, to lorries and comercial vehicles to Armoured Personnel Carriers and Main Battle Tanks!

Without this distiction in the resolution, all UN Nations will be free to trade Tanks and other military vehicles without any embargoes or restrictions.

This would create a considerable loophole in the weopons trade industry!

Compadria

08-04-2006, 10:32

I agree that consumer spending equals buying cars, but not if the people trying to buy the cars don't have any money because they are out of work ( they used to work in my nation's automaking business). Even if the foreign automakers do set up plants in my country, I still don't get to tax them as much as I would if they were based in my country.

For your first point, why would mass unemployment ensue. If car-manufacturing is your economic forte then you are now given the opportunity to expand your trade networks even further and invest in other nations to an even greater degree. This will boost your economy and save you from the spectre of unemployment which you drag up.

To be honest, I could care less about the jobs, except that I like collecting taxes, and I can't do that if none of my citizens have enough money to pay them. I understand that foreign companies would come in and fill the gap, but as I stated earlier, I don't get as much dough out of them, and there would be lag time, why change my system if it works?

What's stopping you from not making money out of foreign companies? You are now given a golden opportunity to expand your automobile manufacturing sector and to reap the benefits of even more foreign capital into your nation. Hell, why don't you invest in Compadria? We could use the extra jobs and the boost in foreign capital, given the moribund nature of our economy.

And last, but certainly not least, it's my freaking country, and if I don't want foreign cars in it, than I have the right to keep them out. Besides which, I am a close personal friend of many Automobile Manufacturing execs, and I don't want to put them out of work.

Fine, leave the U.N., if you're that opposed to the spirit of international trade and relationships, go off and sit in your isolationist corner while the rest of the world moves on. It's your choice and none would condemn you for it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

United Planets c2161

08-04-2006, 10:49

Originally Posted by Teruchev...Originally Posted by United Planets...
Methinks the proposer has a strong auto-industry and may simply be trying to gain power in other nations economies.

Perhaps you should do your homework before engaging in drive-by smears against the author.

Teruchev's automboile sector is in the bottom 10% of the world, despite having a population of 2.2 billion.

My apologies Teruchev. It was not meant as a smear, simply a joke at the end of my message giving my reasons for voting against this resolution and possible solutions.

I would like, by the way, to hear your rebuttal to these.

Ecopoeia

08-04-2006, 15:40

My deputy omitted to mention another reason for Ecopoeia's stance against this resolution, namely that we see no justification for encouraging the development of an industry that is so harmful to health and the environment.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Tzorsland

08-04-2006, 16:16

OK I think we need to refocus. This is not a resolution of free trade in general, this is a resolution of free trade in the auto industry. If I have to use fictional examples from the fictional land of the "Real World" I will.

Unlike cotton T shirts, automobiles do not automatically go to the manufacturer with the lowest wages. Both China and the United States make auto parts. Both fear each other for exact opposite reasons. In China, wages are cheap, but you get what you pay for. You need a lot of workers who in effect know how to start and stop the one maching they work on the line. In the United States the wages are significantly higher, but it only takes one worker to work the line. Not only that, but that worker can program each and every machine on the line, allowing the line to quickly respond to changind demands. The US manager fears the "cheap" China worker, while the China manager fears the "smart" US worker.

And the WALL-MART effect is not common in the auto industry. If that was true everyone would be driving the cheapest car possible and that is not the case. Many years ago Japan was lauingly sneered at for using inferior steel that rusted easily. Currently in the United States they have an advantage, but only because of decades of lack of innovation on the part of auto manufacturers in the Unoted States. And it's not exactly the car manufacturers doing. Toyota's domination in the Hybrid market comes courtesy of the Oil Industry, specifically a secret agreement between them and Chevron/Texaco to use NiMH battery technology on Hybrid vechicles only.
(The pattent by the way expires in 2010. FOUR MORE YEARS!)

As I said, if cheaper was better everyone in the US would have been driving Yugos. If better technology is better then everyone in the US would be driving safer cars. (And they are, with some exceptions, but those exceptions are a tradeoff between convience and safety, both technological innovations.)

Consider the following story. Once upon a time a postal worker was given the following opportunity. A new route opened up. Unfortauntely there are only so many cars at the office so she had to get her own car. Postal delivery is a lot like driving in England, you have to have the driver on the right side of the car since the driver has to reach into mailboxes at the side of the street from her car a lot. Did you know that there is only one facility in the United States that does left side/ right side driving conversions? And they charge an arm and a leg. There are a plethora of cars in England of course that meet her specific needs.

OK, and now let's get away from the Real World. Why is the automobile industry so "harmful to the environment?" Why are electric cars, hydrogen cars, biodiesel cars (made from plants who fixed more carbon from the air than they yield in fuel) etc harmful to the environment? There is no reason to assume that this resolution would force nations to drop all standards, merely that such standards would apply to both domestic and international manufacturers equally.

Fort Europes objections are quite frankly nonsense; they already come up as issues in my nation on many occasion. Overcrowding leads to people deciding to use public transportation instead. Increased maintenance costs can be removed by privatising the highway system. (Which leads to a lot less overcrowding as private companies raise the tolls to the point of maximum profitability.) Polution levels will not rise unless you let them; you can always up your standards for fuel efficiency and build HOV lanes that allow the low polution car owners to be kings of the highway.

Kirisubo

08-04-2006, 16:23

Midori Kasigi-Nero walks up to the podium shuffles two sheets of paper and speaks.

She spies her husband in the crowd and tries to make this as easy for him as she can.

"Fellow delegates of the NSUN after due consideration of the proposal at vote the Empire of Kirisubo will be voting against this.

Free trade only really benefits nations which have a large manufacturing base. while that is an economic fact which I will not dispute a common market will be bad for a lot of nations that can't produce export quality vehicles.

Our own car industry is small and we have enough cars already in our nation. We were assured that dumping of cars wouldn't happen if we had no need for them but we remain skepical on that point.

Vehicles in Kirisubo have to pass strict enviromental standards and run on bio-diesel. even our trains and trams run on cleanly generated electricy.

We have no desire to accept cars which don't measure up to the standards we maintain. I fear that this proposal would undo a lot of the good work we have done.

I remain open to replies about our statement"

She returns to her seat and awaits the inevitable sharp reply.

Compadria

08-04-2006, 16:55

I assure the honourable delegate that our reply will not be unduly sharp nor hurtful, but it will we hope be forceful, to the point of altering the honourable delegate's opinion on this matter.

Free trade only really benefits nations which have a large manufacturing base. while that is an economic fact which I will not dispute a common market will be bad for a lot of nations that can't produce export quality vehicles.

It is true that large nations and economic powerhouses are at an advantage with free-trade agreements and such like, yet this by no means precludes the possibility of a majority or even all nations benefitting from its use in international trade relations. If a nation is not producing export-quality vehicles, then presumably automotive parts and automobiles are not key to economic and fiscal success. Therefore, customers will be offered a wider choice of cars and native sectors will continue to operate on their other traditional fortes without undue stiffling. Furthermore, this resolution enshrines anti-trust language (something this nation suggested and insisted upon when the first draft of this resolution was debated back in October 2005), which will limit the power of potentially dangerous cartels and monopolistic practices in the affected sector.

Our own car industry is small and we have enough cars already in our nation. We were assured that dumping of cars wouldn't happen if we had no need for them but we remain skepical on that point.

And our nation can only state that we concur that car-dumping will not be a risk.

Vehicles in Kirisubo have to pass strict enviromental standards and run on bio-diesel. even our trains and trams run on cleanly generated electricy.

The trend towards environmentally friendly fuel technology will not be affected by this resolution, indeed a clause encourages the use of environmentally friendly technology. Your nation will still be able to use environmental standards and regulations, just not as a kind of tariff or a sole purpose for blocking imports. You can insist that a company modify their vehicles prior to importation, which would be a possible compromise between their and your interests on this point.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Irrakathia

08-04-2006, 17:36

I yield several points to the right honorable Ambassador of Irrakathia. I also applaud the heart behind your intentions, but must profess to be dumbstruck at the naivety of them. Freedom can be a great thing, but it can also be used to attack at the very heart of a nation, including its financial centers. What is the job of a government but to protect its people and their well being? If all of the people of your great nation are educated to the same level and have Doctorate of Economics degrees, then you would be able to trust that they would make decisions that would protect their country fiscally. But alas, they are not educated to that level, so they may make foolish decisions, like buying that cheaper car, not realizing they are putting their neighbor out of work, because that is his "bread and butter." Now in the grand scheme of things, that may not seem like a lot...but what if the auto worker can no longer afford the products of the citizen that just got a great deal on a Krondorean Car, how will he now make his payments..it can be a vicious circle.

Thank you again for this opportunity...

Emperor Argon
The Empire of Krondor-Bas-Tyra

In point of fact, we are not naive; we recognize fully that having a great deal of freedom, especially types such as this, will inevitably lead to some damaging effects, be it through ignorance on the part of those wielding freedom, or malice on those taking advantage of it. However, our views on this phenomenon can be summed quite simply: One of the most sacred rights we provide to our citizens is the right to shoot themselves in the foot. We are their government, not their parent; we exist to provide them a framework within which they exercise their own decisions. If those decisions lead to their own detriment, that is an unfortunate side effect of their freedom to choose, but not one we feel outweighs their right to choose freely in the first place.

We do, of course, recognize that other nations and populaces have idealogical differences to this stance, which is why Irrakathia does mantain fully open borders, for both emigration and immigration. Those citizens of ours that feel we do not act for them as they wish have very little difficulty finding a place where they will find themselves more comfortable; likewise, we welcome with open arms anyone who wishes to join our citizens in the freedom to make self-detrimental decisions.

Ecopoeia

08-04-2006, 19:54

Why is the automobile industry so "harmful to the environment?" Why are electric cars, hydrogen cars, biodiesel cars (made from plants who fixed more carbon from the air than they yield in fuel) etc harmful to the environment? There is no reason to assume that this resolution would force nations to drop all standards, merely that such standards would apply to both domestic and international manufacturers equally.
The automobile industry is clearly still dominated by vehicles that run on petroleum [OOC: well, in the game's 'present day' nations, i.e. the ones Ecopoeia knows of], ergo it is harmful to the environment and human health.

History tells us that we cannot trust major corporations to consider the environmental and social effects of their business unless held virtually at knife-point by national and international governments. By assisting this particular industry, the resolution at vote will only increase pollution as the industry grows. Self-regulation is a sham; where are all the 'green' vehicles? Numbers are vanishingly small, even though the capacity for their development and production has existed for many years. It is not in the producers' short-term interests to switch production.

Advocating the freeing of trade in such a sweeping manner betrays breathtaking naivete. No consideration is made of those with vested interests in the automobile industry, nor of closely linked parallel concerns (such as oil).

Your nation will still be able to use environmental standards and regulations, just not as a kind of tariff or a sole purpose for blocking imports. You can insist that a company modify their vehicles prior to importation, which would be a possible compromise between their and your interests on this point.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for a nation (or organisations located within its borders) to refuse to do business with an entity that fails to meet national standards.

LC

The Beltway

08-04-2006, 21:30

OOC - As far as I know, regulations on business and on products are not protectionist measures, as long as they apply (theoretically, at least) to domestic and foreign companies...

Ceorana

09-04-2006, 03:50

I fail to see how making it easier for auto companies to do business will have much if any effect on the environmental detriments of gas powered cars. There is nothing stopping anyone from passing UN legislation or national laws mandating emissions standards.

Compadria

09-04-2006, 12:11

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a nation (or organisations located within its borders) to refuse to do business with an entity that fails to meet national standards.

Your government may wish not to conduct business, but what about private citizens? Are they to be prohibited from importing vehicles purely on these grounds? I re-iterate the point that it will still be your nation's perogative to ensure that environmental protection regulations and other important steps are complied with, merely that they are applied equally and without discrimination against outside companies.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Temisas

09-04-2006, 12:38

Compadria

09-04-2006, 14:19

The position of Republic of Temisas is too clear. Our population need a basic requierements in all contexts. If we say 'yes' to Free Trade, we'll be destroying our internal market. UN members need a great treatment about Free Trade, but it should get any limits, for instance, reduced quotas, ...

I disagree with the honourable delegate on this point. It will not destroy his nation's central market, rather it will strengthen it and provide more raw materials and necessary capital to build up his nation's economy. Furthermore, the resolution would fulfill all the basic requirements of his country's citizens, only through international trade, not crude nationalism.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Tzorsland

09-04-2006, 14:56

The automobile industry is clearly still dominated by vehicles that run on petroleum [OOC: well, in the game's 'present day' nations, i.e. the ones Ecopoeia knows of], ergo it is harmful to the environment and human health.

History tells us that we cannot trust major corporations to consider the environmental and social effects of their business unless held virtually at knife-point by national and international governments. By assisting this particular industry, the resolution at vote will only increase pollution as the industry grows. Self-regulation is a sham; where are all the 'green' vehicles? Numbers are vanishingly small, even though the capacity for their development and production has existed for many years. It is not in the producers' short-term interests to switch production.

Yes, but as they say about manure, cars happen. The question of free trade is not how many but whose cars will they be? In general a closed market is more likely to create worse cars than an open market because the consumer has no choice.

As for the question of where are the green vehicles, in the Fictional World of the United States, gas is still insanely cheap, even compared to historical highs of the past (if you account for inflation). If the price was equivalent to that currently in England (around $5 US per gallon I think) you would see a very green situation indeed. Frankly the only "green" americans care about is money. (And that is true for the world in general, and it's not always the most evil thing either. It just is.)

Gesford

09-04-2006, 17:18

Though we would never join such a body as the United Nations, the Incorporated States of Gesford fully support this measure. Free trade is in the interest of every nation, and protectionism and isolationism merely delay the inevitable: the equal competition and possibly destruction of weaker businesses in the global marketplace.

Zorinia

09-04-2006, 17:40

(OOC: Please forgive me, my humble nation is new to this game and since I'm probably the newest member to the UN, and haven't quite read all of the debate yet on this resolution...I'll try to make my arguments sound intelligent).

The Federation of Zorinia supports this resolution. This nation believes that with the removal of tariffs and other restricting economic measures, that productivity and efficiency will both increase in the short term but even more so in the long term. This is a direct result of the positive externalities from trade and technological spillovers. Also, the prices of other domestic resources (such as steel and silicon) would fall because of the removal of tariffs. No body wins with restrictions on trade.

Southern Thracia

09-04-2006, 21:16

Just laying down my position: against. Seems like we're good to win anyway, but I feel like this is way too overreaching and controlling of UN member nations. Aside from Thracia's own isolationist tendencies (we probably wouldn't buy most of your stuff, even if you started selling it here), going in and interfering in the trade policies of every UN Nation in such major ways is bad. As far as I can see, anyways.

Tzorsland

09-04-2006, 21:16

Assuming that the votes do not radically change and this resolution fails, this represents a significant blow to the FAIR TRADE Association. Tzorsland will also look at the deligate votes very carefully. If the people want an all out trade war, we will be most happy to accomodate them.

Compadria

09-04-2006, 22:15

Love and esterel

09-04-2006, 22:35

Sadly, this proposal with probably fail.

Here is just a though that maybe can ease the success of future free trade proposals, it's just a thought and we are looking for comments:

What about mandating nations to decrease tariffs to less or equal to 1%?

Do NOT call this a human right.

I call "living in a nation which encourages economic development/innovations as a human right, along with others", thank you.

No, because trade is an international issue. It's something you fail to grasp. National sovereigntists have no problem with international agreements.

No agreement will ever be made about what is an international issue or what is not.

International issue is a subjective notion, by contrats national sovereignty is an objective notion
As no international agreement will ever be voted by 100% of members, proposals that respect national sovereignty cannot mandates or requires anything.

Forgottenlands

09-04-2006, 22:40

No agreement will ever be made about what is an international issue or what is not.

Agreed

International issue is a subjective notion, by contrats national sovereignty is an objective notion

Ok

As no international agreement will ever be voted by 100% of members, proposals that respect national sovereignty cannot mandates or requires anything.

You're talking about extreme sovereignty - a practice held by a few, but not the vast majority of NatSovs. Yes there is a level where you are correct, and there was a thread not that long ago about imposing moral values, but the nature of the NSO and the concept of what is the NatSov movement (not to be confused with what is National Sovereignty), you would be wrong.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

09-04-2006, 23:03

No agreement will ever be made about what is an international issue or what is not.

International issue is a subjective notion, by contrats national sovereignty is an objective notion
As no international agreement will ever be voted by 100% of members, proposals that respect national sovereignty cannot mandates or requires anything.A TG I recently sent the LAE delegate, reposted here for your edification:

Well, this is how you continue to misunderstand the very definition of national sovereignty. The tenets of sovereigntism hold that nations have every right to enact policies that apply only within their own borders. Nations, however, do not necessarily have the right to make policies that would directly affect another nation. That, my friend, is the basic difference between national and international issues.

You of course consider any issue, and I mean ANY issue -- be it member nations' family law, or anything so trivial as their computer- or sex-education policies -- something of due international import, so your understanding of national vs. international is obviously limited.

Whether a resolution is "anti-NatSov" has NOTHING to do with its force and EVERYTHING to do with its content; if it consigns itself to issues directly concerning relationships between nations (including free trade), it's international, and wholly appropriate (even where I may disagree with it). If it purports to lecture sovereign nations about their own internal laws or policies, it is the exact opposite.

Not that your sudden ardent defense of (what you term) "NatSov" isn't amusing: there was that sticky little matter of my support for a resolution that was COMPLETELY sovereignty-friendly, and you angrily stormed off from the UN once it passed.

Best wishes,
Kenny[EDIT: Speaking of the Moral Superiority thread FL referenced, there's also this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10682900&postcount=45) post, where I (try to) explain national vs. international issues; my take on the matter, at least.]

Love and esterel

09-04-2006, 23:31

A TG I recently sent the LAE delegate, reposted here for your edification:

[EDIT: Speaking of the Moral Superiority thread FL referenced, there's also this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10682900&postcount=45) post, where I (try to) explain national vs. international issues; my take on the matter, at least.]

Ok, so reading what you say, I now wonder if the following virtual proposal, (not my intention) is natsov friendly, or not?

Thanks if you can help me

-----
-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws related to the migration of people and REQUIRES all nations to grant automatic visa, without expiration date, for tourism, immigration or work, to any citizens of another UN nation who are not convicted or charged for criminals activities

-2- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.
-----

Ecopoeia

09-04-2006, 23:51

Your government may wish not to conduct business, but what about private citizens? Are they to be prohibited from importing vehicles purely on these grounds? I re-iterate the point that it will still be your nation's perogative to ensure that environmental protection regulations and other important steps are complied with, merely that they are applied equally and without discrimination against outside companies.
Yes, they are prohibited from importing vehicles that do not meet our environmental and safety standards. This seems only reasonable to me; ours is a very open political system and if Ecopoeians are unhappy with these policies then they have ample opportunities to express their dissatisfaction.

As for the question of where are the green vehicles, in the Fictional World of the United States, gas is still insanely cheap, even compared to historical highs of the past (if you account for inflation). If the price was equivalent to that currently in England (around $5 US per gallon I think) you would see a very green situation indeed. Frankly the only "green" americans care about is money. (And that is true for the world in general, and it's not always the most evil thing either. It just is.)
OOC: I very much doubt it. High petrol prices in the UK have done little in this regard and I see nothing to indicate that Americans would respond any more favourably.

Tzorsland will also look at the deligate votes very carefully. If the people want an all out trade war, we will be most happy to accomodate them.
Such threatening and intemperate language is unbecoming of a UN ambassador. Rejection the spread of your favoured economic policy does not constitute a desire for war on any grounds. [OOC: Ms Chakrabarti says this with a sardonic grin - it's not to be taken too seriously]

So why has it failed? This is why: Firstly, the inability of many nations to even read the proposal and a disheartening knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "free-trade". We agree with many opponents that free-trade in some circumstances is not advantageous and in others needs proper safeguards. Yet these were provided. Secondly, many simply dragged out old cliches about free-trade, parochial views and a depressing sense of wilfull national short-sightedness.
I disagree that adequate safeguards were provided. Further, I don't see that the automotive industry is worthy of UN attention. Food and nuclear energy, to name two examples, are of significant international concern. Luxury items are not.

What about mandating nations to decrease tariffs to less or equal to 1%?
A risibly tokenistic compromise that would persuade virtually no nations to change their position.

LC

Gesford

10-04-2006, 01:04

I don't see that the automotive industry is worthy of UN attention. Food and nuclear energy, to name two examples, are of significant international concern. Luxury items are not.

I don't believe the idea was to raise the ethical signifigance of the auto industry to the level of those two. Any transaction, any item put on the global market has an economic impact determined not by your ethical standards, but rather the price of the item. It is not the items, but rather the financial transactions themselves which are the key to economic prosperity. You can damn an economy by restricting trade in cars just as surely as you can by restricting trade in food(a terrible comparison, people buy more food than cars, but the impact per dollar is the same). People produce cars, get paid, and put that money back into the system. People produce food, get paid, and put money back into the system.

The idea that taxation or subsidization of an industry should occur because of its product is folly; neither should occur in any circumstances anyway, to any industry.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

10-04-2006, 01:34

Ok, so reading what you say, I now wonder if the following virtual proposal, (not my intention) is natsov friendly, or not?

Thanks if you can help me
-----
-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws related to the migration of people and REQUIRES all nations to grant automatic visa, without expiration date, for tourism, immigration or work, to any citizens of another UN nation who are not convicted or charged for criminals activities

-2- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.
-----[EDIT: Actually, scratch that. I am certain about this. Nations are under no obligation to allow anyone inside their own borders. Inside their own borders. National. Not international.]

That it is insanely stupid I am certain.

That it is of little relevance to the topic at hand I am equally certain.

Love and esterel

10-04-2006, 02:21

[EDIT: Actually, scratch that. I am certain about this. Nations are under no obligation to allow anyone inside their own borders. Inside their own borders. National. Not international.]

So for you:
circulation of goods is an international issue,
but circulation of people is a national one?
Isnt it very subjective?

"national sovereignty" is larger than "OMGTKK's sovereignty" as it includes sovereignty of the 30 000 other UN members, which have each a different idea of what an international issue is.

That it is insanely stupid I am certain.

Thanks for your polite answer, is the Schengen Agreement stupid?

http://www.answers.com/topic/schengen-agreement

"""Schengen Agreement is an agreement between European states which allows for common immigration policies and a border system. A total of 26 countries – including all European Union states except the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, but including non-EU members Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland – have signed the agreement and 15 have implemented it so far. Border posts and checks have been removed between Schengen countries and a common 'Schengen visa' allows access to the area, however the agreement does not cover residency or work permits for non-EU nationals"""

Tzorsland

10-04-2006, 02:34

OOC: I very much doubt it. High petrol prices in the UK have done little in this regard and I see nothing to indicate that Americans would respond any more favourably.

I can't speak for England as I was only there once. (I could email my former co-worker from London to get his opinion on the matter.) I remember almost drooling when I passed a gas station. After all it was less than a pound per liter. Oh right, that's in both pounds and liters. But anything under 1.00 always looks cheaper than it is.

Considering the nature of traffic (especially around London) and the general speed limits of England, a plug in Hybrid running on NiHM batteries would in theory never use a drop of gas whatsoever as long as it was plugged in every night.

Of course from what I've heard strict traffic enforcement in Paris has resulted in an increase in the sales of Hummers. Go figure.

Prices soared over $3 recently and the traditional sales for GM and Ford dried up completely. Even the minivan is only selling in "crossover" models, minivans built on car not truck bodies. If it went to $5 I can assure you that the shit would hit the fan in more ways than one.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

10-04-2006, 02:44

So for you:
circulation of goods is an international issue,
but circulation of people is a national one?
Isnt it very subjective?Well, let's see: imposing tariffs on imported goods directly affects another nation; namely the nation exporting them. Being required to accept anybody who wants to enter your borders only directly affects your nation; it does not directly affect the nations they come from. But we are talking about free trade here, not immigration policy. Do you have anything to say about the proposal?

Thanks for your polite answer, is the Schengen Agreement stupid?

http://www.answers.com/topic/schengen-agreement

"""Schengen Agreement is an agreement between European states which allows for common immigration policies and a border system. A total of 26 countries – including all European Union states except the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, but including non-EU members Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland – have signed the agreement and 15 have implemented it so far. Border posts and checks have been removed between Schengen countries and a common 'Schengen visa' allows access to the area, however the agreement does not cover residency or work permits for non-EU nationals"""It's irrelevant; of that I'm sure.

Tzorsland

10-04-2006, 02:45

-----
-1- REQUIRES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws related to the migration of people and REQUIRES all nations to grant automatic visa, without expiration date, for tourism, immigration or work, to any citizens of another UN nation who are not convicted or charged for criminals activities

-2- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding five (5) years in length.
-----

You realize that this is in theory the opposite of the AFTA. The AFTA in the end is a pull system, if the people of a country don't buy the product of a foreign nation it just sits on the lot. Your proposal is a push system, whereby the people make a decision to enter another nation.

Does this hurt natsov or is it natsov friendly. Well yes it's friendly. It sounds like that fictious real world European Union. Since you don't force citizenship, it doesn't impact the soverginity of the nation. (Oh and you don't mention taxes.)

I'm glad we're not voting on that, however. And I'm equally glad I'm no longer a regional deligate, because otherwise I would be insane enough to start writing this one up. Imagine having the right of my military to get automatic visas in any nation. This is so evil that I must approve. :p

Love and esterel

10-04-2006, 03:27

Well, let's see: imposing tariffs on imported goods directly affects another nation; namely the nation exporting them. Being required to accept anybody who wants to enter your borders only directly affects your nation; it does not directly affect the nations they come from.
.

And you forget:

Being required to accept any goods that foreigners wants to export in your borders doesn't affect directly your nation.:p

But we are talking about free trade here, not immigration policy. Do you have anything to say about the proposal?

I said already why i agree with this proposal.

I'm just stunned by self-proclamed-sovereignist who once more don't respect other nation's sovereignty and don't hesitate to support mandating and requiring clauses that some others nations don't want.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

10-04-2006, 03:33

And you forget:

Being required to accept any goods that foreigners wants to export in your borders doesn't affect directly your nation.:p I don't think this proposal requires you to accept any goods; you just can't place undue restrictions, taxes, tariffs or duties on such goods if you do.

I'm just stunned by self-proclamed-sovereignist who once more don't respect other nation's sovereignty and don't hesitate to support mandating and requiring clauses that some others nations don't want.I swear to God; it's like trying to reason with a two-year-old. :rolleyes: :p

Love and esterel

10-04-2006, 03:46

I don't think this proposal requires you to accept any goods; you just can't place undue restrictions, taxes, tariffs or duties on such goods if you do.

Sorry, but it's a contradiction, or you have absolutly no notion of what international trade is.

I'm not for protectionist measures but let's take an exemple:

For years, malaysia imposed heavy tariffs on foreign cars (more than 200% if I remember correctly) in order to grow a national brand: Proton (who bought Lotus several years before)
i'm personnaly not sure it was a good idea overall, but without these tariffs Proton would never have become what it is now.

Singapore practiced the very same % for another reason: to limit the number of cars (traffic jam and pollution) in the very small area of singapore.

You can disagree with that, it's your opinion, but you see that it affected directly malaysia and singapore.
So why would you want to dictate these nations their policy if you respect their national sovereignty?

Forgottenlands

10-04-2006, 05:15

LAE: please. We have other threads where we have and are discussing the theories of what constitutes NatSov and IntFed theories, International and National issues, imposition of beliefs, and many other issues in the context of the UN. Considering you support the proposal and your objection to what's happening seems to be based upon NatSov theory, not what is actually being done in this resolution, can we please move this debate elsewhere.

I also wish to note that many NatSovs support some IntFed friendly proposals and many IntFeds support some NatSov friendly proposals. The assault on NatSovs for abandonning their ideals is far from reasonable in the context of this thread. As I said, there are other places to address it, not here.

Ecopoeia

10-04-2006, 11:36

I don't believe the idea was to raise the ethical signifigance of the auto industry to the level of those two. Any transaction, any item put on the global market has an economic impact determined not by your ethical standards, but rather the price of the item. It is not the items, but rather the financial transactions themselves which are the key to economic prosperity. You can damn an economy by restricting trade in cars just as surely as you can by restricting trade in food(a terrible comparison, people buy more food than cars, but the impact per dollar is the same). People produce cars, get paid, and put that money back into the system. People produce food, get paid, and put money back into the system.
I'm not talking about "impact per dollar", especially as this has little relevancy in a partly cashless society such as Ecopoeia. I also realise that the author did not intend to put automobiles on the same ethical stratum as food, but their intentions matter little to me.

The idea that taxation or subsidization of an industry should occur because of its product is folly; neither should occur in any circumstances anyway, to any industry.
Oh, good grief. This is not universally accepted fact, you know. Economies are not amenable to one-size-fits-all philosophies; dreamy ideological extremism like this is not only hopelessly naive, it's potentially very destructive.

-snip-
OOC: Fair points. All I'm saying, however, is that the 'green taxes' applied in the UK haven't exactly achieved a great deal beyond making people grumble a bit. Typical Britain...

Oh, yeah - sorry if this comes across as being arsey, but referring to the UK as England tends to wind up the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. It's a bit like describing the USA as California!

Cluichstan

10-04-2006, 12:37

I call "living in a nation which encourages economic development/innovations as a human right, along with others", thank you.

Of course you do. And, of course, you're wrong.

Forgottenlands

10-04-2006, 13:32

Of course you do. And, of course, you're wrong.

How does one's opinion on what should and should not be a human right be wrong or right?

Ecopoeia

10-04-2006, 14:35

Of course you do. And, of course, you're wrong.
Do you object to this on the basis that you dislike the term 'human right'? If not, then I don't understand your antipathy towards the original statement.

LC

Tzorsland

10-04-2006, 14:50

Sorry, but it's a contradiction, or you have absolutly no notion of what international trade is.

And apparently neither do you. (See how this kind of rhetoric gets nobody anywhere!)

For years, malaysia imposed heavy tariffs on foreign cars (more than 200% if I remember correctly) in order to grow a national brand: Proton (who bought Lotus several years before)
i'm personnaly not sure it was a good idea overall, but without these tariffs Proton would never have become what it is now.

Yes and no. Let's check the web page of PROTON:
PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL BERHAD or PROTON was incorporated on May 7, 1983 to manufacture, assembly and sell motor vehicles and related products, including accessories, spare parts and other components. PROTON produced Malaysia's first car, the Proton SAGA, commerically launched on July 9, 1985 by Malaysian Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Dr. mahathir Mohamad who had originally conceived the idea of a Malaysian car.

Somehow the idea of a company driven by the prime minister of a country already has an unfair advantage. Who imposed the tariffs? The leader of the country on behalf of the country, or a person with a vested interest in the company on behalf of the company ... after all they are the same person! I think one can argue whether this was good for Maaysia. It certanly was good for the Prime Minister's stock sales and royalties.

Besides how powerful is PROTON? Not even the financial news giant REUTERS carries information on it. This smells like a Rumsfield defence contract.

Singapore practiced the very same % for another reason: to limit the number of cars (traffic jam and pollution) in the very small area of singapore.

This too was probably a smokescreen. There is no practical difference between having a plethora of domestic cars or a mixture of domestic cars and imported cars. Car reduction is best reduced by a combination of use taxes, access taxes and highway taxes. The London model (as much as Londoners hate their mayor because of it) is a much more effective barrier to excessive traffic than placing import tariffs.

You can disagree with that, it's your opinion, but you see that it affected directly malaysia and singapore.
So why would you want to dictate these nations their policy if you respect their national sovereignty?

No I can't. And neither can you. These are two unique situations and the only way you can effectively analyze them is through having two similiar nations under the same similiar conditions with different rules and regulations.

National Sovereignty does not mean that nations have the right to harm other nations because they either don't know how to get their act together or because they are corrupt and are only trying to line the pockets of the national leaders. I don't consider that national sovereignty.

Ecopoeia

10-04-2006, 15:02

The London model (as much as Londoners hate their mayor because of it) is a much more effective barrier to excessive traffic than placing import tariffs.
OOC: Before I comment on this statement I'd like to make clear that I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote in your last post. However, as a Londoner, I feel well placed to respond to this. You're absolutely correct that the congestion charge has had a positive effect on central London traffic. Its effect on business is subject to much debate but, all in all, I think it's been worthwhile. Londoners, by and large, do not hate (Formerly) Red Ken. His record ain't perfect but he's done a lot of good and any objections to the c-charge tend to be from grumbling Tories (and, frankly, screw 'em) and the poor. And here, in fairness, is a genuine cause for complaint. The c-charge is regressive, plus it makes no distinction between cars in terms of pollution (it purely taxes congestion). A sliding scale based on CO2 emissions, while difficult to enforce, would be far more equitable.

Um. Hijack much? Sorry...

Fonzoland

10-04-2006, 15:23

OOC:
<---- Londoner who supports the congestion charge.

Love and esterel

10-04-2006, 16:25

Yes and no. Let's check the web page of PROTON:

Somehow the idea of a company driven by the prime minister of a country already has an unfair advantage. Who imposed the tariffs? The leader of the country on behalf of the country, or a person with a vested interest in the company on behalf of the company ... after all they are the same person! I think one can argue whether this was good for Maaysia. It certanly was good for the Prime Minister's stock sales and royalties.

Besides how powerful is PROTON? Not even the financial news giant REUTERS carries information on it. This smells like a Rumsfield defence contract.

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(car)

"By 2002 Proton held a market share of over 60 per cent in Malaysia, which was reduced to barely 30 percent by 2005 and is expected to reduce further in 2008 when AFTA (ASEAN Free Trade Area) mandates reduce import tariffs to a maximum of 5%."

I said I was thinking this was negative for Malaysia, but one can argue that a national car industry is created

This too was probably a smokescreen. There is no practical difference between having a plethora of domestic cars or a mixture of domestic cars and imported cars. Car reduction is best reduced by a combination of use taxes, access taxes and highway taxes. The London model (as much as Londoners hate their mayor because of it) is a much more effective barrier to excessive traffic than placing import tariffs.

No I can't. And neither can you. These are two unique situations and the only way you can effectively analyze them is through having two similiar nations under the same similiar conditions with different rules and regulations.

National Sovereignty does not mean that nations have the right to harm other nations because they either don't know how to get their act together or because they are corrupt and are only trying to line the pockets of the national leaders. I don't consider that national sovereignty.

Not 2 unique situations, so many examples:

- USA and Europe who limit the number of imported japanese cars
- The merger Mercedes-Chrysler, the stake of 44% of Renault in Nissan
- Former east Germany, where people had to wait 1 year to get a Trabant, Trabants sales vanished as soon as the berlin wall falled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
- Europe who want to limit chinese textile imports
- USA who refuse a Dubai based compagny to buy ports
- France who refuse Mital Steel to buy arcelor
The most dramatic one in history is probabaly the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the US in 1930
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

I personally disagree with most protectionist measures, but in each cases there were people for and against.
From all what have been claimed about national sovereignty and about letting nations decide for themselves in this forum in the last months, do you consider that neither of these have to do with national sovereignty:p

I regret the result of the vote of this resolution, but at least I have a small consolation: I'm happy, that former sovreignists have now more internationalist concerns:p welcome

Teruchev

10-04-2006, 17:13

Assuming this resolution fails, as now seems a certainty, I wish now to compose its eulogy.

It was an honest and brave attempt to increase the diversity of choice and boost exports and imports of automobiles and other motor vehicles, whilst encouraging pro-environment technology and the restriction of monopolies. It was sensible and well-thought out, a noble effort by the honourable delegate of Teruchev.

So why has it failed? This is why: Firstly, the inability of many nations to even read the proposal and a disheartening knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "free-trade". We agree with many opponents that free-trade in some circumstances is not advantageous and in others needs proper safeguards. Yet these were provided. Secondly, many simply dragged out old cliches about free-trade, parochial views and a depressing sense of wilfull national short-sightedness. We could have built a network of fiscal and social empowerment. Instead, we have condemned it to the list of failures.

I hope this is resurrected some day and ratified by this assembly and I hope on that day those who opposed it will see its merits and join us in casting their vote for it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Quoted for its eloquence and bang-on accuracy.

While in a few hours the UNFTAA will crash and burn, it does not represent the end of noble efforts to bring a reasoned and equitable free trade regime to the UN.

When I first dreamt up this idea, I thought, "what a great way to give the UN a competitive advantage over non-UN nations in terms of access to markets and reciprocal trade agreements." It appears that today the UN has determined that it is not prepared to fully take advantage of its strengths and make itself a more appealing place for the c. 80,000 nations that do not call the UN home.

In subsequent efforts in this body, I shall not cease in my attempts to pass reasoned, well thought-out proposals that may in some way help increase the shamefully low numbers in this august body.

I will not assign blame, however, for the failure of this proposal on anyone but myself. I had in my corner scores of dedicated partners who worked tirelessly on my behalf to bring this to quorum, and fought the good fight on this forum against a groundswell of public opinion opposing free trade in all its forms. To them I will be forever grateful.

While this part of one's speech usually segues into an announcement of resignation, this will not be the route for the Republic of Teruchev. We believe that the UN can be infinitely greater than its current form, and will continue to work towards proposals that, while not always popular, will in our view improve the standing of this body and, as mentioned, allow it to fully utilize its inherent strengths in the future.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Ecopoeia

10-04-2006, 17:21

I wish you the best of luck in your future UN work, President Perry. Please do not think too poorly of your opponents in this debate - many of us have, I feel, demonstrated valid concerns as to both the international standing and efficacy of the resolution. You undoubtedly still disagree with our reasoning, but not all of it is based on stubborn opposition to an ideological proposition.

For my part, I have a great deal of admiration for your approach to drafting and promoting this measure, despite my opposition. I hope that we find ourselves in accord the next time we meet in the debating chamber.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Teruchev

10-04-2006, 17:26

Compadria

10-04-2006, 18:13

I thank President Perry for his kind citation of our speech and the praise he lavished upon it. I join him in his call for an expansion of free and democratic trade between the members of the U.N. and those outside of it. Hopefully we shall rachet up victories in other areas to compensate for our defeat here.

I also thank and congratulate those honourable opponents, especially Mrs Chakrabarti the worthy delegate of Ecopoeia, who bothered to oppose this proposal on the basis of reasoned, articulate arguments, not reflexive or hyperbolic mis-appraisal and sentiment.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Teruchev

10-04-2006, 18:48

The resolution "Auto Free Trade Agreement" was defeated 7,465 votes to 4,477.

Anybody want to run a LAE-type analysis on this one? LAE?

Cluichstan

10-04-2006, 18:51

I snagged the list of delegate votes on this seconds before it went through. If anyone wants it or needs it, feel free to telegram me.

I'll be in the secret DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON) bunker, plotting my invasions of those protectionist countries who voted against this.

Forgottenlands

10-04-2006, 18:56

Free trade makes fluffies edgy. I don't know if they don't support the concept of free trade, but to have permanent and forced free trade, that's another story.

Realistically, there has been the occasional success story of protective tariffs being put in place - particularly as a short term measure - and achieving an economic boost or a repairment of the industry.

I honestly can't claim surprise.

Edit: Two things
1) Question: what is an LAE type analysis, now that I think about it
2) You also picked automotives.....greater availability of automotives and being able to place tariffs on them might disagree with the "ra-ra environment" fluffies"

Love and esterel

10-04-2006, 19:09

Anybody want to run a LAE-type analysis on this one? LAE?

I suppose you mean stats on members and delegates votes.
Sorry, I didn't save the page to do it, I did it only for the failed media and terroism act, as it appeared for both that most member and delegates have voted for, despite their failure
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's the case here, the margin is too large.

St Edmund

10-04-2006, 19:20

I suppose you mean stats on members and delegates votes.
Sorry, I didn't save the page to do it, I did it only for the failed media and terroism act, as it appeared for both that most member and delegates have voted for, despite their failure
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's the case here, the margin is too large.

I looked at the delegate votes a few hours ago, and at that point two of the feeders' delegates had voted 'For' with one (Caer Rialis) 'Against'.

Cluichstan

10-04-2006, 19:27

I looked at the delegate votes a few hours ago, and at that point two of the feeders' delegates had voted 'For' with one (Caer Rialis) 'Against'.

*points to post #207 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10733347&postcount=207) in this thread*

Teruchev

10-04-2006, 20:22

Free trade makes fluffies edgy. I don't know if they don't support the concept of free trade

I would say that most don't understand free trade.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

10-04-2006, 21:03

Compadria

10-04-2006, 21:23

We applaud President Perry of Teruchev, and condemn today's soulless actions of the knee-jerk reactionaries in this body. We move that henceforth all free trade agreements avoid using "free trade" in the title. Make it like the Global Food Distribution Act, a happy fluffy title that makes people feel good. Might we suggest?: Auto FAIRTRADE (the organization, not the practice) Agreement, "Toy" Cars for "Children" Drive, Give All Those Poor Tired Horses a Break, Transportation Resources and Utilization Modernization Act (TRAUMA), David Duke Opposes This Bill!, Aid to Third World Automotive Transportation (A TWAT), and of course Cars Are Cute Cuddly and Beloved of Children Everywhere.

In recognition of his stalwart efforts in getting this bill to the floor, we hereby confer upon President Perry the Death to Protectionism!!! Gold Star for Economic Advancement.

We agree with all the points regarding the address of the honourable delegate for Omigodtheykilledkenny, with the exception of the points regarding reactionaries. We hardly feel that Ecopoiea could count as a 'reactionary' nation.

[Holds up a gold star emblazoned with a relief of famed protectionist Pat Buchanan with a bullet in his head.]

We applaud this decoration and present our own version of the medal for economic advancement, The Platinum Otter, showing an image of equally famed protectionist Joseph Chamberlain being clubbed to death with a copy of his own 1904 Tariff Act.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Zorinia

10-04-2006, 21:28

Teruchev

10-04-2006, 21:32

In recognition of his stalwart efforts in getting this bill to the floor, we hereby confer upon President Perry the Death to Protectionism!!! Gold Star for Economic Advancement.

We applaud this decoration and present our own version of the medal for economic advancement, The Platinum Otter, showing an image of equally famed protectionist Joseph Chamberlain being clubbed to death with a copy of his own 1904 Tariff Act.

I thank the honourable ambassadors for their kind words and humbling decorations.

I shall place these fine awards next to my Grand Cross from Cobdenia, and the framed picture of my UN Chief of Staff doing donuts on the lawn of the UN building to protest this bill's defeat before gnomes apprehended him.

Love and esterel

10-04-2006, 21:46

I hope you will forgive me as this post may be considered as a spam, but as many nations seem to be interested to increase free trade with some others, I would like to inform them that some different international organisations promoting or requiring free partiel or total free trade

LAE is a member of the KIST (Knootian International Stabilisation Treaty) at a free trade level and participate in KIST cultural exchange programmes:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Knootian_International_Stabilisation_Treaty

And here are some others international organisations related to free trade (I donno much about them but may be worth to check), the list is not exhaustive, I'm pretty sure more of them exist:
- ECON Free Trade Agreement
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ECON_Free_Trade_Agreement

-International Fair Trade Agreement
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/International_Fair_Trade_Agreement

-Martian Free Trade Agreement
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Martian_Free_Trade_Agreement

-Free Trade Organization
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Free_Trade_Organization

United Planets c2161

10-04-2006, 23:06

The Federation of Zorinia also applauds the efforts of Teruchev and are deeply disappointed that some nations appeared to get caught up in the language of the resolution as opposed to seeing the true positive economic, technological, and environmental potential.
Note Bold in above added

The language of any resolution is of vital importance as it is what determines what the resolution requires. A Resolution with vague wording leads to vague interpretations that can lead to squabbling about what is and is not defined in said resolution. It is therefore, in the interests of clarity, the responsibility of all NSUN members to carefully consider the wording of any resolution to make sure that only those that are specific are passed.

This is not to say that I believe that this resolution was poorly worded, I just believe that the resolution itself was not in the best interests of the community at this time.

Simply put, a resolution that eliminates tariffs in only one area of industry is not beneficial to the majority of the population. Our nation's top industry is the Automobile industry and our economy probably would have benefited from this resolution, but what of our friends who excel in Information Technology, or Soda sales? We feel that until a resolution is put forward that gives free trade over a wider field of industries, these attempts will most likely fail, due to the votes against by those who do not have the industry being dealt with.

NationStates Jolt Archive

FAILED: Auto Free Trade Agreement [Official Topic]