NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the resolution at vote starting Tuesday (I believe). I started a new thread because I wanted to add a forum poll. I hope you all vote "For" ;)

Here's a link to the drafting thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450369

And here's the proposal text.

UN Small Business Education
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

ASCERTAINING drive to economic enterprise by individuals as a large part of many individuals’ paths toward happiness,

UNDERSTANDING that greater realization of this drive could be effected, if each individual were to have greater knowledge regarding economic enterprise, specifically small business enterprise, in relation to their surroundings and local economies,

RECALLING many other positive things (besides the possible fulfillment of happiness for some individuals) which may come about when a healthy number of citizens engage in small business,

DETERMINING the drive towards personal achievement universal enough for the United Nations to support and encourage:

1. ENCOURAGES member nations in which there are free market or semi-free market economic systems to have compassion on those entrepreneurs who begin small businesses in the retail, agriculture, manufacturing, technology, etc. industries by assigning those businesses or citizens tax breaks or by helping provide the necessary technical support and infrastructure resources or in any way a member nation and its people may determine a possible route to decrease the difficulties of starting and owning a small business;

2. ENCOURAGES small business owners and potential small business owners to research, acquire and enact intelligent, sensible business practices from reputable sources;

3. SUPPORTS the use of subsidies to allow small businesses to compete against larger national or international corporations--considered dutifully for its effects on the national and regional workforce, and used only in just moderation; and SUPPORTS distribution of government or public contracts among small businesses to equalize distribution with larger businesses;

4. CREATES “The United Nations Small Business Classroom” (“The UNSBC”), which may operate branches in consenting member nations with as large or small of a presence in each nation as desired by each national government ("presence" including content of “The UNSBC” branch in a member nation, location(s) of “The UNSBC” branch facilities, etc.): with staffing determined by individual member nations as overseen by UN officials;

5. DESIGNATES “The UNSBC” as an organization intended primarily to educate small business owners and prospective small business owners on how to begin, run, and operate a small business;

6. ALLOWS member nations to add curricula--especially regarding local, provincial or national laws, or market research--to “The UNSBC” so far as additional staffing, if necessary, is provided and salaried by the member nation;

7. URGES member nations to allow citizens say in “The UNSBC” branch(es) in their member nation, be it through written or spoken feedback, through ombudsmen, local referenda, etc.;

8. DESIGNATES “The UNSBC” as an organization which may also, should it be within the agreement between “The UNSBC” and the member nation in which a branch resides, produce literature concerning small businesses and national/regional markets, service regional citizens, educate new citizens in the economic workings of the member nation--or educate and facilitate a member nations citizens in any way so long as that service is reasonably related to economics, and approved by UN oversight.

Don't Panic!

An excellent proposal which will provide a worthwhile service to the people of nations which wish to take advantage of it.

Ausserland will vote for the proposal as soon as it reaches the floor.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Two thumbs fresh.

Very well written, I must say, but why should the UN care about this? And that's apart from the need to give tax breaks to small firms. Firstly, that smells like discrimination, secondly, if a business is viable they'll get there without tax breaks. I do not want to fund inadequate businesses for some romantic small business idea of entrepreneurs.

Very well written, I must say, but why should the UN care about this?

We believe that this is an appropriate effort for the NSUN to undertake because it can take advantage of economy of scale. It should be able to provide the service at lower cost than would be the case if individual nations each did it themselves. And, since we believe the service would be of value to people in countries which choose to use it, we support the effort.

And that's apart from the need to give tax breaks to small firms. Firstly, that smells like discrimination, secondly, if a business is viable they'll get there without tax breaks. I do not want to fund inadequate businesses for some romantic small business idea of entrepreneurs.

If the proposal were to mandate or require tax breaks for small businesses, we would agree with the honorable delegate from Groot Gouda. But since it only encourages them, we have no objection. Each nation can decide for itself whether this is in its best economic interest or not.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Bah. I don't see the point in wasting a bunch of time and money to teach people to run a business. If they want to ddo it, they learn it themselves. That's the whole basis of Entrepreneurialism.

With Classes, everyone will learn the same thing, Thus, giving them all very similar ideas. What good is it having 3000 Students with 3000 of teh same shops?
Entrepreneurialism is creative. People know what the want when they want to make a small business. Someone in a classroom won't tell them differently.:rolleyes:

Bah. I don't see the point in wasting a bunch of time and money to teach people to run a business. If they want to ddo it, they learn it themselves. That's the whole basis of Entrepreneurialism.

With Classes, everyone will learn the same thing, Thus, giving them all very similar ideas. What good is it having 3000 Students with 3000 of teh same shops?
Entrepreneurialism is creative. People know what the want when they want to make a small business. Someone in a classroom won't tell them differently.:rolleyes:

Not everyone will get the same idea by taking a class together.



I say good resolution. It has my vote!

Bah. I don't see the point in wasting a bunch of time and money to teach people to run a business. If they want to ddo it, they learn it themselves. That's the whole basis of Entrepreneurialism.

With Classes, everyone will learn the same thing, Thus, giving them all very similar ideas. What good is it having 3000 Students with 3000 of teh same shops?
Entrepreneurialism is creative. People know what the want when they want to make a small business. Someone in a classroom won't tell them differently.:rolleyes:

LAE fully support this proposal, small business is essential for creativity and economic growth. We would like to thanks the author, as we are surprised nothing had been ever before voted about it. In particular we think that clauses 1,2 and 3 are really important.

Even if i don't understand the "UNSBC" and there will be no branch in LAE, this is not mandatory.

With Classes, everyone will learn the same thing, Thus, giving them all very similar ideas. What good is it having 3000 Students with 3000 of teh same shops?
Entrepreneurialism is creative. People know what the want when they want to make a small business. Someone in a classroom won't tell them differently.:rolleyes:

The idea that having the UNSBC classes will produce "3000 Students with 3000 of teh [sic] same shops" is completely unrealistic. One student will want to open a knitting supplies store. Another will want to produce his or her newly patented widget. A third will be trying to start up a cleaning service. And on and on.

And certainly, people know what they want when they start trying to establish a small business. But that doesn't mean they know how to make it happen. The UNSBC classes will help them turn their desires into realities.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Dutch Democratic Republic stands opposed to this perverse proposal.

It is typical of the Powerhungry Chipmunks mentality to want to arrange affairs which are best left to individual entrepreneurs on the United Nations level. When a Knootian talks about entrepreneurs, he refers to those brave men and women who use their creativity and spirit for providing actual services to the public - not the policy entrepreneurs of a Transnational Federal Bureaucracy who need a new pet project to increase the size of their departments. But I digress...

First of all, we reject this on the principle that it is not a UN matter. This proposal does not arrange anything that concerns international affairs, nor does it provide for the protection of universal human rights, despite the feeble attempts by the authors to justify it as such. For that alone, ladies and gentlemen, it deserves to be tossed off this floor in infamy.

Secondly, we oppose this resolution because it endorses intrinsically flawed and rejected economic theories of protectionism and corporate welfare.

This resolution is supposedly only relevant for free market or semi-free market economic systems (which only reinforces its questionable legality and narrow scope) to have "compassion". Compassion, ladies and sirs, is great stuff, great stuff indeed! But is compassion really the same thing as corporate welfare? To give specific advantages for certain businesses in certain markets because they are somehow more fluffy surely is no excuse! Big business is to a large extent necessary and natural. The development of business upon a great scale, upon a great scale of cooperation, is inevitable, and, let me add, is probably desirable.

Having the national governments set the level of involvement of these UNcrats creates another vicious cycle of inevitable UN expansion as nations will want to be 'paid back' for the fees this resolution costs and therefore encourage a UN programme similar to what they put in. The ones that will profit of this resolution are not living in the young nation struggling to find itself and get upon its feet amidst older and more experienced competitors. They belong to to a very recent and very sophisticated kind of UN-crat oriented men (mostly men) who know what they want and know how to get it by the favour of the UN Federal World Government. The small businesses and "infant industries" which this resolution desires to encourage will grow up and grow gray, but they will always have new arguments for special favours - it is a cycle that we ought not to start and its protectionist implications are in stark contradiction to all ideals of freedom believed in by the Knootian people.

All civilised states should think again and oppose this fluffy anathema

~Aram Koopman

We believe that this is an appropriate effort for the NSUN to undertake because it can take advantage of economy of scale. It should be able to provide the service at lower cost than would be the case if individual nations each did it themselves. And, since we believe the service would be of value to people in countries which choose to use it, we support the effort.

If the proposal were to mandate or require tax breaks for small businesses, we would agree with the honourable delegate from Groot Gouda. But since it only encourages them, we have no objection. Each nation can decide for itself whether this is in its best economic interest or not.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I must unfortunately dismiss the arguments of Mister Barfanger as nonsense, bollycock, idiocy and false untruth. We really do not need an economy of scale to set up a generic business course. Such courses already exist in pretty much every nation with any measure of civilisation, adapted to the local circumstances and the local economic insights and specificities. Encouraging national states to have small business courses availiable to the public is one thing, but setting them up with the Federal World Government is quite another! If anything, massive disadvantages of scale exist - adapting the same generic courses to different cultures and legal systems, not to mention thousands of languages!

Knootoss feels that this proposal is less about business courses, and more about the Federal Bureaucracy trying to feed protectionist and corporate welfare ideology to the citizens in states that have not (yet?) disavowed the obvious benefits of the Free Market.

The second argument by the ambassador that no points are mandatory is equally flawed: I would ask the ambassador to choose: if "effective" this resolution is flawed and dangerous ideology-pushing, if not effective it is useless, feel-good rhetoric unworthy of the considerations of this noble body. You cannot have it both ways, Ambassador!

~Aram Koopman

The Dutch Democratic Republic stands opposed to this perverse proposal.

It is typical of the Powerhungry Chipmunks mentality to want to arrange affairs which are best left to individual entrepreneurs on the United Nations level. When a Knootian talks about entrepreneurs, he refers to those brave men and women who use their creativity and spirit for providing actual services to the public - not the policy entrepreneurs of a Transnational Federal Bureaucracy who need a new pet project to increase the size of their departments. But I digress...

*SNIP*

Mr. Koopman, please let's not make this personal.

Mr. Koopman, please let's not make this personal.
*Aram Koopman squints his eyes*

All politics are personal.

OOC: its been a while since I posted IC with this character. A link to his wiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Aram_Koopman) might help explain some of his attitudes. ;)

*passes Mr. Koopman a bottle of Pink Bunny Cola*

All I'm saying, sir, is that we should be addressing the particulars of the proposal, not the personal motivations of those on either side of the debate.

Regrettably, the Holy Empire of Ritonas stands in opposition to this proposal in its current form. Our Nation has long worked to curtail the growing trend of global socialism, instead supporting self-determinacy (even in situations where individuals decide they wish to abandon those rights) and democracy to their fullest extent. The proposal at its base is a very strong one, and Ritonas firmly supports any proposal that promotes entreupeneurship, however Ritonas strongly opposes any legislation from within our on territories or from the UN General Assembly that attempts to subsidize business of any kind, as this violates the principles of a free market on which our society rests, and which forms a cornerstone of the principle of democracy.


RECALLING many other positive things (besides the possible fulfillment of happiness for some individuals) which may come about when a healthy number of citizens engage in small business,

We believe that use of the phrase "other positive things" diminishes the value of this resolution, it is clear that many positive things can arise from this situation, else the UN would not consume its valuable time contemplating it. If they were enumerated, (not all, but some) it would clarify the stance of the resolution, and instead of being a rhetorical statement, it would serve to clearly state the argument being made in favor of the resolution.

1. ENCOURAGES member nations in which there are free market or semi-free market economic systems to have compassion on those entrepreneurs who begin small businesses in the retail, agriculture, manufacturing, technology, etc. industries by assigning those businesses or citizens tax breaks or by helping provide the necessary technical support and infrastructure resources or in any way a member nation and its people may determine a possible route to decrease the difficulties of starting and owning a small business;

This section is the primary argument against the proposal that We can make. We agree with the argument line, and agree that small business is vital, and agree that passive assistance can and should be granted to entreupeneurs to encourage their growth, however we firmly disbelieve that any for-profit organization should be granted economic incentives to perform work that does not directly benefit society as a whole, or selectively benefits a portion of society. If this section and section 3 were stricken from the proposal, Ritonas would stand in full-throated support of it and work to the fullest extent of its political and diplomatic might to make it a UN Resolution.

2. ENCOURAGES small business owners and potential small business owners to research, acquire and enact intelligent, sensible business practices from reputable sources;

We believe that the phrase "reputable sources" is too vague for this resolution. It is an entirely subjective phrase without basis in UN Law or Resolution. Certainly, sensible business practices is a principle that can be defined from the phrase alone, however reputable sources refers to an entity which the resolution does not make clear exists.

3. SUPPORTS the use of subsidies to allow small businesses to compete against larger national or international corporations--considered dutifully for its effects on the national and regional workforce, and used only in just moderation; and SUPPORTS distribution of government or public contracts among small businesses to equalize distribution with larger businesses;

The Market system is designed to create the most effective and inexpensive product or service for consumers. By subsidizing businesses, you disrupt the single great advantage of a market system because competition is immediately rendered irrelevant. A small business that is ineffective is no more or less preferrable than a large business that is ineffective - they are both undesirable in any economy and in a Market system will be quickly be crushed and swept away. Similarly, awarding government contracts with preference to anything other than the lowest bidder who will render the best possible service disrupts market economy and may serve to increase illegal activities amongst and between government officials and company executives (bribery). Not only should this section be removed, but subsidies should be banned by UN resolution.

4. CREATES “The United Nations Small Business Classroom” (“The UNSBC”), which may operate branches in consenting member nations with as large or small of a presence in each nation as desired by each national government ("presence" including content of “The UNSBC” branch in a member nation, location(s) of “The UNSBC” branch facilities, etc.): with staffing determined by individual member nations as overseen by UN officials;


5. DESIGNATES “The UNSBC” as an organization intended primarily to educate small business owners and prospective small business owners on how to begin, run, and operate a small business;

6. ALLOWS member nations to add curricula--especially regarding local, provincial or national laws, or market research--to “The UNSBC” so far as additional staffing, if necessary, is provided and salaried by the member nation;

7. URGES member nations to allow citizens say in “The UNSBC” branch(es) in their member nation, be it through written or spoken feedback, through ombudsmen, local referenda, etc.;

8. DESIGNATES “The UNSBC” as an organization which may also, should it be within the agreement between “The UNSBC” and the member nation in which a branch resides, produce literature concerning small businesses and national/regional markets, service regional citizens, educate new citizens in the economic workings of the member nation--or educate and facilitate a member nations citizens in any way so long as that service is reasonably related to economics, and approved by UN oversight.

Ritonas applauds Powerhungry Chipmunks for the excellence of this section. It is a testament to the wisdom and power of Powerhungry Chipmunks.

*empties the bottle in one guzzle and puts it down*

The insidious motivations of the resolution author and his acolytes are at the very heart of the matter, Ambassador. This proposal expands the Federal Bureaucracy without due reason. I have supported, both in my initial statement and in my response to Mr. Barfanger, that this is a useless, inefficient, ideology-pushing and bureaucracy-expanding resolution. Its raison d'être is to create a pet project for Powerhungry Chipmunks and inevitably a more expansive list of dog pooh that sires the NSUN resolution log.

I dare you, good Sir, to actually address the points I made instead of dismissing them as a personal attack!

~Aram Koopman

I must unfortunately dismiss the arguments of Mister Barfanger as nonsense, bollycock, idiocy and false untruth.

Ausserland finds these remarks of the representative of Knootoss to be highly offensive and unworthy of debate in this assembly. We welcome spirited but civilized debate on proposals, but we shall not respond to such uncivil outbursts. We will not reply to those who stoop to calling us or any other members of this assembly idiots and liars.

We stand on our previously stated position. We believe the proposal provides a worthwhile service in the most cost-effective manner while fully respecting the economic policies of individual nations.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland finds these remarks of the representative of Knootoss to be highly offensive and unworthy of debate in this assembly. We welcome spirited but civilized debate on proposals, but we shall not respond to such uncivil outbursts. We will not reply to those who stoop to calling us or any other members of this assembly idiots and liars.

We stand on our previously stated position. We believe the proposal provides a worthwhile service in the most cost-effective manner while fully respecting the economic policies of individual nations.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Good Sir, I hereby take off my top hat and withdraw any and all remarks which could have been perceived by you or this organisation at large as insulting. You are quite right that calling the appointed members of this assembly liars and and idiots is inappropriate and against established protocols, even when some of these members are indeed in the business of promoting lies and distortions with the objective of passing ill-thought resolutions!

I cannot, however, hide my disappointment that those who have defended this anathema of a resolution must hide behind form to avoid engaging in an actual debate!

~Aram Koopman

*empties the bottle in one guzzle and puts it down*

The insidious motivations of the resolution author and his acolytes are at the very heart of the matter, Ambassador. This proposal expands the Federal Bureaucracy without due reason. I have supported, both in my initial statement and in my response to Mr. Barfanger, that this is a useless, inefficient, ideology-pushing and bureaucracy-expanding resolution. Its raison d'être is to create a pet project for Powerhungry Chipmunks and inevitably a more expansive list of dog pooh that sires the NSUN resolution log.

I dare you, good Sir, to actually address the points I made instead of dismissing them as a personal attack!

~Aram Koopman

The proposal simply aims to establish an educational tool. That said, however, Knootoss, like any other nation, would have the option of not permitting a branch on its soil.

4. CREATES “The United Nations Small Business Classroom” (“The UNSBC”), which may operate branches in consenting member nations with as large or small of a presence in each nation as desired by each national government ("presence" including content of “The UNSBC” branch in a member nation, location(s) of “The UNSBC” branch facilities, etc.): with staffing determined by individual member nations as overseen by UN officials;... (Emphasis added.)

I don't like the notion of "Free Trade", sounds like Commonism to me:sniper:

I don't like the notion of "Free Trade", sounds like Commonism to me:sniper:

:confused:

The government of St Edmund can tolerate this proposal: We're already doing everything that it suggests national governments should do, and consequently wouldn't see any need for any UNSBC branches in our own territory, but if anybody else wants them then that's fine by us...

The proposal simply aims to establish an educational tool. That said, however, Knootoss, like any other nation, would have the option of not permitting a branch on its soil.

Your simplistic argument that these inefficient propaganda tools for Chipmunk ideology will not be forced on us is cute, but ineffective.

After all, the very honourable members nations of this body are the ones who will be paying for this inefficient bureaucratic circus!

The resolution quite explicitly makes the provision that the salaries of staff providing additional courses will have to be paid by member nations themselves, thus implicitly (by the law of exclusion) putting the burden of the resolution on the whole on general United Nations funds. When this resolution passes, it makes sense for individual members to ask for chapters in their nations to repcoup the money lost by funding them!

While I don't stand by conspircy arguement, I do agree that this resolution over-steps the bounds of the UN. How businesses are handled should be left up to each individual nation. As for teaching business, maybe some entrepreneur will start a business that does that.
Radiant Twilight will vote against.

The Government of Palacetonia supports this proposal. Although we will not be implementing certain aspects of it in particular:


3. SUPPORTS the use of subsidies to allow small businesses to compete against larger national or international corporations--considered dutifully for its effects on the national and regional workforce, and used only in just moderation; and SUPPORTS distribution of government or public contracts among small businesses to equalize distribution with larger businesses;


and


4. CREATES “The United Nations Small Business Classroom” (“The UNSBC”), which may operate branches in consenting member nations with as large or small of a presence in each nation as desired by each national government ("presence" including content of “The UNSBC” branch in a member nation, location(s) of “The UNSBC” branch facilities, etc.): with staffing determined by individual member nations as overseen by UN officials;


The reasons for this are that:
A) Palacetonia are trying to eradicate subsidies in all walks of life to allow corporations and businesses to compete according to true market forces. If it is not viable or not needed, then the business will not be kept artifically alive.

B)We already have programmes in place to help entrepeneurs.

However, we do not feel that these reasons are strong enough to deny other nations the chance to set up their own UNSBC branches if they were to feel that it helps their small businesses therefore we cast our vote 'Aye'

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

However, we do not feel that these reasons are strong enough to deny other nations the chance to set up their own UNSBC branches if they were to feel that it helps their small businesses therefore we cast our vote 'Aye'

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

You are denying them the resources to set up their own programmes, like you have done, in favour of a more inefficient programme run by the Federal world Government Bureaucracy. This "UNSBC" anathema will be less effective than national programmes due to disadvantages of scale. A general business course would be ineffective due to the vast differences between nations, the different languages, cultures etc. This proposal only serves to expand the World Government Bureaucracy.

Your nation does not seem to be unreasonable, and I think you would be doing other nations AND yourself a favour by voting against this resolution. It is based on bad economics (as you recognised yourself) and creates an inefficient organisation that YOU will help pay for!

~Aram Koopman

The Government of Palacetonia supports this proposal. Although we will not be implementing certain aspects of it in particular:

The reasons for this are that:
A) Palacetonia are trying to eradicate subsidies in all walks of life to allow corporations and businesses to compete according to true market forces. If it is not viable or not needed, then the business will not be kept artifically alive.

B)We already have programmes in place to help entrepeneurs.

However, we do not feel that these reasons are strong enough to deny other nations the chance to set up their own UNSBC branches if they were to feel that it helps their small businesses therefore we cast our vote 'Aye'

The Ambassador Plenipontiary

Ausserland would like to commend the Government of Palacetonia for its unselfish stand on this proposal. It's refreshing to see a government willing to consider the best interests of other member nations, even when it will not, itself, be taking advantage of the proposal's major benefit.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

You are denying them the resources to set up their own programmes, like you have done, in favour of a more inefficient programme run by the Federal world Government Bureaucracy.


LAE agree with you on this point, but each resolution has his own defaults, and we think UNSBC is the absolutly non-important part of the proposition at vote.

What we like here is the kindness of this propositin towards small business.

OOC: In real life the US had the following SMALL BUSINESS ACT, and if you follow european politics you may have noticed that europoan politician (from both left and righ) envy United States about it:

http://www.sba.gov/regulations/sbaact/sbaact.html

extract:
------------------------------------
It is the declared policy of the Congress that the Government should aid, counsel, assist, and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small‑business concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise, to insure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the Government (including but not limited to contracts or subcontracts for maintenance, repair, and construction) be placed with small business enterprises, to insure that a fair proportion of the total sales of Government property be made to such enterprises, and to maintain and strengthen the overall economy of the Nation.



(b) (1) It is the declared policy of the Congress that the Federal Government, through the Small Business Administration, acting in cooperation with the Department of Commerce and other relevant State and Federal agencies, should aid and assist small businesses, as defined under this Act, to increase their ability to compete in international markets by—



(A) enhancing their ability to export;



(B) facilitating technology transfers;



(C) enhancing their ability to compete effectively and efficiently against imports;



(D) increasing the access of small businesses to long‑term capital for the purchase of new plant and equipment used in the production of goods and services involved in international trade;



(E) disseminating information concerning State, Federal, and private programs and initiatives to enhance the ability of small businesses to compete in international markets; and



(F) ensuring that the interests of small businesses are adequately represented in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations.
------------------------------------------------

We believe that this is an appropriate effort for the NSUN to undertake because it can take advantage of economy of scale. It should be able to provide the service at lower cost than would be the case if individual nations each did it themselves. And, since we believe the service would be of value to people in countries which choose to use it, we support the effort.

I doubt that there is any scale advantage, as this only works on at most a national level anyway (because each nation's laws are different). And we're talking small business here. Very localized.

If the proposal were to mandate or require tax breaks for small businesses, we would agree with the honorable delegate from Groot Gouda. But since it only encourages them, we have no objection. Each nation can decide for itself whether this is in its best economic interest or not.

Ah, I take it that this another one of those "you can ignore it if you like" resolutions. No point in discussing it, no point in voting for it, no point to be in the UN for those kind of resolutions. It's LAE but worded better.

The past few resolutions certainly increase the image of the UN as a no-good lefty talking club, and that's a shame.

My vote is still on against.

So let me get this straight, you disagree with the actual goal of this resolution, but agree with the unsound economic advice underpinning it?

I like small businesses. I was one. That does not mean that the Federal World Government should advise countries to give them subsidies and take protectionist measures. As they are only recommendations (bad ones!) they are, if anything, the less important Evil of this resolution.

As you can follow bad advice yourself anyway, I recommend you vote against this resolution. If 'small businesses are fluffy' is really the only thing you have in favour of it, you should not vote in favour of an UNSBC.

~Aram Koopman

OOC:
I also recall Europeans suing the US repeatedly in the WTO for providing illegal assistance to businesses through subsidies =) Otherwise I do not see how USA pork subsidies relate to this discussion. Not even mentioning that the really important contracts tend to go to certain large contractors anyway.

Fellow delegates. Let us consider the states of our economies and let us consider the rhetoric that many of us use to state our support for the construction of viable, strong ones. The rhetoric is often that of building dynanism in the private sector, to encourage entrepeneurial spirit and develop strong economies. What is wrong with moving to encourage businessesmen and women to adopt and research new and innovative technologies and practices? What is objectionable to improving the lot of small businesses crushed under the weight of larger ones?

Some might say that our support of the AFTA and recent Food Act, means that our support of the limited protectionism is inconsistent and that it will hurt trade. On the contrary, counter-intuitive as this may sound, I believe that a small amount of protectionism in this case can aid in the building of a freer market, by permitting small companies to be set up and provide more competition to the larger ones.

Establishing the UNSBC will indeed strengthen our economies by giving us a means to train and equip our future corporate and social leaders with the skills to make our economic systems continually strong and greatly enhanced. This 'knowledge is power', will be achieved by the implementation of the education measures outlined in this resolution and will furthermore serve as a great symbol of the U.N.'s committment to the empowering of its nations citizens.

Thus, I urge all to vote for this act, in the interests of free trade, economic vitality and consumer profit (from the increased standards of business conducted).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

We must respectfully disagree with the distinguished representative of Groot Gouda on both points he raises.

I doubt that there is any scale advantage, as this only works on at most a national level anyway (because each nation's laws are different). And we're talking small business here. Very localized.

We think the economies of scale could be significant. While specific legal provisions affecting small businesses would certainly vary from country to country, we believe there is much about setting up and running a small business that is common across international borders. We think that much of the "common core" instruction, instructional aids and instructional support materials could be centrally developed and provided.


Ah, I take it that this another one of those "you can ignore it if you like" resolutions. No point in discussing it, no point in voting for it, no point to be in the UN for those kind of resolutions. It's LAE but worded better.

The past few resolutions certainly increase the image of the UN as a no-good lefty talking club, and that's a shame.

My vote is still on against.

We suggest that it would be appropriate here to distinguish between the "economic policy" and "education" elements of the proposal. The policy provisions are couched in terms of "encourages" and "supports" and could, therefore, be ignored by nations whose economic policies they don't fit. But that still leaves the establishment of the UNSBC itself, which we continue to believe will be of value.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

My personal view is that encouraging and supporting private enterprise is fundamental for economic growth. I also believe small start-up companies are often in need of governmental protection, in the form of subsidies, tax exemptions, etc.

However, some points in the proposal make me uneasy (some of them previously discussed here):

1. The main motivation presented, happiness/personal achievement/whatever for some individuals, seems minor and besides the point, when compared with the stimulus to economic activity.

2. I worry that this resolution might encourage some misguided nations to pursue broader protectionist strategies, which will be harmful for those and other nations in the long run.

3. I fail to see the importance of international coordination in this aspect of economic policy. Surely nations are aware of their best interests, and of the adequate allocation of funds to these matters.

4. Since (unfortunately) some states in the UN actively reject free enterprise, I fail to see how this recommendation would apply to them.

I am leaning towards abstention on this.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

Why should small time buissnes's be able to compeate with big corporations. They are the ones that help the econ' most. It is not a UN matter. It is an idividual state matter. Who are we to tell every one how to run small buissnes's in each other countries.

VOTE AGAINST.Keep you're nations dignity.Be a true capatalist.

Your proposal clearly violates a very noble goal, free trade. If every government grants subsidies to its businesses, then international trade becomes more difficult, nay...impossible. To those who vote in favor of this resolution, I beg that you reconsider as every nation will suffer should it be passed.

Oric IV
Ambassador from Arduo

Krioval must also cast its vote in the negative. Once again, I am confounded by the lack of action that will occur as a result of expanding the already substantial bureaucracy of the United Nations. It is my fervent wish that nations would stop submitting and campaigning for proposals that merely suggest things, and that nations interested in voluntary projects instead devote their energies to bringing them forward. If nothing else, the success of these projects among a sufficiently large coalition of independent nations might go far in convincing the government of Krioval of their efficicacy on a United Nations-wide scale. Until that time, I am forced to agree with my counterpart from Knootoss, if not necessarily with similar intensity.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

You are denying them the resources to set up their own programmes, like you have done, in favour of a more inefficient programme run by the Federal world Government Bureaucracy. This "UNSBC" anathema will be less effective than national programmes due to disadvantages of scale. A general business course would be ineffective due to the vast differences between nations, the different languages, cultures etc. This proposal only serves to expand the World Government Bureaucracy.
First, you accurately describe the United Nations as the Federal World Government. It does not rule over the "world". Nor does it truly rule those in the world wwho subscribe to its guidelines. And if one realizes the reality of RPed non-compliance, it is as much a world "government" as the RL UN is.

Second, there is no denial of national programs in favor of the international program. If nations have their own way of educating the layman on running a business, then that nation is free to implement that and refuse a UNSBC (or, more accurately, not request one).

Lastly, the classes of the national chapters of The UNSBC will not be ineffective at teaching a layman citizen in a member nation due to language/cultural differences, unless that nation makes it so. Since the nation has so much say in the curriculum and employees, UN blindness to individual exigencies is hardly an excuse.

Oh, and second lastly, I'm slightly offended that you pretend to suppose what the "Powerhungry Chipmunks mentality" is when I have hardly seen you a) in the forum where my mentality could be observed, b) directly discussing my proposals with me, etc. anywhere or c) actively attempting to understand either of the above retroactively. Perhaps you should legitimately gain understanding of my mentality (like by, heaven forbid, actually querying me about it) before you act an expert on the subject. Expertise implies a nuanced understanding of a field or topic. In my opinion, your understanding of the "Powerhungry Chipmunks mentality", as 'bumper-sticker' and remotely slapped together as it is, would hardly qualify you authority to correct others on the matter.

2. I worry that this resolution might encourage some misguided nations to pursue broader protectionist strategies, which will be harmful for those and other nations in the long run.
Well, you respond to this with your nesxt point. If an encouragement (or, more accurately, a misinterpretation of an encouragement) would not be in the best interest of the nation, then it likely shouldn't take it. But I'll address the encouragement clauses later in the post, as others seem to have questions regarding it as well.
3. I fail to see the importance of international coordination in this aspect of economic policy. Surely nations are aware of their best interests, and of the adequate allocation of funds to these matters.
But, I feel, with the UN distributing its opinion that economic policy in that direction, perhaps more nations will come to see it as in their best interests. I'm just remember in RL, the UN distributes its opinion about how nations should govern all the time, to temper national sensibilities with international ones.
4. Since (unfortunately) some states in the UN actively reject free enterprise, I fail to see how this recommendation would apply to them.It doesn't. As the clause says, only those nations with free-market systems are encouraged to do that.


Lemme respond to the negative reactions of this clause:1. ENCOURAGES member nations in which there are free market or semi-free market economic systems to have compassion on those entrepreneurs who begin small businesses in the retail, agriculture, manufacturing, technology, etc. industries by assigning those businesses or citizens tax breaks or by helping provide the necessary technical support and infrastructure resources or in any way a member nation and its people may determine a possible route to decrease the difficulties of starting and owning a small business;
You can shorten this to "ENCOURAGES free market economies to have compassion on entrepreneurs by helping--in any way a member nation and its people may determine a possible route--to decrease the difficulties of starting and owning a small business"

That's all I'm saying. I'm saying that small businesses have a disadvantage. I'm saying that entrenuership is good. I'm saying that, without perscribing protectionism or corporate welfare (which, as stated before, is most often a pretty bad idea), nations should try hard to see what they can do to see things from small business owners' points of view and promote entrepenuership.

I was very careful not to give any of the suggestions given me (yes, all those suggestions in that clause were provided me by others, IIRC) any more significance than whatever an individual nation can come up with.

This is not an issue that I believe warrants action from an International body

I am personaly voteing against this as it a lame idea. The way small business's are ran do not effect the world in any way therefore the NSUN shouldn't even be interfering which is exactly what what will happen if this goes through. :mp5:

The Dutch Democratic Republic maintains that the United Nations is acting like a Federal World Government. No sane, right-thinking person would dispute that the NSUN is asserting itself aggressively as a World Government in resolutions such as this one. This particular resolution recommends first of all the flawed and failed ideological economic policies of protectionism and corporate welfare under a fluffy flag , and then installs an organisation which does not serve any supra-national purpose but to expand the World Government Bureaucracy!

Dear Sir, I stand corrected – a purely Federal state wouldn’t even approve of such a resolution, this is unitarism at its worst!

I have said it time and again now: there are no advantages of implementing small business knowledge courses on the international level; by forcing one idea of entrepreneurship upon thirty thousand vastly different states. There are only disadvantages of scale involved! Courses like these are very contextual indeed, given the vastly different economic systems, cultures, languages, etcetera in every single member nation.

The idea that nations have no concept themselves of 'good entrepreneurship' which they could teach their own citizens is merely insulting to their inquisitiveness, but the suggestion that UN Bureaucrats would be the best qualified people to teach people how to do business is simply laughable!

But freedom, you cry! After all, nobody is forced to take your flawed ideological advice, or host your precious bureaucratic agencies. But alas! If only this resolution were the toothless tiger that you pretend it is when talking to those who recognise it for what it is. The circus is in town, and we have to pay whether we come to see the clowns and the monkeys or not!

The Dutch Democratic Republic believes that this resolution serves nobodies purposes except the purposes of NSUN bureaucrats and economic ideologues. Why then do you insist on doing this on the level of the United Nations, if not to further your own agenda and blow your own trumpet? What drove you to greate this... thing?

Finally, I distance myself from every attack made against my person by the Chipmunk representative. I have been setting fire to things in this very UN building since before their nation even existed, and have spent years studying the nature of the NSUN Federal World Government without actively taking part in its corrupt proceedings. I have spent my time as UN ambassador in my own, uniquely useful ways that do not need to be questioned in ad hominem attacks on my person.

~Aram Koopman

I'm abstaining on this resolution.

Not because I don't like it, actually I do, and if private enterprise wasn't illegal here I'd be all for it.

The way things are run in my nation though, if we implemented any part of this, we'd be litteraly teaching our people how to break the law :).

OOC: just a note, I think I should say that I am Out Of Character very much aware of the delightful hypocrisy in calling PC on ad hominem. Just a sidenote. :P

The People's Republic of The CNNP has voted for the resolution. We see this as an international opportunity for small businesses to have a partnership with a government. We are striving to have a true market economy, although currently we rank as a semi-market economy. I am hoping this will allow my country to lower taxes and make substantial gains in our economy as well as the economies of others. I also voted for this resolution since my chief interest is my economy and the current issues that have been submitted to me have been lame.

(First, to be clear, this can be understood as IC. Yeoman speaking :))
The Dutch Democratic Republic maintains that the United Nations is acting like a Federal World Government. No sane, right-thinking person would dispute that the NSUN is asserting itself aggressively as a World Government in resolutions such as this one.But I, who I feel is sane, and right-thinking in some regards, do believe that it is different, if only slightly from a "Federal World Government"
I have said it time and again now: there are no advantages of implementing small business knowledge courses on the international level; by forcing one idea of entrepreneurship upon thirty thousand vastly different states. There are only disadvantages of scale involved! Courses like these are very contextual indeed, given the vastly different economic systems, cultures, languages, etcetera in every single member nation.
Where are the disadvantages of scale when, in fact, the nation has such intimate control of the classroom that it can adjust it to confront these individual exigencies? That is what I feel we have accomplished with this proposal which me and my colleagues spent so many sleepless nights on. The idea that nations have no concept themselves of 'good entrepreneurship' which they could teach their own citizens is merely insulting to their inquisitiveness, but the suggestion that UN Bureaucrats would be the best qualified people to teach people how to do business is simply laughable!

But freedom, you cry! After all, nobody is forced to take your flawed ideological advice, or host your precious bureaucratic agencies. But alas! If only this resolution were the toothless tiger that you pretend it is when talking to those who recognise it for what it is. No I do not cry freedom. I cry, much as your esteemed nation does, of disadvantages of scale. I am interested in nations coming up with solutions to their own exigencies rather than my nation enforcing its solutions upon them through the bull-horn of the UN. It's our government’s responsible use of UN power. Something I would assume Knootoss, which decries this proposal's bureaucracy, would be in favor of.
The Dutch Democratic Republic believes that this resolution serves nobodies purposes except the purposes of NSUN bureaucrats and economic ideologues. Why then do you insist on doing this on the level of the United Nations, if not to further your own agenda and blow your own trumpet? What drove you to [c]reate this... thing?
To "further my nation's agenda" and express our viewpoint to other nations? Certainly. To "blow my own trumpet"? Poppycock.

I use the bathroom in the hall to do that.

Finally, I distance myself from every attack made against my person by the Chipmunk representative. I have been setting fire to things in this very UN building since before their nation even existed, and have spent years studying the nature of the NSUN Federal World Government without actively taking part in its corrupt proceedings. I have spent my time as UN ambassador in my own, uniquely useful ways that do not need to be questioned in ad hominem attacks on my person.Apologies, representative, if a personal attack was issued. It’s just that in comparison to my and my associates’ understandings of our own mentality, your government’s understanding is...underwhelming. Perhaps protesting it as ‘offending’ was making it get a bit out of hand.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OOC: just a note, I think I should say that I am Out Of Character very much aware of the delightful hypocrisy in calling PC on ad hominem. Just a sidenote. :POOC:Well, I figured as much with manner of the response (is sounded very...what-a-UN-representative-might-say), and it's why I added the 'IC' note at the top of the post.

against. for me its not so much NatSov, but a) how does small business affect international affairs, and b) why would the UN have to do with small business anyway? if nations want to encourage them, fine, but why does the un need a say in it?

I assume that this is geared toward improving economies in the member nations. But this is a little deeper into the economy. Currently i have not voted simply because it sends mixed messages. Messages like "we want to help" and "no dont do that do this no not like that"

this is a little too personal for a UN resolution

against. for me its not so much NatSov, but a) how does small business affect international affairs, and b) why would the UN have to do with small business anyway? if nations want to encourage them, fine, but why does the un need a say in it?

Agreed. Especially the provision that refers to "encouraging subsidizing of small businesses" that is possibly the greatest intrusion on national rights that I have yet seen. Why should the UN control government economic spending?

Abstain. Greater Boblandia finds the arguments of the Dutch Democratic Republic persuasive, though not enough so to take a stance of active opposition.

I don't believe this is an appropriate issue for the UN. This is best left up to the individual nations. The UN is for issues which affect the interrelationships between nations, and not internal issues (unless it is a matter of human rights, etc.)
On the surface, it's a noble idea, but not for the UN.

On the other hand such business education will turn many more people into entrepreneurs. That sounds fine but then instead of having a growing economy. The mass of the entrepreneurs which will arise wil create a mass of competing businesses which will rise and then about 97% of a countries businesses will abruptly fall within the year and the competition for markets is won. Now there will be emmence debt for those who did not succeed (97%). This will be very bad. On a secondary scenario which voids both the need for your proposal and my theory of the result is the either 2nd or 1st most common quality of humans: laziness. Hence the people will do nothing and know nothing of business or entrepreneurship and no difference will be made. Final conclusion is this proposal will end either really bad or really pointless.

Supporting small businesses will support the growth of so-demanded middle class. I agree with the resolution.

If this was an issue... I'm sure I'd vote for the positive...

However this is the UN... this has no international significance whatsever...

Voting against....

Well, you respond to this with your nesxt point. If an encouragement (or, more accurately, a misinterpretation of an encouragement) would not be in the best interest of the nation, then it likely shouldn't take it.

If a nation decides to impose heavy protectionist barriers in industry XPTO, even in contradiction with other UN resolutions on free trade, they would be able to argue that "Our XPTO industry mainly consists of small companies, and is thus protected under the UN Small Business Education resolution." Your proposal only mentions protecting "entrepreneurs who begin small businesses" and "the difficulties of starting and owning a small business." This does not mandate that the subsidies be limited to the start-up period of the business (say 3 to 5 years), which in my view would be important to curb protectionistic temptations.

Nations might do this to obtain short run economic growth, but it soon becomes harmful to the world economy as a whole, once the strategy is followed by a significant number of nations. In other words, the abolition of protectionism IS an area where international cooperation is relevant - it only benefits one nation if all (most) other nations follow it as well. As opposed to educating entrepreneurs, which is beneficial independently of what other nations do, and perhaps even more effective if it is introduced independently, giving the national businesses a competitive advantage.

Finally, it is quite amusing to find a resolution in the "free trade" category defending protectionist intervention.

It doesn't. As the clause says, only those nations with free-market systems are encouraged to do that.

It is my view that resolutions aimed at specific political systems and disregarding others, not affecting the world as a whole, should not be brought to the UN debate.

As I told before, I also object to some of the language in the proposal. I don't think the "pursuit of happiness" is the most relevant positive effect of small businesses, and I also don't think the authorities should express "compassion" for some business owners as opposed to others. Economic policy on this matter should focus on growth and growth alone, and should support entrepreneurship only on that basis. And again, the statement "Nations should promote economic growth" does not require a UN proposal to be consensual.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

I don't think i have any small businesses.
Thier all getting taken bye the larger corporations.
:D

If a nation decides to impose heavy protectionist barriers in industry XPTO, even in contradiction with other UN resolutions on free trade, they would be able to argue that "Our XPTO industry mainly consists of small companies, and is thus protected under the UN Small Business Education resolution." Your proposal only mentions protecting "entrepreneurs who begin small businesses" and "the difficulties of starting and owning a small business." This does not mandate that the subsidies be limited to the start-up period of the business (say 3 to 5 years), which in my view would be important to curb protectionistic temptations.
[emphasis added]

Here's where I think you're getting the wrong ideas about my proposal. There's nothing in my proposal about protecting or mandating any type of legal action towards small businesses. No national laws, protectionist or not, are protected by this proposal, and, as such, it certainly isn't going to mandate what those laws contain (when the subsidies be removed, etc.)

The clause(s) to which you refer, are designed just to give a quick plug for helping small businesses. It's quick, and it's undetailed. That was its design. It's also very open (as I summarized the clause earlier). As quick and undetailed, I hardly expected it (and would hope others not to expect it) to suggest exactly the laws nations should enact. It's not meant to be a treatise on how to make laws for small businesses, but a direction for nations to think about making those laws favorable in some way towards small business owners, allowing them (nations who have a theoretically infinite period of time and space to come up with adequate law) to use my suggestion (me who has very limited time and space in this resolution to spell out what kinds of laws they probably ought to make) to make practical laws.

Nations might do this to obtain short run economic growth, but it soon becomes harmful to the world economy as a whole, once the strategy is followed by a significant number of nations. In other words, the abolition of protectionism IS an area where international cooperation is relevant - it only benefits one nation if all (most) other nations follow it as well. As opposed to educating entrepreneurs, which is beneficial independently of what other nations do, and perhaps even more effective if it is introduced independently, giving the national businesses a competitive advantage.
[emphasis added]

Then write a proposal about that. That's not the aim of this proposal, to address protectionism. Its aim is to facilitate business education to small business owners. It mentions laws nations might interact merely to wet their lips to the possibilities of law for small businesses.

Finally, it is quite amusing to find a resolution in the "free trade" category defending protectionist intervention.
First, as I've said before, this is not defending protectionist measures. The resolution "Reformed Literacy Initiative" mentions classes for adult illiterates: does that mean that a rapist who uses that class to choose victims is protected by the resolution? No. Likewise this resolution briefly mentions some ideas for laws regarding small businesses, not going into detail as to 'how' or 'when' or 'how much' nations should or should not help small businesses, which is what differentiates 'protectionism' with 'facilitation of entrepreneurs'.

Second, it's a Free Trade proposal because of the barriers set up to trade by ignorance. If I don't know how to run my business it will be run unsmoothly, and trade (at least as far as my business is concerned) will suffer. The idea is that trade will flow more and more fairly if small business owners have access to business education.

It is my view that resolutions aimed at specific political systems and disregarding others, not affecting the world as a whole, should not be brought to the UN debate.And that view is ridiculous. Some UN nations have extreme command economies, do you honestly think it's realistic to include those in the "help your small business owners get a business education", in these nations without a single person owning so much as a toothbrush? Of course not. It's just not practical.

As I told before, I also object to some of the language in the proposal. I don't think the "pursuit of happiness" is the most relevant positive effect of small businesses, Then you should have written the proposal. The preambulary clauses are written by authors as justification for a proposal. They're largely under the proposal author's discretion. If you think you could have justified the proposal more easily, perhaps you should have mentioned that when it was being drafted.

Rejecting this proposal because you don't think its preambulary clauses work "well enough" is like not voting for a politician because "his campaign slogan wasn't nearly as clever as I could've made it".

and I also don't think the authorities should express "compassion" for some business owners as opposed to others. Economic policy on this matter should focus on growth and growth alone, and should support entrepreneurship only on that basis. And again, the statement "Nations should promote economic growth" does not require a UN proposal to be consensual.Well, then do that in your own nation. This proposal neither supports nor disagrees with supporting economic "growth and growth alone". That's at your discretion as it's always been. My aim was to turn nations' heads toward the topic, so they can form opinions (as you have obviously formed).

If this hasn't already been addressed how about public ownership of business rather than private. This would make sure world wide that workers would not be "exploited".This proposal if I read it too fast sounds like a chance to work capitalism into other nations whom don't want it. Correct me if I am wrong thanks.

If this hasn't already been addressed how about public ownership of business rather than private. This would make sure world wide that workers would not be "exploited".This proposal if I read it too fast sounds like a chance to work capitalism into other nations whom don't want it. Correct me if I am wrong thanks.

Try reading it more carefully. Having a UNSBE branch in your nation is optional.

I will repeat my concerns here.

Firstly, this resolution doesn't do much. It suggests tax breaks, hints at a classroom, but this resolution can be ignored when passed completely. That, to my government, is undesirable for a strong UN. We're not the school's debating club here, we have the power to do things.

Secondly, the things this resolution does suggest are unwise for an international body such as the UN. There is no advantage of scale because of this resolution, because small business laws differ from nation to nation (or even region to region). Small businesses are less likely to be involved in international trade, and even then, this resolution doesn't say much about that anyway. The suggested tax break is ridiculous, and smells of old-fashioned protectionism where the government is throwing people's money at the problem instead of solving it. If a small business needs tax breaks to survive, they're not a viable business. Education helps in that respect, but that's something each nation should be concerned about, not the UN.

Because of these concerns, I will vote against and will urge my delegate and other UN members to do the same.

Here's where I think you're getting the wrong ideas about my proposal. There's nothing in my proposal about protecting or mandating any type of legal action towards small businesses. No national laws, protectionist or not, are protected by this proposal, and, as such, it certainly isn't going to mandate what those laws contain (when the subsidies be removed, etc.)

The industry is being protected, not the laws! The sentence "Our XPTO industry mainly consists of small companies, and is thus protected under the UN Small Business Education resolution." was meant as "We are protecting the industry XPTO as endorsed by the UN Small Business Education resolution." To clarify my point, here are the parts that seem to clearly encourage arbitrary protectionism.

[emphasis added]
3. SUPPORTS the use of subsidies to allow small businesses to compete against larger national or international corporations--considered dutifully for its effects on the national and regional workforce, and used only in just moderation; and SUPPORTS distribution of government or public contracts among small businesses to equalize distribution with larger businesses;

I essentially agree with your goals, and am just pointing out predictable undesired effects of the proposal. As stated before, I intend to abstain in this. The other points mentioned (lack of global impact, disagreement in wording, and absence of cooperation benefits) would surely not be significant enough to prevent me from supporting the resolution.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere apologies for failing to participate in the drafting of the proposal. The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland is a thriving young nation, which has only recently joined the international debate.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

I'm abstaining on this resolution.

Not because I don't like it, actually I do, and if private enterprise wasn't illegal here I'd be all for it.

The way things are run in my nation though, if we implemented any part of this, we'd be litteraly teaching our people how to break the law :).

The same goes here. How can i vote on something that is illegal in my country? I have also abstained as of now. However, i feel it to be a little personal for a worldwide resolution. Especially when some countries have private enterprising as illegal!

I simply cannot cast my vote.

:headbang:

I'm against this, it is not the business of the UN to deal with this sort of issue. Let individual governments decide. Classes would be a shameful waste of money.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

There are two kinds of entrepeneurs. Those who make it and those who don't. Teaching those who make it will lower standards, while teaching those who don't make it will take jobs away from other sectors. Classes should be held, but only in schools which decide to accept this. Where Private Enterprising is Illegal this resolution has no idea.
Yes I'm back to all you out there, and yes, once my UN membership comes through I'm going to do what any decent country would do. Vote for their citizens. Don't think I'm going to be as hard as before.
Oh and about the "Re-evaluation by the Optischerian Government" thing, I have re-evaluated everything and may or may not show my position.
Don't vote for this resolution, don't vote for the decline of big businesses for smaller ones. Yes, I agree. Small businesses are an essential culture and part of life. But our economies would be struggling without them.
Optischer

The past few resolutions certainly increase the image of the UN as a no-good lefty talking club, and that's a shame.

My vote is still on against.
On the contrary, Mrs Lane. I see the UN moving very much to the right, at least in terms of economics.

Ecopoeia has tentatively placed its vote against. I have no wish to bore you with the details of how we came to this decision*.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

*OOC: because I don't have the time. And the details really would bore you.

Wow - a UN resolution I almost entirely agreed with! Except for the part about small business subsidies; it would help small business owners (SBOs) more if the government stopped propping up big business.

Besides, my nation is 80% SBs and its a free-market and I'm not even in the UN

As a whole, the United Nations represents all of our peoples. Thus, each of us must both take this responsibility seriously, and know where our responsibility ends. To go further would only promote needless restrictions upon not only the nations we represent, but also its people. What this proposes suggests is past where that responsibility ends, regardless of if it merely encourages it, or requires it. If we do not pay equal attention to encouragements as requirements, there will be an obvious inconsistency in our actions that will either detriment the general trust of the UN, or at best, render our encouragements useless and best ignored.

How a country runs its economics, what system it uses, and what the underlying ideologies behind it are, are not matters of international affairs, nor do they, in themselves, affect the basic human rights of individuals. On this issue alone, the Obfuscati does not support the proposal.

But to consider further, the only case in which this proposal may be perceivably useful in a few cases, such as if a country is highly neglectful of its citizens, and purposely does not provide the education needed that would be provided. In this case, it would be more effective to focus upon this country if it so desires help, instead of every country as well as that one.

Not only that, but in order to help that one country through the proposed system, all others would at best, be the same, and at worse, suffer.

Take, for instance, a devloping country which has decided to trust the ideal of having the UN, and has joined. Instead of having money to feed its people, it now must put that money into educational facilities in order to help people sell food that they do not even have.

Take, for instance, a country that does not subscribe to capitalistic systems. Regardless of our individual stances on the subject, it is not our place to govern what systems a country must follow. Our place is to help ensure the well-being of nations as a whole when it comes to initernational affairs, and to protect human rights.

Take, for instance, a country that already has an effective system in place of education. By placing unnecessary new facilities supported (and paid for) by the government, at best the system would become less efficient. At worse, it would destabilize due to a large new entity within the system.

These are, of course, all hypothetical. But even if one occurs, is it worth hurting one country to help another? Disregarding the fact that it is not our place to make that decision in the first place when this matter is considered, I would argue that some of the worst mistakes made in human history has been under this logic forcing hurt upon one people to help another.

The Obfuscati realize that we may appear to be inflating issues, and that it is not likely that substantial hurt would befall anyone. However, consider that allowing the small unjusticies is what leads the the great. Forcing our values on others when it is not our place is the first step to tyranny.

Again, the Obfuscati would also like to reitterate that we realize all of the proposals are suggestions rather than requirements. Still, our purpose must be a united front. Anything that we are not willing to require should not be suggested. Doing otherwise would be detrimental to the UN itself, if nothing else.

Just a question, but who does the UN representus to?
The outside world does not care about the UN and sees it's members as representatives. The UN must either let us represent ourselfs, or find someone to represent us to!
Optischer

very good proposal, Violettania will vote yes!

Mrs L.M Ulmer
(UN speaker for Violettania)

As a whole, the United Nations represents all of our peoples. Thus, each of us must both take this responsibility seriously, and know where our responsibility ends. To go further would only promote needless restrictions upon not only the nations we represent, but also its people. What this proposes suggests is past where that responsibility ends, regardless of if it merely encourages it, or requires it. If we do not pay equal attention to encouragements as requirements, there will be an obvious inconsistency in our actions that will either detriment the general trust of the UN, or at best, render our encouragements useless and best ignored.

How a country runs its economics, what system it uses, and what the underlying ideologies behind it are, are not matters of international affairs, nor do they, in themselves, affect the basic human rights of individuals. On this issue alone, the Obfuscati does not support the proposal.

But to consider further, the only case in which this proposal may be perceivably useful in a few cases, such as if a country is highly neglectful of its citizens, and purposely does not provide the education needed that would be provided. In this case, it would be more effective to focus upon this country if it so desires help, instead of every country as well as that one.

Not only that, but in order to help that one country through the proposed system, all others would at best, be the same, and at worse, suffer.

Take, for instance, a devloping country which has decided to trust the ideal of having the UN, and has joined. Instead of having money to feed its people, it now must put that money into educational facilities in order to help people sell food that they do not even have.

Take, for instance, a country that does not subscribe to capitalistic systems. Regardless of our individual stances on the subject, it is not our place to govern what systems a country must follow. Our place is to help ensure the well-being of nations as a whole when it comes to initernational affairs, and to protect human rights.

Take, for instance, a country that already has an effective system in place of education. By placing unnecessary new facilities supported (and paid for) by the government, at best the system would become less efficient. At worse, it would destabilize due to a large new entity within the system.

These are, of course, all hypothetical. But even if one occurs, is it worth hurting one country to help another? Disregarding the fact that it is not our place to make that decision in the first place when this matter is considered, I would argue that some of the worst mistakes made in human history has been under this logic forcing hurt upon one people to help another.

The Obfuscati realize that we may appear to be inflating issues, and that it is not likely that substantial hurt would befall anyone. However, consider that allowing the small unjusticies is what leads the the great. Forcing our values on others when it is not our place is the first step to tyranny.

Again, the Obfuscati would also like to reitterate that we realize all of the proposals are suggestions rather than requirements. Still, our purpose must be a united front. Anything that we are not willing to require should not be suggested. Doing otherwise would be detrimental to the UN itself, if nothing else.

I wish to reply to the concerns of the honourable delegate from Obfuscati, particularly those concerning the implementation of this resolution (should it be enacted).

Firstly, worries about funding for essential humanitarian needs and social requirements being diverted due to the mechanics of functioning the programme envisaged in this text, are un-founded. Any nation that would be in such a position, should examine ways of funding that would require a more efficient use of their resources. Furthermore, the long-term gains from this training can only pay off any short-term hardships suffered in obtaininng them.

An effective education system shoudl be and in my opinion is, one that can sustain an introduction of new material into it and use this to adapt to the new pressures placed on the system as a whole. If it cannot, then the system itself needs to be re-examined.

Finally, we should aknowlege that due to the infringement of rights through collection of membership dues from nations, drawn from direct taxation and through the responsibility of the organisation to act in the best interests of the citizens of its member nations, the interference of this act is justified. If we say that the U.N. cannot act with regards to this issue, then we can apply that to any issue, be it of human rights, trade, etc. What kind of world will we have then I ask you?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

First of all, I would like to speak briefly in response to the allegations of the Chipmunk delegate, Yeoman, whom I believe should have written this proposal during daytime instead of losing any sleep scribbling down anathema in a half-drunken orgy of shameless self-indulgence.

The "intimate control of the classroom" that he speaks of essentially means that you get to pay for rewriting the course provided by the Federal World Bureaucracy for every single nation involved. Dear members of this assembly, the disadvantages of scale have just been admitted by the creator of the resolution, and there is still no reason whatsoever to actually involve the United Nations in this!

Dear Sir, if you are truly interested in nations coming up with solutions to their own ‘exigencies’, as you call them, then LET THEM DO JUST THAT and spend your nights drinking cola in the UNOG bar, where I assure you you'd be most welcome.

(Aram angrily slams his shoe onto the table in front of him)

Ambassador Zyryanov cleared her throat.

"Well... I'm not sure I can be as... entertaining as the esteemed delegate from the Dutch Democratic Republic" - she coughed lightly - "but I might as well give you Ariddia's stance on the matter. It is, at present, a tentative stance. This is a most unusual, most interesting proposal.

We would like to ascertain, first, that it is not intended to apply to communist, moneyless societies such as our own. Or that, should it be applicable to Ariddia, we would have the leeway to interpret it in accordance with our own laws and customs, in the spirit of communism and the encouragement of creativity and initiative.

Having said that, as we feel it is our responsability to care for the workers of all member States, we feel there is a possibility this proposal may... introduce some small degree of fairness into the abomination that is capitalist doctrine. As such, we are, cautiously, prepared to support it."


Ambassador Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
PDSRA

Since my nation believes in economic equality for all and runs it as such, I have no problem with making this a worldwide objective. My region votes unanimously in favor of this brilliant proposal. It should have been done eons ago. Small businesses are the backbone of any nation's economic prosperity. They create more jobs, more competition, more products being produced and sold at home and provides it's citizens with economic stability as well as incresing their happiness and self-esteem. Exellent! Down with monopolies and corparate greed! Have a nice day! :)

On behalf of the Kingdom of Abeir-Toril, I would like to say this.

If small entrepreneurial business were given equal rights as large coorporations, the larger corps. would lose business due to the fact smaller business have to be treated equally. This would be far worse then it would be good in the long run. Productive businesses would have to wait for other businesses to meet a quota no doubt that everybody follows in order for them to all be successful. Everyone would be limited, and not everybody can pull their own weight. Businesses would lose money because of this act, and the economy would suffer greatly. Supply and demand people, not everybody is capable of transferring large quantities of a product from one place to another quickly, let alone manufacture whatever it may be.
This proposal should be dissolved immediately and never brought up again. The people who earn large amounts of money deserve it and shouldn't be penalised. The solution to this revolves around how much a country taxes individuals depending on their income though. Anything above what is needed to run a business and survive should be taxed heavily and go towards improving the economy further through government projects such as improving military defences and economical improvements that make the country more money, therefore allowing for expansion.
Think about the big picture and not the individual.

Signed by: Frederick Massimo, Overseer of International Affairs
and backed by: Allamar Vackerie, Overseer of Finances

What a rediculous proposal. We don't need more bureaucracy crammed down our throats. Nor do we need some blanket international idealogy spoon-feeding our populace. Terrible idea and a waste of time and money. :gundge:

While the effort is greatly appreciated to shed truth upon the subject, unfortunately I, personally, find it difficult to understand how the reasoning presented addresses the concerns mentioned.

I wish to reply to the concerns of the honourable delegate from Obfuscati, particularly those concerning the implementation of this resolution (should it be enacted).

Firstly, worries about funding for essential humanitarian needs and social requirements being diverted due to the mechanics of functioning the programme envisaged in this text, are un-founded. Any nation that would be in such a position, should examine ways of funding that would require a more efficient use of their resources. Furthermore, the long-term gains from this training can only pay off any short-term hardships suffered in obtaininng them.


It seems unfair for us, who may not be so aversely affected, to merely say to a nation that it is their fault they do not have money for both necessities and our proposed education system. A more efficient use of resources would be to devote more resources to providing those necessities, so that at a later time, in the long run, training may begin without harming the population in the name of long term gains.

Regardless, while it seems that both of our views may have their merits, the fact remains that it is not up to us to decide for a nation that we do not live in, nor represent, using the UN as the means for such an act. It seems to me that any nation would know itself better than we do. And thus, applying a proposed 'improvement' without considering the individual situation is again, not our place when it comes to whether or not people should suffer in the name of someone else's idea of improvement.


An effective education system shoudl be and in my opinion is, one that can sustain an introduction of new material into it and use this to adapt to the new pressures placed on the system as a whole. If it cannot, then the system itself needs to be re-examined.


In this, there is no argument. If a system can so easily be destabilized, it clearly has room to improve. However, this does not address the issue that if a nation should be in a fragile situation, tilting their system off balance and wiping our hands clean by saying that if they had had a better system, it wouldn't have happened, is not only unreasonable, but quite unjust.


Finally, we should aknowlege that due to the infringement of rights through collection of membership dues from nations, drawn from direct taxation and through the responsibility of the organisation to act in the best interests of the citizens of its member nations, the interference of this act is justified. If we say that the U.N. cannot act with regards to this issue, then we can apply that to any issue, be it of human rights, trade, etc. What kind of world will we have then I ask you?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Again, if I am to paraphrase as I understand it, you are saying that because we think we have a better way every nation should go about things, then we have the right to enforce it upon them. If every whim of the UN should be allowed simply because "we know best", what kind of world will we have, then, I ask you?

I would like to take this time to point out that if it came across that way, I did not mean to be hostile. In fact, in some points I even agree with you completely. However, I have no more right than anyone else here to tell a nation what to do, using the power of the UN, simply because I think I have a better way of improving their country when, in fact, I do not even know anything about the situation of their country.

Defending human rights is one matter. Telling people which direction to go is another matter entirely. It is important that this distinction be made, and that it be remembered that we do not have an issue right now that concerns human rights at all. We do, however, have an issue regarding the rights of nations to decide upon their own ways of improving based upon their ideals.

(my 2 cents on the resolution)


The first thing you see when you read the resolution is that it encourages free market...then you read more and see that it "encourages" the free market through subsidies and other governmental policies. WHAT!!!! how hypocritical.

And why should this be even considered in the UN???
Shouldn't contries be able to decide their economic strategy on their own?


This is a stupid resolution and I really hope it doesn't pass.

If you look at the Chipmunks and their description it states that the "Beauracracy is a hindrance" and it seem that this proposal while ""Promoting free market"" is creating more and more Beauracracy, which is not good. There is a better way to do promote the free market while not directly involving the UN or even the individual nations, Through funding education on a nation level. that way instead of wasting money on creating a system that already exists, the universities and colleges and public schools that provide business courses.

sma ll buisness is in direct violation of phalanx weopons current laws and would make people question our laws and governing power if it is contridicted ... further more i have made many advacements in education and government funded jobs as well as military and police force jobs.

so it is in my best intrest to vote against such action

"A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce."

encourages subsidies?!??!

how is this free trade?

no i think

Very well written, I must say, but why should the UN care about this? And that's apart from the need to give tax breaks to small firms. Firstly, that smells like discrimination, secondly, if a business is viable they'll get there without tax breaks. I do not want to fund inadequate businesses for some romantic small business idea of entrepreneurs.

I agree wholeheartedly. As nation who believes in government controls, I don't believe this should be voted on at all. With the "UN Compliance Ministry" nonsense whereby I will be forced to agree to it, I feel that it is entirely wrong, and I feel that everyone who voted positive on this should immediately change their vote. Those among us who believe in big business should be allowed to keep it, and those who believe in no private sector whatsoever should not even have to deal with this choice. What should be a daily issue has become a UN Resolution.

While the effort is greatly appreciated to shed truth upon the subject, unfortunately I, personally, find it difficult to understand how the reasoning presented addresses the concerns mentioned.

My apologies first to the noble delegate for any lack of clarity in my responses to his previous questions.

It seems unfair for us, who may not be so aversely affected, to merely say to a nation that it is their fault they do not have money for both necessities and our proposed education system. A more efficient use of resources would be to devote more resources to providing those necessities, so that at a later time, in the long run, training may begin without harming the population in the name of long term gains.

It was perhaps careless of me to say that it was more their fault, but what I meant was that there are plenty of ways to adaquately budget a nations projects without resorting to cutting vital programmes. They could always request assistance with the process of implementing the programme by asking for foreign aid and assistance to be provided with the tuition that they would be offering under this programme. Equally, as I like to emphasise, the long-term nature of this type of social investment, means that eventually the benefits of the measures shall be equal to or greater than the short-term hardships endured by those who implemented the resolution.

Regardless, while it seems that both of our views may have their merits, the fact remains that it is not up to us to decide for a nation that we do not live in, nor represent, using the UN as the means for such an act. It seems to me that any nation would know itself better than we do. And thus, applying a proposed 'improvement' without considering the individual situation is again, not our place when it comes to whether or not people should suffer in the name of someone else's idea of improvement.

Ones improvement can be the improvement of all if it is used well. If a nation was to use this resolution to develop an experienced class of IT specialists, it could assist others who might have had more difficulty in implementing the initial measures and who have struggled to apply the knowledge to the furtherment of the well being of themselves and others.

In this, there is no argument. If a system can so easily be destabilized, it clearly has room to improve. However, this does not address the issue that if a nation should be in a fragile situation, tilting their system off balance and wiping our hands clean by saying that if they had had a better system, it wouldn't have happened, is not only unreasonable, but quite unjust.

I can see your point, but I refer to my position vis-a-vis the first paragraph of your statement.

Again, if I am to paraphrase as I understand it, you are saying that because we think we have a better way every nation should go about things, then we have the right to enforce it upon them. If every whim of the UN should be allowed simply because "we know best", what kind of world will we have, then, I ask you?

To be blunt in your reply, I say yes, we do have a right. We are not deciding matters on whim here. Each resolution goes through an extensive process of consultation, approval and debate, before coming to a vote. Extensive campaigning will be employed by both sides. The U.N. acts in the interests of its members by popular consent. If one disagrees with the democratically agreed measures passed by it, one is not required to be a member.

I would like to take this time to point out that if it came across that way, I did not mean to be hostile. In fact, in some points I even agree with you completely. However, I have no more right than anyone else here to tell a nation what to do, using the power of the UN, simply because I think I have a better way of improving their country when, in fact, I do not even know anything about the situation of their country.

I did not think that you were being hostile, I enjoyed having someone challenge my views as it permitted a decent exchange of ideas.

Defending human rights is one matter. Telling people which direction to go is another matter entirely. It is important that this distinction be made, and that it be remembered that we do not have an issue right now that concerns human rights at all. We do, however, have an issue regarding the rights of nations to decide upon their own ways of improving based upon their ideals.

It is easy to say that human rights is different, but in what way? Many issues affect human well-being, in fact all types of resolution debated here do. On these grounds, it can be reasonably considered that, because we are debating matters of enormous significance for all members of the U.N. and wish to act in the interests of all members, it should be considered to be our duty to do so (act wherever possible in the interests of all citizens).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The way to improve free trade is NOT to create a bigger government or a bigger supervising power. You are only adding to the noise. The whole point of the "free market" is the principle that the market as a whole is better able to respond to problems than some government who may or may not reflect the ideas of society as a whole.

Subsidies might have their uses in some scenarios. This isn't one of them. If a small business can't succeed on it's own, then it's good or service (or management) shouldn't be around, because obviously people don't want it.

My vote has to fly "no" on this one.

~Matt

too much UN interfearence, vote no!

The prophet himself was a small business man.

In Frelune, businesses succeed or fail on their own merits. It is a part of our natural character to take risks, even, in some cases, to the point of foolishness. We see no reason to support this measure. Business is risky, and those without the stomach for risk-taking should remain tied to their current wage, should they desire. We will not take a position where we force our taxpayers to pay for inefficient, struggling, or corrupt business models.

Frelune votes against this proposal.

--Adam Sellers of International Affairs

Secondly, we oppose this resolution because it endorses intrinsically flawed and rejected economic theories of protectionism and corporate welfare.
Ritonas strongly opposes any legislation from within our on territories or from the UN General Assembly that attempts to subsidize business of any kind, as this violates the principles of a free market on which our society rests
Your proposal clearly violates a very noble goal, free trade. If every government grants subsidies to its businesses, then international trade becomes more difficult, nay...impossible.

Agreed. Especially the provision that refers to "encouraging subsidizing of small businesses" that is possibly the greatest intrusion on national rights that I have yet seen. Why should the UN control government economic spending?
Finally, it is quite amusing to find a resolution in the "free trade" category defending protectionist intervention.
Wow - a UN resolution I almost entirely agreed with! Except for the part about small business subsidies;
The first thing you see when you read the resolution is that it encourages free market...then you read more and see that it "encourages" the free market through subsidies and other governmental policies. WHAT!!!! how hypocritical.
"A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce."

encourages subsidies?!??!

how is this free trade?
Subsidies might have their uses in some scenarios. This isn't one of them. If a small business can't succeed on it's own, then it's good or service (or management) shouldn't be around, because obviously people don't want it.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here. A wide assortment of nations, from brand-new nations making their first post, to long established nations such as Knootoss and Groot Gouda can see the contradiction contained within this proposal. A "free trade" proposal that "supports the use of subsidies"? How ironic. While we're on the subject of subsidies, these "small businesses" which this supports the subsidization of cannot be farms unless the nation they are located in has applied for and recieved an exemption under Article 3 of GFDA.

This is bad economics. Vote no.

I hope the lesson is learned in the fact that some well-established nations that never gave a piss about the proposal's contents when drafted--for weeks on the forums--now have clearly-formed (if misinformed, in my opinion) views on why it shouldn't be passed.

Why is this so? Is there a good reason for not contributing to the construction of a proposal? Is there anything gained by the UN from nations waiting until it is far beyond a point of editing a proposal to suggest a change, or disagree with a proposal's content? If I had known nations would construe the clause in question as an endorsement of protectionist policies(not its intent, as I've thoroughly explained), I'd've changed it in an instant. Nope. No such luck. One is inclined to bid ahoy to the whole of the UN forum with this.

Honestly, that's what my telegram campaign for Reformed Literacy Initiative, which didn't enter the forum until after reaching quorum, was attempting to prove: that forum dynamics and support are completely divorced from real UN sway and understanding. Of course, I returned to putting drafts of repeals and resolutions up in the forum because I wanted to tap the wells of intellect which dwells there, so as to make any proposal better. That's really the sole purpose of drafting in the forum in my mind, to increase the quality of the proposal.

But if, after an extended period of drafting, a proposal's "fundamental problems" (or, as I believe it, the "fundamental misunderstandings over it") are not once coherently expressed, what's the point of informing the forum at all? A favor to those who do invest time before quorum querying a proposal's merits? A duty to the social "haves" there?

A wide assortment of nations, from brand-new nations making their first post, to long established nations such as Knootoss and Groot Gouda can see the contradiction contained within this proposal. Good gravy. First, this is the case with every proposal, from Gay Rights to The Distribution of Food Act: opposition comes from those who have been here a long time and those who are new. That fact is superfluous. Second, I feel I have thoroughly explained what the clause is geared toward, if you have a problem with this explanation, perhaps you should respond to the explanation with your problem, it would make my explaining my viewpoint on things a whole lot easier. Unless, of course, you're not interested in understanding my viewpoint, but rather just opposing my proposal.

Dear Sir, if you are truly interested in nations coming up with solutions to their own ‘exigencies’, as you call them, then LET THEM DO JUST THAT and spend your nights drinking cola in the UNOG bar, where I assure you you'd be most welcome.Unfortunately, I'm severely doubtful of that.

If I had known nations would construe the clause in question as an endorsement of protectionist policies(not its intent, as I've thoroughly explained), I'd've changed it in an instant.
You submitted it as a Free Trade proposal and I assume you understand what a subsidy is. How could it not be construed as an endorsement of protectionist policies? In a free trade proposal of all places!

Second, I feel I have thoroughly explained what the clause is geared toward, if you have a problem with this explanation, perhaps you should respond to the explanation with your problem, it would make my explaining my viewpoint on things a whole lot easier. Unless, of course, you're not interested in understanding my viewpoint, but rather just opposing my proposal.
At this point I would only be repeating what others have already said and you would be repeating the explanations you have already posted. What's the point?

You submitted it as a Free Trade proposal and I assume you understand what a subsidy is. How could it not be construed as an endorsement of protectionist policies? In a free trade proposal of all places!
3. SUPPORTS the use of subsidies to allow small businesses to compete against larger national or international corporations--considered dutifully for its effects on the national and regional workforce, and used only in just moderation; and SUPPORTS distribution of government or public contracts among small businesses to equalize distribution with larger businesses;[emphasis added]

A lot of people seem to be overlooking these conditions to how the UN's support for subsidies is doled out. As many have pointed out, protectionism is generally bad policy. Does it make sense that it fits under "just moderation", then? Nope. Does it make sense that protectionism in one nation, which would hurt the economies in neighboring countries, fits under "dutiful consideration for effect on the...regional workforce"? Nope.

My proposal enlists the UN support in subsidies which allow small businesses to compete only when those subsidies don't produce bad effects. As so many have kindly pointed out, protectionism produces bad effects. Therefore, I don't think my proposal gives the UN support to protectionist nations.

In my mind, there's not much difference between that and saying "I support national sovereignty except when it interferes with personal sovereignty".

But wouldn't it have been better to have just left it out? It really does smack of protectionism and it doesn't have anything to do with the UNSBC, it's like it was just added on as a sort of appendage.

But wouldn't it have been better to have just left it out? It really does smack of protectionism and it doesn't have anything to do with the UNSBC, it's like it was just added on as a sort of appendage.

Yes. Is it necessary for authors of otherwise tolerable proposals to include everything that comes to their minds therein? Krioval cannot vote for proposals that include tacit endorsements of economic protectionism and maintain our image as a bastion of truly free trade.

~ 高原由 (Yoshi Takahara)

But wouldn't it have been better to have just left it out? It really does smack of protectionism and it doesn't have anything to do with the UNSBC, it's like it was just added on as a sort of appendage.
Exactly! That's my complaint about the UN forum recently. It would've been much better to have left it out, much easier for people to understand (that the focus is business education). But, none of the fine posters who have now commented as such directed me as such until now.

I mean, at an off-site forum (which I quote anonymously, so as to encourage open speech at off-site forums--much like journalists could do), there is a complaint that nations can create a UN funding problem. Then it's said, "it wouldn't have been hard to exten[d] the oversight by UN officials to cover all expenditure." I completely agree with that statement, that it wouldn't have been hard at all, and I think it's an excellent idea from a sharp mind. But, when the finely-tuned drafting machine of the UN forum was finished with my proposal, such an suggestion wasn't made. Perhaps I overlooked the suggestion (in which case it's my fault), but I'm pretty sure no one suggested consolidating all funding as under UN oversight.

Perhaps this is personal bias against me, or lack of desire by some to get involved in "national sovereignty" proposals (though this one's as "national-sovereignty"-oriented as a proposal about the "International Red Cross" would be). I don't know what it is. And I'm not sure what I'm expecting from the forum. I mean, obviously not every facet of the text will be addressed and combed with a fine-tooth, but I guess I just expected to have heard most complaints about my proposal as repeats of complaints from the drafting thread. Which I haven't, really. Perhaps the lesson here is for me--to brainstorm and troubleshoot over my own proposal more, and not suppose that quiet in the forum means general approval.


Anyway, back to the proposal, I agree that Clause 1 and 3 are sort of appendages, not related to the main goal (and genuine free trade portion) of the proposal: the UNSBC. If I had to do it over again, I'd probably eliminate cause 3 and the middle section of clause 1. Or maybe I would’ve eliminated Clause 1 altogether, and made Clause 2 a preambulary clause.

But even in its current form I find it acceptable-enough. Off-topic and possibly too open to protectionist ideas in clauses 1 and 3 may be, but I feel they’re still within the range of UN denunciation of labor protectionism or corporate welfare (if barely). Of course, I wrote it. And fathers don’t often call their daughters ‘whore’. So, perhaps how I find the proposal won’t persuade many.

Yes. Is it necessary for authors of otherwise tolerable proposals to include everything that comes to their minds therein?
We encourage (ooh, I have spoken the dirty word) the representative of Krioval to help proposal writers in understanding this principle, as I've certainly been guilty of it more than once.

Perhaps heaping more praise on the shorter, simpler proposals is necessary.

Now that the author has seen and admitted the flaws of this proposal, can I assume that he will join the "No" campaign?

Anyway, back to the proposal, I agree that Clause 1 and 3 are sort of appendages, not related to the main goal (and genuine free trade portion) of the proposal: the UNSBC. If I had to do it over again, I'd probably eliminate cause 3 and the middle section of clause 1. Or maybe I would’ve eliminated Clause 1 altogether, and made Clause 2 a preambulary clause.

I assume there would be nothing wrong in revising and resubmitting a proposal after rejection, without these clauses (though I understand how time-consuming the process is). Still, it seems that you will win the vote despite the objections posted here, so you shouldn't be worrying too much... ;)

I can only hope member nations will adhere to the spirit of the proposal, as you describe it, rather than exploring the loopholes it can generate.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

I assume there would be nothing wrong in revising and resubmitting a proposal after rejection, without these clauses (though I understand how time-consuming the process is). Still, it seems that you will win the vote despite the objections posted here, so you shouldn't be worrying too much... ;)

I can only hope member nations will adhere to the spirit of the proposal, as you describe it, rather than exploring the loopholes it can generate.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

The majority of forum posters appears to be opposing this resolution. I consider this a moral victory at least.

~Aram Koopman

The majority of forum posters appears to be opposing this resolution. I consider this a moral victory at least.

~Aram Koopman

LAE understand the concern expressed in this forum, but we would like to emphasize that this is the 1st time (maybe microcredit did it also somehow) that a UN resolution at vote encourage private initiative, and even if it's not perfect we are proud to support it.

Private initiative is in long term a very important factor of creativity and economic growth, and even if LAE has nothing against multinational compagnies we tend to think that most jobs are created by small business.

About subsidies, LAE had campaigned in order the food act prevent agriculture subsidies by economic powerhouse (in RL: US, European Union, Japan, South Korea) if a free trade area was opened; because this sector is MASSIVELY subsidised in powerhouse economy nations (european farm subsidies = half of the Europen Union budget for example), because it's mainly big farms who gets most of subsidies in these nations and because in poor ones agriculture is the largest employer.

In the proposition at vote "subsidies" are only for "small businesses", are to be "used only in just moderation" and are "to compete against larger national or international corporations". Maybe it could have been written in a better way, but we think it's ok.

Now that the author has seen and admitted the flaws of this proposal, can I assume that he will join the "No" campaign?

What are the Flaws?

Cordially,

The Grand Duke of Fronkenmuth

--The Grand Duchy of Fronkenmuth--

What are the Flaws?

Cordially,

The Grand Duke of Fronkenmuth

--The Grand Duchy of Fronkenmuth--

Good Sir, Excellency, whatever...

One of the flaws of this body in general would be the immense laziness of the representatives of member states, and their unwillingness to read pieces of text they so eagerly approve. However, I cannot help but feel that owe it to your noble status and questionable apathy to point out to you the transcripts of my earlier addresses in this session.

In particular, my opening address (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9972381&postcount=10) and my response to the Ausserland ambassador (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9972441&postcount=11) provide some of the arguments against this anathema resolution.

If I can restate my points briefly: it promotes bad economics of protectionism and corporate welfare, and there is no need to do have the things it instates on the international level. This resolution will cost the Grand Duchy of Fronkenmuth money without any sort of efficient returns.

I hope the lesson is learned in the fact that some well-established nations that never gave a piss about the proposal's contents when drafted--for weeks on the forums--now have clearly-formed (if misinformed, in my opinion) views on why it shouldn't be passed.

Why is this so? Is there a good reason for not contributing to the construction of a proposal?

Yes, lack of time. That means that I pick either interesting resolution to help further, or resolution that I am against to campaign against (or change it into the first category).

Ultimately, only the author is responsible for writing a good resolution. If it's up for vote, and there are errors in it, than it should be voted against and the author can try again in due time and with adjustments.

Easy, innit?

the Chipmunks ideas are good and practical and my governments wants to do something similar itself but without subsidies.

however they feel that it should be up to an individual nation and not the UN to put a policy like this in place.

if we're going to have a UN free trade zone some day (which looks likely since the Global Food Act passed), protectionism measures will be phased out and this proposal will be at odds with other free trade resolutions.

if this had been voted on before the GFDA came along i'm sure it would have passed.

therefore we must vote against.

Any sensible person would praise this resolution as welcome in favourable conditions, but the times in most countries aren't favourable. I may only be a comprehensive 13 year old student, but I understand that this proposal is not worth enacting now, but discussion on future proposals of similar type should be encouraged.
It will help more entrepenurs become succesful, but what about the resources lost in areas were entrepeneurs are stronger? Basically this will have the effect of a high street of the same shop, owned or franchised by a different person.
I hope you take all this into consideration and vote against,
Optischer

We do not want the UN to be colluding in the hegemony of global free trade and entrepreneurialism.

Free-market neo-liberal societies are anomic, alienated, criminogenic cultural deserts full of fat dumb business-heads driving about needlessly in oversized 4x4s being shot at by smelly drugged-up predatory criminals.

They should be soundly beaten and made to walk, or eaten.

We are a happy and crime-free, if somewhat poor, social democracy, and we want to stay that way. We produce and distribute locally and feed ourselves very well, even if we lack many of the technological toys that amuse the infantilised fat dumb people of the capitalist nations. We are cultured, intelligent people capable of amusing ourselves constantly, without the help of the procession of commodified trivia produced by the capitalist machine. And we want to stay that way.

Keynes said that 'the worst people doing the worst things for the wrost reasons' will never produce the good life. He was right. It produces great wealth for the few and tedious cultureless lives made 'interesting' only with the novelty of endless techno-toys for the many.

Screw hayek, Rand and Von Mises and vote with us against this nonsense.

May i ask of all the un members out there who're not delegates to vote sas they did in the poll.

Any sensible person would praise this resolution as welcome in favourable conditions, but the times in most countries aren't favourable. I may only be a comprehensive 13 year old student, but I understand that this proposal is not worth enacting now, but discussion on future proposals of similar type should be encouraged.
It will help more entrepenurs become succesful, but what about the resources lost in areas were entrepeneurs are stronger? Basically this will have the effect of a high street of the same shop, owned or franchised by a different person.
I hope you take all this into consideration and vote against,
Optischer

To be perfectly honest sir, I don't follow your logic here. When you say that "the times in most countries aren't favourable" what do you base this upon? Have you surveyed the entire Nation States U.N. database to determine that we are all in economic difficulty?

Equally, I don't follow what you mean when you say "It will help more entrepneurs become successful, but what aobut the resources lost in areas where entrepeneurs are stronger"? If there are more entrepeneurs, then the growth in their numbers, plus the improved quality of preparitive education they have received, will in fact lead to a gain in productivity and available resources, due to increased wealth creation.

"Basically this will have the effect of a high street of the same shop, owned or franchised by a different person". By this argument you are saying effectively that if (for instance) one shop sells tyres, then all other shops that sell tyres are redundant and we should always have a monopoly provider. This is very dubious economic theory, particularly given that this would be illegal in many countries (including Compadria) due to Anti-Trust laws. To have a monopoly is always bad, if it is run for profit or personal benefit, as it leads innevitably to abuses of customer rights and violations of trade laws in order to make as big a growth as possible for the firm.

We hope that nations will take these factors into account in deciding not to heed the warning of Optischer.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I voted for it.

The UN should have no say in business whatsoever. especially whith my country. If this law passes, I will resign from the UN. This law will give to much cntrol over independant nations. I emplore you to vote against this bill.

The whole point of a free market is one without government intervention. It is true that nothing can be completely free-market, but a proposal such as this is just retarded. It boards on communism and socialism which goes against many free-market beliefs, rules, laws, and so forth. If such a bill passes those seeking to better their economy and work towards the greater good with the assistance of an actual free-market based economy will be fucked.

While I don't stand by conspircy arguement, I do agree that this resolution over-steps the bounds of the UN. How businesses are handled should be left up to each individual nation. As for teaching business, maybe some entrepreneur will start a business that does that.
Radiant Twilight will vote against.


There: it has been said.:cool:

I'll make this simple. What everyone's been trying to avoid saying is this - the proposal itself is strong and well written. But the changes you suggest will only benefit nations who fuel their small-business sector. Nations who believe in governmental control on business (as you seem to) will only be harmed by this. For instance, Jirfog has recently enstated a system by which your IQ determines your profession, not your choice. Countries in which there are significant socialist/communist governmental powers will see no benefits from your UNSBC, and will find their leaders' choices blunted by the "UN Compliance Ministry", which will then lead to people questioning the supreme power of their Emperors and will then lead to insurrection.

To those of you who vote positive on this, consider your neighbors. We leave you alone, and cause you no notable harm. In fact, by regulating our citizens we are the cornerstone of the world economy. Do not force us to take drastic action.

The whole point of a free market is one without government intervention. It is true that nothing can be completely free-market, but a proposal such as this is just retarded. It boards on communism and socialism which goes against many free-market beliefs, rules, laws, and so forth. If such a bill passes those seeking to better their economy and work towards the greater good with the assistance of an actual free-market based economy will be fucked.


Free markets only improve the economies of large nations with large populations. The smaller nations will surely suffer and continue their stuggles to prosper. Larger nations can out-produce and therefore, out-export their smaller counterparts. What all nations need is FAIR Trade, not Free trade! A nation that exports 80% of their goods while they only import 20%, will become a wealthy and powerful nation with a huge TRADE SURPLUSS. While a nation that only exports 20% of their goods while importing 80%, will suffer the consequences of a TRADE DEFICET. This is not FAIR trade, it's another scheme and scam of the rich oppresing and enslaving the poor even further. FREE TRADE was most likely invented by some RICH and CORRUPT group of people. Just look at China as an example in the real world. "ANY COUNTRY THAT HOLDS THE WORLD"S WEALTH, HOLDS THE POWER TO CONTROL AND ENFORCE THEIR WILL ON ALL OTHER POORER CONTRIES" - Robert L. Sager

As far as subsidies go, I don't like them, however, it seems that no one complains when the huge conglomorates receive them, but GOD forbid if the government should help the little guy. So either do away with it for ALL or provide it for ALL.

Capitalism is great, as long as you're already wealthy! Socialism is great, as long as you don't want to be ruled by the wealthy! - Robert L. Sager

Larger nations can out-produce and therefore, out-export their smaller counterparts. What all nations need is FAIR Trade, not Free trade! A nation that exports 80% of their goods while they only import 20%, will become a wealthy and powerful nation with a huge TRADE SURPLUSS. While a nation that only exports 20% of their goods while importing 80%, will suffer the consequences of a TRADE DEFICET. As far as subsidies go, I don't like them, however, it seems that no one complains when the huge conglomorates receive them, but GOD forbid if the government should help the little guy. So either do away with it for ALL or provide it for ALL.

True, but I would go much further. The doctrine of 'trade' is itself poisonous. It abstracts the relations between human beings and material objects and relegates actual work and production to a low position in the hierarchy of economic needs, and wealthy oligarchies of traders, gamblers and loan sharks will always form in opposition to powerless workers in systems based on trade. We have known this since Hesiod the Greek advised us not to trust trade or traders. People become involved in trade for one thing and one thing only: to get personally rich.

There will never be 'fair trade' because economies, currencies and political power are always imbalanced. The only way forward for this world is to localise economies and develop ways of life in which human beings can be satisfied with lower living standards in techno-material terms and higher living-standards in terms of culture, intelligence and sensibilities. The only way the rich world can help the developing world to reach a position of modest and sustainable economic development is by encouraging local production for local need, minimising trade for natural surpluses only. Encouraging trade for trade's sake, whether it is 'fair' or not, simply wrecks local economies and creates long-term dependencies that are virtually impossible to get out of. The sort of productive enterprise and trade we should be encouraging is cooperative and local, not individual and global.

We cannot allow our world to go the way of the old world, which was dominated by the vile oil-glutton America and its population of stupid, atomised and selfish 'entrepreneurs', to whom economic stability and intelligent culture were anathema. Do we want the oil wars and trade wars of the 21st century again? Do not forget that it is a myth that 'protectionism causes wars'. In the 19th century it was protectionism in a globalising trade system that had already gone too far that caused wars.

This motion should be changed. The UN should be encouraging localised, collective, sustainable development as a practice, not 'private enterprise' as a principle.

Vote against this motion, or we will go the way of the old world.

Ranulph Sage
President of Glutopia

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote AGAINST the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

True, but I would go much further. The doctrine of 'trade' is itself poisonous. It abstracts the relations between human beings and material objects and relegates actual work and production to a low position in the hierarchy of economic needs, and wealthy oligarchies of traders, gamblers and loan sharks will always form in opposition to powerless workers in systems based on trade. We have known this since Hesiod the Greek advised us not to trust trade or traders. People become involved in trade for one thing and one thing only: to get personally rich.

If you eliminate trade, you do far more than just eliminate commerce, you eliminate cultural exchanges, you eliminate international relations, you eliminate a means to share technology, you eliminate choice for your consumers and citiznes. In eliminating trade, all you will do is turn the world into a thousand isolationist mini-states, with no co-operation with one another, each selfishly watching their own backs without thinking of others. The powerless workers will have nothing to work for without trade and if there is not market to trade on then thousands of companies could go bankrupt as the limitations of a single market are imposed upon them, with the accompanying restrictions on supply and demand.

There will never be 'fair trade' because economies, currencies and political power are always imbalanced. The only way forward for this world is to localise economies and develop ways of life in which human beings can be satisfied with lower living standards in techno-material terms and higher living-standards in terms of culture, intelligence and sensibilities. The only way the rich world can help the developing world to reach a position of modest and sustainable economic development is by encouraging local production for local need, minimising trade for natural surpluses only. Encouraging trade for trade's sake, whether it is 'fair' or not, simply wrecks local economies and creates long-term dependencies that are virtually impossible to get out of. The sort of productive enterprise and trade we should be encouraging is cooperative and local, not individual and global.

Trade is one of the greatest wealth distributors around to today. The fact is, if done properly, free trade is fair trade and the exchange of goods, if done with respect for local producers certainly, can lead to huge gains in standards of living. The cotton markets of some developed countries are so heavily subsidised, that, even though they are unproductive, they are stiffling competition and inflicting suffering on millions of farmers in developing countries. The ultimate result of your extreme version of 'localisation' will be to build parochial societies that will fall apart due to the magnification of the internal flaws of their trade networks.

We cannot allow our world to go the way of the old world, which was dominated by the vile oil-glutton America and its population of stupid, atomised and selfish 'entrepreneurs', to whom economic stability and intelligent culture were anathema. Do we want the oil wars and trade wars of the 21st century again? Do not forget that it is a myth that 'protectionism causes wars'. In the 19th century it was protectionism in a globalising trade system that had already gone too far that caused wars.

I dislike (RL reference here) anyone who refers to America or Americans as vile, oil-gluttons, or stupid selfish atomised entrepeneurs. I'm not an American, but I like America and its people, they're a great country and in many respects a model for us all. It strikes me as crass and racist to describe them in such demeaning terms. And before you say anything, I think George Bush is a nightmare and that the world would be a better place without him or his neo-conservative ideology. But that doesn't extend to me treating America or Americans with contempt.

So there, I've said what I have to say. I hope you have listened and reflected on your views.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I find myself forced to agree with the Compadrian ambassador and his otters.

The nations of Holy Republic of Barvinia and the People's Republic of Glutopia are free to espouse their freedom-hating anti trade ideology and suffer the consequences, of course, but I see no need for them to be taken seriously in this body. Both their economies are in the crapper already, proving the merits of the trade argument.

The Holy Republic has a, shall we say, 'developing' world economy with so-so civil rights and hardly any political freedoms whereas the Peoples Republic - taking on the more extreme position - has a Basket Case economy and I cast doubts on the ability of their government to feed its people. To have them lecture this esteemed body on the proper course of economics is frankly laughable.

The sad part is that this resolution promotes the very economic policies that made Barvinia and Glutopia 'failed countries'.

~Aram Koopman

Now that the author has seen and admitted the flaws of this proposal, can I assume that he will join the "No" campaign?
Of course not. Admitting perceived shortcomings and denouncing the proposal are very different. I never meant that the sections aren't worthwhile, but that they aren't expressed as well as they could be, which is resulting in a lot of misconceptions about the proposal. And, even if these clauses were mistakes, there'd have to be a threshold of mistake which would have to be crossed before I'd start opposing the proposal (in which the negatives of the mistaken resultant outweighs the negatives of having to resubmit). That threshold simply isn't crossed because I don't see the opposed clauses as 'bad' intrinsically, just 'badly' received in their current phrasing.

I mean, I've admitted flaws in about all of my previous resolutions. Mostly, just like this one, these flaws are in the presentation of things. That didn't mean to me I should ditch the whole of those endeavors, either.

the Chipmunks ideas are good and practical and my governments wants to do something similar itself but without subsidies.

however they feel that it should be up to an individual nation and not the UN to put a policy like this in place.
...It is the individual nation's decision whether or not to put these policies into place...

Yes, lack of time. That means that I pick either interesting resolution to help further, or resolution that I am against to campaign against (or change it into the first category).I still think it's funny that you've made several posts in this thread, yet couldn't be bothered to do the same to the proposal (to "change it into the first category").

In fact, if you had put one of the posts you put here in the drafting thread, I'd likely've changed the proposal more to your liking, in which case you wouldn't have had to invest so much time denouncing it here. So, one early post would've eliminated the need for you to post several times in this thread.

Perhps it isn't a lack of time, but rather a lack of skill in managing that time, hm?
Ultimately, only the author is responsible for writing a good resolution. If it's up for vote, and there are errors in it, than it should be voted against and the author can try again in due time and with adjustments.

Easy, innit?
Huh, that's funny. I highly doubt you'd tow the same radical "error-free resolution" line if we were discussing one of your proposals.

For example, Sex Industry Worker Act, protects the right of everyone to be a "prosititute", a word I can't find in any dictionary (meaning my nation hasn't legalized prostitution, but "prosititution", a word to which we have made up a meaning to). Would you say, then, that we should've all voted against your proposal when it was up for vote until you got your hands on a dictionary or a decent spellcheck? I mean, Ctrl+a, Ctrl+c, Ctrl+v, and F7 and that's it, problem solved.

Easy, innit?

The whole point of a free market is one without government intervention. It is true that nothing can be completely free-market, but a proposal such as this is just retarded. It boards on communism and socialism which goes against many free-market beliefs, rules, laws, and so forth. If such a bill passes those seeking to better their economy and work towards the greater good with the assistance of an actual free-market based economy will be fucked.
Perhaps if you'd actually read the resolution, you;d have an argumentative leg to stand on. Based on your comments, though, I find it hard to believe you've done much but read past the title (there is nothing here "[bordering] on communism and socialism" in the proposal). You nation will have the same amount of government intervention in the market if this proposal were to pass as if it were to fail.

The only difference would be that your nation could tap into the UN resources for small business education if it wanted to.

This proposal, while well meaning sounds like a subsidy to us. As a fledgling country we are not in a position to afford foriegn subsidies at this time so our vote will be no.

This proposal, while well meaning sounds like a subsidy to us. As a fledgling country we are not in a position to afford foriegn subsidies at this time so our vote will be no.
There are no foreign subsidies involved in this proposal.

There are no foreign subsidies involved in this proposal.
"SUPPORTS the use of subsidies to allow small businesses to compete against larger national or international corporations"
Also how would the school be financed? I'm not totally against this proposal as we as a country are pro small business, however we must weigh cost against possible results.

"SUPPORTS the use of subsidies to allow small businesses to compete against larger national or international corporations"
Also how would the school be financed? I'm not totally against this proposal as we as a country are pro small business, however we must weigh cost against possible results.
Those're subsidies by your nation. The school (actually it's just "the classroom"), is financed by both the UN and the nation, I believe (I'd have to look over my notes).

And, most importantly, having a "classroom" in your nation is voluntary.

I would like first of all to congratulate the delegate of Powerhungry Chipmunks on the passage of this resolution. I am aware that at the time of posting, there remains around 5 hours left for voting, yet I am dubious that this will be enough time for a turn-around. Therefore, I give him my sincere congratulations and praise.

Yet I fear that this will soon be targeted by a repeal of some sorts, cobbled together by an un-holy coalition of communists/socialists, National Sovereigntists and militant free-traders, who view any mention of 'subsidies', whatever the purpose, as anthema. What strategies does the honourable delegate have in order to combat such a repeal attempt.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

;) ;) ;) ;) Here's the resolution at vote starting Tuesday (I believe). I started a new thread because I wanted to add a forum poll. I hope you all vote "For" ;)

Here's a link to the drafting thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450369

And here's the proposal text.



Don't Panic!

If you eliminate trade, you do far more than just eliminate commerce, you eliminate cultural exchanges, you eliminate international relations, you eliminate a means to share technology, you eliminate choice for your consumers and citiznes. In eliminating trade, all you will do is turn the world into a thousand isolationist mini-states, with no co-operation with one another, each selfishly watching their own backs without thinking of others. The powerless workers will have nothing to work for without trade and if there is not market to trade on then thousands of companies could go bankrupt as the limitations of a single market are imposed upon them, with the accompanying restrictions on supply and demand.



Trade is one of the greatest wealth distributors around to today. The fact is, if done properly, free trade is fair trade and the exchange of goods, if done with respect for local producers certainly, can lead to huge gains in standards of living. The cotton markets of some developed countries are so heavily subsidised, that, even though they are unproductive, they are stiffling competition and inflicting suffering on millions of farmers in developing countries. The ultimate result of your extreme version of 'localisation' will be to build parochial societies that will fall apart due to the magnification of the internal flaws of their trade networks.



I dislike (RL reference here) anyone who refers to America or Americans as vile, oil-gluttons, or stupid selfish atomised entrepeneurs. I'm not an American, but I like America and its people, they're a great country and in many respects a model for us all. It strikes me as crass and racist to describe them in such demeaning terms. And before you say anything, I think George Bush is a nightmare and that the world would be a better place without him or his neo-conservative ideology. But that doesn't extend to me treating America or Americans with contempt.

So there, I've said what I have to say. I hope you have listened and reflected on your views.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I just posted a long reply to this and lost the connection!

Glutopia is unhappy with the communications technology used in this place!

The upshot was this: international free trade is an anachronism that was useful to the early development of capitalism, when it worked in conjunction with stable local productive economies. Howvere, it eventually gridlocked nations into imbalanced and unstable relations of interdependency that caused the horrendous wars of the 21st century. America achieved 'greatness' only as the chief protagonist in the destruction, and is not worthy as a model for others.

With modern communications technology, we no longer need trade to facilitate cultural interchange cross nations. We're doing it right now without making tedious 'deals'. Trade should be restricted to natural surpluses, and natural productive regions should focus on feeding their populations and securing productive economic participation for all FIRST before trade is even considered.

We have instructed our ambassador to vote against the motion. The future requires a new mentality, and international relations need to be secured without the crass ulterior motive of profiting from the losses of others.

Vote against this motion!

The upshot was this: international free trade is an anachronism that was useful to the early development of capitalism, when it worked in conjunction with stable local productive economies. Howvere, it eventually gridlocked nations into imbalanced and unstable relations of interdependency that caused the horrendous wars of the 21st century. America achieved 'greatness' only as the chief protagonist in the destruction, and is not worthy as a model for others.

The fact is international free trade (with some proscriptions on its range for reasons of fairness), isthe future. The fact is that if trade networks are reformed and brought to a point of relative balance, then trade can act as a signifcant force for good in invigorating local producers and customers, through the exchange of new goods, technologies and knowledge. If a nation does not have particular material/good/produce, etc, that it requires, then trade is the only way to obtain it. The fact is, inequality is rooted in the human condition and thus trade. So are poverty, racism, ignorance, paranoia, jealousy, etc. It is inescapable and tragically we cannot get rid of them. But we can make sure they are as limited as possible and I believe that trade and the furthering of individual and collective enterprise can act a part of the process to do so. As for your further disparaging comments about America, I don't know where you are from, but I'm sure if you look closely enough at your country, the same things could be said about it. America is not inherently evil, this doesn't mean it hasn't done bad things throughout its history, but it is considerabely better by record than many other countries.

With modern communications technology, we no longer need trade to facilitate cultural interchange cross nations. We're doing it right now without making tedious 'deals'. Trade should be restricted to natural surpluses, and natural productive regions should focus on feeding their populations and securing productive economic participation for all FIRST before trade is even considered.

And how would the modernity of this technology be maintained? How would it be given to nations that do not have it?

We have instructed our ambassador to vote against the motion. The future requires a new mentality, and international relations need to be secured without the crass ulterior motive of profiting from the losses of others.

Vote against this motion!

There is no guarantee that we will profit from others or seek to do so. You protest too much I doth think.

Vote for the motion!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The fact is international free trade (with some proscriptions on its range for reasons of fairness), isthe future.

Then we face a bleak and hostile future, even though a global trading elite will grow enormously wealthy and the rest of us infantilised souls will have more stupid gadgets to play with.

The fact is that if trade networks are reformed and brought to a point of relative balance, then trade can act as a significant force for good in invigorating local producers and customers, through the exchange of new goods, technologies and knowledge. If a nation does not have particular material/good/produce, etc, that it requires, then trade is the only way to obtain it.

It is impossible to 'balance' inherently unstable trade networks. The Ambassador of Compradia is speaking straight out of an introductory Chicago School economics textbook, demonstrating little evidence of critical thought or vision. Mature humans can accustom themselves to doing without most materials that are not available locally, engaging in trade only for the absolutely essential.

The fact is, inequality is rooted in the human condition and thus trade. So are poverty, racism, ignorance, paranoia, jealousy, etc. It is inescapable and tragically we cannot get rid of them. But we can make sure they are as limited as possible and I believe that trade and the furthering of individual and collective enterprise can act a part of the process to do so.

To ensure the minimisation of the worst aspects of the human condition we must reject lives based on trade. Capitalism stimulates, sublimates and harnesses these base qualities and hopes that they will be appeased by increasing wealth and gadgetry. Wiser cultures insulate them with strong localised interdependencies and a culture that civilizes the id by encouraging strong ego and super-ego development. Stimulating, enculturing and utilising these barbaric drives creates anomic tension and stores up trouble that explodes into wars and crime-waves. Economists do not understand this, They are simple-minded number-crunching barbarians who cannot think beyond utilitarian hedonism and rational choice philosophy.

As for your further disparaging comments about America, I don't know where you are from, but I'm sure if you look closely enough at your country, the same things could be said about it. America is not inherently evil, this doesn't mean it hasn't done bad things throughout its history, but it is considerabely better by record than many other countries.

If you study the work of Glutopia's wolrd-leading historians and social-scientists, you will discover that the USA's crime, homicide and imprisonment rates were intolerable throughout the 21st century, and its warlike stance together with its consmer gluttony almost precipitated the destruction of the earth

And how would the modernity of this technology be maintained? How would it be given to nations that do not have it?

Who cares? Much technological innovation produces useless junk; playthings for simple minds and undeveloped sensibilities. Glutopia's excellent scientists and technicians pursue small programmes of technological innovation only in important areas, such as health and communications. Developing nations require basic technology that can be produced locally. Technology is over-rated, and most Glutopians find the company of techno-fetishists to be excruciatingly tedious.

There is no guarantee that we will profit from others or seek to do so. You protest too much I doth think.

You contradict yourself, Ambassador. Not only is there a guarantee, but the effects of the human nature that you descibed yourself can be viewed plainly with a cursory glance at the book of history.

The future does not lie in the chaos of unstable 'free-trade' networks, but with mature, intelligent social democracies such as Sweden, Finland and, of course, Glutopia.

'Free-markets' are the ruse of new barbarians! Vote against the motion!

Ranulph Sage
President of Glutopia

Then we face a bleak and hostile future, even though a global trading elite will grow enormously wealthy and the rest of us infantilised souls will have more stupid gadgets to play with.

No, if done properly, we face a future of shared wealth, equality and greater opportunity.

It is impossible to 'balance' inherently unstable trade networks. The Ambassador of Compradia is speaking straight out of an introductory Chicago School economics textbook, demonstrating little evidence of critical thought or vision. Mature humans can accustom themselves to doing without most materials that are not available locally, engaging in trade only for the absolutely essential.

Let me just say I dislike being labelled as out of the Chicago School. I am not a militant libertarian like Friedman and his ilk. I am a social-democrat who believes in justice, equality, welfare, opportunity, fairness and a society that looks to the future with compassion. I am not parroting neo-liberal arguments. I am presenting reality and fact. A good social democrat would recognise that a system of balanced, equitable free-trade is essential to the economic and social well-being of the world. The RL trade systems failed because the developed nations did not do enough to treat the developing ones as equals and with respect with regards to trade. They just dumped neo-liberalism on them without any attempt to recognise that the process must always be two-way.


To ensure the minimisation of the worst aspects of the human condition we must reject lives based on trade. Capitalism stimulates, sublimates and harnesses these base qualities and hopes that they will be appeased by increasing wealth and gadgetry. Wiser cultures insulate them with strong localised interdependencies and a culture that civilizes the id by encouraging strong ego and super-ego development. Stimulating, enculturing and utilising these barbaric drives creates anomic tension and stores up trouble that explodes into wars and crime-waves. Economists do not understand this, They are simple-minded number-crunching barbarians who cannot think beyond utilitarian hedonism and rational choice philosophy.

I cannot think of how to spell this out more clearly for the honourable delegate from Glutopia. Life = trade. Culture = trade. History = trade. Progress = trade. Trade is everything. Without trade, the ancient civilisations would never have flourished. Trade is essential. Economists recognise that beyond arty-farty speculation about human dignity and civilisation of the id, that economic hard facts must bolster everything. There can be no progress without prosperity and no prosperity without progress.


If you study the work of Glutopia's wolrd-leading historians and social-scientists, you will discover that the USA's crime, homicide and imprisonment rates were intolerable throughout the 21st century, and its warlike stance together with its consmer gluttony almost precipitated the destruction of the earth

This is the case in almost any country. Aren't you going to criticise China? or India? or France? or Germany? or Britain? or Brazil?

I dislike your vitriolic anti-americanism. It is crude, baseless and demeaning to this forum. Please leave it elsewhere when you post.

Who cares? Much technological innovation produces useless junk; playthings for simple minds and undeveloped sensibilities. Glutopia's excellent scientists and technicians pursue small programmes of technological innovation only in important areas, such as health and communications. Developing nations require basic technology that can be produced locally. Technology is over-rated, and most Glutopians find the company of techno-fetishists to be excruciatingly tedious.

Useless junk? So the aeroplane, light-bulb, trains, railways, internet, radio, computer, MRI scanner, CAT scanner, Geiger counter, pocket watch, nuclear reactor, etc, are useless?

Basic technology is not correct. Technology is fundamental to progress. Why does any empire or nation fall? Because they fall behind their enemies in the technological battles.

A nice historical example: Celts used bronze in their weaponary. Romans used iron. Romans used shields, co-ordinated military tactics, seige towers, advanced supply techniques, etc. Celts just charged and hacked away vaingloriously.

Guess who won the war: Romans? or Celts?

You contradict yourself, Ambassador. Not only is there a guarantee, but the effects of the human nature that you descibed yourself can be viewed plainly with a cursory glance at the book of history.

The future does not lie in the chaos of unstable 'free-trade' networks, but with mature, intelligent social democracies such as Sweden, Finland and, of course, Glutopia.

'Free-markets' are the ruse of new barbarians! Vote against the motion!

Ranulph Sage
President of Glutopia

I do not contradict myself. I simply point out that you are too cynical and do not appear to perceive the economic and social benefits to providing education of this sort, as perceived by the more economically powerful nations.

Sweden and Finland are isolated examples. They are, incidentally, quite fond of free trade, since they are members of the EU. Equally, their much hyped social economies rest on a low population base, high taxation and high government spending. A good method, but only for some. Others might find it won't work for them. Trade, on the other hand, is 99/100 a force for good and a force for progress.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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

Sweden and Finland are isolated examples. They are, incidentally, quite fond of free trade, since they are members of the EU.

I fully agree with the estimeed ambassador of compadria once again, Sweden and Finland are pro free trade nations, they are in the European union and then in the common market. Finland currency is the € and Nokia and Erickson are respectively from Finland and Sweden. These 2 nations try to combine social progressive policies with economic freedom.



The resolution UN Small Business Education was passed 6,625 votes to 5,226

Congrats

The Small Business Education resolution only managed to garner the support of 42.58% of those who actually debated the resolution. The Dutch Democratic Republic sees this as a sign that this resolution appealed mostly to the fluffy ill-considered sentiments of the general assembly.

We will be looking forward to efforts to repeal her.

~Aram Koopman

I'm not sure this is a good idea. It may be the first step towards the
regulation and taxation of small business. In the long run this could be more
stifling than beneficial. If people need to know how to run a business they
usually go to a college or university, and obtain an MBA. Instead of starting a
new organization. Wouldn't it be more prudent to leverage an already existing
infrastructure? One possible solution is the UN could fund scholarships at
universities in member countries for people who want to open a small
business, I believe this combined with tax breaks would be more effective.

No, if done properly, we face a future of shared wealth, equality and greater opportunity.

Nonsense, Ambassador. We share a future of anxiety, communal breakdown, anomie, permament localised recessions, dumbed-down culture, crime-waves, hyper-incarceration and war.

Let me just say I dislike being labelled as out of the Chicago School. I am not a militant libertarian like Friedman and his ilk. I am a social-democrat who believes in justice, equality, welfare, opportunity, fairness and a society that looks to the future with compassion. I am not parroting neo-liberal arguments. I am presenting reality and fact. A good social democrat would recognise that a system of balanced, equitable free-trade is essential to the economic and social well-being of the world. The RL trade systems failed because the developed nations did not do enough to treat the developing ones as equals and with respect with regards to trade. They just dumped neo-liberalism on them without any attempt to recognise that the process must always be two-way.

Apart from the claim that you are presenting 'reality and fact', when you know that you are merely presenting a single perspective, we are in broad agreement with your remaining points. Where trade must be, let it be fair and equitable, although 'free' is problematic; some measure of protection is always necessary, as the allegedly 'free' trade nations of the 19th and 20th centuries knew fine well. But our Glutopian social scientists and philosophers are aware that the idea of 'business education' goes beyond that. It is the spearhead of a hegemonic project designed to capture the hearts and minds of developing nations; an imbalanced education that will ill-equip them for a critical approach to global economics and their own places in the system.

I cannot think of how to spell this out more clearly for the honourable delegate from Glutopia. Life = trade. Culture = trade. History = trade. Progress = trade. Trade is everything. Without trade, the ancient civilisations would never have flourished. Trade is essential. Economists recognise that beyond arty-farty speculation about human dignity and civilisation of the id, that economic hard facts must bolster everything. There can be no progress without prosperity and no prosperity without progress.

It is impossible to talk down to Glutopia's world-leading intellectuals, whose analyses inform the politics of our nation. Progress is a curve, which, like everything else, ascends through an era of immense gains and then sinks into a downward vortex of diminishing returns, where huge efforts produce small returns. We passed the apex of the curve in the 21st century, and now the macro-epoch of technological progress and prosperity approaches its inevitable vortex. Once in the vortex, prosperity and progress turn to barbarism. Your remark about the 'arty-fartyness' of the civilization of the Id typifies the 'business studies' education, which is now banned in Utopia unless it is studied in conjunction with broader subjects such as history, philosophy, politics or sociology. In fact, the civilization of human sensibilities the bedrock of all human civilization. Even old-school capitalists knew that it would have been impossible to establish the property-rights necessary for market development without the civilization of the population, as Norbert Elias demonstrated in his magisterial work 'The Civilizing Process'. If the form of progress in train at any time produces barbarism, then it poisons its own roots.

Celts just charged and hacked away vaingloriously.

Guess who won the war: Romans? or Celts?

The Romans got no further than Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland, therefore the Celts won. The Britons were defeated, of course. Rome fell when it started to export its manufacturing abroad, and began to rely solely on the profits from trade in its Empire. Its farms became derelict and it descended into decadence, as a depraved ruling class tried to amuse a bored and volatile underclass with bread and circuses and the cost of maintaining its trading Empire became too great. The USA fell in the 21st century because it failed to learn that salutory lesson, and the cost, in terms of finance for the military and unpopularity at home and abroad, made the securing of oil and other 'trading' resources impossible. I fear that the honourable Ambassador of Compradia is unaware of it, too.

Vote against the motion. Human beings don't need what will surely turn into uni-dimensional indoctrination. Developing nations need broad education and help in developing their local economic infrastructures.

Oh well, too late, it was passed.

Let it be known that this will not affect Glutopia's education programmes.

Congratulations to the honorable representative of Powerhungry Chipmunks on the passage of this worthwhile resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The USA fell in the 21st century because it failed to learn that salutory lesson,

I'm not american, i don't agree with everything the US gov is doing, and agree with you about US gov finance, US oil policy and US tendency to imperialism but i fail to see where US fell in the 21st, and were the US are in decadence?

US economy is strong, civil & political rights are very good, and unemployemnt is around 5%, decadence?

Ausserland obviously cannot see what is wrong with this resolution. Read all my comments. If anyone wants campaigners for the repeal, I will throw myself fully for the repeal, as I did against this left-wing, anti-progress resolution.

I'm not american, i don't agree with everything the US gov is doing, and agree with you about US gov finance, US oil policy and US tendency to imperialism but i fail to see where US fell in the 21st, and were the US are in decadence?

US economy is strong, civil & political rights are very good, and unemployemnt is around 5%, decadence?

Strong economy? No, a bubble economy based on rising house prices and massive consumer debt, with a massive trade deficit and investment dependent upon incoming foreign capital. The USA will find out soon that only making things produces real value. Too much employment is low-grade, low-paid and insecure.

The US ranks 43rd in world infant mortality ratings. Beijing babies have far greater chances of reaching their first birthdays those born in Washington. The survivers face rotten schools. Reading and maths tests for 15-year-olds placed the USA 24th out of 29 rich nations, and over 80 million of its population are functionally illiterate. Health problems engendered by clinical obesity are endemic.

Despite imprisoning almost 1 in 100 of its citizens (a rate 10 times higher than Europe) - that's over 2,250,000 in jail - the US murder rate is still double the European rate. In some run-down areas (Washington, Detroit etc), the murder rate is over 100 per 100,000, 5 times the European murder rate in the Later Middle Ages and 50 times the rate in any Western European city.

There are over 2 million practicing lawyers in the most litigious culture in the world, an indication that the population's capacity to resolve petty disputes in a civilized, informal manner is severely attenuated.

The divorce rate is twice that of Europe, and the US porn movie industry makes twice as much as the mainstream Hollywood industry. Families sit for on average 7 hours per day watching some of the most dumbed-down TV in the world (also some of the best, but that's a minority). The USA is crippling movie industries and other culural industries all over the world by dumping its crap cheaply on the global market after it has made money in the US domestic market.

An astonishing 88% of the population consider the creation myth to be on a par with Darwinian evolution, and about 40% believe exclusively in creationism.

Meanwhile, so far in 2005, 18 corporate executives went to prison for corporate accounting fraud and looting. Bush's Enron pals will also soon face trial for practicing their "greed-is-good" culture.

Civil Rights are abstract entities. In reality, black family incomes are on average 7 times lower than those of white families. Racism is still endemic, which fuels internal social hostilities.

Its decadent population is too distracted by bread and circuses to realise the fall that is coming. It will not be posssible for oil-dependent America to secure its oil resources past 2020 (read Michael Klare's 'Blood and Oil), and its 'wealthy' but extremely fragile economy will take a massive fall soon after that, resulting in heavy protectionism, which will enrage other global economies that have been persuaded to enter into free-trade arrangements with it. From that point here are a number of possibilities, most of which spell violence.

We Glutopians do not see that as a model for our world.

I find myself forced to agree with the Compadrian ambassador and his otters.

The nations of Holy Republic of Barvinia and the People's Republic of Glutopia are free to espouse their freedom-hating anti trade ideology and suffer the consequences, of course, but I see no need for them to be taken seriously in this body. Both their economies are in the crapper already, proving the merits of the trade argument.

The Holy Republic has a, shall we say, 'developing' world economy with so-so civil rights and hardly any political freedoms whereas the Peoples Republic - taking on the more extreme position - has a Basket Case economy and I cast doubts on the ability of their government to feed its people. To have them lecture this esteemed body on the proper course of economics is frankly laughable.

The sad part is that this resolution promotes the very economic policies that made Barvinia and Glutopia 'failed countries'.

~Aram Koopman


Ha ha! Firstly, I am for trade..... FAIR TRADE! Read my post again. Secondly, who are you to know what works and what doesn't? I'm sure we could all claim on knowing what's best for everyone else! Thirdly, are you aware that this is a game and is played by Max Berry's rules? If it were my game, I guarentee that the rules would be a lot different and I'd make sure that Authoritarian Democracies would have the best stats and Capitalists would have the worse. Ah, life is good and prosporous in my country. Don't let Max Berry's stats fool you! :p

Nonsense, Ambassador. We share a future of anxiety, communal breakdown, anomie, permament localised recessions, dumbed-down culture, crime-waves, hyper-incarceration and war.

As you claim, yet I feel that time shall vindicate me.

Apart from the claim that you are presenting 'reality and fact', when you know that you are merely presenting a single perspective, we are in broad agreement with your remaining points. Where trade must be, let it be fair and equitable, although 'free' is problematic; some measure of protection is always necessary, as the allegedly 'free' trade nations of the 19th and 20th centuries knew fine well. But our Glutopian social scientists and philosophers are aware that the idea of 'business education' goes beyond that. It is the spearhead of a hegemonic project designed to capture the hearts and minds of developing nations; an imbalanced education that will ill-equip them for a critical approach to global economics and their own places in the system.

The esteemed social scientists and philosophers are dismissed might I say by their equally esteemed counter-parts in Compadria. They are aware that the foundations of a state, including the state's attitudes to education, social policy, foreign policy and health policy, etc, are all determined by the economic strength of the nation and here economic prospects. They recognise that to fail to plan ahead and develop a system of interconnections with other nations risks leaving Compadria isolated and unable to participate in the global process of trade, whatever the commodity. The heart is all very well, but let us not belittle the cult of the mind. The eduaction laid out here is to complement that already offered in the arts and humanities, thus giving them the benefit of the contrast between the two philosophies and how they may be accomodated. I do not view this as a bad thing.

It is impossible to talk down to Glutopia's world-leading intellectuals, whose analyses inform the politics of our nation. Progress is a curve, which, like everything else, ascends through an era of immense gains and then sinks into a downward vortex of diminishing returns, where huge efforts produce small returns. We passed the apex of the curve in the 21st century, and now the macro-epoch of technological progress and prosperity approaches its inevitable vortex. Once in the vortex, prosperity and progress turn to barbarism. Your remark about the 'arty-fartyness' of the civilization of the Id typifies the 'business studies' education, which is now banned in Utopia unless it is studied in conjunction with broader subjects such as history, philosophy, politics or sociology. In fact, the civilization of human sensibilities the bedrock of all human civilization. Even old-school capitalists knew that it would have been impossible to establish the property-rights necessary for market development without the civilization of the population, as Norbert Elias demonstrated in his magisterial work 'The Civilizing Process'. If the form of progress in train at any time produces barbarism, then it poisons its own roots.

Prophecy is prophecy, but it is always subjective. I speak from the persepctive of one who sees the changes and challenges to come as best met with all the resources available. I do not think that the study of history or philosophy is worthless, rather that to diminish the value of economics and business management at their expense is foolish. The civilisation process requires that we engage in economic activity, because from the pursuit of happiness, comes our civilisation. For the pursuit of happinness, one requires a broad education and a comprehension of matters monetary, so that one may use this knowledge to understand the complexities of international opinion, as typified by trade.

The Romans got no further than Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland, therefore the Celts won. The Britons were defeated, of course. Rome fell when it started to export its manufacturing abroad, and began to rely solely on the profits from trade in its Empire. Its farms became derelict and it descended into decadence, as a depraved ruling class tried to amuse a bored and volatile underclass with bread and circuses and the cost of maintaining its trading Empire became too great. The USA fell in the 21st century because it failed to learn that salutory lesson, and the cost, in terms of finance for the military and unpopularity at home and abroad, made the securing of oil and other 'trading' resources impossible. I fear that the honourable Ambassador of Compradia is unaware of it, too.

I think you will find that the Romans advanced as far north as the Antonine line running down the gap between Fort William and Inverness. They abandoned this line because they felt it was not worth defending for so little gain. In addition, the peoples in Scotland were Picts, not Celts. The Roman Empire fell because they started to practise monetary policies that led to inflation and this, coupled with misrule and growing military pressures, as well as the corrupting influence of Christianity to the structure of the Roman State, led to their downfall. The USA has not fallen and will not fall. If they decline in influence, it shall not be purely for reasons economic, but because of the forces of international opinion and change. I am unaware of their fall, but then the delegate of Glutopia should be too, as I am unaware of the entity of the 'United States of America' exisiting in the NS universe.

I am glad the motion has passed, it shall lead to a more vibrant global economy and better standards of education in fiscal policy and conduct for our future leaders.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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

Ha ha! Firstly, I am for trade..... FAIR TRADE! Read my post again. Secondly, who are you to know what works and what doesn't? I'm sure we could all claim on knowing what's best for everyone else! Thirdly, are you aware that this is a game and is played by Max Berry's rules? If it were my game, I guarentee that the rules would be a lot different and I'd make sure that Authoritarian Democracies would have the best stats and Capitalists would have the worse. Ah, life is good and prosporous in my country. Don't let Max Berry's stats fool you! :p

If you wish to rape the essentially noble term 'Fair Trade' by calling protectionism and corporate welfare 'Fair Trade', be my guest. The policies you refer to are still failed economic policies, regardless of the sticker you put on them.

I represent a well-run, succesful country which manages a level of economic prosperty that your citizens can only dream of, whilst also making significant gains in economic equality (news article) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9992930&postcount=71). Your own governments incompetence and inability to manage even the basics of your pathetic excuse for a failed nation only highlights the failiure of your economic ideas. You may consider your economic failure a mere game, I'm sure that your citizenry disagrees. Not that they really have a voice, but still. Appealing to Barry is always a sign of the weak.

~Aram Koopman

Resolution passed..... excellent! Thanks to all that voted for this. Next proposal please. :)

If you wish to rape the essentially noble term 'Fair Trade' by calling protectionism and corporate welfare 'Fair Trade', be my guest. The policies you refer to are still failed economic policies, regardless of the sticker you put on them.

I represent a well-run, succesful country which manages a level of economic prosperty that your citizens can only dream of, whilst also making significant gains in economic equality (news article) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9992930&postcount=71). Your own governments incompetence and inability to manage even the basics of your pathetic excuse for a failed nation only highlights the failiure of your economic ideas. You may consider your economic failure a mere game, I'm sure that your citizenry disagrees. Not that they really have a voice, but still. Appealing to Barry is always a sign of the weak.

~Aram Koopman


Sure, whatever you say! I have to leave now and tend to the needs of my citezens and my glorious and ultimate empire. Good day! ;)

1.13 billion timidly conservative people and a private sector which is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk. All very glorious and ultimate indeed.

*Aram shrugs and walks away to the UN Bar*

Hello,

My nation is very new to this United Nations thing and we were wondering how you find out what exact laws were enacted due to a particular proposal passing, like this one, and how that affects your nation? We got a telegram saying that laws had been enacted in our nation to bring it into compliance but no indication of what those were.

We understand there are clauses in the proposal but don't see how they directly affected our nation. In our case it seems to have lessened our people's political freedoms and lowered their ability to spend money as they choose but we don't understand how.

We am looking forward to seeing what benefits the UN will have for our people.

Thank you for any light that you can shed on this issue,

The Grand Book Goddess of Teachonia

We in Balsack are dismayed at the passage of the UN Small Business Education proposal. It seemed, in the discussion in this forum and in the poll, that this proposal would not have passed.
We wonder if many member nations vote for resolutions based on a cursory glance at the text, without involving themselves in the discussions or even reading them.
Many excellent points were posted in the discussions, and it was our belief that the resolution would ultimately fail. Perhaps at some point we can take up a discussion regarding the role of the UN as regards internal nation states' policies.
We in Balsack will continue to resist ANY resolution which permits the UN to interfere with individual nations' internal policies, with the exception of human rights and environmental protection.

:headbang:

Hello,

My nation is very new to this United Nations thing and we were wondering how you find out what exact laws were enacted due to a particular proposal passing, like this one, and how that affects your nation? We got a telegram saying that laws had been enacted in our nation to bring it into compliance but no indication of what those were.

We understand there are clauses in the proposal but don't see how they directly affected our nation. In our case it seems to have lessened our people's political freedoms and lowered their ability to spend money as they choose but we don't understand how.

We am looking forward to seeing what benefits the UN will have for our people.

Thank you for any light that you can shed on this issue,

The Grand Book Goddess of Teachonia
Its all magically applied with Gnomes. Stop! dont try to understand. it will leave you in a confused and bewildered mental state. Nod, look Knowledgable and join the rest of us for a Game of rugby on the roof of the UN Strangers Bar. The Darwin awards will be presented after the game by those who survive.

Its all magically applied with Gnomes. Stop! dont try to understand. it will leave you in a confused and bewildered mental state. Nod, look Knowledgable and join the rest of us for a Game of rugby on the roof of the UN Strangers Bar. The Darwin awards will be presented after the game by those who survive.

O.K. I get it. On the roof, huh. I'm afraid of heights. Maybe I should time warp to the awards instead :cool:. Thanks.

O.K. I get it. On the roof, huh. I'm afraid of heights. Maybe I should time warp to the awards instead :cool:. Thanks.
You won't need to time warp, the game's already over.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

They are aware that the foundations of a state, including the state's attitudes to education, social policy, foreign policy and health policy, etc, are all determined by the economic strength of the nation and here economic prospects.

The civilisation process requires that we engage in economic activity, because from the pursuit of happiness, comes our civilisation.

And here the honourable delegate from Compradia reveals himself as the representative of a crude and one-dimensional philosophy of economic determinism. History reveals that an Aristotelean or Epicurian modicum of economic health is important - along with morality, culture, politics, social stability - as one of the bedrocks of civilization, but moves beyond that 'golden mean' invariably result in imperialism, geopolitical hostility, anomie, decadence and collapse.

I think you will find that the Romans advanced as far north as the Antonine line running down the gap between Fort William and Inverness. They abandoned this line because they felt it was not worth defending for so little gain. In addition, the peoples in Scotland were Picts, not Celts.

With all due respect, the honourable delegate, upon further study and reflection, will find that many tribes inhabited the Northern and Western extremities of the British Isles at that time, including Celts, Scots and Picts. The Antonine line was merely a position held briefly by an expeditionary force, and as such cannot really constitute a 'victory', which was the subject of our discussion. Constant insurgency by these fierce and independent tribes was a major factor in the Roman withdrawal South to Northumberland, as it was for the eventual collapse of the Empire. This was also the main factor in the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and will probably be for the American withdrawal from Iraq, although the USA's pressing oil needs combined with its incompetetent administration might unfortunately precipitate irrational behaviour. Your explanation of Roman withdrawal as utilititarian rational choice in a vacuum devoid of oppositional forces is another lamentable piece of economic determinism.

The Roman Empire fell because they started to practise monetary policies that led to inflation and this, coupled with misrule and growing military pressures, as well as the corrupting influence of Christianity to the structure of the Roman State, led to their downfall.

Yet more economic determinism. Again, with further study and reflection, the ambassador will find that the explanation offered by the world-leading historians of Glutopia - a nation with more Universities than factories - is much more plausible.

Although the esteemed Compradian ambassador's own intelligence can never be cast into doubt, a fact which is attested by his many thoughtful contributions to UN debates, it is my considered opinion that he has been badly served by his Compradian educators, who, although esteemed in their economic theories, fall short in other epistemological dimensions.

In fact, this conversation augurs badly for the spread of 'business education' throughout the world. It carries with it a narrow and one-dimensional weltenschaung, which, by its dismissal of all factors other than standard and rather simplistic platitiudes of the pseudo-science of economists, misleads those who are held in its tutelage. We have a joke in Glutopia: "has anyone heard the one about the economist who predicted 6 out of the last 2 recessions?"

Glutopia laments the passing of this resolution, but takes heart that one day the tunnel-visioned victims of 'business education' might flock to its world-leading Universities to find out how the world really works; even how it could work.

Ranulph Sage
President of Glutopia

1.13 billion timidly conservative people and a private sector which is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk. All very glorious and ultimate indeed.

*Aram shrugs and walks away to the UN Bar*

Precisely. The tedium of life in such a world sends shivers down my spine.

I think I'll join you, if you don't mind.

Mine's a large Laphroaig, what's yours?

Barter Knot
Glutopian Ambassador

I find myself forced to agree with the Compadrian ambassador and his otters.

The nations of Holy Republic of Barvinia and the People's Republic of Glutopia are free to espouse their freedom-hating anti trade ideology and suffer the consequences, of course, but I see no need for them to be taken seriously in this body. Both their economies are in the crapper already, proving the merits of the trade argument.

The Holy Republic has a, shall we say, 'developing' world economy with so-so civil rights and hardly any political freedoms whereas the Peoples Republic - taking on the more extreme position - has a Basket Case economy and I cast doubts on the ability of their government to feed its people. To have them lecture this esteemed body on the proper course of economics is frankly laughable.

The sad part is that this resolution promotes the very economic policies that made Barvinia and Glutopia 'failed countries'.

~Aram Koopman

I think you will find that, after passing some laws to allow a bit of enterprise as long as people shut up and don't boast about it or show off their wealth in the usual crass, tedious and primitive manner, the Glutopian economy is 'reasonable', even if measured by Mr. Barry's rather crude categories. Our citizens are fed and educated very well, and we are quite happy living without SUVs. Even though many of us could afford them, nobody in Glutopia would have the crass sensibilities required to drive around in such barbaric and intimidating monstrosities.

Your constant use of the language of a rabid barbarian in this assembly attests to the sort of mentality that a business-orientated culture produces. Let it be a warning to the civilized amongst us who wish to follow this path.

I withdraw my offer. Go and drink on your own, and stop wiping your nose on your sleeve.

Barter Knot
Glutopian Ambassador