NationStates Jolt Archive

Aware that many countries aren't able to offer enough support to their populations

Agreeing with the Idea of releaving International Trade Barriers.

Knowing that, for a SHORTterm Period, SOME Intern Problems may occure among nations.

Preconising the Good and Economical Health of the UN Nations.


We believe in releaving all Governmental Reglementations that may go/act against Freedom of Privacy, and Freedom Of Starting Private Businesses and that may Interfere in International Trading/and-or in that way forbidding the food/other merchandise supplying of UN Nations.

SIRVIAN PRIME MINISTER

P.S. Waiting for more suggestions!! Open Debate

Is this a proposal, if so it really should be in the U.N. Forum.

Or if you are intrested in joining the League of Nations, your proposal could very well take the stand.

Aware that many countries aren't able to offer enough support to their populations

Agreeing with the Idea of releaving International Trade Barriers.

Knowing that, for a SHORTterm Period, SOME Intern Problems may occure among nations.

Preconising the Good and Economical Health of the UN Nations.


We believe in releaving all Governmental Reglementations that may go/act against Freedom of Privacy, and Freedom Of Starting Private Businesses and that may Interfere in International Trading/and-or in that way forbidding the food/other merchandise supplying of UN Nations.

SIRVIAN PRIME MINISTER

P.S. Waiting for more suggestions!! Open Debate
not much to it... needs more guts. i cant exactly help you there

I'm not sure I entirely understand you argument. Can you rephrase it please?

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Are you talking about tariff removal i.e. a free trade agreement?

Aware that many countries aren't able to offer enough support to their populations

Agreeing with the Idea of releaving International Trade Barriers.

Knowing that, for a SHORTterm Period, SOME Intern Problems may occure among nations.

Preconising the Good and Economical Health of the UN Nations.


We believe in releaving all Governmental Reglementations that may go/act against Freedom of Privacy, and Freedom Of Starting Private Businesses and that may Interfere in International Trading/and-or in that way forbidding the food/other merchandise supplying of UN Nations.

SIRVIAN PRIME MINISTER

P.S. Waiting for more suggestions!! Open Debate

I'm not too sure I like the sound of the bits I've bolded in the above quote.

Sounds suspiciously like forcing capitalist principals onto socialist/communist nations like mine to me.

More clarification would be good.

What is a 'reglementation'?

Does the honourable delegate not realize the the removal of all trade barriers could result in virtually the complete collapse of agriculture and the manufacturing of basic goods in the developed world and large parts of the developing world?

Unregulated Free Trade is a short-sighted 'race to the bottom'.

Barter Knot
Ambassador of Glutopia

What is a 'reglementation'?

Does the honourable delegate not realize the the removal of all trade barriers could result in virtually the complete collapse of agriculture and the manufacturing of basic goods in the developed world and large parts of the developing world?

Unregulated Free Trade is a short-sighted 'race to the bottom'.

Barter Knot
Ambassador of Glutopia

We'd like to note our approval of Ambassador Knot's statement. Why should people be allowed to compete equally in a global market? Onwards with protectionism! Down with equality!

The Gruenberg ambassador's flippancy should not be allowed to undermine Ambassador Knot's valid points. While I have less sympathy for protectionist policies in 'developed' nations, I encourage them in 'developing' nations like my own.

I've always disliked the terms 'developed' and 'developing', particularly the former. I find it hard to believe any nations is properly 'developed', no matter what their leader(s) may claim.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The Gruenbergian Ambassador's assumption of the possibility of 'equal competition' in a global market comprised of nations with so many varied material resources is so absurd as to be unworthy of further comment.

This assumption reflects the flawed ontological reasoning at the root of free market philosophy. The commodity form is a reification, and it abstracts economy from its material circumstances. For instance, forcing developing nations into cash-cropping for the global market, to earn foreign currency to pay off loans for their industrial development, puts them in a very precarious position of one-way dependency. Better that they are helped to develop their domestic economy first, so they can enter trading arrangements from a position of greater strength. There are, of course, very good reasons, which the average schoolchild could work out, why the corrupt global trading elite do not want them to grow into positions of strength.

No doubt the standard claptrap about the development of the 'knowledge economy' in the west to replace agriculture and manufacturing will follow.

As Ambassador Yefremova suggests, a judicious degree of rational protectionism must be combined with free trade to compensate for the immutable differences between nations' material circumstances.

Barter Knot
Glutopian Ambassador

The Gruenbergian Ambassador's assumption of the possibility of 'equal competition' in a global market comprised of nations with so many varied material resources is so absurd as to be unworthy of further comment.

--three paragraphs of further comment--



The free-trade/unfree-trade argument is a long, complex and boring one. We simply believe that it is a right to exchange goods and services with people of the world, free from artificial barriers that limit that ability, not on the basis of merit or economic reasoning, but out of a desire to artificially bolster less efficient means of production. I do not, I should point to, seek to or even believe it is possible for me to convince you of that right.

It seems a little to bony to pick at. And until you can define it clearly, I'm 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
sure that I will definitely not support it.
Optischer

The free-trade/unfree-trade argument is a long, complex and boring one. We simply believe that it is a right to exchange goods and services with people of the world, free from artificial barriers that limit that ability, not on the basis of merit or economic reasoning, but out of a desire to artificially bolster less efficient means of production. I do not, I should point to, seek to or even believe it is possible for me to convince you of that right.

Your statement is disarmingly honest. It is our experience that, indeed, the free-marketer's vision is energised by 'simple belief'. The Glutopian vision, is, on the other hand, the product of complex empirical research and analysis.

In two sentences, you commit two grave philosophical errors. You conflate 'economic reasoning' with the concepts of 'merit' and 'efficiency' and you prioritize an abstract right over the complex reality in which that right is embedded.

I'll keep this simple so that you and the rest of the free-marketers can understand it. A world driven solely by the capitalist conception of 'economic efficiency' can unleash forces that are incredibly destructive to fragile social, cultural, political and ecological infrastructures, which are also very important to the maintenance of 'quality of life' expressed in broader terms than SUV ownership.

Tarrifs and other regulatory mechanisms are an important political tool. Once the right to restrict trade in a judicious manner is given up, and free-trade causes its inevitable destruction, a cursory glance at history shows us that protectionism will return in much more virulent forms in nations brought to their knees. Global free-marketers are like children playing with a very dangerous toy whose destructive effects they do not understand, or, in some cases, do not want to understand. Living in a world led by free-marketers is something like being a deck-hand on the Pequod. We are all smitten by the growing realisation that the mad Captain Ahab will lead us to destruction, we're just not sure exactly how and when.

Glutopia urges delegates not to dismantle all of the regulatory mechanisms, lest a much worse form of protectionism returns to haunt us.

Barter Knot
Glutopian Ambassador

Kirisubo is not one of those free marketeers. Our market is basically internal apart from the privately owned arms industry that has a small export market but most of their output equips the Kirisuban defence force and our police.

Our government feels that the free market is a case of supply and demand. If nations don't want our arms industry products we obviously won't be trading them.

on the other side of the coin with more people using public transport, petrol prices rising and tax incentives to change from normal combustion engines to bio diesel engines its plain to see that we'll be importing less cars in the future.

if the people don't want the goods (or can't afford them) then theres no market for foreign traders to exploit.

Your statement is disarmingly honest. It is our experience that, indeed, the free-marketer's vision is energised by 'simple belief'. The Glutopian vision, is, on the other hand, the product of complex empirical research and analysis.

That's nice. I wasn't arguing that my simple belief outweighs your expert knowledge; I was merely flagging up an inherent value that I hold; one which I admit is based on a value, rather than an observation.

In two sentences, you commit two grave philosophical errors. You conflate 'economic reasoning' with the concepts of 'merit' and 'efficiency' and you prioritize an abstract right over the complex reality in which that right is embedded.

Yes. Because I don't believe that the contextual complexity of a right should restrict us from upholding it. For example, we would both, I am sure, be forthright in our support for freedom of speech as a basic right. That, in reality, leads to many complications: people are mocked, and offended; slander and libel is committed; genocides are denied. These are all Bad Things. Yet we should not, I believe, restrict the right of someone to tell jokes, simply because doing so is awkward. Denying a basic right based on the complexity of its reality is no better than denying that right for any reason.

I'll keep this simple so that you and the rest of the free-marketers can understand it. A world driven solely by the capitalist conception of 'economic efficiency' can unleash forces that are incredibly destructive to fragile social, cultural, political and ecological infrastructures, which are also very important to the maintenance of 'quality of life' expressed in broader terms than SUV ownership.

This is just rhetoric, though: it's an interesting sentiment, with some ground in truth, but that doesn't necessarily matter. Any legislative action has the potential to release such forces: anti-free trade is just as likely have these effects.

OOC: Let's take the example of EU protectionist barriers in the nut trade, to protect its own growers against South American exports. There, the effects of tariff-based trade resulted in social upheaval, cultural fragmentation, political crisis, and ecological damage. I don't believe for a second that Bolivian nutpickers' quality of life was improved by nutpickers. Although I'd agree those of the nut-growers in rich nations, who you seem so scathing towards, did improve.

Tarrifs and other regulatory mechanisms are an important political tool. Once the right to restrict trade in a judicious manner is given up, and free-trade causes its inevitable destruction, a cursory glance at history shows us that protectionism will return in much more virulent forms in nations brought to their knees. Global free-marketers are like children playing with a very dangerous toy whose destructive effects they do not understand, or, in some cases, do not want to understand. Living in a world led by free-marketers is something like being a deck-hand on the Pequod. We are all smitten by the growing realisation that the mad Captain Ahab will lead us to destruction, we're just not sure exactly how and when.

Again, more wonderful, vivid imagery, and little real explanation of why free trade is so dangerous, so horrifying. Your willingness to generalise about the intellectual competence of those who support free trade begs the question as to how such short-sighted analysis can be transferred to the sage, wise, prudent economic theory you claim to uphold. I am more interested in discussing why you do not believe, for example, that mutual free trade is ultimately beneficial to exporters because it promotes specialisation, than whether I resemble literary characters. And, if I'm going to be a ship captain, I'd prefer Pugwash.

Glutopia urges delegates not to dismantle all of the regulatory mechanisms, lest a much worse form of protectionism returns to haunt us.

I should now add one caveat: at present, I do not believe we are able to remove all 'regulatory mechanisms'. There are too many nations hostile to the UN to restrict our ability to fight price-dumping from external sources; however, I do support the creation of a UN free trade zone internally.

----

Incidentally, I don't claim to speak for free trade supporters in general. These are my views alone, as legal aide to the Gruenberger Office of UN Affairs.

"Holding one of the principles of eternal justice to be inalienable right of every man freely to exchange the result of his labour for the productions of other people, and maintaining the practice of protecting one part of the community at the expense of all other classes to be unsound and unjustifiable, your petitioners earnestly implore your honourable House to repeal all laws relating to the importation of foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and to carry out to the fullest extent, both as affects agriculture and manufactures, the true and peaceful principles of Free Trade, by removing all existing obstacles to the unrestricted employment of industry and capital." - Richard Cobden

"Holding one of the principles of eternal justice to be inalienable right of every man freely to exchange the result of his labour for the productions of other people, and maintaining the practice of protecting one part of the community at the expense of all other classes to be unsound and unjustifiable, your petitioners earnestly implore your honourable House to repeal all laws relating to the importation of foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and to carry out to the fullest extent, both as affects agriculture and manufactures, the true and peaceful principles of Free Trade, by removing all existing obstacles to the unrestricted employment of industry and capital." - Richard Cobden

Oh yes, that semi-literate, half-educated scheming idiot Cobden. Cobden was interested in two things: altering conditions to allow traders such as himself to get rich and manifesting his admiration of America in Britain. He persuaded sophist windbags such as John Bright, whose lobbying activity was funded by the Shortweight Moneybags who ran a pressure group called the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, to put pressure on the British government to repeal the Corn Laws in 1846. This ruined British agriculture, drove down wages to pitiful levels, further emptied the countryside and forced landless labourers into Manchester and other filthy, disease-ridden industrial conurbations at the rate of over 40,000 per week to produce cheap goods for export. These were the worst living and working conditions the British labouring classes had ever experienced. It was the sickening sight of this misery that turned German industrialist Engels into a communist.

However, it boosted the profits of export/import businesses and propelled Great Britain into interdependent free trade agreements with other nations. The 'free and equal' competition between European industrialising nations precipitated the First World war, while the allegedly 'free trade' America continued to employ protectionist measures and heavy state intervention (funding for railways and other massive projects) to build up their domestic economy.

This is only a tiny part of the history of capitalism that free-market economists ignore.

Yet again you don't actually engage in any argument, instead perpetuating snobbish slander.

I do not care who or what Cobden was. Why is he wrong?

That's nice. I wasn't arguing that my simple belief outweighs your expert knowledge; I was merely flagging up an inherent value that I hold; one which I admit is based on a value, rather than an observation.

Yes, I'm sure you were. One of the eternal truths and verities, no doubt, that transcends mere reality in its immutable virtue.

Yes. Because I don't believe that the contextual complexity of a right should restrict us from upholding it. For example, we would both, I am sure, be forthright in our support for freedom of speech as a basic right. That, in reality, leads to many complications: people are mocked, and offended; slander and libel is committed; genocides are denied. These are all Bad Things. Yet we should not, I believe, restrict the right of someone to tell jokes, simply because doing so is awkward. Denying a basic right based on the complexity of its reality is no better than denying that right for any reason.

More Kantian intrinsicalism at the expense of consequentialism. Would you have supported the Nazis' right to portray Slavs, homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill and Jews as vile pariahs, the solution to which was industrial-scale slaughter?

This is just rhetoric, though: it's an interesting sentiment, with some ground in truth, but that doesn't necessarily matter. Any legislative action has the potential to release such forces: anti-free trade is just as likely have these effects.

When one points out a reality so stark as the destructive effects of unregulated free trade, and is subsequently accused of rhetoric, then the accuser betrays him or herself as an ignoramus on this specific matter. Tell me, then, in your interpretation, what was the influence of free markets on the Wall Street crash, the depression and the Second World War? Surely all of Keynes insights have not been in vain?

OOC: Let's take the example of EU protectionist barriers in the nut trade, to protect its own growers against South American exports. There, the effects of tariff-based trade resulted in social upheaval, cultural fragmentation, political crisis, and ecological damage. I don't believe for a second that Bolivian nutpickers' quality of life was improved by nutpickers. Although I'd agree those of the nut-growers in rich nations, who you seem so scathing towards, did improve.

Who, and what logic, persuaded them to de-diversify and cash-crop nuts for export in the first place? You are simply strengthening my case by using that example.

Again, more wonderful, vivid imagery, and little real explanation of why free trade is so dangerous, so horrifying. Your willingness to generalise about the intellectual competence of those who support free trade begs the question as to how such short-sighted analysis can be transferred to the sage, wise, prudent economic theory you claim to uphold. I am more interested in discussing why you do not believe, for example, that mutual free trade is ultimately beneficial to exporters because it promotes specialisation, than whether I resemble literary characters. And, if I'm going to be a ship captain, I'd prefer Pugwash.

I repeat my question above. Are you telling me that you are unaware of the role free trade played in those horrifying events, or unaware of how de-diversification and over-specialisation continues to create the dependency of poorer nations on global trade networks, loans and currency-earning?

I should now add one caveat: at present, I do not believe we are able to remove all 'regulatory mechanisms'.

Good. Then I hope that others will note your doubt and perhaps allow this to influence their thinking on the removal of the right to regulate trade in the interests of a nation's economic and social stability. The original motion did not solely concern an internal UN free market. It was about allowing free trade with others. Member states should retain the right not to if it threatens to hinder their current stage of the development of sectors of their domestic production and markets, or if it will encourage homogeneity of production (especially in agriculture) that will in turn create dependency on relationships with richer trading nations and the global finiancial organisations which invariably prioritise the interests of these rich nations.

Yet again you don't actually engage in any argument, instead perpetuating snobbish slander.

I do not care who or what Cobden was. Why is he wrong?

Perhaps the honourable delegate would like to revisit my post and try reading from the sentence begining 'This ruined ....', this time focusing the mind perhaps just a little more.

I will respond no more to the honourable delegate's interrogative and agenda-setting manner of questioning. I suspect lawyers at work here. Next time, ask an intelligent question about an aspect of my argument, or leave the floor to someone more capable.

Yes, I'm sure you were. One of the eternal truths and verities, no doubt, that transcends mere reality in its immutable virtue.

(If that's a joke, then it's gone a way over my head.)

I'm not sure you understand. All I am doing is flagging up my bias, so you are aware of it, and don't become frustrated by my unwavering position. I have gone through this debate before, and I have not been swayed. That doesn't mean I'm right; it means I think I'm right. I just don't want you to have unduly high expectations of being able to shake my value system.

More Kantian intrinsicalism at the expense of consequentialism. Would you have supported the Nazis' right to portray Slavs, homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill and Jews as vile pariahs, the solution to which was industrial-scale slaughter?

Yes, I would acknowledge that they have a right to say that assorted social groups are vile pariahs. I even think they have a right to say they should be slaughtered. I do not for one second believe they have a right to actually effect the solution. They are two distinct issues.

When one points out a reality so stark as the destructive effects of unregulated free trade, and is subsequently accused of rhetoric, then the accuser betrays him or herself as an ignoramus on this specific matter. Tell me, then, in your interpretation, what was the influence of free markets on the Wall Street crash, the depression and the Second World War? Surely all of Keynes insights have not been in vain?

Firstly, I dislike dealing in OOC examples, as I'm wary of their relevance to NSUN legislation.

But, I would suggest that anticipation of the US jacking its tariff laws drove the speculation that led to the Wall Street crash. Thus, I see the regulation of trade, not the absence of such, as one of the key causes of the depression, creating an economic climate in which extremist politics could more readily come to the fore. I am not well read enough in Keynes to possibly hope to accurately refute all of his assumptions, so I won't try to.

Who, and what logic, persuaded them to de-diversify and cash-crop nuts for export in the first place? You are simply strengthening my case by using that example.

So by using an example where tariffs suppress the ability of an entire continent to trade in one of their major crops, losing out to those who must grow them hydroponically because they are non-native, I'm showing that tariffs are good? You'll have to explain. Sorry, I don't understand

I repeat my question above. Are you telling me that you are unaware of the role free trade played in those horrifying events, or unaware of how de-diversification and over-specialisation continues to create the dependency of poorer nations on global trade networks, loans and currency-earning?

Specialisation is good. The only reason that dependence sometimes arises is that this specialisation is not occurring within the framework of fully free, reciprocal trade, which I admit is a necessary precondition. Nuts grow well in the Amazon; they don't grow well in Sweden. So grow them in the Amazon, and concentrate Swedish agricultural resources on those crops that are best suited to that environment. And then engage in free trade. Over-diversification leads to a stretching of resources beyond their useful capacity. By encouraging global specialisation, we increase, as a whole, our capacity for production. But we can only do so if we consider trade within the framework of international cooperation, and not bound to nationalistic interests alone.

Good. Then I hope that others will note your doubt and perhaps allow this to influence their thinking on the removal of the right to regulate trade in the interests of a nation's economic and social stability. The original motion did not solely concern an internal UN free market. It was about allowing free trade with others. Member states should retain the right not to if it threatens to hinder their current stage of the development of sectors of their domestic production and markets, or if it will encourage homogeneity of production (especially in agriculture) that will in turn create dependency on relationships with richer trading nations and the global finiancial organisations which invariably prioritise the interests of these rich nations.

Given UN proposals can only concern UN nations, and given the phrase 'of UN Nations' in the proposal text, we believe this is a discussion of an internal UN market. Attempted discussions of trade with external nations is futile, as there is no guarantee of multilateral negotiation of tariff reduction, which they are free to engage in anyway.

Perhaps the honourable delegate would like to revisit my post and try reading from the sentence begining 'This ruined ....', this time focusing the mind perhaps just a little more.

I will respond no more to the honourable delegates interrogative and agenda-setting manner of questioning. I suspect lawyers at work here. Next time, ask an intelligent question about an aspect of my argument, or leave the floor to someone more capable.

I don't know what that means, I'm afraid, and I'm certainly not a lawyer. Unfortunately, you are going to have to consign yourself to the fact that you are dealing with your intellectual inferior. Nonetheless, I believe any debater worth his salt should be able to stoop down, and engage with his lessers. If, though, you feel my presence in the thread is making you uncomfortable, and that you are no longer able to debate with me, then I will gladly leave.

The sentence you point to is one interpretation of the result of Corn law repeal. You omit to mention that there were, in this period, other affects on Britain, such as expansion of the largest empire in the world, continuation of industrial revolution, and extension of the suffrage. I think, by and large, the ACLL were twats. I support their fundamental precepts, however, and I wonder whether you able to refute the claim that, in his words, "Holding one of the principles of eternal justice to be inalienable right of every man freely to exchange the result of his labour for the productions of other people, and maintaining the practice of protecting one part of the community at the expense of all other classes to be unsound and unjustifiable", anti-free trade is unjust on a fundamental level.

I'm not sure you understand. All I am doing is flagging up my bias, so you are aware of it, and don't become frustrated by my unwavering position. I have gone through this debate before, and I have not been swayed. That doesn't mean I'm right; it means I think I'm right. I just don't want you to have unduly high expectations of being able to shake my value system.

The honourable delegate misunderstands the purpose of public debate. It is onlookers, not protagomists, who can be swayed.

But, I would suggest that anticipation of the US jacking its tariff laws drove the speculation that led to the Wall Street crash. Thus, I see the regulation of trade, not the absence of such, as one of the key causes of the depression, creating an economic climate in which extremist politics could more readily come to the fore.

On this you are simply wrong. Germany closed its borders to trade AFTER its economy was decimated in the 1920s, after the treaty of Versailles imposed crippling reparations. It could only recover from a weak position by applying a complex set of tarrifs and barriers and re-developing its internal economy. Too much faith in a free-trade economy that had expanded since the mid-19th century encouraged speculation and created an economic bubble. Over-valued companies crashed, creating the sort of virulent protectionism that requires extremist nationalist politics to organise it. It is something that neither you nor I want. Better we allow more judicious and flexible forms of regulation to prevent the emergence of more virulent forms. I have already explained this.

So by using an example where tariffs suppress the ability of an entire continent to trade in one of their major crops, losing out to those who must grow them hydroponically because they are non-native, I'm showing that tariffs are good? You'll have to explain. Sorry, I don't understand ...... Specialisation is good. The only reason that dependence sometimes arises is that this specialisation is not occurring within the framework of fully free, reciprocal trade, which I admit is a necessary precondition. Nuts grow well in the Amazon; they don't grow well in Sweden. So grow them in the Amazon, and concentrate Swedish agricultural resources on those crops that are best suited to that environment. And then engage in free trade. Over-diversification leads to a stretching of resources beyond their useful capacity. By encouraging global specialisation, we increase, as a whole, our capacity for production. But we can only do so if we consider trade within the framework of international cooperation, and not bound to nationalistic interests alone.

This is just simple-minded ideology in support of free-trade. Of course some climates are more suited to certain crops, but a balance between a (variable) degree of diversity that makes the nation less dependent on others and a (variable) level of trade that can earn money and import other goods is the way forward, especially for developing nations. Your formulations do not take into account the different degrees of power and wealth amongst nations. Glutopia is not attempting to destroy free-trade, merely to maintain regulatory mechanisms that can be used judiciously to aid nations in trouble and prevent the system going into freefall.

Given UN proposals can only concern UN nations, and given the phrase 'of UN Nations' in the proposal text, we believe this is a discussion of an internal UN market. Attempted discussions of trade with external nations is futile, as there is no guarantee of multilateral negotiation of tariff reduction, which they are free to engage in anyway.

I think you'll find that the original proposal also refers to trade with others. It is even more important to retain the potential of unilateral regulatory mechanisms when trading with nations outside of UN jurisdiction.

I wonder whether you able to refute the claim that, in his words, "Holding one of the principles of eternal justice to be inalienable right of every man freely to exchange the result of his labour for the productions of other people, and maintaining the practice of protecting one part of the community at the expense of all other classes to be unsound and unjustifiable", anti-free trade is unjust on a fundamental level.

'Eternal justice' indeed. These are the thoughts of a simpleton. It would make some sense in a localised medieval guild community consisting of autonomous artisans. The fact is that traders trade with fruits of other people's labour, not of their own. It is to the advantage of manufacturers and traders to lower the costs of labour to increase profits at the same time as lowering proces to encopurage more consumption. This cleaves a huge chasm between the interests of traders and producers, whereas Cobden saw these as mutual in some strange, artifical composite of producer/exchanger.

Pretty soon, the USA will feel the social effects of the abandonment of large swathes of primary production. They already have 1 in a 100 in prison, and that will increase.

Nations would be foolish not to attempt to strike a balance between the stabilising effects of production and the wealth-creating effects of trade, thus Glutopia urges delegates to vote against the abandonment of regulatory mechanisms.

Ok, we need to resolve this. The original proposal refers to '...of UN nations'. I interpreted that to refer to amongst, rather than involving, UN nations. If you're suggesting that we abolish tariffs within the UN, but allow them for external relations, then we're actually agreeing. Is that what you're saying? Being a simpleton, I can't understand some of your long words.

Oh yes, that semi-literate, half-educated scheming idiot Cobden. *further Bullshit*

If that were true, how come Britain is now the forth largest economy in the world? Or do you only care about the short term? And do you ignore the fact that the fact that the free trade agreements between Britain and France prevented war between those two countries? Or the fact that since the founding of the EU no-two member nations have gone to war? Or that several former communist nations have seen massive improvements to their economies since joining the EU?

Or that several former communist nations have seen massive improvements to their economies since joining the EU?
OOC: Actually, this point is rather contentious. Many of the old Soviet Bloc are trumpeted as economic success stories when the reality is rather more complicated. Besides, free trade and Soviet 'communism' are not direct opposites, so I don't feel the comparison is entirely valid. Finally, how much of economic policy in this century might be described as 'Cobdenian'?

Just some thoughts. I don't want to turn this into a General debate, merely to highlight that there are complexities that I feel you left unsaid.

You mean Cobdenistic. I highlighted the EU as that probably the nearest example of Cobden's Free Trade Principles in action, namely that of Free Trade leading to peace and prosperity (which is built on Kant's Perpetual Peace). If you consider that before the EEC was founded, France and Germany had been to war numerous times in the last 100 before 1945. As for the East, there have been problems, however classical and neo liberalism are, generally, more long term in their outlook whereas socialism and protectionism are short term. I freely admit that there would be massive problems in the short term if you were to introduce free trade in the world right now, but in 100 years or so it would lead to the world being on equal footing; something that protectionism, by definition, wont acheive.

Aware that many countries aren't able to offer enough support to their populations

Agreeing with the Idea of releaving International Trade Barriers.

Knowing that, for a SHORTterm Period, SOME Intern Problems may occure among nations.

Preconising the Good and Economical Health of the UN Nations.


We believe in releaving all Governmental Reglementations that may go/act against Freedom of Privacy, and Freedom Of Starting Private Businesses and that may Interfere in International Trading/and-or in that way forbidding the food/other merchandise supplying of UN Nations.

SIRVIAN PRIME MINISTER

P.S. Waiting for more suggestions!! Open Debate

The free-trade argument is one of the most contentious in economics, after all, does one recognise the importance of the consumer with free-trade or with the producer? Does one encourage one extreme, full-free trade, or does one support full-protectionism?

It has been the policy of the government of Compadria to not take a fixed ideological position on this issue, yet to seek a pragmatic evaluation of the potential benefits of any free trade proposal and whether it can be made compatible with the prevailing social beliefs and economic well-being of Compadria and other nations.

Firstly, the good or service in question must be proven to substantially benefit from an introduction of free-trade. It must be proven that the agreement does not take place in an area of restricted markets, i.e. if any part of the agreement forces public utilities to take part, then it will be ignored. Health Care, Power Provision, Mining, Most Transport, Social Security, Steel, Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Logging and Shipping-Freight, would be considered exempt by the government and any proposal to deregulate them opposed. If on the other hand it can be shown that consumers and producers can benefit (i.e. The Auto Free Trade Agreement, The Food Act, etc) then Compadria is quite happy to support.

The second article of faith, if you will, is that the agreement must respect to the greatest degree possible the environmental and social laws of Compadria, that is to say it does not bypass local regulation of quality insurance and permit the dumping of poor quality goods, or if possible, avoid dumping. This is a lesser factor however, in our decision making.

Thirdly, the agreement must respect our labour laws and not force a change in them in any way, unless it can be proven that the change will be in the main beneficial.

Fourthly, the act must include an Anti-Trust mechanism, to discourage preadatory cartels from forming and destroying the competition and diversification that should result from free-trade.

Finally, the parties to the agreement must recognise that they should permit investment from others (unless this contravenes their conscience, i.e. trade with a facist regime) as much as they themselves invest. There can be no double standards on this matter.

Overall, free-trade, if done correctly, can be an enormous boon to consumers and producers, by offering more competition to drive up standards, ensure that economies remain vital and diverse; ensure fairness in the global markets and fairness for consumers and workers.

This does not meet our criteria, as some regulation should be perceived as necessary and we do not think such a poorly written effort adressess our concerns in this regard.

For these reasons, we oppose this resolution, whilst in the main remaining supportive of free-trade.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: In RL, I've just broken my left wrist, so typing is labourious for me. Some of my replies will therefore be rather slow.

If that were true, how come Britain is now the forth largest economy in the world ... *more stupid bullshit*

Oh no, not more primary-school free-market economics!

If you think that the EU is simply a free-trade agreement then you need to to re-educate yourself. The 'free-trade' agreement between Britain and France was always based on carefully negotiated quotas. Have you ever heard of the Common Agricultural Policy that protects French agriculture? Where do you people learn this nonsense? Have you looked at the murder and serious crime rates in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia compared to the stable social democracies such as Finland and Sweden just across the Baltic? Is 'economic growth' the only thing that your tiny minds and your undeveloped sensibilities can appreciate?

The EU member states resisted the last attempt at a constitution because it was a 'businessman's charter' that neglected the important issues of retention and manufacturing/agriculture and social stability. The brutal logic of global free markets can rip the heart of working communities. GM have recently made 30,000 redundant in the USA. Have you ever travelled the Ameruican 'rustbelt' or visited the collapsed manufacturing areas of Nothern England? More ghost-towns, more unemployment, more crime.

We must retain the tools of market regulation. Glutopia urges delegates to vote against this ill-considered and badly formulated motion.

Just some thoughts. I don't want to turn this into a General debate, merely to highlight that there are complexities that I feel you left unsaid.

Free-traders leave most of the complexities unsaid, usually because they don't understand them. This simplistic notion that 'free-trade always brings peace to the world' needs to be ditched in favour of the more sophisticated formulation that some free trade in selected commodities negotiated rationally between selected nations can help to maintain peace under certain conditions.

I tire of arguing with free-trade zealots. One might as well try to talk sense to Jehovah's Witnesses. The position outlined by Compadria above seems cognizant of the sort of complexity and balance I was talking about. I hope that it helps to persuade delegates that the resolution as it stands cannot be supported.

Firstly, the good or service in question must be proven to substantially benefit from an introduction of free-trade. It must be proven that the agreement does not take place in an area of restricted markets, i.e. if any part of the agreement forces public utilities to take part, then it will be ignored. Health Care, Power Provision, Mining, Most Transport, Social Security, Steel, Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Logging and Shipping-Freight, would be considered exempt by the government and any proposal to deregulate them opposed. If on the other hand it can be shown that consumers and producers can benefit (i.e. The Auto Free Trade Agreement, The Food Act, etc) then Compadria is quite happy to support.

(emphasis mine)

Your endorsement of the Auto Free Trade Agreement is greatly appreciated in the framework of this discussion. Thank you, Ambassador Otterby.

Lest I incur the wrath of Glutopia, I will bow out, but will leave with at least one parting shot, because the ambassador has made reference to the RL example of General Motors, which is near and dear to my heart.

GM is undergoing a long-overdue rationalization of its business structure, which appears especially severe due to the fact that it never had to come to this. Protectionism in the domestic auto industry nurtured companies such as GM under a figurative blanket under which their competitiveness and innovation languished. We are seeing the harsh realities of this policy today. While it saddens me to see the human cost of this realignment currently underway in the North American auto industry, I subscribe to the old adage of "better to hurt a little now than a lot later". Simplistic? Absolutely. Accurate? History will be the judge.

(President Perry steps away from the podium, deftly dodging the verbal onslaughts of the Glutopian ambassador while quickly ducking into a waiting cab.)

Steve Perry
President

Unemployment rates (2000):

Free market economies:
USA: 4.2%
UK: 5.3%
Japan: 4.6%

Regulatory economies:
Finland: 9.8%
Italy: 11%
France: 9.5%
Belgium: 8%

Protectionism in the domestic auto industry nurtured companies such as GM under a figurative blanket under which their competitiveness and innovation languished. We are seeing the harsh realities of this policy today. While it saddens me to see the human cost of this realignment currently underway in the North American auto industry, I subscribe to the old adage of "better to hurt a little now than a lot later". Simplistic? Absolutely. Accurate? History will be the judge.

(President Perry steps away from the podium, deftly dodging the verbal onslaughts of the Glutopian ambassador while quickly ducking into a waiting cab.)

There was no need for President Perry to sneak away, because Barter Knot had already become bored with conversation. He could have argued that the cars that out-competed GM were from Japan, which of course fiercely protected its car industries.

History will indeed be the judge.

Unemployment rates (2000):

Free market economies:
USA: 4.2%
UK: 5.3%
Japan: 4.6%

Regulatory economies:
Finland: 9.8%
Italy: 11%
France: 9.5%
Belgium: 8%

Very interesting *yawn*.

Japan is not a 'free-market' economy. In fact it has adopted some neo-liberal policies only recently, when its unemployment rate started to rise alonmg with its homelessness, suicide, murder amd crime rates.

Your realize that most of the new 'jobs' in Britain and the UK are low-paid, part-time, insecure and untenured service jobs, don't you? McJobs, I believe they are called.

Now look at murder, crime, imprisonment, mental health, literacy rates for te USA compared to Western Europe.

Now I'm off to the Stranger's Bar

There was no need for President Perry to sneak away, because Barter Knot had already become bored with conversation. He could have argued that the cars that out-competed GM were from Japan, which of course fiercely protected its car industries.

History will indeed be the judge.

(Yelling from the window of the cab)

Pah, don't lecture me on the Japanese car industry, which likes the best of both worlds; free trade abroad, and insurmountable tariff barriers at home.

Steve Perry
President

Unemployment rates (2000):

Free market economies:
USA: 4.2%
UK: 5.3%
Japan: 4.6%

Regulatory economies:
Finland: 9.8%
Italy: 11%
France: 9.5%
Belgium: 8%
i wouldnt exactly dub USA as a free marked economy. on the outside the pose to be one, but through subsidies (farmers as an example) and constraints (the automotive union on that industry) they seem anything but.

Well, it is free market reletive to the examples I used for regulated. Britain and Japan also, really.

*runs away*

OOC: Can't remember where I read it, but there's an argument that unemployment in 'anglo-saxon' countries is far higher than widely believed due to a difference in how the figures are assessed.

OoC: The source used the same method in all countries. The Govt stats for the UK were lower.

OoC: The source used the same method in all countries. The Govt stats for the UK were lower.

The 'method' being compiling government stats without a critical evaluation of how any of them are constructed.

The fact is that Britain and the USA do not count the 'long-term unemployed' as actually unemployed: they count them as unemployable and omit them from the stats, artificially lowering the unemployment rate. The others don't. (see Hutton, 2002)

That's your little cross-national comparative study down the drain, unfortunately.

The same for 'social mobility' stats. You'll actually find that it's higher in Western European social democracies with regulated markets than it is in free (but sometimes not free) market Britain and the USA (see Blanden et al, 2005).

The Yanks and the Brits lie all the time. That's the top and bottom of it.

I'd have to agree with Glutopia on some of these points, (except the lie all the time one) particularly about social mobility and income inequality. On the other hand though, it's important that we remember that many social-democracies suffer from problems unique to themselves, i.e. lack of innovation, higher overall un-employment (if one counts their long term un-employed). As a whole though, I think the problems of largely un-regulated economies can be judged, as Glutopia has in many ways shown, as more severe than those of regulated ones.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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