NationStates Jolt Archive

Advancement of Industry
A resolution to develop industry around the world
Areas of effect:
* Environmental Deregulation
* Labor Deregulation
* Protective Tariffs
* Tort Reform

Education and Creativity
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts
Areas of effect:
* Artistic
* Educational
* Cultural Heritage
* Free Press


Thoughts? Comments? Wild, unfounded speculations?

Wild, unfounded speculations?

http://upsidedownhippo.com/archives/Chupacabra_Illustration.jpg

I like the advancement of industry - about time IMO

The education one......bah. I'm guessing it's just an issue of making sure that education being supported doesn't necessarily drop the economy (as opposed to other Social Justice programs). Still not thrilled about it.

That'll teach me to take a nap when Salusa is adding features. Somebody else beat us to it.

Yep, we finally got around to adding some new UN categories. No longer do you have to resign yourselves to repealing the same old mish-mash. Now you can create brand new categories of crappy proposals to cry about and vote down!

Here are the first two that we've implemented (yes, there are potentially more in the works). Note that these are more multi-purpose than most previous proposal categories. If you like this idea, we may have a few more surprises to add to the mix.

Advancement of Industry
A resolution to develop industry around the world.

This is a wide-ranging pro-business Category that more accurately reflects the power of corporations in Jennifer Government. Don't know why Max didn't give us more like this when he created the game. Guess he's an old softy.

Area of Effect
First choice is Environmental Deregulation. Rather than devoting the whole proposal category to reverse the effects of "Environment', we've chosen a middle ground of 'all business'.

Second, Labor Deregulation. This one is going to benefit corporations at the expense of the worker. Surprise!

Third, Protective Tariffs. This opposes international 'Free Trade' by adding protectionism for national industry.

Fourth, Tort Reform. Removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business. Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?


Education and Creativity
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Area of Effect
Artistic is just what you'd expect - government funding for the Arts. No more trying to sneak it in under human rights.

Educational - finally something for all you "Free Education" lovers. Of course, nothing is truly free, as you'll quickly discover.

Cultural Heritage is another of those lovely amorphous categories that lets you do those wonderful meaningless things the RL UN loves so much. For a small fee, of course.

Free Press allows the ultimate expression of your new-found educational and creative rights. Be careful what you wish for, though ...

Frisbeeteria, it might make sense for you to edit your bit into my first post.

Oh - one more thing

"Tort reform"

Since the explaination of the category goes under the category, not the sub-category, a lot of people aren't exactly going to understand it. Certainly, I needed an explaination on UNOG to understand what it was.

OK. I might as well get this out in the open. Can someone carefully explain to me how 30,000 nations imposing "protective tariffs" can somehow "develop industry around the world"??? We might as well force every family to grow their own potatoes to "develop agriculture"...

OK. I might as well get this out in the open. Can someone carefully explain to me how 30,000 nations imposing "protective tariffs" can somehow "develop industry around the world"?Same reason people think that raising taxes is a good thing?

Same reason people think that raising taxes is a good thing?

I am not arguing against the ideological position of protectionism. I respect it, even though I disagree in most situations. What I am worried is with its inclusion in a category which aims to do the direct opposite to one of the nasty side-effects of protectionism. Protectionism may be helpful for particularly inefficient industries in some nations, but its aggregate effect is unmistankenly stiffling world industry, not developing it.

To use your parallel: barring RiT, there is nothing wrong with some nations defending high taxes throughout the UN. It would be fine in the Social Justice category. However, placing "Raising Taxes" as a sub-category of something described as "Stimulating economic growth throughout the word" would be misleading, as it is clearly a measure which sacrifices growth, usually in the name of higher equality.

Uh... Tort reform "Removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation"? The tort reform attempts that I've seen actually try to do just the opposite: imposing damage award limits, enabling sanctions against frivolous lawsuits, etc. I think this description needs to be changed to "Puts limits on...."

You forgot the wikilink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform)! ;)

You forgot the wikilink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform)! ;)

Heh. Didn't know there was one. Pretty good article, though. ;)

Protectionism may be helpful for particularly inefficient industries in some nations, but its aggregate effect is unmistankenly stiffling world industry, not developing it.Yes, but NS uses a much simpler economic model, remember.

Yes, but NS uses a much simpler economic model, remember.

So, let me get this straight. We now have a Free Trade category, which gives a boost to industry, and a Protective Tariffs sub-category, which gives a boost to industry. Right?

Same reason people think that raising taxes is a good thing?
Well it is! The current deligate of Niftyonia is a fine example of that! He got to be an ecomomic powerhouse the exceptionally cheesy way. By exploiting the fact that you can be at 100% taxation and spend more money. (There appears to be a lack of deficit spending code in NationStates.)

On the other hand I've worked hard to give my people economic power and modest taxes. And what do I get for it? Pelican on a stick.

So, let me get this straight. We now have a Free Trade category, which gives a boost to industry, and a Protective Tariffs sub-category, which gives a boost to industry. Right?Not quite. The effects are rather different, actually.

Look at the US Sugar industry. There's insane tarrifs in America to "protect" the sugar industry. That's all well and good for the sugar industry, but rather less good for, well, everyone else. Free Trade benefits everyone; Tarrifs benefit businesses.

* Protective Tariffs

If delegate uses this one, they had better realise they will end up having a biplane inserted where only customs men dare to probe.

Not quite. The effects are rather different, actually.

Look at the US Sugar industry. There's insane tarrifs in America to "protect" the sugar industry. That's all well and good for the sugar industry, but rather less good for, well, everyone else. Free Trade benefits everyone; Tarrifs benefit businesses.

Right. Except that the benefits to business are not "the benefits for US companies of the US imposing tariffs." You want to measure "the benefits for US companies of the US (plus 30,000 markets where the US exports to) imposing tariffs." You claim those are benefits; I claim those are losses.

I do not wish to wear down the ping-pong bat, but you do realise that you are arguing that two opposite policies, imposing more tarifs in all UN nations and imposing less tariffs in all UN nations, are both beneficial to industry, right?

but you do realise that you are arguing that two opposite policies, imposing more tarifs in all UN nations and imposing less tariffs in all UN nations, are both beneficial to industry, right?No, I'm not. One benefits industry, the other benefits people.

No, I'm not. One benefits industry, the other benefits people.

I assume you mean free trade is bad for industry. Totally false statement, but whatever.

I assume you mean free trade is bad for industry. Totally false statement, but whatever.Way to jump to my personal beliefs based on game mechanics.

Nevermind the fact that I didn't say that in the slightest, hey?

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/hug3fw.jpg

Anyway, I think the disagreement is based on the category effects in game, not on economic theory. I have always assumed the 'Free Trade' category increased personal economic freedoms; so a Free Trade proposal often turns a Civil Rights Lovefest into an Anarchy. I'm going to assume this new Industry category will increase the strength of the economy, but not have any effect on economic freedoms; so a Civil Rights Lovefest might remain at 'medium' economic freedoms, but its economy strength classification rise.

Way to jump to my personal beliefs based on game mechanics.

Nevermind the fact that I didn't say that in the slightest, hey?

I am not trying to discuss your personal beliefs, apologies if it sounded that way. I am commenting on the fact that Protective Tariffs are considered to "develop industry around the world," against well established economic theory (which I will make no attempt to describe here). I will try to clarify my point based on game mechanics alone.

"Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms. (...) Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy.

Game mechanics states that "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms. "Protective Tariffs" are the opposite of "Free Trade." Hence, the only logical impact of "Protective Tariffs" should be reducing Economic freedoms. Will this be the case? If so, how can reducing Economic freedoms be described as developing industry around the world? Isn't it true that, in game mechanics, industry grows faster when Economic freedoms are high?

Game mechanics states that "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms. "Protective Tariffs" are the opposite of "Free Trade." Hence, the only logical impact of "Protective Tariffs" should be reducing Economic freedoms. Will this be the case? If so, how can reducing Economic freedoms be described as developing industry around the world? Isn't it true that, in game mechanics, industry grows faster when Economic freedoms are high?
There are Frightening economies with low or medium economic freedoms; there are crappy economies with medium or even high economic freedoms.

There are Frightening economies with low or medium economic freedoms; there are crappy economies with medium or even high economic freedoms.

If this was economics instead of game mechanics, I would add a ceteris paribus somewhere. ;)

Game mechanics states that "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms. "Protective Tariffs" are the opposite of "Free Trade." Hence, the only logical impact of "Protective Tariffs" should be reducing Economic freedoms. Will this be the case?Well, I can't exactly show you the code. However, it should be noted that the game is considerably more complex than the three variables shown to the players. There's a good dozen variables for each one.

If so, how can reducing Economic freedoms be described as developing industry around the world?It can. Trust me.

Isn't it true that, in game mechanics, industry grows faster when Economic freedoms are high?Industry doesn't do a damn thing without issues and Resolutions.

But, really, take a look at the numerous nations with 100% tax rates and Frightening economies and industry dominance.

But, really, take a look at the numerous nations with 100% tax rates and Frightening economies and industry dominance.

Mikitivity is one example. And my government also have a great "environment" as well.

I simply work people til they die (happy of course). ;)


Personally, the environmental category still seems rather broken, but one thing at a time ... getting the new categories (particularly the educational and cultural) is really good news!

Please let whomever made this possible that some of us are very pleased.

Economic freedoms, despite prevelent economic theory, have not actually shown a direct coorelation between more freedom and better growth. Japan, which held the #2 economic position for a long time (was finally beaten by China in the last 5 years) and seen as an economic model was not a big fan of free trade and had fairly limited economic freedoms. I think one of the most interesting things they had was a government organization that looked at where they wanted Japan to be in the industry and worked with the industries to phase them out of the old fields and into the newer ones. They also artificially kept the value of their dollar low and put immense pressure on their people to buy Japanese and to invest outside of the nation - both for bolstering their economy, the latter to help keep their dollar low, and quite frankly, successful ventures overall.

Stalin's USSR was able to, through the complete control of his territory, free up something like 25% of the GDP to personally push into developement programs through the 30s, creating absolutely astonishing and almost unparallelable growth rates and eventually led the undeveloped nation in WWI become the emergent superpower from WWII. Similar programs by his successors and Adolf Hitler were....less than successful (though in Hitler's case.....he spent too long looking at military buildup instead of economic growth). Most first world nations have put in tariffs on agriculture - something that has hurt third world nations considerably. If you made free trade on agriculture, the very nature of the industry would make it so that first world agriculture would, well, die off. We can find several examples around the world to argue both claims that free trade and protective tariffs help or hinder the economy, but the truth of the fact is that they are irrelevant - you can't give a general rule.

Protective tariffs, regardless of their side effects, do help the local industry - temporarily at least. Yes there is a scaling issue, but at the barest level, the theory is correct. Long term, this may not be the case, but with 60 resolutions a year hitting the same bloody topics and up to 600 issues in the same time period, the long term effects are a speck on your nation's overall reality.

snip snip snip

OK, I really don't feel inclined to have a long discussion on economics, but it seems like your argument does not directly apply to the issue being debated. I never argued that it was impossible, for a single country, to improve industry by protectionist devices. At the national level, protectionism is stealth taxation - it transfers resources from consumers (who pay higher prices for finished goods) to industry (who faces reduced competition and can either survive using inefficient processes or exert market power). Of course that, if you 'subsidise' industry in this manner, industry will improve.

However, by imposing protectionist devices, you are also damaging the industry of every single exporting nation in the world. At the world level the overall effect on industry is negative, despite the benefits for the industry of the single country who imposed tariffs. Now, the issue under debate is protectionism by UN ruling, ie the imposition of protectionist tariffs in every one of the 30,000 members. This will have the clear and undisputed effect of:
a) hurting the consumers of every nation
b) improving the inefficient industry of countries which are not competitive
c) damaging the efficient industry of exporting countries, which essentially sees its market reduced
d) creating a huge deadweight loss, reducing quantities produced, increasing average production costs, and obviously increasing prices

The total effect on aggregate world industry is negative. Period. There is a common misconception of protectionism being good for industry because people are naturally biased to only consider "good for the industry of my country." If you think about protectionism of countries you are trying to export to, then you will naturally reverse the reasoning and consider it "bad for the industry of my country."

An example: suppose agriculture tariffs were not being imposed between countries, but instead that the US federal government is the 'world', and decides to impose a 500% tax on products sold across states. It would be a great idea for tobacco growers in Alaska, as nobody in Alaska had even considered growing tobacco before. A great new business opportunity, and industry would develop. However, it would be a pretty bad idea for tobacco growers in Virginia. It would be disastrous for consumers pretty much everywhere. But more importantly, it would throw the aggregate agricultural sector of the US back into the stone ages. The efficient large scale farms would shut down, everything would have to be grown locally, most of the times in inefficient ways, and overall, it would create less wealth, less profits, less growth.

If this example doesn't sound ridiculous enough, feel free to take the last leap and imagine every family building their own cars and computers from scratch.

This is what we are discussing here. Not the decision of individual countries to protect their industrial lobbies at the expense of the consumer (still a bad decision, but defendable in some circumstances); we are talking about tariffs imposed everywhere, and its negative impact on industry everywhere.

OK, I really don't feel inclined to have a long discussion on economics, but it seems like your argument does not directly apply to the issue being debated. I never argued that it was impossible, for a single country, to improve industry by protectionist devices. At the national level, protectionism is stealth taxation - it transfers resources from consumers (who pay higher prices for finished goods) to industry (who faces reduced competition and can either survive using inefficient processes or exert market power). Of course that, if you 'subsidise' industry in this manner, industry will improve.

However, by imposing protectionist devices, you are also damaging the industry of every single exporting nation in the world. At the world level the overall effect on industry is negative, despite the benefits for the industry of the single country who imposed tariffs. Now, the issue under debate is protectionism by UN ruling, ie the imposition of protectionist tariffs in every one of the 30,000 members. This will have the clear and undisputed effect of:
a) hurting the consumers of every nation
b) improving the inefficient industry of countries which are not competitive
c) damaging the efficient industry of exporting countries, which essentially sees its market reduced
d) creating a huge deadweight loss, reducing quantities produced, increasing average production costs, and obviously increasing prices

The total effect on aggregate world industry is negative. Period. There is a common misconception of protectionism being good for industry because people are naturally biased to only consider "good for the industry of my country." If you think about protectionism of countries you are trying to export to, then you will naturally reverse the reasoning and consider it "bad for the industry of my country."

An example: suppose agriculture tariffs were not being imposed between countries, but instead that the US federal government is the 'world', and decides to impose a 500% tax on products sold across states. It would be a great idea for tobacco growers in Alaska, as nobody in Alaska had even considered growing tobacco before. A great new business opportunity, and industry would develop. However, it would be a pretty bad idea for tobacco growers in Virginia. It would be disastrous for consumers pretty much everywhere. But more importantly, it would throw the aggregate agricultural sector of the US back into the stone ages. The efficient large scale farms would shut down, everything would have to be grown locally, most of the times in inefficient ways, and overall, it would create less wealth, less profits, less growth.

If this example doesn't sound ridiculous enough, feel free to take the last leap and imagine every family building their own cars and computers from scratch.

This is what we are discussing here. Not the decision of individual countries to protect their industrial lobbies at the expense of the consumer (still a bad decision, but defendable in some circumstances); we are talking about tariffs imposed everywhere, and its negative impact on industry everywhere.

H'mm. How do you think imposing protective tariffs against imports from non-UN nations into UN members, but not on imports from any one UN member into others, would work?

How about a 'Science' category, for promoting non-industry-specific research?

H'mm. How do you think imposing protective tariffs against imports from non-UN nations into UN members, but not on imports from any one UN member into others, would work?

That is something that would fall under what I mentioned in the first paragraph. Better for internal industry, worse for consumers. If that (and only that) is what was meant by this category, I will withdraw my objections; however, that point was not stated in the description.

Trivia: The EU does something like that, and uses it as a source of funding.

That is something that would fall under what I mentioned in the first paragraph. Better for internal industry, worse for consumers. If that (and only that) is what was meant by this category, I will withdraw my objections; however, that point was not stated in the description.

Trivia: The EU does something like that, and uses it as a source of funding.

Short of using Tariffs to enforce resolutions, I have a really hard time seeing any logical tariff use internally. Seriously, what national government tells its states/provinces/counties that they must put tariffs between one another.

Short of using Tariffs to enforce resolutions, I have a really hard time seeing any logical tariff use internally. Seriously, what national government tells its states/provinces/counties that they must put tariffs between one another.


OOC: Well, for one example from RL, there were centrally-imposed tariffs on the trade in various goods between provinces in pre-revolutionary France... although admittedly that might not have been a "logical" use...

Short of using Tariffs to enforce resolutions, I have a really hard time seeing any logical tariff use internally. Seriously, what national government tells its states/provinces/counties that they must put tariffs between one another.

Thank you. Being a 'world government' kind of guy, your point translates to:
The UN would be insane to impose tariffs between member nations. Which is essentially what I was arguing from the start.