NationStates Jolt Archive

REALIZING the benefits of capitalism in the vein of higher average income, the proliferation of goods, and economic success,

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the trend in international economics towards laissez faire politics, corporate influence in a multitude of governments, corporate misbehavior, and regressive elements inside the United Nations,

OBSERVING that a free market has emerged on an international level, and in order to maintain this free market regulations must be enacted on a national and international level,

FURTHER OBSERVING that the emergence of globalization has crippled the smaller businesses of nations and has created unbalanced playing fields in the global marketplace, causing massive job loss and the exploitation of labor in many nations,

MANDATES the following:

1) The creation of the United Nations Fair Trade Administration (FTA) in order to monitor corporations which operate on an international level in order to better protect the rights of workers in UN nations.

2) The encouragement of minimum wage laws, tariffs, labor unions, and worker's rights legislation in all UN member nations in order to maintain a fair and balanced playing field for the global economy.

3) The breakup of monopolies which operate on an international level and barring any corporation which acts on a global level from controlling more than 33% of any certain and specific world marketplace (for instance, the soda sales market).

4) The encouragement of corporations to provide benefits in the form of social welfare, social equality, and healthcare through tax breaks and trade concessions to other UN nations.

REALIZING that the global economy is a powerful tool in the hands of responsible corporate and government practice in bringing better goods, services, and economic prosperity to nations of the UN, both poor and wealthy,

AFFIRMED in the belief that this resolution will be a stepping stone on the path to a free market which will remain free and provide fair treatment for all workers,

HEREBY enacts the Fair Trade Act.

Well, I believe this proposal is on the bottom of page four as of this moment. If you like it, please endorse it. If not, state a few reasons why and we can all work on it and make some compromises so that this thing has a shot at getting through.

Nice try. Absolutely not.

Welcome to the UN Belarum, I hope you don't mind if I pick through your proposal.

REALIZING the benefits of capitalism in the vein of higher average income, the proliferation of goods, and economic success,

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the trend in international economics towards laissez faire politics, corporate influence in a multitude of governments, corporate misbehavior, and regressive elements inside the United Nations,

OBSERVING that a free market has emerged on an international level, and in order to maintain this free market regulations must be enacted on a national and international level,

FURTHER OBSERVING that the emergence of globalization has crippled the smaller businesses of nations and has created unbalanced playing fields in the global marketplace, causing massive job loss and the exploitation of labor in many nations, That all seems fair enough, not everyone will agree with it all, but it’s presented well and seems fairly well reasoned.MANDATES the following:

1) The creation of the United Nations Fair Trade Administration (FTA) in order to monitor corporations which operate on an international level in order to better protect the rights of workers in UN nations. Apart from my pet hate of organisations, seems alright.2) The encouragement of minimum wage laws, tariffs, labor unions, and worker's rights legislation in all UN member nations in order to maintain a fair and balanced playing field for the global economy. Encouragement is good – means nations can ignore, but I see it as a little buzzing in the back of their heads – it’s annoying if they ignore it too long.3) The breakup of monopolies which operate on an international level and barring any corporation which acts on a global level from controlling more than 33% of any certain and specific world marketplace (for instance, the soda sales market). I think 33% is too low. Say 51% perhaps?4) The encouragement of corporations to provide benefits in the form of social welfare, social equality, and healthcare through tax breaks and trade concessions to other UN nations.Fair enough.REALIZING that the global economy is a powerful tool in the hands of responsible corporate and government practice in bringing better goods, services, and economic prosperity to nations of the UN, both poor and wealthy, Should be in the preamble perhaps.AFFIRMED in the belief that this resolution will be a stepping stone on the path to a free market which will remain free and provide fair treatment for all workers,Could be better in the preamble, and perhaps rewritten. “RECOGNISING the need for a free market which will remain free and provide fair treatment for all workers, irrespective of race, religion, gender or sexuality.” HEREBY enacts the Fair Trade Act.Not sure if this is the best way to sign this off. Something like “DETERMINED to remain seized on the matter” is old school.Well, I believe this proposal is on the bottom of page four as of this moment. If you like it, please endorse it. If not, state a few reasons why and we can all work on it and make some compromises so that this thing has a shot at getting through.Okay, I like it in general. Not enough to scream about it, but enough to appreciate a good effort.
If it came up, I would be inclined to vote against it on strictly selfish grounds. Hirotan Multinational Corporations have a great deal of interest in foreign Uranium reserves, and would be concerned that this resolution may undermine these interests. If the representative from Belarum would be kind enough to recognise those concerns, and perhaps clarify if they will be affected, we would be grateful.

What would also be beneficial is if the representative from Cluichstan would be kind enough to explain his governments reasoning for their objection, as opposed to a one-line throwaway comment. It is always more beneficial to have constructive discussion.

Edit: We suggest they also consult this organisation, who may be interested in contributing or receiving contributions on such a matter. http://s12.invisionfree.com/FAIRTRADE/index.php?act=idx

I reported this as illegal yesterday; horrible mish-mash of Advancement of Industry (Protective Tariffs), Free Trade and Social Justice. This is also an appalling idea: hear that woosh sound? Yeah, it's every corporation in the world running screaming from UN nations, into the eminently more profitable arena of unregulated non-UN nations.

Interesting idea, but I can only see this completely destroying life as we know it, so we're going to tentatively oppose.

1) The creation of the United Nations Fair Trade Administration (FTA) in order to monitor corporations which operate on an international level in order to better protect the rights of workers in UN nations.

2) The encouragement of minimum wage laws, tariffs, labor unions, and worker's rights legislation in all UN member nations in order to maintain a fair and balanced playing field for the global economy.

(...)

4) The encouragement of corporations to provide benefits in the form of social welfare, social equality, and healthcare through tax breaks and trade concessions to other UN nations.

Translation:

1) The encouragement of policies that benefit workers with secure jobs, without paying attention to consumer surplus or to potential increases in unemployment.

2) The total disregard for relevant economic factors, like productivity, education and technology, in determining benefit packages for said workers.

3) The encouragement of practices that make sense in rich developed nations, stimulating the collective bankrupcy of developing nations.

4) The ridiculous claim that tariffs create a balanced playing field.

Much as it pains me to disagree with a fair-trade measure, I shall have to record a voice of opposition to this measure, on the grounds that whilst its aims are laudable, many of its proposed mechanisms are flawed.

REALIZING the benefits of capitalism in the vein of higher average income, the proliferation of goods, and economic success,

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the trend in international economics towards laissez faire politics, corporate influence in a multitude of governments, corporate misbehavior, and regressive elements inside the United Nations,

OBSERVING that a free market has emerged on an international level, and in order to maintain this free market regulations must be enacted on a national and international level,

We would agree entirely, but would register some confusion as to how a market that is highly regulated can be considered "free". If by this you mean that the principles of anti-trust measures are applied to preserve competition, this would not so much be a 'free market', free from excess regulation but an 'open market', with open access to all.

FURTHER OBSERVING that the emergence of globalization has crippled the smaller businesses of nations and has created unbalanced playing fields in the global marketplace, causing massive job loss and the exploitation of labor in many nations,

Not through design, but through mis-application. Globalisation can be directed towards beneficial outcomes, but lop-sided globalisation can, I would agree, lead to unfair outcomes.

MANDATES the following:

1) The creation of the United Nations Fair Trade Administration (FTA) in order to monitor corporations which operate on an international level in order to better protect the rights of workers in UN nations.

Would agree in principle, but in practice this would be far too broad for one organisation. It would be best to split up its functions into different departments (viz the RL, ILO, WTO, IMF, etc).

2) The encouragement of minimum wage laws, tariffs, labor unions, and worker's rights legislation in all UN member nations in order to maintain a fair and balanced playing field for the global economy.

Would agree, but I am baffled as to the inclusion of tariffs in this list. Tariffs are deeply harmful and do not protect local industry, merely shelter it from demand briefly until the pressures of the market overwhelm even that. Consumer costs would be driven up, hurting the poor and disadvantaged, whilst local industries would suffer from additional costs and weak exports and imports (to fuel their growth), stiffling their productivity and enlargement.

3) The breakup of monopolies which operate on an international level and barring any corporation which acts on a global level from controlling more than 33% of any certain and specific world marketplace (for instance, the soda sales market).

This we would agree on, but would prefer a figure of 49%.

4) The encouragement of corporations to provide benefits in the form of social welfare, social equality, and healthcare through tax breaks and trade concessions to other UN nations.

I am not sure quite what this states: Do you mean to say that corporations should be given tax breaks to encourage the provision of benefits? What about nations where this is already provided by the state for the most part? (i.e. Compadria).

REALIZING that the global economy is a powerful tool in the hands of responsible corporate and government practice in bringing better goods, services, and economic prosperity to nations of the UN, both poor and wealthy,

Agree.

AFFIRMED in the belief that this resolution will be a stepping stone on the path to a free market which will remain free and provide fair treatment for all workers,

See my earlier point.

HEREBY enacts the Fair Trade Act.

Well, I believe this proposal is on the bottom of page four as of this moment. If you like it, please endorse it. If not, state a few reasons why and we can all work on it and make some compromises so that this thing has a shot at getting through.

I would restate my point that this does require some work and clarifications and should have its functions split into different organisations, rather than lumping them into one bureaucratic monolith.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Hmph, looks like my lack of knowledge regarding economics is exposed.

OOC: Strange. Why have most of my remarks appeared in italics? I didn't write it that way?:confused:

OOC: Strange. Why have most of my remarks appeared in italics? I didn't write it that way?:confused:If you just took a quote of his post, and divided it up, it's probably because of that. I had the same issue when I previewed mine. I took out the italics tags from his post when I quoted it and it cleared it up.

I may know sod all about economics, but I know a little about forum tags.

This proposal is simply socialism under the guise (and an extremely poor one at that) of capitalism.

This proposal is simply socialism under the guise (and an extremely poor one at that) of capitalism.

I wouldn't go that far. I would say it is a deeply protectionist, anti-globalisation proposal under the guise of "fair trade." It does not mention corporate ownership anywhere.

I wouldn't go that far. I would say it is a deeply protectionist, anti-globalisation proposal under the guise of "fair trade." It does not mention corporate ownership anywhere.

Actually, you're right. I misread. It forces businesses to provide for social welfare. Pfft to that, too.

There are better ways to do this. Fair trade is not going to happen. Guaranteeing that a certain amount of trade-- capital goes to the country doing the trading is more realistic. Some guarantee that you will hire and train a certain amount of local labor when you open a factory in a foreign country might be agreeable. Some guarantee that you will help manage the resources being extracted from a specific country-- i.e. long term forest management rather than clear cutting. This would be agreeable, not this socialist stuff.

1) When opening a factory in foreign country at least 30% of the staff and managment positions will be trained from the local population.

2) When you extract resources from a foreign country, said country has right to demand managed extraction, forestry management, minimizing toxic spills, etc. Said country also has the right to a percentage of profits if a colony of main country.

3) Limits on extracting limited resources from poor countries at cheap prices. Right to regulate if they have international impacts, rainforest deforestation, excessive gas prices, etc.