NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, approval link --> http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=development

Economic Development Act
The United Nations,

DISTRESSED by the plight of many who struggle throughout the world through poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, and a lack of basic welfare,

MINDFUL of the need for sustainable economic development,

ASHAMED by the damage done by the imposition of embargoes, and by the use of mechanisms such as trade restrictions and subsidies by developed nations to hamper the economic growth of developing nations,

APPLAUDING the many steps already taken on the individual, national and international level to achieve economic progress:

1. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that all people can work together in the spirit of mutual understanding to strive for the common betterment of all;

2. ENJOINS all to envisage a world in which the scourge of poverty has been thoroughly eliminated;

3. REMINDS all that such aims can only be achieved through the stimulation of sustainable economic development in all nations, and that if such dreams are to be realized, harsh and realistic decisions must be taken;

4. REQUIRES all nations to thoroughly examine their fiscal and trade policies for all sources of waste, inefficiency and corruption, to take every practical, appropriate and possible step within their capabilities to strive to eliminate such problems, to strive for the greatest possible degree of openness in economic matters without unduly jeopardising national security, to collaborate to the fullest extent possible in the provision of assistance to other nations in the pursuit of such aims, whether through direct financial aid, advisory services, or otherwise, and in general to be mindful of the importance of sustainability in all matters of economic development;

5. REQUIRES member nations to remove all protectionist devices in the exchange of goods and services, including but not limited to subsidies and subventions, import quotas, customs duties, import taxes and tariffs, and to ensure that all restrictions, forms of taxation and other regulations on goods and services, such as ethical or safety considerations, are applied in a non-discriminatory way, without regard for country of origin, and further to remove all existing trade embargoes and refrain from enacting further such conditions;

6. DEMANDS that all developmental aid agreements be responsibly managed by all participating nations, that, where possible, steps are taken to ensure that any funds transferred are used appropriately, as intended, and are not diverted to illegal or corrupt purposes, such as the financing of terrorist activities, that all accounts used in such transfers are subject to regular, thorough and honest independent audits, that due regard is taken for the development of environmentally-, ethically- and scientifically-responsible sectors, and that such agreements do not establish conditions of economic dependency, but rather promote a greater degree of economic independence for economically developing nations;

7. SUPPORTING STRONGLY the importance of national economic self-determination, RECOGNISES the rights of nations to adapt the provisions of Clauses 4 and 6 to their individual needs;

8. EMPHASISES that this Resolution does specifically not require nations to alter their immigration policies, or to refrain from providing limited subsidy relief to essential industries in times of declared national emergency, or to promote small business development;

9. OUTLINES a deadline for implementation of this Resolution of 10 years.
It's time we as the international community stepped up to help the world's poor. Please support this proposal.

After a careful reading, we see nothing in this resolution which would compromise the continuation of our communist economy. Therefore we applaud its general intent, and will tentatively support it.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

After a careful reading, we see nothing in this resolution which would compromise the continuation of our communist economy. Therefore we applaud its general intent, and will tentatively support it.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA
Our thanks, yarrrrr.

Captain Biggles McXiminez
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations
Chief Inspector of Buxom Wenches
Undersecretary of Being Really, Really Drunk
Commander-in-Chief of No, Quite Staggeringly Drunk, I'm Really Not Sure You Comprehend Just How Drunk We're Talking Here
Minister of Superfluous Titles

The Congressional Republic fully supports and encourages others to support this well-thought-out, awesome legislation, and hope that it reaches quorum. Economic development is very important, and this will speed it up in all nations.

Robert Bobson
Deputy Undersecretary of State for UN Affairs
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

The demands seem costly, and time consuming. Delaying the process and being dependent on many slower Nation. This would cost time and money.

The requirements to remove all protectionist devices, such as taxes and safety regulations are threat to my ports.

Moreover, I am in no favor for anything that praises, supports, or gives credit to a communist economy.

After a careful reading, we see nothing in this resolution which would compromise the continuation of our communist economy. Therefore we applaud its general intent, and will tentatively support

We would think that even you would find some fault in this section of this.


5. REQUIRES member nations to remove all protectionist devices in the exchange of goods and services, including but not limited to subsidies and subventions, import quotas, customs duties, import taxes and tariffs, and to ensure that all restrictions, forms of taxation and other regulations on goods and services, such as ethical or safety considerations, are applied in a non-discriminatory way, without regard for country of origin, and further to remove all existing trade embargoes and refrain from enacting further such conditions;
As now you have to trade on equal grounds with all nations even those who would buy weapons such a nukes from you then send them right back armed at you.

Also you can't place embargos on trade of ammuntions, fuel, and parts to go in the planes they might send to visit you national capital.

Also any now in place have to be removed.

Heck you might even have to hire out your national military to them should they show cause to recieve such service from you that you might be providing to other nations under trade agreements.

Now you have to make sure anything you may sale to another nations is safe and equal to that you may use in your on borders.

Thus how could you even consider appoving this on this alone.

This proposal is excellent. Well-written, to-the-point, and with laudable goals.

4. REQUIRES all nations to thoroughly examine their fiscal and trade policies for all sources of waste, inefficiency and corruption, to take every practical, appropriate and possible step within their capabilities to strive to eliminate such problems, to strive for the greatest possible degree of openness in economic matters without unduly jeopardising national security, to collaborate to the fullest extent possible in the provision of assistance to other nations in the pursuit of such aims, whether through direct financial aid, advisory services, or otherwise, and in general to be mindful of the importance of sustainability in all matters of economic development;

Unfortunately, requiring nations to address their domestic financial matters, even in vague and imminently practical terms, runs afoul of my view on national sovereignty.

That said, I'll not be terribly upset if this passes.

Unfortunately, requiring nations to address their domestic financial matters, even in vague and imminently practical terms, runs afoul of my view on national sovereignty.
Perhaps you might take note of clause 7:
7. SUPPORTING STRONGLY the importance of national economic self-determination, RECOGNISES the rights of nations to adapt the provisions of Clauses 4 and 6 to their individual needs;

Perhaps you might take note of clause 7:

Already did. Read it twice to be sure, in fact. Still objecting.

Already did. Read it twice to be sure, in fact. Still objecting.
Right...

Right...

Sorry, mate. Unless you're more specific about how you think Clause 7 negates Clause 4, there's not much to do here.

As now you have to trade on equal grounds with all nations even those who would buy weapons such a nukes from you then send them right back armed at you.


Ariddia doesn't sell nuclear technology, whether civil or military. We don't make nuclear weapons, and we don't buy them either. In fact, we don't sell any kind of weapons at all, to anyone.


Also you can't place embargos on trade of ammuntions, fuel, and parts to go in the planes they might send to visit you national capital.


We can, in many ways. First, we can construe it as a security risk, and impose a ban on any nation bringing in weaponry. Ariddia has a State-run economy: if our government isn't buying weapons, no one has any excuse for bringing any into the country to try and sell them.


Heck you might even have to hire out your national military to them should they show cause to recieve such service from you that you might be providing to other nations under trade agreements.


No. Because we don't "sell" or "loan" our military to anyway. We don't do military operations abroad, and if we did they would be purely humanitarian (medical military personnel, soldiers sent to help build roads or schools in fellow Third World nations) or deterrence against insurgents threatening friendly governments. In any case, it could not be considered "services" if we don't charge for it, so your argument doesn't apply.


Now you have to make sure anything you may sale to another nations is safe and equal to that you may use in your on borders.


Of course. We would never sell goods of services that are unsafe or that we wouldn't use ourselves.

Having said that, "ethical or safety considerations are applied in a non-discriminatory way, without regard for country of origin" does bother me a little bit. It means we can't restrict potentially hostile nations from sending stuff to us without imposing similar restrictions on other nations. But that's easy enough to get around. You can always define "safety considerations" in such a way that certain goods (coming from certain nations) will be specifically targeted, without saying that you're targeting those nations.

Creative application of resolutions can get you anywhere. ;)

(Oh, and as a sidenote, we already have a nifty way of avoiding resolutions we don't like (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ESAT).)

One potential problem is that this resolution may be seen to conflict with article VII of the CACE Charter (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Coalition_of_Anti-Capitalist_Economies). But a careful look at the wording lays such fears to rest. The CACE prohibits its members from trading with capitalist nations; CACE members can simply decree that "ethical considerations" apply which prevent them from trading with any capitalist nation, without any discriminatory targeting of any specific nation. Also, CACE members cannot trade for money. Which isn't a problem either, since it simply means that nations desiring money in exchange for goods or services won't want to trade with us in the first place. It all works out quite neatly.

Operative clause five (5) and six (6) will conflict with either current or future economic policies of our UN member states, as it requires us to remove protectionism.

Whilst the delegate of Equilibriae has no intentions and no current programmes where protectionism has become implemented, we are aware and respect our fellow nations' decisions to remain in their own right on deciding economic regulations. Whilst we hope this is merely a requirement that is not required to be fully implemented by all member states we also wish to stress that without a single long-term plan this resolution will not bear any significant change in our nations economic policies.

Second, operative clause six (6) is introduced by operative term DEMANDS, which to my knowledge is restricted to Security Council resolutions alone. If this resolution is brought before the forum we will see it propelled forth to the SC and there it will be vetoed against immediately.
Provided you of course use the actual UN resolution restrictions in application for this simulation.

Whilst we hope this is merely a requirement that is not required to be fully implemented by all member states we also wish to stress that without a single long-term plan this resolution will not bear any significant change in our nations economic policies.
"Requires" is mandatory. You have to do it; sorry.

Second, operative clause six (6) is introduced by operative term DEMANDS, which to my knowledge is restricted to Security Council resolutions alone. If this resolution is brought before the forum we will see it propelled forth to the SC and there it will be vetoed against immediately.
Provided you of course use the actual UN resolution restrictions in application for this simulation.
OOC: We don't. You are right that "demands" is SC prerogative in the RLUN, but the NSUN doesn't follow the same rules: since there is no SC, General Assembly resolutions can use "demands", "condemns", "mandates", etc.

^ OOC: Thank you for swift response on that question.

1. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that all people can work together in the spirit of mutual understanding to strive for the common betterment of all;

Agreed, you're sounding almost fluffy here Moltan.

2. ENJOINS all to envisage a world in which the scourge of poverty has been thoroughly eliminated;

Same as above.

3. REMINDS all that such aims can only be achieved through the stimulation of sustainable economic development in all nations, and that if such dreams are to be realized, harsh and realistic decisions must be taken;

Agreed.

4. REQUIRES all nations to thoroughly examine their fiscal and trade policies for all sources of waste, inefficiency and corruption, to take every practical, appropriate and possible step within their capabilities to strive to eliminate such problems, to strive for the greatest possible degree of openness in economic matters without unduly jeopardising national security, to collaborate to the fullest extent possible in the provision of assistance to other nations in the pursuit of such aims, whether through direct financial aid, advisory services, or otherwise, and in general to be mindful of the importance of sustainability in all matters of economic development;

Agreed heartily, we particularly applaud the support for sustainable development, which will counter-balance the "get-rich-quick" schemes that so damage our cultures, environment and poplulations.

5. REQUIRES member nations to remove all protectionist devices in the exchange of goods and services, including but not limited to subsidies and subventions, import quotas, customs duties, import taxes and tariffs, and to ensure that all restrictions, forms of taxation and other regulations on goods and services, such as ethical or safety considerations, are applied in a non-discriminatory way, without regard for country of origin, and further to remove all existing trade embargoes and refrain from enacting further such conditions;

Disagree, we still don't like the requirement to remove all tarriffs, especially not when it isn't clearly specified that we're allowed to stop dumping from non-U.N. nations. Furthermore, this would wreck our economic plans, free-trade is good, but not for everything, certainly not in our case.

6. DEMANDS that all developmental aid agreements be responsibly managed by all participating nations, that, where possible, steps are taken to ensure that any funds transferred are used appropriately, as intended, and are not diverted to illegal or corrupt purposes, such as the financing of terrorist activities, that all accounts used in such transfers are subject to regular, thorough and honest independent audits, that due regard is taken for the development of environmentally-, ethically- and scientifically-responsible sectors, and that such agreements do not establish conditions of economic dependency, but rather promote a greater degree of economic independence for economically developing nations;

Agreed and strongly supported.

7. SUPPORTING STRONGLY the importance of national economic self-determination, RECOGNISES the rights of nations to adapt the provisions of Clauses 4 and 6 to their individual needs;

Agree, but with caution.

8. EMPHASISES that this Resolution does specifically not require nations to alter their immigration policies, or to refrain from providing limited subsidy relief to essential industries in times of declared national emergency, or to promote small business development;

Agreed.


9. OUTLINES a deadline for implementation of this Resolution of 10 years.

I'm not too sure about this, we'd prefer something more open ended, which takes into account national circumstances more, i.e. a graduated scale which would establish different rates for different national economies, so as to avoid unfortunate complications resulting from excessively quick implementation of the terms of this resolution.

For the most part, we are pleased by this proposal and congratulate our Gruenberger friends for its creation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

IC: We applaud Gruenberg for proposing legislation that will destroy our economy in relatively 10 years time. I cannot even begin to speculate how large of a blow this bill will be to our trade surplus. That being said, we are beginning to consider the selling of Jevian land to the highest bidder in order to aid the enormous losses.

We urge nations to support fair tariffs and fair import taxes, like the ones in practice here in Jey. Perhaps it will concern you, Gruenberg, that we also have export taxes in Jey, on Jevian goods, of which is equal to the import tax? The use of these taxes in Jey is to ensure that we gain a small amount of money in every international transaction. How is this a breach of free trade?

We will not be in support of this at all, in fact:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/new8ey.png

OOC: Crap.

OOC: Jey, see my post in the other thread. I still don't understand your economic system.

IC: We applaud Gruenberg for proposing legislation that will destroy our economy in relatively 10 years time. I cannot even begin to speculate how large of a blow this bill will be to our trade surplus. That being said, we are beginning to consider the selling of Jevian land to the highest bidder in order to aid the enormous losses.
Ceorana will use its extremely high economic benefit from this to buy your land.

We urge nations to support fair tariffs and fair import taxes, like the ones in practice here in Jey. Perhaps it will concern you, Gruenberg, that we also have export taxes in Jey, on Jevian goods, of which is equal to the import tax? The use of these taxes in Jey is to ensure that we gain a small amount of money in every international transaction. How is this a breach of free trade?
You can easily obtain the same amount of money by imposing a sales tax, or a general fee at customs offices for handling and such. There's no need to have it in the form of a tariff and export tax.

OOC: Jey, see my post in the other thread. I still don't understand your economic system.

Perhaps, then, it would have been wise to understand our economic system, and then evaluate its fairness, before proposing legislation to outlaw it?

a general fee at customs offices

Unfortunately, half of these cases (the ones where something is imported) are outlawed within this proposal.

Unfortunately, half of these cases (the ones where something is imported) are outlawed within this proposal.
But it's not an import tax, because it's applied to all goods traveling in and out of a nation, and it's applied in a non-discriminatory way, the same for imports and exports. Basically, you combine tariffs and export taxes into one tax, which I believe is legal under this.

Perhaps, then, it would have been wise to understand our economic system, and then evaluate its fairness, before proposing legislation to outlaw it?
OOC: Well, now's your chance. Could you explain it? Because you keep going on about how "fair" it is, but it just sounds like a standard tariff to me. And you say it will "destroy" your economy, but you haven't previously mentioned your system protecting it - just being a way for the government to acquire funds. That has nothing to do with economic strength, hence the confusion on my part.

OOC: Well, now's your chance. Could you explain it? Because you keep going on about how "fair" it is, but it just sounds like a standard tariff to me. And you say it will "destroy" your economy, but you haven't previously mentioned your system protecting it - just being a way for the government to acquire funds. That has nothing to do with economic strength, hence the confusion on my part.

But, you see, the government's funds directly influences our economic strength. Our citizens are taxed 98% on their income, there is an Import Tax, Export Tax, Sales Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, among many others. Why? Because of all the services the government provides for our citizens: among others: completely free healthcare, and probably the most extensive welfare system in the world. The government single-handedly provides nearly all the income for half of our 1.8 billion residents. This costs Jeyas, trillions of them. If we were to not have so much governmental capital, our economy would falter. Half of our citizens would cripple and descend into poverty, unemployment would rise, crime rates would soar. To withstand a Jevianistic Economic Policy, we need every tax that we deem fair. This includes import and export taxes, which are some of the highest taxes enforced, and the most beneficial tax of them all, due to the constant international trade taking place in Jevian ports. We desire not to test another method of taxation and abolish the import and export taxes and transfer them to another sales tax, which may or may not be as beneficial as tariffs. We desire to maintain our current taxation systems, which have brought about great economic benefits to Jey.

Jey, I fail to see how tariffs can raise much national income. Tariffs are the sort of thing that discourage companies from importing to your nation, meaning they don't pay any tariffs. You would have much more trade if you got rid of them, because more companies would import, and sales tax would get more money because there would be more money being traded.

OOC: But Jey:
1. You say "unemployment would rise", but you didn't link government capital to employment. You talked about it funding welfare, but not jobs.
2. Your government's income would not be affected by this proposal, if you simply raised sales taxes.
3. I still don't understand why imposing a sales tax would be any different from an import/export tax. Are you talking about fuel miles? Because that's something completely different, and certainly isn't prohibited by this proposal.

Ausserland cannot support this proposal. While we would be in favor of most of its provisions, we believe it cuts too wide a swath. By prohibiting the use of subsidies and subventions offered to domestic businesses, it would preclude us from using these methods to promote developing industries in our nation and to encourage industrial development in situations of heavy unemployment. As we read the proposal, we would even be prevented from using preferential contracting by our government to promote independent sustainability in defense-related industries.

Free trade is a fine idea, but there must be provisions for nations to selectively and responsibly use "protectionist measures" in the interest of the welfare of their citizenry.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As we read the proposal, we would even be prevented from using preferential contracting by our government to promote independent sustainability in defense-related industries.
No, the non-discrimination part only refers to restrictions and regulations, not contracts.

Love and esterel support this proposal.

We agree with the good comments of Compadria that tariffs can be required to be removed only for imports from UN nations.

About 10 years, we would also prefer a recommendation to decrease tariffs progressively during the 10 years, and maybe also something encouraging the formation of regional free trade zones in this 10 years period.
The aim is to allow economic entities to adapt progressively and not suddenly, to the new economic environment.


About embargoes, I would like to commend the author, as I think it's very important to stop them, but I'm just not sure about preventing them in case of war time.

We would like to also to take the opportunity, to once again, spread the concept of letting nations to possibility to have tariffs < 1% (or 2%). But that will not prevent us from supporting this proposal.

OOC: But Jey:
1. You say "unemployment would rise", but you didn't link government capital to employment. You talked about it funding welfare, but not jobs.
2. Your government's income would not be affected by this proposal, if you simply raised sales taxes.
3. I still don't understand why imposing a sales tax would be any different from an import/export tax. Are you talking about fuel miles? Because that's something completely different, and certainly isn't prohibited by this proposal.

1) Yes, we did forget to mention that the government also requires citizens in the Welfare Program to obtain jobs. They also assist thousands of citizens daily in finding these jobs in order to stay in the program.

2) We're reluctant to change our current system for the immense profits it has brought to our country. There is the possiblity that the extravagent raising of sales taxes (which would be needed in order to make up for the losses of tariffs) would draw other countries to be less likely to trade with us, and that is a chance we are not willing to take.

3) If it's not any different, why outlaw one and not the other? :)

OOC:
1) Yes, we did forget to mention that the government also requires citizens in the Welfare Program to obtain jobs. They also assist thousands of citizens daily in finding these jobs in order to stay in the program.
Let me get this straight. You're saying tariffs are somehow linked to welfare-to-work? Once again, how? If this is all about government capital levels, then tariffs are a terrible mechanism for funding schemes like this, because of the regularity of trade fluctuations. It's very difficult to gain projections of tariff revenue, because trade is obviously subject to many other factors. So why on earth would you fund this kind of program out of something like tariffs? It would be much better to use a national insurance system, income tax, or similar.

Furthermore, this is all about unemployed people. You said unemployment would rise: that still indicates a linking of existing jobs to your tax system, which is not evident from anything you've said here.

2) We're reluctant to change our current system for the immense profits it has brought to our country. There is the possiblity that the raising of sales taxes would draw other countries to be less likely to trade with us, and that is a chance we are not willing to take.
Uh...what? Tariffs are going to discourage them from trading with you: having an equitable sales tax would encourage investment and trade, because they will know they're competing on an equal footing in a fair market.

3) If it's not any different, why outlaw one and not the other?
I just said it was different. A fuel mile is nothing to do with national economies: it's a calculation based on the fact that transporting goods over a greater distance has a greater environmental impact. That's nothing to do with tariffs, which are - well, in every case except Jey, apparently - to do with distorting the market in favour of the home nation.

Tariffs are outlawed for two reasons: doing so works, and doing so is right. Free trade leads to faster growth - economic development is what we're aiming for here - and creates greater production potentials. Above all, it promotes specialisation, which is in the interests of global economic efficiency. Furthermore, it is right to abolish protectionism, because producers and consumers shouldn't be held back by national origin, but should be able to compete with each other on the same level in the global market.

Fuel miles are not outlawed because they have nothing to do with protectionism, and hence this proposal.

No, the non-discrimination part only refers to restrictions and regulations, not contracts.

We disagree. The proposal prohibits "all protectionist devices." Limiting bids on defense contracts to domestic firms in order to promote domestic production capability would certainly be a "protectionist device." It is most definitely a restriction on eligibility to bid and would be imposed by government regulation. Even weighting source evaluations in favor of domestic firms would be illegal under this resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Sometimes I wonder why I am even here. I mean I do have a free account at Starbucks paid for my Nation's UN representative budget, but why, for the love of forest pelicans on a stick (oh how I love them) do we always some wacko with some bizzare system that constantly takes the debate towards the edge of insanity. Export taxes? You tax people who are trying to bring in foreign money into your nation?

After reading this resolution I find that the nation of Tzorsland would be highly supportative of it and I will promptly contact the deligate of Niftyonia to give it our official support. (Picks up cell phone) Yo Davane? I'd like to speak to the deligate from Davane. Yes I'll hold, but only if the music is interesting.

OOC:

Let me get this straight. You're saying tariffs are somehow linked to welfare-to-work? Once again, how? If this is all about government capital levels, then tariffs are a terrible mechanism for funding schemes like this, because of the regularity of trade fluctuations. It's very difficult to gain projections of tariff revenue, because trade is obviously subject to many other factors. So why on earth would you fund this kind of program out of something like tariffs? It would be much better to use a national insurance system, income tax, or similar.

Jey is consistently trading with other countries and rarely do our transactions decrease any considerable amount. Our trading is rather stable.

Furthermore, this is all about unemployed people. You said unemployment would rise: that still indicates a linking of existing jobs to your tax system, which is not evident from anything you've said here.

Government --> provides Welfare, jobs to those in program
Tariffs --> contributes to the governments program
No Tariffs --> harms the governments ability to upkeep the program, thus lessening eligability, thus lessening people
less people in program --> less governmentally-helped jobs = unemployment rises

Uh...what? Tariffs are going to discourage them from trading with you: having an equitable sales tax would encourage investment and trade, because they will know they're competing on an equal footing in a fair market.

They already are cometing on an equal footing. This is not a concern.

OOC: I give up. Your economic system is unlike anything possible in RL, it doesn't appear to obey any laws of economics I'm familiar with, it doesn't seem to employ tariffs in anything like the sense in which they are a) designed for b) practical for c) possible for d) remotely thinkable for or e) that they ever have been, are or will be used for by any other nation in history, under any circumstances, and in general, I do not understand one word you're saying.

So you should probably vote against this.

OOC: I give up. Your economic system is unlike anything possible in RL, it doesn't appear to obey any laws of economics I'm familiar with, it doesn't seem to employ tariffs in anything like the sense in which they are a) designed for b) practical for c) possible for d) remotely thinkable for or e) that they ever have been, are or will be used for by any other nation in history, under any circumstances, and in general, I do not understand one word you're saying.

What do you think tariffs are? Though they appear to most as being anti-free trade, racial, etc, they are, at the core, just a method of gaining money. They are used exactly like a tax in Jey, only for international trade. The government need alot of money to upkeep the Welfare Program, and tariffs are a way to assist that. Removing them is bad for the Program, which is a huge part of our economy. Am I speaking Elvish?

So you should probably vote against this.

Don't worry, we will.

OOC:
What do you think tariffs are? Though they appear to most as being anti-free trade, racial, etc, they are, at the core, just a method of gaining money. They are used exactly like a tax in Jey, only for international trade. The government need alot of money to upkeep the Welfare Program, and tariffs are a way to assist that. Removing them is bad for the Program, which is a huge part of our economy. Am I speaking Elvish?
Yes. Because if you removed tariffs, it would promote greater trade and investment, and then you could charge sales tax and make, yes, that's right, a greater revenue.

Revenue tariffs can conceivably be useful for developing nations without infrastructure - although that alone doesn't justify their existence. Jey is not developing, and has an "omnipresent" government. How collecting income and sales tax is not easier for you, I cannot understand.

Could you perhaps post some statistics for how much money this welfare system entails? Because if you collect a 98% income tax, and have all these other taxes, I'm struggling to see the need for yet another one.

So, does anyone else realize that this is taking their own nation's economic choices and practically taking a massive Cleveland Steamer on them?

This proposal seeks to dictate to all the nations in the UN how to run their economies, does anyone else see anything wrong with that? It strips them of their ability to use protective tariffs, even if it means massive layoffs for workers in their nations. Where are all the bleeding hearts for the men and women who want nothing more than a little job security? Do they count for nothing? Tell me, anyone, what happens to those who are displaced by this attempt to enact complete and total free trade worldwide? I'll tell you what happens: they're told to bugger off. They're out of work and unemployed.

This proposal, if passed into UN binding law, will hurt more than it helps. Trade defecits will rise at remarkable pace, and unemployment will be ripe in many nations, causing increased crime and substance abuse. I simply cannot stand and watch the workers of the world be spat on. Therefor, I will not approve of this proposal and I will vote against it if it comes to a resolution vote.

This proposal seeks to dictate to all the nations in the UN how to run their economies, does anyone else see anything wrong with that? It strips them of their ability to use protective tariffs, even if it means massive layoffs for workers in their nations. Where are all the bleeding hearts for the men and women who want nothing more than a little job security? Do they count for nothing? Tell me, anyone, what happens to those who are displaced by this attempt to enact complete and total free trade worldwide? I'll tell you what happens: they're told to bugger off. They're out of work and unemployed.
And then the companies use their increased profits and invest in new ventures, employing far more workers than before.
This proposal, if passed into UN binding law, will hurt more than it helps. Trade defecits will rise at remarkable pace,
Um -- excuse me? Trade is a zero-sum game. For every negative net trade there is a positive one.
and unemployment will be ripe in many nations, causing increased crime and substance abuse. I simply cannot stand and watch the workers of the world be spat on. Therefor, I will not approve of this proposal and I will vote against it if it comes to a resolution vote.
See my comment above. Stop fearmongering.

So, does anyone else realize that this is taking their own nation's economic choices and practically taking a massive Cleveland Steamer on them?

No, people don't realize this, and they won't--all the way to this proposals' passing. Why? Because of another cleverly titled proposal that doesnt represent what is actaully happening to the NSUN as a result of it. Anyone who doesnt read past the title (which represents a majority of the NSUN), will not vote against a proposal cleverly titled "Economic Development Act".

And then the companies use their increased profits and invest in new ventures, employing far more workers than before.

That seems like a lot of speculation. How do you know what investors are or are not going to do with their money? You have no idea. They may stuff it all in banks and let it build interest.

See my comment above. Stop fearmongering.

I wouldn't call it fearmongering, I'm merely raising a few points as to the effects of this proposal.

That seems like a lot of speculation. How do you know what investors are or are not going to do with their money? You have no idea. They may stuff it all in banks and let it build interest.
Not the investors - the company. Companies need to make profits by selling stuff, and they will re-invest any money they get, because they want to make a profit, and innovation is the best way to do that. It's not speculation - it's fact, because re-investing to innovate, or at least expand, has the most incentive for companies to follow, whether they are humanitarian (because innovation helps the world) or profit-driven (because they will make more profits with more innovation over their competiters.

They also have the incentive to get international patents. [/shameless self-plug] ;)

That seems like a lot of speculation. How do you know what investors are or are not going to do with their money? You have no idea. They may stuff it all in banks and let it build interest.Well, if they're sticking it in the bank, I wouldn't exactly call them investors...

Long ago, when the Woltzten Dynasty first came to power in Gruenberg, they brought with them mechanisation of agriculture: machines that could do some of the jobs it had traditionally taken lines of workers to. And, sure enough, some farm labourers were layed off. In reaction, some communities took to vandalising the machines. In time, there was a recovery, as people realized there were now jobs building, servicing, designing the machines. But in the short term, yes, jobs were lost. It's a principle called creative destruction.

I am compelled to ask the representative of Belarum whether he opposes mechanisation too. After all, jobs will be lost...

I like to think I've been a polite and restrained figure in these Halls since my arrival in January. I understand that my predecessor was known for her civility and generosity in debate.

I think, perhaps, we've been wasting our time with niceties, for here is the final straw.

A flagrant bid to destroy the global economy, to rape poor nations and leave them at the mercy of the rapacious agents of the 'developed' world. A contemptuous two-fingers salute at countless international trade agreements, such as IFTA. A violation of national sovereignty far graver than any bemoaned by snivelling NSOers. All this masquerading as an 'Economic Development Act'.

In short, a fucking abomination.

Poisonously whimsical, the premise behind this proposal is that everything will be fluffy and hunky dory if we remove all protectionist measures. It's a lovely idea, a real fluffy bunny, a peach. A bit like communism, I guess. Unfortunately, like any measure based on romantic idealism, it's doomed to fail. The risible presumption of a level playing field underpins this trash. Should such a scenario not be hopelessly mythical, then I doubt I and my people would have any objection to the proposal. However, it is a myth, it is impossible and ergo even more billions of United Nations citizens will be cast into abject poverty.

All in the name of 'economic development'.

The time for civility and diplomatic niceties has passed. Delegates, I urge you - nay, plead with you to ensure that this proposal dies a wretched death . Don't be fooled by Ambassador Bausch's flights of fancy. Kill this bill and wipe the smug grin off the ****'s face.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

[OOC note: Ecopoeia is not currently in the UN as I'm about to go off travelling for a while and wish to preserve the nation in its current state during my absence. If this passes in my absence, then consider Eco out of the UN for good. If it fails, then they're still around.

Oh, and apologies if anyone's offended by the above. My ambassador's finally lost her rag. This rant has been brewing a while.]

Ambassador, your forthrightness has stunned me.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

So, does anyone else realize that this is taking their own nation's economic choices and practically taking a massive Cleveland Steamer on them?

OOC: Never thought I'd see that expression used here. lol

IC: The people of Cluichstan wish we could support this but cannot, due to the reasons already stated by the Ausserlander and HotRodian representatives.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: [OOC note: Ecopoeia is not currently in the UN as I'm about to go off travelling for a while and wish to preserve the nation in its current state during my absence. If this passes in my absence, then consider Eco out of the UN for good. If it fails, then they're still around.]
Calm down dear, it's only a commercial (http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/8784/ghr9gr.png).

IC: Miss Chakrabarti, all your bluster and suchlike is all very nice, really, but this is serious business - man's talk. Go make me a cup of tea, would you? Good girl.

the extravagent raising of sales taxes

Alfred Sweynsson shakes his head in disbelief at hearing the representative of a nation which has 98% income tax descibe any potential rise in other taxes as "extravagant"...

OOC: Feel free to ignore this. Largely irrelevant as I've asked for the proposal to be removed. To the mods: I am sorry about that. I hadn't intended for it to be removed, but in my haste to submit it when I saw Belarum's proposal, I missed out a whole clause from my draft copy, which rather screwed it up.

Anyway, continued from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11006015&postcount=3811).

IC: The conversation at the bar had been short - a blessing, but only insofar as it had preserved some of his public decency. The exchange had consisted solely of discussing what he should call him. "Your Holiness" was heresy, "Your Highness" incorrect, "You're a ****" apparently very rude. They had settled on "Your Righteous Glorifulness" - it had been the idea of McXiminez (who had managed to get drunk again, fortunately). On his way out, he'd passed the two sniggering Ecopoeian reps. Word had already spread. And as he saw Otterby lean back to extend a middle finger from round his office door, he felt that last little nugget of decency plop satisfyingly away.

"Your Righteous Gloriness...why did we go up to the 34th floor and down again? Just so we could pass the Compadrian office?"

"It was a storyline device."

They arrived at the office. As they passed through Jiffjeff's room, Bausch noticed her stuff wasn't packed.

"Do you want me to tell Lori? She might take it pretty bad...her kid loves this place."

"Good thing she's staying then, perhaps?"

Bausch ground his teeth. Politicking bitch.

"Unlike you, Moltan," continued the Vizier, slamming the door to the private office as they entered. He removed his hood again. "What were you thinking?"

"Your Righteo-"

"Call me sir, or something."

"Sir. What was I thinking when?"

"Pardon?"

"Well, it's just, I've committed so many wild indiscretions during my time here - lies, policy U-turns, corruption, bribery, assault, four counts of vehicular manslaughter, that time Koopman and I huffed cleaning fluid and burned down the IMSB office - that I really don't know which particular one you're talking about. If it's about that girl from The Palentine, I swear, she totally didn't say no. I mean, she couldn't have, not through six layers of duct-tape-"

"Enough. It's not about that, obviously. It's about this 'Economic Development Act' you submitted."

"But, sir, the communists-"

"You know, I was watching the floor debate this afternoon. I thought the woman from Ecopoeia spoke well."

"Sir, she's a communist."

"No, she's not. Had you listened to one word she'd said, you'd have realized that. Instead - what was that? "Make me some tea" or whatever. Trying to be funny? Trying to show off for Riley and Sulla? Or was it just you being an ignorant, moronic, arrogant, prick?"

"You didn't think it was funny? Come on, you've got to admit-"

"No. And I doubt the Sultan would be amused either, given his positive incandescence at seeing this proposal, with our name on it."

"Sir, the communists-"

"Now, Moltan. Ms Jiffjeff has already submitted a request to the Secretariat to remove the proposal."

"Sir, the communists!"

"Hopefully, that will prevent the unfortunate position of our having to campaign against our own proposal. Assuming it reaches quorum."

"Sir...the communists..."

"SHUT UP ABOUT THE COMMUNISTS!"

The two glowered for a moment, like two reindeer about to lock horns in contest, like two dung beetles about to join in violent copulation amidst the excrement of their day's labour...Bausch shook his head. He needed better similes.

"Sir, I thought Gruenberg was committed to free trade?"

"We are. That does not mean we are committed to idiocy. No provisions about dumping from non-UN nations? Nothing about trade of hazardous or illegal substances? Nothing about protecting defence contracts? No provisions for arbitration? In general, nothing at all like the kind of free trade proposal we had discussed? That's not free trade: that's bullshit."

"That would be an awesome tagline for a movie."

"Bausch, I am losing my patience with you. Shut up."

"Yes sir. But-"

"Shut up."

"Sir-"

"Shut up."

"..."

"Shut up."

"I didn't-"

"Shut up."

It was not a game Bausch had the patience to persist with, so he stopped, sulkily.

"Bausch, Sheknugate was one thing, but having this kind of trash with our nation name attached, orchestrating a campaign to raise awareness of it, and risking global humiliation, on the level of that solar panel crap, is quite another. Furthermore, it severely jeopardises our role in the negotiations of the regional free trade agreement - which, I know, you were writing. And then there's the matter of your whole demeanour. You've run this office sloppily. Your latest repeal was a catastrophe; your deputy thought the "U" in UN stood for something that I won't repeat in pleasant company. And your attitude on the floor is a disgrace. When Ms Jiffjeff submitted detailed recommendations on a proposal, they were rebuffed because the representative had been irked by your previous conduct, and further by your incessant swearing. People are voting against our efforts solely because you can't seem to stop insulting everyone and anyone you meet. You're meant to be representing our nation; instead you're betraying. You've portrayed the most liberal government Gruenberg has ever seen as some kind of jackbooted police state, you've embarrassed the Sultan by spearheading the anti-abortion assault just when he was introducing legislation to liberalise our abortion laws, you've thoroughly humiliated yourself by your startling lack of knowledge when it comes to economics, intellectual property rights, law, and just about any subject you pretend to be so versed in. Instead of building bridges, you spend your time beating out petty feuds with Forgottenlord and Otterby. The think tank you founded hasn't produced an idea in months. You're a disgusting wretch, and a disgrace to this office. Well, no longer. You're fired. Get out."

IC: Miss Chakrabarti, all your bluster and suchlike is all very nice, really, but this is serious business - man's talk. Go make me a cup of tea, would you? Good girl.

IC:
Ambassador Zyryanov gets to her feet, and tosses the contents of her cup of grapefruit tea in the general direction of Ambassador Bausch's face.

OOC: No offence. ;)

IC:
Ambassador Zyryanov gets to her feet, and tosses the contents of her cup of grapefruit tea in the general direction of Ambassador Bausch's face.

OOC: No offence. ;)
OOC: None taken. But, as above, he might not be around to get a shot of tea to the face. I could edit my post to include it?

OOC: None taken. But, as above, he might not be around to get a shot of tea to the face. I could edit my post to include it?

OOC: If you want. I hadn't seen your post when I posted mine. Maybe she tosses it as he leaves - and hits, or misses, as you prefer.

OOC: If you want. I hadn't seen your post when I posted mine. Maybe she tosses it as he leaves - and hits, or misses, as you prefer.
OOC: Edited my stranger's bar post.

Removed by request.
Approvals: 116 (Montyclifford, SPASTIC COLON, Valcoma, Ultravibe, Alexandrian Ptolemais, Dragoon Empire III, SocialistRepublica, Botim, Errinundera, Lnferno, Ceorana, Cadburybars, Ultimate WTF, Free Happiness States, D4rk 3mpire, New Hamilton, Rasla, Merinium, Singring, Ohrder, Grausamalia, Liu Chu, 666666666, Glendina, Adolf Barham, Wickedly evil people, Gunfreak, Campania felix, Leicnin, Republic of Bosnia, OCR, The Risen Christ, The doomed world, Mr God, English Wales, Desert Storm Iraq, Rhiannzar, Britannic Colonies, Kyrit, Havl, Dirtied Towels, Zasavje org, Versalia, Elletania, Dupitable, The Brown Legionnaires, Syed, Sidosermo Indah, The Great Commonwealth, Gyunwap, Farnboroughingia, Livonian Order, Leg-ends, Smiteousness, Roisoin, Najra, Work damn you work, WarDuck, Christs Followers, NamiKaze, Korinekia, Arab Democratic States, Pacifistic Orators, America---, Imarralia, Mindless Atreyu, Assington, Rignoktic, Green Shirts, Supville, Quaon, Marjatta, Great Britannya, Parasinia, Akmal, States of Commonwealth, Baudrillard, Deltaro, Cire Nallehs, Landoland, Caraz, Republic of Freedonia, Pandarens, Carlswelt, Moral Highs, Fryk, Bellaben, Manussa, Hellthius, Gaiah, Arothiania, Arlington Road, Athens and Midlands, Erith Avlantia, Frei fur Allem, Xanheria, Flamebaittrolls, Melandru, Palentine UN Office, Donchatryit, Pacific Ocean States, Carlitistia, St Edmund, Funky Evil, Dizziness, East Vanistan, Brozvakia, Square rootedness, Cochim, Clarinettic Geeks, Isgardia, D41k57, Ardidi, Hanzistantopia, So1idus, Ecchi Unlimited)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 11 more approvals)

OOC: Never mind the tea in Bausch's face - what about the coffee on my monitor?

Sublime stuff, Gru.

OOC: Never mind the tea in Bausch's face - what about the coffee on my monitor?

Sublime stuff, Gru.

OOC: I always enjoy Gruen's rp posts, often to the point of stomach aches caused by laughter. Some of his stuff on the DEFCON and Antarctic Oasis offsite forums has been pure genius. And when you've got him and Kenny going back and forth -- good gawd! :D