NationStates Jolt Archive

The Federal Republic of Belarum, in light of Tarmsden's new revisions, officially WITHDRAWS the original proposal "Developed Economic Advancement".

Congratulations! It is thrilling to have taken such a big step towards national rights, especially with the failure of the free trade proposal from Gruenberg. Hopefully, this will reach queue in time to hit the floor!

Congratulations! It is thrilling to have taken such a big step towards national rights, especially with the failure of the free trade proposal from Gruenberg. Hopefully, this will reach queue in time to hit the floor!
Gruenberg's proposal did not fail, he had it deleted.

I stand corrected. Still, let's go for it and try to get this through.

Well done so far, Belarum. Best of luck with getting to quorum. :D

As of this moment, only 42 more votes to go!

If anyone has any questions about the proposal, please post them here. :D

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous UN legislation;
What about later legislation?

What about later legislation?

Later legislation limiting protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect national labor forces and industries would not, should this proposal pass, be possible.

Later legislation limiting protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect national labor forces and industries would not, should this proposal pass, be possible.
Bingo. National sovereignty in action.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

:D :D

Later legislation limiting protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect national labor forces and industries would not, should this proposal pass, be possible.

AFFIRMING that the option to trade freely with another nation should be left to the discretion of each nation engaged or desiring to engage in such actions, and that this legislation may be invoked by individual nations which seek not to participate in future UN free trade initiatives,

This proposal outlines the right of every nation to set their own foreign economic policy, as oppose to the UN doing it for them.

On another note:

QUOREM!!!!!

Thank you both Tarmsden and Jey; without your help this couldn't have been a reality.

OOC: It's times like this I'm really glad that the nation that I really like to play isn't in the UN. So go ahead and kill free trade in the UN for all time. It's your economies.

IC: Let the debates begin. Man is this going to be fun!

I don't expect this'll be listened to - instead there will simply be a response about how terrible free trade is, with no citing of anything approaching evidence, or some snarky retort about how I must be a hypercapitalist oppressor for opposing this bill - but I'll speak up anyway.

You do realize that, whilst this proposal sets itself out as being "fair trade", it completely eschews any of the goals that most fair trade advocates would associate themselves with. For example, the Make Poverty History (http://www.makepovertyhistory.org) campaign names three principle goals for the UK government to work towards to achieve 'trade justice'. They are:
Fight to ensure that governments, particularly in poor countries, can choose the best solutions to end poverty and protect the environment.
End export dumping that damages the livelihoods of poor communities around the world.
Make laws that stop big business profiting at the expense of people and the environment.

I assume this proposal's supporters would claim they are achieving the first of these. However, look closely. The proposal talks about unemployment in developed nations. Where are those jobs going? To the developing nations. So this proposal is not allowing poor countries to 'choose the best solutions to end poverty' - it's allowing rich countries to ensure that employment will never rise (and hence poverty fall) in developing nations.

Furthermore, it actively prevents the second goal being attained, because it allows developed nations to introduce subsidies of extortionate rates, such as the US or EU farm subsidies that currently cripple African and South American agricultural development. There is no provision for preventing export dumping, and once this passes - which it inevitably will - I fail to see how the UN could ever act to eliminate it.

As for the third aim, well again, the proposal no doubt believes it is some way towards accomplishing this. I don't really see how. The proposal means that big business in developed nations can be propped up by government subsidies. There's a mention of small businesses struggling in developing nations...what about small business in developed nations, that account for such a high proportion of employment? How will they compete once multinationals start getting massive handouts from government?

Furthermore, I can't believe there's not been more concern about clause 2 expressed. Embargoes have historically had dreadful effects. Between 1991 and 2003, the UN imposed sanctions against Iraq, under Resolution 661 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0661.htm). This basically killed the Iraqi economy - and thousands of Iraqi children with them (half a million, according to UNICEF - probably significantly fewer, but still in the tens to hundreds of thousands). Still, at least it toppled Saddam, right? You saw his elaborate palaces: he didn't lose out at all because of the enbargo. It's just the people who suffer. It was the same in South Africa, and the same in Cuba. This proposal would allow snap decisions to impose embargoes on clothing, water, fuel - and I'm sure the legalists could wangle their way round the past resolutions to get medicine and food into that too. There's not even any oversight process for the imposition of sanctions; sickening.

Of course, with a nice shiny title like that - incidentally, Jey, you were protesting the title of the other proposal; how quick things change, huh? - this'll pass by thousands of votes. I salute your progressive thinking.


----

Actually, given I prophesied there not being a substantive response, there may as well be a point to this post. To the supporters of this proposal:
1. Defend the use of subsidies by developed nations.
2. Defend the imposition of embargoes of essential goods on poor nations.
3. Explain how developing nations could possibly compete against developed nations, if the latter are permitted to employ protectionist measures against them.
4. Explain how, if you link unemployment to general nastiness, employment could rise in developing nations, and thus how general nastiness could decrease there (or is it only a concern if white people are victims of crime?), if they cannot develop manual sectors because developed nations protect such industries.
5. Describe how the UN could enact future legislation against export dumping, with this in place.

incidentally, Jey, you were protesting the title of the other proposal; how quick things change, huh?That's easy. Clause 1 lets him continue his hackneyed, ridiculous economic "policy".

Actually, Gruenberg practically stole my title for this proposal when it was still being drafted.

Well, if you want to get a bit technical, this act isn't just for developed nations; it's for developing nations as well. The developing nations now stand to build up their domestic industries (as did the United States, y'know, the greatest economic power on the RL planet, after the Civil and Revolutionary Wars) by enacting tariffs on goods from developed nations, thereby allowing industries to develop out of necessity (that "invisible hand" all those die-hard free market pioneers love) and allows the government to make some money off of imports coming into the country, allowing them to put more money into things such as social benifits for it's citizenry.

This act will stand to see many a developing nation triumph in creating stronger individual economies, allowing them to ween themselves from the teet of developed economic might.

Actually, Gruenberg practically stole my title for this proposal when it was still being drafted.

Well, if you want to get a bit technical, this act isn't just for developed nations; it's for developing nations as well. The developing nations now stand to build up their domestic industries (as did the United States, y'know, the greatest economic power on the RL planet, after the Civil and Revolutionary Wars) by enacting tariffs on goods from developed nations, thereby allowing industries to develop out of necessity (that "invisible hand" all those die-hard free market pioneers love) and allows the government to make some money off of imports coming into the country, allowing them to put more money into things such as social benifits for it's citizenry.

This act will stand to see many a developing nation triumph in creating stronger individual economies, allowing them to ween themselves from the teet of developed economic might.
Right, it's just my understanding of 'a bit technical' would include some form of evidence.

Firstly, you clearly don't understand what the Invisible Hand is. Secondly, neither do you believe in it - so banking your proposal's hopes on it is rather silly.

You say it'd be good because governments could provide social benefits. Here's a better solution: the government doesn't need to, because its citizens actually have jobs.

Finally, this - "thereby allowing industries to develop out of necessity" - is the most ridiculous bit. Which economist are you getting this from? Because that sounds like free trade theory - that in an open market, industries will develop where they're needed, where they're efficient, and where they're wanted. How tariffs would facilitate that, I don't understand. Could you explain for simple-minded folk like me?

Also some vague attempt to respond to any of my points would be appreciated.

First of all, THIS ACT DOES NOT BAN FREE TRADE. I don't think you can quite comprehend that, since you've gone into coniption fits at even the thought of nations having the ability to set their own economic policies. If you want control of every single nation's economy, just say so, and you may be crowned grand imperitor of the United Nations, resolver of all disputes among your humble populace.

This act gives nations back their right to choose their own foreign economic policy as they see fit. If you prefer totalitarianism to democracy and self-determination, perhaps the UN isn't the organization for you.

When nations experience competition on a smaller scale (as oppose to the massless vacuum of nations in the NS world), it ensures more winners (workers, employers, producers, etc). Think of it as a boat race (fairly easy to understand for "simple folk", eh?) in a series of many lakes with many competitors, as oppose to all the competitors in one massive ocean. There are more winners on the small scale lake races, resulting in more prosperity, as oppose to the race on the huge ocean. That's as simply as I can put it.

You also seem to refuse to acknowledge the 36 million US citizens who have lost their jobs since the early 80's. What happens to them? They lose their job while another worker in another part of the world is exploited for a shameless, money-grubbing, corrupt system?

When you acknowledge what effectively happens to the recently unemployed in said "developed" nations, and how badly the workers in China are exploited for cheap labor, then I may change my tune about free trade. But you won't, so I won't.

First of all, THIS ACT DOES NOT BAN FREE TRADE. I don't think you can quite comprehend that, since you've gone into coniption fits at even the thought of nations having the ability to set their own economic policies. If you want control of every single nation's economy, just say so, and you may be crowned grand imperitor of the United Nations, resolver of all disputes among your humble populace.
or some snarky retort about how I must be a hypercapitalist oppressor for opposing this bill
Anyway, could you find one point in my posts where I advocate free trade? Thanks.

Incidentally, if you're saying that nations should have control of their own economies, then this certainly aren't the answer. Are you saying that Mexico has control of its own economy, when its own agriculture industry is so shafted by the agriculture subsidies permitted under NAFTA that every able-bodied person is hot-footing it into Texas?

This act gives nations back their right to choose their own foreign economic policy as they see fit. If you prefer totalitarianism to democracy and self-determination, perhaps the UN isn't the organization for you.
Uh, what? Firstly, I already know the UN isn't the organization for me. I pulled Golgothastan out long ago.

Secondly, our political freedoms are "Corrupted" (the highest level) and we're ranked 200-250 in the world for Political Freedoms. So don't fucking lecture us about totalitarianism. And this proposal contains not one word about democracy anyway, so this all seems mighty tangential.

When nations experience competition on a smaller scale (as oppose to the massless vacuum of nations in the NS world), it ensures more winners (workers, employers, producers, etc). Think of it as a boat race (fairly easy to understand for "simple folk", eh?) in a series of many lakes with many competitors, as oppose to all the competitors in one massive ocean. There are more winners on the small scale lake races, resulting in more prosperity, as oppose to the race on the huge ocean. That's as simply as I can put it.
Once again, do you have any evidence for your assertion that competition produces fewer winners? Because it's a fairly fundamental tenet of economic theory that competition increases productivity, so I don't really understand how you're making this claim. Of course, if you cited your sources, it would be one hell of a lot easier. I assume, of course, you do have sources on this? (I'm personally going off Smith, Book 1 Chapter VII (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html) here. Interesting line: "Hence the exorbitant price of the necessaries of life during the blockade of a town or in a famine.")

Now. As I suspected, you're not responding to all my points. That's fair enough; you wrote the proposal, I can't expect you to defend it as well. So throw me a bone like the humanitarian you are: respond to just one of my points, and I'll go home happy, wagging my tail like a good doggy.

You also seem to refuse to acknowledge the 36 million US citizens who have lost their jobs since the early 80's. What happens to them? They lose their job while another worker in another part of the world is exploited for a shameless, money-grubbing, corrupt system?

When you acknowledge what effectively happens to the recently unemployed in said "developed" nations, and how badly the workers in China are exploited for cheap labor, then I may change my tune about free trade. But you won't, so I won't.
36 million? Where are you getting that figure from. I've got a figure of 879,280 (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147).

And secondly, we should stop workers being treated badly. We should institute labour regulations for working weeks, industrial safety, union rights, that sort of thing. I don't think a minimum wage is practicable within the UN, but it's something to aim for. Just because I oppose your proposal doesn't mean I think workers should be exploited.

Can you not understand that? Can you not see that it's not just free traders who will oppose this? Go to Indymedia, and see the vitriol spewed about US farm subsidies. You're saying they're all capitalist oppressors too for opposing subsidies? Find me a left-wing group that supports the Cuban Embargo. In fact, find me a right-wing one - The Cato Institute certainly doesn't, and they really are bastards.

I don't need to change my tune about free trade. I'm already implacably opposed to its abuses.

I still don't like the fact that any UN legislation where lowering tariffs would gain approval (Recycling anyone?) would instantly be illegal.
They would have to become 'recommending' clauses, and everyone knows the result of that.

This will very simply backfire. I now have the right to do anything with my economy. It is stronger than yours. In economic warfare like real warfare, the strongest economy wins. The rich countries would complete crush the poorer countries with this legislation because it applies to everyone. Because my economy has all the essentially resources, and you don't I can place tariffs and other taxes on essential goods forcing you to turn over almost everything with very unfair competition. To get essential things like rice, oil, and other goods you have to sell me your goods cheap.

@Golgothistan:

http://www.cbpp.org/2-16-05ui.htm
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/10/85215.shtml

Basically, in my country (the US), employment is lagging, economic hardship is increasing, and federal deficits are skyrocketing, pretty much all because we are the only nation on the planet that has truly embraced this grand experiment in free trade. Our trade deficits are unsustainable, and if something isn't done soon the entire economy is bound to collapse.

If protective tariffs were put in place, and industry was brought back home, we would be able to defeat this without a bat of the eye.

@Golgothistan:

http://www.cbpp.org/2-16-05ui.htm
Your argument is very strong, especially seeing as you've had to resort to a two-year-old source. :rolleyes:
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/10/85215.shtml
And a source that doesn't seem to be very credible and presents no reasons to back up its arguments.
Basically, in my country (the US), employment is lagging, economic hardship is increasing, and federal deficits are skyrocketing, pretty much all because we are the only nation on the planet that has truly embraced this grand experiment in free trade. Our trade deficits are unsustainable, and if something isn't done soon the entire economy is bound to collapse.
I fail to see how the federal deficit can be the result of anything but budget decisions by the federal government. And in terms of employment, your source seems to say it's been going up. Sure, wages are going down: because people aren't getting educated and aren't being able to compete in a global market. The answer is to help what benefits companies benefit people as well -- not drag down companies so people are completely protected.
If protective tariffs were put in place, and industry was brought back home, we would be able to defeat this without a bat of the eye.
And then lose all competition and therefore most of our incentive to innovate, lose vast markets for our goods and services due to retaliatory tariffs, and stick our heads into the sand while all the other nations who have embraced free trade advance and get money from their trade and innovation.

Not to mention that then people in other nations would suffer as well, from not being able to trade freely with one of the largest economies on earth.

Your argument is very strong, especially seeing as you've had to resort to a two-year-old source. :rolleyes:

And a source that doesn't seem to be very credible and presents no reasons to back up its arguments.

My guess is you took the time to read neither.

I fail to see how the federal deficit can be the result of anything but budget decisions by the federal government. And in terms of employment, your source seems to say it's been going up. Sure, wages are going down: because people aren't getting educated and aren't being able to compete in a global market. The answer is to help what benefits companies benefit people as well -- not drag down companies so people are completely protected.

And then lose all competition and therefore most of our incentive to innovate, lose vast markets for our goods and services due to retaliatory tariffs, and stick our heads into the sand while all the other nations who have embraced free trade advance and get money from their trade and innovation.

Not to mention that then people in other nations would suffer as well, from not being able to trade freely with one of the largest economies on earth.

You think Japan is abolishing all duties and tariffs on products going into their nation? The answer is NO. Not a chance, because they know that they're making out with massive trade surpluses by protecting their home economies, all the while becoming more innovative by the second.

The fact of the matter is, trade deficits are rising and people are starting to feel the hurt. Job growth, unless you want to be a bartender or waitress, is near zero. The US is cowtowing to an unsustainable system, and anyone with a thought in their head should realize that more free trade isn't the answer to the job creation crisis.

My guess is you took the time to read neither.
In fact I did.
You think Japan is abolishing all duties and tariffs on products going into their nation? The answer is NO. Not a chance, because they know that they're making out with massive trade surpluses by protecting their home economies, all the while becoming more innovative by the second.
The fact is, you will always have trade deficits as long as you have trade surpluses. Net trade is a zero-sum game: for everything you export, someone else has to import it. So advocating this resolution as a way to decrease trade surpluses is ludicrious. And how does protectionism increase innovation?
The fact of the matter is, trade deficits are rising and people are starting to feel the hurt. Job growth, unless you want to be a bartender or waitress, is near zero. The US is cowtowing to an unsustainable system, and anyone with a thought in their head should realize that more free trade isn't the answer to the job creation crisis.
Trade deficits cannot rise, as I stated before: remember, we are talking international here. And there's more to economies than jobs. Sure, people need jobs, but this isn't the U.S., and we should pass legislation making it easier for people to get jobs so they compete internationally, not artificially create jobs for people who can't be bothered to learn anything and make themselves useful.

And this legislation will actually massively hurt developing nations, by reducing the number of jobs available to them, a statistic that you hold onto dearly. How are they being "exploited", as you say? A job is a job.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-16-05ui.htm
EPI is the same source I used. I still don't see where the 36 million figure is. Furthermore, your source says "Jobs were created in every month in 2004...Altogether, 2.2 million jobs — or about 181,000 jobs a month — were created from December 2003 to December 2004."

Furthermore, there is not one mention of free trade in the article.

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/10/85215.shtml
This article says "George Mason University economist Walter Williams recently ridiculed the claim that U.S. manufacturing jobs are moving to China. Williams asks how the United States could be losing manufacturing jobs to China when the Chinese are losing jobs faster than the United States: "Since 2000, China has lost 4.5 million manufacturing jobs, compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the United States." This should make it obvious to anyone who claims to be an economist that offshore production of goods and services is an example of capital seeking absolute advantage in lowest factor cost, not a case of free trade based on comparative advantage."

And again, no figure of 36 million.

Basically, in my country (the US), employment is lagging, economic hardship is increasing, and federal deficits are skyrocketing, pretty much all because we are the only nation on the planet that has truly embraced this grand experiment in free trade. Our trade deficits are unsustainable, and if something isn't done soon the entire economy is bound to collapse.

If protective tariffs were put in place, and industry was brought back home, we would be able to defeat this without a bat of the eye.
The US hasn't embraced free trade; it tried to enact steel tariffs against Canada, and it pays huge subsidies to its farmers. And all the tariffs in the world aren't going to keep low-level manufacturing jobs there.

Try again.

Try again.Actually, don't.

Bringing in real world examples in UN debates is one thing. When it degrades to a pissing contest over who's sources are more accurate, it's gone too far. This isn't the General forum.

OOC: Damn.

I wish I'd had more time to look into this matter. So this is absolutely clear: I want to see a resolution that sets out to achieve some of the goals detailed here. No more UN (Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), no more UN espousal of the dubious merits of untrammelled trade liberalisation. However, any resolution that strives to bring forth such a scenario must must must take care to address the issues of dumping and developed nation protectionism.

Free Trade resolutions harm developing nations - every FTA has assisted developed UN nations, often to developing nations' detriment (if we assume NS works in the same way as the real world). However, unqualified protectionism like this also benefits the developed at the expense of the developing, for it endorses the likes of EU's dreadful Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

I may yet support this, dependent on a moderator ruling. Will this resolution prevent future resolutions from legislating against trade dumping, market distortion, etc? In other words, if we pass this are stuck with the CAP's NS equivalent?

Well, very simply put, I wanted to create this proposal in order to give all nations the individual option of what they feel they should do with their economies. If they wanted tariffs, they could enact tariffs. If they want free or fair trade, they could have it with like-minded nations that wanted to trade as well. And I feel that comes across well in this proposal.

Absolutely not. Nat Sov blocks should only be introduced when the issue is a purely national one; this includes death penalties, the internal economic workings of a nation, etc. Trade, and the distortion of it by tariffs, is most definately an international issue, and thus one the UN should maintain the right to legislate in.

Trade, and the distortion of it by tariffs, is most definately an international issue, and thus one the UN should maintain the right to legislate in.
Which is a position shared by the NSO.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

I disagree with Cob and Flib. If a 'NatSov blocker' is the best way in the NSUN to protect poor nations' markets from being prised open by rapacious neo-colonials, then so be it. However - subject to moderator ruling - I suspect this particular resolution will do more harm than good.

Actually, don't.
Ok, sorry. My counter would be that if he is basing his proposal on the assumption that "FURTHER DISTURBED by the adverse effects of free trade in a many number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in many underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheap labor in poorer nations, and massive job loss in developed nations, which has been proven to lead to increased rates of crime, poverty, and drug abuse," he must have something to back it up.

However, as no responses are forthcoming to my points, I may as well bow out.

Ecopoeia: Well, question to you. Can you think of a legal anti-dumping proposal after this? I can't, at least not of one that could comprehensively deal with all of the potential abuses.

I disagree with Cob and Flib. If a 'NatSov blocker' is the best way in the NSUN to protect poor nations' markets from being prised open by rapacious neo-colonials, then so be it. However - subject to moderator ruling - I suspect this particular resolution will do more harm than good.


Only problem being that those 'rapacious neo-colonials' will have the same rights to market distortion as the poor nations, essentially turning it back to the same economic war it was before. Just with more math involved.

I'm lost as to how this proposal will hurt people. This proposal endorses fair trade and merely allows nations to have a little more self-determination as far as their economies go. I challenge anyone to break down what I said and tell me why it's bad.

Major ditto to Belarum's latest post. These rights already exist, they just haven't been affirmed. Where's the love for freedom and variety in the world?

As far as the anti-dumping legislation goes, this resolution wouldn't block it. Heck, it doesn't even deal with it. The UN can still give certain goods the go-ahead for universal free trade. I don't know how to word an effective anti-dumping proposal either, but it's not like this is a detriment to those efforts. There are potentials for dumping with or without this resolution. Under this resolution, tariffs could be set high to make it costly to dump goods on a nation. Under free trade, nothing could be done. How does this resolution hurt?

I'll defer to a moderator judgement on the viability of future legislation before I make my decision.

Not that it'll make any difference - no NS for me for the entirety of June!

I'm lost as to how this proposal will hurt people. This proposal endorses fair trade and merely allows nations to have a little more self-determination as far as their economies go. I challenge anyone to break down what I said and tell me why it's bad.
Yes, letting nations decide their tariffs is fine, as long as it doesn't interfere with something that has current UN intervention. Everyone agrees that.
What it 'hurts' is a possibly very worthwhile future UN proposal that includes lowering tarrifs as a necessity either illegal or ineffective after modification.
Not all tarrif banishment is 'evil', not all motivation is economic. As I mentioned earlier, tarrif removal was an essential element of the recycling resolution, where encouragement to trade recycled goods was needed to encourage recycling in general.
Recommending that the UN don't reduce tarrifs, and perhaps mandating their banishment for banishment's sake - although that's still a blocker, that could be accepted.

We understand that the UN needs to be able to abolish tariffs in some cases. Hence the clause:

"1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous UN legislation;"

With the emphasis on:

"that this legislation may be invoked by individual nations which seek not to participate in future UN free trade initiatives".

It does not stop future UN free trade initiatives, it simply makes them voluntary. Actually, to be quite honest, when I started making this post, I thought it guaranteed the UN's right to enact free trade. Although this isn't a deal-breaker, I actually asked Belarum to include something about that, and I thought (s)he did. I would like to see this change made, Belarum, if it isn't impossible at this point. I'd even be willing to go through the approval status again to see this happen. I thought the wording was changed to "previous or future UN legislation" wherever it appeared.

I thought the wording was changed to "previous or future UN legislation" wherever it appeared.

That doesn't make sense, though. That clause is completely worthless if its worded that way. Right now: UN members are allowed to enforce tariffs unless a resolution says you cant. After that clause: same situation.

Well, I felt that if I included "future", it would render the proposal totally worthless. It works the same way though; if a UN resolution is enacted dealing with free trade, the UN enforces it, even if this proposal is in effect. You see, this proposal isn't about "I hate free trade and I'll do anything to stop it", it came from a personal feeling more along the lines of "I personally disagree with free trade, as do other nations, and I think there should be a UN resolution that allows UN nations a say in wether their economies support a free trade, fair trade, or protectionist system". Because ultimately, choice, democracy, and self-determination are the principles of a free society, and I believe that it is the duty of the UN to endorse free societies around the world.

Well, I felt that if I included "future", it would render the proposal totally worthless. It works the same way though; if a UN resolution is enacted dealing with free trade, the UN enforces it, even if this proposal is in effect. You see, this proposal isn't about "I hate free trade and I'll do anything to stop it", it came from a personal feeling more along the lines of "I personally disagree with free trade, as do other nations, and I think there should be a UN resolution that allows UN nations a say in wether their economies support a free trade, fair trade, or protectionist system". Because ultimately, choice, democracy, and self-determination are the principles of a free society, and I believe that it is the duty of the UN to endorse free societies around the world.
A free society means that people are free, not nations. (Nations should only have the right to sovereignity when it doesn't affect other nations. In this case, it does: there are cases where severe tariffs and embargoes hurt the world economy or another nation.) And I fail to see how this grants freedom to people: it simply allows nations to deny people freedom of trade.

I'm lost as to how this proposal will hurt people. This proposal endorses fair trade and merely allows nations to have a little more self-determination as far as their economies go. I challenge anyone to break down what I said and tell me why it's bad.
I did. And you didn't reply.

Ok, sorry. My counter would be that if he is basing his proposal on the assumption that "FURTHER DISTURBED by the adverse effects of free trade in a many number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in many underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheap labor in poorer nations, and massive job loss in developed nations, which has been proven to lead to increased rates of crime, poverty, and drug abuse," he must have something to back it up.

Are you saying that he is wrong to say this then? There are examples to back up much of what he has said - growing structural unemployment in the United States, the gradual relocation of global manufacturing to China, and unemployment is in fact a major factor in the creation of social problems. Sweatshop labour in developing countries, small businesses unable to compete with the economies of scale advantages the large ones have. These are real things actually happening, and all these are associated with the unfettered movement of goods. If you are implying that free trade is not causing this, maybe you should say why you think so.

Ecopoeia: Well, question to you. Can you think of a legal anti-dumping proposal after this? I can't, at least not of one that could comprehensively deal with all of the potential abuses.

But is a UN resolution the only way to counteract dumping? Can't nations take action for themselves? They're the ones being hurt by it after all, they could always enact an embargo or impose tariffs, which this proposal guarentees they will be able to do.

Are you saying that he is wrong to say this then? There are examples to back up much of what he has said - growing structural unemployment in the United States, the gradual relocation of global manufacturing to China, and unemployment is in fact a major factor in the creation of social problems. Sweatshop labour in developing countries, small businesses unable to compete with the economies of scale advantages the large ones have. These are real things actually happening, and all these are associated with the unfettered movement of goods. If you are implying that free trade is not causing this, maybe you should say why you think so.
But we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why doesn't the UN pass a resolution remedying this situation instead of allowing nations to just cut off free trade at the expense of other nations.
But is a UN resolution the only way to counteract dumping? Can't nations take action for themselves? They're the ones being hurt by it after all, they could always enact an embargo or impose tariffs, which this proposal guarentees they will be able to do.
As I said above, it would be better for a UN anti-dumping resolution to solve this and then nations wouldn't have to impose tariffs, which are harmful to the global economy.

This proposal is more of an affirmation of existing rights rather than creation of new rights. Still, I feel that the current version puts unnecessary limits on the UN's ability to kill tariffs where needed. Please seriously consider making a change.

This proposal doesn't block future UN free trade initiatives. It is not illegal to make free trade resolutions in the future if this proposal becomes law.

This proposal doesn't block future UN free trade initiatives. It is not illegal to make free trade resolutions in the future if this proposal becomes law.
Of course, they won't do anything, but that's just a minor detail. :rolleyes:

No, they have the full effect. You're making waves simply because you don't like the idea of nations having control of their own economies. You're turning nothing into something.

But we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why doesn't the UN pass a resolution remedying this situation instead of allowing nations to just cut off free trade at the expense of other nations.

But what if a nation wants to hurt other nations? Say, cutting off trade to protest anything from human rights abuses to not being invited to the ruler's birthday party. I'm not saying that it should be done in all circumstances, but it's a powerful diplomatic tool in some.

Trade is good, but it has to be managed. Free trade is thus extremely problematic. You say cutting off free trade will be at expense of other nations, and that can be true - but free trade can be at expense of the nation itself. It can suffer economic devastation, leading to social problems and civil unrest. Do you mean to say they should just sigh and say "oh well, other people are benefiting from the jobs our own people no longer have, I guess they need it more. Let's just accept this massive structural unemployment and hope that mob of angry protestors doesn't torture us too much before they shoot us. We shouldn't do things at expense of other nations."

As I said above, it would be better for a UN anti-dumping resolution to solve this and then nations wouldn't have to impose tariffs, which are harmful to the global economy.

That protectionism is harmful to the global economy comes from an economic theory (comparative advantage) which assumes highly unrealistic conditions. Saying countries should specialise in goods where they have comparative advantage, as this would make for the most efficient production of goods, assumes that demand will always exist to buy up the supply, and that all resources can be used to do anything. Common sense can tell you that's not true and that numerous other problems exist applying this to the real world.

Now, you seem to be saying countries shouldn't safeguard their economies because it will hurt the global economy. But domestic economies are also part of the global economy. Dipping into RL, if the US domestic economy has a problem, so does the global economy since for better or worse it is by far the biggest consumer in the world. What goes on domestically in other large economies such as Japan, the EU, and China also affects the global economy. You're implying a seperation between local economies and the global which doesn't exist. If a lack of protectionism causes the collapse of a local economy, it can damage the global economy much more than a protectionist tariff might have.

Relate this to the real world - say the US drops all its protectionist policies, and as a result the US middle class is decimated as their jobs move to places with lower labour costs, or their employers go out of business, unable to compete with better and cheaper imports. Suddenly the world's biggest spenders are unemployed and can't spend anymore - soon they can't even afford the cheap imports anymore. Many countries will see their export markets dry up, and their own economies will suffer; the global economy, with a sudden drop in consumption, will head for a deep recession.

So protectionism can actually benefit the world economy. And unlike free trade it's something rooted in reality. And for one I'm betting that the reason that free trade doesn't exist in the real world is because world governments, or at least the experts they listen to, realise that.

No, they have the full effect. You're making waves simply because you don't like the idea of nations having control of their own economies. You're turning nothing into something.
How do they have full effect when they can be freely ignored by UN states under this resolution?
But what if a nation wants to hurt other nations? Say, cutting off trade to protest anything from human rights abuses to not being invited to the ruler's birthday party. I'm not saying that it should be done in all circumstances, but it's a powerful diplomatic tool in some.
So pass a resolution that addresses those circumstances.
Trade is good, but it has to be managed. Free trade is thus extremely problematic. You say cutting off free trade will be at expense of other nations, and that can be true - but free trade can be at expense of the nation itself. It can suffer economic devastation, leading to social problems and civil unrest. Do you mean to say they should just sigh and say "oh well, other people are benefiting from the jobs our own people no longer have, I guess they need it more. Let's just accept this massive structural unemployment and hope that mob of angry protestors doesn't torture us too much before they shoot us. We shouldn't do things at expense of other nations."
I'm not arguing for complete free trade. I'm arguing that we should leave our options open for future free trade resolutions, which may well include language stating that nations have the right to use protectionism in protest.
That protectionism is harmful to the global economy comes from an economic theory (comparative advantage) which assumes highly unrealistic conditions. Saying countries should specialise in goods where they have comparative advantage, as this would make for the most efficient production of goods, assumes that demand will always exist to buy up the supply, and that all resources can be used to do anything. Common sense can tell you that's not true and that numerous other problems exist applying this to the real world.
Since there are so many nations in NS, I'm not sure that applies here.
Now, you seem to be saying countries shouldn't safeguard their economies because it will hurt the global economy. But domestic economies are also part of the global economy. Dipping into RL, if the US domestic economy has a problem, so does the global economy since for better or worse it is by far the biggest consumer in the world. What goes on domestically in other large economies such as Japan, the EU, and China also affects the global economy. You're implying a seperation between local economies and the global which doesn't exist. If a lack of protectionism causes the collapse of a local economy, it can damage the global economy much more than a protectionist tariff might have.

Relate this to the real world - say the US drops all its protectionist policies, and as a result the US middle class is decimated as their jobs move to places with lower labour costs, or their employers go out of business, unable to compete with better and cheaper imports. Suddenly the world's biggest spenders are unemployed and can't spend anymore - soon they can't even afford the cheap imports anymore. Many countries will see their export markets dry up, and their own economies will suffer; the global economy, with a sudden drop in consumption, will head for a deep recession.
And suddenly, one of two things happens: (1) U.S. labor costs go down, meaning that the reverse will happen, bringing jobs back, as well as foreign investors spending more money, etc. or (2) the U.S. government increases education funding, gets workers competitive in the global market, meaning that everyone benefits: low-wage countries get more jobs, and developed countries have an incentive to compete globally, meaning they try harder, and thus they get more profits because they have a huge market all over the world. And in NS, we add a third option: (3) someone passes a resolution helping out low-wage countries, meaning the problem is greatly reduced in size, and so protectionism becomes a device for greedy nations or screwy economic systems.

So pass a resolution that addresses those circumstances.

We'd rather have this one.

I'm not arguing for complete free trade. I'm arguing that we should leave our options open for future free trade resolutions, which may well include language stating that nations have the right to use protectionism in protest.

But then that also defeats the purpose here. We might, for instance, suffer a death by a thousand cuts as every industry slowly gets obliged to become free trade. You're asking us to trust "maybe"s?

Since there are so many nations in NS, I'm not sure that applies here.

Why? It doesn't matter how many nations there are, comparative advantage and specialisation are still unrealistic. In fact, it might be even more so since the application of this would probably get ridiculously specific with countries in theory supposed to be producing only cushion covers with animal prints or car speedometer needles.

And suddenly, one of two things happens: (1) U.S. labor costs go down, meaning that the reverse will happen, bringing jobs back

Unfortunately that won't solve the problem unless deflation also occurs or some smart economic policy, which will probably include some protectionist measures, takes place. They might have jobs, but they will still be unable to afford the things they used to be able to, and you still have too little consumption for an economic recovery. And deflation itself carries quite a few economic consequences so even if it happens it might just make things worse.

as well as foreign investors spending more money

Another thing is, labour costs in the United States are just not going to go below that of developing countries. Competing is quite simply impossible. As I said earlier, unless you have massive deflation, a potential crisis in itself, it's just not going to happen. The US will also be competing with other countries with much more growth potential for that foreign investment. Meanwhile the ordinary people are still screwed.

(2) the U.S. government increases education funding, gets workers competitive in the global market,

Ordinarily that would be a solution; fiscal spending and running deficits are generally, under Keynesian theory, how to get out of a recession or dampen one by stimulating aggregate demand, of which government spending is a part. However, the ability of the US to do this in such a hypothetical situation has been severely compromised thanks to President "Trillions-In-Tax-Cuts-And-Two-Very-Expensive-Wars" Bush. Still, indeed this is a critical part of the solution to structural unemployment that the US is faced with; they really should do it right now, but it isn't happening.

meaning that everyone benefits: low-wage countries get more jobs, and developed countries have an incentive to compete globally, meaning they try harder, and thus they get more profits because they have a huge market all over the world.

But the global market can't buy their crap because they have too little disposable income since their jobs now pay so much less than they used to.

And in NS, we add a third option: (3) someone passes a resolution helping out low-wage countries, meaning the problem is greatly reduced in size, and so protectionism becomes a device for greedy nations or screwy economic systems.

What problem are you referring to? If you honestly believe free trade can work except in horrendously flawed economic theories, you need a reality check.

Additonally, in history protectionism hasn't really been a matter of greed but of necessity. Japan sheltered its industries for years and is now, even after wave after wave of corporate scandals, the second-biggest economy in the world. Developing countries look to follow the same example by advancing the infant-industry argument for their own protectionist measures - and if the developed countries have the cost advantage in tertiary industry (services, such as tourism, banking, legal and accountancy services) how will they ever reach that level of development without protectionism? Free trade stacks the chips against economic development of the third world and erodes the standard of living of the first world workers who have to work longer and harder for the sake of "competitiveness". Somewhere along the line we forgot that the economy should be measured by the standard of living of the people and not how much output it spits out.

:headbang: OOC: Frankly I'm not sure why I am even bothering to write a response to this load of manure. It's like we come from two completely different planets. Never the less, it's late and I'm writing a response.

Is free trade always good? No! I think we can at least agree on that. I would point out that every argument against free trade is not against free trade but against fair trade, one or more conditions where one or more nations are using unfair practices (typically against their own people) in order to gain an advantage in the market.

In the real world it is hard, well let's say impossible, to make free trade fair trade. It can happen in a number of markets, I think trade between the US and the UK is reasonably free and fair, but that is because both nations have a common ruleset that they apply to. In order for free trade to be fair trade there needs to be a common ruleset of fairness that needs to be established.

Er, wait a minute. Isn't that the UN? Wouldn't it be easier, and in fact better for all nations in the UN to come up with those requirements of fairness than it would be to throw the posibility of free trade out the window ... until repealed of course?

Protectionist measures almost never work. I present a number of arguments for the free trade positon.

Perils of protectionism By Lawrence Kudlow - Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050416-111817-1116r.htm)

The Weakness of the Strong Dollar Joseph E. Stiglitz (http://www.project-syndicate.org/print_commentary/stiglitz16/English)

What is required is a debate with the US, for the strong dollar has led to an anomalous situation: the world's richest country seems unable to live within its means and must continually borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from abroad to finance its huge trade deficits. The strong dollar--far more than Japanese protectionism--fuelled the bilateral deficit with Japan. It also contributed to protectionism at home, reflected in the new US steel tariffs.

The Truth About Free Trade and Protectionism by Bryan T. Johnson (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED042596b.cfm)

Throwing the baby out with the bath water, by allowing nations to act like little economic George Bushes, "Go ahead, bring it on," will only hurt every member nation in the UN. And in the end it does nothing. There will still be nations in the UN that will try to make a profit on the backs of their people and the only thing you can do against them is to spite your own noses by making your own people have to pay more for goods and services and in so doing lower your own economies and increase your own unemployment.

I believe someone in the news once recently commented that nations have the right to be stupid. And the UN, with a plethora of stupid nations has the right to be stupid as a body. But please, for the love of whatever brain cells you have remaining, think of the evidence!

Free trade is like democracy. Sucks, but it's the best we have.

:headbang: OOC: Frankly I'm not sure why I am even bothering to write a response to this load of manure. It's like we come from two completely different planets. Never the less, it's late and I'm writing a response.

And we the illustrious Songun vanguard born of heaven much thank you for your time, bourgeios capitalist pigdog! Regretfulness, I do not considering differing opinions "manure" and have deigned to respond! You shall be feeling honoured by this!

Is free trade always good? No! I think we can at least agree on that. I would point out that every argument against free trade is not against free trade but against fair trade, one or more conditions where one or more nations are using unfair practices (typically against their own people) in order to gain an advantage in the market.

No, I actually am against a lack of trade barriers, and I'm against free trade. It's amazing but true. I don't think abolishing protectionism is good at all. There's no cheating going on for one country to be able to produce something at lower costs than another, but that doesn't mean everything is gravy if you have free trade between the two.

In order for free trade to be fair trade there needs to be a common ruleset of fairness that needs to be established.

That's reasonable, but the very premise that free trade = happiness for everyone is incorrect. I've already discussed why the theory on which this conclusion is based is full of holes.

Er, wait a minute. Isn't that the UN? Wouldn't it be easier, and in fact better for all nations in the UN to come up with those requirements of fairness than it would be to throw the posibility of free trade out the window ... until repealed of course?

Free trade is still eminently possible if you want it. Just that you won't be able to force nations unwilling to participate to do so. Numerous free trade agreements already exist, you could always find one to join which will give you all the goodies and benefits you believe you will have. You're still welcome to practice free trade if this passes - just not to enforce it on others. Keep in mind as well, that the UN nations are in the minority.

Protectionist measures almost never work.

That depends on their goals, doesn't it? If the intention is to protect a domestic industry they are very effective, or at least they can be. If you mean side effects, keep reading.

Perils of protectionism By Lawrence Kudlow - Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050416-111817-1116r.htm)

This one has a lot for me to rebutt, but in particular, the "world free trade era" it's nostalgic for didn't actually exist, because there was quite a bit of protectionism in play which was arguably necessary for it to be such a golden age of capitalism. The US was sending pots of money to Europe and actually protected Europe's economy by restricting its own exports voluntarily, making itself a big export market for the Europeans. All this to recover the European economies devastated by WW2 and to prevent communists from coming to power there, especially because of their highly respected status and the rampant poverty in the immediate post-war years which made it all ripe for revolution. Hence the Marshall Plan and US policies to bring about European economic recovery. European peace was also more due to the Cold War than anything else. No one would want to start a fight when you're sandwiched by nuke-toting superpowers.

He also talks alot about growth but growth isn't the only measure of how well an economy is doing. Growth is pointless and counter-productive if the benefits aren't distributed equally, and you don't need high growth for a high standard of living. Take a look at the Scandinavian social democracies, which have the world's highest standard of living measured by the HDI. Sweden's real GDP growth rate is 2.6%, Norway is 3.7%, Denmark is 2.8%. All low, but healthy and sustainable. Other high-ranking countries such as Canada and Australia are in a similar range. Japan is 2.4%

It's not the growth. It's what you do with it.

The Weakness of the Strong Dollar Joseph E. Stiglitz (http://www.project-syndicate.org/print_commentary/stiglitz16/English)

A strong dollar actually is good for a big importer like the US, but I don't see how this argues against protectionism. In fact, I'd reccomend Stiglitz's The Roaring Nineties, an exploration of how the 6th paragraph of Kudlow's column is somewhat false.

The Truth About Free Trade and Protectionism by Bryan T. Johnson (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED042596b.cfm)

First, it's from 1996 - TEN YEARS AGO. So much has changed since then. I'm not arguing any of the points except perhaps number one, but let's take a look at the response to that.

Instead, [manufacturing] has maintained a constant level of about 21 percent of the total economy for three decades.

The statistic is deceiving here. 21% is in terms of output, and output doesn't necessarily connect to employment. Manufacturing jobs may have disappeared, but the existing ones are more productive. That's good, yes, on one level, you can do more with less. However, there's the problem of unemployment not factored in here, and it doesn't show that manufacturing jobs haven't been lost due to free trade.

U.S. companies would be invested up to their eyeballs in countries like Haiti, Somalia and the Dominican Republic. Obviously they're not, or these countries wouldn't be destitute.

These countries are all either unstable, don't have the requisite workforce, lack infrastructure, or some combination of the above. That's true today and perhaps even more so in 1996. They'd have to be mad to invest there.

This drop forced some 50,000 layoffs by the late 1980s. In other words, even though protectionism saved some 22,000 jobs, it caused a net job loss of 30,000. Some "protection."

You could then also conclude that the measures weren't strong enough. Anyway, the Japanese and European car makers have been moving in and setting up factories in the US, creating jobs, so all is well in the free trade world. OR IS IT? DUMDUMDUM.

I'm not against trade per se, and I agree protectionism is bad in some circumstances. But Japan, Europe, and the US are all on the same level. There's no real need for protectionism here. It's when you have a complete inability to compete due to highly differing levels of cost of living, wage, and development, like with the US and China. I'm bolding this because this is an important point I want to make and it's all getting fairly long: Things need to be decided and analysed case-by-case. You can't just make sweeping statements that free trade is good or protectionism is good. Hence we need this resolution to guarentee economic sovereignity rights so nations can choose what they think is best for them instead of having utopian visions enforced on them.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water

This analogy has come up twice and I honestly don't know what you all are referring to. Kindly explain at least what you mean.

making your own people have to pay more for goods and services and in so doing lower your own economies and increase your own unemployment.

ICly, lower consumption will not be a big deal for my economy since it isn't consumption-driven. Employment also won't be declining if consumption falls. This is because a large part of the economy is public sector and we disincentivise profit for private companies with high corporate taxes with tax breaks given for what the government deems "responsible corporate behaviour" like innovating new products. Most companies are also worker-controlled with employees collectively holding majority shares in their own companies, focusing the motive for profit into what makes the employees happy. We are also part of the IFTA, a closed trading bloc based on employee rights which embargoes all non-signatories with exceptions granted based on need and only to nations which are more or less in line with its provisions.

OOCly, I've already said so much about this subject. Whether protectionism will have those effects depends on the individual situation. It may, it may not. There's still a lot we don't really know about economics, to quote The Weegies, one of my Commie buddies over at IFTA, we think we're advanced with it but we're really at the 'WE AM CREATED FIRE' stage. Suffice to say that blanket statements are unhelpful and to reiterate my main point, you have to consider things on a case-by-case basis, which is why this resolution is a good thing, because governments now can decide and choose what will work for their people (or for refurbishing their private jet and building a new palace, depending on the type of government).

And there is nothing wrong with higher prices if it means economic security.

But please, for the love of whatever brain cells you have remaining, think of the evidence!

Free trade is like democracy. Sucks, but it's the best we have.

I've shown how point one is incorrect, and I know some anarchists who would disagree on the second.

Throw the baby out with the bathwater

Meaning:

We use this expression when we want to keep the valuable things when we get rid of the things we don't want. It is usually used in the negative to mean that we don't want to throw out the good stuff when we throw out the bad stuff.

Example sentences:

1. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
2. You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
3. He threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Example dialogue:

Two friends are talking about making changes to a personal website.

A: I'm going to make some changes to my website soon.
B: Oh really? What kind of changes? You're still going to keep the old pages, aren't you?
A: Yes, of course. The old pages will still be on the site.
B: Oh, good. I don't want you to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Good ol' English sayings.

I know what it means, I just don't know what the baby and the bathwater are supposed to be. As in what's being compared here.

To the esteemed Belarumite UN delegation:

I, the leader of Tarmsden, feel that is has become entirely necessary for me to write this open letter to you in order to urge you to listen to the voice of the international community and seriously reconsider your stance on the current proposal, “Developed Economic Advancement.”

As you well know, I have long been a proponent of national tariff and protection rights. I strongly believe in the cause of national sovereignty, and would like to commend you for creating a proposal that affirms the basic economic and taxation rights of every nation. That is why I consented to co-author this proposal with you. That is why I have constantly defended it in forum debates.

That is also why it pains me to write you this open letter. Early in debate, several strong concerns were voiced by a number of nations that this resolution places undue restrictions on the United Nations in terms of its ability to fight “good dumping” and in terms of its power to abolish tariffs where needed. We discussed this issue using good diplomacy and clean conduct, and I believe that you agreed to change certain troublesome sections so that the UN suffers no impediment on its rights to abolish tariffs for certain goods. You have rescinded that promise.

Now, I must stand in opposition to this resolution. I sincerely believe in the practice of free and informed diplomacy, but I feel that you have neglected it repeatedly here. I do not believe that this resolution will pass, and I will be casting a “nay” vote on it.

I would like to offer an alternative to this senseless debate over a resolution so flawed. There is no need for so much disagreement over a few specific clauses of a proposal when there is so much good. Therefore, if this resolution fails to pass, I will submit a new one with nearly identical wording (as the co-author, I am not stealing this text; it is already partially mine) that includes support for anti-dumping measures and protects the UN’s ability to set up meaningful mandates on international trade by abolishing tariffs for specific goods.

For those of you uncomfortable with the current resolution, I would like to urge you to vote against it. There is an alternative that will still guarantee your rights, and it will be proposed if or when the current “Developed Economic Advancement” fails.

Belarum, you now have a decision to make. If you withdraw the current proposal now before it reaches the floor, you will have my sincere gratitude and admiration. I will gladly give you my revised version of the proposal so that you may submit it and receive full credit for its authorship. You can let the current resolution go to a general floor vote and, should it fail, see it replaced with another resolution authored by myself and co-authored by you. Or, you can refuse to participate whatsoever. I would prefer the first. You deserve credit for all that you have done to create this protection rights movement. However, I am not afraid to carry out the second or last option, if need be.

The decision is yours. Time is short.

As always.

-Pesse Sesto, Comrade Executive of the People’s Republic of Tarmsden

I know what it means, I just don't know what the baby and the bathwater are supposed to be. As in what's being compared here.
In my post, "baby" refers to (the positivte effects of) free trade, while "bathwater" refers to the negative effects of free trade.

I seriously can't understand how you could support your nation's exports being taxed, which is what protectionism does.

In my post, "baby" refers to (the positivte effects of) free trade, while "bathwater" refers to the negative effects of free trade.

I seriously can't understand how you could support your nation's exports being taxed, which is what protectionism does.

Okay. That makes sense. I assume Tzorsland means the same thing.

Well, you might not understand, but we have absolutely no objection to nations imposing tariffs on our exports. We recognise their right to pursue economic policies which benefit their nation, just as our government pursues what it feels is in the interest of our people, held accountable in our case by parliamentary elections.

Negotiations between Belarum and Tarmsden have yielded some dialogue, and Belarum appears to be willing to withdraw the current proposal. The leader of Tarmsden would like to express his personal gratitude to Belarum for their openness and willingness to use diplomacy as a tool for betterment. Posted below is the revised draft of the resolution, sent to Belarum. It now belongs jointly to Belarum and Tarmsden. Please debate its merits, as the original may now be withdrawn.

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

REFFERRING to Section I of Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States) in order to better illustrate this resolution,

DISTURBED by the many UN nations which have overlooked and directly circumvented the authority of previous UN legislation through a recent increase in free trade initiatives,

FURTHER DISTURBED by the adverse effects of free trade in a many number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in many underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheap labor in poorer nations, and massive job loss in developed nations, which has been proven to lead to increased rates of crime, poverty, and drug abuse,

DETERMINED, through this resolution, to enact legislation which can lend a helping hand to those displaced through free trade and outline an effective plan to advance the economies of individual nations,

MANDATES the following:

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous or future UN legislation;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact embargoes on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations, given these embargoes are not forbidden by any previous or future UN legislation;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering their nation, given these taxation policies are not forbidden by any previous or future UN legislation;

4) No universal UN free trade zone shall be established at this time or in the future without the repeal of this resolution;

5) The UN shall retain its rights to abolish tariffs for economic sectors in order to prevent the withholding of necessities and beneficial goods from certain nations;

ENCOURAGING the practice of “fair trade”, which is defined as an equitable and fair relationship between the marketers in one nation to the producers in another, actively working to provide the labor of producer nations with livable wages, hours, benefits, and opportunities for advancement,

AFFIRMING the rights of all nations to enter into free trade agreements if they so desire,

HEREBY enacts Developed Economic Advancement.

Please await official announcement of Belarum's decision here.

Thank you.

5) The UN shall retain its rights to abolish tariffs for specific goods in order to prevent the withholding of necessities and beneficial goods from certain nations;
Change "goods" to "economic sectors", which include services and the like. Also, we should be able to get rid of tariffs for the food industry without having to list every good: apples, bananas, oranges, steak, etc.

6) The UN shall retain its rights to prevent the over-exportation of goods to regions through the use of future legislation prohibiting such actions.
Drop it. It doesn't do anything new, unlike clause 5, which clarified clause 4.

AFFIRMING that the option to trade freely with another nation should be left to the discretion of each nation engaged or desiring to engage in such actions, and that this legislation may not be invoked by individual nations which seek not to participate in UN free trade initiatives for specific goods,
Drop this. It contradicts itself and doesn't add anything.

We would like to thank the representative from Tarmsden for adjusting the draft to a compromise that ought to be helpful for everyone.

R. Bobson
Officer of UN Affairs

4) No universal UN free trade zone shall be established at this time or in the future without the repeal of this resolution;
Sounds illegal.

"May now be withdrawn"? Why are you going to the trouble of a rewrite if you don't even know if you're going to withdraw the original proposal?

Changes have been made above.

Article 4 is implemented to make sure that no resolution abolishing tariffs for "all economic sectors" circumvents this resolution.

It's not up to me to withdraw the original proposal, as I am not the author. I am proposing a replacement as a sign of good faith to all of you and to Belarum (the author of the current proposal) that I really do I have an acceptable replacement waiting.

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous UN legislation

Even if I really think the aim of the author are praiseworthy: to protect labor forces; I really think that, in the end, these policies always backfire.

Tariffs rises, most of the times, trigger retaliation from others nations, decrease international co-operation, slow technological advances or isolate nations.

I think the best example is the dramatic "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

in 1930 in the US, which triggered isoliationist policies all around the world.


2) All UN nations have the authority to enact embargoes on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations, given these embargoes are not forbidden by any previous UN legislation;

I'am personnaly not for a ban on embargoes, but it seems to me that for most embargo, there is a almost always the same looser: people.

I support this resolution because it will allow New Commustan and many other nations to develope

-an economy based on the principle of working together to meet the needs of the people.

-an economy that does not rely on greed and profit motive

-an economy in which all the people control the means of production, not the wealthiest stockholders

-An economy in which supply and demand do not drive up prices.

If you think this is impossible, may your own country stay capitalist, but let each other country's people decide how torun their economy.

That's the point here.

If Belarum does not withdraw their original proposal, I will still submit this replacement once it fails, if it fails. If not, I would be stunned if no repeal effort arises almost immediately.

And we the illustrious Songun vanguard born of heaven much thank you for your time, bourgeios capitalist pigdog! Regretfulness, I do not considering differing opinions "manure" and have deigned to respond! You shall be feeling honoured by this!

Thank you for your comments, illustrious Songun vanguard born of heaven. I too do not think "differing oppinions" manure. I do think tired appeals to emotion "OMG what of the sweatshops? Think of the children!" in terms of this debate manure.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. There is no way whatsoever a complete global free trade agreement is ever going to happen. This on the other hand is a complete global free trade embargo. No free trade of any kind forever and ever unless repealed.

Therefore, for purposes of this debate, the free trade side must merely argue that there exists an area where free trade is good for all nations involved and thus a blanket prohibition of free trade is therefore a very bad idea.

No, I actually am against a lack of trade barriers, and I'm against free trade. It's amazing but true. I don't think abolishing protectionism is good at all. There's no cheating going on for one country to be able to produce something at lower costs than another, but that doesn't mean everything is gravy if you have free trade between the two.

I would disagree. I think that nations need to find those things that they are best at and invest in making those things better. Trying to establish a dominance in an area where some other nation already does it better, with the exception of those things that fall under national security where the disruption of goods can be used as an economic form of blackmail, is always a loosing proposition.

Protectionist measures only hurt the citizens of the nation that enacts the measures. It's those citizens who are buying the goods and services that are now more costly because of the protectionist measures. Likewise in turn their own income is often reduced because protectionist measures are never done in unilateral isolation. If you do it to them, they will do it to you.

That's reasonable, but the very premise that free trade = happiness for everyone is incorrect. I've already discussed why the theory on which this conclusion is based is full of holes.

Nothing equals happiness for everyone. Free trade is no exception, and my only argument is that free trade, when it is fair trade is merely the least of all possible economic evils. I generally prefer a hybrid, having some but not everything under varying levels of free trade. But I point out this issue is to eliminate any form of free trade whatsoever in any way shape or form.

Free trade is still eminently possible if you want it. Just that you won't be able to force nations unwilling to participate to do so. Numerous free trade agreements already exist, you could always find one to join which will give you all the goodies and benefits you believe you will have. You're still welcome to practice free trade if this passes - just not to enforce it on others. Keep in mind as well, that the UN nations are in the minority.

The question of whether or not free trade is possible with another member UN nation is not all that clear. Consider the following: any treaty, signed by two individual member nations is a binding legal contract, typically considered as binding as any law passed by the nations. There should be reprocussions for blatently breaking such a traaty right? Well under the UN resolution on the queue the traaty can be broken at any time, "All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous UN legislation."

I'm not against trade per se, and I agree protectionism is bad in some circumstances. But Japan, Europe, and the US are all on the same level. There's no real need for protectionism here. It's when you have a complete inability to compete due to highly differing levels of cost of living, wage, and development, like with the US and China. I'm bolding this because this is an important point I want to make and it's all getting fairly long: Things need to be decided and analysed case-by-case. You can't just make sweeping statements that free trade is good or protectionism is good. Hence we need this resolution to guarentee economic sovereignity rights so nations can choose what they think is best for them instead of having utopian visions enforced on them.

Likewise I am not against protectionism under the proper circumstances. Actually the US and China are more alike than you might think, a better example of completely mismatched countries might be the US and Mexico. You know that the cotton for all those T shirts that China sells to the United States comes from the United States? Things do need to be analyzed on a case by case basis, so why do you support the blatent prohibition of looking at free trade on a case by case basis?


This analogy has come up twice and I honestly don't know what you all are referring to. Kindly explain at least what you mean.

The baby is the whole notion of trade itself, while the bathwater is free trade dirtied by unfair national practices - unfair being any practice which places the nation ahead of the people of that nation. This resolution only encourages isolationism and protectionism among member UN nations.

And there is nothing wrong with higher prices if it means economic security.

I will half disagree. Higher prices are only worth while if it results in higher quality. The notion that a lower price is better even at the expense of quality, the so called "Wall Mart effect" is a false notion and needs to be debunked whenever found. Economic security is an illusion. The real world is highly darwinistic in nature ... evolve or die.

That's the point here.

If Belarum does not withdraw their original proposal, I will still submit this replacement once it fails, if it fails. If not, I would be stunned if no repeal effort arises almost immediately.

The Federal Republic of Belarum, in light of Tarmsden's new revisions, officially WITHDRAWS the original proposal "Developed Economic Advancement".

On another note, tariffs that massive enacted when a nation is already in the grips of a depression do have the potential to cause greater harm.

The tariff was unsuccessful because the US was already in the Great Depression; the tariff only prolonged it.

On another note, tariffs that massive enacted when a nation is already in the grips of a depression do have the potential to cause greater harm.

The tariff was unsuccessful because the US was already in the Great Depression; the tariff only prolonged it.

It seems to me that protectionnist temptation is often stronger when economy growth is lower. And for me here lies the risk.

Thank you, Belarum. You have shown your colors today.

I will propose a replacement no later than tomorrow if I can at all help it. Should the moderators remove the proposal sooner, I will try to submit the replacement sooner.

For the sake of convenience (believe me, I seriously don't care who gets the credit) I will submit the proposal on my hard drive and have myself as the author. Belarum will be rightly recognized as a co-author (an equal).

I do think tired appeals to emotion "OMG what of the sweatshops? Think of the children!" in terms of this debate manure.

No, I don't go for crying children as an argument, but it is a fact that part of the low labour cost of developing countries is lower standards of workers' rights, and poor enforcement of what rights do exist.

This on the other hand is a complete global free trade embargo. No free trade of any kind forever and ever unless repealed.

No, nothing stops you from enacting free trade agreements of your own with like-minded nations. Many such groups already exist. But if I don't want to open my market up, I should have the right to do so. And it would only affect the UN. If a free trade resolution were to pass nations wishing to protect themselves would leave anyway.

thus a blanket prohibition of free trade is therefore a very bad idea.

Okay, but that's not what's being done here. You can have free trade, you just can't make people participate.

I would disagree. I think that nations need to find those things that they are best at and invest in making those things better. Trying to establish a dominance in an area where some other nation already does it better, with the exception of those things that fall under national security where the disruption of goods can be used as an economic form of blackmail, is always a loosing proposition.

Here's the key problem with the comparative advantage argument: What if there is no demand for what you're best at making? The theory only deals with the supply side and doesn't consider what happens to the goods once they're produced. What if what you're best at making is something with high social costs, like tobacco?

Another thing is, an economy simply can't be dominated by one industry because then it can become unstable with global fluctuations in demand in that one industry. Hence why the Gulf states are splurging so much on extravagant tourist draws so they have something to fall back on once the oil runs out. Opening up too much can also leave an economy vulnerable to problems in other economies which it has no control over. If the demand in its export markets suddenly falls, it goes too. There's also imported inflation, where its own domestic price levels are affected by inflation in its export market.

Protectionist measures only hurt the citizens of the nation that enacts the measures. It's those citizens who are buying the goods and services that are now more costly because of the protectionist measures. Likewise in turn their own income is often reduced because protectionist measures are never done in unilateral isolation. If you do it to them, they will do it to you.

We ban trade (except personal souvenirs and the like brought back from tourist trips) with all nations except 51 other nations which have signed the International Fair Trade Agreement as per its terms, which can be viewed here - http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=536

Even if we were not signatory to it, we would operate on the basis that they can do what they want with our exports and we can do what we want with their imports. Our economy is not export-reliant and thus our national income isn't affected much by tariffs imposed on us. Why would people be happy about paying more? It's because they believe it safeguards workers' rights, their rights, globally. And the government which signed the IFTA was returned to power with the first majority in decades while our economy improved from "Good" to "Strong", so it seems they're happy with it. Except those right wing extremists plotting assassinations, of course.

But I point out this issue is to eliminate any form of free trade whatsoever in any way shape or form.

No it doesn't. It just means you can't make people free trade if they don't want to.

here should be reprocussions for blatently breaking such a traaty right? Well under the UN resolution on the queue the traaty can be broken at any time,

But you've agreed not to exercise the right that this resolution guarentees. Just signing the agreement, without this resolution, means you are mutually agreeing to give up some economic sovereignity at least as concerns each other's products. This won't change that situation. Breaking a treaty is breaking a treaty, and it can be broken at any time anyway. Then you have to enact the consequences for breaking it. Maybe you'll embargo the nation's goods or some other measure.

Things do need to be analyzed on a case by case basis, so why do you support the blatent prohibition of looking at free trade on a case by case basis?

That's what I'm promoting here! A lot of the opposition to this seems to be because then you can't pass a future free trade resolution - one which would force UN members to participate.

The baby is the whole notion of trade itself, while the bathwater is free trade dirtied by unfair national practices - unfair being any practice which places the nation ahead of the people of that nation. This resolution only encourages isolationism and protectionism among member UN nations.

And basically you want us to toss out our own baby and adopt another one because you say it's better. Look, she's so cute! Much better than the other one which your wife gave birth to!

Economic security is an illusion. The real world is highly darwinistic in nature ... evolve or die.

"Evolve" isn't something you can "do"; I'm not going to get into explaining the theory of evolution though since this post is already so long, but the implications of that statement are incorrect. Economic security is maintaining your economy's stability and sustainability by managing it and carefully implementing policies which ensure the well-being of the people who participate in that economy. It's not an illusion, it's a duty of government.

"AFFIRMING the rights of all nations to enter into free trade agreements if they so desire,"

Anything else I can help you with?

Anything else I can help you with?

If you'd buy me a good beer I'd be obliged to reciprocate in the future.

Tariffs rises, most of the times, trigger retaliation from others nations, decrease international co-operation, slow technological advances or isolate nations.

I think the best example is the dramatic "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

in 1930 in the US, which triggered isoliationist policies all around the world.


I don't really have any depth of knowledge about the Great Depression, however, as events in post-WW2 have demonstrated, the effect of something greatly depends on the circumstances. Protectionism takes some credit for the modern economic development of Europe and Japan, especially Japan. The US, though championing free trade, tolerated this and helped it along by voluntarily reducing its own exports, all in an effort to curb the influence of the USSR by building strong capitalist economies. Thus it isn't the tariffs themselves, or the action of protectionism, it's the circumstances.

MANDATES the following:

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any previous or future UN legislation;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact embargoes on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations, given these embargoes are not forbidden by any previous or future UN legislation;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering their nation, given these taxation policies are not forbidden by any previous or future UN legislation;

Tarmsden, please explain the point of this proposal if these clauses are kept as such. This doesn't do anything at all for the UN, it allows the UN to do whatever it wants with regard to uses of tariffs and embargos, just as it is now. What's the point of trying to protect these rights if we allow future legislation to ban them? Heck, Gruen's tariff-abolishing proposal is allowed to pass with these clauses.

I will not be assisting with this proposal if it is kept as such and will be voting against it.

Tarmsden, please explain the point of this proposal if these clauses are kept as such. This doesn't do anything at all for the UN, it allows the UN to do whatever it wants with regard to uses of tariffs and embargos, just as it is now. What's the point of trying to protect these rights if we allow future legislation to ban them? Heck, Gruen's tariff-abolishing proposal is allowed to pass with these clauses.

I will not be assisting with this proposal if it is kept as such and will be voting against it.
It prevents a blanket free trade resolution, which is what Gruen's was.

Belarum has signalled to us in private discussions that they are now ready to withdraw the old proposal. They will post the final replacement here soon.

Protectionism takes some credit for the modern economic development of Europe and Japan, especially Japan.

I have to agree with you here, but if we observe what happen there, you can see that
-these nations decreased progressively their tarrifs and opened their borders,
-they had a long industrial history before WW2 and their economy were completely destroyed during WW2,
-they had to rebuild everything but with an already skilled population and
-they benefited from the impressive and unprecedent financial support of the US Marshall Plan. (the Marshall Plan aid was mostly used for the purchase of goods from the United States)

I agree that protectionist measures can works sometimes, but only if they are limited in some sectors and limited in time, as they are essentially dangerous.

Also, we we might not forget that international trade decrease prices, and the money left is spent elsewhere or saved.

Belarum has withdrawn the original proposal. I have called upon them to post the replacement here and submit it in their name ASAP.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11059588#post11059588

It prevents a blanket free trade resolution, which is what Gruen's was.

I must be missing something, because I don't see how this protects anything if the rights it tries to protect can be banned by future legislation.

I have to agree with you here, but if we observe what happen there, you can see that
-these nations decreased progressively their tarrifs and opened their borders,

Yes, but without protectionism first they would not have been able to benefit from trade later.

-they had a long industrial history before WW2 and their economy were completely destroyed during WW2,
-they had to rebuild everything but with an already skilled population and

Even more countries starting off with less need to protect their industries.

-they benefited from the impressive and unprecedent financial support of the US Marshall Plan. (the Marshall Plan aid was mostly used for the purchase of goods from the United States)

The Marshall Plan was intended for this very purpose as part of the policy of containment against the USSR. The US restricted its own exports, i.e. NOT practicing free trade, so that European domestic industries could recover through serving their own domestic demand. I've said this already.

I agree that protectionist measures can works sometimes, but only if they are limited in some sectors and limited in time, as they are essentially dangerous.

Well, at least you accept that they can work. We can solve the "HELP HELP THE PROTECTIONIST MEASURES ARE OUT TO GET ME!" bit later.

Also, we we might not forget that international trade decrease prices, and the money left is spent elsewhere or saved.

Price isn't everything, because cost might go up regardless. There's a difference between price and cost. Lower price may be a tradeoff for a social cost or an environmental cost. For instance, the extra exhaust fumes put into the air by trucks transporting the goods a longer distance, or the social cost of unemployment. You might pay a lower price, but suffer a higher cost.