NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=national

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 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 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 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 and embargoes for economic sectors in order to prevent the withholding of necessities and beneficial goods from certain nations;

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

DISCOURAGING the practice of “dumping” goods and services in matters of international trade in the UN and throughout the world,

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,

HEREBY enacts National Economic Advancement.

Co-authored by Tarmsden

I'll refer you to my comment on the last topic:


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.

NOOOO!!! CAPITALIST COMPROMISERS! TRAITOR OF THE REVOLUTION!!... MY BEER! SOMEONE STOLE MY BEER!!

*ahem*

The very reason I supported this has been ripped out wholesale.

OOC: Belarum, you might want to look at Frisbeeteria's post in the Moderation thread. He seemed to be saying he wasn't too cosy with your reference to Rights & Duties. Furthermore, I still think Clause 4 is illegally phrased. However, I don't think it matters, because people might be banned from establishing a free trade zone, but they can still establish a customs union, for example.

Strike Clause 4, and we will support this. Especially as the "discouraging" and "encouraging" clauses might render future anti-dumping and fair trade proposals redundant, but don't themselves force anything.

You need to learn a bit about economics if you really believe this stuff about "fair trade" is actually good for the economies of developing and/or developed nations.

Go here - http://www.capmag.com/category.asp?action=cat&catID=16 I suggest you start with " The Folly of Protectionism"

You need to learn a bit about economics if you really believe this stuff about "fair trade" is actually good for the economies of developing and/or developed nations.

Go here - http://www.capmag.com/category.asp?action=cat&catID=16 I suggest you start with " The Folly of Protectionism"

Fair trade doesn't necessarily equal protectionism.

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 UN legislation;

I'm not entirely convinced of the universal benefits to be afforded through tariffs, even though they are acceptable in certain cases. Free trade can bring tremendous benefits to peoples and economies when implemented correctly, yet the consequences arising from slapdash and overly broad free trade resolutions can be devastating. Thus, I support this particular clause, so long as it leaves it open for free-trade resolutions to pass, where free trade can be conclusively shown to be beneficial, to a greater degree than tariffs.

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 UN legislation;

Agreed in principle, but with caution. Embargoes can turn into blockades and be used as a crude mechanism of economic warfare, something we should be trying to avoid, given the potential for tremendous hardship to be suffered by the embargoed nation and its population. I reserve judgment on this clause therefore.

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 UN legislation;

I personally believe that taxation on goods entering and exiting a nation should be non-discriminatory based upon the grounds of national or corporate origin, except in certain compelling cases. Reserve judgment.

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

Ah, this contradicts my hope in clause 1. I oppose this.

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

And my support is conditionally re-affirmed by this, but not entirely. Perhaps you ought to define "universal UN free trade zone".

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

Agreed.

DISCOURAGING the practice of “dumping” goods and services in matters of international trade in the UN and throughout the world,

Agreed.

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,

Strongly agreed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

You need to learn a bit about economics if you really believe this stuff about "fair trade" is actually good for the economies of developing and/or developed nations.

If you think you know a bit about economics I welcome a debate with you. Kindly refer to my posts on the other thread (this really shouldn't have been spilt). Starts from page 4.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484234&page=4

Would it not be wiser to realize that every nation has certain rights and that they must, therefore, be permitted to use tariffs to protect domestic workers, embargoes to protest human rights violations (or, yes, fight a war enemy!), fair trade to support workers and farmers and free trade to boost their economies?

This is a national sovereignty question. If you believe in free trade, enact it at home and convince others to! If not, do what you want! No one should be forced to obey free trade laws that permit foreign corporations to use their labor as a means of producing cheap goods for overseas consumption if they don't want to. Only the UN can force free trade on anyone, and even that must be limited to goods deemed necessary and basic by the UN.

I wholeheartedly support this effort.

This is a national sovereignty question.
Bullshit, international trade is not a national sovereignty issue. It is a legitimate international issue and as such should be something that the UN can legislate on.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Bob is right, as usual (though this should not be quoted, won't do him any good at all). Bahgum's glorious leader has had to deal with World Trade Organisation rt papers, and world trade certainly ain't a single nation issue.

This resolution goes against everything that Cobdenia was founded upon and stands for. Protectionism is possibly the most harmful thing to flounder onto the international scene since the Vikings. All it does is encourage nations to be inefficient, and warlike. Consider a desert nation with a couple of oases. A small proportion of the population work in getting the water out of the oases, although it isn't enough for the nations population. However, if they import water, from a very wet nation, it is going to be cheaper and more plentiful. However, in order to portect the jobs of it's water industry workers, the nation imposes tariffs on water. Now, everyone is fighting for the cheap, local water or having to pay far more for water. Everybody dies.
If you fear for the loss of national jobs, then you shouldn't have encouraged industries that are inefficient in your country to set up shop in the first place, and instead focused on industries that are efficient to set up in your nation, and export those products world wide.
There is also the environmental arguement. For example, Cobdenia is the worlds most efficient producer of Pot Noodles. However, due to protectionist measures, other countries have their own, smaller, pot noodle factories catering for their own people. Assuming 2,000 nations with protectionist devices on their pot noodle imports, that means there are 2,000 small factories producing pot noodles. If there was one factory that produced 2,000 times as many pot noodles and supplied them world wide, it would not only be more efficient (as the larger the factory is, the more efficient it is), but as a result FAR better for the environment then 2,000 seperate pot noodle factories. Factor in Cobdenia being more efficient to start with (and thus more environmentally freindly), then you have a serious difference to environment being made.
There is also the peace arguement. Assume four countries: Pingopongoland produces cows, Matabililand produces cookers, Bombastica produces guns, and finally Machadaynu which produces bullets. They all trade their products.
If Machadaynu were to declare war on Bombastica, Machadaynu would run out of guns and Bombastica bullets, so they won't be able to fight.
Pingopongoland declares war on Matabililand, one has a lot of food they can't cook, the other a lot of cookers with no food to cook. So, no war
Machadaynu vs Pingopongoland. Machadaynu has no food, Pingopongoland has no bullets, so no war.
And so on

There is also the peace arguement. Assume four countries: Pingopongoland produces cows, Matabililand produces cookers, Bombastica produces guns, and finally Machadaynu which produces bullets. They all trade their products.
If Machadaynu were to declare war on Bombastica, Machadaynu would run out of guns and Bombastica bullets, so they won't be able to fight.
Pingopongoland declares war on Matabililand, one has a lot of food they can't cook, the other a lot of cookers with no food to cook. So, no war
Machadaynu vs Pingopongoland. Machadaynu has no food, Pingopongoland has no bullets, so no war.
And so on

Unless they buy their bullets/food elsewhere, through other, wider free trade agreements.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

It's a simplification. The principle works with world free trade.

Welcome back to the debating floor Cobdenia.

I guess I'm happy with this proposal now that everything that it was doing has now been removed so that it tells us the status quo.

To explore this topic, we would like to ask the authors about their views on "Provincial economic advencement"

Imagine some provinces of 166 or 91 millions inhabitants (such as respectively the Indian State of "Uttar Pradesh" or the Chinese province of Henan in our litterature); that's most populated areas than 90% nations of this imaginary world.

So will you recommend to India and China to :

MANDATES the following:

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

To explore this topic, we would like to ask the authors about their views on "Provincial economic advencement"

Imagine some provinces of 166 or 91 millions inhabitants (such as respectively the Indian State of "Uttar Pradesh" or the Chinese province of Henan in our litterature); that's most populated areas than 90% nations of this imaginary world.

So will you recommend to India and China to :

MANDATES the following:

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

Their views on "Provincial Economic Advancement" are pretty much irrelivant. Just list reasons why you support the proposal or not, and try not to use tactics from the Lee Atwater school of political discussion too often.

Their views on "Provincial Economic Advancement" are pretty much irrelivant. Just list reasons why you support the proposal or not, and try not to use tactics from the Lee Atwater school of political discussion too often.


I'm sorry, but you are not argumenting why it's irrelevant. It's too much easy to say:
"your argument is irrelevant. Point"

If you think tariffs can provide Economic Advancement for a nation of 10 millions people, why can't tariffs provide Economic Advancement for a state of 166 millions people? I think the question is opened and merits to be debated.

Contrary to you, I don't use puppets, I'm free:D

All it does is encourage nations to be inefficient, and warlike....

And all your examples are grossly unrealistic. You portray a trade situation and a state of interdependence which does not exist (and can be easily got around, say if the gun nation hoarded bullets and used them to take over the bullet nation, which would have no guns, and now would have production of guns and bullets...), and you assume people will pursue protectionism even when it makes no sense to (and why does water have to be an industry?). You're using all kinds of simplified situations which cannot translate to reality and that is the main problem with the theory of comparative advantage.

If you fear for the loss of national jobs, then you shouldn't have encouraged industries that are inefficient in your country to set up shop in the first place, and instead focused on industries that are efficient to set up in your nation, and export those products world wide.

Why do you assume they were "encouraged"? Most of these "inefficient" industries are set up by local entrepreneurs. And what if my comparative advantage is the production of heroin? My soils are perfect for poppy plants and my workers are exceptionally skilled at the refining of it into pure, unadulterated heroin. But you can't exactly export that worldwide. Or even if it isn't heroin, what happens when demand for that good drops? An economy, and more than that, lives get destroyed because of the ineffable whim of the consumer.