NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a draft of a proposal that will improve economic competition, lower prices, and drive innovation. Comments?
Free Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong

Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that genuine free trade is a benefit to society, but

NOTING that free trade without restrictions keeping competition free and fair can cause harm to the industries of poorer nations,

RESOLVING to reconcile the different points of view of larger and smaller nations to create and enforce genuine free trade,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "multinational" as any corporation, group of corporations, or individual that does business internationally;
b. "private anti-competitive practice" or "PACP" as the following behaviors by a multinational: dumping, exclusive dealing, price fixing, limit pricing (where a monopoly lowers prices temporarily to keep competitors out of the market), tying (where choice by the consumer is limited by different products being tied together), resale price maintenance (where manufactuers dictate retail prices), and predatory pricing;
c. "government anti-competitive practice" or "GACP" as the following behaviors by a government: monopoly granting, tariffs, quotas, regulations that poorer firms cannot afford to implement, and subsidies;
d. "anti-competitive practice" or "ACP" as any of either PACPs or GACPs;

2. CREATES the United Nations Free Competition Watchdog (UNFCW) to serve the following purposes:
a. look for and report instances of PACPs and GACPs;
b. clear governmental requests for exceptions to this resolution as detailed in clause 4.

3. BANS PACPs in all UN nations;

4. BANS GACPs in all UN nations, except under the following exceptions that must be cleared with the UNFCW and only last for a limited, planned and publically reported amount of time:
a. Subsidies may be used in order to get a new industry off the ground, especially in the midst of borderline PACPs;
b. Subsidies may be used to shore up industries in cases of growing and severe unemployment;
c. Subsidies, tariffs and quotas may be used for a limited and planned amount of time in order to provide help to a nation's industries after a time of national economic depression;
d. Subsidies may be given to multinationals that have been contracted by the government to perform a specific service, but only for the time that service is being performed.

4. BANS GACPs in all UN nations

No. Far too intrusive. The UN would be deciding when and why we can or cannot grant monopolies, enact tariffs, quotas, "regulations that poorer firms cannot afford to implement" and subsidies. This proposal is ideologically biased, and deals with matters (micromanagement) which we see as definitely outside the field of UN regulation.

Also, this proposal may be interpreted as making a State-run, fully nationalised and centrally planned economy illegal.


Christelle ZYRYANOV,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

No. Far too intrusive. The UN would be deciding when and why we can or cannot grant monopolies, enact tariffs, quotas, "regulations that poorer firms cannot afford to implement" and subsidies. This proposal is ideologically biased, and deals with matters (micromanagement) which we see as definitely outside the field of UN regulation.
Would you prefer that I didn't include the part about clearing the GACPs with the UNFCW? Also, would it be better that the GACP definition only included monopoly-granting to multinationals?

Also, this proposal may be interpreted as making a State-run, fully nationalised and centrally planned economy illegal.
The proposal says nothing about what states can or cannot do in terms of running their own companies.

We would gladly approve this.

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

Drop the section about the GACPs or you'll lose all the support from socialists, communists, protectionists, and the rest of the people who aren't keen on the free trade thing.

I like the part about the PACPs, but free trade just makes me ill. If the Proposal steps on my planned-economy toes, then I'll not support.

I revised it. I think I've allowed pretty much every reason a nation would want to impose a GACP, but imposed sensible restrictions. If this isn't enough, please let me know. I want to get trade as free as possible without treading too hard on the toes of those who don't agree with me.
Free Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong

Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that genuine free trade is a benefit to society, but

NOTING that free trade without restrictions keeping competition free and fair can cause harm to the industries of poorer nations,

RESOLVING to reconcile the different points of view of larger and smaller nations to create and enforce genuine free trade,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "multinational" as any corporation, group of corporations, sector of a government, or individual that does business internationally;
b. "private anti-competitive practice" or "PACP" as the following behaviors by a multinational: dumping, exclusive dealing, price fixing, limit pricing (where a monopoly lowers prices temporarily to keep competitors out of the market), tying (where choice by the consumer is limited by different products being tied together), resale price maintenance (where manufactuers dictate retail prices), and predatory pricing;
c. "government anti-competitive practices" or "GACPs" as tariffs, quotas and subsidies by governments on multinationals;
d. "anti-competitive practice" or "ACP" as any of either PACPs or GACPs;

2. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to look for and report instances of ACPs and warn and shut down multinationals that are not in compliance with clause 3;

3. BANS all forms of PACPs;

4. BANS government-granted monopolies;

5. MANDATES that GACPs may only be used in relation to other UN nations for the following purposes:
a. to protect young national industries;
b. to recover from a national economic crisis;
c. to collect revenue only if the nation lacks sufficient infrastructure for collecting domestic taxes and some money from the GACP is being used to produce said infrastructure;
d. to raise national income, provided said GACP does not create a monopoly;
e. in response to another nation's GACP, provided that the retaliatory GACP is equivalent in value and scope to the original GACP, and that the retaliatory GACP only applies to nations that imposed a GACP on the nation imposing the retaliatory GACP;

6. DECLARES that this resolution shall not be interpreted to ban planned economies, and that governments have the right, except under other UN legislation, to pursue any domestic economic endeavors that they wish.

I'm confused. What about natural monopolies? Or are nations forced to divide goods between companies where previously only one supplier had existed?

Specifically in Enn's case, giving up the secret to the Ennish shandy, even to other Ennish companies, would imperil the nations economy and security. Lady Faren's corporation, a multinational company, is the sole producer of the Ennish shandy.

If other companies begin to produce the drink, then Enn's principal export will become less profitable, and Lady Faren will be less able to support Enn's police and military due to reduced funds.

[edit] Pretty much what I'm saying is: Are pre-existing monopolies protected? Does this only relate to actions carried out after it coming into effect?

Question for anyone who knows better in this area than I:

Utilities: Considered monopolies in such cases as gas, electric, water, and such? These things are all under government control in Norderia, and we certainly don't need to have private industry forced upon us by the UN.

Question for anyone who knows better in this area than I:

Utilities: Considered monopolies in such cases as gas, electric, water, and such? These things are all under government control in Norderia, and we certainly don't need to have private industry forced upon us by the UN.

All sovereign governments hold monopolies over certain goods or services. At the very least they hold a monopoly on being the only sovereign government in the region :)

-MathiasTCK

Doesn't this 4. BANS government-granted monopolies;
clash with the UN-acknowledged right of nations to grant patents for new inventions?

The government of St Emundan Antarctic otherwise finds little to disagree with in this proposal: However we would prefer it if the ban on 'resale price maintenance' excluded the use of that practice in the book-selling business, where its abolition would almost certainly let large chains of shops (including general-purpose supermarkets) undercut the smaller local bookshops on the best-selling lines, forcing many of those smaller shops out of business, but the chains would probably stock a lower proportion of non-bestsellers than the smaller shops did and the service available to book-lovers woould suffer... (OOC: going by the situation here in the UK since RPM on books was abolished...)

Would you prefer that I didn't include the part about clearing the GACPs with the UNFCW? Also, would it be better that the GACP definition only included monopoly-granting to multinationals?


Yes. The new draft is much better. I'm still a little wary about the restriction on tariffs; you may lose quite a lot of support on that one. But article 5 seems reasonable enough.

Okay, you want to meddle directly with domestic economies now? As much as I hate people yelling "NATIONAL SOVEREIGNITY!!!111" every time they just can't accept something that changes what happens in their country, this will fundamentally alter nations' economies even with the easily exploitable "planned economy" loophole, which is a pretty damn big part of their nation. And the UN gets authority to shut down companies now? What happens if a country's biggest employer, or even just a big employer, is shut down under this? It's going to cause economic mayhem. Especially if that country is a large, open economy big on international trade.

Given that this would ban most of HotRodia's industry, I'll have to oppose it.

All sovereign governments hold monopolies over certain goods or services. At the very least they hold a monopoly on being the only sovereign government in the region :)

-MathiasTCK
Hah! Check out Enn's history - the entirely of Destabilisation occurred while Enn was a UN member. No monopoly there.

Stephanie Fulton
UN Consul for the Triumvirate of Enn

As long as a government controls a domestic industry, it can do what it wants with it under this proposal. This includes government-controlled utilities.

This proposal allows monopolies that exist naturally, as long as such monopolies do not engage in PACPs.

I'll add an exception for intellectual property and clarify how the UNFTC has to go through a process of shutting down companies.

Also tried to close up the planned economy loophole.
Free Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong

Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that genuine free trade is a benefit to society, but

NOTING that free trade without restrictions keeping competition free and fair can cause harm to the industries of poorer nations,

RESOLVING to reconcile the different points of view of larger and smaller nations to create and enforce genuine free trade,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "multinational" as any corporation, group of corporations, sector of a government, or individual that does business internationally;
b. "private anti-competitive practice" or "PACP" as the following behaviors by a multinational: dumping, exclusive dealing, price fixing, limit pricing (where a monopoly lowers prices temporarily to keep competitors out of the market), tying (where choice by the consumer is limited by different products being tied together), resale price maintenance (where manufactuers dictate retail prices), and predatory pricing;
c. "government anti-competitive practices" or "GACPs" as tariffs, quotas and subsidies by governments on multinationals (including a government subsidizing its own multinational sectors with government money);
d. "anti-competitive practice" or "ACP" as any of either PACPs or GACPs;

2. BANS all forms of PACPs;

3. BANS government-granted monopolies;

4. MANDATES that GACPs may only be used in relation to other UN nations for the following purposes:
a. to protect young national industries;
b. to recover from a national economic crisis;
c. to collect revenue only if the nation lacks sufficient infrastructure for collecting domestic taxes and some money from the GACP is being used to produce said infrastructure;
d. to raise national income, provided said GACP does not create a monopoly;
e. in response to another nation's GACP, provided that the retaliatory GACP is equivalent in value and scope to the original GACP, and that the retaliatory GACP only applies to nations that imposed a GACP on the nation imposing the retaliatory GACP;

5. DECLARES that this resolution shall not be interpreted to disallow governments from pursuing domestic economic endeavors and granting domestic monopolies, as long as said endeavors and monopolies do not do business internationally;

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to look for and report instances of ACPs and warn and, after at least five warnings have been issued for the same offense, shut down multinationals that are not in compliance with clause 3;

7. EXCEPTS from all clauses of this resolution cases where patent or copyright law applies.

BELIEVING that genuine free trade is a benefit to society,
-Tommo the Stout sighs, but turns a blind eye-

4. MANDATES that GACPs may only be used in relation to other UN nations for the following purposes:
a. to protect young national industries;
b. to recover from a national economic crisis;
c. to collect revenue only if the nation lacks sufficient infrastructure for collecting domestic taxes and some money from the GACP is being used to produce said infrastructure;
d. to raise national income, provided said GACP does not create a monopoly;
e. in response to another nation's GACP, provided that the retaliatory GACP is equivalent in value and scope to the original GACP, and that the retaliatory GACP only applies to nations that imposed a GACP on the nation imposing the retaliatory GACP;
Alright. We're satisfied.

5. DECLARES that this resolution shall not be interpreted to disallow governments from pursuing domestic economic endeavors and granting domestic monopolies, as long as said endeavors and monopolies do not do business internationally;
Good stuff.

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to look for and report instances of ACPs and warn and, after at least five warnings have been issued for the same offense, shut down multinationals that are not in compliance with clause 3;
Don't you mean clause 2?

7. EXCEPTS from all clauses of this resolution cases where patent or copyright law applies.
Coo.

Alright. That ain't so bad now. We can support this, we're always down for the restrictions on the exploitation of the nation's populace to the benefit of rich folks. Er, corporations, that be.

I'm trying to close up loopholes here. And Norderia, you're right, it's clause 2.
Free Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong

Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that genuine free trade is a benefit to society, but

NOTING that free trade without restrictions keeping competition free and fair can cause harm to the industries of poorer nations,

RESOLVING to reconcile the different points of view of larger and smaller nations to create and enforce genuine free trade,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "multinational" as any corporation, group of corporations, sector of a government, or individual that does business internationally;
b. "private anti-competitive practice" or "PACP" as the following behaviors by a multinational: dumping, exclusive dealing, price fixing, limit pricing (where a monopoly lowers prices temporarily to keep competitors out of the market), tying (where choice by the consumer is limited by different products being tied together), resale price maintenance (where manufactuers dictate retail prices), and predatory pricing;
c. "government anti-competitive practices" or "GACPs" as tariffs, quotas and subsidies by governments on multinationals (including a government subsidizing its own multinational sectors with government money);
d. "anti-competitive practice" or "ACP" as any of either PACPs or GACPs;

2. BANS all forms of PACPs;

3. BANS government-granted monopolies, except indirect ones via copyrights and patents;

4. MANDATES that GACPs may only be used in relation to other UN nations for the following purposes:
a. to protect young national industries;
b. to recover from a national economic crisis;
c. to collect revenue only if the nation lacks sufficient infrastructure for collecting domestic taxes and some money from the GACP is being used to produce said infrastructure;
d. to raise national income, provided said GACP does not create a monopoly;
e. in response to another nation's GACP, provided that the retaliatory GACP is equivalent in value and scope to the original GACP, and that the retaliatory GACP only applies to nations that imposed a GACP on the nation imposing the retaliatory GACP;

5. DECLARES that this resolution shall not be interpreted to disallow governments from pursuing domestic economic endeavors and granting domestic monopolies, as long as said endeavors and monopolies do not do business internationally;

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to look for and report instances of ACPs and warn and, after at least five warnings have been issued for the same offense, shut down multinationals that are not in compliance with clause 2.

DECLARES that this resolution shall not be interpreted to disallow governments from pursuing domestic economic endeavors and granting domestic monopolies, as long as said endeavors and monopolies do not do business internationally
Again, a problem. Lady Faren's company is the only one in the entire multiverse that supplies the Ennish Shandy. As Enn's main export, this means that the company of neccessity does business internationally.

Under my reading, this monopoly would be ruled illegal. Should this pass, Enn's political structure and economy would very likely collapse due to the sudden loss of wealth by Lady Faren.

We don't want another Destabilisation, especially not caused by outsiders.

As long as a government controls a domestic industry, it can do what it wants with it under this proposal. This includes government-controlled utilities.

But 'government-granted" monopolies are explicitly banned. In any case nothing international can be a monopoly unless there really is no other firm in the world which is in the business. Which is highly unlikely.

I'd also say to the lefties, don't be fooled by the anti-profit veneer, this is very much a capitalist resolution. The moment your public companies/entreprenurs/workers' councils/soviets/whatever earn or spend a single cent outside your borders, even if it's with another country with a similar economy, it's immediately bound by all these regulations.

This looks like an unsavory choice between complete economic isolationism or a punitive international regime. Purely on the resolution itself, section 4 effectively allows the entire resolution to be ignored, though personally I like it since I can just get around all of it by claiming I have an economic crisis, or that all my economic policies are to raise national income so all my subsidised monopolies making mincemeat of developing economies can't be touched. Though I'm also worried about right wing nations exploiting it, of course.

Again, a problem. Lady Faren's company is the only one in the entire multiverse that supplies the Ennish Shandy. As Enn's main export, this means that the company of neccessity does business internationally.

Under my reading, this monopoly would be ruled illegal. Should this pass, Enn's political structure and economy would very likely collapse due to the sudden loss of wealth by Lady Faren.

We don't want another Destabilisation, especially not caused by outsiders.
As long as there is no law saying that Lady Faren is the only one who can supply Ennish Shandy, there shouldn't be a problem. Is there?

As long as there is no law saying that Lady Faren is the only one who can supply Ennish Shandy, there shouldn't be a problem. Is there?
Hmm... I'll just let the Triumvirate know to re-word the Lantari Shandy Suppliers Act if this looks like getting through. Shouldn't be too much of a problem, loopholes can always be found. 'Twould be easier not to have to worry about it, but it's not that much of a hassle.

Stephanie Fulton

But 'government-granted" monopolies are explicitly banned. In any case nothing international can be a monopoly unless there really is no other firm in the world which is in the business. Which is highly unlikely.
A government-granted monopoly means that a nation can't make a law saying that no other company can do/produce "X". If a government wanted a monopoly, why wouldn't they just control "X"?

I'd also say to the lefties, don't be fooled by the anti-profit veneer, this is very much a capitalist resolution. The moment your public companies/entreprenurs/workers' councils/soviets/whatever earn or spend a single cent outside your borders, even if it's with another country with a similar economy, it's immediately bound by all these regulations.
Should I add something saying that nations can band together to form a "Coalition Of Mutually Melded International Economies" (:p) that function as one nation for the purpose of this resolution?

This looks like an unsavory choice between complete economic isolationism or a punitive international regime. Purely on the resolution itself, section 4 effectively allows the entire resolution to be ignored, though personally I like it since I can just get around all of it by claiming I have an economic crisis, or that all my economic policies are to raise national income so all my subsidised monopolies making mincemeat of developing economies can't be touched. Though I'm also worried about right wing nations exploiting it, of course.
Yes, I am having doubts about clause 4d, which seems to have many possibilities for exploitation...any suggestions?

Frankly, I'd say forget this resolution. I can appreciate the sentiment and I even approve of parts of it on some levels. But you cannot enact this kind of international law without stomping hard on the toes of economies everywhere. With loopholes, developing economies are screwed because the loopholes will be exploited. Without them, they're still screwed because a lot of the mechanisms for the protection of their economies are compromised. Meanwhile people will kick and scream about the loss of economic sovereignity.

A government-granted monopoly means that a nation can't make a law saying that no other company can do/produce "X". If a government wanted a monopoly, why wouldn't they just control "X"?

That kind of thing really is a matter of organisation. A government monopoly doesn't usually mean the government itself is in a business. Usually it's a government-owned company doing the dirty work. For instance, in Canada (and in Kelssek, which is essentially a left-wing version of Canada) power is provided by crown corporations, some of which are established by legislation. Postal service is also provided by a crown corporation, Canada Post. The government, federal or provincial depending on the service, controls and owns the companies, but their operations are mostly seperate from the government. You buy train tickets from VIA Rail, not the Government of Canada. You would pay power bills to BC Hydro, not the Government of British Columbia.

I skimmed through the laws which established Ontario Hydro and Canada Post and I didn't see anything which made it illegal for anyone else to provide electrical power or postal services, and definitely not the latter because I got something on FedEx today. But that's okay then?

Also, a question - would a public healthcare system which bans private clinics be affected by this? Just, you know, wondering.

Hmm... I'll just let the Triumvirate know to re-word the Lantari Shandy Suppliers Act if this looks like getting through. Shouldn't be too much of a problem, loopholes can always be found. 'Twould be easier not to have to worry about it, but it's not that much of a hassle.

Stephanie FultonPsst...!

I'm not supposed to say anything, what with being an unofficial observer and all, but this whole monopoly-shandy thing shouldn't cause you any real problems. I know some... people... who can assist with creative patent-manipulation or creative loophole generation; such as cornering the market on a key ingrediant.

Should some of Lady Faren's Finest end up in my office, I'll let The Appropriate People know.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Shady Dealer of Shady Deals
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Psst...!

I'm not supposed to say anything, what with being an unofficial observer and all, but this whole monopoly-shandy thing shouldn't cause you any real problems. I know some... people... who can assist with creative patent-manipulation or creative loophole generation; such as cornering the market on a key ingrediant.

Should some of Lady Faren's Finest end up in my office, I'll let The Appropriate People know.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Shady Dealer of Shady Deals
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
It's on its way.

Stephanie Fulton
Spreader of the joy of the Ennish Shandy
Securer of lucrative deals in exotic markets
Oh... and UN Consul for Enn

While I echo many sentiments here we’d also like to add we have an issue with this clause.

3. BANS government-granted monopolies, except indirect ones via copyrights and patents;

What about nations who have government run utility companies (gas, electricity etc). In some instances it is economically and politically essential to have these services government owned. Also what about nations who want to move away from a nationalised framework to a market driven energy policy. They will be forbidden to incorporate a monopoly, but without incorporating one how can they ever begin change. Moving from a monopoly to a competitive energy sector would take time and much regulation. Also please accept my apologies of this has already been covered and I missed it.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

While I echo many sentiments here we’d also like to add we have an issue with this clause.



What about nations who have government run utility companies (gas, electricity etc). In some instances it is economically and politically essential to have these services government owned.
Read clause 5. It covers just what you're talking about.
Also what about nations who want to move away from a nationalised framework to a market driven energy policy. They will be forbidden to incorporate a monopoly, but without incorporating one how can they ever begin change.
You are allowed to have monopolies as long as there is no law saying they can't be challenged and the monopoly doesn't engage in PACPs.

I hope that answers your questions.

You're still being ambiguous. Can private competitiors to public companies be banned? Can we legislate a government monopoly?

EDIT:

For instance, some of our provinces ban private healthcare; all healthcare in those provinces is public. Is this allowed to continue?

Furthermore, what about countries where all private enterprise is banned? Wouldn't that now be outlawed, effectively banning command economies? It's been accepted that you can't outlaw political systems, but apparently economic systems are fair game as your recent proposals indicate.

You're still being ambiguous. Can private competitiors to public companies be banned? Can we legislate a government monopoly?

EDIT:

For instance, some of our provinces ban private healthcare; all healthcare in those provinces is public. Is this allowed to continue?

Furthermore, what about countries where all private enterprise is banned? Wouldn't that now be outlawed, effectively banning command economies? It's been accepted that you can't outlaw political systems, but apparently economic systems are fair game as your recent proposals indicate.

You cannot legislate a government monopoly, because that's too many loopholes. But, you can have a system where government stuff is free and private stuff costs money, essentially allowing a command economy by the way free market economics works. Can you think of a way to allow command economies without the government being able to legislate away competition of a private company.

I'm not trying to have this outlaw an economic system; I'm taking the reality that international trade is capitalist and trying to adapt it to fit everyone's needs (although primarily that of capitalist nations: I'm trying to find ways to leave socialists alone).

So this does in fact mandate that all nations must allow private sectors. And that's exactly the problem, all this affects everyone. You can't have something that affects only some nations. And socialist nations trade too. International trade is not inherently "capitalist", and it isn't just so companies can turn bigger profits. You might need to import water in a shortage, for example. Or trade links might be mainly for building international ties or spreading culture (exporting TV programming, for instance).

As written, it also potentially wrecks all kinds of government-provided services. Say my public healthcare system needs to buy some equipment from another country. Suddenly it becomes a "multinational" because that's doing business internationally. Now I can't subsidise it under this resolution, which completely defeats the point of public healthcare in the first place. Ditto your water company. Ditto your power company if you share a grid with another nation. And the government phone company with international dialling service too.

I'm sorry I can't be constructive about this but I don't see how it can be saved. I do agree with the regulatory bits imposed on private enterprise and on international trade, but in the NSUN the diversity of nations is a problem for a capitalism-centred proposal. If you put in more exceptions you get loopholes for the capitalists, and when you close those loopholes you mess up the non-capitalist economies.

Well I'm going to try to keep plugging away at this and try to make it acceptable for most people. Kelssek, it seems an easy way to close up your infrastructure problem is define "multinational" as something that sells things in other nations, which would rule out importing infrastructure supplies.

Additionally, the monopoly thing only applies to multinationals.

International trade is inherently capitalist. There is no UN goods distribution body that I am aware of. The point of this proposal is to make sure that huge socialist, subsidized and unfair trading capitalist industries cannot take over the international market by lowering prices extremely and then putting them up high when the fair competition is gone.

How's this?
Free Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong

Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that genuine free trade is a benefit to society, but

NOTING that free trade without restrictions keeping competition free and fair can cause harm to the industries of poorer nations,

RESOLVING to reconcile the different points of view of larger and smaller nations to create and enforce genuine free trade,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "multinational" as any corporation, group of corporations, sector of a government, or individual that does business internationally, not including one-way imports of goods;
b. "private anti-competitive practice" or "PACP" as the following behaviors by a multinational: dumping, exclusive dealing, price fixing, limit pricing (where a monopoly lowers prices temporarily to keep competitors out of the market), tying (where choice by the consumer is limited by different products being tied together), resale price maintenance (where manufactuers dictate retail prices), and predatory pricing;
c. "government anti-competitive practices" or "GACPs" as tariffs, quotas and subsidies by governments on multinationals (including a government subsidizing its own multinational sectors with government money);
d. "anti-competitive practice" or "ACP" as any of either PACPs or GACPs;

2. BANS all forms of PACPs;

3. BANS government-granted monopolies for multinationals, except indirect ones via copyrights and patents;

4. MANDATES that GACPs may only be used in relation to other UN nations for the following purposes:
a. to protect young national industries;
b. to recover from a national economic crisis;
c. to collect revenue only if the nation lacks sufficient infrastructure for collecting domestic taxes and some money from the GACP is being used to produce said infrastructure;
d. to raise national income, provided said GACP does not create a monopoly;
e. in response to another nation's GACP, provided that the retaliatory GACP is equivalent in value and scope to the original GACP, and that the retaliatory GACP only applies to nations that imposed a GACP on the nation imposing the retaliatory GACP;

5. DECLARES that this resolution shall not be interpreted to disallow governments from pursuing domestic economic endeavors and granting domestic monopolies, as long as said endeavors and monopolies do not do business internationally;

6. DECLARES that nations may, by mutual agreement, form a Coalition Of Mutually Melded International Economies, which will act as one nation for the purposes of this resolution only;

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to look for and report instances of ACPs and warn and, after at least five warnings have been issued for the same offense, shut down multinationals that are not in compliance with clause 2.

Well, maybe we're operating under different definitions, but to say that trade is inherently "capitalist" implies it is purely to increase profit. ICly Kelssek trades only with IFTA signatories, that's one of the terms of the agreement. Anyone we trade with must comply with the IFTA's workers' rights regime. Within the bloc, our trade deals are usually barter. Aircraft parts for household appliances, for example. It's a matter of mutual benefit, not profit. I don't regard that as "capitalist". We're market socialists here.

The point of this proposal is to make sure that huge socialist, subsidized and unfair trading capitalist industries cannot take over the international market by lowering prices extremely and then putting them up high when the fair competition is gone.

Err... I'm trying to sort out the "socialist capitalist" oxymoron here but I think I understand what you're getting at. Governments can already protect their economies from that to some degree with protectionist measures. But you're also gutting their tools by limiting what you call "GACPs" and forcing them to rely on the UN-mandated mechanism. I don't think that's the best way to act against anti-competitive behaviour.

The loopholes vs. economic freedom thing isn't going away. I see very big ones in section 4, but if they are taken away, it becomes pretty much a ban on protectionism, and I think we've both already had enough of arguing about that.

The effectiveness of this resolution to accomplish its goals also is limited by the fact that countries can easily leave the UN and that most nations aren't part of the UN. No doubt this is the best platform for such a measure, but the problem won't necessarily be solved even if you get it passed. There's a very real possibility that rabid capitalists will just leave the UN.

Anyway, let's pretend I don't have fundamental disagreements and get into specifics:

- Section 6 is clumsy. It would work better if it were a bilateral agreement a country would make with another to ignore these restrictions for trade between them.

- Perhaps the UNFTC should act on complaints as well?

- Manufacturers may dictate prices for reasons other than to moider competition. They may want to prevent retailers from making their product suffer by pricing it high so the retailer can make a bigger profit. Or they may want to maintain the exclusivity of their product. A friend of a friend who owns an eyewear shop tells me, for instance, that Oakley mandates the prices he can sell their products at to keep up their brand. He can't discount them, at least not officially. He gave me a discount because of my friend, but on the receipt he records the "real" price and the discount literally came out of his pocket.

Try adding a clause that excludes fundamental services such as electricity, public transport, emergency services and health care. That might fix it.

Try adding a clause that excludes fundamental services such as electricity, public transport, emergency services and health care. That might fix it.

It won't fix it enough for me. I'd rather not have the HotRodia Motor Corporation et al outlawed by the UN.

It won't fix it enough for me. I'd rather not have the HotRodia Motor Corporation et al outlawed by the UN.Psst...!

I might be able to work you a similar deal...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Shady Dealer of Shady Deals
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack