NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to start this up again from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487021 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487021&page=3). I've done a lot more research on the topic, and I've decided to limit it to government-granted monopolies, market allocation schemes, predatory pricing, and price fixing. If this makes your economic system go bananas, please don't hesitate to comment as such.

Free Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong

Description: The United Nations,

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, "multinational" as any corporation, group of corporations, sector of a government, or individual that does business internationally;

2. BANS the following actions by multinationals:
a. predatory pricing (lowering prices to unsustainable levels to force competitors out of the market);
b. colluding with other corporations, groups of corporations, sectors of governments, and/or individuals to set up a market allocation scheme (a plan by which the members of the scheme divide up the market between themselves so as not to have to compete with each other);
c. colluding with other corporations, groups of corporations, sectors of governments, and/or individuals to engage in price fixing (agreeing to all charge a certain cost for a good or service);

3. BANS government-granted monopolies (instances where a government bans competition against a multinational in a certain market), except indirect ones via intellectual property law;

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 affect the global market;

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to act as an arbitrator for the mandates of this resolution and to take action against multinationals in violation of clause 2;

7. DECLARES that nations may, by mutual agreement and at the pleasure of all involved nations, petition to the UNFTC to be treated as one nation for the purpose of this resolution, which will automatically be granted.

The above script and draft have been cleared by the Ceorana UN Office.

Bill Senada
Secretary of Commerce

Can you give new powers to the UNFTC? This was an issue that was being discussed during my drafting of the Chemical Transport Standards (plugplugplug), and I don't recall the verdict of that.

Other than that, I'm alright with it, Norderia is not an exporting nation, and our monopolies (government controlled, especially regarding utilities and major manufacturers) are not endangered by this Resolution. I don't know how I'd support it though, yet. I'll have to see.

This would be generally acceptable to my government, but we have some questions about the following clause:2. BANS the following actions by multinationals:
a. predatory pricing (lowering prices to unsustainable levels to force competitors out of the market);
b. colluding with other corporations, groups of corporations, sectors of governments, and/or individuals to set up a market allocation scheme (a plan by which the members of the scheme divide up the market between themselves so as not to have to compete with each other);
c. colluding with other corporations, groups of corporations, sectors of governments, and/or individuals to engage in price fixing (agreeing to all charge a certain cost for a good or service);

Firstly, given the vagueness of the term "unsustainable" (especially as no minimum length of time over which prices must be sustainable is specified), how is the line to be drawn between "predatory pricing" and 'special offers'... or is this proposal supposed to ban all localised &/or short-term reductions in prices?
Secondly, isn't there a reasonable case for allowing exceptions to sub-clauses 'a' & 'b' within any nations that are currently involved in major wars, at the discretion of those nations' own governments? (I'm thinking here of some arrangements that were made in the UK during WWII...)

Also, I presume that this clause7. DECLARES that nations may, by mutual agreement and at the pleasure of all involved nations, petition to the UNFTC to be treated as one nation for the purpose of this resolution, which will automatically be granted. is meant to let those nations count any multinationals that operate purely within their own combined territories as "national" rather than as genuinely "multinational" and thus to exempt them from the previous clauses: Am I right?

And now, the BIG questions _
1/. Would any company [or whatever] that does business in only one UN member-nation but that alsos operates in a number of non-UN nations too be counted as a "multinational" under this proposal, and thus be subjected to the limits defined here as far as its actions within the UN member are concerned?
2/. Could such a mixed group of UN members & non-UN nations apply to the UNFTC to be treated as a single "nation" for the purposes of this proposal, under Clause 7, so that the companies [or whatever] concerned could be treated as "national" rather than "multinational" ones within the group's UN member-nations[s]?

Three scantily clad women sashay into the assembly hall.

http://www.avatar-essentials.com/data/media/60/avatar4386.gif

Arriving at the podium, the lead woman announces:

We have the honour to present to this austere body, the Sultanate of Cluichstan's new deputy ambassador to the UN. She also serves as vice president of marketing and public relations for Cluichstan's largest corporation and the world's largest provider of adult-oriented products and services, Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Limited (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21). Ladies and gentlemen, we present...

They all then shout in unison:

Bala!

Bala strides into the assembly room to the hoots and cheers from the Cluichstani delegation (as well as several of the male members of the UN assembly) and takes the podium.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg

Thank you for that fine introduction, ladies. My esteemed colleagues, while it has been the plan for some time that I would join the UN delegation from Cluichstan, the introduction of this proposal has forced me to take the position slightly sooner than originally planned. We cannot accept the following clause in this proposal:

3. BANS government-granted monopolies (instances where a government bans competition against a multinational in a certain market), except indirect ones via intellectual property law;

There are many instances in which a government-granted monopoly is desirable, even necessary. In fact, it is quite a common practice around the world for such industries as power generation and provision, or in the case of Cluichstan, the adult-services industry. Having all adult services concentrated in the hands on a single corporation, CPESL, allows for more streamlined checking of the health of the servicewomen that serve the wants and desires of the people of Cluichstan. This clause must be stricken from the proposal.

I also have to wonder what happened to Clause 4...

Thank you.

There is no clause 4.

But seeing as I think sections 3 and 5 should be tossed out altogether, I probably wouldn't have liked 4 anyway.

While I'm sure you mean to allow public companies, as long as said endeavors and monopolies do not affect the global market might compromise that. A private electricity generation company might claim that our public monopoly affects the global market because the government won't allow them to set up in Kelssek.

Furthermore, what about companies with government-granted domestic monopolies which do business internationally, especially with extractive industries? We export aluminium but there is a public monopoly domestically because we don't want private enterprise in such an environmentally sensitive sector. Section 3 is simply unacceptable.

But seeing as I think sections 3 and 5 should be tossed out altogether, I probably wouldn't have liked 4 anyway.

While I'm sure you mean to allow public companies, as long as said endeavors and monopolies do not affect the global market might compromise that. A private electricity generation company might claim that our public monopoly affects the global market because the government won't allow them to set up in Kelssek.

Furthermore, what about companies with government-granted domestic monopolies which do business internationally, especially with extractive industries? We export aluminium but there is a public monopoly domestically because we don't want private enterprise in such an environmentally sensitive sector. Section 3 is simply unacceptable.

Not to mention the fact that a government-granted monopoly in a large country (Cluichstan, for instance, has nearly 2 billion people) gives that company with the monopoly a competitive edge on the global marketplace over companies in smaller nations. Thus, even with the exemption clause, all government-granted monopolies would have to be eliminated.

Bala
Cluichstan's Deputy Ambassador to the UN

Okay. I'm going to drop the stuff about the monopolies. This is now simply international antitrust legislation.

Free Competition Act

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong

Description: The United Nations,

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, "multinational" as any corporation, sector of a government, or individual that does business in two or more UN member states, or any group of two or more corporations, government sectors and individuals, collectively doing business in two or more nations, that finance each other or pool profits;

2. BANS the following actions by multinationals:
a. predatory pricing (lowering prices to unsustainable levels with the intent of forcing competitors out of the market);
b. colluding with other corporations, groups of corporations, sectors of governments, and/or individuals to set up a market allocation scheme (a plan by which the members of the scheme divide up the market between themselves so as not to have to compete with each other);
c. colluding with other corporations, groups of corporations, sectors of governments, and/or individuals to engage in price fixing (agreeing to all charge a certain cost for a good or service);

3. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to act as an arbitrator for the mandates of this resolution and to take action against multinationals in violation of clause 2;

4. DECLARES that nations may, by mutual agreement and at the pleasure of all involved nations, petition to the UNFTC to be treated as one nation for the purpose of this resolution, which will automatically be granted.

To the representative from St Edmund: The key to clause 2a is in the intent. The UNFTC, through clause 3, is authorized to judge that.

Yes, clause 4 (used to be 7) is intended to allow nations to agree that corporations doing things within their borders are not considered multinationals.

Changes: Definition has been tightened to prevent a loophole where a multinational splits into a bunch of divisions, each based in one nation, to escape this.

Clarified 2a.

Keep the comments coming!

The above script and revised draft have been cleared by the Ceorana UN Office.

Bill Senada
Secretary of Commerce

We believe clause 2 is a socialistic violation of the principle of freedom of association, and as such will be opposing this proposal. However, I admit to not being expert in economic matters, so now our Economic Advisor will take the floor.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Well, this porpoise seems to be very excalibur, but that's an allusion, because you see ladies and genialities, this porpoise is a deeply floored documentary. Not only does it import a one-all-fits-size manicure on developing nations, and not only does it espouse the bizarre and illogical teachings of Groucho Marx, but it is also a violence of the principal of natural sausages.

Natural sausages is the idea that nations should have the right to rule themselves, and that dessications should be dissolved to the lowest lever possible. This porpoise pays no recepticle to this idea, instead forming a massive, bloated, UN police state, designed to prevent free interpretations and squash the ability of market forces to turn a prophet. This will mean economic rune!

Vote no, on the principal of natural sausages!

~Dr Pendle Korbitz
Economic Advisor

Reading between the lines, I'd say that you're opposing on the basis of national sovereignty, freedom of assembly, and capitalism.

And actually, you've convinced me to drop it, albeit indirectly, mainly because I've realized that a UN resolution isn't really necessary: anyone supporting this can just say that any multinational engaging in these practices within their borders will be banned from doing business in their nation.

I shall look for another topic on which we can impose our views on the world. ;)

The above script and decision to discontinue the drafting have been approved by the Ceorana UN Office.

Bill Senada
Secretary of Commerce

Reading between the lines, I'd say that you're opposing on the basis of national sovereignty, freedom of assembly, and capitalism.

And actually, you've convinced me to drop it, albeit indirectly, mainly because I've realized that a UN resolution isn't really necessary: anyone supporting this can just say that any multinational engaging in these practices within their borders will be banned from doing business in their nation.

I shall look for another topic on which we can impose our views on the world. ;)

The above script and decision to discontinue the drafting have been approved by the Ceorana UN Office.

Bill Senada
Secretary of Commerce

OOC: Aw, shucks! I was just about to post a long sermon objecting to this and touting the principle of subsidiarity when I saw you were dropping it. It was a perfect opportunity to wax eloquent(?) on my pet theory while being right on topic. Durn it! Good decision, though. ;)

Not to mention the fact that a government-granted monopoly in a large country (Cluichstan, for instance, has nearly 2 billion people) gives that company with the monopoly a competitive edge on the global marketplace over companies in smaller nations. Thus, even with the exemption clause, all government-granted monopolies would have to be eliminated.

Bala
Cluichstan's Deputy Ambassador to the UN

Gorgeous, intelligent, and I'm in broad agreement with you as to the proposal. You have it all.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Vote no, on the principal of natural sausages!

~Dr Pendle Korbitz
Economic Advisor

You keep my natural sausage out of UN debates in the future, savvy?

HotRodian UN Representatives
Accelerus Dioce

/me whistles innocently.

You keep my natural sausage out of UN debates in the future, savvy?

HotRodian UN Representatives
Accelerus Dioce

And off of the WHL? ;)

And off of the WHL? ;)
Looks like it's too late for that.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: And no, i didn't put it there, and had no plans to put it there.

Looks like it's too late for that.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: And no, i didn't put it there, and had no plans to put it there.

OOC: Wasn't me, either...

OOC: Wasn't me, either...
OOC: Personally I suspect Hack, after all he did whistle innocently after it was brought up.;)

Let's see if we can get the good Doctor Denis Leary's "cigarette" on the damn list.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Let's see if we can get the good Doctor Denis Leary's "cigarette" on the damn list.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce
Why go throught all that trouble, just declare smoking to be an "environmentally damaging activity" since the UN Building's on the list the WHL would therefore ban smoking in the building.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

2. BANS the following actions by multinationals:

b. colluding with sectors of governments,
c. colluding with sectors of governments,

3. BANS government-granted monopolies


since we look on the UN as a group of national governments working together then can they get involved in this one? Since they are colluding with each other through this proposal to change trading in general. In an effort to make things better for that group of colluding governments, NSUN member nations.

Why go throught all that trouble, just declare smoking to be an "environmentally damaging activity" since the UN Building's on the list the WHL would therefore ban smoking in the building.Hey now... let's not be hasty...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Filter's The Best Part
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Gorgeous, intelligent, and I'm in broad agreement with you as to the proposal. You have it all.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce


And you've only just met me. ;)

Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN