NationStates Jolt Archive

www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=national%20economic%20rights

QUORUM REACHED!

National Economic Rights
Advancement of Industry: Protective Tariffs

General Assembly of the United Nations,

DISTURBED by the adverse effects of certain aspects of free trade in a number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheaper labor in underdeveloped 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 aspects of free trade and outline an effective plan to advance the economies of underdeveloped nations, as well as reduce the rate of poverty, crime, and drug abuse in developed 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 develop their industries;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact trade restrictions on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering or leaving their nation;

4) 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 such as, but not limited to food, clothing, or medicine from certain nations;

5) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to arbitrate disputes arising from this legislation;

ENCOURAGES the deployment of tariffs in order to prevent inequitable and unfair relationships between nations engaged in trade, to encourage domestic employment and basic welfare, and to redevelop certain industrial sectors, as well as trade restrictions as a viable course of action in order to protest the acts of nations,

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

FURTHER DISCOURAGES the withholding of necessities in the international marketplace, such as, but not limited to, food, clothing, and medicine,

CONVINCED that these measures will bring about a more equitable and fair relationship between nations engaged in trade,

HEREBY enacts the National Economic Rights Act

Co-authored by Tarmsden

I am curious as to the legality of Clauses 5 and 6. If a mod can drop in and clear it up it would be much appreciated, and if it is illegal it will be removed.

Intelligent debate as to the merits of this proposed resolution are also appreciated. :)

EDIT: Changed clauses 4 and 5, as well as adding some encourage/discourage clauses.

While I obviously like the principle, 4 is a bit of a gaping loophole, and unnecessary because "withholding" implies a deliberate action to prevent export of goods (like half of an embargo), while protectionism traditionally is aimed at restricting imports.

And in any case, there may be instances where another country wants to starve another to death.

I don't usually ping pong posts, but this is one case where I think it is the best way for me to comment on this. I'll snip the preamble, and just concentrate on the meat.

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 develop their 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 or leaving their nation, given these taxation policies are not forbidden by any UN legislation;
These three clauses are toothless and useless, as you are excepting all future UN legislation on free trade. This won't stop the erosion of a nations right to protect its industries, or protect a nations authority to do anything. We already have this authority, and new free trade proposals can take it away bit by bit anytime someone feels like getting one passed, and this won't get in their way in the slightest.

In that vein, what effect will these clauses have on nations? From they way I read this, you could take all three of those clauses out, and the proposal would have exactly the same effect on nations without them that it does with them in.

4) 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 such as, but not limited to food, clothing, or medicine from certain nations;
Too broad and open to abuse. Remember the RL oil for food debacle in Iraq.

5) All UN nations have the authority to, for a period of no more than 15 years, re-institute tariffs abolished by the UN on goods not deemed necessities by the UNFTC in order to foster the growth of domestic industries, increase employment, or to avoid economic depression, after which such tariffs shall be repealed in a timely fashion and as illustrated in prior free trade resolutions;
Not sure you can do this. If a passed resolution says tarrifs are gone, then they are gone. Would be good if this was allowed though. Witchcliff would immediatly apply it on passage of this proposal, to every industry in our nation negativly affected by prior legislation. I'm sure we can make up some good enough excuses :p.

6) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to arbitrate disputes arising from this legislation, and is henceforth granted the authority to declare goods traded freely as either “necessities” or “non-necessities”;
I think nations would have a much better idea of what is a necessity, and what isn't, within their borders than some bloated committee.

ENCOURAGES the deployment of tariffs in order to prevent inequitable and unfair relationships between nations engaged in trade, as well as embargoes as a viable course of action in order to protest the acts of nations,
Until someone writes a proposal that takes them away. Encouragement is better than nothing, but unless it is mandated, those who don't like tarrifs are still free under this to prevent all UN nations using them.

DISCOURAGES the practice of “dumping” goods and services in matters of international trade in the UN and throughout the world
No complaints about this clause :).

Overall, I would like to see this strengthened up so its first three clause actually do what they say. Protect a nations authority to decide on whether to use tarrifs or not. At the moment, it reads like a protect free trade proposal, with the totally toothless pro tarrif bits added in to make it look balanced (no, I'm not accusing you of anything, just the way I read it).

I would totally support a proposal that protects a nations right to choose its own economic path. This one just doesn't do that.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN

I can't see what clause 5 means or does. If you mean they can reverse UN-mandated tariff removal, then it's illegal; if you mean they can do it on things the UN hasn't discussed, then they have this right anyway; if it's simply giving the UNFTC discretionary authority, then it's either contradiction/duplication or covered by clause 6. The latter parts smack of amendment. You cannot do anything the UN's free trade resolutions, save repeal them.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

I think it's a blocker he's going for, not to affect existing resolutions. As you said, that's not possible.

I agree with the honourable representative from Witchcliff. Remove the reference to anything "forbidden by any UN legislation" from clauses 1, 2 & 3, unless you want future legislation to undermine this one.

Also, clauses 5 & 6 definitely seem illegal.


Dr. Sergei V. Telkijski,
Itinerant Ambassador,
PDSRA

*cough* (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=156&view=findpost&p=3077910)

*tosses a throat tablet*

In that case, it's inviting future legislation to contradict it (can it even do that?), and is toothless.


Dr. Sergei V. Telkijski,
Itinerant Ambassador,
PDSRA

Updated the resolution, and I took out clauses 5 and 6 for ambigious legality reasons.

Remove the FURTHER ENCOURAGES clause. Why does the UN not want companies to employ workers between countries?

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

Well, the reasoning for the Further Encourages article was to promote employment universally, as outsourcing can be just as damaging as it is beneficial.

This new draft is much better than the old one, and something I can certainly support.

I do share the unease about outsourcing clause though. If this proposal is going to protect a nations economic rights, then surely if a nation decides to do that, then that is their choice, but as it is only an encourages clause it isn't a real big deal.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN

Mmm, that is a very good point, Witchcliff and Ceorana. I'll retract it immediately.

If anyone else has any feelings on the matter, please post. All constructive input is greatly appreicated.

Whoa, it's been a while since I've been on the forums here. Feels good to be back to comment on a piece with my name on it!

As to the issue of this thing's teeth: I'm sure Belarum might not want to say it, but Kelssek is right. This is absolutely a blocker. The goal of this resolution is to drive the final nail into the legal coffin of the "UN hereby abolishes all tariffs" proposals. Our goal is to reassert that every nation has the right to set their own policies on import taxes, embargoes and trade agreements for whatever myriad reasons they have.

Congratulations to Belarum on stripping this down to a workable draft (hopefully one with legs to it). This is easily the best draft I've seen yet, and I'm impressed with how this has shortened up and seems to have some good focus to it. As always, this draft has my support. I came in here kind of late to make any worthwhile recommendations, but I'm glad to see most of the major concerns have been covered.

Submitted

This effectively gives the same rights to everyone. It only makes the larger more economically powerful nations stronger and more able to destroy the economies of smaller nations because they are stronger. This legislation is about controlling economies by using discriminatory measures against trading partners.

Most of the economic actions described here are punitive in nature. A larger stronger nation much like in warfare will be able to deliver greater punitive economic measures-- tariffs, etc.

It does nothing to address inequalities between nations because of unfair trading practices. In fact it says nothing about fair trading practices.

A proposal that effectively dealt with settings some standards that would improve the flow of trade between nations rich and poor would be far more effective. Fair trade is better than punishment.

Is the first post the current text of the proposal? I assume that it isn't, but with the various strikings and modifications, I don't know what was just submitted (and I'd ideally like to see it posted here rather than go digging through the proposals list).

I urge the author to consider what he's doing here. If we can't vaporize tariffs by peaceful means, we'll have to resort to violence! And violence is a Bad Thing!

Ahem. The text:

National Economic Rights

A resolution to develop industry around the world.


Category: Advancement of Industry


Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs


Proposed by: Belarum

Description: General Assembly of the United Nations,

DISTURBED by the adverse effects of certain aspects of free trade in a number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheaper labor in underdeveloped 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 aspects of free trade and outline an effective plan to advance the economies of underdeveloped nations, as well as reduce the rate of poverty, crime, and drug abuse in developed 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 develop their industries;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact trade restrictions on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering or leaving their nation;

4) 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 such as, but not limited to food, clothing, or medicine from certain nations;

5) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to arbitrate disputes arising from this legislation;

ENCOURAGES the deployment of tariffs in order to prevent inequitable and unfair relationships between nations engaged in trade, to encourage domestic employment and basic welfare, and to redevelop certain industrial sectors, as well as trade restrictions as a viable course of action in order to protest the acts of nations,

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

FURTHER DISCOURAGES the withholding of necessities in the international marketplace, such as, but not limited to, food, clothing, and medicine,

CONVINCED that these measures will bring about a more equitable and fair relationship between nations engaged in trade,

HEREBY enacts National Economic Rights

Co-authored by Tarmsden

We are generally opposed to economic protectionism, so a proposal that would enshrine the potential for trade restrictions is not exactly one upon which Krioval would grant favor. However, there is nothing to command the establishment of tariffs, so we do not object strongly. It is our finding that a free and diverse economy is essential to the international community, and that not all nations will excel in all areas of commerce. Krioval would be more strongly interested in a proposal that included language to encourage additional free trade, though perhaps this is not the intent of the author.

Jevo Telovar
UN Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

I hope I'm not alone in not understanding a fucking thing the Ceoranan dude says anymore.

Anyway, this proposal seems to me to be an ill eagle. None of its mandatory clauses do anything: they simply say that nations can do certain things. The only clause that matches the category is the first encouragement; that's so weak, it doesn't seem to stand.

The category, we're always told, is the prime consideration. To turn that on its head, it's clear here the author's eyes have lit up at the sight of the Protective Tariffs option. They just don't have a proposal to go with it.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Really Eager!! To see what tangential shit the Tarmsden spews in 'response'

Hm. This bird looks pretty sick to me...

Hm. This bird looks pretty sick to me...

What does that mean, it's illegal for nations to se their own economic policies if they belong to the UN?

What does that mean, it's illegal for nations to se their own economic policies if they belong to the UN?

I think he's saying that your proposal is coming very close to being illegal.

...because it's a category violation. Not because UN nations are prohibited from making decisions about their economies.

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering or leaving their nation;

It seems to me, that you have to exlude some goods and service mentionned in passed legislation:

#130 Global Food Distribution Act
3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=129

#154 Nuclear Energy Research Act
5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=153

#158 UN Recycling Commission
4. REQUIRES member nations to:
...
- remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=157

@Love and estereel:

4) 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 such as, but not limited to food, clothing, or medicine from certain nations;

5) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to arbitrate disputes arising from this legislation;

Also, this proposed resolution outlines a nation's right to use tariffs and trade restrictions, and encourages them to do so. How is that a miscategorization?

@Love and estereel:

Also, this proposed resolution outlines a nation's right to use tariffs and trade restrictions, and encourages them to do so. How is that a miscategorization?

Ok thanks for your answer so with the following clause:

4) 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 such as, but not limited to food, clothing, or medicine from certain nations;

your proposal can be rad as follow?:
3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering or leaving their nation; [apart from tariffs aboslished or to be abolished in the future by the UN, for necessities and beneficial goods]

Even with this i'm sorry but Love and esterel will vote and debate AGAINST this proposal, which is a blanket right in many economic sectors for nations to escalation trade disputes.

I will once again use RL reference, but I really think that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act back in 1930, decreased even further economic growth worlwide, including the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act
Economy is not a perfect science, and every choice has its own bad effects, but the bad effects or tarrifs escalation is far beyound the level of the bad effects of free trade.

I'm not an advocate of free trade everywhere now without restrictions, this is a similar danger/temptation to tarrifs increase. I think that the move has to be progressive, in time and/or geographically (regional FTA such as the European common market or the ASEAN) smooth and regulated, it's really different.

Firstly, the idea that the Smoot-Hawley Act caused the Great Depression is perhaps one of the worst and most misleading pipe dreams of the free trade movement perpetrated on mankind. The Great Depression was caused by undercapitalization in the stock market and the under-regulation of the banking industry. The Great Depression was essentially caused by the laissez-faire train of thought that free traders love so dearly, not because of too many tariffs.

Also, it should be mentioned that the United States was able to foster and develop industry and turn iteslf into an industrial power with the use of tariffs (see American System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_%28economic_plan%29)). This was very effective after the nation's economy was gutted after the Civil War.

I myself am not the greatest fan of free trade, but I do believe that in some cases, such as the providing of necessities, it can be beneficial. It's why I included the fourth article. But, I feel that something as fundamental as setting your own nation's policies in matters of trade, whether that be isolationism or joining in voluntary free trade agreements with other like-minded nations (in fact, I am doing so with two other nations in my region of the European Union), must rest at the national level.

EDIT: I'm glad these points are being brought up, and sorry if I'm using too many RL points for my arguement. I'm also glad this has sparked debate, as it is IMO one of the most important subjects of our time.

The goal here is an enshrinement of a nation's right to choose to use tariffs, embargoes, free trade, fair trade or whatever other economic and trade policies they choose. If proposals to abolish all tariffs within the UN are legal (and they are), then why can't its counteracter (not a real word, I know), a proposal to guarantee the rights of individual nations to set their own policies, be legal?

The goal here is to offer nations a promise that they have the right to set their own economic and trade policies for most incoming goods without removing the right of the UN to pass resolutions abolishing tariffs for food, recycled goods, nuclear equipment, etc.


It's a simple barrier between a sovereignty-rooted UN and a UN free trade zone Belarum, I and other nations do not believe in.

The goal here is an enshrinement of a nation's right to choose to use tariffs, embargoes, free trade, fair trade or whatever other economic and trade policies they choose. If proposals to abolish all tariffs within the UN are legal (and they are), then why can't its counteracter (not a real word, I know), a proposal to guarantee the rights of individual nations to set their own policies, be legal?
Because national rights proposals have never been legal. Take the train of thought to its extension: if a proposal to legalise euthanasia is allowed, why wasn't the Euthanasia Legality Convention?

Because it was illegal.

Proposals have to meet the category: that means they have to have effects in line with that category. The simplifications you and your pal are playing to do work; the proposal as it stands, in my non-modly eyes, doesn't. It's too weak: it needs to more strongly encourage or require tariffs before it can be categorised as doing so.

The mods may disagree, but I've got the impression that for the single-strength categories, something more than "Super Mild" is preferred.

Abortion Legality Convention passed, and you are a member of the National Sovereignty Organization. Why are you so against sovereignty proposals and so intent that they are illegal?

Besides, I have two non-sovereignty arguments in favor of this: the creation of a UN Free Trade Commission to enforce a number of previous UN anti-tariff resolutions and a means for nations to defend their workforces (which already exists but has never been clearly affirmed like this).

Because national rights proposals have never been legal. Take the train of thought to its extension: if a proposal to legalise euthanasia is allowed, why wasn't the Euthanasia Legality Convention?

Because it was illegal.

Proposals have to meet the category: that means they have to have effects in line with that category. The simplifications you and your pal are playing to do work; the proposal as it stands, in my non-modly eyes, doesn't. It's too weak: it needs to more strongly encourage or require tariffs before it can be categorised as doing so.

The mods may disagree, but I've got the impression that for the single-strength categories, something more than "Super Mild" is preferred.

There's really no need to be snide; you can simply disagree and state reasons as oppose to debasing those who don't share your free trade philosophy.

Since there is no strength level, it is probably correct to assume that any area of effect can represent anything from mild to strong. This would bring economic policy back to nations and encourage their use in order to foster economic development and/or protect laborers.

Abortion Legality Convention passed
It had Moral Decency clauses.

and you are a member of the National Sovereignty Organization. Why are you so against sovereignty proposals and so intent that they are illegal?
You're confusing what Gruenberg the nation thinks the UN should do, and how Gruenberg thinks the game works. I acknowledge the existence of the Social Justice category: doesn't mean my nation wants the UN legislating social justice.

Besides, I have two non-sovereignty arguments in favor of this: the creation of a UN Free Trade Commission to enforce a number of previous UN anti-tariff resolutions
1. It doesn't create it. That was created back in Resolution #130.
2. That has shit-all to do with protective tariffs.

and a means for nations to defend their workforces (which already exists but has never been clearly affirmed like this).
There is a difference between affirming and requiring, though. Resolutions cannot only affirm national rights: there is no "national rights" category.

No way are we going to mandate that nations use tariffs; that's contrary to the spirit of this resolution. No way are we going to let the UN free trade zone come into existence; that's why this is here.

No way are we going to mandate that nations use tariffs; that's contrary to the spirit of this resolution.
Then I struggle to see how you're going to make it fit a category that is about imposing protectionism upon nations.

No way are we going to let the UN free trade zone come into existence; that's why this is here.
So vote against it.

Firstly, the idea that the Smoot-Hawley Act caused the Great Depression is perhaps one of the worst and most misleading pipe dreams of the free trade movement perpetrated on mankind. The Great Depression was caused by undercapitalization in the stock market and the under-regulation of the banking industry. The Great Depression was essentially caused by the laissez-faire train of thought that free traders love so dearly, not because of too many tariffs.

Also, it should be mentioned that the United States was able to foster and develop industry and turn iteslf into an industrial power with the use of tariffs (see American System). This was very effective after the nation's economy was gutted after the Civil War.

I myself am not the greatest fan of free trade, but I do believe that in some cases, such as the providing of necessities, it can be beneficial. It's why I included the fourth article. But, I feel that something as fundamental as setting your own nation's policies in matters of trade, whether that be isolationism or joining in voluntary free trade agreements with other like-minded nations (in fact, I am doing so with two other nations in my region of the European Union), must rest at the national level.

EDIT: I'm glad these points are being brought up, and sorry if I'm using too many RL points for my arguement. I'm also glad this has sparked debate, as it is IMO one of the most important subjects of our time.

Thanks for debating this with me.
About the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, I said that it decreased even further economic growth worldwide, including the US. The US increase of tariffs which followed did nothing to improve the US economy and everyone know what happen next in Germany, a nation which had strong economic trade with the US at that time.

I agree that sometimes, protective tariffs can be useful, and you may have noticed that I’m also a strong advocate on this forum of a progressive process for free trade: in time and by geographical zones.
But is it a reason to declare a blanket right for tariffs dispute escalation?
This is a real danger, one nation increase tariffs towards two or three nations for an incognizant reason, the others replicate and so on...

Trade between nations spread innovations, the real engine of economic growth, increase co-operation between nations, spread foreign languages and culture, opens borders; decrease the odds of wars to happen, increase life condition in many nations which don't have to invent the wheel once again.

So, even beyond the direct economic impact of free trade, we have to take into account what free trade do to open economically developing nations, politically, culturally and further more this have a positive indirect impact on the economy.

OOC: Krioval plays as a moderate International Federationalist, but this proposal is a category violation (NOTE: I am not a moderator) - the category chose specifically *forces* more tariffs in all UN states. At the same time, the proposal text does not indicate how this is to be done. The text must explicitly, somewhere, contain language that matches it to its category.

The Great Depression was essentially caused by the laissez-faire train of thought that free traders love so dearly, not because of too many tariffs.

After the Federal Reserve act how can one argue that the US economy was a free market, or anything close to laissez-faire? One of the most important tenets of free-market economics is free banking, and the US had nothing of the sort in the 1920s. If anything, government intervention in the money supply caused the initial recession, and the 10% reserve requirement set by the fed encouraged the bank runs that caused the deflationary spiral that was the Great Depression.

As for the proposal, it sounds like it needs to come under Social Justice rather than Advancement of Industry. Although, I would still vote against it as it encourages nations to protect big business from competition, and would harm working class consumers and developing economies

After the Federal Reserve act how can one argue that the US economy was a free market, or anything close to laissez-faire? One of the most important tenets of free-market economics is free banking, and the US had nothing of the sort in the 1920s. If anything, government intervention in the money supply caused the initial recession, and the 10% reserve requirement set by the fed encouraged the bank runs that caused the deflationary spiral that was the Great Depression.

As for the proposal, it sounds like it needs to come under Social Justice rather than Advancement of Industry. Although, I would still vote against it as it encourages nations to protect big business from competition, and would harm working class consumers and developing economies

That wouldn't have even been a factor had the stock market been properly regulated. In addition to that, the logic you're using seems very flawed. What's the point of a bank if you can't withdraw your money when you want? Had there been no 10% reserve requirement, there'd have been even less money available, compounding the Great Depression. You can't argue that the Great Depression was caused by undue government regulation, because that's not the root cause. It's like saying oil is made from plastic.

As for the proposal, what business is it of yours if another country seeks to put tariffs on goods entering or leaving their country? You don't seem to care a flinch about the exploitation of cheap labor in underdeveloped countries and unemployment or employment in low wage jobs in developed ones. Unbridled free trade is a race to the bottom. It's the brain children of some proffessors sitting in a Ivy League University who think it's just ballsy that millions have jobs in China or India and millions don't in the US. They're jobs don't get outsourced, so it seems like just a peachy keen idea.

As for the proposal, what business is it of yours if another country seeks to put tariffs on goods entering or leaving their country?

Because it makes it harder for producers in my own country to make a profit. Do you not understand how tariffs are harmful to the country that has them? You spout off incredible facts relating to the magical world of RL, when you don't even seem to understand that tariffs are a major cause of depression in the first place.

OOC: Seriously. American tariffs caused the incredibly dangerous economic scares in the late 1800s. Why? Because the prices were artificially inflated and foreign competitiors couldn't get a leg in.


You don't seem to care a flinch about the exploitation of cheap labor in underdeveloped countries and unemployment or employment in low wage jobs in developed ones.

Ah, here comes the feel-good bullshit. You know what? That's the way economics works. People start off dirt-shit poor, and work their way up. People aren't just magically rich to begin with. Trade levels off, jobs shift, and the economic dynamic changes. There is no economic status quo.

Unbridled free trade is a race to the bottom. It's the brain children of some proffessors sitting in a Ivy League University who think it's just ballsy that millions have jobs in China or India and millions don't in the US.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What about the fucking dirt-poor Chinese who didn't have jobs before foreigners came along? Did they just not exist? Or is the myth of the superior American worker so ingrained in your skull that you can't understand that the status quo has shifted? Maybe you're forgetting the period of American history when people worked for pennies a day, just like foreign outsourced labor is right now. Amazing how things change, huh?

Unbridled free trade, with no restrictions (AT ALL), is the great equalizer.

They're jobs don't get outsourced, so it seems like just a peachy keen idea.

Wow. For someone railing against the Ivory Tower, you've got a pretty lofty peak there yourself.

Go read an economics textbook, and come back when you understand it.

^^^ What he said.

That wouldn't have even been a factor had the stock market been properly regulated. In addition to that, the logic you're using seems very flawed. What's the point of a bank if you can't withdraw your money when you want?

I think you may have misunderstood. Having a lender of last resort in place (theoretically) removes the risk of a bank having low reserves. A bank (certainly not a successful one, anyway) under a free market is never going to have reserves as low as 10%, it's far too risky. Of course, when the lender of last resort doesn't do as it is supposed to (like the Federal Reserve didn't during the depression) and bail out failing banks, then all of the money that the insolvent banks have created out of thin air is wiped out, and thus the money supply is deflated.

I don't know where you got this idea of people not being able to withdraw their money from.


Had there been no 10% reserve requirement, there'd have been even less money available, compounding the Great Depression.
You can't compound something that doesn't begin. No Federal Reserve, no artificial interest rate, and no artificially low reserve requirements would have meant there would have never been the huge amount of easy money available in the 1920s that fuelled the boom. No boom would have meant that the malinvestments over the period would never have needed correcting through the recession that began in 1929.

You can't argue that the Great Depression was caused by undue government regulation, because that's not the root cause.
On the contrary, many economists do (The more intelligent ones, at least). Although, "regulation" is the wrong term, more like "manipulation" or "interference".

Because it makes it harder for producers in my own country to make a profit. Do you not understand how tariffs are harmful to the country that has them? You spout off incredible facts relating to the magical world of RL, when you don't even seem to understand that tariffs are a major cause of depression in the first place.

OOC: Seriously. American tariffs caused the incredibly dangerous economic scares in the late 1800s. Why? Because the prices were artificially inflated and foreign competitiors couldn't get a leg in..

Firstly, if you want to get nasty, leave. Don't be an asshole. Get off that high fucking horse you rode in on.

Secondly, you want to talk about the invisible (non-existant) hand of the marketplace? Three words that sends you running for the hills: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority). You know how that lovely invisible hand metaphor is supposed to care for all, well it looks like it went out to lunch when it was time to electrify that section of the Appalachians. The Federal government came in (oh noes!) and interfeared, drastically improving the lives of those who lived there. The free market seems to have a flaw: cost-effectiveness.

Thirdly, the MAJOR cause of the Great Depression was (surprise surpise) the Stock Market crash, which was caused by the buying of stock on the margin. Had there been regulations against that, the bubble wouldn't have inflated and there would have been no crash. Why don't you put down Atlas Shrugged and grow some functioning motor skills.

Ah, here comes the feel-good bullshit. You know what? That's the way economics works. People start off dirt-shit poor, and work their way up. People aren't just magically rich to begin with. Trade levels off, jobs shift, and the economic dynamic changes. There is no economic status quo.

Thanks for that, because you've just proven to all of us that the general free trader feeling on those displaced by outsourcing is simply "Don't give a fuck". You're a callous, cold individual if you actually believe the venom you're spewing at this moment. Exploitation and worker's rights are merely the fillers of textbooks you don't bother reading. This is my motivation for this proposal: people like you who just don't give a rat's ass about anything but greed.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What about the fucking dirt-poor Chinese who didn't have jobs before foreigners came along? Did they just not exist? Or is the myth of the superior American worker so ingrained in your skull that you can't understand that the status quo has shifted? Maybe you're forgetting the period of American history when people worked for pennies a day, just like foreign outsourced labor is right now. Amazing how things change, huh?

Unbridled free trade, with no restrictions (AT ALL), is the great equalizer.

Wow. For someone railing against the Ivory Tower, you've got a pretty lofty peak there yourself.

Go read an economics textbook, and come back when you understand it.

You dare call me a racist, yet you claim that the Chinese didn't have the ability to create jobs for them until the White Man's Burden managed to jolt Western civilization into bringing jobs to China? The Chinese are industrious people who had simply adopted a flawed ideology. In fact, I could argue that the free flow of jobs and capital into China has effectively prolonged the stranglehold of the Communist Party over the nation. Google censors out searches for Tianamen Square, and Microsoft willingly places trackers to monitor what people are looking up on the internet, just in case the people decide to get too upitty about the military regime. American enterprise is effectively cow-towing to the military dictatorship of China. The idea that you can liberalize the government by liberalizing the economy was, and is, BULLSHIT.

I'm taking economics as I post, and I can tell you that I interject at least once a week and prove the usefullness of labor unions, the minimum wage, and the usefullness of government intervention in the economy. So please, spew your vitriol elsewhere. If you'd like to get civilized and debate the matter at hand on merit, I would gladly do so, but all I've seen from you is insults and illogical marketeering in the face of valid efforts to aid those who have felt the wrath of the marketplace.

So, if you'd like to grow up and talk to me and those in this thread with respect, great. If not, GTFO.

OOC: I'm getting a tingling in my left knee, which can only mean one thing: any moment now, hack is going to step in and say something along the lines of "hey, remember when we turned a UN discussion into a Generalite pissing contest? wasn't that awesome?" Maybe you want to tidy up before he does?

Not trying to act as a mod, but just giving some advice...this has gone into a shit-slinging contest rivalling anything my characters have got caught up in, and the obsession on dragging discussion about a game into endless yammering about RL probably won't see this thread go that far. You might want to get back to the topic, which is this proposal as it affects NationStates.

The Chinese are industrious people who had simply adopted a flawed ideology.

Exactly. And it's another reason why free trade is important, as it helps at preventing many nation to adopt a flawed ideology.

The NSUN #130 Global Food Distribution Act for example prevent nation from this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6179818.stm

I would like also to point out that after the cataclysm of Mao's cultural revolution, it was not a pure hasard if Deng Xiaoping opened the Special Economic Zone of Shenzhen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzen
And even if I fully agree with you about human right in China, I think it's important to notice that we can see some progress and reasonably forecast more.

We are strongly AGAINST the proposal "National Economic Rights".

OOC: I'm getting a tingling in my left knee, which can only mean one thing: any moment now, hack is going to step in and say something along the lines of "hey, remember when we turned a UN discussion into a Generalite pissing contest? wasn't that awesome?" Maybe you want to tidy up before he does?

Not trying to act as a mod, but just giving some advice...this has gone into a shit-slinging contest rivalling anything my characters have got caught up in, and the obsession on dragging discussion about a game into endless yammering about RL probably won't see this thread go that far. You might want to get back to the topic, which is this proposal as it affects NationStates.

Which is why I've repeatedly asked everyone to keep some civility in this thread.

@Love and estereel: Before I clicked on the link, I thought you were talking farm subsidies for just a moment.

It looks like the (NS)UN has legislated many times in favor of human rights, which would prevent the forced collectivization of the era of Stalin's USSR. This proposed resolution doesn't seek to ban the free flow of all goods, in fact it promotes the free trade of necessities like food, clothing, medicine, etc. It simply states that nations, IF THEY CHOOSE, have a right to use tariffs and trade restrictions, and are encouraged to do so if their industries cannot compete on a global scale.

Thanks for that, because you've just proven to all of us that the general free trader feeling on those displaced by outsourcing is simply "Don't give a fuck".

First, I didn't say that. Second, that's why I oppose this proposal. Government interference (mainly through tariffs) is harmful to the economy of the entire world. There is simply no other way to put it.

You're a callous, cold individual if you actually believe the venom you're spewing at this moment. Exploitation and worker's rights are merely the fillers of textbooks you don't bother reading. This is my motivation for this proposal: people like you who just don't give a rat's ass about anything but greed.

I'm just an ambassador representing my nation. Workers are treated very fairly in our nation, because they have realized that their labor is a commodity to be bought and sold just like any other. Greed? Every worker is greedy.

You dare call me a racist, yet you claim that the Chinese didn't have the ability to create jobs for them until the White Man's Burden managed to jolt Western civilization into bringing jobs to China? The Chinese are industrious people who had simply adopted a flawed ideology.


First off, I didn't call you a racist. Secondly, my analogy was intended to illustrate a larger economic trend, one that encompasses the transfer of industry-intensive and massed labor from one location to another. By looking at the shift in workforces and incomes, you can predict where wages will rise and fall.

So, if you'd like to grow up and talk to me and those in this thread with respect, great. If not, GTFO.

I'd like to think that we're having a discourse on the relative stengths of fair trade and the misunderstandings you seem to have about it.

Let's look at high tariffs: they harm, quite simply. What is good about artificially protecting an industry? Take an example: automobile manufacturing in Allech-Atreus. It's not a very big industry, mostly designed around exporting cars to other countries. Nevertheless, people still buy Imperial cars. The government, fearful of foreign competition, raises tariffs on foreign cars, making them more expensive compared to Imperial-made cars.

So now we have artificially-priced foreign cars competing against normally priced Imperial cars. Let's say for the sake of argument that the foreign cars are produced in Belarum. Let's say that cars in the Empire generally run around 15,000 Klars. Imported cars from Belarum, with tariff added, cost 25,000 Klars. People buy more Imperial cars, because of the lower price. Belarum-made cars suffer. How is that advantageous to the producers in Belarum, who can't compete with Imperial cars because of government intervention?

Let's say Belarum Cars Incorporated sells most of their vehicles in Allech-Atreus. Because of the tariffs, they have to lay off hundreds of plant workers, because profits aren't so good. Where's the fairness there? What has the tariff done for Belarum Cars Incorporated, which had to fire people because they couldn't compete fairly?

It's the same situation. Free trade is preferable, because it is the most fair option out there. Everyone has a chance when there are no boundaries or restrictions. Free trade works when people are on board, there's no other way around it.

It simply states that nations, IF THEY CHOOSE, have a right to use tariffs and trade restrictions,
They already have the ability to do that.
And your proposal is a "blancket right" for escalation disputes

and are encouraged to do so if their industries cannot compete on a global scale.

Even if i agree that some times it can be usefull, it seems to me that you underestimate the danger of protectionism. Protectionism is such an easy temptation, and free trade such an easy "scapegoat".

Furthermore your proposal is a blancket righ to restrict acess to information: satellite TV set (Iran), internet (Cuba, Myanmar, saudi Arabia) or to impose a dramatic embargo on another nation (USA over Cuba).

It is about nations rights to choose. We can all scream at each other that tarrifs are good/bad until the cows come home, but what it all boils down to is no nation should have the right to force its goods/companies on another nation, and that is what free trade does.

I have the right to control my borders and decide who or what crosses them. I have the right, not to mention duty, to protect my people and their jobs. I have the right, not to mention duty, to protect our own industries. If we fall flat on our face because of these protections, then that is down to us and no-one else.

Why is it that so many nations scream like banshees when a proposal comes forth giving their citizens rights, but a lot of these same people have no problem trampling all over a nations right to decide its own economic path? Why do you expect our borders to magically disappear when it comes to your companies and goods? Why are we responsible for the profit margins of your companies?

If we want to trade with you, then we will make a trade agreement, and the goods concerned will be protection free, but our nation does not wish to be dragged kicking and screaming into forced free trade that will damage our industries and put our people out of work.

We do support a proposal that will give nations the right to decide on protections and tarrifs. Those that don't want to use them don't have to, and those that do can. I really can't see a problem with this.

Why is it that so many nations scream like banshees when a proposal comes forth giving their citizens rights, but a lot of these same people have no problem trampling all over a nations right to decide its own economic path?
Um, could that question not be turned on its head? Why is that nations demonstrating such blithe disregard for national sovereignty in areas such as defence, governance and social policy suddenly reach for the oversized novelty national rights klaxon when trade comes up?

Um, could that question not be turned on its head? Why is that nations demonstrating such blithe disregard for national sovereignty in areas such as defence, governance and social policy suddenly reach for the oversized novelty national rights klaxon when trade comes up?

Because it works and fits :p.

This nation is centrist and decides whether to support or not support legislation on its merits. I hate free trade, both IC and OOC because I see it as explotive and, in the case of small undeveloped nations, bullying. The very very lopsided deal RL Aust signed with the US a few years ago made me hate it even more.

Because it works and fits :p.

This nation is centrist and decides whether to support or not support legislation on its merits. I hate free trade, both IC and OOC because I see it as explotive and, in the case of small undeveloped nations, bullying. The very very lopsided deal RL Aust signed with the US a few years ago made me hate it even more.
Ok, but NS free trade agreements generally haven't been like that: because all resolutions have to affect all nations equally, in fact, they can't be lopsided.

OOC: I'm getting a tingling in my left knee, which can only mean one thing: any moment now, hack is going to step in and say something along the lines of "hey, remember when we turned a UN discussion into a Generalite pissing contest? wasn't that awesome?"Hey, remember that time when you posted exactly what I was going to say? Wasn't that awesome?

;)

Im probably going to get my head bitten off but ill post my 2c anyway.

You protectionists do realise that protectionism is a two way street, right? It doesn’t just mean you "protecting" your jobs and companies from foreign competitors but also other countries protecting their markets from your exports. They will want to protect their jobs just as much as you want to protect yours.

Free trade is better for smaller nations (this is to whoever claimed free trade was bad for small economies). Its hard for a small nation to produce everything it needs in an efficient way. Because goods are produced on a smaller scale, productions costs are higher.

A company’s decision to provide goods or services will be based on its potential viability. If its a specialised product, there may not be enough potential customers in a domestic market to make a project viable. Therefore, the company wont go into production. If it has access to foreign markets as well, is has a much wider customer base so their project may become viable. For the same basic reason, free trade increases efficiency (production in larger volumes lowers costs). Free trade boosts the economy in this way, and it gives consumers the choice to buy whatever they feel is the product that best meets their needs.

Im not saying 'leave it to the market' is always the best policy, and im still undecided on this proposal. But I think the benefits of the free market are being pushed aside for emotional ploys designed to make people feel sorry for 1 worker losing his job so people won’t look at the bigger picture.

On the other hand, some countries choose to operate in a heavily protected and regulated way for social reasons. Forcing them to accept goods made in more liberal economies could undermine their social policies. Despite my own views on protectionism, if people want to operate in that way I think its their right to do so (so long as they accept both the good and bad consequences of their decision).

I think this game needs the option to form trading blocks.

And just on the claim that protectionism protects jobs....dont countries that more heavily protect/regulate their labour market and economies generally have higher unemployment rates in RL?

* ooc: handbags again? *

While I regard many of the free trade acts passed by this body to be egregiously harmful to poor nations given the inherently uneven 'playing field' of international trade, I certainly will not endorse a proposal - regardless of category - that encourages protectionism irrespective of economic strength. This leaves me with something of a quandary regarding my support for or opposition to UN trade legislation.

Dashanzi will not vote in favour of this proposal, though I commend the author for attempting to tackle a particularly troublesome issue.

Benedictions,

no nation should have the right to force its goods/companies on another nation, and that is what free trade does

I would like to say that no goods are forced, as to sell something; someone else has to buy it in the first place. If there are no advantages for Witchcliff's people to buy foreign goods and services, they will not buy LAE goods and service, and then I doubt that LAE companies will stay in Witchcliff loosing money.

Why is it that so many nations scream like banshees when a proposal comes forth giving their citizens rights, but a lot of these same people have no problem trampling all over a nations right to decide its own economic path?

I really understand and support your remark, but I hope you noticed that many nations including Love and esterel see no problem in both scenarios.

Why do you expect our borders to magically disappear when it comes to your companies and goods?

In most free trade resolutions and proposal which get the floor, I hope you will notice the abscence of magic and instead appreciate the smooth and progressive process:

4. ESTABLISHES the following schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms:

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms)
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=129

5. ...within eleven years;
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_...ions/start=153

8. Sets a timeline for implementation of ten years from the passage of this resolution.
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Clothing_Supply_Pact

Why are we responsible for the profit margins of your companies?

You don't have to do anything about that.
International trade allow your companies to sell abroad.
International trade allow your customer to spend less money on many goods and service, and then to save money for house, education or whatever, or to buy more gods and services for the same money. It means that purchasing power increase.
International trade bring new products and services to your nation without to re-invent the wheel (saving your nation years/decades/centuries long process).
International trade bring some competition and efficiency to your economy (and I fail to see what's wrong about competition and efficiency when dealing with economy).

Of course this has some unwanted short term consequences, nothing is perfect but you have to make the balance and add to that the positive effects of free trade on opening nations on the world, decrease the odds of nations to adopt flawed ideologies and that free trade help ideas to spread.

Also as written in #187 UN Fair Wage Convention
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=186
I suppose you agree that minimal wage cannot be the same level in all nations, as mostly it needs to be adapted to the current GDP/capita. It's sadly the same for many things about welfare. Welfare cannot increase long without economic growth, this is sad, but this is reality. So one cannot ask for the same level of welfare in economically developping nations than in economically developped ones, this is utopia.



Furthermore, with its giant trade deficit, the US unemployment rate is far from high, and many other developed-open-economies experience low unemployment rate. It's why I feel really bad when I hear people saying they want to increase tariffs on goods from China (a nation coming from very far, since Mao's cultural revolution, both economically and human right speaking) or India or other economically developing nations.


For most of us in this forum, I suppose, we have the chance to live in economically developed nations. If we raise tariffs from China’s goods, India’s IT services, or others, not only we will raise price in our nations, but we will also slow their economic growth, as manufactured goods exports and IT offshore services are essential to their economic development.

Quorum reached! :D

However we feel about the advantages of protectionism and/or free trade, I'd like to thank you all for at least making this an interesting thread.

I tried with Tarmsden very hard to craft a piece of legislation that would bring the option to enact protectionist measures or to engage in free trade back to the national stage, as opposed to UN-mandated agreements. I think it'd be fairer to all nations; if you seek to still engage in free trade you may, while if others opt not to they don't have to.

I tried with Tarmsden very hard to craft a piece of legislation that would bring the option to enact protectionist measures or to engage in free trade back to the national stage, as opposed to UN-mandated agreements. I think it'd be fairer to all nations; if you seek to still engage in free trade you may, while if others opt not to they don't have to.

I'm sorry, but as it is written, your poposal is more a praise of protectionism and trade dispute escalations, than a balanced one allowing rights for economic-protection in defined scenarios.

In particular clause 3 is impressive:
3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering or leaving their nation;


Once again, we would like to publicly express our regrets about the obsolescence of UN categories in general and the non-partiallity of this UN category in particular in favour of a widely disputed economic theory:

Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs
A resolution to develop industry around the world.

I think this proposal is illegal, and ask that the mods consider its deletion. Sorry to be doing this for the second time in recent memory: it's honestly not that I'm trying to get proposals I dislike bumped "the easy way" (because in this case, I think free trade resolutions could continue if it passed anyway - it's the nothingness, not the somethingness, I object to.)

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and develop their industries;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact trade restrictions on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering or leaving their nation;
These clauses directly contradict:
- Resolution #33, No Embargoes on Medicine
- Resolution #130, Global Food Distribution Act
- Resolution #154, Nuclear Energy Research Act
- a tiny rider in Resolution #155, Waste Disposal Covenant
- Resolution #158, UN Recycling Commission

All of these resolutions remove these rights from nations concerning certain goods. It is not enough to wave at the fourth clause, because even if did exempt them from contradiction, the proposal would then be wholly meaningless. As per Euthanasia Legality Convention - and numerous other proposals before that - proposals cannot simply give nations rights: they have to fit the category. This does not fit the category, because it contains just one weak encouragement to deploy tariffs - easily counteracted by its one weak discouragement against doing so. The Tariffs area should be used to require, or at least strongly urge, the introduction of tariffs, not simply give nations a pat on the back that they can keep on keepin' on.

http://test256.free.fr/vagatorpostlae2.jpg

"Say no to communism in the NSUN" - Quick flash special

Monday 27 November 2006, 22h59 PPT (Parallel Pacific Time)

Few hours after the NSUN proposal "National Economic Rights" reached quorum, many people went into the streets in Esterel City, Anjuna (the two major economic center in Love and esterel) and many other cities around the world among NSUN members.

They were expressing their protest against this proposal and against the danger of a new era of economic protectionism worldwide which may, according to demonstrators, trigger a row of trade disputes and damages world economic growth.

Demonstrators seem to have manufactured quickly a series of placard, such as this one, which have been observed in demonstrations in several UN members. This placard use a famous NSUN card designed by His Excellency Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones from The Governorate of Cobdenia.


http://test256.free.fr/ner2.jpg

Wow. How does it feel, living on the fringes of sanity?

Wow. How does it feel, living on the fringes of sanity?

I quite enjoy it. Care for a cigar?

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Boy, that reminds me of Pink Floyd.

"Come in here, dear boy
Have a cigar,
you're gonna go far..."

Also, is that an actual site or is it just images you made? If that's real, I think some people may be getting the wrong idea about this proposed resolution. All it seeks to do is bring the choice of foreign and domestic tariffs back to them, as opposed to leaving it to an organization that should probably be doing better things with it's time other than free trade proposals. I mean there's human rights, social justice, global disarmament, the furtherment of democracy; just a potpurri of choices.

http://test256.free.fr/vagatorpostlae3.jpg

"Made in _Myopia_" - Quick flash special Update

Monday 27 November 2006, 23h52 PPT (Parallel Pacific Time)

Following the protests in many cities of several NSUN nations against the proposal "National Economic Rights" (read our previous Quick flash special), a new demonstration took place in Love and esterel's capital: Vagator. As usual in our national intellectual centre the demonstration was really calm and the debate more centred toward initiative for economically developing nations.

As such we observed that demonstrators there used different placards such as this one, in order to support the textile industry of the friendly economically developping nation of "_Myopia_".

http://test256.free.fr/tag.jpg

Love and estereel: Something feels very off-topic about your last two posts here. All you've been doing is posting pseudo-reports of feelings you've already re-iterated in this thread. Also, how do tariffs equate to communism? This all simply reaks of desperation.

If you've got nothing constructive or new to add, then please stop.

And free trade is just one of those choices!

I mean, why can't an international organization deal with international trade?

We commend our friends from Love and Esterel for their sensible ideas and demonstrations about this important topic.

Well, let's say some kind of free trade measure (let's say Global Food Distribution to be simple) passes with 65% majority in the UN. Now be that a majority, there are still 35% of UN nations that do not wish to engage in such economic measures.

With all do respect, what right do you have in my economic affairs? This measure merely seeks to bring fairness to the international marketplace. If you one day decided that free trade was a bum rap and you didn't want your nation to take part in it any more, it should be your guaranteed right to raise tariffs. If nations wish to engage in free trade, they can do so in agreements among nations with their shared opinions on globalization. Dragging nations kicking and screaming into the global economy is simply unhealthy for real democracy.

Well, let's say some kind of free trade measure (let's say Global Food Distribution to be simple) passes with 65% majority in the UN. Now be that a majority, there are still 35% of UN nations that do not wish to engage in such economic measures.

What's your point? Deal with it.

[/QUOTE]With all do respect, what right do you have in my economic affairs?[/QUOTE]
Uhhh... none? Is that the right answer? Because that's what the UN does right now, with the exceptions Mr. Pyandran noted earlier.

This measure merely seeks to bring fairness to the international marketplace.

Ridiculous. Patently ridiculous. In fact, allowing certain nations to be protectionist while allowed others to support free trade is harmful to the international economy at large, because it unfairly favors the protectionists (who are setting themselves up for failure, anyway).

If you one day decided that free trade was a bum rap and you didn't want your nation to take part in it any more, it should be your guaranteed right to raise tariffs.

Nations already have that right. With few exceptions, nations can engage in free trade or protectionism to their heart's delight.

If nations wish to engage in free trade, they can do so in agreements among nations with their shared opinions on globalization. Dragging nations kicking and screaming into the global economy is simply unhealthy for real democracy.

So what we have here is an unnecessary proposal, that duplicates the clauses of several other UN resolutions, that covers a right UN nations already have. Not to mention the bad economics.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't like this proposal.

This idea of economy first, democracy second seems very unsettling to me.

Why can't you just accept the fact that not all UN nations like free trade as much as you do? I've seen much pain caused by this misguided ideology, some in my own personal family, and your patent disregard for those who have sufferred because of that is, to me, something to pity. How can you say that those who are exploited in India and China are justified because the global economy does better? How can you just totally ignore the millions who have lost their jobs to the global economy, and those who have not recovered?

The pain and suffering caused by this race to the bottom is too great, too costly, and simply too much. There has to be someone willing to defend the downtrodden in our society, and if it has to be me and me alone, I'll do it gratefully. I don't care how many times you fire back with your disregard for simple human rights, I'll fight this fight until the day I die.

Has the global economy actually caused any loss of jobs? I know some low-skill workers (IC:*coughgetsomeskillscough*) (and even a bit higher-skilled workers) in high-wage countries have lost those skills to lower-wage companies, but haven't other people gained jobs to replace them? And doesn't the job change go the other way as well?

Also, how can you argue that a system where the majority rules is not a democracy?

This idea of economy first, democracy second seems very unsettling to me.

This idea of passing an economic blocker because the United Nations may, at some point, push for freer trade *is* very unsettling to us.

Why can't you just accept the fact that not all UN nations like free trade as much as you do? I've seen much pain caused by this misguided ideology, some in my own personal family, and your patent disregard for those who have sufferred because of that is, to me, something to pity. How can you say that those who are exploited in India and China are justified because the global economy does better? How can you just totally ignore the millions who have lost their jobs to the global economy, and those who have not recovered?

OOC: Real-life personal anecdotes make for terrible in-game resolutions. There are forums very close to here (*cough*General*cough*) to discuss RL free trade issues. This, however, is not one of them. /OOC

The pain and suffering caused by this race to the bottom is too great, too costly, and simply too much. There has to be someone willing to defend the downtrodden in our society, and if it has to be me and me alone, I'll do it gratefully. I don't care how many times you fire back with your disregard for simple human rights, I'll fight this fight until the day I die.

Uh, right then.

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

This idea of economy first, democracy second seems very unsettling to me.

This has nothing to do with democracy. This is purely economic. Do not twist the issue.

Why can't you just accept the fact that not all UN nations like free trade as much as you do?

I fully appreciate it, believe me. But as my predecessor Ambassador Pendankr and myself have continuously pointed out, universal free trade with no restrictions is the only equal, acceptable, correct choice for fair economy.

I've seen much pain caused by this misguided ideology, some in my own personal family, and your patent disregard for those who have sufferred because of that is, to me, something to pity. How can you say that those who are exploited in India and China are justified because the global economy does better? How can you just totally ignore the millions who have lost their jobs to the global economy, and those who have not recovered?

OOC: Please don't lose sight of the fact that this is a game and that I am roleplaying.

IC: On what basis do you label free trade misguided? Because some people don't do well under it? You have argued that protectionism is the more democratic and advantageous solution, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of unskilled laborers benefit from the removal of tariffs and the standardization of trade. What is the suffering of one family compared to the elevation of hundreds?


The pain and suffering caused by this race to the bottom is too great, too costly, and simply too much. There has to be someone willing to defend the downtrodden in our society, and if it has to be me and me alone, I'll do it gratefully. I don't care how many times you fire back with your disregard for simple human rights, I'll fight this fight until the day I die.

Yet again you twist the issue. Outsourcing is not the result of free trade, outsourcing is the result of poor economic policies and neoliberal influences. They are two seperate issues which you are confusing. What pain and suffering is it that you are talking about? Whose pain? Whose suffering?

It's all fine and dandy to shout about human rights when you are guilty of both misunderstanding free trade and outright disingenuousness. You have tried to portray me, the ambassador of my nation, as an enemy of human rights for supporting free trade. It's wrong of you. Your final statements prove the truth of what the Love and esterel press was reporting: this resolution is nothing more than a thinly veiled communistic vehicle.

Since this is currently the only proposal in queue, you can be quite sure that I won't just go away. I'm looking forward to the rest of the debate on this issue.

Prince Tang of Allech-Atreus
Ambassador to the United Nations
Prince of the House of Allech-Atreus

This idea of economy first, democracy second seems very unsettling to me.
The freer the market, the freer the people. Democracy can be just as oppressive as a dictatorship, there is nothing inherent about democracy that ensures freedom for all people. A democratic socialist country can have far less freedom than a benevolent dictatorship that respects the free market and doesn't concern itself with nanny statism.

Why can't you just accept the fact that not all UN nations like free trade as much as you do? I've seen much pain caused by this misguided ideology, some in my own personal family, and your patent disregard for those who have sufferred because of that is, to me, something to pity. How can you say that those who are exploited in India and China are justified because the global economy does better? How can you just totally ignore the millions who have lost their jobs to the global economy, and those who have not recovered?

The pain and suffering caused by this race to the bottom is too great, too costly, and simply too much. There has to be someone willing to defend the downtrodden in our society, and if it has to be me and me alone, I'll do it gratefully. I don't care how many times you fire back with your disregard for simple human rights, I'll fight this fight until the day I die.
The people of The Federation of Tin Pot Little Internet Countries have prospered greatly due to our regional commitment to free trade, this stairway to heaven can only help the people of other nations. What you also seem to overlook is that free trade involves the free movement of labour, allowing people who have been unemployed to go where the jobs are. However, it is clear from your argument that you do not care about poverty or so called "exploitation" of labour (presumably you would prefer these "exploited" workers to be unemployed), all you care about is protecting your own job at the cost of others. In fact, protectionist tariffs increase the possibility of "exploitation" by reducing competition in the labour market.

Since the author has failed to provide any legal justification for the Proposal, and since time is such a factor, I have decided to err on the side of caution and delete the Proposal. If you wish to resubmit as is, it would be in your best interest to actually address the legal challenges, as opposed to question the sanity of those raising them.

There is no "Mild" strength for Advancement of Industry. Weak clauses and simple reaffirmation of current standing rights is not sufficient. Furthermore, it seems that this did indeed contradict several existing Resolutions, as pointed out by Gruenberg and L&E.

No warning has been added for this, Belarum, but you need to address the legal challenges. A copy of supporting Delegates will follow.


-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator


Approvals: 134 (Phthisis, Chrilland, Alstala Alsan, Megalop, Gortania, Ellenburg, Gateborg, Tercios Viejos, Farhkan, Hustlertwo, The Derrak Quadrant, Oceanus Delphi, ExistentialistFascists, Slaabovia, Tengeru, Chelucia, WZ Forums, Blessed Popcorn, Gaiah, Compulsoria, Asragoth, Jblockia, Ann of the Word, Pwners of Noobs, The Munchiken Shack, Uduwudu, Jonny B da rappin MC, Upper Upland, Landreth, New Stuvotopia, Hippocras, Tarmsden, Katiiland, The Dancing Vagabond, Nurdia, Ultrasilvania, The Great Irwin Rommel, Budkeville, States of Stephenson, Firebert, Ubu-Rex, Sorgloss, Mooredodge, Lackland, Baranthar, Baron Tom, Colonial Siberia, Dian, Gilgaraan, Kimtasm, Arenaea and Alesium, Phoot, Illusionist, My Political Arm, Lahat Ay Isa, Oliverea, Legupia, Aveous, Freemen Lands, Impertinence, Gun fighters, Kaysaul, Mannana, Concordare, Antyla, GwHeadShots, All Things Halo, East Hylia, Thelostsouls, Filing Cabinettania, Mandlandia, Maoierna, Felis Siamis, Belarum, Oblivion-Oathkeeper, LordGrevious, Homieville, Aakron, Sammera, Seemannia, Zphd, Mehleesser, Barsaca, Overblown Mentals, Great Bights Mum, Innocent Monkeys, Wild Lands of North, RHS-Gymnasium, Piratical Fiends, The Nameless few, New Myopia, Veerle-Heide, Morkuve, Pogoslavia, Thamesmead84, Flamebaittrolls, Blameworthy Bastards, The Exiles of Britain, Dizziness, Hellsnostril, Alexdonia, Rhapthorne, TheWarpChaos, Voluxia, Kizil Orda, Krigen, South Oceana, Knappish, Piopee, Kilometre, Soviet Britian, The Illuminati Rulers, The Castro, Jyotika Hakan, Smart ppl, Britiannia Celtica, Javert VI, Vikingr Var Veldi, Norindia, Sophotatos, Rodriganda, Purple Android, PanzerOrta, Marr de la Rhuaridh, Greater Bushtovia, Southern Reese, Sultaniyah, Euphobes, Brass Bonanza, Rhelan, Ominus Prime, Northern Arcology, James_xenoland, Lokirri)