NationStates Jolt Archive

Well it's a slow day in the General Assembly, so we though we would roll this out for a trial run. It's currently in the proposal list but no telegrams are being sent. We would like to get an idea of the level of support for this type of legislation.

Free Trade in Durable Goods

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: New Leicestershire

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role that the trade of durable goods plays in the global economy;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the role that the sale of these goods plays in providing manufacturing jobs;

NOTING the beneficial effect that these goods have on people's daily lives by making numerous home and business related activities less labour intensive, more efficient and more enjoyable;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation, "durable good" as a manufactured good primarily marketed to private consumers that yields services or utility over time rather than being completely used up when used once. Examples of durable goods include, but are not limited to, automobiles, home appliances, home furnishings and fixtures, business equipment and electronic equipment.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of durable goods between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to increase their citizens access to durable goods by creating favourable business environments for retailers who market these goods;

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

4. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping;

5. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

I'm sure the masses will have extensive commentary and many helpful suggestions.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

While we approve of the ideal of promoting reusable goods over those designed to lose their utility the moment one looks a them, we cannot support a proposal which requires us to relinquish all control on their part in our economy, and our part in their economy.

We admit to a lamentable lack of knowledge of economics. But we can see no valid reason why the nations of the UN should be deprived of the use of economic tools that they might well employ for the benefit of their people. We stand opposed.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ardchoille, sulkily fighting a rearguard action against free trade, is also opposed. We don't know much about economics, but we knows what we likes.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully president of Ardchoille.

I'd like to thank the esteemed delegations from Gobbannium, Ausserland and Ardchoille for their comments. We anticipated that your governments would be among those in opposition to this and were prepared for that eventuality.

While we may find ourselves at odds over the issue of free trade, let me stress that we value your opinions and look forward to working with you in the future on projects which are less...contentious.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Free-market policy, I vote against.

Yeah, can't have those markets being free. After all, there is no such thing as a free lunch. There's always a hidden cost to free things, that's the way it goes. Just look at the cost of free speech within these halls. I've had to pay pretty heavily in IQ points, and I'm sure not the only one. I just figure freedom is worth the price to myself and others, that's all.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Just look at the cost of free speech within these halls. I've had to pay pretty heavily in IQ points, and I'm sure not the only one.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Yeah, I'm not sure some of us older reps even have any IQ points left.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well, my IQ blunts have me worrying about clause 3.

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;
Not like I'd be voting for it anyway, but ...

I can imagine a nation deciding to ban a particular kind of durable good -- petrol-guzzlers, for example, or refrigerators that emit CFCs -- for their citizens' benefit. As it stands, I think this would stop them.

Very, very sadly, when I try to amend it to provide for such situations, I keep coming up with (goodness gracious me!) loophole-ridden phrasing -- "except where such protective devices have been imposed to deal with an environmental, health or other problem affecting the wellbeing of a nation's citizens".

So I'll have to leave it to you, New Leicestershire, to see if you can (or want to) skip around this 'un next time you give it a run.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

EDIT: Sorry if this was mentioned in the drafting thread -- I've got two months' posts to catch up on,

I believe the idea of free trade is great. I do have some questions:

Why limit free trade to durables? Is it because you believe free trade in consumables is less usefull? Or because you wanna take on the road to free trade on step at a time?

Have you considered linking durable goods to sustainable development. This would add an environmental, social and political scope to your arguement. For example durable goods are: goods that balance the fulfillment of human needs with the protection of the natural environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future.

Ardchoilleans;12938888']I can imagine a nation deciding to ban a particular kind of durable good -- petrol-guzzlers, for example, or refrigerators that emit CFCs -- for their citizens' benefit. As it stands, I think [Clause 3] would stop them.No, this doesn't stop nations from banning products anymore than Global Food Whatever Act stops nations from banning types of foods. This just eliminates protectionist devices restricting their trade.

If it would make some of the communi-- er, "apprehensive" delegations more comfortable with supporting a global economy, there were provisions from Clothing Supply Pact (which was rejected, I thought, for a lot of really stupid reasons) that give nations more latitude for restricting trade on certain goods, in the interests of preserving certain important national industries, protecting national economies in times of crisis, and respecting local cultural values:

4. Declares that nations may apply for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or specialist clothing);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable clothing supply;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;
- to suspend trading with nations against whom they are at declared war;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, ethical or other regulations on textile products and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;Language specific enough to ensure free trade is not unnecessarily squelched, but slippery enough to give the isolationists a nice warm fuzzy feeling. Perhaps it could be retailored to fit the scope of this mandate?

- to suspend trading with nations against whom they are at declared war;

I'd just change it to

- to suspend trading with nations at war

Simply get's round the sort-of-ban on declared neutrals trading with belligerents.

Other then that *Sir Cyril does the Free Trade dance, accompanied with the Free Trade Song*

4. Declares that nations may apply for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or specialist clothing);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable clothing supply;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;
- to suspend trading with nations against whom they are at declared war;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, ethical or other regulations on textile products and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;
This is from Clothing Supply Pact, right? I'll consider adding something like that.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I'd just change it to

- to suspend trading with nations at war

Simply get's round the sort-of-ban on declared neutrals trading with belligerents.

Other then that *Sir Cyril does the Free Trade dance, accompanied with the Free Trade Song*
Yes, that wording seems better and we're pleased to have brought such glee to Sir Cyril.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Ardchoilleans;12938888']Not like I'd be voting for it anyway, but ...

I can imagine a nation deciding to ban a particular kind of durable good -- petrol-guzzlers, for example, or refrigerators that emit CFCs -- for their citizens' benefit. As it stands, I think this would stop them.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp),

While our nation is more disposed towards free trade than the esteemed representative of the Ardchoilleans', we do share their concern about how this legislation would affect environmental regulations. Our nation prides itself in its concern for the environment as much or more as we do in our peoples' right to trade freely.

We would whole-heartedly support this draft if something were included to the effect of, "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as restricting a nation's right to limit trade in goods they deem hazardous to the environment."

This is from Clothing Supply Pact, right? I'll consider adding something like that.As mentioned in Surly's post, yes it is.

We would whole-heartedly support this draft if something were included to the effect of, "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as restricting a nation's right to limit trade in goods they deem hazardous to the environment."Proposed additions include:

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;I think that would cover environmental concerns.

Pending permission from The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg to use that portion of their text, this will be the next revision:
Free Trade in Durable Goods

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: New Leicestershire

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role that the trade of durable goods plays in the global economy;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the role that the sale of these goods plays in providing manufacturing jobs;

NOTING the beneficial effect that these goods have on people's daily lives by making numerous home and business related activities less labour intensive, more efficient and more enjoyable;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation, "durable good" as a manufactured good primarily marketed to private consumers that yields services or utility over time rather than being completely used up when used once. Examples of durable goods include, but are not limited to, automobiles, home appliances, home furnishings and fixtures, business equipment and electronic equipment.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of durable goods between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to increase their citizens access to durable goods by creating favourable business environments for retailers who market these goods;

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

4. Declares that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;
- to suspend trading with nations at war;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

We really doubt that we'd ever be convinced to support this, but we might as well discuss it. We might learn something.

Right now, our nation has a bag full of tools that we can use to help our national economy grow and prosper. Article 3 takes many of those tools away. What do our people gain?

Article 4 allows us to use the mechanisms otherwise prohibited by Article 3 to "prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations". So UN nations can price dump all they want?

It just seems to us like this is an unfortunate example of the "one-size-fits-all" sort of thing that the UN has too often engaged in. A free market environment would certainly benefit some nations. But what reason is there to think that all would benefit? It might benefit some nations with regard to some commodities but be very damaging when it comes to others. Nations are quite capable of entering into trade agreements with other nations. Why is it necessary to cram the "free market" down their throats?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Currently, our government uses the ‘protectionist’ measures as a means to support industry and business after weakening them in favor of our vast freedoms. While we understand that other nations would certainly love free access to our markets, we fear the resulting collapse of our pitiful economy would result in the reduction of freedoms that are the foundation of our nation. By isolating our market and economy, we are able to live in a peaceful, intellectual and artistic utopia. We believe that free trade values economic ‘freedom’ over the freedom of the people….

We really doubt that we'd ever be convinced to support this, but we might as well discuss it. We might learn something.

Right now, our nation has a bag full of tools that we can use to help our national economy grow and prosper. Article 3 takes many of those tools away. What do our people gain?
Keep in mind that the bag full of tools you mention can also be used as a bag full of weapons. As it stands, other nations have those weapons as well and can use them against you. In a free trade situation, everyone is competing on a level playing field.

Yes, there will be winners and losers, but that will be decided by the market. Failing industries which were formerly propped up by tariffs and subsidies will go under, but others will flourish.

Article 4 allows us to use the mechanisms otherwise prohibited by Article 3 to "prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations". So UN nations can price dump all they want?
Article 4 allows more than that:
4. Declares that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;
- to suspend trading with nations at war;

Then there's Article 5:

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

As for price dumping by UN nations, it would be the same situation we have under GFDA and NERA. The major factor that allows price dumping is the existence of subsidized industry. This resolution would eliminate that in most cases.

It just seems to us like this is an unfortunate example of the "one-size-fits-all" sort of thing that the UN has too often engaged in. A free market environment would certainly benefit some nations. But what reason is there to think that all would benefit? It might benefit some nations with regard to some commodities but be very damaging when it comes to others. Nations are quite capable of entering into trade agreements with other nations. Why is it necessary to cram the "free market" down their throats?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
Yes, as I've said before there would be winners and losers. However, it has been shown repeatedly that nations which lower their trade barriers and open their markets enjoy higher standards of living. Overall, and in the long run, the benefits of free trade outweigh the negatives.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Keep in mind that the bag full of tools you mention can also be used as a bag full of weapons. As it stands, other nations have those weapons as well and can use them against you. In a free trade situation, everyone is competing on a level playing field.
Far from it, ambassador. In a free trade situation, no mechanisms for levelling playing fields are permitted, so competition must take place on the exceedingly uneven playing fields that exist. It is rare for fair trade to be able to take place under such circumstances.

Article 4 allows us to use the mechanisms otherwise prohibited by Article 3 to "prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations". So UN nations can price dump all they want?
Article 4 allows more than that:
4. Declares that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:
[snip]
Article 4 actually allows less than that: the important word being "apply". There is no guarantee that the UNFTC will concur with the national government that any of the relevant situations apply.

As for price dumping by UN nations, it would be the same situation we have under GFDA and NERA. The major factor that allows price dumping is the existence of subsidized industry. This resolution would eliminate that in most cases.
We note that tax breaks that amount to the effect of subsidies are still permitted, so the ambassador will forgive us if we are not convinced that such economic warfare is not still a practical option.

Yes, as I've said before there would be winners and losers. However, it has been shown repeatedly that nations which lower their trade barriers and open their markets enjoy higher standards of living. Overall, and in the long run, the benefits of free trade outweigh the negatives.
We believe that what has been shown is that [i]some citizens of such nations enjoy considerably higher standards of living, while others enjoy lower standards of living. Fully free trade tends to exacerbate the divide between rich and poor, and as such we fear is an inherently self-destructive policy.

It is rare for fair trade to be able to take place under such circumstances.
If by "fair trade" you mean price distortion through the implementation of some artificially imposed price floor then I have no interest in promoting such a thing. We're trying to free the market here, not restrain it further.


Article 4 actually allows less than that: the important word being "apply". There is no guarantee that the UNFTC will concur with the national government that any of the relevant situations apply.
The UNFTC is an independent, unbiased and most importantly, non-politicised entity. Your inference that they would be anything other than fair to all involved parties borders on scare-mongering.


We note that tax breaks that amount to the effect of subsidies are still permitted, so the ambassador will forgive us if we are not convinced that such economic warfare is not still a practical option.
It is true that we are not allowed to address domestic tax policies, however, such tax breaks have a miniscule effect in the context of the global economy.

Furthermore, how can you equate a tax break with subsidies? A tax break is a tax break. In other words it is the government taking less, in the form of taxes, from a company's earnings. A subsidy is the act of giving them additional money which they have not earned.


We believe that what has been shown is that some citizens of such nations enjoy considerably higher standards of living, while others enjoy lower standards of living. Fully free trade tends to exacerbate the divide between rich and poor, and as such we fear is an inherently self-destructive policy.
We believe that what has been shown is that most citizens of such nations enjoy considerably higher standards of living, while some enjoy lower standards of living.

And fully free trade does not exacerbate the divide between rich and poor, and we are certain that it is not a self-destructive policy. In fact, it is quite the opposite: a policy which promotes innovation and leads to better products, better-paying jobs, new markets, and increased savings and investment.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Keep in mind that the bag full of tools you mention can also be used as a bag full of weapons. As it stands, other nations have those weapons as well and can use them against you. In a free trade situation, everyone is competing on a level playing field.

[snip]


We're sorry, but the "level playing field" argument doesn't ring true for us. First of all, under the current conditions, all nations can employ "protectionist devices". The playing field is level in that regard. This proposal cannot make it more level. It removes means that nations can use to bring themselves into a more competitive position versus nations more advanced in industrial technology or more blessed with natural resources. It prevents nations from using subventions to promote development of domestic industry. It gives an advantage to nations with existing high and efficient capacity for production of durable goods. As a matter of fact, this seems to give them a distinct and unfair advantage over nations with economies based primarily on consumables -- agricultural nations, for example.

As for our concern about price dumping by UN nations, we continue to believe this is a concern. This proposal would leave us substantially defenseless against that. And we do not believe that preventing subsidization of industries ameliorates that concern. Price dumping is often a tactic of unsubsidized industries willing to trade profit margin in the short term for market share.

On "tax breaks".... We're not entirely sure that selective tax advantages for specific industries would not be a form of subvention and thus prohibited by the proposal.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Right now, our nation has a bag full of tools that we can use to help our national economy grow and prosper. Article 3 takes many of those tools away. What do our people gain?
At the risk of seeming to be impertinently 'snipping' away much of your argument, this contention seems to be the absolute core of at least one line of disagreement. So we thought we might respond:

We disagree that tariffs and subsidies are useful tools, or that they help the national economy. Let us consider the following example. (It may not be an exact representation of the situation, and I mean no slur on the candlemakers of Ausserland in using it.)

Ausserlanders make candles, as do Quodites. Ausserlander candlemakers begin to find they are being outcompeted by Quodites, who are producing cheaper products and thus selling more candles. They appeal, and the Ausserlander government enacts a small but strongly prohibitive tariff on Quodite candles, and pays a small subsidy to Ausserlander candlemakers. The Ausserlander candle sector is able to hold its own in the international market, and all is well.

But, not really. The first effect is, regardless of one's position on free trade, fairly indisputable: higher prices. Quodite candles have an artificially inflated price, while Ausserlander candles were never as cheap as Quodite ones to begin with (and their makers have lost the market incentive to compete). So Ausserlanders have to spend more on candles (not to mention they have less to spend, because are paying taxes towards the subsidy). Perhaps it is worth paying a bit more to support local industry, but shouldn't that be an individual decision? There's a lot of value to many consumer decisions, but governments can't legislate them: it has to remain a choice for individual buyers.

Further effects are more contestable, but here's what we'd believe they'd be. Relations might sour a little between Ausserland and Quintessence of Dust, and Ausserlanders might experience reciprocal tariffs. Alright, but perhaps it's worth it. More worryingly, Ausserlander candlemakers would be cushioned from the forces of the market. Perhaps people buy Quodite candles because they cast a less smoky flame. But Ausserlanders have no incentive to develop less smoky wicks, because they are simply propped up by tariffs, which in turn make the less smoky wicks too expensive.

And just because Quodites make better candles, doesn't mean Ausserlanders wouldn't make better products of a different type, say, garden implements. But instead of tapping this resource, young Ausserlanders go into business as candlemakers, because they are at least assured government support in that. The garden implement sector never really takes off, and this affects Quintessence of Dust too, because we make crappy trowels and spades, but can't buy Ausserlander quality ones, because they're not being made. (And if they were, why wouldn't we then enact a reciprocal tariff?)

The fact is, in a free trade scenario, it probably wouldn't be much rosier. Ausserlander candlemakers might go out of business, and starting up as pitchfork makers might take some time. This example is obviously heavily simplified, and then exaggerated, but it's really just intended as a kind of thought experiment. We simply feel protectionism is only a tool in the same way that you can use a stick to wedge shut the door of progress. The development and specialisation of industries - even where it means job losses in one specific place - is something of international benefit, and hence, while we're not presuming to speak for the author of this proposal, in this we would have to admit we believe one size really does fit all.

As to the specifics of the proposal, I have to review it, but my inclination is to support it, by which I mean, to try to support it while Samantha and her Social "Democrat" buddies try to restart the defenestration craze.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

Not to cast aspersions on the honorable Quodites, Ambassador Madison, but you've left a chapter out of the tale of the candle.

Once Ausserlander candle production has ceased, the price of Quodite candles (un)surprisingly rises to that or higher of the lost and lamented Ausserlander candles.

And although we're certain Quodites use quality materials in their candles, including those wondrous smoke-free wicks, and manage to manufacture them for less through efficiency of production, many candle-making nations do not. Those nefarious nations produce cheap products by use of inferior materials and, most importantly, paying pitiful wages.

Although social change isn't the primary driving market force for Rubina, it does play a role in our choices. We prefer to reserve the right to not support unethical production and to utilize the tools of fair trade to protect our economic well-being from such.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

If Quodite prices rise, why wouldn't an enterprising young Ausserlander get back into the market? Or why wouldn't buyers switch to those low-price Rubinan alternatives? I take it you are suggesting free trade allows coercive monopolies to develop, and were that the case we would certainly be very concerned, but it seems to run counter to both experience and reason. There is nothing, in a free trade system - other than peripherals such as start-up costs that would exist anyway - to prevent someone new entering the market and striking a better bargain. If Quodite sellers inflate their prices, I'm sure the Ausserlander candlemakers would be delighted to fill such a role.

As to the nefarious nations, we have no major concerns about them. Laws protecting the environment, industrial safety, product quality, labour, and other social effects of business are fair game for international law in our view, and we have supported such and will continue to do so. This not to mention that the proposal contains language actively guaranteeing you the right to make such social justice decisions: if your true interest is supporting the workers or enacting quality control, we are sure your regulations would fit within the remit of the suggested clause 5, as they would be non-protectionist. We see no problem.

-- George Madison

Ambassador Madison's confidence aside, we're not convinced that markets are as flexible and responsive to change. Start up costs, even if peripheral, can be exorbitant and the cost to re-enter a market that you were unfairly forced from can far exceed the cost of the protection to start with.

We're also concerned that the limitation contained in article 5 is sufficiently broad as to negate the utility of that article.

--L.T.

First, 'as flexible and responsive to change' as what? Are you honestly suggesting a controlled environment, where governments artificially inflate the price of certain goods simply because they're created by foreigners, is more responsive? It has no means of reacting to market forces, even where those forces are consumers rallying around some particular form of ethical buying. There is no incentive to develop or to specialise, because of reliance on government support. As for start-up costs, that was an aside and there's no sense getting into a long derailment about something essentially irrelevant to the main point; however, it seems like they would exist under a free trade or a protectionist system, in equal measure. If, though, you mean to refer to them in a more general, infant industry sense, then that's perhaps something the proposal could account for.

Finally, your last sentence is a little oblique. I suspect, if he is to remedy it, the author will need for you to spell out what is wrong with clause 5, and in what way it will prove too narrow.

-- George Madison

We very much appreciate the distinguished representative of Quintessence of Dust's constructing this very interesting and creative scenario. We think there are a few other things to be considered. In what follows, we mean to cast no aspersions on the QuD candlemaking industry. We're just using it as a sort of notional example, to follow along with the scenario.

The first is cost-related. Our candlemakers are forced out of business because the QoD candlemakers act in concert to aggressively attack the Ausserland market. They can do this because their home nation has no laws regarding price fixing or monopolistic practices, nor does the NSUN. I can do nothing about this because of thiis proposal. Our candlemaking industry is ruined. The representative seems to think that our candlemakers can immediately become makers of garden implements. Not so. That sort of thing doesn't happen overnight. So we end up paying unemployment benefits. In the long term, they could turn to garden implement-making. But that's going to require someone to invest heavily in the start-up of the industry. And, of course, this proposal would prevent my government from supporting that through any sort of subvention. And then, of course, we need to consider that candlemaking and garden implement production require significantly different job skills. Who is going to pay for mass retraining? Or let's say our garden implement industry is already operating at capacity. In order to employ these destitute but now retrained candlemakers, it would have to significantly expand its production facilities. And we can't subsidize that, either.

Another angle.... Our candlemaking industry pays excellent wages and operates on a very low profit margin. The owners would be very willing to try to develop low-smoke candles and retool to produce them, but they simply don't have the resources to pay for the research and retooling. Our government can't subsidize that research, either. That would be a subvention.

Now we turn to another aspect. Our domestic candlemaking industry has tanked. The QoD candlemakers now have total market share in our nation. Does the representative really believe that, out of the goodness of their hearts, they'll refrain from raising prices? Let's say they raise them only to the level of the price formerly charged for Ausserland-produced candles. Our people now pay higher prices for candles and where do the profits go? Out of our nation to Quintessence of Dust.

If workers could immediately switch from one line of work to another requiring completely different skills... If industries could magically and freely retool to redirect production.... If research to improve products was free and accessible to all industries.... If no industry in any nation ever engaged in price-fixing, price-dumping or any other such practice.... We might support this proposal. But in the world as it is, it may from time to time be necessary for our government to employ just the sort of tools this proposal outlaws in order to protect the welfare of our people.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Furthermore, how can you equate a tax break with subsidies? A tax break is a tax break. In other words it is the government taking less, in the form of taxes, from a company's earnings. A subsidy is the act of giving them additional money which they have not earned.
We can equate them for the purposes of this argument because they achieve the same effect; the company has more finance available to it. Whether it has more because the government is giving it some or more because the government is taking less is irrelevant.

If Quodite prices rise, why wouldn't an enterprising young Ausserlander get back into the market? Or why wouldn't buyers switch to those low-price Rubinan alternatives? I take it you are suggesting free trade allows coercive monopolies to develop, and were that the case we would certainly be very concerned, but it seems to run counter to both experience and reason. There is nothing, in a free trade system - other than peripherals such as start-up costs that would exist anyway - to prevent someone new entering the market and striking a better bargain. If Quodite sellers inflate their prices, I'm sure the Ausserlander candlemakers would be delighted to fill such a role.
There are two factors mitigating against this rosy view. The first, the issue of start-up costs and time to restart a ruined industry, has already been addressed by others.

The second problem is that the dastardly Quodite candlemakers can quite easily force individual nascent Ausserlander candlemakers out of business by reducing their prices in the specific towns and villages in which those Ausserlanders sell. Cross-subsidising from other sales means that the Quodites' profits are affected only a little, while the Ausserlanders once again find themselves undercut and unable to cover their costs.

Playing this game on a national level is how the Quodite candlemakers can undercut the Ausserlanders in the first place. Suppose the Quodites have achieved dominance in the markets of Gobbannium, Rubina and New Leicestershire, through their excellence of technique and the marvellous quality of their wicks. A small rise in the price of quality candles in those countries, insufficient to scare away many candle enthusiasts, allows the Quodites to reduce their prices in Ausserland significantly, thus starting the sequence of events Ambassador Thwerdock outlined.

[OOC: which is exactly the (highly successful) tactics of Stagecoach since bus deregulation in the UK. I could rant for hours about this, but I'll be nice and shut up now.]

Furthermore, how can you equate a tax break with subsidies? A tax break is a tax break. In other words it is the government taking less, in the form of taxes, from a company's earnings. A subsidy is the act of giving them additional money which they have not earned.


We would agree. A tax break is not a subsidy. But the proposal also proscribes subventions. Now, that term is commonly used to mean the furnishing of funds. But let's see what two respected dictionaries give as the first meaning of subvention....

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition: "the provision of assistance or financial support".

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: "Provision of help, aid, or support".

Surely providing selective tax breaks to allow domestic industry to be more competitive against foreign competition would fit well within those definitions. It would most certainly assist and aid them in their endeavors. And we highly doubt that those who would hamstring nations' efforts to support their domestic industries would allow a more restrictive definition to be used.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

"Regarding the government of Ausserland's concerns about their manufacturors' prices potentially being undercut, and about foreign suppliers who manage to corner a market then raising their price for the goods involved: If you feel that you really must intervene in the market, wouldn't this proposal's clause #5 still allow you to set minimum and/or maximum prices for any particular type of goods if those limits applied to locally-produced examples as well as to imports? And wouldn't doing that let you block any such perceived threats to your national economy?"


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this confusticated penguin costume...)

We have to consider "subvention" to indicate a positive means of support. Extending a government grant vs. not penalizing someone as severely, tax-wise. We hold the former to be what is meant by "subvention," not the latter.

In that vein, we hope Amb. Ahlmann's concerns are misplaced.

[Edit: We urge the author to avoid the use of the term "free trade" in the proposal title.]

We have to consider "subvention" to indicate a positive means of support. Extending a government grant vs. not penalizing someone as severely, tax-wise. We hold the former to be what is meant by "subvention," not the latter.

In that vein, we hope Amb. Ahlmann's concerns are misplaced.
Correct. A tax break is not a subvention.

[Edit: We urge the author to avoid the use of the term "free trade" in the proposal title.]
Agreed.

While Altanar favors free trade and is working to implement it in our own trade practices, we do not think it is appropriate or justifiable to force free trade on nations that do not desire it. It should ultimately be up to individual nations to decide their own trade practices; to impose otherwise is a form of economic tyranny. If nations desire the benefits free trade brings, they are perfectly capable of negotiating bilateral or regional trade agreements without requiring cumbersome UN intervention.

Therefore, the UCMA will be standing in opposition to this legislation.

- Jinella Agaranth, UCMA Ambassador

I don't think there's much point haggling over specific problems (for example, on the subject of a nation having no laws on price fixing, that's a situation we disagree with and would support some form of trust-busting international law) so rather than ping-ponging back every observation made, I'll make a few general remarks.

First, if a nation has some particular bad practice, then that might obviously skew the market in favour of their companies, but it's no reason to stop trade dead; instead, we should be trying to pass laws on things like labour rights and monopolistic practices and pollution, so as to prevent such practices in the first place. And on a related note, nations are unlikely to submit to continual UN interference unless they see some sort of benefit: an open market would quite probably be one of them.

Second, on the issue of some sector of industry being rendered redundant, however bad we may think it, it's a simple product of business, and it's not specific to free trade. Let's say an automated candlemaker is invented, that can mass produce candles. There are lay-offs - some workers are retained to service the machines, but far fewer than were previously needed. Clearly, these people can perhaps retrain, but that comes with all the disclaimers the opposition had previously raised. So are we now against mechanisation? If not, then why is globalisation any different, and why isn't standing in the way of specialisation of industry mere Quuddism?*

Which makes the more general point: why is something like high start-up costs so intrinsic to free trade anyway? Bear in mind, the UN has already guaranteed the rights of nations to support small businesses through subsidies, and so all we can talking about here is support for non-small businesses, meaning, oddly, I'm going to turn the tables and wonder why the opposition are so keen to acceed to the demands of BIG BUSINESS!!

Fourth, monopoly is anathema to free trade (true free trade; I'm well aware nominal advocates of free trade have sometimes tied their demands for open markets with other forms of protectionism such as subsidies, restrictive laws, or restriction of free flow of labour). No, I don't believe Quodite candlemakers would refrain from raising prices 'out of the goodness of their hearts'; I believe they'll do so because if they do, some other company will start selling them more cheaply. Perhaps that'll be a Quodite firm, perhaps an Ausserlander one, or perhaps it'll hail from some other nation; but in the absence of any prohibitive tariffs, why wouldn't any company that could profitably undercut inflated Quodite prices (which I still find unlikely, absent some cartel) do so?

As to the problem raised by the representative of Gobbannium, it is fairly clear from his stereotyping of Quodite candlemakers that the problem is in fact mere racism; at least someone has come and out said it, though. Aside from your obvious hatred of our people, I fail to even see what the problem is: so Quodite candlemakers prosper. And? If the 'problem' is that effective companies do well and ineffective ones don't, then the 'problem' is capitalism, which the UN cannot very readily stamp out.

And, not to turn to either/or tactics, but simply to ask a question: what's the alternative? If this proposal is too restrictive, too one-size-fits-all, then what do we do to prevent the sort of tactics that have had every bit as detrimental effects as free and open trade supposedly will? Developed nations have used subsidies and tariffs to establish economic dominion over less developed ones; people still die in poverty because their effective farming methods have no hope of competing in a global market skewed towards those nations and blocs able to pour vast sums into prohibitive and regressive protectionism. The GFDA did much to counter that; are we really to take another step back now?

*Ned Quudd was a Quodite labour activist who led a movement to smash industrial machinery, which he felt was robbing workers of jobs. Nowadays, 'Quuddite' is something of a slur.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

OOC: On the whole subvention thing, the reason that word got included in GFDA was at L&E's suggestion, regarding EU farm subsidies. Might be a language problem?

As to the problem raised by the representative of Gobbannium, it is fairly clear from his stereotyping of Quodite candlemakers that the problem is in fact mere racism; at least someone has come and out said it, though. Aside from your obvious hatred of our people, I fail to even see what the problem is: so Quodite candlemakers prosper. And? If the 'problem' is that effective companies do well and ineffective ones don't, then the 'problem' is capitalism, which the UN cannot very readily stamp out.
We regret that Ambassador Madison has chosen to take offense at our continuation of the example that he and the ambassadors of Ausserland and Rubina have fruitfully employed to illuminate this discussion; no such offense was intended. May we suggest a stiff whiskey for the restoration of his sense of humour?

The 'problem' as we see it is not that effective companies do well and ineffective ones don't, so much as dominant companies never allowing others to become effective at all. As we observed, once some markets have been secured, it becomes progressively easier to price smaller companies out of other markets. Size begets size in a manner that quickly develops into the very monopolies the ambassador was earlier declaring were anathema to free trade. The prevention of that is the reason why we would like to preserve the defensive mechanisms of subsidy and the like which this proposal would deny us.

And, not to turn to either/or tactics, but simply to ask a question: what's the alternative? If this proposal is too restrictive, too one-size-fits-all, then what do we do to prevent the sort of tactics that have had every bit as detrimental effects as free and open trade supposedly will? Developed nations have used subsidies and tariffs to establish economic dominion over less developed ones; people still die in poverty because their effective farming methods have no hope of competing in a global market skewed towards those nations and blocs able to pour vast sums into prohibitive and regressive protectionism. The GFDA did much to counter that; are we really to take another step back now?
Developed nations rarely need to use subsidies and tariffs to establish economic dominion over developing nations; the developed nations already have the economic muscle to do that on what the ambassador appears to regard as a level playing field. Free Trade is no solution here. We would suggest, with no great expectation that the supporters of this proposal will concur, that properly managed Fair Trade is the only way to avoid such imbalances and poverty.

Oh, so first world subsidies aren't actually a problem, and when the fair trade movement calls for their abolition as one means of eliminating global poverty, they're really just sounding off having nothing better to do.

You heard it hear first, folks.

-- George Madison

The 'problem' as we see it is not that effective companies do well and ineffective ones don't, so much as dominant companies never allowing others to become effective at all.

You are confusing effective with established. A brand new company can still offer effective competition if they know how to set themseleves up right in the beginning. Happens all the time in a free market.

As we observed, once some markets have been secured, it becomes progressively easier to price smaller companies out of other markets.

Which is where those small business subsidies Amb Madison mentioned really come into play.

Size begets size in a manner that quickly develops into the very monopolies the ambassador was earlier declaring were anathema to free trade.

So keep offering the smaller companies the tax breaks and subsidies supported by the UN Small Business Education resolution to keep them in the game until they can become self sufficient. Certainly one of them will somehow manage to figure out the incredibly difficult lesson that they could undercut the giant evil corporation's prices and steal a tiny corner of the market. They may not have been able to at first, but that's what the government's support is there for.

The prevention of that is the reason why we would like to preserve the defensive mechanisms of subsidy and the like which this proposal would deny us.

Wait...what? <<pulls out copy of UN Small Business Education>>

Yeah...there it is...

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,
...

3. SUPPORTS the use of subsidies to allow small businesses to compete against larger national or international corporations

Seems to me that the UN isn't stopping you from utilizing some subsidies to help out the little guy.

OH! To be fully clear on that, the rest of that clause reads as such:

--considered dutifully for its effects on the national and regional workforce, and used only in just moderation; and SUPPORTS distribution of government or public contracts among small businesses to equalize distribution with larger businesses;

Just so noone thinks I omitted that half of the line to suit my purposes.

Developed nations rarely need to use subsidies and tariffs to establish economic dominion over developing nations; the developed nations already have the economic muscle to do that on what the ambassador appears to regard as a level playing field.

Need to use them? No, you are correct. But they are fully capable of doing so and some are, in fact, likely to use them against these developing nations in economic warfare against the financially weaker nations should the developing nation attempt to use tariffs and the like against the larger more powerful economy. The more powerful nation can absorb the extra cost of the tariffs. The weaker nation cannot. In this scene of financial battle, the developing nation stands no chance. Were the tariffs removed from the scene, that same weaker nation could still prop up their smaller businesses with subsidies as supported by UN legislation, and the stronger nation would have to deal with the competition in a free market. That seems a whole lot more fair to me.

Free Trade is no solution here. We would suggest, with no great expectation that the supporters of this proposal will concur, that properly managed Fair Trade is the only way to avoid such imbalances and poverty.

Your only offered arguments here in favour of fair trade is that nations could offer subsidies and tax breaks to smaller businesses, which they could still do anyways, and that they could try to level the field with tariffs, which would risk retaliatory tariffs from the developed nations forcing the weaker even further away from their economic goals.

Sorry. I just don't buy it. I will grant some creedence to the comments from the Altanari representative that nations should maybe be able to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to engage in these free trade dealings, but I completely fail to see how free trade is the evil blight to a world economy that you are making it out to be.

Note to Kivisto: UNSBE merely "supports" the use of subsidies for small businesses; this proposal, as I understand it, would eliminate subsidies for durable goods altogether.

The 'problem' as we see it is not that effective companies do well and ineffective ones don't, so much as dominant companies never allowing others to become effective at all. As we observed, once some markets have been secured, it becomes progressively easier to price smaller companies out of other markets. Size begets size in a manner that quickly develops into the very monopolies the ambassador was earlier declaring were anathema to free trade. The prevention of that is the reason why we would like to preserve the defensive mechanisms of subsidy and the like which this proposal would deny us.

While this proposal does promote free trade I dont think that it prohibits nations from combatting monopolies by using anti trust laws. I dont believe that this proposal forbids nations to regulate behavious such as predatory pricing, price discrimination. It is true that monopolies can sometimes extract surplus profits, but monopolies do have some advantages aswell when there are economies of scale, high investment and r&d costs.

Note to Kivisto: UNSBE merely "supports" the use of subsidies for small businesses; this proposal, as I understand it, would eliminate subsidies for durable goods altogether.

I had roughly the same thought, but I have a hard time conceptualizing the UN cutting off the the things that it continues to support. I realize that SUPPORT isn't a mandating term, but it is still there, and I don't see that those subsidies being supported by UN legislation could be curtailed by further legislation without a prior repeal. I was kinda hoping that there was something I wasn't seeing about this proposal that might allow the two to co-exist. I fear I may have been incorrect. Is there something I'm not seeing that makes this not a contradiction illegality?

"Supports" isn't binding language; the UN can still eliminate subsidies as it sees fit. It has done so at least four times before, so I don't see a legality problem.

"Supports" isn't binding language; the UN can still eliminate subsidies as it sees fit. It has done so at least four times before, so I don't see a legality problem.

Alright. I'm not incredibly comfortable with simply stepping over the language of past resolutions, but it isn't the first time that's happened either. Thanks for the clarification.

1. GFDA (which eliminated farm subsidies) was passed before UNSBE.

2. During the UNSBE debate it was pointed out to Powerhungry Chipmunks that the subsidies UNSBE supported could not apply to farms or food production.

3. Since the passage of UNSBE we have passed NERA (which eliminated subsidies for nuclear power generation technology, equipment, fissionable materials and electrical power generated by nuclear power plants).

4. During the NERA debate it was never suggested that subsidies were somehow off-limits.

5. Teruchev's Auto Free Trade resolution (which failed) had similar language to GFDA and NERA in regards to subsidies and was never challenged on legality.

6. I think we have established a precedent that UNSBE's subsidy language is sufficiently weak that it can be ignored for the purposes of future legislation. There is no need to repeal UNSBE.

7. If this passes the UN can still "support" subsidies for small business so long as the small businesses in question are not involved in the production of food, nuclear energy or durable goods.

7. If this passes the UN can still "support" subsidies for small business so long as the small businesses in question are not involved in the production of food, nuclear energy or durable goods.And recycled goods and recycling technologies.

I really don't have a problem with free trade as long as countries trade equally. Countries who sale large numbers of products to a trade partner but does not buy similar amounts of products from that trade partner (i.e. modern day China and US trading where China buys a very limited amount of products from the US but the US buys a great, many more products from China) should be penalized. Perhaps the penalization should occur on both sides of the trade by establishing a fair amount of products to be equally traded (by someone like NAFTA) or monetary compensation.*



* Of course with the exception of countries who have a very limited number of products to sell and have to import most of their products (i.e. developing nations).

Submitted for a trial run as Durable Goods Distribution Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=durable).

Sen. Sulla was sittting at his desk with a smile that was most unpleasent. He seemed almost shall we say it...sober. Looking out into the GA he spoke into his microphone,

"You lucky Sods. I wish I could sit here all day and hear myself speak. Anyway thias proposal has got me all fired up. The blatent capitalistic approach was warmed the cockels of my blackened soul. I'm for this one and would like to see it passed. Besides it will p*ss off the granola munchers, luddites, and fluffies. In other words its perfect legislation."

Submitted again as Free trade in Durable Goods.

Free Trade in Durable Goods
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Palentine UN Office

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role that the trade of durable goods plays in the global economy;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the role that the sale of these goods plays in providing manufacturing jobs;

NOTING the beneficial effect that these goods have on people's daily lives by making numerous home and business related activities less labour intensive, more efficient and more enjoyable;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation, "durable good" as a manufactured good primarily marketed to private consumers that yields services or utility over time rather than being completely used up when used once. Examples of durable goods include, but are not limited to, automobiles, home appliances, home furnishings and fixtures, business equipment and electronic equipment.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of durable goods between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to increase their citizens access to durable goods by creating favourable business environments for retailers who market these goods;

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

4. Declares that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;
- to suspend trading with nations at war;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

Approvals: 0

Voting Ends: Fri Sep 28 2007

I would like to personally thank Sen. Sulla and the Palentine UN Office for agreeing to submit this legislation on behalf of New Leicestershire. We are currently not UN members, having withdrawn our membership temporarily due to various bookkeeping, accounting, political and...erm...sport-related reasons.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Glog support. Free trade GOOD!!! Bring much trade to Glog land, help Glog people.

Some people good at making some things. Some people not so good at making some things, but good at making other things. People that good at making spears trade with people that good at making pottery. This GOOD!!! Both people better off.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

Akimonad has approved the proposal.

Donuts for those that want them.

*Dr. Hodz places a large box of donuts on the lectern.*

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Delegate,
Conservative Paradise

Once again, we're forced to strongly oppose this measure. We simply see no reason why this mode of commerce should be shoved down the throats of all the member nations of the NSUN, whether it's good for them or not. If nations wish to enter into free tade pacts with other nations when it's to their mutual benefit, they can do so. They don't need Big Brother to force this on them.

We also believe that this measure is completely prejudiced in favor of industrialized nations, which would be more likely to produce durable goods. It discriminates against nations whose economies are based substantially on consumables.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

This measure is not fair to our nation. We have high tariffs on goods imported from countries that use cheap, free, or slave labor in order to keep out goods competitive on the market. This resolution would prevent us from doing so and would destroy many of our nation's industries, and thus ruin our economy.

We will not support any bill that would so irreversible destroy our ecomomy.

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

Noting that clauses 3 and 5 intrude upon the National Sovereignty of the members of the United Nations, New Sequoyah wishes to express its vehement disapproval of this bill, and hereby swears to fight this bill to the last breath.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon (Ret.)
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

Forgive my ignorance, but since when is an issue relating to international trade a question of "national sovereignty"? And how could Article 5 possibly be an affront to sovereigntism? That language was specifically added to give nations more latitude to assure that valued local customs and traditions and important national industries were not unfairly trampled upon by the force of this agreement. It should be suitable, even to the most ardent of protectionists, many of whom, we are distressed to learn, still oppose this resolution.

Let me reiterate my government's position: we are very strongly in favor of this proposal, in favor of increased trade between nations, in favor of the greater cross-border understanding that results from it, and in favor of a global economy.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

Naturally, Cobdenia supports this motion.

Forgive my ignorance, but since when is an issue relating to international trade a question of "national sovereignty"? And how could Article 5 possibly be an affront to sovereigntism? That language was specifically added to give nations more latitude to assure that valued local customs and traditions and important national industries were not unfairly trampled upon by the force of this agreement. It should be suitable, even to the most ardent of protectionists, many of whom, we are distressed to learn, still oppose this resolution.

Let me reiterate my government's position: we are very strongly in favor of this proposal, in favor of increased trade between nations, in favor of the greater cross-border understanding that results from it, and in favor of a global economy.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

In our view, this is a most egregious attack on the sovereignty of nations. It prohibits the use of a wide variety of tools that they could use to manage their economies. Could I use tariffs to protect my industries from price dumping by another UN nation? No. Could I subsidize a start-up industry to help it grow to competitiveness with established industries in other nations? No. And if we go to war with another nation, we have to apply to some NSUN committee for permission to restrict imports from that nation?

The idea of cramming this down the throats of all member nations of the NSUN is appalling. If this doesn't impinge heavily upon the sovereignty of nations, then we obviously don't know what the term means.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Alex grabs a donut, then intones, "Ghostlin does not support this bill mostly because of what is underlined in point 3. Tariffs can be a way of supporting local industry over foreign industry. The other difficulty with this and other free trade agreements is when Nation A produces goods cheaper due to say, lower wages than Nation B, you have all the durable goods manufacturers going to Nation A for their goods. There's zero incentive for the durable goods manufacturers in Nation B, because the price of goods is exactly the same. Nations need to have self-determinism in their own economy, in particular, trade and manufacturing. Point #4 is not enough of protection for the resolution to work, because of the possibly that this dumping can come internally from the UN. And thank you for the donuts." Alex resumes his seat.

-Alex Taurit, UN Representive, Ghostlin.

Tariffs can be a way of supporting local industry over foreign industry.Bah. If you can't compete, then you don't deserve to compete. Punishing the citizens of your nation to protect the jobs of people who clearly don't deserve them is just the first step towards being a filthy commie.

If the other country makes it cheaper than you can; make it better. If they make it better than you; make it cheaper. If they do both; make something else.

And if they monopolize the whole mess and then jack up the prices? Well, then you can make it cheaper. You don't need the government to give you tax money; get a loan like an adult.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

This measure is not fair to our nation. We have high tariffs on goods imported from countries that use cheap, free, or slave labor in order to keep out goods competitive on the market. This resolution would prevent us from doing so and would destroy many of our nation's industries, and thus ruin our economy.

*Ahem!*

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

That's part of your objection dealt with...

this proposal is not viable. even in a country where we value equality, I cannot condone merely giving away what we have created, and as all our trade is publicly owned, I am sure that our public agrees. I am therefore against this proposal

Originally Posted by St Edmundan Antarctic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanular
This measure is not fair to our nation. We have high tariffs on goods imported from countries that use cheap, free, or slave labor in order to keep out goods competitive on the market. This resolution would prevent us from doing so and would destroy many of our nation's industries, and thus ruin our economy.

*Ahem!*


Quote:
5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

That's part of your objection dealt with...
[End quote]

Ahh, but its not. I included slave labor though its not really a point because my definition of slave labor is not necessarily the same as yours or the UNs official version. But its irrelevant, as cheap and free labor have the same effect, bringing down the cost of goods below what the businesses in Tanular can charge for their own products, and I deserve the right to place tariffs on those goods to preserver our own economy.

*hands the representative of Tanular a dictionary, open at the word 'Part'...*

*hands the representative of Tanular a dictionary, open at the word 'Part'...*

Sir Bodsworth returns the dictionary along the representative's head.

It's one issue, you can't try and peicemeal it like that. It's not three seperate problems, and like I said, my definition of slavery isn't the same as yours. I consider some socialisms to be slave economies, but many others wouldn't. And that clause says 'as long as not in a protectionist manner.' Imposing tariffs to protect ones own industry is protectionism and thus this bill would not allow it. So no, you have not answered part of my problem as this bill specifically prevents such tariffs...I don't care about slavery being unethical, I care about it resulting in cheaper goods.

Overnight it seems that some large portable freezers were rolled into the Palentine Delegations section. Sen. Sulla is still smiling. On his desk, insted of the usual open bottle of adult beverages, are empty klondike wrappers. Some of the delegates who have been here awhile are looking rather nervous. Its never a good sign when the good but slightly unwholesome senator smiles.

"Well I'm glad to see the support for this wonderful piece of legislation, that my collegues have worked so hard on. I am slightly dissappointed by the opposition, but sometimes you must take the good with the bad. However I have a proposition to make. Behind me you see some large portable freezers. Inside are a lot of Islay's Klondike Bars(TM). In return for your support, and endorsement of this legislation I'll give you a delicious Kondike ice cream bar. Yes its that deep dark chocolate covering lucious ice cream, a snack too good for a stick. So the question remains....What will you do for a Kondike Bar(TM)?"

What would you do for a Klondike Bar™? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2xYDEvkXHqQ)

... and all you guys have to do is approve a stupid proposal! Approve today! (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=durable)

In our view, this is a most egregious attack on the sovereignty of nations. It prohibits the use of a wide variety of tools that they could use to manage their economies. Could I use tariffs to protect my industries from price dumping by another UN nation? No. Could I subsidize a start-up industry to help it grow to competitiveness with established industries in other nations? No. And if we go to war with another nation, we have to apply to some NSUN committee for permission to restrict imports from that nation?We must have misread that portion of the fourth clause. We too have reservations about making nations to jump through hoops just to attain the right to set reasonable emergency restrictions in the interests of national security. (This isn't a deal-breaker for us, however.)

As to your concerns about subsidization, think of it this way: industries that are competitive do not need to cower under the umbrella of protectionism, even if they are start-up industries. There would be little incentive for new businesses to make their products more competitive if they are shielded by government subsidy. As Dr. Leary stated, let the market take its course. If the industry can compete, it doesn't need to raid government coffers to stay afloat, and if it can't, then subsidizing it in the first place would have been a waste of money, wouldn't it?

That, and we really don't see what the incentive would be to price-dump in a free-trade environment.

Our support for this proposal stands.

~Cdr. Chiang

This resolution would interfere too much with a country for us to support it. There should be a limit to how far we can delve into a nations inner workings.

Could I subsidize a start-up industry to help it grow to competitiveness with established industries in other nations? No.
This communism. Glog know communism. Many summers ago, man called Glog Putcrazyideainworkerheadmakehimlazy start thing called Socialist Workers And Peasants Party Of Glog.

Not good party with mead. Bad party with crazy talk.

Say things like "workers of world unite" and "give subsidy to bad, lazy business" and "from each according to ability, to each according to work" and "soviet of worker-peasant democratic dictatorship is government of masses themselves, directly depending upon maintaining closest relation with masses and, therefore, able to operate maximum strength".

This bad.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

This communism. Glog know communism. Many summers ago, man called Glog Putcrazyideainworkerheadmakehimlazy start thing called Socialist Workers And Peasants Party Of Glog.

Not good party with mead. Bad party with crazy talk.

Say things like "workers of world unite" and "give subsidy to bad, lazy business" and "from each according to ability, to each according to work" and "soviet of worker-peasant democratic dictatorship is government of masses themselves, directly depending upon maintaining closest relation with masses and, therefore, able to operate maximum strength".

This bad.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

I believe Ambassador Glog is partly mistaken. Subsidizing start-up businesses is not a sign of communism. In fact, many capitilistic societies provide subsidies to new businesses as the learn to grow. A communism would make said business the only business, which would be owned by the people. It is a somewhat socialist idea, but not limited to communisms.

We must have misread that portion of the fourth clause. We too have reservations about making nations to jump through hoops just to attain the right to set reasonable emergency restrictions in the interests of national security. (This isn't a deal-breaker for us, however.)

It isn't a deal-breaker for us, because, even if it were not there, we could never have a "deal" with this piece of economic Big Brotherism.

As to your concerns about subsidization, think of it this way: industries that are competitive do not need to cower under the umbrella of protectionism, even if they are start-up industries. There would be little incentive for new businesses to make their products more competitive if they are shielded by government subsidy. As Dr. Leary stated, let the market take its course. If the industry can compete, it doesn't need to raid government coffers to stay afloat, and if it can't, then subsidizing it in the first place would have been a waste of money, wouldn't it?

You misunderstand the nature of a start-up subsidy. It exists for a limited time only, to give nascent industries a chance to get established and become competitive. There's no incentive at all for new industries to develop if the prospective entrepreneurs know they'll never have a chance to be competitive because they'll be driven out of business by some established business in some other nation.

That, and we really don't see what the incentive would be to price-dump in a free-trade environment.

The incentive is to gain market share and eliminate the competition of the domestic industries forced to go belly up. The mega-monopoly, with its volume production and volume sales, can afford to take the temporary hit in its profit margin long enough to wreck the smaller, local industry. Then it jacks the prices back up. The free-trade environment makes this possible.

Our support for this proposal stands.

And our total opposition stands as well. We will never accept a measure such as this, with its complete, blatant and obvious prejudice in favor of nations which produce durable goods over those which rely on production of consumables and nations which have established industries over those which may be trying to build their economic bases.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

As it is of our ultimate believe in a man's freedom, the Free Market of which is the part, we support the Proposal.
In our opinion, the highest respect of all nations should the Proposal receive because of the overall prosperity augmenting that will be brought due to improved abilities for the division of labor.
The Republic of Hisnot3.
Also not a UN member, The United States of Mykot sings the stated.

To the author of the resolution: Protectionist must be defined before Twafflonia can vouch its support.

I really don't have a problem with free trade as long as countries trade equally. Countries who sale large numbers of products to a trade partner but does not buy similar amounts of products from that trade partner (i.e. modern day China and US trading where China buys a very limited amount of products from the US but the US buys a great, many more products from China) should be penalized. Perhaps the penalization should occur on both sides of the trade by establishing a fair amount of products to be equally traded (by someone like NAFTA) or monetary compensation.*

* Of course with the exception of countries who have a very limited number of products to sell and have to import most of their products (i.e. developing nations).

I'm afraid that this is a ridiculous notion, sir. This country you speak of... "China?" It is giving physical goods to this "US" in exchange for mere money, which has no value except to trade for other goods (and presumably US money is valuable only because it can be traded back to the US for their goods and services). The fact is, if the US is buying more than its selling, it doesn't matter; it just means that the US will have an influx of goods for its citizenry. If China doesn't spend, it's to their own detriment, sitting on money that could otherwise purchase goods or services or be invested in the production and provision thereof. Punishing China for its economic policy makes no sense in this case.


In our view, this is a most egregious attack on the sovereignty of nations. It prohibits the use of a wide variety of tools that they could use to manage their economies. Could I use tariffs to protect my industries from price dumping by another UN nation? No. Could I subsidize a start-up industry to help it grow to competitiveness with established industries in other nations? No.

Intending no offense to the Prime Minister, but it would seem that his priorities are for his businesses rather than for the welfare of his citizenry. As others have already argued, the "tools" of tariffs and subsidies are ultimately harmful, causing inefficiencies and forcing your own citizens to pay higher prices for lower-quality goods, while at the same time punishing the efforts of international workers who would be capable of providing better goods and/or lower prices. Subsidies and tariffs are indefensible, economically speaking, given the priority of the welfare of the citizenry as a whole over the privileged few industrial moguls (and moguls who are providing lower quality at extortionist prices to boot, hence their failure to compete and their need for government support).

If, however, you are worried about the international ethics of free trade--for example, you may wish to ban imports from a company with poor treatment or compensation of its workers--clause 5 allows as much.

You misunderstand the nature of a start-up subsidy. It exists for a limited time only, to give nascent industries a chance to get established and become competitive. There's no incentive at all for new industries to develop if the prospective entrepreneurs know they'll never have a chance to be competitive because they'll be driven out of business by some established business in some other nation.

I would recommend to businesspeople in an unestablished industry to do as entrepreneurs in Twafflonia do; that is, prepare a business plan and convince a bank for a business loan so as to gain the necessary funds to enter the market (such as, say, purchase a factory). I believe government loans are not expressly forbidden by the proposal (it would be open to interpretation as to whether such loans would be "protectionist").

The incentive is to gain market share and eliminate the competition of the domestic industries forced to go belly up.

I believe the Prime Minister fails to appreciate the magnitude of effectiveness to the competitive market this proposal would promote. I sincerely cannot conceive of an instance in which, after the hypothetical passing of this proposal, only one corporation or one nation attains a monopoly on the manufacture of a durable product (that lacks any suitable substitute) by undercutting so much that every possible competitor is driven out of business, and then manages to raise the price punitively without thereby encouraging new competition.

You seem to suggest that a corporation that produces a durable yet necessary good (if people don't "need" a product, a monopoly is less destructive to the people and has an upper limit to the amount it can charge before people simply stop buying) would be able to lower its prices below necessary production costs (taking a loss with every product it makes and employee it hires) and still be able to produce enough, long enough, to run out of business every possible competitor (and every manufacturer of substitute products) in a global market without going out of business itself. The incentive for doing such a thing is infinitesimally minimal, if even existent. Any international corporate executive suggesting such a massive long-term loss for dubious eventual competitive advantage would either be removed by superiors/stockholders or would drive the company bankrupt with such ridiculous notions of economics.

Besides, as it stands, if any business did eventually come close to achieving that mythical monopoly, clause 5 allows nations to ban or use other punitive measures against the company (justified by the maintenance of ethics).

Twafflonia endorses the ideas underlying this proposal, although the exact wording and effects must still be worked out before full support can be rendered.

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

Intending no offense to the Prime Minister, but it would seem that his priorities are for his businesses rather than for the welfare of his citizenry. As others have already argued, the "tools" of tariffs and subsidies are ultimately harmful, causing inefficiencies and forcing your own citizens to pay higher prices for lower-quality goods, while at the same time punishing the efforts of international workers who would be capable of providing better goods and/or lower prices. Subsidies and tariffs are indefensible, economically speaking, given the priority of the welfare of the citizenry as a whole over the privileged few industrial moguls (and moguls who are providing lower quality at extortionist prices to boot, hence their failure to compete and their need for government support).

The representative's statement rests on the completely unrealistic assumption that a healthy business climate benefits only "industrial moguls". His very obvious anti-corporate bias has led him to ignore the fact that corporations are owned by citizens and provide employment for citizens. A healthy, properly diversified economy, with full employment, benefits all our citizens. Subsidies and tariffs are tools that a government can use to promote those conditions when situations warrant. We see no valid reason for the NSUN to micromanage national economies by prohibiting their use. We need no lectures from the Twafflonian representative on our priorities.

I would recommend to businesspeople in an unestablished industry to do as entrepreneurs in Twafflonia do; that is, prepare a business plan and convince a bank for a business loan so as to gain the necessary funds to enter the market (such as, say, purchase a factory). I believe government loans are not expressly forbidden by the proposal (it would be open to interpretation as to whether such loans would be "protectionist").

A government loan offered only to domestic businesses would certainly be a subvention and "protectionist", thus prohibited by this resolution. Therefore, if we wished to subsidize a valuable start-up business in our nation, we would likely be forced to offer the same loan on the same terms to megacorporations in other lands. Absurd.

I believe the Prime Minister fails to appreciate the magnitude of effectiveness to the competitive market this proposal would promote. I sincerely cannot conceive of an instance in which, after the hypothetical passing of this proposal, only one corporation or one nation attains a monopoly on the manufacture of a durable product (that lacks any suitable substitute) by undercutting so much that every possible competitor is driven out of business, and then manages to raise the price punitively without thereby encouraging new competition.

You seem to suggest that a corporation that produces a durable yet necessary good (if people don't "need" a product, a monopoly is less destructive to the people and has an upper limit to the amount it can charge before people simply stop buying) would be able to lower its prices below necessary production costs (taking a loss with every product it makes and employee it hires) and still be able to produce enough, long enough, to run out of business every possible competitor (and every manufacturer of substitute products) in a global market without going out of business itself. The incentive for doing such a thing is infinitesimally minimal, if even existent. Any international corporate executive suggesting such a massive long-term loss for dubious eventual competitive advantage would either be removed by superiors/stockholders or would drive the company bankrupt with such ridiculous notions of economics.

Besides, as it stands, if any business did eventually come close to achieving that mythical monopoly, clause 5 allows nations to ban or use other punitive measures against the company (justified by the maintenance of ethics).

We said nothing about lowering prices below necessary production costs. We said nothing about taking losses. We said nothing about "driving every possible competitor out of business". We noted that, under this resolution, it would be possible for large corporations in foreign lands to price-dump their products, accepting a lower profit per item for the sake of incresing market share by forcing out of the market smaller businesses in our nation that, because of lower production volume, cannot lower their prices enough to compete. This resolution removes our ability to counteract that as long as the dumper is in a UN nation. The representative seems to live in some sort of economic la-la land in which monopolies are "mythical", corporations would need to "undercut every possible competitor" in order to win a marketing war, and incentives for obtaining increased market share are "infinitesimally minimal". We prefer to proceed on the basis of a rational understanding of the world of marketing -- a world in which monopolies and megacorporations do exist, dominating a market segment doesn't require dominating the world, and market share is avidly sought by corporations to enable increased profits.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Our objection to this misguided piece of legislation is as strong as ever.

Free trade is simply social darwinism dressed up in a pretty pink frock. The ideology of free trade is based on the incorrect assumption that competition is the sole good driving an economy. "Make it cheaper, make it faster, make it better than your competitors." What one is left with is a slow slide to the bottom line where only the largest, who enter the market with financial power and the ability to ride out lack of profits, are able to survive. And it is shown time and again that such financial power rides on the backs of laborers willing to, or unable to not, accept pitiful conditions and wages.

The reality is that without strong restrictions on the implementation of so-called free trade, it quickly becomes a variation on its predecessor, old-school mercantilism. Ultimately, free trade or globalization of economies leads to regionalization of wealth and relegation of the world's poor to their perpetual cycle of grinding poverty.

The ability to rationally utilize all economic tools is necessary to assure the health of one's economy.

Leetha Talone,
Filthy commie and UN Ambassador

"Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations, I'd like you to consider another thought experiment, involving not candles but cars. The automobile industry in many nations is subsidised as a national asset, because it consists of a raft of industries bringing revenue into the country and creating employment in the nation in question.

"This proposal would force those subsidies out of existence. Without them, the automobile industry has make up the difference in finance itself, and to recoup those losses the end product - private automobiles - has to be more expensive. Because they are more expensive, the number of potential buyers, and thus of units sold, decreases, and so the automobile company must increase the price still further to recoup their losses in production.

"Or they might reduce the number of units produced, resulting in unemployment. Or they might move their factories overseas to a country with less equitable labour laws, resulting in mass unemployment. Let us not indulge in the pleasant fantasy that retraining workers and restructuring national industries is instantaneous and done by helpful fairies, who demand no restitution! Unemployment leads to the closure of stores as workers grow poor, the reduction of stock produced for those stores, and thus further unemployment, and so the pool of possible buyers for automobiles decreases still further.

"The industry itself may survive, but we are not here to represent the industry, much less so nebulous a concept as "the Market". The good representative of Quintessence of Dust may believe that the Market, unfettered by government, will set all things right; it is a pleasant fantasy, but unfortunately we do not live in the fairy-tale world where it is true. Our responsibility is to our citizens, and I do not see how this proposal would achieve anything but the direct opposite to the effects it aims to produce."

~ Galen Serrault, by appointment of Her Majesty Ambassador to the UN

The representative's statement rests on the completely unrealistic assumption that a healthy business climate benefits only "industrial moguls". His very obvious anti-corporate bias has led him to ignore the fact that corporations are owned by citizens and provide employment for citizens. A healthy, properly diversified economy, with full employment, benefits all our citizens. Subsidies and tariffs are tools that a government can use to promote those conditions when situations warrant. We see no valid reason for the NSUN to micromanage national economies by prohibiting their use. We need no lectures from the Twafflonian representative on our priorities.

I would argue that subsidies and tariffs in no way promote a "healthy" business climate. Subsidies encourage inefficiency, reducing incentives to cut costs and wasting the hard-earned taxes of the citizenry at large to prop up industries that offer less benefits to said citizens than a more successful industry could. Tariffs inflate the cost of living of the citizens while padding the pockets of business persons incapable of dealing (or unwilling to deal) with healthy competition, in the process creating artificial monopolies.

If your citizens aren't buying products from one internationally uncompetitive domestic industry, the natural market inclination is to invest less in that unprofitable industry so that the money can be spent more effectively. Tariffs and subsidies pour taxpayer funds into industries that citizens don't support, (either because the products are inferior, the demand for the product in general is not great enough, or because substitutes or foreign imports are cheaper and just as effective) and increase the costs of living. How that can be called prioritizing the welfare of the citizens over the unreasonable demands of corporate moguls is beyond me. Subsidies encourage overproduction and movement into industries that simply don't benefit consumers--increasing the amount of producers of products with low demand, which results in more failing industries that require more government support. Following the reasoning through to conclusion gives you sprawling, wasteful, unproductive industries dependent on the government for profits, in a scenario in which the government basically shuffles tax money around, essentially employing citizens in an unnecessary occupation just so they have a job. If we assume that producing goods and services that are in demand is good and benefits society, then we can assume that overproducing low-demand products or services (instead of producing products/services that benefit society) is bad.

In an international free market, in which products can be imported without barrier from all over the globe, the chances of any one corporation sustaining a single-product monopoly are minute. A localised monopoly is increasingly impossible as barriers to foreign trade are reduced. Price-dumping as you describe can only be successful if there is no other foreign competition capable of responding with similar price-dumps. In an open and competitive market, there is no incentive to lower your profits with a price-dump just so that other corporations will have to respond with their own price-dumps. Business is not a win-lose competition; it is an ongoing quest to get money by selling what people want.

I understand your concern, and the underlying concept of decreasing competition to increase the market share, but the method by which you suggest international corporations will destroy their domestic competition is, in my mind, economically far fetched. It involves willful sabotage of one's own company in order to bring ruin on someone else's, and in the meantime (or afterwards, when the international corporation tries to raise prices, having reduced local competition) other corporations would move in and make a profit the old fashioned way--selling what people want at competitive prices. We're talking durable goods here--they can be shipped great distances and at slow speeds without any loss of product quality (they don't expire). This means that geographical restrictions, barriers, and costs are minimalised compared to consumable products, and it is easier for distant foreign corporations to compete, making a localised monopoly unlikely.

A government loan offered only to domestic businesses would certainly be a subvention and "protectionist", thus prohibited by this resolution. Therefore, if we wished to subsidize a valuable start-up business in our nation, we would likely be forced to offer the same loan on the same terms to megacorporations in other lands. Absurd.

Government loans must be paid back, generally with interest. They are government investments, and a wise use of taxpayer money, as they can serve as an additional source of government income without directly burdening the taxpayers. Nations are certainly free to offer loans to any business entrepreneur (that is, they are not restricted to do so by the UN, although their own governments might have more to say on the matter), and if a foreign entrepreneur comes doorknocking for loans I see no reason not to give one just because they are foreign, presuming the business plan is solid and the business likely to be successful. A loan is just another form of service, in this instance offered by a national government, and there are no UN resolutions (or wording in this proposal, which relates only to durable goods) preventing the imposition of protectionist measures on them (such as, say, a higher interest rate for foreign business loans).

Of course, I'd rather see banks and wealthy investors giving out loans than national governments, but that's the Twafflonian bias slipping through.

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

"Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations, I'd like you to consider another thought experiment, involving not candles but cars. The automobile industry in many nations is subsidised as a national asset, because it consists of a raft of industries bringing revenue into the country and creating employment in the nation in question.

"This proposal would force those subsidies out of existence. Without them, the automobile industry has make up the difference in finance itself, and to recoup those losses the end product - private automobiles - has to be more expensive. Because they are more expensive, the number of potential buyers, and thus of units sold, decreases, and so the automobile company must increase the price still further to recoup their losses in production.

"Or they might reduce the number of units produced, resulting in unemployment. Or they might move their factories overseas to a country with less equitable labour laws, resulting in mass unemployment. Let us not indulge in the pleasant fantasy that retraining workers and restructuring national industries is instantaneous and done by helpful fairies, who demand no restitution! Unemployment leads to the closure of stores as workers grow poor, the reduction of stock produced for those stores, and thus further unemployment, and so the pool of possible buyers for automobiles decreases still further.

"The industry itself may survive, but we are not here to represent the industry, much less so nebulous a concept as "the Market". The good representative of Quintessence of Dust may believe that the Market, unfettered by government, will set all things right; it is a pleasant fantasy, but unfortunately we do not live in the fairy-tale world where it is true. Our responsibility is to our citizens, and I do not see how this proposal would achieve anything but the direct opposite to the effects it aims to produce."

~ Galen Serrault, by appointment of Her Majesty Ambassador to the UN

Hmm. Given the arguments in your scenario, would you be just as opposed to a resolution that banned only new government subsidies for private corporations?

"I would, sir. To forbid new subsidies would cripple a government of the responsiveness it needs to manage subsidies and tarrifs properly, leading to exactly the sort of stagnation you seem to fear. Government may not adapt to changing conditions as fast as unregulated market forces, but, when in the hands of a responsible government, it does so with better foresight; for the chief concern of government is the people, while the chief concern of the market is profit. They do not always coincide. One must avoid supporting the market simply for the sake of the market, just as one must avoid supporting progress simply for the sake of progress."

~ Galen Serrault, by appointment of Her Majesty Ambassador to the UN

Sir Bodsworth returns the dictionary along the representative's head.
Dr Sweynsson deflects the book before it strikes him, using a Baritsu manouver that he learnt while doing his national service many years ago, and disarms Sir Bodsworth but manages to control his impulses and does not add the extra twist that would have thrown that attacker across the room.

"if that is how you respond to relatively helpful advice," he remarks, "then I wonder how long you will last in the atmosphere of often-hostile argument here? In any case, your actions have freed me from any urge to advise you about how your government might be able to work around such requirements: They will have to find their own solution, if this proposal passes, and if you are typical of their mentality then I doubt whether they will be able to do so..."

I don't care about slavery being unethical,

"Indeed?" Dr Sweynsson shook his head slowly from side to side. "In that case, sirrah, you can" (and he added several words in a language with which Sir Bodsworth is probably unfamiliar...)"!"


We will never accept a measure such as this, with its complete, blatant and obvious prejudice in favor of nations which produce durable goods over those which rely on production of consumables

But those nations that produce foodstuffs already enjoy such favour under an earlier resolution...

________________________________________________________________

OOC: Are the 'translators' that a few people have mentioned in the past items brought along by those specific delegations, rather than a UN-provided system for everybody? I've been assuming that in the General Assembly, as in proposals, people are normally using English...

Our objection to this misguided piece of legislation is as strong as ever.

Free trade is simply social darwinism dressed up in a pretty pink frock. The ideology of free trade is based on the incorrect assumption that competition is the sole good driving an economy. "Make it cheaper, make it faster, make it better than your competitors." What one is left with is a slow slide to the bottom line where only the largest, who enter the market with financial power and the ability to ride out lack of profits, are able to survive. And it is shown time and again that such financial power rides on the backs of laborers willing to, or unable to not, accept pitiful conditions and wages.

Sen.Sulla looks over at the ambassador fom Rubinia and says,
"My dear, competion is what drives everything. Ever since the first critter dragged itself out of the primordial ooze and ate a smaller less sucessful critter, all have been in competion with another. We who believe in capitalism do beleiev that if you can make a product better than somebody else you should be compesated for the effort. One should strive for excellence. Why should citizens of a nation be forced to have substandad goods when better ones can be gotten from elsewhere. Without competion there is no reason to strive for exellence, or come up with innovations. Its far easier to accept being mediocre when one is the sole provider of goods and services. State run monopolies benifit nobody except the bureaucrats and government hacks. as for larger business having an unfair advantave over smaller ones, that too is thenature of things. Business like life is a risk. Sadly many fail, but on the other side of the coin, some "small" businesses do find sucess and become large businesses. my naion has al;way found it far better to the the markets sortn themselves out. As for your concerns about the plight of the workers, my dear, I believe you already have a solutions on the books of UN law. Its called UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #218 UN Labor Relations Act"

The reality is that without strong restrictions on the implementation of so-called free trade, it quickly becomes a variation on its predecessor, old-school mercantilism. Ultimately, free trade or globalization of economies leads to regionalization of wealth and relegation of the world's poor to their perpetual cycle of grinding poverty.

"This too is where we differ. We can only partially agree with you here. In a lot of the cases government inefficiency, waste, corruption and incompetance keeps the poor in poverty. The lot of the poor could be vastly improved by giving the individual citizens the ability to fend for themselves instred of being on the dole. Education and Micro-lending, for example, are great opportunities to teach the poor the skills and other tools needed to better themselves. As the proverb states give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, but teach him to fish he'll eat for a lifetime"

Everyone seems to assume that this will help spread better goods. Goods of a higher quality are more expensive, not cheaper as is being implyed by several of you. By allowing cheaper, crappier goods to flow freely, this bill will undermine countries whose industries rely on higher quality, and thus more expensive, goods. Free trade does not enhance the flow of high quality, but enhances the flow of low quality, as the lower the quality, the lower the cost of production and thus, the lower the price. Anyone who believes this free trade will spread higher quality goods at lower prices does not understand basic economics.

This will also provide a better benefit for nations working under socialist economies, as goods tend to be cheaper under true socialism. Thus, a capitalist society could have its market inundated with cheap, substandard goods from a socialist nation, and would be unable to use its greatest weapon to fight such: tariffs.

Everyone seems to assume that this will help spread better goods. Goods of a higher quality are more expensive, not cheaper as is being implyed by several of you. By allowing cheaper, crappier goods to flow freely, this bill will undermine countries whose industries rely on higher quality, and thus more expensive, goods. Free trade does not enhance the flow of high quality, but enhances the flow of low quality, as the lower the quality, the lower the cost of production and thus, the lower the price. Anyone who believes this free trade will spread higher quality goods at lower prices does not understand basic economics.

This will also provide a better benefit for nations working under socialist economies, as goods tend to be cheaper under true socialism. Thus, a capitalist society could have its market inundated with cheap, substandard goods from a socialist nation, and would be unable to use its greatest weapon to fight such: tariffs.

If those products are genuinely "sub-standard", rather than just cheap, then they could still quite legitimately be excluded under quality-control and product-safety laws...

But those nations that produce foodstuffs already enjoy such favour under an earlier resolution...



Foodstuffs, sir, are by no means the only consumable products.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Originally posted by The-Citadel: for the chief concern of government is the people, while the chief concern of the market is profit
The chief concern of the government is by NO MEANS the people. The chief concern of the government is individual profit (not necessarily money, but likely is) received by those who manage the goverment - the usual business of the ususal people. Sometimes it does coincides with the public interests - and then the government truly represents its people, but very often it doesn't. So we shall vote for the proposal, since it reduces the power of governments, thus diminishing the possibility of governments enriching some people on the Expense of the WHOLE society.
For futher information consider reading: "Economic in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlit.
From People of Mykot and Hisnot3.

Everyone seems to assume that this will help spread better goods. Goods of a higher quality are more expensive, not cheaper as is being implyed by several of you. By allowing cheaper, crappier goods to flow freely, this bill will undermine countries whose industries rely on higher quality, and thus more expensive, goods. Free trade does not enhance the flow of high quality, but enhances the flow of low quality, as the lower the quality, the lower the cost of production and thus, the lower the price. Anyone who believes this free trade will spread higher quality goods at lower prices does not understand basic economics.

Having increased competition doesn't simply mean cheaper goods, it means more goods. This would encourage variety in quality as well as price. Price is not the only determining factor for what consumers choose to buy--quality is another primary concern. Consider again the example of automobiles. One international corporation may produce cheap autos with a lower standard of quality, while another corporation may produce mid-range dependable autos, and another corporation produces expensive high-performance vehicles. They could all make sales, as the global market is not homogenous--some consumers will purchase cheap cars, others will focus on quality over price. The idea behind this proposal's reduction to trade barriers is that there will be more options available to consumers. This includes both cheap alternatives and quality products that might otherwise be prohibitively expensive due to tariffs.

Consider as another example the importing of beers, something most of us can appreciate. Do you believe that the availability of foreign beers has resulted in the overall lowering in quality of beer available to countries that import beer? That importing beer results in only cheap beers being produced, and cheap foreign imports undercutting high quality local beers? I think you misjudge the ability of consumers to appraise their drinks. The truth is, in many nations, introducing a greater selection allows for both higher quality products and cheaper low-quality alternatives (for instances in which quality is not the primary concern of the consumer).

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

While the chief concern of the government is not the people, it does not mean that it should not be the people. Just because something is not a certain way, it does not by any means mean that it should not be for the people. Take the government of the United States, for example. It is stated within the constitution that the government is for the people, by the people, and of the people. While it seems that they have taken a step or two (some would like to argue several miles) aside, their main objective has been to offer Americans the best. We should at least follow their example to try and help our people, whatever it costs.

The chief concern of the government is by NO MEANS the people. The chief concern of the government is individual profit (not necessarily money, but likely is) received by those who manage the goverment - the usual business of the ususal people. Sometimes it does coincides with the public interests - and then the government truly represents its people, but very often it doesn't.

Further, one must consider that in democracies people tend to vote selfishly, for perceived benefits that might not have the best interests of the nation in mind. It all comes down to bread and circuses at the expense of real production and net benefits to society. A truly competitive free market automatically works to compromise between production and consumption, rewarding individuals that provide what people want in relation to how much their product or service is valued by the people, encouraging the production of needed/wanted products and benefiting the people without the mindless bullyism of the welfare state. Of course, a truly competitive free market is hard to find, but eliminating tariffs and subsidies is a step in the right direction (governments should still be obligated to keep in check market failures like monopolies, and negative externalities such as pollution).

The chief concern of the government is by NO MEANS the people. The chief concern of the government is individual profit (not necessarily money, but likely is) received by those who manage the goverment - the usual business of the ususal people. Sometimes it does coincides with the public interests - and then the government truly represents its people, but very often it doesn't. So we shall vote for the proposal, since it reduces the power of governments, thus diminishing the possibility of governments enriching some people on the Expense of the WHOLE society.

Galen shakes his head sadly at the iniquity of the world. "While I can't say I know this "America" of which the honourable Penguinolocose representative speaks, they seem to have ... at least half the right idea, in principle. As for the Republic of Hisnot3, all I can say is that if your government is truly so detached from the common good of its citizens, you're doing something wrong. Fortunately, the altruism of the Hisnotthreener ambassador in seeking to reduce that government, of which he is a part, puts the lie to his gloomy predictions.

"In any case, being staunchly in favour of the power of governments in general and of Her Majesty's the High Queen's government in particular, I can hardly vote alongside you in this matter. But I digress ..."

He turns to Assistant Ambassador Leinenkugel and inclines his head in something that might be called a bow by the charitable.

"Ma'am, I fear we must agree to disagree; quite simply, you believe that the market, unfettered, will prove a panacea to all society's woes, whilst I most certainly do not believe so; and I do not think that either of us shall convince the other here today."

~ Galen Serrault, by appointment of Her Majesty Ambassador to the United Nations

Originally posted by The Citadel: Fortunately, the altruism of the Hisnotthreener ambassador in seeking to reduce that government, of which he is a part, puts the lie to his gloomy predictions
It is not, since I'm maximizing my utility (not necessarily in monetary terms) by satisfying my own moral needs of right by putting the world (the part that I have the influence on) in the order I believe in. That is possible because there is the only person who actually speaks for Hisnot3 and Mykot - and that person has lived in his short life in 2 countries and never was a part of those huge and corrupted governments. The second though is not that corrupted (US), partially because it has implemented laws similar to the Proposal we all shall support.
Hisnot3 and Mykot

He turns to Assistant Ambassador Leinenkugel and inclines his head in something that might be called a bow by the charitable.

"Ma'am, I fear we must agree to disagree; quite simply, you believe that the market, unfettered, will prove a panacea to all society's woes, whilst I most certainly do not believe so; and I do not think that either of us shall convince the other here today."

Mirah smiles.

"It wouldn't be the first time representatives have had to settle on such an agreement. However, I would note that the market my government stands for is hardly 'unfettered', given the government authority and obligation to prevent, as I believe I mentioned, market failures--including but not limited to both monopolies and negative externalities."

"What I meant, sir, was that your claim that government works only for the benefit of government is proven false by the fact that you yourself, a representative of that government, are working to decrease its power."

Galen turns to the Twafflonian ambassador. "I do apologise, ma'am, if I overstated the Twafflonian position. We agree, then, that the government has a role to play in the regulation of the market - we merely disagree on the mechanisms used, and the extent to which they should be used."

~ Galen Serrault, by appointment of Her Majesty Ambassador to the United Nations

A truly competitive free market automatically works to compromise between production and consumption, rewarding individuals that provide what people want in relation to how much their product or service is valued by the people, encouraging the production of needed/wanted products and benefiting the people without the mindless bullyism of the welfare state.

I admire your noble naivete, but that idea is rooted in pure theory and shatters quickly on the hard rock of reality. If I were currently one of the many billions around the world struggling to survive on a tiny income, and I am immensely fortunate that I am not, I'm sure I'd highly value things like clean water and nutritious food, but unfortunately, if I weren't able to back up this intense want and need for these goods with cash, this doesn't even register as "demand". The market would fail to provide me with food and water no matter how much I wanted it - and I can assure you that I would want it a lot. Moreover, there wouldn't be much reward, beyond perhaps personally feeling good about it, for anyone who would provide this.

Of course, a truly competitive free market is hard to find, but eliminating tariffs and subsidies is a step in the right direction (governments should still be obligated to keep in check market failures like monopolies, and negative externalities such as pollution).

Let me put it to you this way. Putting aside the fact that we are currently signatory to a treaty which enforces a closed trading bloc, meaning trade with any non-signatory is almost totally banned, producers in Kelssek face steep costs due to the high taxation and the stringent laws and regulations they must follow, whether it is safety and labour regulations, product safety, or environmental laws. We freely acknowledge that this is "uncompetitive" and "inefficient" as you would no doubt describe it.

But all that, as well as this terrible thing called the welfare state, gives our citizens high-quality free healthcare, free education, including at university level, pensions, child care, just to name the more major programs. We pay high taxes, yes, but we don't worry about saving for those contingencies, so our disposable incomes are still comparable to those who do without this kind of system and we generally live comfortable, if not luxurious, lives, and we're very happy with them. We've got poverty, of course, but nothing we can't deal with, and we've our share of social problems. And some more ambitious people do feel constrained by it, we admit. But overall, there's support or my party wouldn't be in power and I wouldn't be talking here.

If we were to accept capitalism and free trade, perhaps our goods would indeed get slightly cheaper and we'd have more access to better products. Of course we're not blind to the benefits; prices are higher because our producers work with higher costs. But our wages would also be forced downwards, our benefits and working conditions as well. We'd have to work longer and harder: and maybe we should, but who would honestly say they wanted to? Ultimately, I believe the quality of life for a great many people would decrease as a result of what you seem to want to impose on us.

Opening the sluices of trade in such a wide spectrum of manufactured goods will thus prove immensely destructive to many nations and the consequences will reach far beyond simply economic disruption to the sociopolitical spheres as well. It will provoke a "race to the bottom" in many industries that will not be beneficial for the vast majority of people, whether in their role as consumers or labourers; even many capital owners could be steamrolled under this.

Protectionism is used like a vulgarity by many of you but to us it is a critical duty of our government, and even when capitalist parties were in power, it was something they could never get away from; when they did they soon found themselves out of power. What you choose to see as "mindless bullyism" is perhaps the most highly valued thing to our citizens. I certainly hope that support for this proposal isn't based on an arrogant notion on the part of certain foreign governments that they know what is best for our and for all people. And while you throw around economic theories purporting to show how everything would be better if we all did as you say, our people see their very way of life, and the very meaning of our nation, under threat.

Erin Caswell
First Secretary, Permanent Mission to the UN

Revised text.
The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role that the trade of durable goods plays in the global economy;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the role that the sale of these goods plays in providing manufacturing jobs;

NOTING the beneficial effect that these goods have on people's daily lives by making numerous home and business related activities less labour intensive, more efficient and more enjoyable;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation, "durable good" as a manufactured good primarily marketed to private consumers that yields services or utility over time rather than being completely used up when used once. Examples of durable goods include, but are not limited to, automobiles, home appliances, home furnishings and fixtures, business equipment and electronic equipment.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of durable goods between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to increase their citizens access to durable goods by creating favourable business environments for retailers who market these goods;

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

4. Declares that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.
This omits the "suspend trading with nations at war" bit. A sovereign state should be able to suspend trading without UNFTC approval.

Also, a question for the Twafflonian delegation. You had mentioned that you desired a definition of "protectionist". Would that be in addition to the examples in Article 3?

To all of the communists, hippies and luddites who are in opposition: do be quiet, the grownups are trying to have a serious discussion here.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

To all of the communists, hippies and luddites who are in opposition: do be quiet, the grownups are trying to have a serious discussion here.



Tsk tsk tsk...so you are just a bigoted bastard then...the UN should not support your Facist policies to destroy socialist economies.

4. Declares that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.Make a switcheroo on these two passages. :cool:

Tsk tsk tsk...so you are just a bigoted bastard then...the UN should not support your Facist policies to destroy socialist economies.Uh, yeah, I think NL was joking. Relax. Have some coffee. I know such an extravagance must be hard to come by in your backward communist homeland.

As the newest member of the Ardchoillean delegation, I get to ask the dumb questions. Our comrade from Tanular has reminded me of one that recurrently puzzles me: why are free trade proposals legal?

The question may come up repeatedly in unspoken or even unconscious form during this discussion, and the lack of clarity may generate unnecessary heat. I’d like to see it dealt with specifically, so I’ve written a discussion paper (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13092728#post13092728), and would appreciate submissions on the subject at your leisure.

I’m not asking if the current proposal is illegal, because I’m assuming that, as it is restricted to a specific group of goods, it’s not a full imposition of free trade.

William Edward (Bill) Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS.

Uh, yeah, I think NL was joking. Relax. Have some coffee. I know such an extravagance must be hard to come by in your backward communist homeland.

For the record, we have a capitalist economy...and whether or not he was joking, this policy would undermine the economy of any country that supports domestic industry over foreign. A country should not be obligated to accept goods from another nation if they don't want to. But you are right, its not a facist policy, its a coporatist policy to make it easier for corporations to set up shop in countries where they don't have to pay the workers decent wages without fear of tariffs forcing them to price competatively.

Granted, so far it seems it hasn't gotten enough delegate support to come up on the docket yet, so I'm not worrying.

A country should not be obligated to accept goods from another nation if they don't want to.And you don't have to. This only removes protectionist devices on trade; it doesn't force you to conduct trade with anybody.

Granted, so far it seems it hasn't gotten enough delegate support to come up on the docket yet, so I'm not worrying.You should be; that was only a test run -- once the telegrams start going out, this will reach quorum with ease.

To all of the communists, hippies and luddites who are in opposition: do be quiet, the grownups are trying to have a serious discussion here.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New LeicestershireAmbassador Watts, rapine capitalism is hardly the province of adults.

Uh, yeah, I think NL was joking. Relax. Have some coffee. I know such an extravagance must be hard to come by in your backward communist homeland.

And you don't have to. This only removes protectionist devices on trade; it doesn't force you to conduct trade with anybody.Commander Chiang, is that you? It's hard to tell with that bag over your head. Besides, the Tanularans are right, the UN has no business support facist policies.

And of course we're not forced to trade with anyone, just like we're not forced to breath air. What this resolution does do is force everyone to trade by its rules whether the parties involved wish to or not.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

And you don't have to. This only removes protectionist devices on trade; it doesn't force you to conduct trade with anybody.

Actually, it kind of does, based on:

REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

And this especially if the UNFTC is staffed by gnomes who have been strapped to chairs and subjected to tapes of Milton Friedman lectures for several weeks. Our policies have been expressly protectionist for years and while our army of loophole lawyers are out to claim they're based on ethical concerns, it is entirely possible that our bribes of chocolates and beard trimmers may not be as effective as we think

If I were currently one of the many billions around the world struggling to survive on a tiny income, and I am immensely fortunate that I am not, I'm sure I'd highly value things like clean water and nutritious food, but unfortunately, if I weren't able to back up this intense want and need for these goods with cash, this doesn't even register as "demand". The market would fail to provide me with food and water no matter how much I wanted it - and I can assure you that I would want it a lot. Moreover, there wouldn't be much reward, beyond perhaps personally feeling good about it, for anyone who would provide this.

A resolution such as this does nothing to prevent government welfare or wealth redistribution. A socialist or even communist nation can survive just as well with this resolution as without it (and its economy would be healthier with it). It simply affects restrictions on imports and like-minded subsidies to domestic businesses, government measures which give small benefit to certain domestic businesses at the greater expense of the populace.

I certainly hope that support for this proposal isn't based on an arrogant notion on the part of certain foreign governments that they know what is best for our and for all people.

All UN proposals are based on such notions.

Also, a question for the Twafflonian delegation. You had mentioned that you desired a definition of "protectionist". Would that be in addition to the examples in Article 3?

Yes. I do not believe that examples can suffice as a working definition in this case. As has already been noted, some national delegates would view tax breaks as protectionist, even if we would not. So I would suggest either providing a working definition of protectionist, or consider eliminating the phrase "protectionist" and just proscribe specifically tariffs, quotas, price floors and ceilings, and duties on durable goods, and government subsidies for manufacturers thereof, unless you have other "protectionist" devices in mind that you wish to target.

Sen.Sulla looks over at the ambassador fom Rubinia and says,
"My dear, competion is what drives everything. Ever since the first critter dragged itself out of the primordial ooze and ate a smaller less sucessful critter, all have been in competion with another.Sen. Sulla, we have considered your words carefully over the last few days and but for a comment or two, we believe the two of us will have to remain in polite disagreement.

Yes, the rights granted under “UN Labor Relations Act” are helpful in ameliorating problems that arise with free trade. It is, by itself however, an incomplete solution and certainly does not address all of the issues.

You maintain that competition is the only driving force of life. Yet without cooperation, many (perhaps most?) instances of competition would come to naught. Sperm compete for the prize of the egg, yet sperm and egg cooperate to form new life. The fiercest competitor wins the meal, but without the cooperation of the bacteria in its guts cannot digest its winnings. Sports teams compete against each other, yet without cooperation within the team their efforts are ineffective and lead to loss. Social darwinists laud the competition of nature and survival of the fittest, yet the social cooperation of the meager ant places it among one of the most successful species known.

It is the balance between cooperation and competition that is key. Free trade legislation by definition denies that crucial balance.

In addition, we would ask, if it is of paramount importance for the individual worker to be free to negotiate their economic livelihood (as was argued by many of the supporters of this proposal during the repeal of “The 40-Hour Work Week”), why is it less so for nations to be able to do the same? Shouldn't a nation be able to use all tools available to compete?

--L.T.

A resolution such as this does nothing to prevent government welfare or wealth redistribution. A socialist or even communist nation can survive just as well with this resolution as without it (and its economy would be healthier with it).

Firstly, by what measure would our economy be "healthier"? GDP? Income equality? Inflation? Unemployment? The effects are in fact extremely contentious and given the multiplicity of economic policies and conditions existing in the UN it is impossible for you to say that our economy or anyone else's would definitely benefit.

Furthermore you make the very incorrect assumption that our economy is the only thing we care about. This government prefers to take a more holistic approach towards the general well-being of our people. You will note that the richest and most economically powerful nations, are not necessarily considered the most developed or to have the best quality of life, nor do surveys reveal they have the happiest people.

It simply affects restrictions on imports

Quite the understatement; a more accurate phrase would be "ban completely", wouldn't it?

government measures which give small benefit to certain domestic businesses at the greater expense of the populace.

Surely, you understand that "free trade" will be at the expense of our populace? That those domestic businesses being benefited are the ones giving them their jobs and income? Your assessment of the benefits focus mainly on the prices of consumer goods while remaining almost willfully ignorant of the tremendous costs the people would pay by forcing us to drop economic protection policies. I have sought to explain some of these; the things which would be extremely difficult to maintain, and the potential danger to our domestic industries, and I hope you understand that not all costs are reflected in price tags.

"I should also like to say that the honourable Senator Sulla is overstating the position of the High Kingdom, for one, when he says "State run monopolies benifit nobody except the bureaucrats and government hacks" - I, in fact, agree entirely, and you will find not a single monopoly on a field of enterprise in the Citadel.

"But the fact that monopolies are bad should not be used as an argument to prevent us from supporting start-up industry and small businesses, or from preventing the damnable Communards on our doorstep* from flooding our markets with trash because they do have monopolist industries, and not a scruple in the world to accompany them.

"As the honourable representative of Rubina pointed out, Sen. Sulla's argument in this regard seems to be that as nature is red in tooth and claw, so should industry be. I would say that merely because nature is unforgiving does not mean that we should be; we are sentient, are we not, and more than animals?

"The other half of the honourable Senator Sulla's argument seems predicated on the idea that the free market, given its head, will provide a cornucopia for all, and thus that attending to the concerns of the free market is the same as attending to the concerns of national industry. I regard this idea as incredibly flawed, and I give not a damn for the free market as a whole. My concern is for the corporations and people of the Citadel, and I do not see how removing the supports and protections our government provides for them will help them in the slightest."

~ Galen Serrault, by appointment of Her Majesty Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: * The Citadel is the rump state of a larger empire, most of which is now the province of China-esque "Communism".

Resubmitted...


Free trade in Durable Goods
category:free trade
strength: strong
The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role that the trade of durable goods plays in the global economy;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the role that the sale of these goods plays in providing manufacturing jobs;

NOTING the beneficial effect that these goods have on people's daily lives by making numerous home and business related activities less labour intensive, more efficient and more enjoyable;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation, "durable good" as a manufactured good primarily marketed to private consumers that yields services or utility over time rather than being completely used up when used once. Examples of durable goods include, but are not limited to, automobiles, home appliances, home furnishings and fixtures, business equipment and electronic equipment.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of durable goods between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to increase their citizens access to durable goods by creating favourable business environments for retailers who market these goods;

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

4. Declares that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

6. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.
______________________________________________
Please endorse. search the Proposal page with the word Durable. Thanks.
excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Or click here (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=durable).

"The other half of the honourable Senator Sulla's argument seems predicated on the idea that the free market, given its head, will provide a cornucopia for all, and thus that attending to the concerns of the free market is the same as attending to the concerns of national industry. I regard this idea as incredibly flawed, and I give not a damn for the free market as a whole. My concern is for the corporations and people of the Citadel, and I do not see how removing the supports and protections our government provides for them will help them in the slightest."

It's not so much that the free market automatically breeds wealth, as a "protectionist" market breeds stagnation and poverty. Measures such as subsidies or tariffs might serve as short-term bandages to stop the hemorrhaging failure of local industries, but they harbor and promote infection and decay. A few examples:

Buying Surplus - Some national governments purchase excess product that businesses cannot sell, arguing that it is better than a subsidy (in that payment is based on production, rather than mere existence) and still protects business from the penalties of failure. Heck, that's good, right? Keeps people employed! But the downside is that you've suddenly created a profitable industry that is producing things that people aren't buying (and therefore aren't benefiting from). And the government payments will attract other workers and entrepreneurs into the industry, until you have a sprawling industrial machine producing things that, for the most part, are being purchased by the government and not put to any good use, and in the meantime other industries that actually produce what people want have to compete with a different, more profitable industry which is attracting both entrepreneurs and upper and lower level employees. Really, you might as well pay people to stand in a room turning wheels on axles. It'd probably be better for the environment, and nearly as productive as this or any form of subsidization.

Import Tariffs - Some national governments impose fees on imported goods so as to discourage consumers from buying them. Like a subsidy, this sort of measure shields domestic industry from feeling the effects of market forces. Instead of making rational changes--such as quality improvements and cost-cutting innovations or practices--in response to competition, domestic industries can simply continue producing low-quality and/or overly expensive goods, becoming increasingly less internationally competitive, while draining taxpayer funds that could be going to more effective programs or government services. Tariffs deny citizens international improvements in product manufacturing and quality, and at the same time increase the costs of both imported and domestic products, and encourage--as subsidies do--movement into an industry that is less-than-productive and internationally uncompetitive, away from industries that are in demand or are better suited to the economy of the nation. Again, if all you care about is employing citizens rather than employing them meaningfully and productively, you might as well employ them turning wheels on axles in a giant warehouse.

As it is, both tariffs and subsidies promote a dependence on the government that, if the protective measures were suddenly removed, would cripple the industries, cause mass unemployment, and make it difficult for corporations to adapt to the new conditions before going under. For this reason, I applaud the eleven-years time given in the text of the proposal to ween industries off the policies. I believe it handles the "but we need the jobs!" argument quite nicely.

As profits for government-propped industries decline in relation to more efficient or higher-quality foreign industries, domestic businesses will either improve themselves to compete, or move to other (more profitable) industries to survive. Any resulting unemployment (which will not be nearly as dramatic as a complete elimination of the industries in question) can be dealt with by existing safety net programs (perhaps supplemented with money saved from the elimination of subsidies), which can distribute funds more evenly and more efficiently directly to needy citizens than government funding from "trickle-down" subsidies and tariffs ever could.

The argument that citizens need to be employed, and therefore industries require subsidies and protective tariffs, is absurd and results in a sad and harmful situation to nations as a whole (that is, unproductive employment, higher prices, higher taxes, less government funding for programs with real benefits, lower quality goods, surpluses of low-demand goods--and ultimately, lower real wages and a lower standard of living).

Real wealth comes from trade between parties with different efficiencies in different industries (in which case both parties benefit), not from masturbatory tax-and-dole measures.

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

Actually, it kind of does...The Creative Solutions Agency finds you are mistaken, and that the Rubinan interpretation of the language is closer to the truth. Nowhere in the legislation does it force anyone to trade with anyone else; it only stipulates that all trade must be conducted in a non-protectionist manner. After consulting with prominent legislators of existing free-trade resolutions, we are reassured our position is correct.

We also find that bribing gnomes is an eminently useless endeavor, as the most effective way of dealing with such scum is to shoot them.

Thank you,
Thad Greenberg
Creative Solutions Agency

Mr. Greenberg, I thank you for showing how utterly ridiculous and intrusive this proposal would be. By your interpretation all nations would be forced into two choices, either a), trade on the terms of a bunch of fanatic capitalists; or b), cease trade entirely in an extremely wide range of secondary products.

And that's essentially the problem with proposals of this nature: they leave no middle ground.

a "protectionist" market breeds stagnation and poverty

I believe you will find a great many nations have protectionist policies to differing degrees, and most of them are not in "stagnation and poverty". Furthermore, a great many economic powerhouses got that way through protecting their industries and allowing them to grow, and more than just short-term, through policies spanning decades (I must resort to RL examples: Japan is a very good one, but in any case, none of the major industrial economies today got that way through an absence of trade barriers). This statement is patently untrue.

Again, if all you care about is employing citizens rather than employing them meaningfully and productively, you might as well employ them turning wheels on axles in a giant warehouse.

Is this a deliberate straw-man argument or are you really incapable of understanding all the points I have tried to put forth? Employment is more than just about people having jobs, but the overall productiveness of the economy itself. People without jobs don't pay taxes, are probably getting welfare, and don't have the disposable income to buy all those cheap, high-quality imported goods that you're so enthusiastic about. People not having employment are not productive at all and it is very bad for both the economy society; the link between unemployment and social problems like crime and domestic abuse surely does not need to be explained. At least if they were labouring in what we assume is some kind of bizarre milling technique prevalent in Twafflonia, some value might be being produced, which surely is better than them being unemployed and on the dole.

Any resulting unemployment (which will not be nearly as dramatic as a complete elimination of the industries in question) can be dealt with by existing safety net programs (perhaps supplemented with money saved from the elimination of subsidies), which can distribute funds more evenly and more efficiently directly to needy citizens than government funding from "trickle-down" subsidies and tariffs ever could.

You are presenting a scenario based on an unhealthy number of assumptions. What if we aren't spending anything on direct subsidies, for instance? What if we don't have any social safety nets? And wait, are you actually suggesting that governments should stop trying to make sure their people have good jobs and instead just hand them money? I regret that I cannot share your absurdly glib confidence that a major economic upheaval such as this can be so simply and easily resolved.

Furthermore, you will note that it has been primarily the quality, rather than the quantity of jobs that we have been most concerned with and you have not addressed this at all. I'm forced to conclude that either you don't care about what points I'm making and are just parroting stuff you picked up somewhere in the hope that it constitues a counter-argument, or you are extremely dense and are just parroting stuff you picked up somewhere in the hope that it constitues a counter-argument.

Or perhaps you simply do not understand that there are always trade-offs. It's a reality of the world that you don't get something for nothing but free-market-free-trade advocates tend to be under the dangerous delusion that you can.

We had thought to weigh in again on this subject, but are delighted to find that the delegation of Kelssek has presented the counter-arguments to this proposal far more lucidly than we would have. We have but one additional observation to make.

I believe you will find a great many nations have protectionist policies to differing degrees, and most of them are not in "stagnation and poverty". Furthermore, a great many economic powerhouses got that way through protecting their industries and allowing them to grow, and more than just short-term, through policies spanning decades (I must resort to RL examples: Japan is a very good one, but in any case, none of the major industrial economies today got that way through an absence of trade barriers). This statement is patently untrue.

It is further worth noting that all economic powerhouses, without exception, still have protectionist policies. They may be called other things, and they may be extremely subtle in their application, but they all exist in some form or another. (RL example: Cuban cigars, anyone?) A blanket proposal such as this is not wise even for the giants of the commercial world, much less those of us more economically minnow-like in nature.

It is further worth noting that all economic powerhouses, without exception, still have protectionist policies.Really? Huh. The Hack has cracked down and eliminated tariffs and protectionist devices every chance we've had, and still have a Frightening economy and are one of the top twenty in the world for our area of expertise.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Really? Huh. The Hack has cracked down and eliminated tariffs and protectionist devices every chance we've had, and still have a Frightening economy and are one of the top twenty in the world for our area of expertise.

QFT :)

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

Perhaps "QED" is what you mean, and if you indeed think that one nation out of tens of thousands claiming they're economically powerful from not having tariffs constitutes irrefutable proof then things really are worse than I thought and there is no point in continuing this exchange.

Erin Caswell
First Secretary, Permanent Mission to the UN.

if you indeed think that one nation out of tens of thousands claiming they're economically powerful from not having tariffs constitutes irrefutable proof then things really are worse than I thought and there is no point in continuing this exchange.I was simply responding to the ridiculously absolutist argument raised by your colleague.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

And I'm responding to Twafflonia.

(Maybe I should've quoted to make it more obvious but to me it just doesn't make sense to do so when the post being responded to is directly above it. Apologies for any confusion.)

Is this a deliberate straw-man argument or are you really incapable of understanding all the points I have tried to put forth?

I hate to be impolite, but the argument that you quoted and called a straw-man was in response to another delegate's points, not yours. That said, I believe I addressed the argument for protectionist policies being kept in place solely to ensure employment for a nation's populace (you argued earlier that a free market might make products cheaper, but at the expense of the populace in terms of employment--so my addressing this idea is not a straw-man argument at all). Earlier, I addressed the argument for protectionist policies being kept in place to prevent foreign monopolies.

You want me to address your points? Let's see here...

*Mirah checks over a transcript of the proceedings.*

You question my definition of a healthy market. Do you feel slighted that I didn't address this point? Alright, I'll address it. Oh, wait, I did. Looking at my response to the delegate from The-Citadel, you'll notice that I gave some examples of protectionist policies and how they hurt both production and the people of the nation in question. If you can give me an example of a protectionist policy that doesn't have strong adverse effects on the health of the economy (and in fact benefits it) I'd love to hear about them.

And you claimed that the proposal doesn't merely "affect restrictions on imports" but "bans completely" such restrictions. I didn't feel that this point was worth arguing. But if you want, Articles 4 and 5 of the resolution pretty much eliminate your argument.

You also somehow seem to think that I, in my support for the precepts of this proposal, believe that your government cares only for its economy. That's as ridiculous as believing that support for education resolutions implies a government solely concerned with education. I don't feel the need to further address this point.

Finally, you argue that free trade is at the expense of the populace, while I argue that protectionism is, citing as examples the negative effects of surplus-purchasing and import tariffs.

I suppose I should move on to your next little speech...

What if we aren't spending anything on direct subsidies, for instance?

I never assumed that subsidies (or diverting the funding thereof) were necessary to offset the unemployment caused by industrial change.

And wait, are you actually suggesting that governments should stop trying to make sure their people have good jobs and instead just hand them money?

No, but I'm saying that if the argument to defend protectionism is to keep the citizens employed (that is, earning money), and you're not worried about employing them meaningfully, productively, or efficiently (and if you are worried about as much, perhaps you should reconsider your support for economically unsound protectionist policies) then you might as well put them on the dole. I suppose I should also call you a communist, but in these hallowed halls that is neither an insult nor entirely accurate.

Furthermore, you will note that it has been primarily the quality, rather than the quantity of jobs that we have been most concerned with and you have not addressed this at all.

When have you said anything about the quality of jobs? Besides, I have noted the increased real cost of living (and by implication the decreased standard of living) associated with protectionist policies. Perhaps I've missed your refutation thereof?

If you have a new point to put forth (one that has not already been addressed) or if you have a non-redundant counterargument to defend protectionism, by all means, let us discuss--I'm happy to defend what I know, and I welcome any attempt to dispel whatever ignorance I harbor in these matters.

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

(OOC - QFT stands for "Quoted For Truth")

The problem with the arguments of the representative of Twafflonia is that they're all based on the assumption that governments that wish to keep "protectionist devices" in their economic toolboxes will use them in nefarious or stupid ways. He cites many examples of how the use of such devices can harm economies. He seems so terrified of the great bugaboo called "protectionism" that he ignores the fact that these devices may well be used improperly or inadvisedly, but also can be used judiciously, sparingly, with proper understanding of specific and perhaps temporary economic circumstances, and to good effect for a nation's citizens.

The representative is apparently oblivious to the fact that these "protectionist devices" are merely tools--tools that can be used wisely or foolishly, with evil motives or good intent, to the benefit of our citizens or their detriment. Hammers can be used to drive nails or bash heads. The representative would presumably outlaw hammers. Or, perhaps more accurately, he'd have Mommy UN take the hammers away from the member nation children who can't be trusted to use them properly. We prefer to think that member nations are more able to judge their specific economic circumstances and the proper means of promoting economic health and growth than those who wish to cram this "one-size-fits-all" proposal down everyone's throat, whether it's good for them or not.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Ambassador to the United Nations

That said, I believe I addressed the argument for protectionist policies being kept in place solely to ensure employment for a nation's populace (you argued earlier that a free market might make products cheaper, but at the expense of the populace in terms of employment--so my addressing this idea is not a straw-man argument at all).

That's not what I was saying. Observe:

But our wages would also be forced downwards, our benefits and working conditions as well. We'd have to work longer and harder: and maybe we should, but who would honestly say they wanted to? Ultimately, I believe the quality of life for a great many people would decrease as a result
of what you seem to want to impose on us.

You question my definition of a healthy market. Do you feel slighted that I didn't address this point? Alright, I'll address it. Oh, wait, I did.

What I dispute is your idea of a healthy economy. As far as I am concerned markets can go take a running jump; with reference to the remarks by the honourable representative from Ausserland, markets and the market system are just tools.

If you can give me an example of a protectionist policy that doesn't have strong adverse effects on the health of the economy (and in fact benefits it) I'd love to hear about them.

Please refer to previous remarks:

Furthermore, a great many economic powerhouses got that way through protecting their industries and allowing them to grow, and more than just short-term, through policies spanning decades (I must resort to RL examples: Japan is a very good one, but in any case, none of the major industrial economies today got that way through an absence of trade barriers).

You also somehow seem to think that I, in my support for the precepts of this proposal, believe that your government cares only for its economy.

Actually, no, the arguments you have been using do. You have failed to assess the effects of removing trade barriers beyond the statistical economic measures, and you have rarely gone beyond parroting the expurgated version of an economics textbook at us.

I never assumed that subsidies (or diverting the funding thereof) were necessary to offset the unemployment caused by industrial change.

Actually, you kind of did, given that you don't explain where else the extra money to fund the welfare system would come from.

No, but I'm saying that if the argument to defend protectionism is to keep the citizens employed (that is, earning money), and you're not worried about employing them meaningfully, productively, or efficiently (and if you are worried about as much, perhaps you should reconsider your support for economically unsound protectionist policies) then you might as well put them on the dole.

First, that's only part of the argument. I have said that employment is important and unemployment is to be avoided, yes, but that is not the principle economic argument for protectionism, it is just one of the many and I use it in combination. Another is contained in the remarks of the delegate from Ausserland, and many others you should be able to find in my own remarks.

Secondly, I do raise my eyebrows when you bang on about this amorphous and ill-defined thing called "efficiency", and then suddenly say it'd probably be better that people be on the dole rather than in a job. It might not be very meaningful or productive but wouldn't that be more meaningful, productive and efficient than not having that job at all? This isn't part of my argument, by the way, I just find your reasoning in this aspect rather curious.

I suppose I should also call you a communist, but in these hallowed halls that is neither an insult nor entirely accurate.

So you consider "communist" an insult then? No, really, just for my personal edification here.


When have you said anything about the quality of jobs? Besides, I have noted the increased real cost of living (and by implication the decreased standard of living) associated with protectionist policies. Perhaps I've missed your refutation thereof?

For the second time:
But our wages would also be forced downwards, our benefits and working conditions as well. We'd have to work longer and harder: and maybe we should, but who would honestly say they wanted to? Ultimately, I believe the quality of life for a great many people would decrease as a result
of what you seem to want to impose on us.

Additionally, higher costs of living do not imply lower standards of living. (Again, I have to dip into the RL example bag here: Scandinavian countries have very high costs of living, which can be directly associated with their social-democratic systems. Yet they are constantly ranked at or near the top in development or standard-of-living indices. By the 2006 UN HDI, Norway is 1st, Iceland 2nd, and the lowest-ranked is Denmark at 15th, one place above France and three above the UK. And from the 2005 edition of the quality-of-life index produced by The Economist, which is known for its liberal, right-wing leanings, Norway is 3rd, Sweden 5th, and Finland is the lowest in 12th spot.)

It is also a major flaw to assume that the accumulation of material wealth or goods necessarily equates to a better standard of living or a happier population. Indeed, a great source of unhappiness in capitalist or wealthy countries is the pervasive want and desire for material goods, which is partly a function of the system itself.

If you have a new point to put forth (one that has not already been addressed) or if you have a non-redundant counterargument to defend protectionism, by all means, let us discuss

Please, you first. No, I insist.

"The good Ambassador von Aschenbach is quite correct; the honourable representative from Twafflonia seems to be arguing from a worst-case scenario, believing that all "protectionist" measures must inexorably lead to stagnation, corruption, and dead-end industry.

"While I will not dispute the fact that the use of tarrifs, subsidies and so forth can lead to such a grim scenario, I do dispute the idea that they must inevitably result in such a scenario. Whether they are well used or misused depends entirely upon the governments using them.

"In a similar vein, I'm also concerned that this proposal creates a United Nations Free Trade Commission, to which nations must apply for exemption - as if we were small children asking Teacher's permission to go to the lavatory. The removal of this feature would at least show a possibility of some compromise with the opposition from an author who has, so far, shown no inclination to do so.

"The High Kingdom remains opposed to this proposal."

~ Galen Serrault, by appointment of Her Majesty Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: Drat you, Ausserland, I spent ages thinking up just that argument and came along to find you'd already stated it! And far more eloquently than I.

Additionally, higher costs of living do not imply lower standards of living. (Again, I have to dip into the RL example bag here: Scandinavian countries have very high costs of living, which can be directly associated with their social-democratic systems. Yet they are constantly ranked at or near the top in development or standard-of-living indices. By the 2006 UN HDI, Norway is 1st, Iceland 2nd, and the lowest-ranked is Denmark at 15th, one place above France and three above the UK. And from the 2005 edition of the quality-of-life index produced by The Economist, which is known for its liberal, right-wing leanings, Norway is 3rd, Sweden 5th, and Finland is the lowest in 12th spot.)

It is also a major flaw to assume that the accumulation of material wealth or goods necessarily equates to a better standard of living or a happier population. Indeed, a great source of unhappiness in capitalist or wealthy countries is the pervasive want and desire for material goods, which is partly a function of the system itself.

Please note that I said increased real cost of living. That is, not just higher prices (which could be offset by increased purchasing power).

So you consider "communist" an insult then? No, really, just for my personal edification here

Not really. But the absurd extension of the subsidy example I gave results in a sort of communist redistribution of wealth without regard to market forces.

I'm sorry, but I believe we are at the ends of our arguments.
You:
But our wages would also be forced downwards, our benefits and working conditions as well. We'd have to work longer and harder: and maybe we should, but who would honestly say they wanted to? Ultimately, I believe the quality of life for a great many people would decrease as a result
of what you seem to want to impose on us.
Me:
Tariffs deny citizens international improvements in product manufacturing and quality, and at the same time increase the costs of both imported and domestic products, and encourage--as subsidies do--movement into an industry that is less-than-productive and internationally uncompetitive, away from industries that are in demand or are better suited to the economy of the nation.
...
Real wealth comes from trade between parties with different efficiencies in different industries (in which case both parties benefit), not from masturbatory tax-and-dole measures.


I don't think we can reconcile our disagreements over the benefits or negative effects of protectionist measures. I'll just have to feel sorry for your citizens, and you can feel sorry for mine.

The problem with the arguments of the representative of Twafflonia is that they're all based on the assumption that governments that wish to keep "protectionist devices" in their economic toolboxes will use them in nefarious or stupid ways. He cites many examples of how the use of such devices can harm economies.

I suppose I've just yet to see any rational benefits from protectionist measures. We had some fun mention of candlemaking early on in the discussion, but nothing that convinced me that these "protectionist tools" were ever necessary or even beneficial to the populace or society as a whole. Unless you wish to fall back on the isolationist fear of foreign monopolies, which I thought we'd already discussed to death.

He seems so terrified of the great bugaboo called "protectionism" that he ignores the fact that these devices may well be used improperly or inadvisedly, but also can be used judiciously, sparingly, with proper understanding of specific and perhaps temporary economic circumstances, and to good effect for a nation's citizens.

Still waiting for examples of this "good effect" that aren't offset by the broader economic consequences.

The representative is apparently oblivious to the fact that these "protectionist devices" are merely tools--tools that can be used wisely or foolishly, with evil motives or good intent, to the benefit of our citizens or their detriment. Hammers can be used to drive nails or bash heads. The representative would presumably outlaw hammers. Or, perhaps more accurately, he'd have Mommy UN take the hammers away from the member nation children who can't be trusted to use them properly. We prefer to think that member nations are more able to judge their specific economic circumstances and the proper means of promoting economic health and growth than those who wish to cram this "one-size-fits-all" proposal down everyone's throat, whether it's good for them or not.

Ah, an extended metaphor that fails to address any argument. Can't argue with that clear and rational logic. Oh wait, maybe I can...

Protectionist devices are tools, yes. But they are tools covered in poisonous electrified spikes, infected with the T-Virus, and they don't accomplish what they were designed to do without breaking something unintentionally, generally at the expense of the populace.

I apologise right now if I've been coming off as unpleasant, impolite, or snippish. I'm a bit tired--I think I'll chucker off to the Strangers' Bar for a bit.

Respectfully,
Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

Ausserland:
The representative is apparently oblivious to the fact that these "protectionist devices" are merely tools--tools that can be used wisely or foolishly, with evil motives or good intent, to the benefit of our citizens or their detriment. Hammers can be used to drive nails or bash heads. The representative would presumably outlaw hammers. Or, perhaps more accurately, he'd have Mommy UN take the hammers away from the member nation children who can't be trusted to use them properly. We prefer to think that member nations are more able to judge their specific economic circumstances and the proper means of promoting economic health and growth than those who wish to cram this "one-size-fits-all" proposal down everyone's throat, whether it's good for them or not.

Ah, an extended metaphor that fails to address any argument. Can't argue with that clear and rational logic. Oh wait, maybe I can...

Protectionist devices are tools, yes. But they are tools covered in poisonous electrified spikes, infected with the T-Virus, and they don't accomplish what they were designed to do without breaking something unintentionally, generally at the expense of the populace.

What we addressed was your apparent inability to distinguish between the "protectionist devices" and the harmful use of them -- your completely unwarranted assumption that they cannot be used except to the detriment of a nation's citizens -- and your obvious belief that you and the other proponents of this proposal are far wiser and more able to determine the economic policies of nations than the nations themselves.

We presented examples of proper use of the dreaded devices. You simply dismissed them. You apparently have no concept of the strategic value of market share and economies of scale. You cannot understand how a business might sacrifice short-term profit margin for the sake of long-term gain. You seem unable to grasp the concept of temporary, short-term use of the devices to alleviate temporary economic distress. And you put forth the absurd proposition that placing the unemployed on the dole is preferable to subsidizing businesses that could "grow" employment.

If you cannot use these tools without "unintentionally breaking something", don't use them. We can, and we think that nations with a sound understanding of international marketing can too. We are by no means a "protectionist" nation. Our markets are quite open to international trade. But we reject completely the notion that having these tools available for use selectively and sparingly, when in the best interests of our citizens, is somehow evil and will automatically produce the ill effects you have so loudly trumpeted.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We presented examples of proper use of the dreaded devices. You simply dismissed them. You apparently have no concept of the strategic value of market share and economies of scale. You cannot understand how a business might sacrifice short-term profit margin for the sake of long-term gain. You seem unable to grasp the concept of temporary, short-term use of the devices to alleviate temporary economic distress.

I'm quite certain that we're beginning to repeat ourselves. Your "proper use" of the devices was to protect local business from foreign monopolies. Yes, I dismissed your example, but I dismissed it with a rational argument. From my post #78:

In an international free market, in which products can be imported without barrier from all over the globe, the chances of any one corporation sustaining a single-product monopoly are minute. A localised monopoly is increasingly impossible as barriers to foreign trade are reduced. Price-dumping as you describe can only be successful if there is no other foreign competition capable of responding with similar price-dumps. In an open and competitive market, there is no incentive to lower your profits with a price-dump just so that other corporations will have to respond with their own price-dumps. Business is not a win-lose competition; it is an ongoing quest to get money by selling what people want.

I understand your concern, and the underlying concept of decreasing competition to increase the market share, but the method by which you suggest international corporations will destroy their domestic competition is, in my mind, economically far fetched. It involves willful sabotage of one's own company in order to bring ruin on someone else's, and in the meantime (or afterwards, when the international corporation tries to raise prices, having reduced local competition) other corporations would move in and make a profit the old fashioned way--selling what people want at competitive prices. We're talking durable goods here--they can be shipped great distances and at slow speeds without any loss of product quality (they don't expire). This means that geographical restrictions, barriers, and costs are minimalised compared to consumable products, and it is easier for distant foreign corporations to compete, making a localised monopoly unlikely.

Based on current national policy, for a producer to import consumer goods into North Snorzokland, it must adhere to strictly enforced labour, trade, and environmental standards to ensure that internationally produced consumer goods available in North Snorzokland are produced and sold under conditions as just and equitable as those produced on North Snorzokland's own soil. We fear that this resolution would explicitly eliminate any national jurisdiction over imports required to continue this practice, and further, that cheap international goods produced under lesser labour standards would undermine global labour standards. While North Snorzokland recognizes in principle the ideal of creating a freely associated, borderless international community, it cannot support a resolution that jeopardizes its ability to enforce fair standards of production.

Based on current national policy, for a producer to import consumer goods into North Snorzokland, it must adhere to strictly enforced labour, trade, and environmental standards to ensure that internationally produced consumer goods available in North Snorzokland are produced and sold under conditions as just and equitable as those produced on North Snorzokland's own soil. We fear that this resolution would explicitly eliminate any national jurisdiction over imports required to continue this practice, and further, that cheap international goods produced under lesser labour standards would undermine global labour standards. While North Snorzokland recognizes in principle the ideal of creating a freely associated, borderless international community, it cannot support a resolution that jeopardizes its ability to enforce fair standards of production.

What you describe is an ethical regulation on the manufacture of durable goods, and is protected under article 5 of the resolution.

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

What you describe is an ethical regulation on the manufacture of durable goods, and is protected under article 5 of the resolution.

This provision goes a long way toward addressing North Snorzokian concerns. We remain tentative without prior knowledge of how strictly the UNFTC would interpret such regulatory exceptions, but will take this resolution into consideration.

I'm quite certain that we're beginning to repeat ourselves. Your "proper use" of the devices was to protect local business from foreign monopolies. Yes, I dismissed your example, but I dismissed it with a rational argument. From my post #78:

In an international free market, in which products can be imported without barrier from all over the globe, the chances of any one corporation sustaining a single-product monopoly are minute. A localised monopoly is increasingly impossible as barriers to foreign trade are reduced. Price-dumping as you describe can only be successful if there is no other foreign competition capable of responding with similar price-dumps. In an open and competitive market, there is no incentive to lower your profits with a price-dump just so that other corporations will have to respond with their own price-dumps. Business is not a win-lose competition; it is an ongoing quest to get money by selling what people want.

I understand your concern, and the underlying concept of decreasing competition to increase the market share, but the method by which you suggest international corporations will destroy their domestic competition is, in my mind, economically far fetched. It involves willful sabotage of one's own company in order to bring ruin on someone else's, and in the meantime (or afterwards, when the international corporation tries to raise prices, having reduced local competition) other corporations would move in and make a profit the old fashioned way--selling what people want at competitive prices. We're talking durable goods here--they can be shipped great distances and at slow speeds without any loss of product quality (they don't expire). This means that geographical restrictions, barriers, and costs are minimalised compared to consumable products, and it is easier for distant foreign corporations to compete, making a localised monopoly unlikely.


Your argument was rational enough. That doesn't make it valid. Let's see....

Increasing market share does not equate to establishing a "single-product monopoly". No one ever said it did. You undercut the prices of a targeted competitor, drive them out of the market, and absorb the market share they lose. You may establish a monopoly on the product, but then again, you may not. You've removed one competitor and increased your own sales. Your entire argument is misdirected.

There is no "willful sabotage" in sacrificing part of your short-term profits for greater long-term gain. It's called strategic marketing. As we said, you seem unable to comprehend that.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Please note that I said increased real cost of living. That is, not just higher prices (which could be offset by increased purchasing power).

That's irrelevant, because as I have shown, even less purchasing power doesn't mean people necessarily have lower quality of life or have a lower standard of living.

I suppose I've just yet to see any rational benefits from protectionist measures.

You've seen them, and I'm forced to conclude that you're just willfully ignoring them.

Still waiting for examples of this "good effect" that aren't offset by the broader economic consequences.

Again, you are simply refusing to see that trade-offs are unavoidable. I could very well say the same to you; that you haven't shown that the good effects of dropping trade barriers aren't offset by their own negative consequences.

Protectionist devices are tools, yes. But they are tools covered in poisonous electrified spikes, infected with the T-Virus, and they don't accomplish what they were designed to do without breaking something unintentionally, generally at the expense of the populace.

If so, then so is the market, so is free trade, and so is capitalism itself. You are exaggerating the pros of free trade and effectively refusing to acknowledge its cons, and vice versa with protectionist policies. And, further to that, you insist that you know better than we do about what is best for our nations, economies, and people; something which is extremely dubious, going by the kinds of things you've been saying to us - your repeated presentation of theoretical economics based on idealised assumptions as facts, for instance.

Um, I do realize protectionism is at issue here, but don't you think that getting carried away with arguing protectionist vs. non-protectionist philosophy, while ignoring the proposal at hand, is kind of thread-jacky? A lot of this stuff could be duked out in General.

"In a similar vein, I'm also concerned that this proposal creates a United Nations Free Trade Commission, to which nations must apply for exemption - as if we were small children asking Teacher's permission to go to the lavatory. The removal of this feature would at least show a possibility of some compromise with the opposition from an author who has, so far, shown no inclination to do so."Now that is uncalled for. The sponsors of this legislation have repeatedly shown a willingness to compromise with opponents for the sake of improving the text and broadening its appeal -- not only on this proposal, but on countless others as well. Just because the opposition in this case is widely made up of Buchananite cowards and neo-Marxist bullies is no reason to fault the author for "showing no inclination" to compromise with such ideological excesses. I'm positive that, if you were to make such a request, and an agreement could be made that the change would be in the proposal's best interest, the sponsor would be more than willing to alter the language.

~Cdr. Chiang

P.S. That said, we would agree that the requirement to apply to the UNFTC to apply fair restrictions on trade seems a bit odd, especially since past proposals have reserved the right of nations to employ retaliatory tariffs on non-UN nations without a UNFTC stamp of approval. If there are disputes over the application of these restrictions, the UNFTC still has the authority to arbitrate them.

New text.

Durable Goods Distribution Act
category:Free Trade
strength: Strong
The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role that the trade of durable goods plays in the global economy;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the role that the sale of these goods plays in providing manufacturing jobs;

NOTING the beneficial effect that these goods have on people's daily lives by making numerous home and business related activities less labour intensive, more efficient and more enjoyable;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation, "durable good" as a manufactured good primarily marketed to private consumers that yields services or utility over time rather than being completely used up when used once. Examples of durable goods include, but are not limited to, automobiles, home appliances, home furnishings and fixtures, business equipment and electronic equipment.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of durable goods between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to increase their citizens access to durable goods by creating favourable business environments for retailers who market these goods;

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

4. DECLARES that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;

5. DECLARES it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

6. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping;

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the interpretation of this legislation.

I've removed the part about applying to UNFTC for an exemption "to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations". I have inserted Article 6, which is borrowed directly from GFDA. Also, I think using the term "free trade" in the title might scare away some voters. The title is changed to "Durable Goods Distribution Act".

Sen. Sulla is away for the weekend, engaged in some manner of drunken debauchery no doubt. I have therefore asked the representative from G l o g to submit this for another test run.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

This just gets worse and worse!

Now, not only do we have to stand by helpless while UN nations price-dump their products, we're defenseless against price-dumping by non-UN nations!

And as for the complaint by the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny about discussion of "philosophies".... It is this proposal, sir, which is bent on forcing more than 20,000 nations to adopt a "non-protectionist" philosophy by rendering them helpless to use "protectionist devices" with regard to a major segment of trade, even for limited and reasonable purposes. We have never advocated a philosophy of protectionism. But we will not accept this blatant attempt to place all our nations at the mercy of unscrupulous foreign businesses.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Now, not only do we have to stand by helpless while UN nations price-dump their products, we're defenseless against price-dumping by non-UN nations!*ahem*...

6. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping;And I would re-emphasize, not only would free trade be a disincentive to price-dumping (why would UN nations go to all that trouble to prey on foreign business to give themselves a slight advantage, when the playing field is already being evened out for them?), but if you think certain nations would use trade as a weapon against your economy, don't trade with them. It's already been established, this proposal does not force you to trade with anyone.

We have to apologize on behalf of our Prime Minister. He simply read what the distinguished author of the proposal said he'd done, and failed to read the text carefully. So we're still left at the mercy of price-dumpers from UN nations, though?

We're at a loss to see how this resolution's provisions provide any disinencentive at all to price-dumping. The representative makes the completely unsupportable assumption that the resulting increased market share would be a "slight" advantage. And this is not about levelling any playing field. It's about giving a clear advantage to nations which have large, established industries which produce durable goods, to the clear disadvantage of nations with emerging industries in that sector and those whose economies rely on production of non-durables.

And we should get one thing clear.... Is the representative suggesting that we can ban import of items from specific nations in order to establish a healthy growth environment for our own industries? It seems to us that we would be forced to allow unfettered importation of the goods unless the very narrow exceptions of Articles 4 and 5 were met.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

And we should get one thing clear.... Is the representative suggesting that we can ban import of items from specific nations in order to establish a healthy growth environment for our own industries?Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=579&view=findpost&p=7033904)

And while we're at it...

4. DECLARES that nations may apply to the UNFTC for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;We move that the next draft reflect that it is at the discretion of nations to apply reasonable restrictions on trade in these instances. As the UNFTC is already authorized to arbitrate trade disputes, it could simply order nations to lift restrictions if it finds they have been applied unreasonably.

and let's not forgot "reasonable nation" theory...

~Cdr. Chiang

We're frankly astounded by the last response from the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny. In fact, we're so astounded that we'd ask the author of the proposal to confirm its correctness.

We have an infant widget industry that shows considerable promise for growth and providing quality employment for our people. We want to support that growth. But Megaindustries Inc., a foreign producer, has huge volume production and can heavily undercut our domestic supplier due to volume production and economies of scale in shipment and marketing. Now, according to this proposal, I can't subsidize my fledgling industry to level the playing field for it. I can't levy a protective tariff. I can't set import quotas. But I can freeze Megaindustries out of our domestic market altogether by prohibiting import of their product?!

While we're addressing this question to the author, let us add another. What is the rationale behind specifying non-UN nations in Article 6? Is this giving tacit approval to UN nations to price-dump?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

And while we're at it...

We move that the next draft reflect that it is at the discretion of nations to apply reasonable restrictions on trade in these instances. As the UNFTC is already authorized to arbitrate trade disputes, it could simply order nations to lift restrictions if it finds they have been applied unreasonably.

and let's not forgot "reasonable nation" theory...

~Cdr. Chiang
I think that's a reasonable suggestion and it will be reflected in the next draft.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Right, so our complete ban on trade with non-IFTA signatories will be alright then? I suppose my opposition to this resolution can be dropped now... Well, actually, no, because whether that's reasonable could be debated, and it has in the past been explicitly a protectionist policy.

But even if the Kennyites were able to convince us that our regulations would be unaffected by this resolution, we would still oppose not merely on philsophical grounds but because it is ridiculous to constrain economic policy to such a degree that effectively nations would have to choose to either have no trade restrictions, or no trade. The free-market free-trade mouth-frothers are essentially saying "trade on our terms or don't trade at all, even if the trade in question doesn't even involve a nation which particularly buys in to our beliefs." In my opinion this is the height of retardation.

We're frankly astounded by the last response from the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny. In fact, we're so astounded that we'd ask the author of the proposal to confirm its correctness.
You mean this one?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=579&view=findpost&p=7033904)

But I can freeze Megaindustries out of our domestic market altogether by prohibiting import of their product?!
Yes. Where does this resolution mention embargoes? You can't be forced to conduct trade with anyone, UN member or otherwise. However, if you choose to conduct trade with them it will be done under the provisions of this legislation.

While we're addressing this question to the author, let us add another. What is the rationale behind specifying non-UN nations in Article 6?
Obviously, non-UN members aren't covered by the provisions of this. There is no way of providing a level playing field when it comes to trade between members and non-members so UN nations should be able to employ tariffs to protect against any predatory practices by non members. I dearly wish that there were some way to extend the benefits of this to non-members but, sadly, there isn't.

I probably should change that particular article to read "employ retaliatory tariffs and other protectionist devices" though. As it currently reads, it sounds like they could only use tariffs when in reality they can do anything they please when it comes to trade with non members.

Is this giving tacit approval to UN nations to price-dump?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
sigh

No, it isn't giving tacit approval for price dumping. What it is doing is freeing the market. If Sweatshopistan dumps cheaply-made, low-quality radios on your market then you are more than welcome to retaliate by dumping cheaply-made, low-quality blenders in theirs. Or toasters, or wireless routers, or widgets, or whatever it is that you are good at making. If either you or Sweatshopistan feel that this is somehow in violation of this resolution you can request a ruling from UNFTC.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Yes. Where does this resolution mention embargoes? You can't be forced to conduct trade with anyone, UN member or otherwise. However, if you choose to conduct trade with them it will be done under the provisions of this legislation.

With respect to the honoured author, this assertion is not the least bit obvious from the text of the proposal. We certainly understood embargoes to be protectionist devices -- perhaps the ultimate protectionist device, indeed -- and that they are therefore prohibited under the clause three. If the author's intention is indeed as above-stated, we strongly suggest that it be made explicit, because in our view it is currently absent.

With respect to the honoured author, this assertion is not the least bit obvious from the text of the proposal. We certainly understood embargoes to be protectionist devices -- perhaps the ultimate protectionist device, indeed -- and that they are therefore prohibited under the clause three. If the author's intention is indeed as above-stated, we strongly suggest that it be made explicit, because in our view it is currently absent.
If that were the case then Article 1 would read: 1. REQUIRES the sale and/or transfer of durable goods between UN nations;

Nowhere in this document, or in any previous Free Trade resolution that I'm aware of, does it say that nations are forced to trade with one another. It doesn't require, or even expect, that everyone will trade with everyone else. There may be nations where there just simply isn't a market for your goods, regardless of the absence of protectionist measures. Did you think that you would be required to trade with them anyway and they with you?

All this requires is that if trade occurs then it must be conducted according to certain criteria. And you're right, perhaps I should make that clearer in the text.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We have an infant widget industry that shows considerable promise for growth and providing quality employment for our people. We want to support that growth. But Megaindustries Inc., a foreign producer, has huge volume production and can heavily undercut our domestic supplier due to volume production and economies of scale in shipment and marketing. Now, according to this proposal, I can't subsidize my fledgling industry to level the playing field for it. I can't levy a protective tariff. I can't set import quotas. But I can freeze Megaindustries out of our domestic market altogether by prohibiting import of their product?!Erm, this proposal is intended to remove "restrictions" on the trade of durable goods. An embargo is not a "restriction" on trade; it is barring trade altogether. Yet, this device is best reserved as a retaliatory measure against unseemly economic practices, like price-dumping, or against nations with which the enacting nation is at war. Whether a nation would be so incredibly stupid as to invite economic repercussions on its own international markets by blocking without provocation the sale of foreign goods in its own borders is not in the purview of this proposal.

These free-trade measures are supposed to act as an incentive (without necessarily being a requirement) to trade more with other nations, not less. Removing protectionist devices in trade between state parties generally increases trade and strengthens national economies, not the opposite.

But as Gob has said, isn't an embargo or a ban on trade the ultimate restriction? Even as much as I would like there to be gaping wide loopholes in the unfortunate case this does pass, saying embargoes aren't restrictions really doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, it is kind of strange to see the propnents of the proposal having to point out potential loopholes in order to win support.

All this requires is that if trade occurs then it must be conducted according to certain criteria.

I've said it several times before and I'll say it again. Putting aside all debate about the socioeconomic merits and demerits, this is fundamentally absurd and strengthens the national sovereignty case against. You are demanding that all trade in a vast array of manufactured goods, regardless of between whom, must be conducted on your terms, because you think it's good for everyone.

Look, the proposal is supposed to regulate trade. It can't really regulate trade where it doesn't exist, and it can't force trade to exist between nations, simply because of all the nations who, while not having a punitive reason to deny trade with other nations, simply don't have a market for particular nations' goods. Forcing them all to trade with each other would be simply insane. This isn't about "pointing out loopholes," as you so eloquently put it; this is simply admitting the limits as to how far a UN mandate can reasonably reach. Of course, a neocommunist ideologue yourself, you are committed to oppose this proposal, no matter what form it takes, "loophole"-ridden or not, so why waste your time arguing in what is supposed to be a draft discussion? The author is not going to drop this proposal, or drastically rewrite it, simply because it disagrees with your Marxist ideals. Save it for the floor vote.

Nowhere am I saying nor have I ever said anyone would be explicitly forced to trade with someone else because of the resolution, but a nation with zero trade is hardly reasonable, is it?

This is beyond ideology, incidentally. Obviously I argue from the left but it's not just left-wing governments which go for protectionism, "pro-business" right-wing capitalist types are just as likely to do so too. The fact is, the proposal's provisions are a ludicrous imposition to place on any nation and any economy, and it's silly to so drastically polarise international trade like this, leaving no middle ground for moderation.

Yes. Where does this resolution mention embargoes? You can't be forced to conduct trade with anyone, UN member or otherwise. However, if you choose to conduct trade with them it will be done under the provisions of this legislation.

We didn't mention embargoes either. We asked about targeted prohibition of importation of specific products or product categories from foreign lands.

Obviously, non-UN members aren't covered by the provisions of this. There is no way of providing a level playing field when it comes to trade between members and non-members so UN nations should be able to employ tariffs to protect against any predatory practices by non members. I dearly wish that there were some way to extend the benefits of this to non-members but, sadly, there isn't.

I probably should change that particular article to read "employ retaliatory tariffs and other protectionist devices" though. As it currently reads, it sounds like they could only use tariffs when in reality they can do anything they please when it comes to trade with non members.

We fully recognize that non-member nations are not covered by the provisions of this proposal. Which means they can go on using all the "protectionist devices" they want, to the detriment of potential suppliers from UN nations. Your proposal to hamstrings the members of the NSUN while leaving non-members free as birds.

And the idea that this proposal somehow provides a "level playing field" is simply not so. It provides a clear advantage in trade to nations whose industries include established volume producers of durable goods. Those dreaded "protectionist devices" are, in actuality, the major tools that nations can use to level the playing field between their domestic industries and foreign suppliers.

sigh

No, it isn't giving tacit approval for price dumping. What it is doing is freeing the market. If Sweatshopistan dumps cheaply-made, low-quality radios on your market then you are more than welcome to retaliate by dumping cheaply-made, low-quality blenders in theirs. Or toasters, or wireless routers, or widgets, or whatever it is that you are good at making. If either you or Sweatshopistan feel that this is somehow in violation of this resolution you can request a ruling from UNFTC.

But it is saying that you're going to remove the means we have available to protect against it. Why would you do that unless price-dumping by UN nations was somehow acceptable?

And once again, we find a completely specious and unwarranted assumption. Price-dumping does not necessarily involve "cheaply-made, low-quality" products. It can be engaged in by any industry that can take advantage of mass production efficiencies, economy of scale in transportation and marketing, and, perhaps, lower labor costs.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ambassador Thwerdock, has there been a change in trade policy in Ausserland? Your government supported both GFDA and NERA. Just curious.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Look, the proposal is supposed to regulate trade. It can't really regulate trade where it doesn't exist, and it can't force trade to exist between nations, simply because of all the nations who, while not having a punitive reason to deny trade with other nations, simply don't have a market for particular nations' goods. Forcing them all to trade with each other would be simply insane. This isn't about "pointing out loopholes," as you so eloquently put it; this is simply admitting the limits as to how far a UN mandate can reasonably reach. Of course, a neocommunist ideologue yourself, you are committed to oppose this proposal, no matter what form it takes, "loophole"-ridden or not, so why waste your time arguing in what is supposed to be a draft discussion? The author is not going to drop this proposal, or drastically rewrite it, simply because it disagrees with your Marxist ideals. Save it for the floor vote.

We are not a neomarxist, our objections coming from quite other roots which we will certainly argue in the unhappy event that a floor vote on this proposal comes to pass. Our concern presently is that applying the admirable Ausserlander princple that "the law says what the law says," the proposed law does not say that embargoes, bans, selective supplier mechanisms and the like are not to be considered protectionist devices, which in our view they clearly are. We are glad to note your agreement that this would make the proposed law an ass, even while it amuses us to notice the qualifications that seem to appear on Free Trade whenever the ideology itself becomes pressed against reality.

Ambassador Thwerdock, has there been a change in trade policy in Ausserland? Your government supported both GFDA and NERA. Just curious.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

No, there has been no change in our trade policy. And yes, we supported the "Global Food Distribution Act" and the "Nuclear Energy Research Act".

Our policy on support of resolutions and proposals is, always has been, and always will be to judge each one on its own merits. We shall never act on the basis of some wild, sweeping generalization such as "free trade good for everybody".

On the "Global Food Distribution Act", our decision was that food is such a fundamental essential of life that a forced "free trade" environment was acceptable. On the "Nuclear Energy Research Act", we would have preferred that the provision for free trade of the energy product not be included. But we believed the benefits of the other provisions of the act outweighed this.

Food is an essential for life; luxury cars and videogames are not. And in the case of the proposal at hand, we see no countervailing benefits to its hamstringing of our nations in the execution of their trade policies. We reject out of hand the notion that the NSUN is better able to decide what those policies should be than the governments of its sovereign member nations.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister