NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm thinking of making a resolution to set up a WTO.

I didn't find any free trade resolutions, comments, ideas?

---

Update 1

What I've gathered is that the resolution will work best as an anti-tariff resolution with the WTO chucked in as well with it rather than the other way around.

World Trade Organization ony benefits the strong nations.

World Trade Organization ony benefits the strong nations.

That depends on who sets up the organization and how the rules are established. A group of minor nations could set one up and the richer nations could boycott it and this would benefit the weaker nations as they trade amongst each other.

Structures are never bad or good by themselves, its how we people use them.

The WTO has nothing to do with the United Nations, and most likely you could only make a resolution for demanding to lower tolls and taxes on trade and international exchange. So a classical "Free Trade" issue. What is somehow ridiculous since there is no "Protectionist" issue to reduce "Free Trade". Every measure should have the possibilty of building up measures to protect your own inner market from international trade and investment. This makes the current state kind of inbalanced IMHO.

As for the WTO, GATS and TRIPS :mp5::upyours:

I'm thinking of making a resolution to set up a WTO.

I didn't find any free trade resolutions, comments, ideas?

Apparently you didn't look too hard.

Scientific Freedom (-http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029568&postcount=3) REPEALED
DVD region removal (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029580&postcount=6) REPEALED
Metric System (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029635&postcount=25)
UCPL (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030063&postcount=46) REPEALED
UN Space Consortium (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030099&postcount=51)
Public Domain (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030168&postcount=61) REPEALED
The Law of the Sea (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7079975&postcount=75) REPEALED
The Sex Industry Worker Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8134803&postcount=92)
The Microcredit Bazaar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118)
Global Food Distribution Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9945882&postcount=131)
UN Small Business Education (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042628&postcount=133)
Meteorological Cooperation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737915&postcount=149)
Maritime Safety Standards Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737959&postcount=153)
Nuclear Energy Research Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960302&postcount=155)
UN Patent Law (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960313&postcount=157) REPEALED
UN Recycling Commission (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421221&postcount=159)
UN Copyright Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421295&postcount=164)
Chemical Transport Standards (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973211&postcount=184)

Yes, I know that I included repealed Free Trade resolutions in that list, but that's irrelevent.

As for your idea, since it appears that all you want to do is set up a WTO, that's not going to fly for a resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Apparently you didn't look too hard.

Scientific Freedom (-http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029568&postcount=3) REPEALED
DVD region removal (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029580&postcount=6) REPEALED
Metric System (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029635&postcount=25)
UCPL (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030063&postcount=46) REPEALED
UN Space Consortium (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030099&postcount=51)
Public Domain (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030168&postcount=61) REPEALED
The Law of the Sea (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7079975&postcount=75) REPEALED
The Sex Industry Worker Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8134803&postcount=92)
The Microcredit Bazaar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118)
Global Food Distribution Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9945882&postcount=131)
UN Small Business Education (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042628&postcount=133)
Meteorological Cooperation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737915&postcount=149)
Maritime Safety Standards Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737959&postcount=153)
Nuclear Energy Research Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960302&postcount=155)
UN Patent Law (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960313&postcount=157) REPEALED
UN Recycling Commission (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421221&postcount=159)
UN Copyright Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421295&postcount=164)
Chemical Transport Standards (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973211&postcount=184)

Yes, I know that I included repealed Free Trade resolutions in that list, but that's irrelevent.

As for your idea, since it appears that all you want to do is set up a WTO, that's not going to fly for a resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Okay, it's not going to fly... and why maybe? Some detail would be great. This is why I'm asking now so I can get thoughts.

Apparently you didn't look too hard.

Scientific Freedom (-http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029568&postcount=3) REPEALED
DVD region removal (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029580&postcount=6) REPEALED
Metric System (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029635&postcount=25)
UCPL (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030063&postcount=46) REPEALED
UN Space Consortium (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030099&postcount=51)
Public Domain (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030168&postcount=61) REPEALED
The Law of the Sea (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7079975&postcount=75) REPEALED
The Sex Industry Worker Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8134803&postcount=92)
The Microcredit Bazaar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118)
Global Food Distribution Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9945882&postcount=131)
UN Small Business Education (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042628&postcount=133)
Meteorological Cooperation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737915&postcount=149)
Maritime Safety Standards Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737959&postcount=153)
Nuclear Energy Research Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960302&postcount=155)
UN Patent Law (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960313&postcount=157) REPEALED
UN Recycling Commission (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421221&postcount=159)
UN Copyright Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421295&postcount=164)
Chemical Transport Standards (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973211&postcount=184)

Yes, I know that I included repealed Free Trade resolutions in that list, but that's irrelevent.

As for your idea, since it appears that all you want to do is set up a WTO, that's not going to fly for a resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


They aren't resolutions to remove protectionist policies, those resolutions listed just make trade easier.

Okay, it's not going to fly... and why maybe? Some detail would be great.

Because as it stands now, all your doing is setting up a committee. And as per the UN Proposal Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) that can't be all a proposal does.

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Because as it stands now, all your doing is setting up a committee. And as per the UN Proposal Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) that can't be all a proposal does.



Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated.

They aren't resolutions to remove protectionist policies, those resolutions listed just make trade easier."A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce."

"Reduc[ing] barriers" would be removing (or limiting) protectionist policies.

"A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce."

"Reduc[ing] barriers" would be removing (or limiting) protectionist policies.

No resolution has literally done that though, despite the category it was given.

No resolution has literally done that though, despite the category it was given.
Have you actually read any of the Resolutions on that list? I know for a fact that one of them requires the elimination of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food and another does the same with nuclear power generation technology, equipment, fissionable materials and electricity generated by nuclear power plants.

Have you actually read any of the Resolutions on that list? I know for a fact that one of them requires the elimination of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food and another does the same with nuclear power generation technology, equipment, fissionable materials and electricity generated by nuclear power plants.

Some may talk about specialist items, but my point is there is no general free-trade resolution as a whole, it's all scattered and unorganised.

You DO know actually, that the WTO only removes the trade barriers (protectionist measures) of smaller and economical weaker states of the so called 3rd World and does not really attack the European and US American protectionist measures?

If you want a REAL WTO, just launch various "Free Trade" resolutions for all kinds of ware transport, services, raw resources and capital flows, and if all of them come through you should have a free market without tolls and special taxes.

And again, the system would be balanced if there were counter measures like putting up protectionist tolls and embargos in the resolution categories as well. It is only possible to move towards a more free trade, not a more restricted one. This is only possible through indirect measures like international labour rights increase, etc.

Just me 2 pence!

You DO know actually, that the WTO only removes the trade barriers (protectionist measures) of smaller and economical weaker states of the so called 3rd World and does not really attack the European and US American protectionist measures?

If you want a REAL WTO, just launch various "Free Trade" resolutions for all kinds of ware transport, services, raw resources and capital flows, and if all of them come through you should have a free market without tolls and special taxes.

And again, the system would be balanced if there were counter measures like putting up protectionist tolls and embargos in the resolution categories as well. It is only possible to move towards a more free trade, not a more restricted one. This is only possible through indirect measures like international labour rights increase, etc.

Just me 2 pence!

Sounds like a good idea.

However, the WTO actually does attack the US and the EU.

I am from New Zealand, and over here, the meat and dairy industry is one of the most, if not the most efficient and profitable in the world. Our major farming cooperative Fonterra has a goal of a 40% world market share, and if you think that's big, wait until you see New Zealand's size, small.

Anyway, my point is that New Zealand is a very free trade nation, the government imposes no subsidies, tariffs or quotas. The unfortunate thing is that the US and EU do. In US, they heavily subsidise they're farming, in France, the farming is that inefficient that the government had to give an extra $3 for every $2 of food produced just to compete on price.

New Zealand took the US and EU to the WTO court. You know what? We won. But the reason nothing happened is that the WTO has no real power, the EU and US just said no.

That's why the US and EU don't get attacked by WTO, it's because they don't listen.


Also, just to go off topic and attack Sweden. Sweden's landscape is covered in snow for half of the year. The (socialist) Swedish government gives out big subsidies to grow sugar cane. Yes, you heard me correctly, Sweden grows sugar cane. However, the subsidies are so big so that African imports are not competitive. Sugar is cheaper, however, Swedish citizens pay most of it in their ridiculously high taxes. Too bad they have to hurt African development... :(

The simple fact is that while free trade may be beneficial for some nations it can be significantly detrimental to others. Just because it works for you doesn't make it right or good for everyone.

I have not been able to find very much evidence of a Swedish sugarcane industry, to the contrary, a BBC report on EU export subsidies on sugar (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4118448.stm) that some googling turned up states, "The European Commission says that the countries likely to be least affected by [reduction in sugar subsidies] are Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the UK," which leads me to conclude that whatever subsidy Sweden, specifically, is giving people growing sugarcane can't really have any meaningful impact on African people; it's probably more an EU problem.

You're also forgetting that in Sweden, the "ridiculously high taxes" fund one of the world's best standards of living (as do your country's to some extent). Sweden's governments are generally efficient, and not terribly corrupt; so it's not like their taxes disappear into a black hole or an advertising agency "sponsorship" or backdoor deals with mysterious German businessmen somewhere... which again brings me to the point: it works for some but very badly for others. So let's not impose it on everyone.

Also, just to go off topic and attack Sweden. Sweden's landscape is covered in snow for half of the year. The (socialist) Swedish government gives out big subsidies to grow sugar cane. Yes, you heard me correctly, Sweden grows sugar cane. However, the subsidies are so big so that African imports are not competitive. Sugar is cheaper, however, Swedish citizens pay most of it in their ridiculously high taxes. Too bad they have to hurt African development... :(

OOC: Sugarcane, in Sweden? More probably Sugarbeet...

The simple fact is that while free trade may be beneficial for some nations it can be significantly detrimental to others. Just because it works for you doesn't make it right or good for everyone.

I have not been able to find very much evidence of a Swedish sugarcane industry, to the contrary, a BBC report on EU export subsidies on sugar (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4118448.stm) that some googling turned up states, "The European Commission says that the countries likely to be least affected by [reduction in sugar subsidies] are Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the UK," which leads me to conclude that whatever subsidy Sweden, specifically, is giving people growing sugarcane can't really have any meaningful impact on African people; it's probably more an EU problem.

You're also forgetting that in Sweden, the "ridiculously high taxes" fund one of the world's best standards of living (as do your country's to some extent). Sweden's governments are generally efficient, and not terribly corrupt; so it's not like their taxes disappear into a black hole or an advertising agency "sponsorship" or backdoor deals with mysterious German businessmen somewhere... which again brings me to the point: it works for some but very badly for others. So let's not impose it on everyone.

Sweden does have a high standard of living, but what opportunities exist in Sweden beyond that standard of living. Where taxes are high, what you get (subsidies and benefits) are easy but to get ahead past that stage is very difficult concerning economic and financial restrictions.

Also, free trade works for every nation. I would love a real-world example where free trade has harmed the economy of that nation.

OOC: Sugarcane, in Sweden? More probably Sugarbeet...

You're probably right...

Argentina. Chile. Indonesia. Bolivia. Brazil. Thailand. South Korea. One or more of capital flight due to speculation, local industries being wrecked, resources exploited with them gaining few benefits, currency crises, destruction of agriculture, economic depression, and on the back of dictatorial, murderous regimes in some cases.

And I can go one better and provide a list of countries which built strong, wealthy (or soon-to-be wealthy) economies on protectionism: Germany, Japan, the United States, China, the Commonwealth Realms (imperial preferences)...

Perhaps you should reassess with reference to the real world.

I'm thinking of making a resolution to set up a WTO.

I didn't find any free trade resolutions, comments, ideas?

---

Update 1

What I've gathered is that the resolution will work best as an anti-tariff resolution with the WTO chucked in as well with it rather than the other way around.

Hmmm, how about chucking in fairtrade-like incentives to give poor farmers a better deal?

Argentina. Chile. Indonesia. Bolivia. Brazil. Thailand. South Korea. One or more of capital flight due to speculation, local industries being wrecked, resources exploited with them gaining few benefits, currency crises, destruction of agriculture, economic depression, and on the back of dictatorial, murderous regimes in some cases.

And I can go one better and provide a list of countries which built strong, wealthy (or soon-to-be wealthy) economies on protectionism: Germany, Japan, the United States, China, the Commonwealth Realms (imperial preferences)...

Perhaps you should reassess with reference to the real world.

Okay listing a whole lot of countries won't cut it I'm sorry.

Now countries that have used protectionism have became wealthy, but it was not protectionism which lead to that wealth, unless you can prove to me a nation where protectionism actually helped the local economy.

China, which is emerging out of communism, is starting to relax their protectionist measures by involving themselves in international trade so it is actually free trade helping them in this case.

Now countries that have used protectionism have became wealthy, but it was not protectionism which lead to that wealth, unless you can prove to me a nation where protectionism actually helped the local economy.

I suppose it was just a mere coincidence then? It helped the local economy by allowing its industries to grow without having to deal with foreign competition. The United States went so far as to limit its own exports. In the case of Germany and Japan, the protectionism was deliberate and it has unquestionably turned out to be successful. Even if you deny the link, it does inescapably force us to conclude that at the very least, protectionism didn't harm their development.

China, which is emerging out of communism, is starting to relax their protectionist measures by involving themselves in international trade so it is actually free trade helping them in this case.

And they got to this stage, as you acknowledge, with strong protectionism. Their currency is deliberately undervalued, for one thing. They are freeing up trade mainly because they know they will benefit from it with their low cost base and cheap, exploitable labour. If it weren't in their interest, they wouldn't be doing it and you're confusing cause and effect if you're trying to say that their economy is growing so quickly because they have freed up trade restrictions; it's the other way round. As I said, it's a good deal for some, but not so great for others.

On the other hand, the countries I listed suffered tremendously from free trade policies. Ten years ago Southeast and East Asia were hammered by a financial crisis that was caused by capital market liberalisation. There was a speculative attack on the Thai baht, investors panicked and saw the whole region as suddenly extremely risky, the loosened restrictions allowed them to pull their money out, they did so, and suddenly the "Asian Tiger" economies were in a tailspin.

Many Latin American countries have had their local businesses and economies gutted by Friedmanist free-trade policies; Argentina in particular has had a hell of a time of it. These policies introduced instability, caused massive unemployment, and made people much, much worse off than they were before. Why do you think leaders like Chavez and Morales are so popular there?