PASSED: Repeal "World Assembly Economic Union" [Archive]

Omigodtheykilledkenny

24-04-2009, 17:11

World Assembly Economic Union
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: New Leicestershire

Description: The World Assembly, resolved to strengthen the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among our nations; contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade; provide a catalyst to broader international cooperation; create an expanded and secure market for the goods and services produced in our nations; reduce distortions to trade and ensure a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment;

1.ENCOURAGES the free, fair and open trade/transfer of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor between member states without prejudice;

2. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) to arbitrate any and all trade disputes which may arise concerning the implementation of this legislation. Such arbitration may include, but is not limited to, cases involving alleged price dumping by WA members upon WA members, disputes over the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this resolution, and any alleged violations by member states;

3. AUTHORIZES the WATC to implement a process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations.

- The process will be conducted through a series of meetings convened by the WATC at its own discretion, but at least one per decade, with the goal of eventual elimination of all protectionist devices employed by WA member nations;

- Decisions arrived at by the WATC in the scheduled meetings are binding;

4. RECOGNIZES that certain domestic programs such as fuel subsidies, government stipends and small business loans are not protectionist in nature. Authorizes the WATC to review these programs and declare any that are not in fact protectionist in nature to be outside the scope of this resolution;

5. DECLARES that nations may apply reasonable restrictions on trade 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 essential products;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- in other special circumstances, as determined by the WATC.

6. AFFIRMS the right of nations to impose regulations, including embargoes, for cultural, safety, environmental, human rights, ethical or other reasons, on goods and services and their manufacture, subject to WATC approval;

7. EMPHASIZES that WA member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-WA nations to prevent price dumping and authorizes the WATC to review and rule upon alleged cases of price dumping by WA members upon WA members;

8. REQUIRES member governments to establish programs to alleviate the possible impact of this resolution on workers and their families. Examples of the services provided by such programs are job retraining, help with relocation of displaced workers and training or assistance in small business start-ups.

Votes For: 2,841
Votes Against: 1,622

Implemented Sun Dec 7 2008

[WAR26 on NS (www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=25)] [] [[url=http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=574887]Official Debate Topic (]WAR26 on NSwiki[/url)]

Bears Armed

24-04-2009, 18:15

Without even needing to consult my government in order to know their opinion on this matter, I have voted AGAINST the repeal.

Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

(and currently the IDU's regional delegate here, again, too...)

Philimbesi

24-04-2009, 18:23

I rise to cast my vote against this repeal. As it seems all of it's reasoning pretty much boils down to "the sky is falling" and we believe it's right up there where we last left it.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

Unibot

24-04-2009, 18:31

Bears Armed

24-04-2009, 18:43

New Leicestershire can be assured that their proposal will remain in power or I, Eduard Heir will be forced to light myself in fire in protest.

"So," Borrin mutters quietly to himself, "it's a 'win-win' situation..." ;)

Absolvability

24-04-2009, 18:49

Dammit, It feels really pathetic of me that I couldn't get my proposal to reach quorum.

Agreed. In that I feel the same way about my own proposal. The everpresent concern with the WA overstepping its bounds baffles me. Well, no, but it is extremely frustrating and counter-productive. We vote for a reason. We don't need to harp, submit, resolve, whine, repeal, and continue. Nor should we dumb down proposals in effort to please EVERYBODY.

I'm probably going to vote for this repeal simply because I wasn't around for the original. My problems with the original are as follows:

"3. AUTHORIZES the WATC to implement a process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations.

6. AFFIRMS the right of nations to impose regulations, including embargoes, for cultural, safety, environmental, human rights, ethical or other reasons, on goods and services and their manufacture, subject to WATC approval;

7. EMPHASIZES that WA member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-WA nations to prevent price dumping and authorizes the WATC to review and rule upon alleged cases of price dumping by WA members upon WA members;"

This all seems highly contradictory-- no doubt an effort to please everyone all at once (and gain votes without making any decisions,) and doing VERY little to eliminate 'protectionist' blah blah.

That being said, I don't expect this repeal to pass since the author can't be bothered to argue on its behalf. Lets consider this more like a recount.

Minucular Bob

24-04-2009, 19:17

Ok. I voted for the repeal even if it's poorly written because I'm against forcing free trade. My nation wants tariffs and the original language of the first resolution was not for it.
If it gets the job done, I don't care how it's written.

The Altan Steppes

24-04-2009, 19:20

If it gets the job done, I don't care how it's written.

And that is where you fail.

The Federation is utterly opposed to this regressive, protectionist, economically poisonous nonsense of a repeal.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Absolvability

24-04-2009, 19:24

It is agreed that a repeal is nonsense. And as often, on as many threads, as I have been told what should or shouldn't be of international concern, I wonder why everything worthy of consideration gets considered twice?

As far as the other issue, I feel that the Assembly pays very little attention to getting anything at all done and is widely concerned with writing. And that is where we all fail.

Minucular Bob

24-04-2009, 19:37

Absolvability

24-04-2009, 19:43

Precisely. In voting on resolutions and proposals the opposition seems far too concerned with wording than with extrapolating an obvious and tantamount importance. One minor trouble seems to overwhelm and render all else null and void. It's ridiculous.

And everybody wants to know if it's something the WA should be concerned with. Which is why most passing resolutions are passive, uncertain, and subject to repeal. If we had the courage to address the REAL issue of ANYTHING, we might make progress.

Sionis Prioratus

24-04-2009, 19:56

Nor should we dumb down proposals in effort to please EVERYBODY.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Nevertheless, my delegate vote is AGAINST repeal. WAEU may not be perfect (nothing pleases everybody, including me) but otherwise it is very reasonable and necessary.

Urgench

24-04-2009, 20:01

Whoah, it is not economically poisonous. My nation is a powerhouse of the economy. We give our people more money back, so they can spend on it what they want.
Who cares how a repeal is written? All it's doing is giving reasons why we should get rid of legislation. If you agree, vote yes. If not, then ok.

But I agree that the over haul of repeals is kind of ridiculous. I wouldn't write this legislation on that grounds but now that it is up for vote, I will do what is best for my country.

Is the honoured Ambassador serious ? A repeal could be imbecilic beyond description and it would be deserving of the attention of this organisation ?

Indeed this repeal is just that, imbecilic, and we have voted against it.

Yours,

Eluneyasa

24-04-2009, 20:05

Repeal "World Assembly Economic Union"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #26
Proposed by: Southeastern Evropa

Description: WA Resolution #26: World Assembly Economic Union (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING Resolution #26 as an abuse of the international power invested in the World Assembly

APALLED that the resolution makes no reference to developing nations (only to nations in "severe economic crisis"), not recognizing the importance of tariffs, subsidies, and other such “protectionist devices” to the improvement of developing nations’ domestic nonessential industry, which is vital to economic expansion and advancement

NOTING that Resolution #26 only benefits the few nations with powerful nonessential industries, effectively out-competing the minor industries of less developed nations due to forcibly unrestricted borders

OUTRAGED especially at the fact that the World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) is given the unchecked power to arbitrarily regulate intra-national subsidies which do not fall under the category of international trade

The World Assembly hereby repeals the “World Assembly Economic Union” Resolution.

Thundra and Gorim just looked at each other. A similar law for Eluneyasa had long been a point of argument between Darnassus and Orgrimmar, with the two sides having argued about it off and on for the past three centuries. Even now, both sides had entire libraries of economic data and supporting research to put into play should the topic ever come into play again. And on this day, it has, with both of them knowing fully that the discussion would not end until one or the other gave in.

"Oh fucking hell no. I am not sitting through eighteen hours of you two arguing economics. Read the damned repeal and I swear to the Naaru that if you even dare begin to discuss economics, the both of you will end up doing in in baas," Silara said, holding it up.

Then, the pair, along with Engle, glanced at it.

"Wait, this piece of crap is what we are about to argue over?" Thundra said.

"I think we're all against," Engle said, sitting down and amused. "And the reasons have already been stating. It's just standard childish whining about not getting their way and fear mongering. I'm surprised they didn't threaten that it would make them blind from 'resolution poisoning' and accuse us of washing their mouth out with it too much."

OOC: Not my original plan for this post, but done after reading what a mod had to say about the length of my original plan.

Glen-Rhodes

24-04-2009, 20:50

At the risk of being alienated in the General Assembly, I have voted for this repeal. I never liked the World Assembly Economic Union to begin with, and this repeal does bring valid points to the floor about the positive aspects of tariffs and other 'protectionist devices'. Mainly, I dislike the amount of authority over Glen-Rhodes trade programs given to the WATC.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Plutoni

24-04-2009, 21:02

Against. Because it smells funny.

Um...we can't be bothered to codify our objections, but we don't like it.

-Raymond Gardner,
Plutonian delegate

Rutianas

24-04-2009, 21:07

The Republic sees no reason for this repeal. Others have summed it up well. It's a worthless piece of legislation. We are, of course, against.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Glen-Rhodes

24-04-2009, 21:54

There is a difference between it being useless and it not fitting in to your free-trade agenda.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Korintar

24-04-2009, 22:09

We wish to say bravo to Dr. Castro. The Korintari government has generally been opposed to the free trade movement, as have the people of Korintar. Thus, as Director of International Affairs, I have discussed this matter with the Supreme Economic Council, and the Korintari delegation votes a resounding NO to free trade by voting FOR this resolution. If this repeal is not passed due to poor argumentation, we do hope that someone will submit a new, better written, repeal. The WA must start promoting cooperative economics and fair trade, in our humble opinion.- T'blis Oltavi

New Leicestershire

24-04-2009, 22:44

The Federal Republic is most assuredly AGAINST this weak-ass repeal,

Without even needing to consult my government in order to know their opinion on this matter, I have voted AGAINST the repeal.

I rise to cast my vote against this repeal.

At least after reading this tragedy - New Leicestershire can be assured that their proposal will remain in power or I, Eduard Heir will be forced to light myself in fire in protest.

The Federation is utterly opposed to this regressive, protectionist, economically poisonous nonsense of a repeal.

Nevertheless, my delegate vote is AGAINST repeal.

Indeed this repeal is just that, imbecilic, and we have voted against it.

"I think we're all against,"

Against. Because it smells funny.

The Republic sees no reason for this repeal. Others have summed it up well. It's a worthless piece of legislation. We are, of course, against.

Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.

Firstly, that the "arguments" presented in this repeal are weak is an understatement. It is doubtful that it will pass, but stranger things have happened in the World Assembly.

Secondly, WAEU passed by a comfortable margin and I have no concerns about our ability to pass it a second time. Should the repeal succeed, WAEU II will be submitted and passed in late spring/early summer.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Southeastern Evropa

24-04-2009, 23:22

The issue I hope to put forth through my repeal is that certain forms of government are based on subsidizing aspects of their economy and setting up protection for their own national industries. Both socialist and capitalist forms of government use these methods to raise GNP, average income, and standard of living. Eliminating subsidies? That is simply unthinkable. Most economic recessions are averted by providing subsidies to agricultural and industrial sectors.

For some counter arguments:
a) I did not argue my proposal on this forum right away simply because YES, I DO have a life outside of the internet. Amazing, huh? :P Thanks for the heads up though Kenny.

b) imbecilic? thats so sweet of you. (<---Sarcasm)

c) To sionis prioratus: The WATC is not necessary. Nations should be able to regulate their own economies as they like and not be subject to a dominating world authority that bases its economic policy on free market economics. Some nations simply do not wish to run their economies like that.

d) Minucular Bob: love the name

e) Absolvity: The issue I want to put forth is that, while certain proposals do seem all ladidadida (did I spell that right?), like the WATC, when they are first proposed in the stunning (and blinding) light of their own biased writers, the minority report does not come through in the proposal. Repeals are basically a chance for opponents of the resolution to provide their own "minority report" on the issue

Hope this changes your minds!

Either way, world peace and love,
Southeastern Evropa

Southeastern Evropa

24-04-2009, 23:24

Oh and thanks to Dr. Castro, too, for the support!

Plutoni

24-04-2009, 23:30

If it helps at all...
4. RECOGNIZES that certain domestic programs such as fuel subsidies, government stipends and small business loans are not protectionist in nature. Authorizes the WATC to review these programs and declare any that are not in fact protectionist in nature to be outside the scope of this resolution;Resolution 26 does not seek to unilaterally eliminate all types of subsidies.

Unibot

24-04-2009, 23:37

"So," Borrin mutters quietly to himself, "it's a 'win-win' situation..."

Eduard overhearing Borrin, laughing at the comment,

"Nah, not really...I'm a really big complainer when it comes to second degree burns.... unless of course my pleas for help would only fuel your joy- In which case, have fun!"

Urgench

24-04-2009, 23:51

For some counter arguments:
a) I did not argue my proposal on this forum right away simply because YES, I DO have a life outside of the internet. Amazing, huh? :P Thanks for the heads up though Kenny.

O.O.C. So your currently speaking out of character then ? And insulting the very people you presumably want to convince, who though they may be constrained to speak ill of your repeal in character might actually have been convinced of its utility if a) the repeal were cogently argued, or b) the argument made for it in debate was worth listening to.

b) imbecilic? thats so sweet of you. (<---Sarcasm)

I.C.

Need we bother to point out to the honoured Ambassador that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ?

c) To sionis prioratus: The WATC is not necessary. Nations should be able to regulate their own economies as they like and not be subject to a dominating world authority that bases its economic policy on free market economics. Some nations simply do not wish to run their economies like that.

And yet thousands of states voted for this statute with a comfortable margin of majority. Their expressed democratic will is meaningless to the honoured Ambassador is it? Those states which did not vote for the WATC and yet remained members of this organisation presumably tacitly accepted the democraticlally expressed will of the majority and were happy to remain in the w.a. under the new dispensation or otherwise they surely would have resigned from the w.a.

e) Absolvity: The issue I want to put forth is that, while certain proposals do seem all ladidadida (did I spell that right?), like the WATC, when they are first proposed in the stunning (and blinding) light of their own biased writers, the minority report does not come through in the proposal. Repeals are basically a chance for opponents of the resolution to provide their own "minority report" on the issue

Why should this "minority report" be included within a proposed statute ? That would be perfectly pointless and absurd, the debate which accompanies the vote upon a resolution is more than adequate to allow the full and frank exchange of alternative views upon the efficacy of any given statute.

Hope this changes your minds!

It certainly doesn't change our minds, indeed it confirms many of our original suspicions about the motives and rationale behind this repeal.

Yours,

Flibbleites

25-04-2009, 00:40

Dammit, It feels really pathetic of me that I couldn't get my proposal to reach quorum.

At least after reading this tragedy - New Leicestershire can be assured that their proposal will remain in power or I, Eduard Heir will be forced to light myself in fire in protest.

Yours.
Eduard Heir.*Bob turns to his assistant.*
You know Schmitty, we haven't had a good arson since old Koopman left.

Hope this changes your minds!

You can hope all you want, my mind didn't change, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is opposed to this waste of time disguised as a repeal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Absolvability

25-04-2009, 00:51

Hmmm... he makes good points though. It seems like everybody has their own bias. I suppose if I were to vote in favor of my own Nation, rather than global efficiency, I'd go ahead and approve this repeal. I wonder which of those choices other delegates consider. Well... no, I don't.

Gnoria

25-04-2009, 01:07

Gnoria is voting against this repeal as we support free trade. There isn't a lot more to say than that.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

NX401

25-04-2009, 05:16

as a nation and a logical person i agree to this appeal especaily for the world goverment that has been created so far. The WATC has way to much power and if we let the WATC get away with that we have lost the battle for democracry and truned into a concil of elders type of goverment.
Resolution 26 lets this happen and i say that we dont need a concil to conrol trade at "their desgration". i say return the power to the nations!

Okinawakenshi

25-04-2009, 06:18

The Commonwealth of Okinawakenshi is prepared to vote in favour of this repeal, as the government is reluctant to give in to the WATC to regulate trading mechanisms in the international market. The Commonwealth believes these powers should be returned to individual nations.

Serbian_Soviet_Union

25-04-2009, 07:26

Is this seirously the path WA is willing to take?? All these ridiciolus repeals and proposals comming up only benefit the Socialist/Communist states and this is just another attempt in trying to force their Communism and Socialism will upon all the members of the WA. This path that many are taking are taking the most destructive path and many will soon end up leaving the WA as it will be overrun by commie and socialist states.

Sunlumo

25-04-2009, 10:49

The reason repeals are useful? Simple: the nations that are members of the WA change.
We urge The Federation of Serbian_Soviet_Union to reflect on its capitalist bias too.
We have voted in favour of this repeal.

-The People of Sunlumo.

Charlotte Ryberg

25-04-2009, 12:32

This is uber pathetic. I express my full interest in mentoring the successor with New Leicestershire, complete with the fact that nations should be able to determine their own stance on anti-trust, and OOC, a DVD with the Test Card F so we can calibrate the voting room's 5 year old monitors.

Rutianas

25-04-2009, 13:21

Divinen

25-04-2009, 13:53

Really this doesn't affect Divinen. We just use threats of military force as our tariff. A tariff still lets the price fall since there's more supply even if I charge a tariff, it just lets me make money while the price of aluminum falls. A "Stay off my docks or I'll blast you with my ion cannon" works a lot better. I don't really care if this resolution stays or goes.

Absolvability

25-04-2009, 13:57

-chuckles darkly,- I know, from here on out, lets call Socialist states 'Soshies,' since we're no longer trying to be politically correct here.

The Palentine

25-04-2009, 15:21

Ye effing gods! The commies, pinkos, and fluffies have crawled out from under their damp rocks to once again darken the hallowed halls of the festering snakepit with their odiferous presence. As my nation proudly supported the origional resolution the Palentine opposes this repeal. there is a global economy out their my friends so you best get used to the idea. Protectionist Tarrifs artificialy keep a nation's products cheaper, while causing long term damage to the nation's bussinesses. It is onlt free markets and capitalism that enable the healthy long term success of business, by forcing competition. Since I understand that some of you here in the festering snakepit supporting thes repeal are commies, I'll say this real slow so you understand....Competiton is good for business! Competition forces businesses to make products better and at a lower cost. It weeds out the weak, and allows the strong to survive. Stronger comanies here more people, and pay more in taxes, and the workers have more money to spend. If you can't compeate then get the hell out of the way of those of us who can do so. Now go and never darken my towels again!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

NX401

25-04-2009, 15:31

woah...lets all calm down a bit here. I am a "soshie" but i dont want to be this claimed thing that can see the heart of things. Resoulution #26 gave you nothing as a individual state, instead, you handed over your national industry to the WATC who currently has free reigns to do what ever they please with it. Because of you repealers the WATC is now able, currently still, to contorl YOUR trade, contorl YOTR industry, control YOUR trade conflicts, manage its time at "its own desgretion", and all these other powers that YOU did not want to do. it seems that your OWN DEMOCRAIC FREEDOM is at stake if you dont pass this bill. or else, the WA is heading fro world goverment contorling everything and you have NOTHING. i say return the power to the nations because i dont want a goverment ruled by the group that wants all the power instead of helping the indiviual nations

SAVE THE NATIONS RIGHTS!!!

Sunlumo

25-04-2009, 15:34

With all due respect, your argument that 'competition is good for business' and so forth falls flat when you acknowledge that you are addressing 'commies'.

-The People of Sunlumo

NX401

25-04-2009, 15:39

NX401

25-04-2009, 15:44

Vote for the repeal!!

Flibbleites

25-04-2009, 15:46

The reason repeals are useful? Simple: the nations that are members of the WA change.

-The People of Sunlumo.

I seriously doubt that the membership of the WA has changed that much in four months.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Palentine

25-04-2009, 16:39

[QUOTE I'll say this real slow so you understand....Competiton is good for business! Competition forces businesses to make products better and at a lower cost. It weeds out the weak, and allows the strong to survive. Sen. Horatio Sulla

i say that statement is BULL! think about it man, do you really want big compitiors to take over your small business so they make no money at all and stay poor. Dont worry i understand what you mean. business is good fro people but there is a problem with this however. The problem is that the state of "equlatiy of outcome" is at stake. sure people love equality of oppertunity and employment but they dont cherish the fact about the equality of outcome as then it becomes a whole social issue and become a class war between your peoples.

you may want to do your research a little bit more before calling us all idiopts or wahtever because of your bigoted comments about socialist/communists

Class warfare, oh my!:eek: Please! Looks like you have to rely on the same old tired plays that have failed. The only people that stir up class warfare are those of your ilk. After all, it is the only way y'all can be relevant anymore. Everywhere it has been tried, socialism and communism have FAILED! The nations with the strongest economies, and healthiest businesses are those that are built on the principles of capitalism and free trade.

Glen-Rhodes

25-04-2009, 16:52

Urgench

25-04-2009, 17:00

Class warfare, oh my!:eek: Please! Looks like you have to rely on the same old tired plays that have failed. The only people that stir up class warfare are those of your ilk. After all, it is the only way y'all can be relevant anymore. Everywhere it has been tried, socialism and communism have FAILED! The nations with the strongest economies, and healthiest businesses are those that are built on the principles of capitalism and free trade.

The Confederated Sublime Khanate has never been subject to the inchoate politics of Left versus Right, but that does not mean we do not recognise a rhetorical deceit when we see one.

The assertion that both communism and socialism have failed everywhere they have been implemented is based on false paradigms of success and faulty uses of term Socialism.

Let us be clear we support neither Socialist nor radical Capitalist ideologies, but we do see plenty of examples of success which have arisen in societies which have been guided by them. To categorically discount the entirety of either of the poles in this particular dichotomy is extremely naive.

Yours,

Absolvability

25-04-2009, 17:18

I'm humbled by the emergence of such eloquency and the ease with which it parts some lips. It seems, as with many cases in life, one must either choose to use a precise tongue or a strong tongue. In this particular instance I'll applaud Urgench's efforts, as the sharpness of his words were better exercised.

It is fact beyond dispute that both Capitalist and Socialist endeavors have been rewarded amoungst these very Assembled Nations. In the Rogue Nation, we practice Democratic Socialism, which we believe to be at the very height of economic policy.

Regardless, it baffles me that any nation capitalist in nature might refuse this repeal. Points for and against have risen and fallen, but in the end this initial resolution has weakened the rights of business owners to protect their own products. It seems to me that our capitalist counterparts desire a controlled economy, which is not at the heart of a free enterprise.

But, as a "soshie," I'm much too busy looking after my Nation to know what I'm talking about.

Del Ombra

25-04-2009, 17:22

There can be free trade between socialist and capitalist nations. You simply trade the goods back and forth instead of buying them. Then the socialist nation provides these goods to the people who need it, and the capitalists charge their people money for said goods. Free and open trade can exist between anyone, they just have to be willing to negotiate and take an understanding of the other person's side. I am completely in favor of a resolution that keeps my trade policies in my hands, I see no reason why I should give my freedoms up to an outside source to tell me how to deliver my goods.

Rutianas

25-04-2009, 17:27

Everywhere it has been tried, socialism and communism have FAILED! The nations with the strongest economies, and healthiest businesses are those that are built on the principles of capitalism and free trade.

Oh really? The Republic is socialist and our economy is doing quite well, thank you. In fact, our economy rivals that of capitalist countries.

The point here is that you can't state that all socialist forms of government have failed. Ours hasn't. It's not likely to either.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Absolvability

25-04-2009, 17:40

It is precisely, and necessarily, the aforementioned 'negotiations' that this repeal is in favor of. Rather than admitting an arbitrary committee to regulate international transactions in favor of unmutual benefit, it seems somehow elegant and just to permit individual compromises to be made between any two interested Nations. This repeal promotes 'free' trade, as it were.

New Leicestershire

25-04-2009, 17:45

Considering that this repeal is a shoo-in, I would suggest the delegation of New Leicestershire take time to actually discuss a new resolution with those of us that have voted for this repeal, rather than blindly submitting the repealed resolution again. It's clear that support for it exists only within the offices of the General Assembly regulars.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I'm not willing to concede yet that it is a "shoo-in".

However, when a Resolution is repealed and there is a desire to resubmit it later in some form, that should be viewed as an opportunity to revisit the original text and investigate the possibility of making improvements. Naturally there will be a drafting process and we will welcome input from supporters of the original, as well as supporters of this repeal.

Don't expect the re-drafting and resubmission to occur instantly though. I think it would be prudent for us to wait a reasonable time (1-2 months perhaps) before addressing this matter again in the General Assembly.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Absolvability

25-04-2009, 18:35

Though I represent a small region, and inhabit a small nation, it seems to me that the more established minds of this Assembly might be put to better use in occasionally admitting defeat that they might consider other matters rather than grasping for straws.

Whenever a resolution can pass with such ease, only to be repealed more easily, we have a problem. The problem does not lay within any piece of legislation, but within us. And yet I have been told numerous times in reply to my own proposals that they may not be worth WA consideration.

-A grim smile spread his lips in morbid mockery of his own lack of influence,- Since the vast majority is not accounted for in these discussions, and I suspect those unrepresented vote magnetically 'Yes,' let us move beyond this upon its completion so that we may in fact do SOMETHING.

Gobbannium

25-04-2009, 19:07

Greenlandic People

25-04-2009, 20:46

We are so strongly against this that, in fact, if it passes I will run into the WA naked with a blowtorch and destroy the document in person.

Glen-Rhodes

25-04-2009, 21:05

Now if only Gratwick would promise to defenestrate herself off the top floor if this repeal passes...

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Sionis Prioratus

25-04-2009, 21:12

Now if only Gratwick would promise to defenestrate herself off the top floor if this repeal passes...

For the Goddess' sake, no!!! There would be civil war to choose the next Secretary General!

(OOC: Senator Palpatine, anyone?)

Glen-Rhodes

25-04-2009, 21:33

For the Goddess' sake, no!!! There would be civil war to choose the next Secretary General!

Nothing a Bookkeeping resolution couldn't sort out.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

The Marktoria State

25-04-2009, 22:30

Marktoria is baffled by the large support of this repeal. I fail to see why we should nullify the resolution in the first place. Therefore, i voted AGAINST the repeal.

The Marktoria State

25-04-2009, 22:40

Class warfare, oh my!:eek: Please! Looks like you have to rely on the same old tired plays that have failed. The only people that stir up class warfare are those of your ilk. After all, it is the only way y'all can be relevant anymore. Everywhere it has been tried, socialism and communism have FAILED! The nations with the strongest economies, and healthiest businesses are those that are built on the principles of capitalism and free trade.

I beg to differ. The Marktoria State is a Centralized Socialistic Republic, and our economy is reasonable. We certainly havent failed. The fact of the matter is, even though member nations differ greatly when it comes to economics, we can still have free trade amongst the nations of varying economic systems. Like Del Ombra said, it doesnt matter if your socialist or capitalist. Goods are still being traded. The only difference is how the government or the private sector gives it to the populace.

Flibbleites

26-04-2009, 00:39

Considering that this repeal is a shoo-in,

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I believe the good doctor is counting his chocobos before they're hatched. There are still 2 days of voting left and I'm sure that a lot of the larger regions' delegates have not cast their votes yet.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

NX401

26-04-2009, 00:40

Regardless, it baffles me that any nation capitalist in nature might refuse this repeal. Points for and against have risen and fallen, but in the end this initial resolution has weakened the rights of business owners to protect their own products. It seems to me that our capitalist counterparts desire a controlled economy, which is not at the heart of a free enterprise.

But, as a "soshie," I'm much too busy looking after my Nation to know what I'm talking about.

i agree with Absolvability with a 100% backing. This is what i was saying before early on in the forum. it seems that our capalistic contries are not very capatalistic at all. For you see from Resoulution #26, much of the world assembly is now under control of trade. Also, with this resolution, they do have the power to become a concil and control everything at thier own disgretion. This repeal must pass in order to free both socialist and capalistic countries alike. For the socialist we want much equality amongst everything. For the capitialist, we want them to recieve the power they once had before signing the bill for resolution #26. As in the words of Hamilition

"the men who control the money are much stronger then a standing army" (something along those lines

Sionis Prioratus

26-04-2009, 00:53

I believe the good doctor is counting his chocobos before they're hatched. There are still 2 days of voting left and I'm sure that a lot of the larger regions' delegates have not cast their votes yet.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Reminds me of the last attempt at a repeal... same pattern here?

Glen-Rhodes

26-04-2009, 01:55

I believe the good doctor is counting his chocobos before they're hatched. There are still 2 days of voting left and I'm sure that a lot of the larger regions' delegates have not cast their votes yet.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I still have my bets that this passes. One way or another...

Still waiting for Gratwick, by the way.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Unibot

26-04-2009, 02:19

For the Goddess' sake, no!!! There would be civil war to choose the next Secretary General!

I think we should have an elected Director General of the Regulars Floor, an election runned by the WA forum regulars to have an elected director for doing speeches on the state of things, issuing support for proposals or the opposite, promoting his/her parties beliefs to WA proposals, and being a bit of a WA ambassador to the Secretariat.

If theres enough support for such an idea I might start a thread for it and see.

Aundotutunagir

26-04-2009, 02:45

I think we should have an elected Director General of the Regulars Floor, an election runned by the WA forum regulars to have an elected director for doing speeches on the state of things, issuing support for proposals or the opposite, promoting his/her parties beliefs to WA proposals, and being a bit of a WA ambassador to the Secretariat.

If theres enough support for such an idea I might start a thread for it and see.
I would like to place in nomination the names Bob Flibble and Sen. Horatio Sulla.

Urgench

26-04-2009, 03:00

I would like to place in nomination the names Bob Flibble and Sen. Horatio Sulla.

We wish to nominate the Noble General Arororugul of Aundotutunagir for the putative position in question.

Yours,

NX401

26-04-2009, 04:01

wait...what are we talking about here? im so confused can someone please explain it to me?

NX401

26-04-2009, 04:01

wiat...what are we talking about? nominations? can someone explain this to me?

Unibot

26-04-2009, 04:14

I've open up a thread on the subject of the Director General, so theres no need to post off topic here anymore > If you have any general inquires for the Chief Electoral Office - don't hesitate to PM or post on the thread.

Take a looky > http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=591472

ANG3L5

26-04-2009, 13:55

The Kingdom of ANG3L5 has voted against this repeal.

Chabubble

26-04-2009, 14:06

Indeed this repeal is just that, imbecilic, and we have voted against it.

Its true, the wording could be revised, but I wouldnt go as far as "imbecilic." nevertheless, the underlying principal is sound therefore I voted for it

Urgench

26-04-2009, 15:03

Its true, the wording could be revised, but I wouldnt go as far as "imbecilic." nevertheless, the underlying principal is sound therefore I voted for it

The repeal contains no intelligent argument against the statute it repeals, it is extremely poorly written and is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the WAEU document which suggests a serious lack of reading comprehension on the part of its authors.

The repeal is imbecilic in the extreme.

Yours,

Glen-Rhodes

26-04-2009, 16:01

The repeal contains no intelligent argument against the statute it repeals, it is extremely poorly written and is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the WAEU document which suggests a serious lack of reading comprehension on the part of its authors.

The repeal is imbecilic in the extreme.

Yours,

To those of us that believe the WATCs authority goes too far, the repeal is quite worthy. This is not a matter of fact, but of personal opinion. Delegations should treat it as such. If the repeal was written under a misunderstanding of the WAEU resolution, it would have been removed from consideration per an 'honest mistake' violation.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-04-2009, 16:17

If the repeal was written under a misunderstanding of the WAEU resolution, it would have been removed from consideration per an 'honest mistake' violation.Right, because nothing ever gets to vote that contains a rules violation (www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Max_Barry_Day).

Glen-Rhodes

26-04-2009, 16:28

Right, because nothing ever gets to vote that contains a rules violation (www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Max_Barry_Day).

You are comparing a rather viable repeal with rather stupid resolution, which is, if I might say, rather insulting. The repeal's language is up to the standard of resolutions passed by the most respected delegations. The repeal brings forth excellent points, which not a single supporter of the WAEU has yet to refute.

The WAEU does eliminate tariffs, subsidies, and other such 'protectionist devices' (WAEU; 3rd clause) that are incredibly important to the economic expansion of numerous nations.

The WAEU does give unchecked power to the WATC to regulate intra-national trade (such as trade between the two states that compose Glen-Rhodes), instead of limiting its power to specific international trade (WAEU; 3rd clause).

The only refute given is, "Whatever. You don't understand what the WAEU does at all. You're an imbecile. You're illiterate. You should be ashamed!"

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

New Leicestershire

26-04-2009, 16:34

This is not a matter of fact, but of personal opinion.
This is true, but sadly the entire premise of this repeal is based upon opinion and falsehoods rather than facts. Let us examine the repeal itself.

RECOGNIZING Resolution #26 as an abuse of the international power invested in the World Assembly
This is a falsehood. The World Assembly is not capable of abusing its power. The World Assembly can do only what its members allow it to do and on 7 December 2008 the members passed WAEU. So are the members of this organization guilty of abusing power?

APALLED that the resolution makes no reference to developing nations (only to nations in "severe economic crisis"), not recognizing the importance of tariffs, subsidies, and other such “protectionist devices” to the improvement of developing nations’ domestic nonessential industry, which is vital to economic expansion and advancement
This is opinion. I'm also tempted to say that this is a reference to the mythical land of RL because I'm certain the repeal author meant "developing nations" in the RL sense rather than the "developing" WA Economy ranking.

( OOC: NS is not RL. There are no "developing nations" here in the RL sense unless their player chose to RP them that way and chose to wreck their economy on purpose.)

NOTING that Resolution #26 only benefits the few nations with powerful nonessential industries, effectively out-competing the minor industries of less developed nations due to forcibly unrestricted borders
This is opinion. The repeal author offers no proof that these events have occurred. I could counter by saying that Resolution #26 benefits the minor industries of less developed nations by eliminating barriers to trade and creating new markets for their products. See how easy that was?

OUTRAGED especially at the fact that the World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) is given the unchecked power to arbitrarily regulate intra-national subsidies which do not fall under the category of international trade
This is a falsehood. WATC is not given unchecked power. Its power is checked by the very members of this assembly. Further, Article 4 of WAEU exempts most subsidies that the repeal author is referring to and Article 8 more or less REQUIRES subsidies to small businesses.

I am under the impression that the repeal author either did not read WAEU, or read it and did not understand its provisions.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Urgench

26-04-2009, 16:34

To those of us that believe the WATCs authority goes too far, the repeal is quite worthy. This is not a matter of fact, but of personal opinion. Delegations should treat it as such. If the repeal was written under a misunderstanding of the WAEU resolution, it would have been removed from consideration per an 'honest mistake' violation.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

The repeal does not address the kinds of concerns Dr Castro is referring to in any meaningful way, nor does it intelligently state such claims as an argument in its own favour.

This repeal's rationale is clearly based on a misinterpretation arising from a clear misreading of the WAEU document.

In any case opinions may be imbecilic, and no convention of this organisation requires any delegation to pretend that such opinions or the legislative efforts they produce are anything but imbecilic. We need no lessons on how to address ourselves to the opinions of others from Dr Castro who's attitude towards opinions which do not agree with his own is notoriously contemptuous.

Unibot

26-04-2009, 16:34

Right, because nothing ever gets to vote that contains a rules violation.

I feel like its time I started the "Hey-Back-Off, I-liked-Max-Barry-Day" club.
(I'll just have to remember not to do it on the WA forum :) )

Yours
Eduard Heir

Unibot

26-04-2009, 16:38

This is opinion. I'm also tempted to say that this is a reference to the mythical land of RL because I'm certain the repeal author meant "developing nations" in the RL sense rather than the "developing" WA Economy ranking.

( OOC: NS is not RL. There are no "developing nations" here in the RL sense unless their player chose to RP them that way and chose to wreck their economy on purpose.)

OOC: Well, actually one of the economy ratings is "developing" which would make me assume their are developing economies and nations out there. One could also say that new nation's are developing with population.

Urgench

26-04-2009, 16:40

OOC: Well, actually one of the economy ratings is "developing" which would make me assume their are developing economies and nations out there. One could also say that new nation's are developing with population.

O.O.C. read what NL wrote will you ? There may be an NS economic category of "Developing" but this category does not have the same meaning as the term "developing" has in the real world.

NX401

26-04-2009, 16:42

New Leicestershire...your agrument needs work. we all know that this not not real life. its a game. a game people like to get into to learn more about politics. trust me i am studying to be a politics major.

falsehoods or not, this is NS. People are voted to their opinions.

Glen-Rhodes

26-04-2009, 16:46

This is a falsehood. WATC is not given unchecked power. Its power is checked by the very members of this assembly. Further, Article 4 of WAEU exempts most subsidies that the repeal author is referring to and Article 8 more or less REQUIRES subsidies to small businesses.

Since my concerns are about the WATC, I only feel the need to address this particular statement. It is also a falsehood. I have no say in what the WATC does. Once it is created, I cannot suggest that it takes a more lenient approach to intra-national trade. It can only take the rigid approach of effectively eliminating economically sound protectionist devices, as given to it by yourself.

You have not considered that the language of the WAEU does not limit its effect to international trade. You have not considered that the WATC does not need to be involved in every aspect of trade regulation to achieve an effective free trade agenda. You have flown past any and all concerns that the WATC is too powerful and the WAEU is too far-reaching, calling any legitimate concern conjecture, opinion, or false, even though the same can be said about the needs and effects of an economic union in the first place.

Bear in mind that I am not against free trade, and I would support the WAEU if it were rewritten to take a less unbending approach to promoting free trade. However, I am diligently for this repeal not only because of my opinion on the negative effects, intentional or not, but because of the blatant superiority complex and insulting attitude that the opposing side of this repeal has.
In any case opinions may be imbecilic, and no convention of this organisation requires any delegation to pretend that such opinions or the legislative efforts they produce are anything but imbecilic. We need no lessons on how to address ourselves to the opinions of others from Dr Castro who's attitude towards opinions which do not agree with his own is notoriously contemptuous.You can talk all you want about how I have dealt with opposition in the past. But, if you do exactly as I did, you are only putting yourself out to be the hypocrite.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

New Leicestershire

26-04-2009, 16:46

OOC: Well, actually one of the economy ratings is "developing" which would make me assume their are developing economies and nations out there. One could also say that new nation's are developing with population.
OOC: Yes but it's one of, what, 15 categories? Anyway, mentioning one of those categories in a resolution would clearly be meta-gaming.

Urgench

26-04-2009, 16:50

You can talk all you want about how I have dealt with opposition in the past. But, if you do exactly as I did, you are only putting yourself out to be the hypocrite.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

We are merely pointing out that Dr Castro is in no position to throw stones when one considers the huge glass house he lives in.

Yours,

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-04-2009, 16:51

You are comparing a rather viable repeal with rather stupid resolution, which is, if I might say, rather insulting.Oh, I wasn't saying this repeal is as dumb as Max Barry Day (though it does rank on a par with Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"); I was simply pointing out your "it can't be illegal because the mods didn't delete it" fallacy.

Glen-Rhodes

26-04-2009, 16:51

OOC: Yes but it's one of, what, 15 categories? Anyway, mentioning one of those categories in a resolution would clearly be meta-gaming.

OOC: I did want to respond to your OOC comment, I remember. If we do not consider that certain real-world situations exist in NationStates, whether or not it is technically possible for them to exist, we pass up excellent opportunity when it comes to legislating on those real-world situations. Eliminating the possibility of 'developing nations' eliminates myriad possible resolutions, such as the Food Welfare Act I submitted yesterday.

New Leicestershire

26-04-2009, 17:00

I have no say in what the WATC does.
Well of course you don't, you're a WA Ambassador. But has your government ever attempted to influence the outcome of a WATC ruling? Surely you have a Trade Representative or a Commerce Ministry which could appeal to them on matters concerning Glen-Rhodes.

OOC: Obviously none of us have any control over WATC in a gameplay sense. That's because in gameplay WATC doesn't do anything. The resolution passed, our economic stats went up, that was it. In roleplay, I had hoped that someone would RP a meeting of the WATC and try to affect the outcome of the proceedings. I suppose I should have started one myself but just never got around to it. In roleplay, the WATC could be very strict, or very lenient, in enforcing the provisions of WAEU. It would just be up to the people taking part in the RP.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-04-2009, 17:01

The WAEU does give unchecked power to the WATC to regulate intra-national trade (such as trade between the two states that compose Glen-Rhodes), instead of limiting its power to specific international trade (WAEU; 3rd clause).And while we're at it, this statement is false. The WATC is only empowered to implement the removal of global anti-trade practices, arbitrate trade disputes between member states, and to approve special exceptions, at the request of the nation. There is nothing in the resolution to suggest that the WATC may meddle in internal economic practices, only that nations must not unfairly discriminate against foreign goods and services, unless granted an exception at WATC approval.

Glen-Rhodes

26-04-2009, 17:09

And while we're at it, this statement is false. The WATC is only empowered to implement the removal of global anti-trade practices, arbitrate trade disputes between member states, and to approve special exceptions, at the request of the nation. There is nothing in the resolution to suggest that the WATC may meddle in internal economic practices, only that nations must not unfairly discriminate against foreign goods and services, unless granted an exception at WATC approval.

Please point out any clause that states that WATC intervention is authorized only on an at-request basis. So far as I can tell, the WATC is involved in virtually every step of trade regulation, both internal and international.

2. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) to arbitrate any and all trade disputes which may arise concerning the implementation of this legislation. Such arbitration may include, but is not limited to, cases involving alleged price dumping by WA members upon WA members, disputes over the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this resolution, and any alleged violations by member states;No at-request basis here.

3. AUTHORIZES the WATC to implement a process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations.

- The process will be conducted through a series of meetings convened by the WATC at its own discretion, but at least one per decade, with the goal of eventual elimination of all protectionist devices employed by WA member nations;

- Decisions arrived at by the WATC in the scheduled meetings are binding;No at-request basis here. Authority of internal and international trade. Unchecked power.

4. RECOGNIZES that certain domestic programs such as fuel subsidies, government stipends and small business loans are not protectionist in nature. Authorizes the WATC to review these programs and declare any that are not in fact protectionist in nature to be outside the scope of this resolution;No at-request basis here, either. Unchecked power.

6. AFFIRMS the right of nations to impose regulations, including embargoes, for cultural, safety, environmental, human rights, ethical or other reasons, on goods and services and their manufacture, subject to WATC approval;

7. EMPHASIZES that WA member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-WA nations to prevent price dumping and authorizes the WATC to review and rule upon alleged cases of price dumping by WA members upon WA members;Yet again, the WATC can intervene without a request.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

New Leicestershire

26-04-2009, 17:11

OOC: I did want to respond to your OOC comment, I remember. If we do not consider that certain real-world situations exist in NationStates, whether or not it is technically possible for them to exist, we pass up excellent opportunity when it comes to legislating on those real-world situations. Eliminating the possibility of 'developing nations' eliminates myriad possible resolutions, such as the Food Welfare Act I submitted yesterday.
OOC: Oh I don't dispute the fact that there are nations in NS with dysfunctional economies. The difference is that that in RL nations don't tend to wreck their economies on purpose, in NS they do. So I'm not inclined to feel sympathy for them OOC. For IC, RP purposes though, I have to pretend that the wrecked economy was an accident.

New Leicestershire

26-04-2009, 17:34

New Leicestershire...your agrument needs work. we all know that this not not real life.
*David Watts pinches himself*

You are wrong, ambassador. I am convinced that I am substantial.

its a game. a game people like to get into to learn more about politics.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I've heard the phrase "life is a game", but I suspect you mean something else. Are you feeling well?

trust me i am studying to be a politics major.
Your government allows you to attend University while serving as WA ambassador? I would have thought you already had a background in politics or diplomacy otherwise they would not have appointed you to this position.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Unibot

26-04-2009, 17:47

nations don't tend to wreck their economies on purpose, in NS they do. So I'm not inclined to feel sympathy for them OOC

OOC: You've never wrecked your economy before by answering an issue wrong?, It must just be me then ... Not only have I've also gutted my military (forcing them to run a bake sale) by accident but I've unintentionally caused a massive demonstration of genocide.

Empiricus Roma

26-04-2009, 17:52

As the President of the United States of Empiricus Roma,

I represent a mega-superpower nation of 92 million inhabitants; people whom believe in a democracy - and that goods and services should be worth the money paid for. By encouraging my citizens to spend reasonable amount of currency for the exceptional service they hope to recieve; I have been able to maintain a thriving, powerhouse economy without having to sacrifice liberties or turn my country into dictatorship.

On behalf of the Empiricus Roma Congress Assembly; I must address the basic fact that the "Repeal: World Assembly Economic Union" proposal is very non-specific, and only seems to favor the socialists, rather than those who favor pro-business ideas. This is quite unfair, a compromise should be made in this regard, to benefit both socialists and businessmen alike.

"APALLED that the resolution makes no reference to developing nations (only to nations in "severe economic crisis"), not recognizing the importance of tariffs, subsidies, and other such “protectionist devices” to the improvement of developing nations’ domestic nonessential industry, which is vital to economic expansion and advancement"

This proposal fails to prove why the tariffs, subsidies or other "protectionism" are deemed unecessary; there is a reason why the 'WA Economic Union' are such policies are in place to ensure that the balance of trade among nations to maintain a strong investment in the goods being delievered. This is the reason alone why our trading economy have been booming and continues to thrive. Yet this proposal is seems to be giving the message such as "we don't need those polices, but ok, just vote yes and we'll dismantle all the domestic industries that just so happens to be vital to economic growth of all WA member nations."

If we vote yes, then that means we'll be capping our economic growth; and for this reason - my financial advisors of the Trade Relations Committee have termed this policy as an "economic suicide".

"RECOGNIZING Resolution #26 as an abuse of the international power invested in the World Assembly

OUTRAGED especially at the fact that the World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) is given the unchecked power to arbitrarily regulate intra-national subsidies which do not fall under the category of international trade

The World Assembly hereby repeals the “World Assembly Economic Union” Resolution."

Secondly, a "repeal" proposal based on "socialist" fear of abused power, is not good enough reason alone to repeal a well-established "WA Economic Union" proposal that have served for the good of business and trading opportunities between nations regardless of political ideals. I have here from the passed "WA Economic Union" proposal:

"The World Assembly, resolved to strengthen the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among our nations; contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade; provide a catalyst to broader international cooperation; create an expanded and secure market for the goods and services produced in our nations; reduce distortions to trade and ensure a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment

"1.ENCOURAGES the free, fair and open trade/transfer of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor between member states without prejudice;

2. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) to arbitrate any and all trade disputes which may arise concerning the implementation of this legislation. Such arbitration may include, but is not limited to, cases involving alleged price dumping by WA members upon WA members, disputes over the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this resolution, and any alleged violations by member states;

.....

6. AFFIRMS the right of nations to impose regulations, including embargoes, for cultural, safety, environmental, human rights, ethical or other reasons, on goods and services and their manufacture, subject to WATC approval;

7. EMPHASIZES that WA member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-WA nations to prevent price dumping and authorizes the WATC to review and rule upon alleged cases of price dumping by WA members upon WA members;

8. REQUIRES member governments to establish programs to alleviate the possible impact of this resolution on workers and their families. Examples of the services provided by such programs are job retraining, help with relocation of displaced workers and training or assistance in small business start-ups."

I must ask, how does this proposal allow for "unchecked" power? We need a better reason, or a explanation of proof why it's an abuse of international power in the World Assembly and not just a "socialist" statement saying "oh, it's just an abuse of power, blah!" -

So far, the previous proposal already makes it clear that it allows WA Economic Union to have an arbitrary relationship between trading nations to ensure that both parties are treated equally during a transaction.

In my professional opinon, the repeal is very weak in that regard and fails to recognize that this isn't an abuse of power at all.

Finally, there is a reason why all WA member or non-member nations should be able to "negotiate" a deal which is required to assist in finalizing transactions that serve both parties, in the interest of stimulating economic growth on behalf of their nations; to ensure that goods are protected in the investment of "trust" between trading nations - and allow, governments to pay for welfare and to feed, clothe, their own citizens.

I hereby declare that I oppose the "Repeal: WA Economic Union" overall as a strong "leftist-fear" liability which will damage trade relations with all WA member nations; and it is my strong belief that this proposal should be removed and edited to help businesses growing rather than dismantling the economic union as a whole.

As a result of this "leftist-fear-mongering" repeal; I must recognize Southeastern Evropa as an economic threat, and will enact a trade embargo and travel ban against Southeastern Evropa within the next 24 hours - in the interest of protecting the people of the United States of Empiricus Roma.

New Leicestershire

26-04-2009, 17:53

OOC: You've never wrecked your economy before by answering an issue wrong?, It must just be me then ... Not only have I've also gutted my military (forcing them to run a bake sale) by accident but I've unintentionally caused a massive demonstration of genocide.
OOC: Maybe back in 04 when I didn't understand what the issues did or the consequences of answering them a certain way.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-04-2009, 18:17

Please point out any clause that states that WATC intervention is authorized only on an at-request basis.Nowhere. It only appears if you take language out of context. Just like you did with my post. I meant that the WATC can grant exceptions at the request of the nation; also, I've already pointed out that WATC has the authority to regulate global anti-trade practices; there's no need to emphasize it with bolded and italicized and underlined text. The WATC's authority is limited to the scope of the legislation; it is not, as you claim, "unchecked."

Unibot

26-04-2009, 18:20

OOC: Maybe back in 04 when I didn't understand what the issues did or the consequences of answering them a certain way.

OOC: Well then, that's a developing country - one thats developing the skills to answer its nation's issues better. Ha.

Quintessence of Dust

26-04-2009, 19:26

Dr Castro, I'm not trying to pick on you, and I admire someone who sticks to an obviously unpopular point of view in debate: but I find it a little odd that you are voting to make food more expensive while championing a Food Welfare Act. When I suggested the WA fight against world hunger, I did so when the most significant blow in the battle had already been struck; it's about to be unstruck with this heinous, reactionary repeal, thereby rendering any other anti-hunger measures mere window-dressing.

The advocates of this repeal have railed against monolithic corporations. Yet how do you think are best placed to lobby governments for subsidies? To convince politicians to run on pro-First World platforms? It's not the small business or cooperative initiative. History has shown, time and time again, the recipients of subsidies to be, overwhelmingly, large corporations. Before Quintessence of Dust reformed our agriculture subsidy system, it was set up to benefit small farmers: but inevitably ended up benefitting only large agricultural concerns. And ours was a relatively small-scale system!

The effect of this repeal will of course be regressive; the authors of the legislation know that full well. It's why they wrote it: they're afraid the WAEU might help some people from poor countries get jobs (these people might have brown skin, after all). What's shameful is not their motives: I can respect cold-blooded realpolitik. What's shameful is those that have been deceived into supporting them, believing they're accomplishing something noble when, instead, they're simply voting to make the basics more expensive in the interests of feathering the nests of large corporations.

Our vote will be determined by regional vote, but our informal position is simple: we oppose this and will do everything possible to see the trade system reestablished in exactly the same position.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

Aundotutunagir

27-04-2009, 00:22

However, I am diligently for this repeal not only because of my opinion on the negative effects, intentional or not, but because of the blatant superiority complex and insulting attitude that the opposing side of this repeal has.
I have said it before and I will say it again; the majority of the rabble that makes up this organization is composed of idiots and cretins. The Urgenchi was right to describe this repeal as imbecilic and I would go so far as to label its supporters imbecilic.

The final decision will rest with the government of New Leicestershire of course, but if it were left up to me WAEU would never be resubmitted. These half-wits don't deserve free trade and I thank Tengri that Aundotutunagir is no longer a member.

Gobbannium

27-04-2009, 01:47

Please point out any clause that states that WATC intervention is authorized only on an at-request basis. So far as I can tell, the WATC is involved in virtually every step of trade regulation, both internal and international.
We fear that we must once again contend that Dr Castro's reading comprehension skills are in need of refreshment.

Originally Posted by Omigodtheykilledkenny
2. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) to arbitrate any and all trade disputes which may arise concerning the implementation of this legislation. Such arbitration may include, but is not limited to, cases involving alleged price dumping by WA members upon WA members, disputes over the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this resolution, and any alleged violations by member states;
No at-request basis here.
Quite to the contrary. This is an arbitration service, and as such can only operate at request.

3. AUTHORIZES the WATC to implement a process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations.

- The process will be conducted through a series of meetings convened by the WATC at its own discretion, but at least one per decade, with the goal of eventual elimination of all protectionist devices employed by WA member nations;

- Decisions arrived at by the WATC in the scheduled meetings are binding;
No at-request basis here. Authority of internal and international trade. Unchecked power.
Very checked power. Specifically, power only to work towards the elimination of protectionist devices. The good doctor may not approve of the goal -- and nor do we -- but it is unquestionably the goal of the overall resolution, and as such is clearly an inappropriate matter to fixate upon. One would be more honest to argue that the resolution should be repealed because protectionist devices are necessary and useful to a nation's economic health than to pretend than an organisation explicitly set up to remove trade barriers should not have the power to do so.

Originally Posted by Omigodtheykilledkenny
4. RECOGNIZES that certain domestic programs such as fuel subsidies, government stipends and small business loans are not protectionist in nature. Authorizes the WATC to review these programs and declare any that are not in fact protectionist in nature to be outside the scope of this resolution;
No at-request basis here, either. Unchecked power.
The power for the WATC to consider that a programme is beyond its power to affect is unchecked? Mirabile dictu!

Originally Posted by Omigodtheykilledkenny
6. AFFIRMS the right of nations to impose regulations, including embargoes, for cultural, safety, environmental, human rights, ethical or other reasons, on goods and services and their manufacture, subject to WATC approval;

7. EMPHASIZES that WA member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-WA nations to prevent price dumping and authorizes the WATC to review and rule upon alleged cases of price dumping by WA members upon WA members;
Yet again, the WATC can intervene without a request.
Yet again, the WATC is authorised to do its job. How very surprising.

Sunlumo

27-04-2009, 02:44

OOC: Maybe back in 04 when I didn't understand what the issues did or the consequences of answering them a certain way.

OOC: I don't intentionally make my economy -this- bad... it just so happens that it is usually the thing I consider the least when answering questions.
Anyhow, that makes my nation one of the poor ones (even worse than 'developing') and I considered this when I voted for the repeal!

Flibbleites

27-04-2009, 04:10

I would like to place in nomination the names Bob Flibble and Sen. Horatio Sulla.

I respectfully decline the nomination, I have no desire to be put into anything even remotely resembling a position of power over this nuthouse.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Unibot

27-04-2009, 04:50

I respectfully decline the nomination, I have no desire to be put into anything even remotely resembling a position of power over this nuthouse.

Ah, but don't those that decline a position of power typically make the best leader? :)

Yours
Eduard

Sionis Prioratus

27-04-2009, 05:04

Ah, but don't those that decline a position of power typically make the best leader? :)

OOC: Or as Vonnegut put it: "No one who wants to be President should ever be allowed to"

Delestain

27-04-2009, 11:05

The nation of Delestain would like to call out and implore all East Pacific nations to vote FOR the repeal of WA Resolution #26. Delestain, however, does support the general concept presented in the original resolution. So in lieu of the repeal's success, we would like to see resolution #26 re-written to DISMISS article #3. Which reads as follows:

"3. AUTHORIZES the WATC to implement a process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of all goods, services, raw materials, commodities and labor, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations.

- The process will be conducted through a series of meetings convened by the WATC at its own discretion, but at least one per decade, with the goal of eventual elimination of all protectionist devices employed by WA member nations;

- Decisions arrived at by the WATC in the scheduled meetings are binding;"

Delestain wishes article 3 dissmissed for the following reasons:

*The elimination of protectionist devices should remain at the discretion of the nation itself (regardless of WA membership)

*Article 3 allows the POSSIBILITY of the WATC to control and hamper the sovereignty of WA member nations.

Siraini

27-04-2009, 13:46

I have decidedon behalf of my nation to vote for the repeal of the The WAEU as we see it as a misusement of the WA's global power

Absolvability

27-04-2009, 16:45

OOC- Vonnegut? OOooo, who else reads Vonnegut? Although, Machiavelli would disagree with that particular quote. And Machiavelli is way more awesome than Vonnegut.

Unibot

27-04-2009, 16:54

OOC: Or as Vonnegut put it: "No one who wants to be President should ever be allowed to"

I believe Shakespere said something about the subject too - the twelth night?

Philimbesi

27-04-2009, 18:51

So in lieu of the repeal's success, we would like to see resolution #26 re-written *snip*

My esteemed colleague should read the rules, there is no re-writing without repeal.

Nigel S Youlkin.
WA Ambassador

Glen-Rhodes

27-04-2009, 22:41

Quite to the contrary. This is an arbitration service, and as such can only operate at request.Arbitration is not inherently voluntary. Arbitration is simply 'the hearing and determination of a dispute by an impartial referee agreed to by both parties'. Considering that this 'impartial referee' was agreed upon by passing the WAEU, the WATC has the complete authority to sticks its red tape where it is not wanted.
Very checked power. Specifically, power only to work towards the elimination of protectionist devices. The good doctor may not approve of the goal -- and nor do we -- but it is unquestionably the goal of the overall resolution, and as such is clearly an inappropriate matter to fixate upon. One would be more honest to argue that the resolution should be repealed because protectionist devices are necessary and useful to a nation's economic health than to pretend than an organisation explicitly set up to remove trade barriers should not have the power to do so.I do not consider an unbounded authority a checked one. Using such infinite terms like 'all ... devices' is most certainly and unchecked power, which is part of the argument that the WATC has the full authority to meddle in internal trade, rather than sticking to international trade.
The power for the WATC to consider that a programme is beyond its power to affect is unchecked? Mirabile dictu!Yes. The WATC again has totalitarian power certain facets of trade. There are no limitations to this specific authority, which very well may mean the WATC launching investigation to every single domestic trade-related act.
The WATC's authority is limited to the scope of the legislation; it is not, as you claim, "unchecked."It is indeed the very legislation that grants the WATC unchecked authority.
*snip*
-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

With all due respect, Dr. Merrywether, you misjudge my reasons for supporting this repeal. My problem is that the WAEU governs over too broad an area, not that the WAEU merely exists. Although I am not a complete supporter of free trade, I have and continue to believe that the WAEU could help the economic situations of the world. However, it needs to be purely international in scope, and not seek to completely abolish all form of protectionist devices, without first determining that those devices are unnecessary in protecting the sustainability of nonessential industry.

If a rewrite takes these concerns in to account, considering that the repeal is certainly a shoo-in (and has been), I would most likely vote for the re-establishment of the WAEU.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Unibot

27-04-2009, 22:59

Glen-Rhodes

27-04-2009, 23:06

OOC: I've got to be honest, my hatred of this bill doesn't come from the actual wording or its intent, though I like freemarketism - its the blunt reality that this repeal will hurt my economy rating. :)
OOC: Well, if the Food Welfare Act reaches quorum and passes, it'll hurt your economic rating, too. Then, with any hope, a new WAEU is passed, which will raise it. :P

Unibot

27-04-2009, 23:34

OOC: Well, if the Food Welfare Act reaches quorum and passes, it'll hurt your economic rating, too. Then, with any hope, a new WAEU is passed, which will raise it. :P

Social Justice hurts economy? You sure?

Quintessence of Dust

27-04-2009, 23:51

With all due respect, Dr. Merrywether, you misjudge my reasons for supporting this repeal.When someone votes to make food more expensive for poor people, I don't really care what their reasons for doing so are: I'm still going to oppose it. At the end of the day, we have to order our political priorities. Here's my 'values triage':1. People dying = bad
2. Everything elseIf you work to a different ethos, ultimately, you can explain your reasoning and critique mine all you want: I doubt either of us will convince the other.

Nonetheless, I will in all probability be fired for allowing the untold global catastrophe that this vote represents to come to pass under my watch - try telling George there was nothing I could do about it - so I may as well spend the last few moments before we watch economic desolation return to the developing world up here in the GA, churning over some rhetorical pickings.Although I am not a complete supporter of free trade,Well, this is the first problem. Why not? I'm really interested in this: if you oppose free trade a priori, you must have reason for doing so.However, it needs to be purely international in scope, and not seek to completely abolish all form of protectionist devices, without first determining that those devices are unnecessary in protecting the sustainability of nonessential industry.Ok, the two parts of this seem contradictory. A 'protectionist device' is necessarily 'international in scope': who exactly do you think is being protected against? If it doesn't seek to end protectionism - which would make it something of an odd free trade argument in my view, but no matter - then it is clearly not fully international in scope. If it is to be so, it needs to take into account, so far as is possible, all factors that affect global trade.

When the WAEU was being written, members of our delegation made the specific suggestions that led to the addition of Clause 4: although I was not there at the time, I have the transcript (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13892480&postcount=21). So, I'd firstly point out that the resolution as it stands does make allowances for domestic measures that have a distorting effect, so long as they don't have a global impact the WATC judges to be protectionist. What is so unreasonable about this? For one thing, the bleating about 'nonessential' doesn't seem to have produced a solid agreement on what 'nonessential' industries actually are, nor how reasonable it is to assume that a nonessential industry in one country is so in another. For another, it doesn't seem to me to matter at what level unfair trade practices are conducted, any more than it matters at what level unfair business practices are conducted.

Your scaremongering about the powers of the WATC is cute, but not credible. Firstly, the WATC is a WA commission. The WA General Fund authorising resolution has already put in place measures to prevent corruption (and we'd be happy to see more, precisely because we don't think it's the real issue at stake). Furthermore, exactly who do you think the WATC is going to exert a bias in favour of? It has no interests or loyalties, its staff have no national affiliations save to the glorious gnomish fiefdom, and to my knowledge the WATC has not even convened its first round yet. It would be unfair to press for evidence of the argument you're advancing, but perhaps you could at least demonstrate why you think giving a committee power - checked or not - is likely to lead to abuse.

Furthermore, the WATC oversees trade between thousands of nations. If you're making the claim that the protectionism you wish to maintain is of a minor level, then it seems incredible that the WATC would bother investigating them, let alone acting on them. I don't know what's on the agenda for the first WATC round, but the brief our trade rep submits will probably concern food, energy, metals, textiles, and so on. The idea that the WATC will have the time and resources - especially given we imagine its research and staff budget is pretty limited now all the WA's funds are being syphoned off to pay for big pharma execs' third limos - to dabble in the kind of interference you're so afraid of is distinctly questionable. Which makes me think: so is the entire premise of your argument. And I think what this probably comes back to is not the idea that the WATC will become a giant robot killing machine under the control of the Space Jew, but the inate fear (http://www.geocities.com/hmelberg/papers/970913.htm) of free trade that, sadly, seems so pervasive among those who benefit most from the guilty riches of economic nationalism.

I'd have a more coherent paper to present to the Assembly, but unfortunately Sam Benson has taken most of my staff with her to go protest in black ski masks outside the GA. If you look out the window, she's the one with the "This Earth Not For Sale" sign. Tell me, doesn't WA Security have tasers?

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

Gobbannium

28-04-2009, 00:40

Using such infinite terms like 'all ... devices' is most certainly and unchecked power,
And using terms like "..." where the missing content is both important and qualificatory is not helpful, nor yet does it make your assertions true.

Glen-Rhodes

28-04-2009, 01:19

I'm really interested in this: if you oppose free trade a priori, you must have reason for doing so.

Ok, the two parts of this seem contradictory. A 'protectionist device' is necessarily 'international in scope': who exactly do you think is being protected against? If it doesn't seek to end protectionism - which would make it something of an odd free trade argument in my view, but no matter - then it is clearly not fully international in scope. If it is to be so, it needs to take into account, so far as is possible, all factors that affect global trade.Perhaps I should have made this more clear. There are two unique requirements in the referenced sentence. The first being that all possibilities of domestic trade regulation by any World Assembly body be removed and subsequently prevented. The second being that the goal of eliminating any and all protectionist devices be revised to exclude those which are vital to the development and sustainability of nonessential industry -- that is, industry that does not absolutely need to be located in one's economy; for example, the microprocessor industry is a nonessential industry in Glen-Rhodes, whereas the weapons manufacturing industry is certainly essential when it comes to the defense of the nation. That is not to say that we could decimate the microprocessor industry simply because we very well could go without it; it is a source of income. However, with a poorly thought-out free trade mandate eliminating the use of tariffs and other protectionist devices, the microprocessor industry of Glen-Rhodes could certainly suffer because some other nation's microprocessor industry is larger, and thus the cost of products cheaper. While there is no difference in the quality of the technology, the mere fact that the products in that other nation are cheaper to buy will mean that Glen-Rhodes companies will buy from that overseas company, rather than the domestic companies... and there's no way that we could prevent this from happening. There goes an entire industry down the drain; now just repeat that with all the other nonessential industries. What you have created is not an economically gratifying situation, but an economically draining one.

It would probably be unreasonable to suggest that, because of this process alone, free trade legislation is a horrible idea. Not all nonessential industries need to survive. However, there must be a balance between the international distribution of industries. Under the current resolution, the potential for all nonessential industries to disappear in a nation is certainly there. Imagine for a moment that there are three nations; take in to consideration that Nation A has the largest automobile manufacturing industry out the three; Nation B has the largest computer manufacturing industry; and Nation C has the largest plastics manufacturing industry. Now, Nation A also has nonessential computer and plastics manufacturing industries, so and so forth with Nations B and C. Because computer parts prices are cheaper in Nation B than in Nation A, the auto industry is going to buy their parts from Nation B, which would cripple Nation A's computer manufacturing industry. Repeat this with the essential and nonessential industries of Nations B and C. What you have now is three one-trick-pony nations, all of which have their economies based on a relatively small number of essential industries. This is a bad economic model.

The ideal compromise would respect the need of a certain amount of nonessential industry, and the 'protectionist' devices that are needed to protect them. In this case, since tariffs make it better idea for smaller automobile industries in Nation A to buy computer parts from domestic manufacturers, the computer manufacturing industry in Nation A does not completely crumble. Now, each nation has a diversified portfolio: there are certain areas of sustainable nonessential industry, which means that there isn't a complete reliance on essential industry. For this, the WATC would need to recognize the value in certain protectionist devices, and allow to exist so long as they don't severely compromise the global trade market.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Ardchoille

28-04-2009, 01:51

Social Justice hurts economy? You sure?

The sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490188) sez: Social Justice
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). <snip> In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...

Quintessence of Dust

28-04-2009, 02:44

--snip for brevity--H'ok. I see. So this is about a fundamental objection to free trade.

What you have just described is the phenomenon of comparative advantage, and what I fail to understand is why you classify it as 'economically draining'. Consider the first example. You state that the other country produces microprocessors for a cheaper price than in Glen-Rhodes. So...why exactly should we be propping up your microprocessor industry? It's obviously inferior to the other nation's: if, as you say, there's no difference in the technology, then their production methods are obviously better. I fail to see who benefits from subsidising your, less efficient, industry. Perhaps the idea that it is 'your' industry is the problem here, so imagine reframing the example:

Two of your domestic companies produce identical machines. One produces them for a lower price. Your Finance Minister's sister is on the Board of Directors of the other company. Do you subsidise it solely because of that connection? And if not, why, in the larger scheme of things, are you subsidising companies that you identify with your nation, and not those that you don't? Furthermore, you're adopting a very short-term view of things, as though microprocessor manufacturing is to be the bedrock of your economy for the next thousand years. (Especially in the field of electronic devices, this seems short-sighted: look at digital watches or VCR or cassette tapes or HD DVD.) The people currently employed in your inefficient industry would be better off developing new skills in an industry in which your nation does stand at a comparative advantage. (And, if you think about it, they'll be getting a head start on the other nation, where most people will opt for job security in microprocessor manufacturing.)

You see, our disagreement isn't about what the end result will, it's about what the next step after the end result will be. I agree, entirely, with your exposition of the A-B-C example. Except I wouldn't call it a 'bad economic model': I'd call it 'specialisation'. I'd call it making the best use of the resources available. Remember, by promoting inefficient industries you inhibit efficient ones. So not only would C not be so good at plastic manufacturing, but the inefficiencies of A and B mean they probably wouldn't make up the gap anyway. You are, with respect, somewhat misappropriating the term 'diversify'. This does not generally mean, in a business context, keeping up industries that others are already doing better: it means finding new revenue streams that haven't been tapped yet. To diversify is, in effect, to do the exact opposite of the retrenchment you propose.

In economic terms, why is it so bad for A to concentrate on making automobiles? Why is it bad if all our computers have 'Made in B' labels on their mousemats? There is no essential value a country accrues by 'having an x industry'. Our country has (until the recent development of high-tech farming methods, by which time we were reasonably prosperous anyway) historically had almost no domestic fruit production. But a recent government survey showed the vast majority of our children get 'five [servings of fruit] a day'. The fact we don't grow our apples doesn't mean we don't eat them. And the idea that without a strain of Quodite apples to call our own just seems like pride. Which is fine, but it has no place in formal law.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether

Korintar

28-04-2009, 20:16

snip, also for brevity

Well, honorable sir, I hope you understand that some nations do have different economic values and goals. These, in their world view, would be harmed by free trade, thus they conclude that free trade is unhealthy for the economy. I happen to agree with these folks; it is good to diversify industries for if nation sticks to one industry that it is really good at and that industry, God forbid, became obsolete there would be a lot of unemployed people. It is about what is sustainable in the long term, and having a broad mixture of industries in a nation is necessary to keep an economy strong. May this resolution decrease economic growth? Yes, in fact that might be a good thing if said growth is not a sustainable pattern, but a series of erratic booms and busts or is built upon the promulgation of externalities. It is the prevention of said promulgation that many so called protectionist measures are designed for.

Also, tell me something, under Qintessence of Dust law, is a corporation a protected personage? If so, would not the exportation of jobs be potentially considered treason at the incorporated business level, and would not free trade encourage such outsourcing?
- On behalf of the Directory, Supreme Economic Council, and the People of Korintar;
Myashtu Ighadi, Director of Finance and Treasury
T'blis Oltavi, Director of International Affairs
Zakir Myosin Sezadu III, Director Emeritus

Philimbesi

28-04-2009, 20:24

Once again I see the free trade scare tactics are in full swing, mentioning the evils that is free trade. You want the benefits of free trade? Food is cheaper. Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are cheaper, phone service is cheaper.

It lowers prices, it raises income, and now you end with the one that's not like the others. Ready? Free trade stops wars, we figure out a way to fix the rest.

Glen-Rhodes

28-04-2009, 20:44

*snip*

I fear that you are vastly oversimplifying the entire argument, Dr. Merrywether. I do not contend to say that the government should protect inferior, inefficient companies, but that the government should protect what is in the best interest of the economy. The simple answer as to why I would prefer the microprocessor industry to be located in Glen-Rhodes is that our economy would benefit from it. To categorize companies that fail to beat the prices of large, international conglomerates as inferior and inefficient is highly disagreeable. The quality of the products may be the same, and the way they manufacture the products identical. The difference is that Big Microprocessor is simply larger than Small Microprocessors, perhaps because the former has exited longer or perhaps because there's a greater demand for that technology in its home nation. Do you mean to say that because one company is smaller than another, it is inherently more inefficient? Why should Small Microprocessors be forced to exit the industry because some free-trade fanatics fail to see that their actions do the exact opposite of their intentions: they protect and make prosper large conglomerates? Why should Glen-Rhodes not protect this domestic industry from failing, and thus loosing valuable tax dollars that are effectively irreplaceable because Glen-Rhodes cannot charge punitive tariffs to those same companies that are destroying important domestic industry?

Say I'm beating a dead horse, but it is further astounding that you say that the 'specialization' of industries in a nation is economically sound. I do remember that old adage 'don't place all your eggs in one basket'. With international membership as large as the World Assembly's, it is reasonable to suggest that there wouldn't be a single nation that specializes in agriculture and related areas, but there would be many. Consider that a nation specializes the agricultural and related industries, and that these industries make up 40% of GDP. (OOC: The agricultural industry accounted for a little more than 40% of Nigeria's GDP in 2008.) Also consider that within the same region exists a nation with an emerging agricultural industry. Because of better business practices and smarter research technique, this industry grows to be larger than its competitors, and is able to lower prices to a ridiculous amount. Nations that previously used the older industry are now using the younger, cheaper one. Because the older industry accounted for nearly half of its nation's GDP, this economic gamble of 'specialization' had led to an economic free-fall, because the WAEU failed to see the benefits of some protectionist devices, blinded by the prospect of cheap products.

Lastly, the argument that if Glen-Rhodes protects the microprocessor industry, it inhibits the growth of future industries has no foundation. It would certainly be true if this industry was protected no matter the domestic health of the industry; i.e. it would be completely idiotic for a nation to protect an industry when society has determined the industry obsolete. We do employ rather learned economists over at the Financial Advisory Agency. When it is fruitless to employ 'protectionist devices' on an industry, our government tends to realize this and subsequently tends to allow the industry to face the full effect of supply-and-demand.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Plutoni

28-04-2009, 21:07

The resolution Repeal "World Assembly Economic Union" was passed 2,963 votes to 1,204.

:headbang:

Bears Armed

28-04-2009, 21:12

*(dusts-off draft for my proposal on 'Free Trade in Sweetness'...)*

Charlotte Ryberg

28-04-2009, 21:17

That's me done with this now it's over, I'm off to propose a simpler human rights resolution on Emigration. More people have been arriving at Charlotte Antje and Aveni. If I can get a good free trade rezzy (Ed's note: this is a slang term we use often in our offices) into the books then we will have the golden ages back.

Urgench

28-04-2009, 21:47

It is difficult for us to express just how foolish and ill conceived this repeal is, and we are grievously disappointed in the judgement of this organisation which has voluntarily injured the economies of its entire membership by this action.

We have often been forced to ask the authors of repeals what their erasure will be replaced with, and if they intend to replace the law they wish to see erased with another which will represent a qualitative and quantitative improvement on the erased measure, because we sincerely believe that legislative demolition must be succeeded by deft and well crafted rebuilding of the legal structures of this organisation.

In this case we would do the W.A a tremendous disservice indeed if we recommended to the authors of this repeal that they put their minds to the formulation of law ever again.

Yours in profound regret,

Unibot

28-04-2009, 22:22

Eduard Heir walked on to the alter of the Assembly, standing bravely with a small red canister of “Uni-fuel” - an unleaded mixture of his own government monopoly’s concoction.

Wiping a tear from his face dramatically for free trade, and kissing his economic dominance goodbye.

He looked for a stenographer to write his last words.

“For a year now I have presided over Unibot’s effort in the World Assembly as an observer, an ambassador, a lover and a fighter. One year of predisposition towards my love of a free and boundless economy, not torn by the governance of foolish and medieval mercantilists that see fit to punish all of our economic freedoms with their fallacies. In my life, I have seen everything to be a commodity that can be bought, demanded, supplied, imported and exported – from life, to happiness and civil rights that sit on a feeble system of balance not too unlike the supply and demand of our fruitful businesses. We are a people of supply and demand – and it is time that we supplied the means to do the right thing for our neighbors, because lately the demand for such has certainly out weighed our resources of good faith, and insight.”

Eduard dripped the gaseous liquid over his body, and a pulled out a lighter in the fashion of a rock star concert,

“Oh my Brothers – Let us Deliver!”

The lighter transformed his body into a fiery inferno that lit the room – in his pain; Heir thought he saw an ambassador with a marshmallow on a twig.

Well at least someone was putting his suffering to good use, he thought.

Glen-Rhodes

28-04-2009, 23:45

Quintessence of Dust

29-04-2009, 00:00

Well, honorable sir,You know a lot of guys named Lois?

Before I begin my response, can I just say that this has got to rank as one of the most awesome sentences ever heard in this chamber:It is the prevention of said promulgation that many so called protectionist measures are designed for.That one's right up there with 'not nostrums but normalcy'.

To respond to your argument:I hope you understand that some nations do have different economic values and goals.No, I don't. Nations do not have values. They do not have beliefs, or thoughts, or priorities, or feelings, because nations are not people. People have values. Just so we're clear. (By the way, my values include all of those expressed most admirably the Ambassador of Philimbesi; I note, in general, a lack of response from the pro-death voters.)These, in their world view, would be harmed by free trade, thus they conclude that free trade is unhealthy for the economy. I happen to agree with these folks; it is good to diversify industries for if nation sticks to one industry that it is really good at and that industry, God forbid, became obsolete there would be a lot of unemployed people. It is about what is sustainable in the long term, and having a broad mixture of industries in a nation is necessary to keep an economy strong. May this resolution decrease economic growth?Yes, in fact that might be a good thing if said growth is not a sustainable pattern, but a series of erratic booms and busts or is built upon the promulgation of externalities.You cannot force 'diversification'. We have crappy soil, and a high-skilled workforce. Why should we bother trying to force computer science graduates to grow fruit out of rocks when we can employ in R&D and buy cheap food from abroad? I admit industries can become obsolete. But I don't see that recognition as hurting my argument: after all, what are you but petitioners on behalf of the candle-makers? You are the one denying the basic function of the market: you are the one proposing short-term measures. A tariff wall can only be built so high; after a point, it either stifles investment (quite a low point) or becomes ineffective. The long-term solution is not to preserve an unsustainable industry.

Furthermore, the spectre of unemployed people is unfortunate - but not terribly helpful. As you say, industries can become obsolete. Cars rendered cartwrights a dying breed; electronic timekeeping devices meant watchmaking became a craft, not a trade. What you are saying is that we should continue to drive in carts and wear analogue watches because it will avoid making people unemployed. The force of technological obsolescence can induce powerful change. Because someone is unemployed today does not mean they will not find a new job tomorrow. And it seems we are never likely to, for example, engage in mass production of green technology while hanging onto uneconomical auto manufacturing out of sheer bloody mindedness.Also, tell me something, under Qintessence of Dust law, is a corporation a protected personage?Yes.If so, would not the exportation of jobs be potentially considered treason at the incorporated business level,No.and would not free trade encourage such outsourcing?Yes.I fear that you are vastly oversimplifying the entire argument, Dr. Merrywether. I do not contend to say that the government should protect inferior, inefficient companies, but that the government should protect what is in the best interest of the economy. The simple answer as to why I would prefer the microprocessor industry to be located in Glen-Rhodes is that our economy would benefit from it.Wait wait wait. What is 'the economy', or 'the interest of the economy'? No offence, but you're either being arrogant or ignorant: do you honestly think I'm in favour of free trade because I think it'll be bad for 'the economy'?To categorize companies that fail to beat the prices of large, international conglomerates as inferior and inefficient is highly disagreeable. The quality of the products may be the same, and the way they manufacture the products identical. The difference is that Big Microprocessor is simply larger than Small Microprocessors, perhaps because the former has exited longer or perhaps because there's a greater demand for that technology in its home nation. Do you mean to say that because one company is smaller than another, it is inherently more inefficient? Why should Small Microprocessors be forced to exit the industry because some free-trade fanatics fail to see that their actions do the exact opposite of their intentions: they protect and make prosper large conglomerates?I fail to see how any of this relates to anything I have said, and if you can quote me bloviating on the wonders of large companies I'd be interested in the phrasing. We're keenly aware in our nation that large corporations can be just as inefficient as large government operations. Of course, certain industries naturally tend to favour those able to achieve large economies of scale. But this seems like a somewhat silly argument. With the exception of the sewing machine, most aspects of the textiles industry can be mechanised and the products produced at a greater rate and lower cost than if humans were involved. Should we join with the Luddites and smash up all the machines?

Because that's what this is. You may cloak it in the language of progressivism, but the core of your argument is a thoroughly reactionary spirit in common with Luddites and all opponents of change. It is one thing to be conservative: it is another to stand in the way of human welfare in the interests of serving outdated notions of moral right. Additionally, I note I have already made the argument that large companies are better placed than small ones to lobby for government assistance, so the idea that you are somehow benefitting the little woman seems strange, or at least it will continue to do until some form of rebuttal is offered.Why should Glen-Rhodes not protect this domestic industry from failing, and thus loosing valuable tax dollars that are effectively irreplaceable because Glen-Rhodes cannot charge punitive tariffs to those same companies that are destroying important domestic industry?Heh heh, what a positively Jevian argument. If the tariffs are indeed 'punitive', they're not going to be much a tax-earner, are they? And, you're completely shifting the goalposts: I thought this was about protecting kids selling lemonade, not funding your military budget? If you're concerned with tax revenue, levy a sales tax on all goods, not just foreign ones: as should be fairly apparent, that will bring in even more money. Everyone wins!Say I'm beating a dead horse, but it is further astounding that you say that the 'specialization' of industries in a nation is economically sound. I do remember that old adage 'don't place all your eggs in one basket'.It's impressive to see that you've whittled down the science of economics to a snatch of folk wisdom. Let's throw out the textbooks, fire up Wikiquote, and see how far we get.

Just so you don't think I'm completely down on old husbands' tales, though, here's one from our nation: "He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery."With international membership as large as the World Assembly's, it is reasonable to suggest that there wouldn't be a single nation that specializes in agriculture and related areas, but there would be many. Consider that a nation specializes the agricultural and related industries, and that these industries make up 40% of GDP. Also consider that within the same region exists a nation with an emerging agricultural industry. Because of better business practices and smarter research technique, this industry grows to be larger than its competitors, and is able to lower prices to a ridiculous amount. Nations that previously used the older industry are now using the younger, cheaper one. Because the older industry accounted for nearly half of its nation's GDP, this economic gamble of 'specialization' had led to an economic free-fall, because the WAEU failed to see the benefits of some protectionist devices, blinded by the prospect of cheap products.Example fails Test 101: comparison with the original resolution. Clause 7 specifically prohibits price dumping. You seem to think I'm in favour of allowing anti-competitive behaviour. I'm not, I've never said I was, and I voted against the repeal because it would allow it.

I do find it increasingly bizarre, though, that you think the WATC should not act in favour of 'cheap products' when THE PRODUCTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE FOOD! How dare you lecture this Assembly on 'food welfare' while arguing for laws to make buying it more difficult!Lastly, the argument that if Glen-Rhodes protects the microprocessor industry, it inhibits the growth of future industries has no foundation.It has several foundations:

1. It makes microprocessors more expensive to buy, rendering all your businesses that depend on them less profitable.
2. It hurts the microprocessor industry as a whole. Lower profits mean less investment, and less development of new and improved technologies.
3. It is likely to instigate retaliation by producing countries. They won't let you pass racist laws against them without giving something back in return.
4. It preserves an unsustainable industry, meaning fewer resources and less money is invested into the industries that are productive.

On the last point: Your country's major industry is tourism. But your hotels cannot get good staff. The best employees are all working for microprocessor countries, soaking up government-subsidised paychecks. Investors are still pouring money into what they think is a wise investment, not knowing it actually operates at the whim of the FAA (more on this later) when they could be financing the development of new tourist resorts. Just because you cannot point to an unemployment line does not mean economic damage is not being done.It would certainly be true if this industry was protected no matter the domestic health of the industry; i.e. it would be completely idiotic for a nation to protect an industry when society has determined the industry obsolete. We do employ rather learned economists over at the Financial Advisory Agency. When it is fruitless to employ 'protectionist devices' on an industry, our government tends to realize this and subsequently tends to allow the industry to face the full effect of supply-and-demand.This last part leaves me pretty much speechless. Firstly, do you honestly think the laws of supply and demand can be suspended at the whim of a bureaucrat, and reinstated whenever they determine they 'should apply'? The market will have its day; protectionism is just a particularly unsightly bump on the road. Secondly, how can you place so much faith in your committee but be thoroughly distrustful of the WA committee? I note that the WA committee has many checks and balances built in and a guaranteed neutrality (I so note because the last time I did so, no rebuttal was offered). Thirdly, 'society' does not determine industries obsolete. The laws of supply-and-demand do. Interference with them is not to be avoided at all costs, but it must be justified with something more than the sticking of one's head in the sand.

I can close only, disappointed, by quoting a speaker more eloquent than myself: our country's most eminent civil rights leader, Dr. Mar-tin Liu-tha Qing, Jr., who championed the cause of the Quintessential-Chinese minority:The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.--Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

Flibbleites

29-04-2009, 00:19

The self-immolation of Eduard Heir, representative from Unibot, is not something that we condone. While we take to heart the seriousness of this situation, and the absolute dedication to the free-trade agenda, we assure the General Assembly that our mind will not be swayed by even the most amazing of actions. So... please don't kill yourself.

... I don't suppose the World Assembly has its own firefighting team? Eduard might set fire to whole building...

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I wouldn't worry, the building's fire suppression system should be kicking in in.

*Bob looks at his watch*

5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

*flame retardant foam showers down upon the flames extinguishing them*

See, he's not the first arsonist that's been seen here, although I do believe that he is the first person to set themself on fire.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Altan Steppes

29-04-2009, 00:29

Krytellin eyes the Unibotian ambassador with a raised eyebrow.

Poor fool, you should've set the ones who authored this travesty and forced it upon us on fire instead.

And we are gravely disappointed to see narrowmindedness, protectionist isolationism, economic mumbo-jumbo and good old fashioned fearmongering prevail here. Nevertheless, the Federation will continue to pursue a free trade agenda with like minded nations, and chuckle as those who encouraged this repeal enjoy their moribund economies selling rocks, twigs, and the odd second or third child.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Glen-Rhodes

29-04-2009, 00:59

Wait wait wait. What is 'the economy', or 'the interest of the economy'? No offence, but you're either being arrogant or ignorant: do you honestly think I'm in favour of free trade because I think it'll be bad for 'the economy'?I'm almost certain you think it is good for the economy -- and by 'the economy', I mean the Glen-Rhodes economy. What I believe is that you are very, very wrong.

Because that's what this is. You may cloak it in the language of progressivism, but the core of your argument is a thoroughly reactionary spirit in common with Luddites and all opponents of change. It is one thing to be conservative: it is another to stand in the way of human welfare in the interests of serving outdated notions of moral right. Additionally, I note I have already made the argument that large companies are better placed than small ones to lobby for government assistance, so the idea that you are somehow benefitting the little woman seems strange, or at least it will continue to do until some form of rebuttal is offered.

... I do find it increasingly bizarre, though, that you think the WATC should not act in favour of 'cheap products' when THE PRODUCTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE FOOD! How dare you lecture this Assembly on 'food welfare' while arguing for laws to make buying it more difficult!I would not call my stance particularly conservative. The opposition of free trade has been a staple of the social democratic movement since its inception, favoring fair trade which presents developing and poor nations with a fair economic deal. What you continually fail to recognize is that unfettered free trade is the opiate of capitalism. Why not advocate paying a fair price, rather than a cheap price, when you know full well that cheap prices aren't a warm gift from the commercial industries, but the product of cheap labor and subsequently poorer nations? You may cast me as the stalwart opposition of change, but I am far from it. I am advocating the change from a cheap deal to a fair deal: a fair deal for all nations, not just the developed powerhouses.

Forgive my rushed response, but I feel that I am wasting time arguing this here, when the advocacy of fair trade would make a much more substantial difference during the legislative process.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Korintar

29-04-2009, 01:11

We respect the honorable Dr. Castro's skill at argumentation. There has been rioting in the streets of Korintar, but not of violent protest. Instead it is rioting in the sense that the nation of two billion has now turned into a giant block party, joyously celebrating the fall of coerced free trade. By the way, fire supressant makes for great s'mores:p- Myashtu Ighadi

Omigodtheykilledkenny

29-04-2009, 01:36

Eduard dripped the gaseous liquid over his body, and a pulled out a lighter in the fashion of a rock star concert,

“Oh my Brothers – Let us Deliver!”

The lighter transformed his body into a fiery inferno that lit the room – in his pain; Heir thought he saw an ambassador with a marshmallow on a twig.

Well at least someone was putting his suffering to good use, he thought.Just then, Susa wandered into the vast debate chamber, ostensibly to seek out a weak anti-trade ambassador to kidnap and set an example for the entire World Assembly, but instead was startled to discover a massive ball of flame, wreathed around what appeared to be a man.

Susa pointed frantically at the figure poised to destroy the nice new headquarters it had taken so long to build. "It's the Flame On guy from the Fantastic Four!" he gasped. "He'll kill us all!"

At that moment Susa felt very heroic. Quickly he pulled on his flame-retardant gloves and hurried toward the ball of fire, hoisted it high and hurled it at the nearest window. The Unibotan ambassador made a fantastic crash through the glass and arced majestically toward the ground, where the pacific waters of the Vastivan Memorial Reflecting Pool waited eagerly to receive him.

But Cdr. Chiang's officers were in position well before the Kennyite ambassador began to speak, and effortlessly secured him just as the foam started to rain on the assembly.

"Hey, wait a minute! You can't drag me off!" Susa protested against the many strong arms manhandling him. "I didn't try to kill anyone this time! I just saved that guy!" He waved manically toward the pilar of smoke rising from the unfortunate bundle of blackened appendages now seated in the water outside.

"Yes," replied Cdr. Chiang as she stepped out from behind the ambassador and whirled dramatically to face him. "But you saved the wrong person! You should have let that one burn!"

Unibot

29-04-2009, 01:52

Eduard fell to bottom of the reflecting pool, unable to swim. Oddly enough, underwater he smelt the revolting smell of burnt flesh, hair and to a lesser extent the smell of burnt marshmallow covered in flame retardant foam.

Was this what a second chance smelled like?

Scarred to the point of the Elephant Man, blinded and apparently humored by his own stupidity – he was laughing.

If only the fire had been radioactive - if so, this would have been the perfect origin story for a comic book superhero, instead it had the earmarks of a deformed supervillian who lacked an exceptional intelligence (at least, for now).

Eduard remarked about his new world, a blind man’s one,

“it’s so cold…” he coughed,

However the gnome paramedics merely assumed he was talking about his severed and burnt nerves.

They carried him out of the assembly whilst he went ballistic, screaming scriptures of violet and asking for forgiveness from his only true love.

Eduard Heir, Harbinger of the Misunderstood, had not died, he had merely left the building.

Quintessence of Dust

29-04-2009, 01:59

I'm almost certain you think it is good for the economy -- and by 'the economy', I mean the Glen-Rhodes economy.Well, that's what I suspected. Thinking in such monolithic terms is unhelpful. At the risk of philosophising, to suggest that everyone in your nation shares in the same economy seems intuitively sketchy. For a start, to say that something is bad for the economy implies that this effect can be quantified. Are we talking GDP/GNP? Income distribution?The opposition of free trade has been a staple of the social democratic movement since its inception, favoring fair trade which presents developing and poor nations with a fair economic deal.Really. I didn't know this. The Social Democrats in our nation are mostly First World protectionists interested only in maintaining their financial relationship with our - intensely conservative - unions. Perhaps they're not representative of the global trend.What you continually fail to recognize is that unfettered free trade is the opiate of capitalism.I don't know what 'opiate' means.Why not advocate paying a fair price, rather than a cheap price, when you know full well that cheap prices aren't a warm gift from the commercial industries, but the product of cheap labor and subsequently poorer nations? You may cast me as the stalwart opposition of change, but I am far from it. I am advocating the change from a cheap deal to a fair deal: a fair deal for all nations, not just the developed powerhouses.First, you've failed to respond to 95% of my argument. Should I assume you yield on those points? Second, on this issue, you are either being incoherent or duplicitous.

The resolution did not prevent a fair price being required. It did not require eliminating price controls. Note Clause 6:6. AFFIRMS the right of nations to impose regulations, including embargoes, for cultural, safety, environmental, human rights, ethical or other reasons, on goods and services and their manufacture, subject to WATC approval;We intended on interpreting this to include our right to exclude goods not made in compliance with the Living Wage Act (more on this below). Why would you not do the same? And if it's not simply wages you're concerned, the ethical exemption is still so broad that you can quite legitimately demand a fair price. The catch is: you have to demand it of all products, not just dirty foreign products.

The WAEU accomplished precisely one thing: it prohibited discrimination based on national origin. That's it. To oppose it is, essentially, to say that we are inferior to you, because we were not born in Glen-Rhodes. Who knows, maybe our skin is darker than yours, too. (It's probably not: I don't get much sun in my office.) The WAEU did not require that fair prices be abolished (arguably, it required they be determined by the market, not your bureaucrats, but that's another issue). What it did require was that the price be the same. As I mentioned before, if revenue collection is the issue, a sales tax is the solution. If a fair price is required, all you would have had to do to be in compliance would be to ensure that as well as imports, domestic products were sold at a fair price. If you did this, there is simply no way the WATC would intervene.

You also continually assume that economic nationalism works in the interests of 'developing nations'. Do you not realize what damage First World farm subsidies do to poor countries? Even thinking about it only conceptually, who do you think is better placed to dole out massive subsidies, to enforce stringent tariffs, to regulate import quotas? Protectionism is a tool of the rich countries, and we only fail to call it colonialism because the word has passed from our vocabulary. In practice, that's what it amounts to.

Finally, I note that you repeatedly accuse me, or perhaps my mission, of working against the interests of fair prices. We enthusiastically supported the Living Wage Act, even lobbying - successfully - for the expansion of the basket to include transport costs. We supported the recent union legislation so enthusiastically we summoned up a time-traveller to try to kill those opposed to it. (Admittedly, that was Sam's doing, not mine.) In the old UN we voted for the UNLRA, and against repeal of its predecessor. And in terms of labour exploitation, at the risk of tooting our own horn, I fail to see how anyone can accuse us of favouring cheap labour when our own legislation banned the cheapest of all labour, slavery. I don't particularly take offence, but I think you misjudge me and my mission if you think we somehow oppose workers getting a decent wage. Our voting and legislative record would suggest anything to the contrary.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether

Southeastern Evropa

29-04-2009, 05:45

Thanks to everyone who supported the repeal!

The divided

29-04-2009, 11:40

Dear esteemed members of the World Assembly,

It is with a heavy heart that I come to you today. With the recent repeal of the World Assembly Economic Union, FDI has fled our information technology field. The initial estimates are that this has caused the MASSIVE job losses of a low estimate of 50 million and a high estimate of 100 million jobs.

These job losses have led to a terribly unstable political situation that has caused more investors to leave the country.

With the plight of our nation in mind, I only ask that the WA think more closely about the real economic effects that will be brought on to countries. Thank You.

-Mr. Tom Metrisen, chair of the commerce committee

(upon leaving the podium, Mr. Metrisen is informed that the additional job losses have totaled 5 years of economic growth)

Charlotte Ryberg

29-04-2009, 11:57

The author of this resolution is simply lucky that most economies in Funen are still going strong with low unemployment rates.

Philimbesi

29-04-2009, 13:35

We sympathize with the plight of the FDI as we lost 161 million jobs after the passage of this repeal.

Gobbannium

29-04-2009, 17:50

The opposition of free trade has been a staple of the social democratic movement since its inception, favoring fair trade which presents developing and poor nations with a fair economic deal
It's a shame that, as ever, Dr Castro failed to read the resolution carefully. We were careful during the drafting debate to ensure that it did not in any way impede the pursuit of fair trade.

Glen-Rhodes

29-04-2009, 22:23

---

I don't completely know how to respond to this argument, to be quite honest. One moment, I want to attack the stance that the WAEU was an anti-discrimination legislation, which is laughable. Another moment, I want to refute the claims that I am some capitalistic nationalist, which is even more laughable. Then another moment, I find my self stunned that you are still arguing that free trade such as that promoted by the WAEU benefits poor/developing nations, and I wish to reiterate all the conjecture against it (for no one in this argument has presented statistical fact; not that any of us could, because the WAEU barely existed for more than a fiscal quarter).

What I propose is not free trade, nor is it hard-lined fair trade, but a sensible mix between the two. Despite what the Gobbanium delegation has said, taking the repealed resolution at face value does not leave me, nor probably did it leave the other 2,900 supporting votes, to believe that any substantial facet of fair trade was written into the WAEU. With the repeal passing with a 71% majority, sooner or later, the 42-point discrepancy between what voters say about free trade and what WAEU proponents say about free trade will have to be addressed and taken in to serious question. A sensible compromise can be reached, but first the free trade spear-headers must concede that free trade is not a sure-fire way to economic success, and that it brings with it a hoard of problems for developing and poor nations, such as the 'divergence rather than convergence of income levels within rich and poor countries'. They also need to concede to the absolute fact that not all protectionist devices are evil and corrupt means of economic nationalism, imperialism, or colonialism, and that nations who seek to protect certain aspects of their domestic industry are not evil and corrupt economic nationalists, imperialists, or colonialists.

The common goal of free trade and fair trade is economic prosperity, or at least something close to it. Free trade operates under the assumption that liberalizing international trade leads to decreased prices, which means that everybody can afford the essential products they need. Fair trade operates under the assumption that monitoring the prices of internationally traded goods will ensure that a profit is made for poor nations and their marginalized industries, which means that everybody would be able to afford the essential products they need. Instead of one or the other, a third way of achieving the goal must be found, which must include provisions that not only decrease prices on certain goods, but also ensure that poor and developing countries are able to make a profit off of their traded goods substantial enough to at least create the probability of a sustainable economy.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Quintessence of Dust

29-04-2009, 22:51

I don't completely know how to respond to this argument, to be quite honest. One moment, I want to attack the stance that the WAEU was an anti-discrimination legislation, which is laughable. Another moment, I want to refute the claims that I am some capitalistic nationalist, which is even more laughable. Then another moment, I find my self stunned that you are still arguing that free trade such as that promoted by the WAEU benefits poor/developing nations, and I wish to reiterate all the conjecture against it (for no one in this argument has presented statistical fact; not that any of us could, because the WAEU barely existed for more than a fiscal quarter).Ok, so why don't you do these things? It's quite evident that you do indeed not know how to respond to my arguments since you continually refuse to do so. Every single point I have made has been met, not with rebuttal, but with silence and goalpost-shifting. Instead of laughing at the notion that you are nationalist, why not disprove it? Instead of saying that you want to attack the notion of the WAEU as anti-discrimination legislation, why not actually attack it? This entire address - which, because I'm a sucker, I'll respond to anyway - is simply one more exercise in refusing to acknowledge the argument. So instead of responding to a single point I've made, you say 'now it's time to admit you're wrong'. Why should I? You've provided no reason for me to do so: it's not that you haven't rebutted any of my arguments, it's that you haven't responded to them!What I propose is not free trade, nor is it hard-lined fair trade, but a sensible mix between the two.Whereas I propose on absolute hard line in favour of fair trade. I don't think what country someone was born in should determine what I pay them for their service.Despite what the Gobbanium delegation has said, taking the repealed resolution at face value does not leave me, nor probably did it leave the other 2,900 supporting votes, to believe that any substantial facet of fair trade was written into the WAEU. With the repeal passing with a 71% majority, sooner or later, the 42-point discrepancy between what voters say about free trade and what WAEU proponents say about free trade will have to be addressed and taken in to serious question.This is a shitty argument, and you know it. Firstly, a majority of voters voted for the proposal in the first place. Secondly, majorities of voters voted in favour of multiple - unrepealed - free trade resolutions in the old UN. Thirdly, majorities of voters have voted, in the WA and UN, for: a resolution to incentivise price inflation of life-saving drugs by pharmaceutical companies, a resolution to honour Max Barry Day, a resolution requiring WA nations to pay their military enemies' pensions, not one but two resolutions permitting any nation to prohibit economic activity in any part of any other nation, numerous cack-handed environmental mandates based on poor science, and, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go back to it - Max Barry Day. You're saying that because these people vote for something I should approve of it? If they voted to declare water wet I'd stick my finger in to check.

(And fourthly, no one's claimed free trade polls well. You're fantastically good at responding to arguments no one's made. Of course a great many WA ambassadors, no doubt eyeing their post-WA career at some private firm they can funnel huge subsidies to, are going to vote in favour of economic nationalism; of course anti-trade sentiment is a populist vote-getter. The people free trade benefits most are too young to vote.)A sensible compromise can be reached, but first the free trade spear-headers must concede that free trade is not a sure-fire way to economic success, and that it brings with it a hoard of problems for developing and poor nations, such as the 'divergence rather than convergence of income levels within rich and poor countries'.Why do we need to admit this? You haven't provided any arguments to demonstrate that it is so.

Moreover, you're pretending a false scenario. Do you honestly believe any global trade system is not going to leave poor nations in something of a pickle. They're POOR! Of course they have problems! If they didn't, then they wouldn't be developing - they'd be developed. So, given the choice of two crappy systems, I vote for the one that lets them sell their produce and not for the one that lets them starve to death.They also need to concede to the absolute fact that not all protectionist devices are evil and corrupt means of economic nationalism, imperialism, or colonialism, and that nations who seek to protect certain aspects of their domestic industry are not evil and corrupt economic nationalists, imperialists, or colonialists.You are yet to provide an example of a protectionist device that is not a weapon of xenophobia. So no, again, I don't think I have a need to concede. Cute phrase, though.The common goal of free trade and fair trade is economic prosperity, or at least something close to it. Free trade operates under the assumption that liberalizing international trade leads to decreased prices, which means that everybody can afford the essential products they need. Fair trade operates under the assumption that monitoring the prices of internationally traded goods will ensure that a profit is made for poor nations and their marginalized industries, which means that everybody would be able to afford the essential products they need. Instead of one or the other, a third way of achieving the goal must be found, which must include provisions that not only decrease prices on certain goods, but also ensure that poor and developing countries are able to make a profit off of their traded goods substantial enough to at least create the probability of a sustainable economy.Once again, you haven't replied to the argument but simply manufactured a straw man: I'm beginning to suspect this may be your nation's profitable industry. No one is saying we should race to the bottom. As I have already pointed out, the WAEU did not require the elimination of minimum wage laws or price controls. As I have already pointed out, the author of the WAEU actually passed the fair wage legislation in the old UN - and in the new WA, many supported both resolutions. As I have already pointed out...

You know what, enough. Once in your life, Dr Castro, give me a straight answer: is there any point me continuing to argue with you, or are you simply going to ignore everything I say and begin a new round of telling me what I need to admit? I've spent time in this debate, something I rarely indulge in any more, because you seem like a genuinely intelligent, rational individual capable of thinking things through and, when the moment calls, changing your mind or the minds of those arguing with you. They are not qualities this particular debate seems to have brought out in you, however.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether

OOC:'divergence rather than convergence of income levels within rich and poor countries'Seriously? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_World_Trade_Organization) You're not really just lifting your talking points from Wikipedia are you?

Glen-Rhodes

30-04-2009, 00:28

Whereas I propose on absolute hard line in favour of fair trade.Then why argue in favor of free trade?

You are yet to provide an example of a protectionist device that is not a weapon of xenophobia. So no, again, I don't think I have a need to concede. Cute phrase, though.Rather, I have yet to provide an example of a protectionist device that is not deemed as xenophobic by opponents of protectionist devices.

You've provided no reason for me to do so: it's not that you haven't rebutted any of my arguments, it's that you haven't responded to them!Perhaps we aren't even in agreement of what the argument is about? To begin, I have clearly responded to your arguments that (1) opposing free trade is supporting corporate corruption and that (2) protecting domestic industry is promoting inefficiency. It is clear that we have conflicting ideologies that make it impossible to come to an agreement on the first argument. However, the second argument was met with you denying you ever made the argument in the first place. It is impossible to respond to an argument that a person claims they haven't made. So, you went on to characterize me as stubbornly against 'change', comparing me to fanatics that are afraid of mechanized manufacturing.

After attacking my character, you claimed I was shifting the argument. I believe you said, "I thought this was about protecting kids selling lemonade, not funding your military budget?" I decided to not respond to this, because protecting kids selling lemonade (which is a gross insult on protectionists, which in turn is what the entire free trade movement is) and funding Glen-Rhodes military budget go hand-in-hand with the fact that lemonade retailers pay taxes (I do hope that I don't have to explain that we do not actually tax kids selling lemonade on the street corner; but, considering this is the World Assembly, I probably should), and those taxes fund government operations.

If that wasn't enough, you threw in a quote about hate violence, as if to imply something rather insulting and distasteful. Have we never heard of diplomatic speech, Dr. Merrywhether?

So, I do not think you are in any special position to be accusing me of unskilled debate, of putting up straw-man arguments and shifting goalposts. Perhaps I have, because you do certainly make a formidable opponent, and some of arguments I cannot think of a rebuttal for. There are facets of free trade that are beneficial and cannot be argued otherwise. However, I will always contend that free trade is the wrong way to go about economic prosperity, because it contradicts the ultimate responsibility of prosperous nations: to help those nations that cannot help themselves. I am willing to pay a bit more if it means that a family somewhere can afford a week's worth of bread and broth.

Perhaps us arguing is fruitless, and is only leading to a schism in the relatively beneficial diplomatic relations between our two delegations. If anything is clear, it is that we have polar opinions when it comes to how to reach the same goal of economic prosperity. I had hoped that the foundations of a compromise I provided would spark some new conversation, rather than further the existing argument. I can assure you, though, that it is not intended to be a straw-man, and that the dismissing of it as such is greatly disappointing.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

OOC:Seriously? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_World_Trade_Organization) You're not really just lifting your talking points from Wikipedia are you?OOC:
Just that one, which is why it's wrapped in quotes. I was going to take the usual route of making up a fake person, like you did with MLK's quote, but didn't think anybody would actually mind that I quoted Wikipedia... especially since the quote in question comes from a scholarly book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#cite_note-56).

Quintessence of Dust

30-04-2009, 01:48

Then why argue in favor of free trade?Because that's what free trade accomplishes: it ensures that one's ethnic origin is not the determinant of the price one receives. My point is that 'free trade' and 'fair trade' are tags like 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'. I like both choice and life, and knowing that tells you precisely zero about my opinion on abortion. I am for free and fair trade, and knowing that tells you nothing about my position on trade. Instead of saying 'let's have free trade!' and 'no! let's have fair trade!' and 'nuh-uh - fair trade sucks!' and 'all the people who like free trade are gaaaay!' - let's admit that both nationalists and internationalists think their systems are free and fair - and that trading these epithets isn't going to solve the problem.Rather, I have yet to provide an example of a protectionist device that is not deemed as xenophobic by opponents of protectionist devices.Right. So, perhaps you get on that?No, you haven't. So I'll restate.

A big corporation is better placed to lobby for subsidies, special protections, etc., than is a small company. I'm not asking you to rebut this, because I don't think it can be rebutted: it's intuitively correct. I'm more interested in what the solution to this problem is.

On the second point, I really don't see where you have replied to the argument that protecting domestic industry promotes inefficiency. I'm not trying to obtuse, but maybe you could quote what you said on this issue? You've said it may be 'in the interests of the economy', but didn't elucidate the medium of this; you said the specialisation was bad, which seems more like accepting some degree of inefficiency in exchange for a trade-off.[quote]It is clear that we have conflicting ideologies that make it impossible to come to an agreement on the first argument. However, the second argument was met with you denying you ever made the argument in the first place. It is impossible to respond to an argument that a person claims they haven't made. So, you went on to characterize me as stubbornly against 'change', comparing me to fanatics that are afraid of mechanized manufacturing.I see no difference between the two whatsoever. Hand-threshing was replaced by machines. Doing so increased unemployment. Allowing cheap microprocessors into Glen-Rhodes will cause unemployment in your microprocessor industry. How is opposing cheap grain different to opposing cheap microprocessors? It is the same exact process. Luddites smashed machines took their jobs. Neo-Luddites enact trade laws against imports that would take their jobs.After attacking my character, you claimed I was shifting the argument. I believe you said, "I thought this was about protecting kids selling lemonade, not funding your military budget?" I decided to not respond to this, because protecting kids selling lemonade (which is a gross insult on protectionists, which in turn is what the entire free trade movement is) and funding Glen-Rhodes military budget go hand-in-hand with the fact that lemonade retailers pay taxes (I do hope that I don't have to explain that we do not actually tax kids selling lemonade on the street corner; but, considering this is the World Assembly, I probably should), and those taxes fund government operations.So tax ALL LEMONADE SELLERS! What do you have against a sales tax? Please note: you are arguing for lower government revenues under your current system.

Sales tax = tax on goods

Tariff = tax on goods - tax on goods made in Glen Rhodes

{Goods} > {goods made in Glen-Rhodes}

=> Sales tax returns more revenue than tariff

You're worried that reducing tariffs will lower your revenue. Ok. And presumably, this won't be offset by the reduction in subsidies. (And let's assume the income tax boom once your nascent industries take off has a delayed impact.) But a tariff is just a selective sales tax. Making that tax system less selective will boost your revenues - and not put off importers who might lobby for retaliatory against your exports (thereby reducing further your tax revenues as your workers make no income).If that wasn't enough, you threw in a quote about hate violence, as if to imply something rather insulting and distasteful. Have we never heard of diplomatic speech, Dr. Merrywhether?You mean, as opposed to the ever-charming, rose-petals in their mouth approach of Ms. Benson or Secretary Madison?

Seriously, I'm sorry if I offend you, but not that sorry: I feel you're standing in the way of progress and I intend on telling you so. Moreover, the quotation I included was perfectly apt: the enforced exclusion of foreign goods and services is an act of violence, whatever rhetoric it is cloaked in.So, I do not think you are in any special position to be accusing me of unskilled debate, of putting up straw-man arguments and shifting goalposts. Perhaps I have, because you do certainly make a formidable opponent, and some of arguments I cannot think of a rebuttal for. There are facets of free trade that are beneficial and cannot be argued otherwise. However, I will always contend that free trade is the wrong way to go about economic prosperity, because it contradicts the ultimate responsibility of prosperous nations: to help those nations that cannot help themselves. I am willing to pay a bit more if it means that a family somewhere can afford a week's worth of bread and broth.So am I. So am I. SO. AM. I. How many times must I say it?

I am so in favour of paying a bit more that I represent a mission that lobbied for the Living Wage Act to include, not just the price of bread and broth, but also the bus fare to go to work for the bread and broth. We then voted for the Act. Not content with this, I personally voted for the union rights legislation to make sure workers not earning their keep would have systematic protection. Being in favour of free trade does not mean not being in favour of a fair wage. Being in favour of the WAEU did not mean this, either, and its ethical exemption clause codified this in formal law.

Furthermore, when you're enacting a tariff to protect your microprocessor industry, who exactly do you think you're protecting yourself against? There is clearly someone out there whose microprocessor job is in jeopardy because it's been taken by one of your nationals, propped up by subsidies. How does that person make their bread and broth? Because, it doesn't seem to me like you're really in favour of paying a fair wage: it seems like you're in favour of paying people from Glen-Rhodes a fair wage. It's a big world, and everyone else has to eat, too.

(I did like the bread and broth bit, though. Tugs on the heart-strings.)Perhaps us arguing is fruitless, and is only leading to a schism in the relatively beneficial diplomatic relations between our two delegations.Maybe so, but there's not a lot else going on here. And if it convinces you to include trade provisions in your new draft on food welfare, then all the better.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether

OOC:Just that one, which is why it's wrapped in quotes. I was going to take the usual route of making up a fake person, like you did with MLK's quote, but didn't think anybody would actually mind that I quoted Wikipedia... especially since the quote in question comes from a scholarly book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization#cite_note-56).It's not a scholarly book - it's a think-tank publication. Their Board has some interesting connections (http://www.theyrule.net/2004/index.php?mapid=6314), not even included Sony, McGraw-Hill, and more. You're sure you're fighting against the big corporate interests? :P

Glen-Rhodes

30-04-2009, 23:45

Because that's what free trade accomplishes: it ensures that one's ethnic origin is not the determinant of the price one receives. My point is that 'free trade' and 'fair trade' are tags like 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'. I like both choice and life, and knowing that tells you precisely zero about my opinion on abortion. I am for free and fair trade, and knowing that tells you nothing about my position on trade. Instead of saying 'let's have free trade!' and 'no! let's have fair trade!' and 'nuh-uh - fair trade sucks!' and 'all the people who like free trade are gaaaay!' - let's admit that both nationalists and internationalists think their systems are free and fair - and that trading these epithets isn't going to solve the problem.What is happening here is that until you specifically said that you believed in certain aspects of free trade and certain aspects of fair trade, you might as well not have known what you stood for at all. Forgive me if I've missed you saying this before in some long-winded argument. You are right that advocating both doesn't tell much about what you are actually advocating, though; the two systems as a whole are conflicting. But, I have set forth the foundations of a compromise. I haven't seen anything that can be considered a compromise from you, Dr. Merrywether. What do you think might be the start of the solution? I find it hard to accept that the WAEU fits in to whatever your hybrid trade ideology is, since the WAEU is almost entirely advocating pure free trade.

A big corporation is better placed to lobby for subsidies, special protections, etc., than is a small company. I'm not asking you to rebut this, because I don't think it can be rebutted: it's intuitively correct. I'm more interested in what the solution to this problem is.Lobbying restrictions, I would imagine. Though, this would probably be seen as an area of national law, rather than international law. Unless you wish to eliminate big corporations altogether, which I don't ideologically disagree with, but wouldn't waste my time on for practical reasons.

On the second point, I really don't see where you have replied to the argument that protecting domestic industry promotes inefficiency. I'm not trying to obtuse, but maybe you could quote what you said on this issue? You've said it may be 'in the interests of the economy', but didn't elucidate the medium of this; you said the specialisation was bad, which seems more like accepting some degree of inefficiency in exchange for a trade-off.

(Insert here also your lemonade bit.)To be more clear, it would 'be the interests' of the economy as a whole: keeping manufacturers and other business in Glen-Rhodes not only supplies Glen-Rhodes with more tax revenue, but keeps jobs and thus prosperity inside the nation. In some arguments, GDP might suffer because prices are inherently a bit higher when fair trade in employed. Aside from that though, the benefits of keeping industry inside your nations far outweigh the benefits of outsourcing those industries. Essentially, this is the bedrock argument against free trade employed by its opponents. How effective it will be against you and others that lean more free than fair on the spectrum is up for question, but I'm going to assume that it won't be terribly effective. Not when the rebuttal supplied is generally "the benefits of cheaper products far outweigh the benefits of keeping industry inside your nation".

A universal increase in taxes is not the answer. Aside from Glen-Rhodes' national government not having the power to levy domestic sales taxes or income taxes (this is something reserved for state governments; as a little history lesson, the two states that make up Glen-Rhodes -- Glendale and Rhodes -- rarely do the same thing for the sake of disagreeing with each other... one of the reasons why I decided to get out of state government and enter national politics), it is antithetical to do so if your goal is to protect domestic industry. Equally raising taxes on both domestic businesses and foreign business will do little to prevent foreign business from being more prevalent that its domestic counterpart. Of course there's the problem of the foreign business doing the same, which would undoubtedly have an impact on domestic business. This is why protectionist devices are not completely effective, and why I do not solely advocate fair trade. Coming up with a solution that addresses the sustainability of domestic industry, the benefits and downfalls of liberalized international trade, and the needs of poor and developing industries when it comes to higher product prices, will be a difficult endeavor. But, our job isn't to give up and take the easy route of choosing one system over the other.

Also, I'm hard-pressed to find a reason why non-specialized industry is inherently inefficient industry. Specialization as we've using it, despite the descriptive quality of its name, does not describe the quality of a product, but the size of the industry that makes it. In the scenario I provided, both products were of equal quality and production methods were identical. The danger of having little diversity in what composes a nation's market is the potential of economic disaster. What happens when the product is no longer being bought in high volumes? Because the industry comprises such a large sections of the market, the economy as a whole is bound to suffer. There are no other industries to replace the ailing one because the subscribed international trade laws have promoted one-trick markets, and your nation hasn't done much to secure more than a few staple industries. What you turn to are tariffs and other 'protectionist devices' to try and keep this industry afloat, which is exactly what you didn't want all along.

You mean, as opposed to the ever-charming, rose-petals in their mouth approach of Ms. Benson or Secretary Madison?On an aside, I do miss having Samantha around the offices.

Being in favour of free trade does not mean not being in favour of a fair wage. Being in favour of the WAEU did not mean this, either, and its ethical exemption clause codified this in formal law.The problem is, Dr. Merrywether, the ethical exemption clause was obviously not clearly written, and only those who participated in the drafting of it completely understood its implications and uses.

Furthermore, when you're enacting a tariff to protect your microprocessor industry, who exactly do you think you're protecting yourself against? There is clearly someone out there whose microprocessor job is in jeopardy because it's been taken by one of your nationals, propped up by subsidies. How does that person make their bread and broth? Because, it doesn't seem to me like you're really in favour of paying a fair wage: it seems like you're in favour of paying people from Glen-Rhodes a fair wage. It's a big world, and everyone else has to eat, too.I like to think that I'm compensating with working on free and efficient education for all persons (which has been submitted twice, and twice failed by single digits), supplying food to the poor (despite what implications this repeal has on crop prices, the crops given are still given at zero charge), and the various other welfare agreements and charities Glen-Rhodes has.

Maybe so, but there's not a lot else going on here. And if it convinces you to include trade provisions in your new draft on food welfare, then all the better.Perhaps some suggestions over at the drafting area for the Food Welfare Act would be a good start?

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia
OOC:It's not a scholarly book - it's a think-tank publication. Their Board has some interesting connections (http://www.theyrule.net/2004/index.php?mapid=6314), not even included Sony, McGraw-Hill, and more. You're sure you're fighting against the big corporate interests? :POOC:
Hey, I was taught with McGraw-Hill textbooks. I seemed to have come out of it fine. :) Interesting web, though.

NationStates Jolt Archive

PASSED: Repeal "World Assembly Economic Union"