DEFEATED: Trade Enhancement Act (TEA)

[Progressive Union]

What a lovely gift to the WA this is. We will most certainly lend this beautiful piece of legislation our support. It is so rare to find a proposal that is all about profit.

It must be an even rarer occurrence to find one that is both repealed and in the queue! Quick! Somebody get the camera before it runs away.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

Now this is just being childish.

There is obvious "bad blood" here, but this proposal deserves fair hearing, just as I am sure it's Repeal had. What needs to be corrected is the manner at which bringing the past back up again and again and again...

Can we stick to the meat of this and lay off of the personal?

D. Mark Melancon; Prime Minister, The Commonwealth of the Progressive Union

[Ardchoille]

Perhaps Glen-Rhodes suffered the same knee-jerk reaction I did. My first thought was OMGillegal! , until I realised I was responding as if it were a proposal that had been deleted in the queue for illegalities and then returned with only cosmetic changes.

But it's not. It wasn't deleted for technical faults, it was repealed by a decision of the ambassadors then constituting the WA. The author has presumably decided that, given the changes in membership, the present WA might find it acceptable.

So: It's a legit proposal, it's been changed to take into account the changes in WA law since it was first proposed, it has a different title so it won't mess up the game coding and it hasn't ignored the arguments that led to the repeal (as discussed earlier in this thread). No probs.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now this is just being childish.

There is obvious "bad blood" here, but this proposal deserves fair hearing, just as I am sure it's Repeal had. What needs to be corrected is the manner at which bringing the past back up again and again and again...

Can we stick to the meat of this and lay off of the personal?

D. Mark Melancon; Prime Minister, The Commonwealth of the Progressive Union

It had a fair hearing. Twice, actually: 8 months ago, then again 3 months ago. Why should the World Assembly hear the exact same resolution for a third time, especially with the arrogance in which it was submitted?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

... and it hasn't ignored the arguments that led to the repeal (as discussed earlier in this thread). No probs.

(OOC: If this is contingent to the proposal's legality, can somebody explain to me how any of the arguments brought up in the repeal have been addressed? New Leicestershire/MSR has even said that the repeal was garbage and that they weren't going to even give it a second look, let alone change the proposal's language. I mean, is adding seven words really enough of a change? Would it be legal for me to resubmit the Veteran's Reform Act, simply because I added "not affected by previous World Assembly legislation" somewhere in the text?

EDIT: I should also mention that I believe New Leicestershire/MSR has me on Ignore, so somebody else is going to have to find it in their kind hearts to answer my questions...)

[Travancore-Cochin]

Regrettably Mr. Watts, we cannot support this proposal as long as it outlaws subsidies. We believe that the subsidy is a powerful tool that is also the perfect compromise. While doing away with tariffs, duties and import quotas would certainly give our citizens the economic freedom of choice, employment of subsidies would allow us to protect fledgling domestic companies from certain collapse. If anything, it will only increase the freedom of choice.

[New Leicestershire]

This might sound good in theory, but how can a poor country, which has invested a good deal of its resources into this particular company and doesn't have the economies of scale, customer base, expertise, or brand recognition of a well-established foreign company, be expected survive against them in the first place, if the government cannot subsidise or protect that company? In all likelihood they would never even get the chance to improve their products before being forced to shut down.

There should be some brand loyalty in their domestic market. Also they could export their automobiles and sell them competitively in foreign markets since those markets would not be able to apply a tariff to them, nor could those markets subsidize their automotive industry. I'm not saying they would be guaranteed to survive but neither would they be guaranteed to fail. I think you tend to state the worst case scenario and all I'm trying to present is a reasonable scenario. Don't always assume that people will fail. They just might succeed.

This insistence on "competition" seems to us rather wasteful and destructive. Granted that it is sometimes a good thing, but not always.

Well we are capitalists and competition is one of the cornerstones of the free market, so....

I wasn't speaking of two centuries ago. I am speaking in less than half a century ago, and even to the present day, where nations built industries which have now become the envy of the world, and even became among the world's most valuable economies. They could not have done this without protectionism, and even cooperation from trade partners which even limited their own exports to help them. This certainly can't be described as a situation of free trade, and such success should prove that perhaps forbidding protectionism is not the best way to encourage development.

[I have two words for you, good sir, "Germany" and "Japan". Even the United States was and is rather protectionist when they find it suits them.]

That is only one example and it is an example that didn't exactly lead to worldwide prosperity, but prosperity only for a chosen few. Yes those economies thrived, but at the expense of other economies that didn't enjoy their advantages and privileges.

Tying this into the point above, how can they make such improvements, if they are not able to do so because free trade and comparative advantage would tend to keep their economy as one focused on exports and low-value production? It becomes almost a necessity to take your own initiative to develop your own industries at some point, yet, these infant industries can't be expected to compete with well-established foreign ones right off the bat without some form of protectionism, can they?

Infant industries can be established, but it might be best at first to establish industries that can compete on price or efficiency. For instance if a nation has large iron deposits it might be best to start out with steel making rather than semiconductors. Or if a nation has a well established cotton producing region maybe their infant industry should be textiles rather than aircraft. This is not rocket science, find something that you can do better than the others and do that.

Not necessarily. In fact, improvements in education usually are the cause, rather than the effect, of economic health.

I'm not so sure I agree that it always follows that pattern. A quality education system requires revenue to fund it. If a nation lacks the funds to even construct schools it won't have much of an education system. Now granted the two go hand in hand. You can't have sustainable economic growth without education, but you have to start with something and that something is money.

We also find examples of what you term "economic liberty" coexisting or even facilitated by poor political and civil rights. In that context we cannot regard it as correct that a right (in basic tems) to buy and sell without regulation would necessarily lead to civil and political freedoms.

[references to Pinochet and Suharto]

Yes but those examples are short lived. Much like truth, liberty wants to get out. It's possible to have economic liberty without civil and political liberty for a time, but in the end those systems always collapse. Sometimes quite spectacularly.

My assertion was in the context of a currently underdeveloped country. I suspect we didn't really have this idea of "free trade" in the time your nation developed, or having been in front, it never really had to compete on an unfair footing, as the less developed countries would have to do under this proposal. All in all, "free trade" ideology seems somewhat like pulling up the drawbridge behind you.

New Leicestershire, being a maritime nation, has always thrived on foreign trade. We have historically had a tendency to keep tariffs low. And again I'll have to disagree with your analogy. This isn't pulling the drawbridge up behind us, it is lowering the drawbridge and letting everybody in.

They could, but they could also benefit from a local employer, couldn't they? Free trade is not the only way to generate those jobs, and as I've pointed out, if it leads to the failure of efforts to build that domestic employment, it could in fact erase those jobs.

And why couldn't there be a local employer? Or a partnership between a local company and a foreign one?

What incredible arrogance! I would believe that with some exceptions, we are all here in good faith arguing for what we think would be best for the world. We could just as equally say the reverse, that you wish to harm us with free trade.

That was intended to be funny. Sometimes my humour is a bit dry.

This is the part where I agree that things have become rather irrelevant to free trade and more to socioeconomic ideology. Let's leave all that about corporations instigating wars, corrupting democracy, having too much government power etc. be for now.

Agreed.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Leicestershire]

Perhaps Glen-Rhodes suffered the same knee-jerk reaction I did. My first thought was OMGillegal! , until I realised I was responding as if it were a proposal that had been deleted in the queue for illegalities and then returned with only cosmetic changes.

But it's not. It wasn't deleted for technical faults, it was repealed by a decision of the ambassadors then constituting the WA. The author has presumably decided that, given the changes in membership, the present WA might find it acceptable.

So: It's a legit proposal, it's been changed to take into account the changes in WA law since it was first proposed, it has a different title so it won't mess up the game coding and it hasn't ignored the arguments that led to the repeal (as discussed earlier in this thread). No probs.

Thank you for this decision. I never felt that it would be illegal to revive the text of a repealed resolution. My only concern was the title and so I didn't resubmit it as World Assembly Economic Union.

[New Leicestershire]

Regrettably Mr. Watts, we cannot support this proposal as long as it outlaws subsidies. We believe that the subsidy is a powerful tool that is also the perfect compromise. While doing away with tariffs, duties and import quotas would certainly give our citizens the economic freedom of choice, employment of subsidies would allow us to protect fledgling domestic companies from certain collapse. If anything, it will only increase the freedom of choice.

Well if you look back over the text, particularly Articles 4,5 and 6, you'll see that there are ways to keep certain subsidies in place if there is a legitimate reason to keep them in place. You might be allowed to keep some of your subsidies, at least temporarily. This is not a "short sharp shock" sort of bill. All protectionist devices will not disappear the day after it passes. Rather, there will be a process to eliminate them eventually.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Rockport]

I doubt you will find many nations who will say this form of discrimination is either malicious or undesirable, and unless your own nation has absolutely no immigration control and literally allows anybody, regardless of national origin, criminal history, health status, etc., to enter, leave, live, work, receive social benefits and other such things in your country, you are discriminating as well.

OK, you got us here. We often deny entry to aliens who were convicted of crimes that would be felonies under Novopetrian law. Still, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between a state that extends certain benefits to citizens but not to aliens and a state that encourages or requires private citizens to discriminate against aliens. A state acts on behalf of its citizens and therefore has certain duties to them that do not extend to aliens. A private citizen, on the other hand, does not owe any greater duty to his or her fellow citizens than he or she owes to aliens.

Oh, we did that the last time and we'd do it again. More concerned for those less able to "persuade" the committee to see things their way. If you know what I mean. Ahem.

Seriously, though, I don't think it does a whole lot use an assumption of loophole exploitation.

You make a good point here. I think this proposal would be better if Section 6 were amended so that it allows the application of domestic labor, safety, and environmental regulations to imported goods, so long as those regulations are no more stringent than those which apply to domestic goods. That way, you wouldn't have to rely on the discretion of the committee.

[Altani WA Mission]

We regard competition as something done on a rink, on a pitch, in a pool, on a track, on a court; and do not subscribe to the notion that there must be "winners" and "losers" in the realm of the economy, where a lot more people are liable to become much more seriously hurt than from a high tackle or a check from behind. But inasfar as your point goes, that is correct. We are incapable of "competing" with many nations because our businesses cannot make people work for more than 35 hours per week without paying overtime. We cannot compete because they are required to grant every employee a minimum of 21 days paid leave per year, and unlimited medical leave. And often, they will not compete because they are not run to make a profit. We cannot compete because we have high taxes to pay for all the wonderful airports, railways, highways, seaports, hospitals, schools, libraries, universities, and lots of other things everyone always comes here and says they like.

We fear that yourself, like many others, have fallen for the misconception that an economy is all about growth, competing, or cutthroat efficiency. No, it is about securing the most favourable living standards for all, and this proposal does not wish for us to do that, it is a manifestation of a certain perspective on socioeconomic problems which our culture finds rather distasteful. We do not ask you to "coddle" us, we are doing very well for ourselves, we simply ask that if you wish to trade with us, we should not have to sacrifice for your benefit, and in general, we find it quite reasonable that some nations may wish to make the playing arena more fair through the use of taxes or subsidies.

Edit:

There is a further point I would wish to make: what about the nations which use protectionism as a measure for economic development? For instance, car import tariffs to protect a domestic car manufacturer, which is their means of building secondary industry and a domestic manufacturing sector in general?

With all due respect, Ambassador, you're making the automatic assumption that all nations wishing free trade expect their fellow nations to engage in sweatshop conditions, or are willing to gut their infrastructure to make the economy more profitable. The Altani Federation, for example, guarantees a fair living minimum wage, adjusted periodically for changing conditions, and overtime for more than 40 hours of work per week, as part of the Rights of the Worker clause of our Charter of Inalienable Rights. We also had a pretty damn good infrastructure, last time I checked. We encourage other nations we trade with to follow the same route, because a nation with well-paid, educated and well cared-for workers is more profitable to trade with than a nation that does not have any of those things. We also strive to be as equal as possible in our trading with other nations. Free trade does not automatically equal third-world sweatshops, or uneven trade, as much as the advocates of so-called fair trade would like us to think it does.

As for your stance on competition, while we have always had the utmost respect for the nation of Kelssek and its representatives, we find your stance on competition to be very naive. Life, and business, are competitive endeavors, ambassador, and putting your head in the sand and pretending the world is a shiny happy utopia where everyone holds hands and sings around the campfire will not change that fundamental nature of the human spirit.

As for protectionism, the Federation simply does not regard it as a legitimate measure under any circumstances. Protectionism makes things less fair, not more fair. It holds nations out of markets unfairly, it protects uncompetitive industries and workers and gives them no incentive to improve, it discriminates against productive nations, and it even sours relations between nations when one is unfairly shut out of another's marketplace. We simply will not shed any tears if this passes, and protectionism is consigned to the scrap heap it belongs in.

On a different note, can we please dispense with the rhetoric about bringing this back up to vote already? Legislatures make mistakes all the time. They pass laws they shouldn't, and get rid of laws they should keep, all the time. The WA made a mistake by repealing WAEU, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to replace it. Things do change, you know.

-Irina Misheli, Ambassador

[New Leicestershire]

You make a good point here. I think this proposal would be better if Section 6 were amended so that it allows the application of domestic labor, safety, and environmental regulations to imported goods, so long as those regulations are no more stringent than those which apply to domestic goods. That way, you wouldn't have to rely on the discretion of the committee.

OOC: Yes I could have done it that way, but then everyone would have simply RPed each and every one of their tariffs still being in place. "We still have all of our tariffs. Why? Because I say so."

At least as written it requires people to come up with a plausible explanation for why WATC is letting them keep them.

[Kelssek]

Well, this certainly is something special, to be accused of doom and gloom cynicism and organic baby unicorns naïvete at the same time!

With all due respect, Ambassador, you're making the automatic assumption that all nations wishing free trade expect their fellow nations to engage in sweatshop conditions, or are willing to gut their infrastructure to make the economy more profitable.

Well, I am simply pointing out that if your objective is to keep costs down, then you'll want to keep costs down, and prevent anyone from getting ideas that they should be paid more or treated in better, but more costly ways.

a nation with well-paid, educated and well cared-for workers is more profitable to trade with than a nation that does not have any of those things. We also strive to be as equal as possible in our trading with other nations. Free trade does not automatically equal third-world sweatshops, or uneven trade, as much as the advocates of so-called fair trade would like us to think it does.

Degradation in living standards in any society is likely to result if competition makes the people work longer hours, take fewer breaks, work under more stress or in a less relaxed environment, take cuts to wages and benefits, and other assorted Bad Thing occurrences. You cannot simply justify the potential for such negative impacts by claiming some imaginary right to buy and sell without interference.

We should also clarify that when we say fair trade in this context, we are not referring to Fair Trade as in the practice of paying producers for their produce at prices above a market value perceived as too low, but in the sense of conditions and practices between two countries being equal and therefore being able to be on an even footing. I would assert that such incidences are rare enough that blanket provisions assuming such conditions, as we see this ban on certain trade policy measures as being, are inappropriate.

As for protectionism, the Federation simply does not regard it as a legitimate measure under any circumstances. Protectionism makes things less fair, not more fair. It holds nations out of markets unfairly,

But in the end, it comes down to this: why do you believe you have a right to force your way into our, or any other country? And if you are permitted to buy and sell there, given that you're playing by different rules as it were, why shouldn't they be able to treat you differently if they see fit? It's not as if this foreign discrimination is always against the fella from out of town. Some nations are more than willing to encourage foreign firms by doling out tax holidays and evicting previous landowners for them. Should we not also prohibit that?

it protects uncompetitive industries and workers and gives them no incentive to improve, it discriminates against productive nations, and it even sours relations between nations when one is unfairly shut out of another's marketplace.

"Improve" is a rather subjective term. You might see improvements in terms of profitability, as we assume from the capitalist bent of your argument, but we see it in terms of social responsibility, environmental protection, efficient use of resources (which is part of environmental protection, really) and quality of product. These are not mutually exclusive, we will grant, but profit is not the first priority in most Kelssekian businesses and I would argue this is the critical difference.

Have you not also considered the possibility that free entry into another nation's marketplace sours the people of that nation against you should it cause the disruption or destruction of their lifestyles and culture, environmental degradation, or the perception of imperialism?

As for your stance on competition, while we have always had the utmost respect for the nation of Kelssek and its representatives, we find your stance on competition to be very naive. Life, and business, are competitive endeavors, ambassador, and putting your head in the sand and pretending the world is a shiny happy utopia where everyone holds hands and sings around the campfire will not change that fundamental nature of the human spirit.

Of course life is nasty. In fact, our entire argument is based on the assumption of people being nasty, because we know that it's a sad, sad world and only the pills can make it better. Ah, the lovely pills.

But why do you feel that it must be this way? Is it so necessary that producing goods be a competitive, rather than a cooperative endeavour? If we strive for circular campfire dancing, what is wrong with that? If this is your bleak view, we might as well give up ever trying to improve the condition of the world in any way. The damned humans don't deserve it and we should just leave it to the bears.

[New Rockport]

But in the end, it comes down to this: why do you believe you have a right to force your way into our, or any other country?

This isn't so much about forcing foreign firms into your country as giving your people the opportunity to choose to allow imported goods into your country. If consumers don't want a particular import, they won't buy it. If it doesn't sell, retailers won't buy it from importers. If importers can't sell it to retailers, they won't import it. The only way foreign products will be imported is if consumers are willing to buy them.

And if you are permitted to buy and sell there, given that you're playing by different rules as it were, why shouldn't they be able to treat you differently if they see fit?

They should. Ideally, this proposal would be re-introduced with Section 6 amended so as to set out clearly what barriers are or are not permissible, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the committee.

It's not as if this foreign discrimination is always against the fella from out of town. Some nations are more than willing to encourage foreign firms by doling out tax holidays and evicting previous landowners for them. Should we not also prohibit that?

Yes, we should. The use of eminent domain for private development is wrong, whether it is used for the benefit of foreign or domestic companies. I'll have my legal staff come up with a draft proposal to prohibit such abuse of eminent domain powers and, if you like, I'll make sure you get credit for giving me the idea.

-Silvana Rossi, Ambassador

[Kelssek]

There should be some brand loyalty in their domestic market. Also they could export their automobiles and sell them competitively in foreign markets since those markets would not be able to apply a tariff to them, nor could those markets subsidize their automotive industry. I'm not saying they would be guaranteed to survive but neither would they be guaranteed to fail. I think you tend to state the worst case scenario and all I'm trying to present is a reasonable scenario. Don't always assume that people will fail. They just might succeed.

However, even without any trade barriers, they would be forced to compete against well-established companies with economies of scale and expertise they simply do not possess, even in their home country. Brand loyalty isn't something you have when you've just started, and nationalism can only go so far. It would not be reasonable to expect them to be a success immediately.

The point of the infant industry argument is that we very much believe they would succeed, if they had the benefit of protection. It is also our belief, however, that free trade stacks the odds against them and makes it far more likely they will fail.

That is only one example and it is an example that didn't exactly lead to worldwide prosperity, but prosperity only for a chosen few. Yes those economies thrived, but at the expense of other economies that didn't enjoy their advantages and privileges.

[This really necessitates excessive OOC to debate]

A thread that seems to underly your proposal is that protectionism is necessarily economically harmful to other nations. However, there are literally thousands of nations in this world. Surely among them are many, many nations willing to open their economies to you. The only "harm" to you that we can see is that your companies can't completely maximise profit by getting into every corner and crevice of the world, but that is something we feel you're just going to have to live with.

Infant industries can be established, but it might be best at first to establish industries that can compete on price or efficiency. For instance if a nation has large iron deposits it might be best to start out with steel making rather than semiconductors. Or if a nation has a well established cotton producing region maybe their infant industry should be textiles rather than aircraft. This is not rocket science, find something that you can do better than the others and do that.

And what if that something is shovelling asbestos? Growing poppies? Digging up all your land to get at bitumen-soaked sand? And for how long should they keep at it? And if they take this advice and specialise, what happens if the demand for their area of comparative advantage collapses? Surely, if your concern is prosperity of other nations, as we think ours is too, you accept that they should have the opportunity to move up the value chain and build those sorts of secondary and tertiary industries. This would give much more stability and a better prospect for development in the long run, and we don't agree that taking away tools to help such measures succeed is helpful at all.

...but you have to start with something and that something is money.

Isn't that also an argument for international aid, then? Or even protectionism of whatever is the best revenue-generating industry? Free trade isn't the only means for this.

Yes but those examples are short lived. Much like truth, liberty wants to get out. It's possible to have economic liberty without civil and political liberty for a time, but in the end those systems always collapse. Sometimes quite spectacularly.

We regard this as largely theoretical conjecture, of little relevance.

[Again, risking too much RL here, but at least in Suharto's case, his fall was partially caused by the mandatory introduction of free trade and free market policies by the IMF, particularly dropping food and fuel subsidies, which led to riots, and more relevantly right now, removing controls on the international flow of capital which has been compared to opening a birdcage and expecting more birds to fly in.]

My assertion was in the context of a currently underdeveloped country. I suspect we didn't really have this idea of "free trade" in the time your nation developed, or having been in front, it never really had to compete on an unfair footing, as the less developed countries would have to do under this proposal. All in all, "free trade" ideology seems somewhat like pulling up the drawbridge behind you.

New Leicestershire, being a maritime nation, has always thrived on foreign trade. We have historically had a tendency to keep tariffs low. And again I'll have to disagree with your analogy. This isn't pulling the drawbridge up behind us, it is lowering the drawbridge and letting everybody in.

This, however, is rather unfair. You would not have had to compete in the same way that the less-developed nations now would have to compete. Even if you say you're leaving the drawbridge down, you're still making them fight a huge fire-breathing dragon in the gatehouse.

They could, but they could also benefit from a local employer, couldn't they? Free trade is not the only way to generate those jobs, and as I've pointed out, if it leads to the failure of efforts to build that domestic employment, it could in fact erase those jobs.

And why couldn't there be a local employer? Or a partnership between a local company and a foreign one?

Why would a local employer run into trouble? Well, I've been talking about little upstarts having to compete with no help against big, established firms, right? As for partnerships, why not indeed? But that would not necessitate the blanket free trade provisions.

[New Leicestershire]

However, even without any trade barriers, they would be forced to compete against well-established companies with economies of scale and expertise they simply do not possess, even in their home country. Brand loyalty isn't something you have when you've just started, and nationalism can only go so far. It would not be reasonable to expect them to be a success immediately.

Well of course they wouldn't be an immediate success but what were you hoping for? They wouldn't be an immediate success even if they were operating behind a wall of protectionism. They would still need to make a product that people would want to buy.

Oh I suppose if their government banned the importation of foreign automobiles, or used tariffs to make foreign cars so exorbitantly expensive nobody could afford them they might be able to call it "success". It's not hard to succeed if you operate within a government created monopoly. But what sort of cars would they be likely to make if they didn't have to compete? I'm guessing it would be the sort of cars that people would buy only if they have no other choice.

The point of the infant industry argument is that we very much believe they would succeed, if they had the benefit of protection. It is also our belief, however, that free trade stacks the odds against them and makes it far more likely they will fail.

Yes but I think you're forgetting that free trade goes both ways. The very free trade policies that opened the developing nation's markets to foreign goods would also open foreign markets to their goods. Why do you find it so hard to believe that a young start-up in a developing nation could compete in the global market? I have great faith in peoples desire to thrive and excel and I have do doubt that individuals in these developing nations would have the ability to compete globally if given the opportunity.

[This really necessitates excessive OOC to debate]

A thread that seems to underly your proposal is that protectionism is necessarily economically harmful to other nations. However, there are literally thousands of nations in this world. Surely among them are many, many nations willing to open their economies to you. The only "harm" to you that we can see is that your companies can't completely maximise profit by getting into every corner and crevice of the world, but that is something we feel you're just going to have to live with.

This isn't about only companies from New Leicestershire maximising profit. It is about everybody having the opportunity to maximise profit. And yes, I am a staunch supporter of maximizing profits. Unapologetically so. And as far as protectionism being harmful to other nations, yes I believe it is. It is also harmful to the nations that practice it.

And what if that something is shovelling asbestos? Growing poppies? Digging up all your land to get at bitumen-soaked sand? And for how long should they keep at it? And if they take this advice and specialise, what happens if the demand for their area of comparative advantage collapses?

Asbestos, poppies and bitumen-soaked sand? Really, ambassador. Are you of the opinion that all developing nations sit atop deposits of asbestos and oil sands with fields of opium poppies growing atop them?

I expect people to do what they have to do. As people have always done. I expect them to keep doing it as long as it is necessary. I expect them to adapt to changes in the marketplace if demand for their products diminishes. I think people are far cleverer, far more inventive and far more resilient than you give them credit for.

Surely, if your concern is prosperity of other nations, as we think ours is too, you accept that they should have the opportunity to move up the value chain and build those sorts of secondary and tertiary industries. This would give much more stability and a better prospect for development in the long run, and we don't agree that taking away tools to help such measures succeed is helpful at all.

Of course it is important to establish secondary and tertiary industries, and there is no reason to believe that developing nations would not eventually develop them. You sound as if you believe that these things would be impossible in the presence of free trade, but in the absence of free trade they would miraculously spring up overnight.

Isn't that also an argument for international aid, then? Or even protectionism of whatever is the best revenue-generating industry? Free trade isn't the only means for this.

Well of course it is an argument for international aid. Just because free trade arrives doesn't mean international aid will stop. I fail to see any correlation between the two things. As far as protecting the best revenue generating industry in a nation, if it generates that much revenue it won't need protecting. It will survive on its own.

This, however, is rather unfair. You would not have had to compete in the same way that the less-developed nations now would have to compete. Even if you say you're leaving the drawbridge down, you're still making them fight a huge fire-breathing dragon in the gatehouse.

But the dragon won't be in the gatehouse. It will be too busy out trying to plunder other castles.

Why would a local employer run into trouble? Well, I've been talking about little upstarts having to compete with no help against big, established firms, right?

Yes, and? Don't all upstarts have to start out by competing against big established firms?

As for partnerships, why not indeed? But that would not necessitate the blanket free trade provisions.

Well no, it wouldn't necessitate them. I was merely pointing out that local firms would have options and forming a partnership with an established foreign firm would be one of those options.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Kelssek]

Oh I suppose if their government banned the importation of foreign automobiles, or used tariffs to make foreign cars so exorbitantly expensive nobody could afford them they might be able to call it "success". It's not hard to succeed if you operate within a government created monopoly. But what sort of cars would they be likely to make if they didn't have to compete? I'm guessing it would be the sort of cars that people would buy only if they have no other choice.

Actually, they might build cars and airplanes of good enough quality that they actually overtake or even bankrupt the formerly larger and better competitors. But they wouldn't have got there without those tariffs and/or subsidies.

[Airbus? Japanese cars?]

Yes but I think you're forgetting that free trade goes both ways. The very free trade policies that opened the developing nation's markets to foreign goods would also open foreign markets to their goods.

And force them to battle against each other to export at the lowest price, no? And it seems in your view they should also rely on exports?

Why do you find it so hard to believe that a young start-up in a developing nation could compete in the global market? I have great faith in peoples desire to thrive and excel and I have do doubt that individuals in these developing nations would have the ability to compete globally if given the opportunity.

Your glib assertations of optimism ignore that fact that without nations being able to protect and subsidise, you are actually denying this opportunity.

Have you also considered that different cultures may have very different perspectives on what "thriving" and "excelling" mean? Your values are not the values of every nation in the world. This isn't really directed at that point specifically, but it strikes me that you are arguing on the basis of one particular social culture which regards material wealth as itself desirable.

This isn't about only companies from New Leicestershire maximising profit. It is about everybody having the opportunity to maximise profit. And yes, I am a staunch supporter of maximizing profits. Unapologetically so. And as far as protectionism being harmful to other nations, yes I believe it is. It is also harmful to the nations that practice it.

But if we don't want to maximise profit, then this proposal gives you a lot and gives us nothing, doesn't it? Incidentally, we don't feel it's been very harmful for us, but we measure things differently, of course.

And what if that something is shovelling asbestos? Growing poppies? Digging up all your land to get at bitumen-soaked sand? And for how long should they keep at it? And if they take this advice and specialise, what happens if the demand for their area of comparative advantage collapses?

Asbestos, poppies and bitumen-soaked sand? Really, ambassador. Are you of the opinion that all developing nations sit atop deposits of asbestos and oil sands with fields of opium poppies growing atop them?

It's a valid question. You seem to think every country will be best-equipped for something with stable demand and reasonably sustainable to produce. What if your comparative advantage is in producing something harmful, illegal in most places, or outrageously destructive to the land? Would you still expect them to produce it and specialise in such industries?

I expect people to do what they have to do. As people have always done. I expect them to keep doing it as long as it is necessary. I expect them to adapt to changes in the marketplace if demand for their products diminishes.

Expectations are often disappointed, ambassador. This "adapting" you speak of may be very painful for those involved, involving not simply loss of employment but whole societies cast into turmoil, as has indeed happened when industries suddenly decline. It may take years to redevelop, it may not be as favourable, and many people simply may not be able to change.

I think people are far cleverer, far more inventive and far more resilient than you give them credit for.

All of that will do no one any good when the playing field of competition is so tilted against them.

Of course it is important to establish secondary and tertiary industries, and there is no reason to believe that developing nations would not eventually develop them. You sound as if you believe that these things would be impossible in the presence of free trade, but in the absence of free trade they would miraculously spring up overnight.

Not impossible, but more difficult than they should be. You also have to take into account that with a nation with less resources, trying and failing might be disastrous, perhaps even more so than trying at all.

And in the end, why not let them make that choice, instead of coming down from on high and declaring that doing as you say will be good for them?

Well of course it is an argument for international aid. Just because free trade arrives doesn't mean international aid will stop. I fail to see any correlation between the two things.

I was trying to say that you seemed to promote free trade as the only means to achieve that, in the sense that they won't have money to build schools if they don't export stuff.

As far as protecting the best revenue generating industry in a nation, if it generates that much revenue it won't need protecting. It will survive on its own.

A lot of revenue does not necessitate profit, let alone survival. Furthermore, suppose this revenue is solely in the domestic market?

Why would a local employer run into trouble? Well, I've been talking about little upstarts having to compete with no help against big, established firms, right?

Yes, and? Don't all upstarts have to start out by competing against big established firms?

Many of them fail, and it'd be even worse for them if they weren't protected by things like anti-trust and laws against big firms using their established advantages against the start-up. And why do many, capitalist, countries have these provisions on their law books? To promote fair competition, which necessarily implies the concession that complete economic freedom would be unfair.

We feel this domestic-level consideration applies here too; free trade or a free market, locally or globally, is inherently unfair, and even in a capitalist framework, measures are justified to correct that. Even more so, when nations have radically differing societies, cultures, and economic systems, you need to recognise their rights to self-determination, rather than to force everyone at resolution-point into free trade.

[New Leicestershire]

Actually, they might build cars and airplanes of good enough quality that they actually overtake or even bankrupt the formerly larger and better competitors. But they wouldn't have got there without those tariffs and/or subsidies.

[Airbus? Japanese cars?]

OOC: Yes but both of those examples only succeeded because they were successful as exports. Japanese cars in particular would never have achieved the level of quality or the sales they have today if they had only been sold in the Japanese domestic market and had never competed against foreign brands. Also, Japanese automakers enjoyed an unfair advantage in that the Japanese market was largely closed to foreign makes while the US and other markets were wide open to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. Is that your example of "fair" trade and the beneficial effects of protectionism?.

And force them to battle against each other to export at the lowest price, no? And it seems in your view they should also rely on exports?

IC: Yes pricing is one of the areas where companies traditionally compete with one another and exports are vital to success in the global marketplace.

Your glib assertations of optimism ignore that fact that without nations being able to protect and subsidise, you are actually denying this opportunity.

Yes I am an optimistic person, and those were not "glib" assertions. Also your "fact" is not a fact but an opinion. Industries do not have to be subsidized to succeed. Subsidies skew the marketplace by providing "income", in the form of public funds, to industries that those industries would not have otherwise had. They suppress productivity by allowing firms to succeed without even trying and they drain the public coffers of funds that would have been better spent on something else.

Have you also considered that different cultures may have very different perspectives on what "thriving" and "excelling" mean? Your values are not the values of every nation in the world. This isn't really directed at that point specifically, but it strikes me that you are arguing on the basis of one particular social culture which regards material wealth as itself desirable.

I think all peoples have the same economic desires and would define "thriving" and "excelling" in much the same way if left to their own devices. Certain political and economic ideologies might define them differently, but then those ideologies would also define "freedom" and "liberty" differently than I would.

But if we don't want to maximise profit, then this proposal gives you a lot and gives us nothing, doesn't it? Incidentally, we don't feel it's been very harmful for us, but we measure things differently, of course.

Well there's obviously an ideological divide at the core of our disagreement. When you say "we", do you claim to speak for Kelssekan society or the Kelssekan government? If all of the people of Kelssek feel the same as you on this subject then I doubt you have anything to fear from this Resolution. Every man, woman and child in Kelssek will refuse to buy any filthy foreign goods.

It's a valid question. You seem to think every country will be best-equipped for something with stable demand and reasonably sustainable to produce. What if your comparative advantage is in producing something harmful, illegal in most places, or outrageously destructive to the land? Would you still expect them to produce it and specialise in such industries?

If that's all they have, then yes. With the exception of the illegal bit I would say that starting out, nations must work with whatever natural resources they have been provided with. I am not the one who placed the raw materials in the ground or decided who would have access to what. If your nation has coal deposits then it might be a good idea to dig coal mines. If you have oil then it might be a good idea to drill for oil. Or yes, even the asbestos you mentioned should be mined if there is a demand for it. And what about diamonds? Diamond mining is one of the more dangerous, unhealthy and environmentally damaging industries. In your view, if a developing nation has large diamond deposits should they just leave them in the ground?

Expectations are often disappointed, ambassador. This "adapting" you speak of may be very painful for those involved, involving not simply loss of employment but whole societies cast into turmoil, as has indeed happened when industries suddenly decline. It may take years to redevelop, it may not be as favourable, and many people simply may not be able to change.

Again, you keep bringing up economic turmoil which can happen with or without free trade. There are always economic uncertainties. I would also point out that this Resolution contains provisions allowing the imposition of measures to protect vital industries during severe economic crisis.

All of that will do no one any good when the playing field of competition is so tilted against them.

But the playing field is not tilted against them. Again, your opinion on this is no more valid than mine. Any system that removes barriers and allows people to interact and take part in commerce that they otherwise would not have been able to take part in is a good thing.

Not impossible, but more difficult than they should be. You also have to take into account that with a nation with less resources, trying and failing might be disastrous, perhaps even more so than trying at all.

I'm not convinced that it would be more difficult. And if a nation has scant resources wouldn't they benefit from access to...more resources? The infant automobile industry you've mentioned, what if it is located in a nation that lacks the resources to build automobiles? Wouldn't they have to import the raw materials needed to build the cars and wouldn't they benefit if those raw materials were cheaper?

And in the end, why not let them make that choice, instead of coming down from on high and declaring that doing as you say will be good for them?

You can't force people to buy anything. The only "force" being exerted here is on governments.

I was trying to say that you seemed to promote free trade as the only means to achieve that, in the sense that they won't have money to build schools if they don't export stuff.

No there would still be need for foreign aid. That would be true with or without free trade.

A lot of revenue does not necessitate profit, let alone survival. Furthermore, suppose this revenue is solely in the domestic market?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Surely revenue is revenue regardless if the source is foreign or domestic.

Many of them fail, and it'd be even worse for them if they weren't protected by things like anti-trust and laws against big firms using their established advantages against the start-up. And why do many, capitalist, countries have these provisions on their law books? To promote fair competition, which necessarily implies the concession that complete economic freedom would be unfair.

I'm not sure why you think the passage of this legislation would make it impossible to pass anti-trust laws. Nations could still pass anti-trust laws and any existing anti-trust laws would remain on the books. There's no reason to allow a foreign company to establish a monopoly in your domestic market.

We feel this domestic-level consideration applies here too; free trade or a free market, locally or globally, is inherently unfair, and even in a capitalist framework, measures are justified to correct that.

Well I don't believe that it is inherently unfair, otherwise I would not have proposed this. I think though that what you may be hinting at here are things like monetary policy, regulation of stock markets and anti-trust laws. Things that governments routinely do to correct problems with their domestic economies. Governments could still do those things and foreign firms operating on your soil would be under the same constraints and regulations that you place on your domestic firms.

Even more so, when nations have radically differing societies, cultures, and economic systems, you need to recognise their rights to self-determination, rather than to force everyone at resolution-point into free trade.

I'm glad you brought this up. Once again I would like to emphasise that free trade not only breaks down trade barriers, but it has this wonderful side-effect of breaking down cultural and societal barriers as well. It does bring the peoples of the world closer together. How can that be a bad thing?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Kelssek]

OOC: Yes but both of those examples only succeeded because they were successful as exports. Japanese cars in particular would never have achieved the level of quality or the sales they have today if they had only been sold in the Japanese domestic market and had never competed against foreign brands. Also, Japanese automakers enjoyed an unfair advantage in that the Japanese market was largely closed to foreign makes while the US and other markets were wide open to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. Is that your example of "fair" trade and the beneficial effects of protectionism?.

[Well, that's exactly the point. They could not have survived and eventually been able to compete so well had they not had that protected domestic market. In fact, you can already see the same thing starting to happen with South Korean manufacturers; Hyundai and KIa are gaining ground and reputation, another maker which wouldn't have been in this place without rather draconian protectionism at home. If they had not had that protectionism, they'd never have had a fair go; and in all likelihood they'd have gone out of business. And incidentally, the shoe was soon on the other foot, as the Americans were now the ones having to enact protectionist measures. This might fall into the realm of "unfair". But that doesn't mean all forms of protectionism in every circumstance necessarily will be.]

IC: Yes pricing is one of the areas where companies traditionally compete with one another and exports are vital to success in the global marketplace.

So what about those who don't care to export, who don't care about "success in the global marketplace"? Why must you insist on dragging nations along if they are unwilling?

Industries do not have to be subsidized to succeed. Subsidies skew the marketplace by providing "income", in the form of public funds, to industries that those industries would not have otherwise had. They suppress productivity by allowing firms to succeed without even trying and they drain the public coffers of funds that would have been better spent on something else.

They don't have to be subsidised. But it certainly helps. And there are many examples of protectionism having fostered industries that eventually became competitive and productive enough that they became the sleek efficient machine that other countries needed to protect their industry from.

So you then also acknowledge that protectionism would in fact help firms to succeed and make it easier for them. Even if they aren't the most productive, what's so bad about that? They still will create employment and hopefully will pay out decent wages and good working conditions, which perhaps will be more likely when they aren't having the pressures on "costs", and if it's what it wants, it has the potential to become better and more competitive in the future.

Even if it is a subsidy it's getting, it might just be worth that investment because of the socioeconomic benefit it generates. Putting aside your ideological distaste, what is really so horrible about that?

But if we don't want to maximise profit, then this proposal gives you a lot and gives us nothing, doesn't it? Incidentally, we don't feel it's been very harmful for us, but we measure things differently, of course.

Well there's obviously an ideological divide at the core of our disagreement. When you say "we", do you claim to speak for Kelssekan society or the Kelssekan government? If all of the people of Kelssek feel the same as you on this subject then I doubt you have anything to fear from this Resolution. Every man, woman and child in Kelssek will refuse to buy any filthy foreign goods.

Rather, our society generally doesn't care for profit maximisation or exporting for the sake of it. As that Ecopoeian proverb goes, "enough is as good as a feast".

The larger point, though, is that this proposal would grant asymmetric benefits.

It's a valid question. You seem to think every country will be best-equipped for something with stable demand and reasonably sustainable to produce. What if your comparative advantage is in producing something harmful, illegal in most places, or outrageously destructive to the land? Would you still expect them to produce it and specialise in such industries?

If that's all they have, then yes. With the exception of the illegal bit I would say that starting out, nations must work with whatever natural resources they have been provided with. I am not the one who placed the raw materials in the ground or decided who would have access to what. If your nation has coal deposits then it might be a good idea to dig coal mines. If you have oil then it might be a good idea to drill for oil. Or yes, even the asbestos you mentioned should be mined if there is a demand for it. And what about diamonds? Diamond mining is one of the more dangerous, unhealthy and environmentally damaging industries. In your view, if a developing nation has large diamond deposits should they just leave them in the ground?

That might not actually be such a bad idea, because what tends to actually happen is that a large multinational comes in, strong-arms the government into a wildly skewed "concession", and takes the lion's share of profit while leaving the people to suffer with the social and environmental consequences. And that doesn't even bring the conflict and unrest that can be generated by the "resource curse". The solution, of course, would be more careful management, sustainable practices, and equitable distribution of the benefits. But that doesn't tend to maximise the profit, or provide for a competitive industry, does it?

I'm not convinced that it would be more difficult. And if a nation has scant resources wouldn't they benefit from access to...more resources? The infant automobile industry you've mentioned, what if it is located in a nation that lacks the resources to build automobiles? Wouldn't they have to import the raw materials needed to build the cars and wouldn't they benefit if those raw materials were cheaper?

And whether or not this passes, that country could exercise trade policy and drop protectionism in instances where it is to their benefit. In the end, I don't think tyou've made any compelling case to take this discretion away from member nations.

You can't force people to buy anything. The only "force" being exerted here is on governments.

But people are governments, and governments are people, aren't they? If the democratic will is that the country shouldn't just be open to the ravages of international trade, would this resolution not be anti-democratic for that country? Or are you assuming that we're all a bunch of corrupt, greedy despots?

A lot of revenue does not necessitate profit, let alone survival. Furthermore, suppose this revenue is solely in the domestic market?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Surely revenue is revenue regardless if the source is foreign or domestic.

The point was that if they're reliant on the domestic market they'd take a hit if a foreign competitor came in.

Many of them fail, and it'd be even worse for them if they weren't protected by things like anti-trust and laws against big firms using their established advantages against the start-up. And why do many, capitalist, countries have these provisions on their law books? To promote fair competition, which necessarily implies the concession that complete economic freedom would be unfair.

I'm not sure why you think the passage of this legislation would make it impossible to pass anti-trust laws. Nations could still pass anti-trust laws and any existing anti-trust laws would remain on the books. There's no reason to allow a foreign company to establish a monopoly in your domestic market.

The point was that the great majority of nations have already acknowledged within their domestic markets that pure laissez-faire is not fair, and I was drawing a comparison to antitrust as protectionism on a smaller scale, in recognition that those players already established and economies of scale have advantages that upstarts need to be protected from in order to allow them to survive and give them a fair go at it. I wasn't alluding to national-level macroeconomics in general, what I was saying is that I feel this can in general be applied to the situation of international trade, except the small guys are now the nations, and these nations should be allowed to protect themselves, as there isn't a world government (ahem) to smack the big guys with antittrust charges for abusing their advantages.

It does bring the peoples of the world closer together. How can that be a bad thing?

Perhaps cultural diffusion, through television, literature, movies, or other intellectual exchange, or simply tourism, would do so quite effectively, but the simple movement of goods can hardly be considered to be bringing the world closer together. If there is any, it is a best a by-product, and not even one that is sure of occurring. There have been instances of hostility actually being generated over pressure to drop trade barriers, or against a country perceived to be unfairly exploiting another.

[Domnonia]

We wonder what will become of Domnonia's millions of farmers when the market is flooded with genetically modified self-harvesting wheat? Will our ban on GM products withstand this proposal?

Furthermore, we consider the polling question as posed to be quite telling of the esteemed Author's true motives; suggesting we are all to be subjugated under might of economic empire as colonial slaves, or should be.

This proposal seems to lack regard for alternative ways of life(non-consumerist) and economic systems. We will vote Against and urge others to do the same.

[New Leicestershire]

[Well, that's exactly the point. They could not have survived and eventually been able to compete so well had they not had that protected domestic market. In fact, you can already see the same thing starting to happen with South Korean manufacturers; Hyundai and KIa are gaining ground and reputation, another maker which wouldn't have been in this place without rather draconian protectionism at home. If they had not had that protectionism, they'd never have had a fair go; and in all likelihood they'd have gone out of business. And incidentally, the shoe was soon on the other foot, as the Americans were now the ones having to enact protectionist measures. This might fall into the realm of "unfair". But that doesn't mean all forms of protectionism in every circumstance necessarily will be.]

OOC: Funny you should mention Hyundai and KIa because I was just looking at Hyundais and KIas today with serious thoughts of buying one....

I think the Japanese made a big mistake in keeping their markets closed for so long. I think that was a major contributing factor in their "lost decade" and I think it's part of the reason that the Japanese economy never has fully recovered. They were already in recession before the current financial crisis started affecting the rest of the world. Now they're stuck with a domestic economy that is stagnant and doesn't have the ability to pull itself out of the doldrums. And their former booming subsidized export business has collapsed because nobody is buying anything. The whole thing has really blown up in their face.

Another funny thing about the auto industry is that when the Japanese started building cars in the US, you suddenly started seeing "Japanese" cars that had more domestic parts content than a lot of their "American" competitors. I bought a couple of Mitsubishis in the 90s and the salesman was quick to point out that they were more American than some Ford and Chevy models. I now drive an American car, but it has an Opel engine in it. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with our discussion, other than to point out the incestuous nature of the auto industry.

So what about those who don't care to export, who don't care about "success in the global marketplace"? Why must you insist on dragging nations along if they are unwilling?

IC: Well I suppose they just won't export. There are import-based economies and I don't see why that wouldn't be considered a viable approach. There are nations that just simply do not, or cannot, manufacture and I don't remember ever saying that one must export in order to have a sound economy. A good balance of trade is always preferable but sometimes it isn't possible.

They don't have to be subsidised. But it certainly helps. And there are many examples of protectionism having fostered industries that eventually became competitive and productive enough that they became the sleek efficient machine that other countries needed to protect their industry from.

But is that the sort of vicious cycle we want to promote? A nation protects its industries in order to become a predator, only to find itself being preyed upon a generation later by yet another nation that has followed the same route. And so on and so forth on down through the ages? Wouldn't it be better if the prosperity was shared by all? Wouldn't it be better if we behaved as partners rather than as sharks sniffing for blood in the water?

So you then also acknowledge that protectionism would in fact help firms to succeed and make it easier for them. Even if they aren't the most productive, what's so bad about that? They still will create employment and hopefully will pay out decent wages and good working conditions, which perhaps will be more likely when they aren't having the pressures on "costs", and if it's what it wants, it has the potential to become better and more competitive in the future.

Yes some industries will thrive under protectionism, but at what cost? Over the long term the money used to subsidise them could have been put to so much better use! The extra costs that consumers paid at the checkout due to artificially inflated prices could have stayed in their pockets. It just seems so obviously wasteful to me to throw money away like that when it wasn't necessary to do so.

Even if it is a subsidy it's getting, it might just be worth that investment because of the socioeconomic benefit it generates. Putting aside your ideological distaste, what is really so horrible about that?

My distaste lies in the fact that the socioeconomic benefit could have been achieved without subsidising industry. It's like expecting your citizens to pay for something, and then expecting them to pay for it again.

Rather, our society generally doesn't care for profit maximisation or exporting for the sake of it. As that Ecopoeian proverb goes, "enough is as good as a feast".

The larger point, though, is that this proposal would grant asymmetric benefits.

You should stop listening to the Ecopoeians. They are known communists.

That might not actually be such a bad idea, because what tends to actually happen is that a large multinational comes in, strong-arms the government into a wildly skewed "concession", and takes the lion's share of profit while leaving the people to suffer with the social and environmental consequences. And that doesn't even bring the conflict and unrest that can be generated by the "resource curse". The solution, of course, would be more careful management, sustainable practices, and equitable distribution of the benefits. But that doesn't tend to maximise the profit, or provide for a competitive industry, does it?

So nationalise the diamond mine. Then you can practice careful management, sustainable practices, and equitable distribution of the benefits to your heart's content. Lets try to remember that this Resolution deals only with trade, not economic systems in general. As much as I would love to bring capitalism to the whole world this Resolution does not do that.

And whether or not this passes, that country could exercise trade policy and drop protectionism in instances where it is to their benefit. In the end, I don't think tyou've made any compelling case to take this discretion away from member nations.

Yes but they would also be able to keep protectionism in place in instances where it is to their benefit, which would be to other's detriment. Always remember that protectionism is discriminatory and harmful to someone, somewhere. When you apply a tariff to a good it causes fewer of them to be sold, which harms the people who made that good. For every mouth you feed in your nation through protectionism you cause someone to go hungry in another nation.

But people are governments, and governments are people, aren't they? If the democratic will is that the country shouldn't just be open to the ravages of international trade, would this resolution not be anti-democratic for that country? Or are you assuming that we're all a bunch of corrupt, greedy despots?

Now you're drifting into sensationalism. I have not, nor will I, accuse opponents of free trade of being corrupt, greedy despots. As for it being "anti-democratic", under your definition wouldn't any passed resolution that a government and people opposed be "anti-democratic"? You're not going to fire up the NatSov argument are you?

The point was that if they're reliant on the domestic market they'd take a hit if a foreign competitor came in.

Oh I see. Yes, they would have to compete if a foreign competitor came in. Competition is good though. It builds character.

The point was that the great majority of nations have already acknowledged within their domestic markets that pure laissez-faire is not fair, and I was drawing a comparison to antitrust as protectionism on a smaller scale, in recognition that those players already established and economies of scale have advantages that upstarts need to be protected from in order to allow them to survive and give them a fair go at it. I wasn't alluding to national-level macroeconomics in general, what I was saying is that I feel this can in general be applied to the situation of international trade, except the small guys are now the nations, and these nations should be allowed to protect themselves, as there isn't a world government (ahem) to smack the big guys with antittrust charges for abusing their advantages.

The purpose of anti-trust legislation on the national scale is to prevent monopolies, not to protect upstarts. The reason we want to prevent monopolies is to ensure competition, which benefits the consumer. What you're talking about, a sort of "anti-trust legislation" aimed at nations and industries in the form of protectionism, is anti-competitive. It doesn't benefit the consumer at all but rather would benefit the subsidised industries hiding behind their wall of protectionism.

Perhaps cultural diffusion, through television, literature, movies, or other intellectual exchange, or simply tourism, would do so quite effectively, but the simple movement of goods can hardly be considered to be bringing the world closer together. If there is any, it is a best a by-product, and not even one that is sure of occurring.

Are books, dvds, cds, computers, televisions and other media and technology used to view or listen to media not goods? And what about food, drink, clothing, fashion, games and other cultural items that become more readily available through expanded trade?

There have been instances of hostility actually being generated over pressure to drop trade barriers, or against a country perceived to be unfairly exploiting another.

Yes there are and always will be unfortunate instances of resistance, even violence, associated with increased trade. Over time though they are the exception, not the rule. In general people tend to enjoy increased variety, more choices and lower prices in the products they buy.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

OOC: I'll be away most of tomorrow and all of tomorrow night. If I can't answer your reply in the morning I'll get to it Sunday.

[New Leicestershire]

We wonder what will become of Domnonia's millions of farmers when the market is flooded with genetically modified self-harvesting wheat? Will our ban on GM products withstand this proposal?

This resolution doesn't cover food. That is covered by GAR #52, Food Welfare Act. You will not be forced by this Resolution to import GM foods.

Furthermore, we consider the polling question as posed to be quite telling of the esteemed Author's true motives; suggesting we are all to be subjugated under might of economic empire as colonial slaves, or should be.

The poll is intended to be funny and ironic. I am sorry if you are not entertained by it.

This proposal seems to lack regard for alternative ways of life(non-consumerist) and economic systems. We will vote Against and urge others to do the same.

It is your right to vote against. We realise that free trade is a contentious issue and we understand that there will be opposition.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Kelssek]

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with our discussion, other than to point out the incestuous nature of the auto industry.

The point was that protectionism worked, and didn't necessarily create inefficiently produced things no one wanted. It is to vindicate the infant industry argument, really, that protectionism can be beneficial to the economic development of a nation in the long term.

They don't have to be subsidised. But it certainly helps. And there are many examples of protectionism having fostered industries that eventually became competitive and productive enough that they became the sleek efficient machine that other countries needed to protect their industry from.

But is that the sort of vicious cycle we want to promote? A nation protects its industries in order to become a predator, only to find itself being preyed upon a generation later by yet another nation that has followed the same route. And so on and so forth on down through the ages? Wouldn't it be better if the prosperity was shared by all? Wouldn't it be better if we behaved as partners rather than as sharks sniffing for blood in the water?

This is not the point I was trying to make, it was to illustrate that protectionism can in fact foster highly efficient, competitive, and other desirable capitalist adjective firms, and not bloated wasteful failures as you would no doubt portray it.

Yes some industries will thrive under protectionism, but at what cost? Over the long term the money used to subsidise them could have been put to so much better use! The extra costs that consumers paid at the checkout due to artificially inflated prices could have stayed in their pockets. It just seems so obviously wasteful to me to throw money away like that when it wasn't necessary to do so.

And again, assuming that it was used successfully, now there have been significant benefits. The country has been able to develop and industrialise through its own efforts, and increase the standard of living through this. The money has been an investment into that, which has now paid off. That's not so dire, is it?

My distaste lies in the fact that the socioeconomic benefit could have been achieved without subsidising industry. It's like expecting your citizens to pay for something, and then expecting them to pay for it again.

And yet, I suspect that if it were a private individual putting all this money in, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

So nationalise the diamond mine. Then you can practice careful management, sustainable practices, and equitable distribution of the benefits to your heart's content. Lets try to remember that this Resolution deals only with trade, not economic systems in general. As much as I would love to bring capitalism to the whole world this Resolution does not do that.

And here you see it again, that these Good Things aren't going to be very tenable if the prime motivation is to maximise profit. Good thing the state can step in and do so, right? But if the committee were to deem this protectionist, this proposal would prevent that.

Yes but they would also be able to keep protectionism in place in instances where it is to their benefit, which would be to other's detriment. Always remember that protectionism is discriminatory and harmful to someone, somewhere. When you apply a tariff to a good it causes fewer of them to be sold, which harms the people who made that good. For every mouth you feed in your nation through protectionism you cause someone to go hungry in another nation.

Then perhaps you should find another country to export to as well. There are plenty of them which I am sure are more than willing, thousands of them. Furthermore, I doubt there are many actions which do not cause some kind of "harm". The question is whether the benefits outweigh them. I strongly believe, as I have explained at length already, that in the case of blanket prohibitions on trade policy, they do not.

The purpose of anti-trust legislation on the national scale is to prevent monopolies, not to protect upstarts. The reason we want to prevent monopolies is to ensure competition, which benefits the consumer. What you're talking about, a sort of "anti-trust legislation" aimed at nations and industries in the form of protectionism, is anti-competitive. It doesn't benefit the consumer at all but rather would benefit the subsidised industries hiding behind their wall of protectionism.

But would your "consumer" not also suffer if the companies which now are producing the best products at good prices were allowed to perish in their infancy because they couldn't compete with the stronger and more established firms then? Perhaps, this insistence on competition now might cause less competition later, as the potential competitors don't make it to that point? An interesting irony.

Let's not forget that the interests of the common people aren't just in terms of the consumer role in the economy. They might very well be employed in an industry that benefits from protectionism. If they suffer from reduced income because of your proposal's passage, that's not very good for them as a consumer either, and even if there is a lower price it might not benefit them at all.

Are books, dvds, cds, computers, televisions and other media and technology used to view or listen to media not goods? And what about food, drink, clothing, fashion, games and other cultural items that become more readily available through expanded trade?

True, but this intellectual production and media is a sector in which there is a certain inherent equality, and trade barriers are less needed and used anyway, unless we're talking about a deliberate xenophobic policy which isn't related to this discussion. We also would object to your lumping of electronic goods with creative, cultural production. They're quite different in nature.

However, even if we are to concede that we would not generally support trade barriers on cultural and artistic works, it is not sufficient to support a proposal to prohibit all trade barriers in every economic sector. It is not our contention that all protectionism is good and all free trade is bad, our contention is that protectionism is beneficial and even desirable in many cases, enough that banning it completely is unwise at best.

Yes there are and always will be unfortunate instances of resistance, even violence, associated with increased trade. Over time though they are the exception, not the rule. In general people tend to enjoy increased variety, more choices and lower prices in the products they buy.

Your conjecture is as good as my conjecture that the prohibition of all trade restrictions will result in persisting inequalities, underdevelopment, and poverty, as well as handicapping nations trying to improve their living standards through industry.

Over this discussion, I think we've seen that there is doubt over the best prescription for global well-being. Should this not be a signal, then, that imposing a single one upon the great variety of societies, cultures, and economic systems here is not the best idea?

You should stop listening to the Ecopoeians. They are known communists.

Actually, so are we. I thought you knew that. You can take some time to go wash off the filth if you wish.

(I'll actually be away too, so don't sweat it. At least this debate isn't like the last one.)

[Kelssek]

I have been requested to act as an intermediary to deliver this statement by the hon. Dr. Bradford William Castro, due to the hon. Ambassador Watts's boycott of his statements. While this should not be construed as endorsement of the good doctor's views, I am as interested as he is to hear the proposal author's response.

But if free trade is a "weapon" (which I would disagree with) it is a weapon in the hands of private interests who are simply trying to expand their business. It is not a weapon that is wielded by nations against other nations. Protectionist policies on the other hand, actually are a weapon used by governments against other nations. Only governments can raise tariffs and use subsidies to to give their industries an unfair advantage.

Or to raise revenues to feed their people, provide infrastructure, so on and so forth. Your argument relies on ignoring the valid uses of protectionism, assuming that the entire universe is made of only wealthy nations using such policies to 'attack' other wealthy nations. What of the compromise I created with the Food Welfare Act? Are you going to take the "free trade or bust" stance, or are you going to be reasonable?

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 not affected by previous World Assembly legislation, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations, if such devices have the potential to severely harm international trade.

The emphasized change in language not only prevents the use of protectionist devices as 'weapons' between nations, but allows sincere, legitimate, positive use by nations that rely on these practices, and ends the use when it becomes seriously harmful to international trade. Where is the negative aspect of this, aside from the fact that it would prevent you and the free trade bloc from blindly, unilaterally instituting economic policies that a large majority of World Assembly member nations have repealed once already?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

Erin Caswell
First Secretary
Permanent Mission of Kelssek to the World Assembly

[New Leicestershire]

I have been requested to act as an intermediary to deliver this statement by the hon. Dr. Bradford William Castro, due to the hon. Ambassador Watts's boycott of his statements. While this should not be construed as endorsement of the good doctor's views, I am as interested as he is to hear the proposal author's response.

But if free trade is a "weapon" (which I would disagree with) it is a weapon in the hands of private interests who are simply trying to expand their business. It is not a weapon that is wielded by nations against other nations. Protectionist policies on the other hand, actually are a weapon used by governments against other nations. Only governments can raise tariffs and use subsidies to to give their industries an unfair advantage.

Or to raise revenues to feed their people, provide infrastructure, so on and so forth. Your argument relies on ignoring the valid uses of protectionism, assuming that the entire universe is made of only wealthy nations using such policies to 'attack' other wealthy nations. What of the compromise I created with the Food Welfare Act? Are you going to take the "free trade or bust" stance, or are you going to be reasonable?

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 not affected by previous World Assembly legislation, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas employed by WA member nations, if such devices have the potential to severely harm international trade.

The emphasized change in language not only prevents the use of protectionist devices as 'weapons' between nations, but allows sincere, legitimate, positive use by nations that rely on these practices, and ends the use when it becomes seriously harmful to international trade. Where is the negative aspect of this, aside from the fact that it would prevent you and the free trade bloc from blindly, unilaterally instituting economic policies that a large majority of World Assembly member nations have repealed once already?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

Erin Caswell
First Secretary
Permanent Mission of Kelssek to the World Assembly

It is the already the job of the WATC to decide if "such devices have the potential to severely harm international trade". That is what they would be doing anyway and so I see no advantage to adding that language to the text. Do keep in mind that this doesn't remove all protectionist devices instantly. There is a process and during that process all protectionist devices will be examined. I trust that those which are truly not damaging to trade will be left in place.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Glen-Rhodes]

It is the already the job of the WATC to decide if "such devices have the potential to severely harm international trade". That is what they would be doing anyway and so I see no advantage to adding that language to the text. Do keep in mind that this doesn't remove all protectionist devices instantly. There is a process and during that process all protectionist devices will be examined. I trust that those which are truly not damaging to trade will be left in place.

If the written goal of the WATC is to "[eventually eliminate] all protectionist devices employed by WA member nations", I don't see how any protectionist devices could remain intact. The WATC's goal isn't to find a compromise, but to establish hard-lined free trade throughout the World Assembly. Even when it reviews 'domestic programs', it is not looking to see if such programs are severely harmful to international trade; it's looking to see, simply, if they're protectionist devices.

For Glen-Rhodes, it's not a matter of how long it will take the WATC to eliminate these devices. The end result, what really matters, is the complete elimination of them, regardless of whether or not they serve as a benefit or don't severely harm international trade.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[New Leicestershire]

The point was that protectionism worked, and didn't necessarily create inefficiently produced things no one wanted. It is to vindicate the infant industry argument, really, that protectionism can be beneficial to the economic development of a nation in the long term.

OOC: No I was talking about my own ramblings about the auto industry. I wasn't referring to your post.

This is not the point I was trying to make, it was to illustrate that protectionism can in fact foster highly efficient, competitive, and other desirable capitalist adjective firms, and not bloated wasteful failures as you would no doubt portray it.

Oh I agree that protectionism, when employed by a capitalist society, can lead to highly efficient, highly profitable, and highly aggressive firms. I was asking if that sort of corporate warfare, where nations groom an industry into a highly effective "killing machine" and then unleash it on the world, was something that we ought to be encouraging.

And again, assuming that it was used successfully, now there have been significant benefits. The country has been able to develop and industrialise through its own efforts, and increase the standard of living through this. The money has been an investment into that, which has now paid off. That's not so dire, is it?

Yes assuming that it is used successfully. It's just as likely to be used ineffectively and lead to a bloated bureaucracy in the form of a subsidized industry which couldn't compete on the world stage if its life depended on it. I'm asserting that it would have been wiser to spend the public's money on other things.

And yet, I suspect that if it were a private individual putting all this money in, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

Of course not. How private individuals invest their money is their business.

And here you see it again, that these Good Things aren't going to be very tenable if the prime motivation is to maximise profit. Good thing the state can step in and do so, right? But if the committee were to deem this protectionist, this proposal would prevent that.

I see nothing in this Resolution which would prevent the nationalisation of industries. If you see something that would do that please point it out.

Then perhaps you should find another country to export to as well. There are plenty of them which I am sure are more than willing, thousands of them. Furthermore, I doubt there are many actions which do not cause some kind of "harm". The question is whether the benefits outweigh them. I strongly believe, as I have explained at length already, that in the case of blanket prohibitions on trade policy, they do not.

Well I'm sure we would find someone else to trade with. In the meantime jobs are lost and lives are disrupted because of protectionism.

But would your "consumer" not also suffer if the companies which now are producing the best products at good prices were allowed to perish in their infancy because they couldn't compete with the stronger and more established firms then? Perhaps, this insistence on competition now might cause less competition later, as the potential competitors don't make it to that point? An interesting irony.

There are always uncertainties, some firms succeed and some firm perish in their infancy. Again, that is true whether free trade exists or not. It doesn't shake my conviction that competition is always best, that it weeds out the weak and inefficient, and leads to stronger healthier firms that make better products.

Let's not forget that the interests of the common people aren't just in terms of the consumer role in the economy. They might very well be employed in an industry that benefits from protectionism. If they suffer from reduced income because of your proposal's passage, that's not very good for them as a consumer either, and even if there is a lower price it might not benefit them at all.

I've never claimed that all nations would make a seamless transition from protectionism to free trade. Certainly there will be jobs lost in some places and people will have to find new careers, or even relocate to find work. That would not be the rule everywhere though, or even in most places. For every disruption in the job market there would be new opportunities opening up in other sectors.

True, but this intellectual production and media is a sector in which there is a certain inherent equality, and trade barriers are less needed and used anyway, unless we're talking about a deliberate xenophobic policy which isn't related to this discussion. We also would object to your lumping of electronic goods with creative, cultural production. They're quite different in nature.

The electronic goods are required to view the media, are they not? If a new media, and the devices required to view or access it, becomes available surely it breaks down cultural barriers when that media and those devices are traded internationally.

However, even if we are to concede that we would not generally support trade barriers on cultural and artistic works, it is not sufficient to support a proposal to prohibit all trade barriers in every economic sector. It is not our contention that all protectionism is good and all free trade is bad, our contention is that protectionism is beneficial and even desirable in many cases, enough that banning it completely is unwise at best.

So you would support the removal of trade barriers when it comes to cultural and artistic works, but not when it comes to, say, farm equipment? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? "Let the people have movies and song, but lets not give them access to things that might increase agricultural production"?

Your conjecture is as good as my conjecture that the prohibition of all trade restrictions will result in persisting inequalities, underdevelopment, and poverty, as well as handicapping nations trying to improve their living standards through industry.

Well yes, we do seem to have a difference of opinion on this subject.

Over this discussion, I think we've seen that there is doubt over the best prescription for global well-being. Should this not be a signal, then, that imposing a single one upon the great variety of societies, cultures, and economic systems here is not the best idea?

I'm sorry Ambassador, but I still have no doubts about what is the best prescription for global well-being.

Actually, so are we. I thought you knew that. You can take some time to go wash off the filth if you wish.

I did know that. It was another of my attempts at dry humour.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire