[Draft] World Assembly Agreement on Labor

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Sorry, no, that isn't how we're playing. You can't make statements that don't jive with evidence and then complain when I introduce the evidence that proves you're wrong.

OOC: Oh, you mean like evidence about how foreign workers are cheated out of proper wages via various ways, by taking advantage of them not being fluent in the language and legislation of the nation they're in? How many pages of evidence would you like? You use European Union stuff as an example for some unexplainable reason. Combatting such practices is currently a big thing in the construction industry, but they certainly aren't limited to it.

OOC: That is not an argument against the free movement of labor, that is an argument against cheating foreign workers out of their wages by taking advantage of them not being fluent in the language. That's like saying that by building a house, you've now created the possibility for ants to get in, and the solution is to tear down the house rather than to kill the ants. Protecting workers from discrimination and exploitation is not only compatible with the free movement of labor but is necessary to optimize social benefits. You can provide reams of evidence that suggest foreign immigrants, even in Europe, are exploited, to which I would say "yes, I agree that is a problem." The source of the problem is not the free movement of labor, though, and the solution is not to lock the extremely poor out of the labor market.

Also, I honestly cannot understand why anyone would think the financial and trade union parts of EU are a good example. Germany has been benefiting at the expense of a lot of the other member nations. If anything, the EU example proves Tinfect right: that driving the WA into a similar situation would be benefiting some nations at the expense of others.

OOC: Care to substantiate the claim that Germany has been benefiting from the free movement of labor at the expense of most other EU member states with evidence?

OOC: Aeiouia is a WA nation, so it's a valid example.

OOC: No, it isn't. It isn't and never will be acceptable to say "this resolution is unnecessary because my nation can literally produce infinity everything."

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Aeiouia is a WA nation, so it's a valid example.

OOC: No, it isn't. It isn't and never will be acceptable to say "this resolution is unnecessary because my nation can literally produce infinity everything."

OOC
Actually, my argument is that this resolution (and all your free trade attempts) is detrimental because one nation (and probably more) can produce enough to satisfy demand. I never claimed it was unnecessary.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: No, it isn't. It isn't and never will be acceptable to say "this resolution is unnecessary because my nation can literally produce infinity everything."

OOC
Actually, my argument is that this resolution (and all your free trade attempts) is detrimental because one nation (and probably more) can produce enough to satisfy demand. I never claimed it was unnecessary.

OOC: Okay. RP wank has never been a real argument though so I'm not gonna start indulging it now, thanks.

[Imperium Anglorum]

NORTH: (announcer voice) I am proud to present ... drumroll ... our new satirical play, DemonLordEnigma II, based on stories from the planet Omicron Convenience IV! Starring various actors, like Hicks Jumpingto Conclusions, selected from those cars over there. Simply sit down and buy your popcorn today!

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Okay. RP wank has never been a real argument though so I'm not gonna start indulging it now, thanks.

OOC
Rule Number One of Roleplay: You don't have to acknowledge other player's roleplay.

However, Rule Number Two: You can't stop other players from roleplaying whatever they want (unless it violates site rules and/or real world laws).

Excidium Planetis exists in a universe where massive space empires have tapped into virtually unlimited energy sources and developed a way to convert energy into matter, and they use this to produce whatever the hell they want. Because of this, Excidium Planetis has virtually no way to compete with them economically, even factoring in comparative advantage.

I will continue to use that as an In Character argument, because from the perspective of Blackbourne, it is true. Feel free to pretend that Aeiouia either doesn't exist or doesn't have theoretically unlimited resources. Just know that you'll never convince Blackbourne of that, and thus will never convince him to change his position on free trade.

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

OOC: You're right, it's not. Which is exactly what I'm trying to do with these proposals!

OOC:
Hence the problem.

"This is patently false. This only makes sense superficially. Despite me having explicitly requested rigorous and quantitative empirical evidence to substantiate your claim, you're just regurgitating Marxist rhetoric."

"Ambassador, has your Nation ever placed economic sanction upon another for making a displeasing political decision? In any case, what evidence have you provided of your stances, Ambassador? If you wish to claim that I am doing nothing but amassing a collection of rhetoric, it might be valuable to provide some evidence that you are not merely doing the same."
I mean, really, what do you expect me to do here? I can bring up UTCS Era history, but that only exists in the RP of the Imperium, and you've apparently decided that RP that doesn't align to the neoliberal ideological line is just mindless RP wank, I doubt that'd help matters, and RL examples are, you know, fucking useless here.
IC:

"And if you look at how trade really works, it often frees developing countries from extreme poverty."

"It does so only on the terms of more powerful states, and by binding them economically to them. Were such acts undertaken upon an individual it would be called Slavery."

Autarky 1. necessarily limits material welfare, by definition.

"Technically, the definition of Autarky merely refers to self-sufficiency; the limitations imposed thereof mean solely that development is proceeding at a sustainable rate."

That is a basic precept of economics and the fundamental intuition behind comparative advantage. 2. is almost certainly impossible because no one state possibly has all of the necessary materials to satisfy demand. This must result in soaring prices and shortages."

"This holds true primarily for small states, Ambassador. Availability of land-resources is tied directly towards land available, as should be immediately obvious. In any case, this is argumentation in favor of restricted trade of resources of low-availability, not total dependence upon foreign economies."
OOC:
And, for the record, rigid adherence to the concept of 'comparative advantage' is one of the primary reasons why Autarky is not allowed to work, as actually becoming a Self-Sufficient state in at least some respects would mean that they can't remain in a cycle of export-subservience to foreign states, and that would make the money sad.

OOC: Sorry, no, that isn't how we're playing. You can't make statements that don't jive with evidence and then complain when I introduce the evidence that proves you're wrong.

OOC:
First of all, the only one of those 'evidence' pieces that I can seem to read without paying 40 bucks seems to only cover why economic interdependence dissuades warfare, which is a point that I've never so much as tried to deny, and while I can't vouch for the content of the other two, their titles don't seem to say much else either. Second, apparently you live in a world where economic sanctions and export-based economies don't exist if you think I'm just talking out of my ass here.

And that evidence addresses exactly what you're saying IC.

Except for the part where it addresses a point I've never made.

It's not like I'm deflecting to a different topic to distract anyone.

Except for the part that you're addressing arguments that I've never made.

You argued that linkage institutions cause quasi-colonial power structures.

Because, you know, they fucking do. Just because they aren't marching in there with guns doesn't mean that Superpower States aren't exerting huge amount of control over developing countries.

I provided evidence that they don't.

Except the 'evidence' you provided only handles whether economic interdependence dissuades warfare, a point that I've never denied.
IC:

"This is really just ultra-nationalist rhetoric that doesn't accurately paint how trade works."

"It's hardly 'nationalist' to oppose the shackling of lesser states to greater ones, Ambassador."

Developing countries are certainly vulnerable to exploitation, but not because of free trade.

"Given that the removal of trade barriers universally results in resources flowing out of developing countries en-masse, yes, that is rather exactly the cause."

When you complain that foreign nationals are expropriating your resources, you seem to forget that this is in exchange for the world market price for those resources.

"You seem to be under the impression that loss of valuable resources in exchange for currency which fluctuates in value and cannot itself be utilized in industry is anything remotely near to a fair exchange, and that the resources in question are not being extracted by foreign companies, which will almost certainly be the case when an underdeveloped nation opens its borders to foreign business, and thus providing absolutely no benefit to the nation from which they are being extracted."

Free trade does not mean that you're forced to trade with anyone.

"I believe that that the Resolution 'World Assembly Trade Rights' rather makes this statement patently false, so long as one's borders are open to trade in the first place."

It means that the government of Tinfect can't stop private firms from making mutually beneficial arrangement that ultimately create greater economic welfare.

"It should not need to be stated that the Imperium does not find anything 'mutual' about foreign nations benefiting from the Industry of the Imperium in exchange for the Imperium becoming shackled to the economies of foreign states."

Additionally "outcompetition," as you put it, is not a bad thing,

"The Imperium finds the unrestricted flow of resources away from the Imperium and its people and into the pockets of foreign business to be quite the bad thing."

and in fact, if your domestic firms cannot compete in the free market, it means that you are inefficiently allocating your resources to production other than your comparative advantages.

"Which, of course, is to say; 'local businesses are providing their employees with adequate benefits and otherwise operate ethically and therefore do not have the resources to waste on aggressive expansion into industries that forces out competition regardless of what the workers would prefer'."

And finally, the purpose of this resolution is not really development.

"I believe the phrase is 'No Shit.' "

Firstly, developed countries now have a new source of labor, which allows them to produce goods more cheaply, which benefits consumers in all nations.

"I believe I have already state much the same thing, Ambassador!"

Nor does the Imperium consider that rather than actually developing or aiding developing countries, simply moving their workforce to where they are more conveniently accessed by foreign powers to beneficial.

"Although, I must admit that I had failed to raise the point that these workers would be underpaid and push out locals from the workplace, therefore weakening labour rights and creating a cycle of decreasing benefits for workers until such time as the system reaches a perverse equilibrium. Fortunately, you have deigned to rectify this mistake for me."

"No, it means I know what I'm talking about."

OOC:
Oh, yes, something I can't read, which doesn't look to be anything more than a neoliberal propaganda piece anyway, information from the World Bank, one of the most insidious and disgusting exploiters and manipulators of the third-world, and a file which outright states that the State-Managed Industries are doing better. Clearly, you have the utmost superiority in this argument and I bow before your intellectual flawlessness.

OOC: "Your argument is wrong because in my nation, we have unlimited money and food falls from the sky!"

I'm sorry, but in developed nations there's this thing called Mass Agriculture, and, as it turns out, when you don't waste food en-masse, artificially manipulate its prices up to maintain market stability, and ensure that the crops are being managed properly, you tend to have an actual surplus, driving prices down in markets and making distribution easier without them, which means people don't have to starve!

OOC: How is it a violation of GAR#2 to claim that you can simply toss off the whole resolution by unreasonably interpreting a certain provision? I wonder.

What, in all the nine hells are you on about?

[Sciongrad]

Right, I asked but you didn't deliver. I'm not responding to vapid platitudes. I'm not going to address anything that isn't corroborated by evidence.

OOC:
Oh, yes, something I can't read, which doesn't look to be anything more than a neoliberal propaganda piece anyway, information from the World Bank, one of the most insidious and disgusting exploiters and manipulators of the third-world, and a file which outright states that the State-Managed Industries are doing better. Clearly, you have the utmost superiority in this argument and I bow before your intellectual flawlessness.

OOC: Neoliberal propaganda? It's on JSTOR. It was published in the Canadian Journal of Sociology by a professor from the University of Toronto -- hardly a bastion of neoliberalism. The second link isn't even an argument, it's literally just a fact presented in graph form. China's GDP per capita has increased rapidly since Reform and Opening-Up, largely due to liberalization. And it's clear that you didn't read the third article because that isn't what it says. It says that privatization in India has been successful not only in increasing wages and productivity, but in making SOEs more productive too. I'll say it again, you're free to post in this thread, but I'm not really taking this exchange very seriously, especially now that you've adopted a bad habit of dismissing contrary evidence out of hand. Respond again 1. with evidence and 2. with counterarguments that explain why you think my evidence is wrong, not just unsubstantiated assertions that it is, or I won't reply.

"This holds true primarily for small states, Ambassador. Availability of land-resources is tied directly towards land available, as should be immediately obvious. In any case, this is argumentation in favor of restricted trade of resources of low-availability, not total dependence upon foreign economies."
OOC:
And, for the record, rigid adherence to the concept of 'comparative advantage' is one of the primary reasons why Autarky is not allowed to work, as actually becoming a Self-Sufficient state in at least some respects would mean that they can't remain in a cycle of export-subservience to foreign states, and that would make the money sad.

OOC: I'll also note this is just not correct. Comparative advantage and gains from trade don't just work in small states, I've never even heard that said before. And autarky doesn't work because autarky doesn't work. No state has all of the resources it needs to satisfy domestic demand. All the developing countries you claim are under the boot of the developed world would have absolutely no access to goods like refrigeration, computers, cellphones, and even capital necessary for production without being able to trade with foreign states. It is not a coincidence that the developing states that have embraced free trade the most forcefully have also seen the greatest development and the greatest decline in extreme poverty.

"Given that the removal of trade barriers universally results in resources flowing out of developing countries en-masse, yes, that is rather exactly the cause."

"Even if that new export-based economy generally helps the very poorest members of those developing countries?"

But, that said, it is virtually impossible to find cases of poor countries that were able to grow over long periods of time without opening up to trade. And we have no evidence that trade leads to increases in poverty and declines in growth.

[...]

The effect that trade has on less educated laborers in these developing countries depends in part on where they are employed and how mobile they are across sectors. Workers, both educated and less educated, in export-oriented sectors tend to benefit. [...] [There] are short-term costs of globalization, and over time you would hope that these workers would be able to move toward the exporting sectors and share in the benefits of globalization. But that is not occurring as fast as we would like because worker mobility in many of these countries is quite constrained.

[Araraukar]

OOC: That is not an argument against the free movement of labor, that is an argument against cheating foreign workers out of their wages by taking advantage of them not being fluent in the language.

OOC: Most of them are fluent enough to do their job. Just like you argue to be enough, in the proposal, for them to live and work abroad.

Protecting workers from discrimination and exploitation is not only compatible with the free movement of labor but is necessary to optimize social benefits.

Do you mean revising social benefits up (good for people) or down (good for government spending)?

The source of the problem is not the free movement of labor, though

It's part of the problem. If you've built a house that's not properly built, you'll be losing heat in the winter and letting ants in, in the summer. The ants would be just part of the problem, but plugging holes to save on heating bill will stop ants getting in too.

and the solution is not to lock the extremely poor out of the labor market.

What good is, to them, a labour market that does not benefit them?

OOC: Care to substantiate the claim that Germany has been benefiting from the free movement of labor at the expense of most other EU member states with evidence?

Well, that's based on trusted (meaning they actually do their research before publishing their articles) newspapers I read, but for an online source... try this. If it works, it should show the GDP development of all of the EU countries. (If it shows the graphs to you as intended, please let me know.) Fiddling with the settings lets you see other values for the same set of RL countries.

OOC: No, it isn't. It isn't and never will be acceptable to say "this resolution is unnecessary because my nation can literally produce infinity everything."

OOC: Okay. RP wank has never been a real argument though so I'm not gonna start indulging it now, thanks.

OOC: You have recently taken up Gruen's complaint about the RP on the GA forum not working or not being up to some imaginary level or people not arguing in IC and all of that being poisonous or bad or whatever... And then when people say things truly in IC based on their RP and even on their shared RP with other people, then that's suddenly something that "isn't and never will be acceptable"? Gruen was doing this same thing - on one hand saying "we need moar RP" and on another "your RP sucks".

Like you told me before, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

But I promised you RP involvement sooner or later, so once I find some free time, I'll get that to you... although I can't base anything on any of this OOC stuff then.

---

Just because they aren't marching in there with guns doesn't mean that Superpower States aren't exerting huge amount of control over developing countries.

OOC: Not just developing countries. Try being a small democratic nation and living nextdoors to one of the plutocratic fucker states with the arsenal to take over half of the world. And no, not USA. I'm thinking much closer to home.

Not that being in sway with the nation-level plutocarchy called EU is any better, especially when they give you the finger over some stupid war that has nothing to do with anything of EU, but only USA via NATO and then USA forces EU to set sanctions on Russia, and fuck the economy of all nations that might've actually depended on exporting things to Russia... Free trade can never be actually free, as long as any nation can lean on any other nation, whether it's due military or political or financial or religious weight.

IC: For the lack of anything better to do, Janis rolled up one of the drafts into a tube, and started shooting dried peas at the space marine in the Tinfectian threesome.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Care to substantiate the claim that Germany has been benefiting from the free movement of labor at the expense of most other EU member states with evidence?

Well, that's based on trusted (meaning they actually do their research before publishing their articles) newspapers I read, but for an online source... try this. If it works, it should show the GDP development of all of the EU countries. (If it shows the graphs to you as intended, please let me know.) Fiddling with the settings lets you see other values for the same set of RL countries.

OOC
Okay, even I don't know what you are trying to show here. That graph shows all EU countries more or less tracking together (so when Germany is going up, so is everyone else) and very clearly puts nations from the largest economic powerhouses to the smallest nations in the EU like Cyprus. Any EU economic graph is going to have Germany, the UK, and France at the top, because they have large populations, land area, resources, etc..

OOC: Not just developing countries. Try being a small democratic nation and living nextdoors to one of the plutocratic fucker states with the arsenal to take over half of the world. And no, not USA. I'm thinking much closer to home.

OOC
The Russian Federation, I'm guessing? Yeah, between them an the US, the US makes a way better neighbor. We only invaded Canada and Mexico once each. No, wait, maybe it was twice for Canada. How many times has Russia invaded its neighbors?

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

Right, I asked but you didn't deliver. I'm not responding to vapid platitudes. I'm not going to address anything that isn't corroborated by evidence.

OOC:
Yeah, sure. I'll make sure to note that your response to deviation from your ideological line is to just ignore them, when I put together the TG Campaign. You and others have made it very clear that any Nation RP'd differently from yours isn't welcome in the General Assembly.

OOC: Neoliberal propaganda? It's on JSTOR. It was published in the Canadian Journal of Sociology by a professor from the University of Toronto -- hardly a bastion of neoliberalism.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Canada doesn't subscribe to neoliberal economic theory, but uh, sure. I still don't have the money to throw at being able to read it, so it's, you know, useless.

The second link isn't even an argument, it's literally just a fact presented in graph form.

I've explained so many times already that GDP is an absolutely horrendous economic indicator that one would think that you'd get the idea that I don't see any value in your using it as evidence. And given that the World Bank routinely 'adjusts' statistics to its benefit, and generally is part of the fucking problem, I'm not exactly inclined to take what information they put out at face-value.

And it's clear that you didn't read the third article because that isn't what it says.

Well, I'm sorry if I don't have time to read a 30 page document for an internet debate. However, and this is directly from your document;

Thus, there is no conclusive proof that CSOEs are grossly inefficient and unprofitable. With reforms aimed at strengthening autonomy and decision making, the manufacturing SOEs actually out-perform the private sector firms.

So yeah, it does actually say that.

but I'm not really taking this exchange very seriously,

No shit.

especially now that you've adopted a bad habit of dismissing contrary evidence out of hand.

And what in all the nine-hells do you expect me to do? I can't fucking respond to OOC information ICly, which is rather the field of debate here, and I rather suspect that you'll bring out the 'Marxist Nonsense' whistle again to dismiss anything I bring up OOCly.

1. with evidence

Yeah, no just, casually ask for in-depth high-education economic information from the guy who installs floors for a living. It's not like most information on the scholarly subjects in general is locked behind a paywall, institutional agreements, or otherwise is impossible to find or anything...
Fancy Documents
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/debt_1999_04.htm
https://freeafrica.org/wp-content/uploa ... d-Bank.pdf

Other Articles
http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/s ... of-poverty
https://freeafrica.org/wp-content/uploa ... ummary.pdf
http://newsrescue.com/how-the-imf-world ... z4ftSVQ03C
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletc ... 37893.html
http://www.coha.org/the-failures-of-nafta/

If you want anything else, find it yourself, because apparently you have much greater access to this sort of information than I do, or, instead, actually pay attention to what's going on with the people who suffer from economic liberalization instead of the company that's made a few million dollars off of it.

As an aside, I'm not entirely certain how to handle your rejection of dependency theory. It's just a reality that's so hilariously self-evident with the situations of the lower classes across the world, that I wasn't even aware that the rejection of it wholesale is commonplace.

and 2. with counterarguments that explain why you think my evidence is wrong, not just unsubstantiated assertions that it is, or I won't reply.

You've yet to provide any evidence that both has anything to do with what I'm saying, and that I can read. And no, the fucking graph from the World Bank doesn't count.

OOC: I'll also note this is just not correct.

Just like dependency theory, apparently.

Comparative advantage and gains from trade don't just work in small states, I've never even heard that said before.

Good, because that's not what I said.

As for whatever that massive block of text at the end of your post was...

But, that said, it is virtually impossible to find cases of poor countries that were able to grow over long periods of time without opening up to trade.

No shit. Industrial Capital and other such things that would allow for stable internal development tends to be quite scarce in such countries, and without state intervention focused on developing that, or opening borders to foreign trade, very little tends to get done.

And we have no evidence that trade leads to increases in poverty and declines in growth. [...] But that is not occurring as fast as we would like because worker mobility in many of these countries is quite constrained.

First of all, then clearly you're not looking at the lower-classes or people whose jobs become irrelevant or overrun. Second, regardless of whether or not you consider skyrocketing market growth at unsustainable rates to be a good thing, it's rarely distributed evenly, instead focusing on 'comparative advantages' above developing the country's weaknesses so that it can come to a vague semblance of self-sufficiency. If you're wondering why Workers can't swap industries at the drop of a hat, that's why.

Here's some other pieces from your article that you might want to look over:

We often find that wages are lower than similar workers would be making in a country like the United States and working conditions are worse.

[...] literature has found in India and in many Latin American countries is that inequality between the more educated and less educated has increased. The extent of the increase varies somewhat from country to country, but the evidence suggests that the more educated are benefiting more from the trade reforms than the less educated.

[...] workers who were employed in sectors that were initially shielded by higher tariffs experienced a drop in relative wages as tariffs were eliminated. When the tariffs were eliminated, these unskilled workers were disproportionately affected by declines in industry wages.

Moving is costly. Oftentimes, it goes beyond the financial cost of moving. For example, the poor in these countries often don’t have access to formal insurance and a social safety net [..]

Many studies focus on the consequences of globalization for less educated workers in manufacturing. But there are other parts of the population in developing countries who are even poorer: individuals who live on less than a dollar a day — often small-scale rural farmers. These households spend a large share of their budget on food and other essential items. They are less likely to send their children to school. They are more prone to health risks.

The usual concern that we have about glob­alization leading to child labor focuses on the fact that globalization might generate employment opportunities in poor countries. In particular, consumers in developed coun-tries tend to import a lot of products, such as t-shirts, sweatshirts, and toys, that are made with low-skilled labor. By increasing the demand for these products, we are increasing employment opportunities[sic] for children in poor countries and this discourages them from going to school.

Child labor has longer-term implications for these countries in its effects on health and human capital accumulation.

Literally all of these problems are caused by extreme focus on trade and the state of the economy, and the refusal therefore to invest in public infrastructure and underdeveloped areas. And, of course, the person being interviewed rapidly proves himself to be utterly reprehensible, as rather than suggest any solution, he waves about vague nonsense about fixing it, and then claims that slavery-wages and child-labour is preferable to the people involved not having jobs at all, despite the fact that industries moving in and disrupting their way of life/local economic situation may have caused the poverty in the first place, and that the whole issue could be avoided by actually investing in public infrastructure.

As an aside, Something that you seem to forget despite my mentioning it on several occasions, is that I don't actually oppose trade. I oppose the usage of trade to shackle the development of developing countries. I've never stated that total complete autarky is possible for most countries. On a completely unrelated note, why don't you explain how your belief in forcing open trade policy upon Nations that don't want such policies can be held simultaneously with your absolute belief in the right of self-determination?

Oh, and it seems that this particular section was IC. Except you didn't provide anything to respond to ICly, so I can't fucking do anything with it.
This is getting rather annoying.

Yeah, between them an the US, the US makes a way better neighbor. We only invaded Canada and Mexico once each. No, wait, maybe it was twice for Canada. How many times has Russia invaded its neighbors?

To be fair, you don't exactly need to be anywhere near the United States for it to be decided that your country needs to have Freedom, Democracy, and the American Way^TM to be delivered by way of Cruise Missile and the CIA Express.
IC:

IC: For the lack of anything better to do, Janis rolled up one of the drafts into a tube, and started shooting dried peas at the space marine in the Tinfectian threesome.

Rahlen, upon impact of the first improvised projectile, dives for cover, popping back up several seconds later having identified the nature of the projectile. "What do you think you're trying to do!" Seretis visibly fails to pretend to not notice.

[Jarish Inyo]

If you're using to examples, you'll see that the 3 of the highest GDP all use all the things that this resolution is trying to get rid off. So tell me why the EU concept is a good thing when evidence shows that it isn't?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Okay, even I don't know what you are trying to show here.

OOC: Err, nothing with that particular graph? Was just trying to see if the thingy works the same way for everyone.

OOC: How many times has Russia invaded its neighbors?

As many times as Sweden. Actually, Russia has never invaded Finland. Soviet Union did. In the past it was Sweden fighting Imperial Russia on our turf. Finland gained more autonomy under Russian rule than it ever had under Swedish. (We don't unofficially like Sweden much, because of history, but officially and practically also, are good neighbours these days.)

https://satwcomic.com/suit-up-with-guns

[Sciongrad]

Yeah, sure. I'll make sure to note that your response to deviation from your ideological line is to just ignore them, when I put together the TG Campaign. You and others have made it very clear that any Nation RP'd differently from yours isn't welcome in the General Assembly.

OOC: I'm actually not even sure how to respond to this. I am not opposed to Marxist nations RPing however they want, but I am opposed to Marxist nations trying to engage in a debate without any evidence to substantiate anything they say. Your posts are just vacuous platitudes that don't have any substance to them and yet when you're asked to either respond to evidence, or present some yourself, your response is to accuse me of shutting down your RP. This is honestly terrible form.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Canada doesn't subscribe to neoliberal economic theory, but uh, sure. I still don't have the money to throw at being able to read it, so it's, you know, useless.

OOC: - doesn't read the piece
- "it's neoliberal propaganda!"

I've explained so many times already that GDP is an absolutely horrendous economic indicator that one would think that you'd get the idea that I don't see any value in your using it as evidence. And given that the World Bank routinely 'adjusts' statistics to its benefit, and generally is part of the fucking problem, I'm not exactly inclined to take what information they put out at face-value.

OOC: But it's not? GDP is not a horrible economic indicator, it's the basic economic indicator used in macroeconomics? Although I see how it's much more convenient for you to simply dismiss the evidence out of hand rather than explaining rigorously why it's not convincing. And the argument that the World Bank is actually lying about China's growth in GDP is so intellectually dishonest or so delusional that I don't even know what to say.

And what in all the nine-hells do you expect me to do? I can't fucking respond to OOC information ICly, which is rather the field of debate here, and I rather suspect that you'll bring out the 'Marxist Nonsense' whistle again to dismiss anything I bring up OOCly.

OOC: Yeah, you can. You can have IC debates about trade policy relying on OOC evidence. Or if there's a particular case study that references evidence that can't be reconciled with the IC world, rebut it OOC. This is a mixed IC/OOC form and that has always been acceptable. And disabuse yourself of the notion that I simply don't want to hear from Marxists. I would love for this forum to have a Marxist nation that could rigorously oppose my free trade proposals using real arguments and real evidence. But that nation doesn't seem to exist.

Yeah, no just, casually ask for in-depth high-education economic information from the guy who installs floors for a living. It's not like most information on the scholarly subjects in general is locked behind a paywall, institutional agreements, or otherwise is impossible to find or anything...

OOC: I don't mean to sound rude, but you have the audacity to condescend to me about how blind I am to the light of Marxism, and yet you basically admit you don't have the economic knowledge to rebut any of the claims I'm making. If you think Marxism is a desirable normative end and your experience with capitalism has been rotten, that's fine and I respect that. But you've basically admitted that you're a blind ideologue that doesn't actually know the field you so viciously seem to despise.

http://cepr.net/documents/publications/debt_1999_04.htm

OOC: The argument here is that the the IMF's approach to debt collection is harmful. I agree. Read the book "The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of our Times" -- it is a pretty compelling explanation of why debt cancellation for the developing world is crucial to get them on the development ladder. That, and privatization and trade liberalization.

https://freeafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/091202-SENATE-on-World-Bank.pdf

OOC: I also largely agree with this piece. But I don't see how this is relevant. The World Bank has not been successful in development. Some argue it's because there's not enough aid flowing into Africa (Sachs) or that corruption is making aid less effective (Moyo). The World Bank, like the IMF, has an unreasonable expectation that extremely poor developing countries can solve their economic woes by balancing their budgets, but that's really not true. But this isn't a scathing indictment of the World Bank's existence or even its role, just a criticism of its current. development policies.

If you want anything else, find it yourself, because apparently you have much greater access to this sort of information than I do, or, instead, actually pay attention to what's going on with the people who suffer from economic liberalization instead of the company that's made a few million dollars off of it.

OOC: No? I'm not going to find evidence to corroborate your arguments for you?

As an aside, I'm not entirely certain how to handle your rejection of dependency theory. It's just a reality that's so hilariously self-evident with the situations of the lower classes across the world, that I wasn't even aware that the rejection of it wholesale is commonplace.

OOC: This leads me to believe you don't actually know what dependency theory is. I believe global poverty exists, is a problem, and that the developed world should work to resolve that poverty. But the existence of extreme poverty =/= dependency theory. Dependency theory argues that postcolonial international power structures result in resources flowing out of poor states into rich states at the expense of poor states. But basically no real academics subscribe to that theory anymore because it has been proven false. Following the Korean War, North Korea and South Korea were equally undeveloped. North Korea closed itself off, avoiding the power structures that dependency theorists criticized, while South Korea privatized and liberalized. Today, South Korea is one of the most dominant economies in East Asia while North Korea is among the poorest countries in the world. Dependency theory holds that the opposite would be true. Zimbabwe has emphasized import substitution, and as a result, it's one of the weakest economies in Africa. Rwanda, not far away, has embraced liberalization and has been one of the fasted growing economies in Africa. No dependency theorists have been able to reconcile these phenomena with the fundamental assumptions of their theory. I'm not dismissing it out of hand, like you seem to be doing with most of my evidence. I'm just noting that most academics can't defend it anymore in the face of overwhelming evidence.

You've yet to provide any evidence that both has anything to do with what I'm saying, and that I can read. And no, the fucking graph from the World Bank doesn't count.

Is this a joke? Where are the cameras, am I being punked?

First of all, then clearly you're not looking at the lower-classes or people whose jobs become irrelevant or overrun. Second, regardless of whether or not you consider skyrocketing market growth at unsustainable rates to be a good thing, it's rarely distributed evenly, instead focusing on 'comparative advantages' above developing the country's weaknesses so that it can come to a vague semblance of self-sufficiency. If you're wondering why Workers can't swap industries at the drop of a hat, that's why.

?? I don't understand any of this? Free movement of labor, by definition, creates jobs. Whether or not some people are displaced is another question, but on balance, free movement of labor necessarily offers greater employment opportunities. Secondly, I have never heard of unsustainable growth rates in the context you're talking about. Maybe unsustainable growth based on deficit spending or unsustainable growth that causes environmental degradation that eventually undermines the initial conditions for growth, but that's it. What are you trying to say? And growth, ipso facto, doesn't have anything to do with equality. Inequality increases when the rate of return on capital is greater than economic growth. The solutions are various. I like the idea of a global wealth tax. But the solution is not to lock the extremely poor out of the labor market or to implement protectionist devices.

Literally all of these problems are caused by extreme focus on trade and the state of the economy, and the refusal therefore to invest in public infrastructure and underdeveloped areas. And, of course, the person being interviewed rapidly proves himself to be utterly reprehensible, as rather than suggest any solution, he waves about vague nonsense about fixing it, and then claims that slavery-wages and child-labour is preferable to the people involved not having jobs at all, despite the fact that industries moving in and disrupting their way of life/local economic situation may have caused the poverty in the first place, and that the whole issue could be avoided by actually investing in public infrastructure.

1. These problems may be caused by free trade but eliminating free trade is not the solution. Like I said before, the solution to getting ants out of your house is not to burn your house down. Expanded multilateral aid regimes and debt relief go much farther in alleviating extreme poverty than locking developing countries out of international markets.
2. Sweatshop labor is preferable to not having a job at all. And no, free trade, on balance, has no created more poverty. The article notes that there is no evidence at all to substantiate that claim. China, for example. Since 改革开放 (reform and opening-up), manufacturing has cropped up all over China. The wages are terrible $17 a day for 12 hours of work. But the previous situation before the factories arrived was worse -- back breaking non-mechanized field labor making $1 a day. China 1980, 500 million people have been lifted out of extreme poverty in China thanks almost exclusively to liberalization and privatization.

An accessible, free primer on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/24/magaz ... shops.html

On a completely unrelated note, why don't you explain how your belief in forcing open trade policy upon Nations that don't want such policies can be held simultaneously with your absolute belief in the right of self-determination?

OOC: Self-determination is the idea that people should be able to decide their own state of sovereignty. It doesn't mean I believe any state can do whatever it wants. And I don't believe states should be able to make their people worse off just because they aren't with the times.

[Sciongrad]

"You know what I'm going to say."

[Separatist Peoples]

"You know what I'm going to say."

"Ooh, is the answer that you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Forth Sciongras!

[States of Glory WA Office]

1. Declares that any citizen of a member nation shall have the right to seek and enjoy temporary or permanent employment in any other member nation, subject to any reasonable regulations applicable to national workers; this provision specifically excludes training, education, or certification processes beyond what a reasonable nation may deem necessary for a particular job;

Fairburn: If they want a job so badly then they should seek one before coming into our nation. No proof that there's actually a job waiting for you, no entry.

2. Grants all citizens of member nations employed in other member nations the right to physically remain in that member nation while they are employed or actively seeking employment;

Fairburn: So if they commit a serious crime, we can't deport them? Gotcha!

3. Further declares that no citizen of a member nation seeking employment in another member nation shall...be detained, deported, or otherwise unduly hindered while seeking and gaining employment in another member nation;

Fairburn: Oh, so not only can't we deport them, but we can't even detain them! Sure, why not? Just allow them to commit crimes willy-nilly! What could possibly go wrong?

Also, 'labour' is spelt incorrectly.

[Fauxia]

Corwin: Oppose due to clause three

[Imperium Anglorum]

Corwin: Oppose due to clause three

So you want to discriminate against foreign workers – something which CoCR already prevents you from doing?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Corwin: Oppose due to clause three

So you want to discriminate against foreign workers – something which CoCR already prevents you from doing?

Neville: We want to be able to detain foreign workers who commit crimes, just as we do with literally everyone else. Clause Three, as written, prevents us from doing so.

[Fauxia]

Corwin: Oppose due to clause three

So you want to discriminate against foreign workers – something which CoCR already prevents you from doing?

"To a certain extent, yes. Nations, and corporations should be allowed to offer jobs to citizens before non-citizens. If the foreigner in question is a citizen, then no discrimination.

Oh? The Charter of "Civil Rights" which confuses human "rights" with Civil Rights, which are only for citizens, blocks that? Maybe we'll have to repeal it.

[Sciongrad]

So you want to discriminate against foreign workers – something which CoCR already prevents you from doing?

"To a certain extent, yes. Nations, and corporations should be allowed to offer jobs to citizens before non-citizens. If the foreigner in question is a citizen, then no discrimination.

Oh? The Charter of "Civil Rights" which confuses human "rights" with Civil Rights, which are only for citizens, blocks that? Maybe we'll have to repeal it.

OOC: CoCR is not limited to citizens.

[Fauxia]

"To a certain extent, yes. Nations, and corporations should be allowed to offer jobs to citizens before non-citizens. If the foreigner in question is a citizen, then no discrimination.

Oh? The Charter of "Civil Rights" which confuses human "rights" with Civil Rights, which are only for citizens, blocks that? Maybe we'll have to repeal it.

OOC: CoCR is not limited to citizens.

That's the point. It's a misuse of the term "Civil RIght"

definition: the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

[Separatist Peoples]

Corwin: Oppose due to clause three

So you want to discriminate against foreign workers – something which CoCR already prevents you from doing?

"Compelling practical purposes. There are compelling practical purposes to so discriminate."

[Fauxia]

So you want to discriminate against foreign workers – something which CoCR already prevents you from doing?

"Compelling practical purposes. There are compelling practical purposes to so discriminate."

"Such as protecting the jobs of citizens, to whom a government owes its first duty."