by Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:30 pm
by Oliver the Mediocre » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:35 pm
1: Extends the terms of this resolution to all nations, WA or not, who comply with WA regulations on labour and trade, including, but not limited to: #118, Ethics in International Trade , #4, Restrictions on Child Labor , #7 Workplace Safety Standards Act and #23 Ban on Slavery and Trafficking.
by Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:39 pm
by Oliver the Mediocre » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:58 pm
Panageadom wrote:Thank you for the quick commentary.
What I was trying to get was that the terms of reducing restrictions within a country must apply to not applying tariffs to non-WA members who follow said regulations.
On the second point...Ah.
-Cave Martins,
Foreign Minister
by Grays Harbor » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:10 pm
by Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:21 pm
by Grays Harbor » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Insisiting that free trade, especially in basic foodstuffs, as it is so fundamental to assuring the basic wellbeing of citizens in rich countries and poor, must overule the legitimate demands of member nations for national economic sovreignty.
Recognising that for statist economies, such policies are of limited effect, as the state, as the consumer of foreign goods, may still choose to purchase whichever foreign goods they please, regardless of price and/or real-world utility: as such, they would not fall foul of the "bourgeois fallacies" of market economics they have identified.
2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 10% of average global market value on any other consumer product.
by Mehayn » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:03 pm
2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 10% of average global market value on any other consumer product.
by Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:09 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Insisiting that free trade, especially in basic foodstuffs, as it is so fundamental to assuring the basic wellbeing of citizens in rich countries and poor, must overule the legitimate demands of member nations for national economic sovreignty.
Never, not ever, shall we agree to such a broad and ill thought out mandate such as this. (1)Recognising that for statist economies, such policies are of limited effect, as the state, as the consumer of foreign goods, may still choose to purchase whichever foreign goods they please, regardless of price and/or real-world utility: as such, they would not fall foul of the "bourgeois fallacies" of market economics they have identified.
This sounds more like an ideological diatribe than anything else. And it should be noted that bans for ideological reasons are prohibited. (2)2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 10% of average global market value on any other consumer product.
It really is not the place of the WA to dictate what tariffs rates are, or that all tariffs are to be annulled at a gesture. (3)
by Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:14 pm
Mehayn wrote:2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 10% of average global market value on any other consumer product.
Removing all tariffs on "basic consumer goods" would result in a HUGE loss of revenue for many developing economies.Also, "basic consumer goods" is too difficult to define.
James Murdoc
Mehayn Ambassador to the WA
...more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive...
by Vocatus » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:59 pm
by Grays Harbor » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:49 pm
Panageadom wrote:1: Would you disagree that it is the role of a supranational body such as the WA to intervene where direct damage to human beings was perpetuated without cause? Even coming from an isolationist background, that seems to contradict the basic tenet of having supranationality in any case.
Panageadom wrote:2: Duly noted. But it is not an ideological ban: merely a statement that such a clause would neccesarily have less potency on those it was most likely to irritate.
Panageadom wrote:3: I believe I may be excused for thinking that a bill designed to ensure free trade would mandate a reduction in tariffs.
by Darenjo » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:50 pm
by Scandavian States » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:12 pm
by Panageadom » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:42 am
by Knootoss » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:51 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:58 am
Knootoss wrote:OOC: This rather overlaps with my own planned trade in agriculture resolution. While agreeing with your ideals, might you consider please holding off on this a bit? It'd be illegal anyway, at present, due to the Food Welfare Act, for which I have a repeal in queue.
by Grays Harbor » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:02 am
Panageadom wrote:I: You have not yet addressed the central issue: while we are obviously opposed to WA micromanagement, given the contention that artificial economic barriers to trade likely cause direct harm on civilian populations, should not the basic wellbeing of citizens override our isolationist prerogatives?
II: As all other clauses, it is required to explain the precise nature and constitution of the theoretical justification, and to demonstrate that the principle is not as abhorrent as thought.
III: Qualifying your statement with "blanket" clearly shows the argument's fallacy: any international bill designed to extend the cause of free trade must mandate some supranational involvement in national affairs - the spectrum from negligible to blanket has to be justified in terms of the potency of the bill to do good. It seems clear to my delegation that this bill does.
by Knootoss » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:04 am
by Panageadom » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:38 am
by Grays Harbor » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:48 am
Panageadom wrote:My thanks to the delegates.
Dr. Castro, could you outline, given the proviso in the first clause, what the conflict with Ethics in International Trade is? I'm afraid I don't understand. Though my dear doctor, hope springs eternal.
To the bugle-calling of Greys Harbour: so you do prefer to manage your policies in isolation from foreign intervention? It's no criticism. And your assertion that we have not made an argument to support our central tenet - that free trade requires some international meddling for the general popular welfare - is clearly itself, unfounded. Without a desire to appear condescending, the simplified mechanism is this: free trade => greater competiveness => greater specialisation, both of location and industry => cheaper, higher-quality products delivered at a lower rate of taxation, in a stable international market => "peace and prosperity", to wax lyrical. May I ask for a restructuring of the same statement? An ideological segregationist, are we? It seems obvious to our government that there is a continuum between moderate influence and mandating policies: again, we find your argument rhetorical, rather logical.
Yours,
Cave Martins,
-Foreign Minister
(OOC: Knootoss: I'll certainly consider a delay. Knootoss and Glen Rhodes: oh dear...)
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:00 pm
by Panageadom » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:16 pm
by Vocatus » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:02 pm
Panageadom wrote:Vocatus
While you are correct that such removal of subsidies would result in a short-term reduction in the production of consumer goods, it would also mean that, by the agency of free competition, the production of such consumer goods would be moved to locations where the production of such goods would be most effecient, meaning that the efficient production of consumer goods - and so, the availability of such goods would be maximised. *
(*OOC: Look at the EU and the Common Agricultural Policy: yes, CAP artifically boosts the production of food in France and Spain, but in doing so creates a disincentive for such food production to move to places like Africa: not only does the policy incur unfair costs on European taxpayers and consumers (in lower quality/quantity food), but halts the development of poverty-striken Africa, which clearly has vast agricultural potential.)
by Panageadom » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:11 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bananaistan, Comfed
Advertisement