[Draft] World Assembly Agreement on Trade

[Aclion]

I also notice that the removal "of all imposts, duties... on goods and services produced within member nations" Does not distinguish between taxes on imports or purely domestic taxes.
From OED

Impost: A tax or similar compulsory payment.
Duty: A payment levied on the import, export, manufacture, or sale of goods.

Tarriff seems to be okay, but I believe the problem here is in the phrase "produced within member nations".

OOC: It was my understanding that mandates had to be immediate in effect, as the effects of the resolutions are immediate upon passage.

Found the ruling

When a proposal becomes a resolution (in other words, it survives the proposal stage and the voting stage), it is instantly law. There is no grace period.

OOC: Oh, you're doing this WA mission thing also? Because of what resolution?

Because I'm a delegate but also need a nation that can move to other regions. (I was too lazy to switch)
I would argue that if the government is taxing activity outside it's jurisdiction then that is not internal taxation.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: It was my understanding that mandates had to be immediate in effect, as the effects of the resolutions are immediate upon passage.

Found the ruling

When a proposal becomes a resolution (in other words, it survives the proposal stage and the voting stage), it is instantly law. There is no grace period.

OOC: I'll obviously recuse myself if you wish to challenge the legality of the proposal. However, note that 1. previous rulings are not binding and 2. even then, that ruling is inconsistent with precedent. Several resolutions (GAR#320, GAR#301, and the UN precursor of GAR#26) all take effect over time. There are likely others that I can't think of off the top of my head.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Resolutions can take affect over time. 301 GA comes to mind first: viewtopic.php?p=23047098#p23047098

[Bananaistan]

OOC: 1) My query in respect of GAR#2019 appears to have been overlooked twice already. Perhaps it might now be noticed. What does this do that GAR#209 does not already do. IE how is this is not duplication of existing legislation? More importantly, is the more restrictive exemption provided here in clause 2b, which makes no mention of differences in labour standards, not a contradiction of GAR#209 which allows member nations to apply tariffs etc in cases where the nation of origin of the goods in question does not apply the same or similar labour standards as the importing nation?

2) What's with all this free trade nonsense and why does the GA seem so intent on espousing one particular economic school of thought on everyone? IRL, this same economic system every so often and with unfailing regularity tanks the economies of all countries who faithfully follow it while all the time concentrating ever greater wealth and resources in the hands of fewer fat cats at the top. It seems to me that the greater hazard to national populations arises from allowing these welchers to pilfer the wealth of the people. The extreme hazard of not following this particular school is not at all demonstrated here.

[Auralia]

OOC: 1) My query in respect of GAR#2019 appears to have been overlooked twice already. Perhaps it might now be noticed. What does this do that GAR#209 does not already do. IE how is this is not duplication of existing legislation? More importantly, is the more restrictive exemption provided here in clause 2b, which makes no mention of differences in labour standards, not a contradiction of GAR#209 which allows member nations to apply tariffs etc in cases where the nation of origin of the goods in question does not apply the same or similar labour standards as the importing nation?

((OOC: This proposal goes further than GAR #209 in that the latter merely establishes a WTO-like requirement against discrimination in international trade, while the former actually abolishes all tariffs in ten years, creating a World Assembly free trade area.

The exceptions in GAR #209 apply only to the requirements of that resolution. However, exception 2(d) may pose some interesting problems.))

[Calladan]

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Sciongrad

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitments to raising the standard of living, promoting wage growth, and ensuring full employment in all member nations through promoting the free trade of goods and services and eliminating trade barriers,

Recognizing the extreme hazard posed to national populations by such barriers,

Resolved to create expanded markets for goods and services produced in the territories of member nations,

1. Promotes the exchange of goods, services, and capital between member nations;

2. Instructs the International Trade Agency to liaise with relevant officials from members nations in order to schedule the removal, within ten years, of all imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices on goods and services produced within member nations;

3. Permits members nations to implement protectionist devices on good and services produced within member nations if:

1. An unstable economic situation requires such protectionist devices to ensure the production of essential products,
2. The exporter of a given product is in violation of extant or future international legislation on human rights, environmental standards, or quality standards, provided such protectionist devices are assigned proportionally to all exporters that violate the aforementioned legislation,
3. To protect domestic industries from discriminatory protectionist devices implemented by other member nations, provided the protectionist devices by the former nation are reasonable and proportional to the discriminatory protection devices,
4. To stabilize or protect industries during times of economic crisis;

4. Reserves to member nations the right to place retaliatory tariffs on non-member nations.

I realise I may have misunderstood the phrasing, or intention of the wording, but the phrase "The exporter of a given product is in violation of extant or future international legislation on human rights, environmental standards, or quality standards" is exceptionally troubling, because right now ANYONE could be in violation of future international legislation, since that legislation doesn't exist.

So wouldn't that mean you could pretty much use this proposal to screw with any other nation in The WA by claiming they are violating a law that doesn't exist yet, but will exist in two years time?

[Imperium Anglorum]

What's with all this free trade nonsense and why does the GA seem so intent on espousing one particular economic school of thought on everyone? IRL, this same economic system every so often and with unfailing regularity tanks the economies of all countries who faithfully follow it while all the time concentrating ever greater wealth and resources in the hands of fewer fat cats at the top. It seems to me that the greater hazard to national populations arises from allowing these welchers to pilfer the wealth of the people. The extreme hazard of not following this particular school is not at all demonstrated here.

I'd say empirics.

[Bananaistan]

I'd say that's better than glorified fortune telling!

[Aclion]

I realise I may have misunderstood the phrasing, or intention of the wording, but the phrase "The exporter of a given product is in violation of extant or future international legislation on human rights, environmental standards, or quality standards" is exceptionally troubling, because right now ANYONE could be in violation of future international legislation, since that legislation doesn't exist.

So wouldn't that mean you could pretty much use this proposal to screw with any other nation in The WA by claiming they are violating a law that doesn't exist yet, but will exist in two years time?

That's intended to ensure that the resolution does not act as a blocker on future resolutions.

It is also impossible to be in violation of future legislation because WA legislation is not retroactive.

[Aclion]

OOC: I'll obviously recuse myself if you wish to challenge the legality of the proposal. However, note that 1. previous rulings are not binding and 2. even then, that ruling is inconsistent with precedent. Several resolutions (GAR#320, GAR#301, and the UN precursor of GAR#26) all take effect over time. There are likely others that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Resolutions can take affect over time. 301 GA comes to mind first: viewtopic.php?p=23047098#p23047098

I do not believe the existence of legislation that violates a ruling can be used as precedent, as we've adopted the convention that legislation is always legal, regardless of current rules.

snip

Regardless of your feeling on the legality you should still fix the other issues people have outlined.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: Snipped. I failed economics in this post.

[Sciongrad]

I do not believe the existence of legislation that violates a ruling can be used as precedent, as we've adopted the convention that legislation is always legal, regardless of current rules.

OOC: That's incorrect. Legislation can and has been used as precedent, especially when it is passed after a conflicting ruling.

Regardless of your feeling on the legality you should still fix the other issues people have outlined.

OOC: I planned on it, but you can't accuse me of writing an illegal proposal and then tell me to focus on the content when I'm addressing your query!

[Imperium Anglorum]

NORTH: So your issue with free trade is basically that foreign consumers would suffer from too cheap prices and that for their own benefit, they should be sallied with their inefficient domestic industries which expend more effort to produce less? This certainly is an interesting theory of economics.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

NORTH: So your issue with free trade is basically that foreign consumers would suffer from too cheap prices and that for their own benefit, they should be sallied with their inefficient domestic industries which expend more effort to produce less? This certainly is an interesting theory of economics.

OOC: That was a mistake. I edited my previous post to reflect that I had a total brainfart with it.

[Wabbia]

To stabilize or protect industries during times of economic crisis

Who defines an economic crisis? This resolution could be seen as optional entirely, given the amount of exceptions, and the fact that some member nations require protectionist policies for their economy.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Ambassador Santa appears to be inept in the proper use of language, unless she actually wishes us to be able to predict the future.

Neville: We suggest removing the words 'extant or future'.

"Why? The meaning is quite exact. Legislation that is extant (i.e., currently exists) or legislation that will be passed (i.e., may or may not exist in the future)."

Fairburn: As much of an idiot Neville may be, he is familiar with the concept of which you speak. How are we expected to know what legislation may be passed in the future?

Opposed. We use duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices on goods and services to fund all the WA welfare programs within our boarders.

Fairburn: Your commitment to the welfare of athletes is commendable, but it still demonstrates a lack of perspective.

2. Instructs the International Trade Agency to liaise with relevant officials from members nations in order to schedule the removal, within ten years, of all imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices on goods and services produced within member nations;

Barbera: This clause would require us to abolish the duties that we place on alcohol, tobacco and motor vehicles that are produced within our nation, or indeed the duties that we place on duty-free goods that are imported into our nation. For this reason, we can not lend our support to your efforts.

[Aclion]

you can't accuse me of writing an illegal proposal and then tell me to focus on the content when I'm addressing your query!

Oh You think so, eh?

[Araraukar]

2. Instructs the International Trade Agency to liaise with relevant officials from members nations in order to schedule the removal, within ten years, of all imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices on goods and services produced within member nations;

Barbera: This clause would require us to abolish the duties that we place on alcohol, tobacco and motor vehicles that are produced within our nation, or indeed the duties that we place on duty-free goods that are imported into our nation. For this reason, we can not lend our support to your efforts.

And thus the proposal would be interfering with internal taxation, as it's not just duties on imports but also exports, and the tax is paid to the nation in question, not foreign nations.

OOC: From Wiktionary, on "duty": "A tax placed on imports or exports; a tariff, customs duty, excise duty." Says fairly clearly that it's a tax.

[Bears Armed]

Resolutions can take affect over time. 301 GA comes to mind first: viewtopic.php?p=23047098#p23047098

In that case the fact that all of the operative clauses required that member nations "Begin at once" to carry out the policies listed, combined with the inclusion of a reasonably restrictive deadline for completing the changes, was ruled to be enough.
It has also been understood in the past that although resolutions become law as soon as they are passed, the completion of some requirements that physically can not be carried out immediately -- for example, safely scrapping some category of weapons -- is allowed to take a reasonable amount of time.

[Aclion]

Resolutions can take affect over time. 301 GA comes to mind first: viewtopic.php?p=23047098#p23047098

In that case the fact that all of the operative clauses required that member nations "Begin at once" to carry out the policies listed, combined with the inclusion of a reasonably restrictive deadline for completing the changes, was ruled to be enough.
It has also been understood in the past that although resolutions become law as soon as they are passed, the completion of some requirements that physically can not be carried out immediately -- for example, safely scrapping some category of weapons -- is allowed to take a reasonable amount of time.

In that case I withdraw my objection.

[Excidium Planetis]

"My earlier conditions for support not having been met, and quite irrelevant now anyways since the Imperium of Tinfect has withdrawn from the World Assembly, I reaffirm my former colleague's statement that Excidium Planetis cannot support this legislation. Our protectionist tariffs are designed to prevent foreign nations from destroying our manufacturing industry with cheaper and superior foreign products." Blackbourne states.

"Let me be clear: while it may be beneficial to the individual in the short term to be able to buy superior foreign products for cheaper than domestic products, in the long term the loss of domestic jobs as our businesses lose their sales and contracts is not beneficial for anyone but an extreme minority in Excidium Planetis."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Let me be clear: while it may be beneficial to the individual in the short term to be able to buy superior foreign products for cheaper than domestic products, in the long term the loss of domestic jobs as our businesses lose their sales and contracts is not beneficial for anyone but an extreme minority in Excidium Planetis."

NORTH: You have some very interesting economics over there. It's almost like people can't change jobs and when they lose their current job, they are disemployed forever! My God, man! The horror! (beat) Except that isn't what happens in ... really, any economy, because people can change their jobs. The responsibility of government is not to shoot its economy in the foot, but find a way to redeploy labour and provide the necessary skills.

On the individual level, should you trade? Imagine how long it would take to make literally everything by yourself. But in the modern world, we have this thing where you can use a few hours of wages to buy the food it would take months for you to grow. Consider this technology. For a country with the comparative advantage in farming, you have these two ways of making steel. You can either make the steel yourself, or you can expend a lot less effort to make the same amount of steel by growing grain, sending it across the ocean. A few months later, the boats reappear with literal tons of steel.

Laying people off, when output remains the same, benefits the economy. You are literally making the same amount with less. Consider the alternative. Why build a road with machines? Give the workers shovels! More jobs! Why build a dam with shovels? Give them spoons! Even more jobs! In fact, the best way to maximise employment is to have the government pay people to twiddle thumbs. The dam will never be completed, those contracts and sales will last forever!

Labour is a valuable resource. Wasting it by trying to make everything seems a very interesting way to achieve economic growth, when increases in per capita output are due to one thing — productivity — and trying to make everything decreases productivity.

[Excidium Planetis]

NORTH: You have some very interesting economics over there. It's almost like people can't change jobs and when they lose their current job, they are disemployed forever! My God, man! The horror! (beat) Except that isn't what happens in ... really, any economy, because people can change their jobs. The responsibility of government is not to shoot its economy in the foot, but find a way to redeploy labour and provide the necessary skills.

On the individual level, should you trade? Imagine how long it would take to make literally everything by yourself. But in the modern world, we have this thing where you can use a few hours of wages to buy the food it would take months for you to grow. Consider this technology. For a country with the comparative advantage in farming, you have these two ways of making steel. You can either make the steel yourself, or you can expend a lot less effort to make the same amount of steel by growing grain, sending it across the ocean. A few months later, the boats reappear with literal tons of steel.

Laying people off, when output remains the same, benefits the economy. You are literally making the same amount with less. Consider the alternative. Why build a road with machines? Give the workers shovels! More jobs! Why build a dam with shovels? Give them spoons! Even more jobs! In fact, the best way to maximise employment is to have the government pay people to twiddle thumbs. The dam will never be completed, those contracts and sales will last forever!

Labour is a valuable resource. Wasting it by trying to make everything seems a very interesting way to achieve economic growth, when increases in per capita output are due to one thing — productivity — and trying to make everything decreases productivity.

"You make it sound as if changing one's occupation is something that can be done instantly, and that there are hundreds of millions of jobs waiting to be filled. When someone has spent their whole life being educated and trained for a specific field, and there are suddenly no jobs in that field, they have wasted all their life and education. They must go from a high skilled job to a low skilled job. A factory supervisor can't take up graphic design for a living tomorrow.

"And that would be assuming that there were other jobs to be done. Foreign products beat out our domestic products in every sector from agriculture to mining to starship contraction to arms manufacturing. Even luxury goods. There is nothing, outside of creative products such as art or music or fine cuisine, that foreign business aren't already making faster, better, and cheaper than our domestic products. Surely you realize, Ambassador, that ninety percent of our population cannot switch careers instantly. It would be optimistic indeed to think it could be done in a few years. Not everyone can be a artist, a musician, a chef."

---

OOC:
Imagine an alien race with far superior technology appeared on Earth. They can make food, mine resources, and manufacture products quicker, less expensively, and with superior quality to anything that Earth produces. Of course, almost everyone would switch over to buying the alien products, right? As you said ICly, why make steel yourself when you can spend less importing tons of it? Imagine how many billions of jobs would be lost almost overnight. How can all these people switch to new jobs in such a short timeframe? How can all these people continue to afford buying alien products when they no longer are making any money? What economic effects would be observed?

There is a difference between what we see in real life, where all the human race is on more or less the same tech level, versus the situation of Excidium Planetis, where some future tech nations are producing lithium so cheaply that they are selling it for twelve cents per kilogram (for reference, the current real life cost is about $9.10 per kilogram). Excidium Planetis itself exports to less advanced nations, selling computers with capabilities far exceeding modern day computers, for less than the cost of those computers. And these are just examples. Virtually everything Excidium Planetis makes can be bought cheaper or better from other interstellar powers.

[Aclionian Mission]

snip

The nice thing about trade is even if one party is better at absolutely everything it's still beneficial for all parties. explained
What you're doing is not protecting your economy or business owners or workers. You are protecting inefficient producers at the expense of consumers.

[United Federated States of Omega]

"We stand opposed due to the fact that we would be fearful that embargos or sanction may be classified as a "protectionist device" and we see these tools as integral to our diplomatic policy."

OOC: protect embargos and economic sanctions and I would be okay with this.