[LAST CALL] Repeal "Reducing Food Waste"

by **Youssath** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:18 am

So this repeal will just be made as a draft in the event that this resolution at vote passes the General Assembly. Of course, I must remind everyone that the aim of such a repeal is not to destroy the idea and discarding it as "useless", but rather to suggest improvements upon it to improve the idea holistically so as to prevent any future misinterpretations from WA members.

Of course, I am personally in support of this resolution at vote, and while I am challenging the elements of this resolution, I encourage everyone here to give their input so as to provide a more meaningful and constructive feedback for a stronger version 2.0. If anyone wants a general basis on my stance, here is my dispatch on this resolution. It may not be submitted into the GA if there is strong support for this resolution, although I will leave it up to the community here.

EDIT: Given how the resolution has passed a while ago, this repeal will officially be against this resolution. Once repealed, a stronger legislation will be introduced to help with establishing the precedent.

Also, this is my first repeal case here. So give me a bit of chance to write a better one in the future, alrite?
And gimme some feedback, but no bites. I am pretty sure some stuff I have written here needs some rewording...

Repeal "Reducing Food Waste"
Category: Repeal | Proposed by: Youssath
The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the introduction of resolution GA #469 as one of the very first resolutions tackling food wastage worldwide;

UNDERSTANDING that the main aims of GA #469 are to prevent unnecessary overproduction of food and to minimize food wastage through the use of food donations, bureaucratic offices and public awareness;

NOTING that as the first resolution of its kind, a solid precedent must be established in order to provide a sustainable response towards this developing issue.

HIGHLIGHTING that this resolution is not representative of other food industries in the world, most notably:
Fruit juice and beverage industries use "aesthetically unpleasing" fruits for their products, since it is economically cheaper with no difference in taste;
Fruit jams, wine fermentation and pastry baking industries are also users to 'aesthetically unpleasing' fruits, and that their products resemble none of it;
FURTHER HIGHLIGHTING that this resolution runs in contradiction to basic economic theories and justifications:
Stating that businesses produce more stock than what is being sold is incorrect, as it contradicts economic theories that the free market will adjust accordingly to suit the supply and demand fluctuations of the free market;
Further stating a rise in food prices as a result of lack of supply from food wastage is inherently incorrect, since wastage only comes about from overproduction in supply which, by the supply-demand model, will lead to a decrease in food prices given constant demand;
STATING that the measures suggested by GA #469 do not provide a sustainable remedy towards reducing food wastage:
Highlighting that providing foreign aid towards poorer WA member states to reduce food wastage will only lead to an overreliance of aid by these governments, which in turn will greatly affect the geopolitical stability of the region should these WA donors refuse to provide any further donations;
Further highlighting that the introduction of food offices and initiatives are susceptible to corruption and that it does not address the bigger issue at play here such as poor infrastructural or logistical support and black markets;
Reminding the international community that while food wastage is a problem, it is simply due to the market allocative inefficiencies by both the free market (supply exceeds demand) and central economies (governments try to predict how much to produce and consume) and that if left to their own devices, the market can correct itself through market signals towards both suppliers and consumers through the price mechanism and food surpluses.
Further reminding that food wastage is a symptom of developed nations with strong purchasing power, and that reducing food wastage is an impossibility if time is required to transport food to developing nations - especially given the perishable nature of food.
And that while a nation's geography or food capacity cannot be changed, there can be better suggestions towards this resolution to help promote a win-win scenario among WA nations instead of merely donations and bureaucratic work;
OBSERVING that GA #469 can place an unreasonable burden on some food industries without proper relief, which forces them to raise food prices as a result from an increased cost of operation;

BELIEVING that the reduction of food wastage should not come at a cost of preventing the overproduction of food, since the main objective in mind is to provide sustainable food prices in correlation to the global demand;

REMINDING the international community once again that food abundance and wastage is not necessarily an inherent problem since they can help to weather prolonged periods of natural disasters, along with the fact that food shortages can be a more devastating issue for the international community;

HOPING that the repealing of GA #469 will give birth to a stronger resolution that can promote a more progressive and sustainable world in which we all share;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #469, "Reducing Food Waste".

Anyone is welcome to suggest their edits towards this repeal, although it will be great if you can articulate on how your points go about.

by **Kenmoria** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:49 am

(OOC: Obviously I’m going to oppose this repeal since it’s about my legislation. Nevertheless, I must congratulate you on some good arguments here. You have a few grammar mistakes: ‘uses’ in your first highlighting subclause should be ‘use’; the word ‘and’ in your first further highlighting subclause shouldn’t be there; ‘does’ should be ‘do’ in your stating clause; and it is more traditional to say ‘in mind’ than ‘at mind’, in your believing clause.

Furthermore, I’m having trouble understanding what you are arguing in the second subclause of your highlighting clause. Hit badly by what?)

by **East Meranopirus** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:56 am

Reminder that not all WA nations operate free-market or mixed-market economies, so all your arguments on the price mechanism, supply and demand aren't all that valid.

by **Youssath** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:03 am

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Obviously I’m going to oppose this repeal since it’s about my legislation. Nevertheless, I must congratulate you on some good arguments here. You have a few grammar mistakes: ‘uses’ in your first highlighting subclause should be ‘use’; the word ‘and’ in your first further highlighting subclause shouldn’t be there; ‘does’ should be ‘do’ in your stating clause; and it is more traditional to say ‘in mind’ than ‘at mind’, in your believing clause.

Furthermore, I’m having trouble understanding what you are arguing in the second subclause of your highlighting clause. Hit badly by what?)

(OOC: I will be surprised if you do support this repeal. It will be some 6D chess that you are playing right there. :rofl:

Will make adjustments to the grammatical errors as you have mentioned, thanks a lot!

With regards to the second subclause of my highlighting clause, I meant to say "hit badly by rising cost prices", but it does seem silly now since the main idea is that the preamble of your resolution is not representative of these industries (not as to why they are affected!). I will be dropping some parts of this statement to make it more relevant from "...industries will be hit badly as the..." to "...industries are also users to 'aesthetically unpleasing' types of fruits, as their products...")

East Meranopirus wrote:Reminder that not all WA nations operate free-market or mixed-market economies, so all your arguments on the price mechanism, supply and demand aren't all that valid.

Incorrect. Even if your economy operates under laissez-faire or may be centrally planned by the government, you will still need the price mechanism, supply and demand concepts and macroeconomic policies for basic economic functions. The price mechanism exists so it builds a consensus for one willing and able seller to sell at an agreed price with one willing and able buyer. This has nothing to do about WA nations operating free-market or mixed market economies, and it has always been this way for centuries (even if your government controls the economy, you still need to agree upon a price - or a fixed one set upon by the government - to conduct trade). To say that the price mechanism, supply and demand are not valid is to dismiss the idea of a currency, which is used as a medium to transact goods and services. Without that, it will simply be chaos as we will descend back into "basic trading" where you want my cows, but I don't want your stack of wheat. You will be therefore be forced to look around for a trader who is willing to get what I want before I give you my cows.

What free-market and mixed-market economies do affect, however (and is not part of this repeal or resolution, but I will simply educate you on how economics work), is the nature of certain goods and services. Take a look at tobacco or alcohol industries, why are they so heavily taxed in some countries? Governments do try to influence the consumer's behaviour by imposing taxes or subsidies for an economic sector (and yes, while the most autocratic governments do 5-year plans, they still need to impose measures in order to cultivate such a behaviour. Want more iron? Just subsidize the production of iron then.) in order to encourage or refrain certain types of behaviour. Tobacco and alcohol tax is introduced to stop citizens from consuming too much of these goods since they are linked to health issues. Are they interventionist and can be seen as mixed-market economies? Sure, interpret it this way. However, do they dismiss the arguments of the basic price mechanism and supply and demand mechanics on how we do trade? Nah, not really.

If you can explain your points more in detail as to why you think basic economic consensus does not apply here, that will be great.

by **Araraukar** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:02 am

Youssath wrote:why you think basic economic consensus does not apply here, that will be great.

OOC: In fringe cases, like Araraukar, almost everything (that is, food production on the large scale) is centralized through the state, because that way environmental issues can be strictly controlled and everything planned carefully. That is so that citizens don't need to pay for basic needs like groceries. (If they want something produced by a private individual instead, they need to find some agreeable price between the two of them; there are no set prices because on the large scale you don't need to pay for your food.)

It's different for tourists and it's complicated and I don't want to threadjack this into a discussion about my RP, but the prices of individual food items won't be an issue there either, and food stores exist more to be distribution points with storage capability and way to keep an eye on what people want and when - working for the whole "let's reduce loss of edible food" thing. Though in Araraukar the main point is to keep environmental effects to a minimum, rather than reducing costs.

Restaurants are an entirely different matter... EDIT: In terms of costs, not in terms of preventing food loss. That's still done and for the same reasons. You won't keep your restaurant licence for very long, if you're bad at food use planning.

2nd EDIT: Not got the brainpower to work my way through the proposal text today. Sorry.

by **Kenmoria** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:10 am

(OOC: The fourth subclause of the stating clause shouldn't have ‘our’ in it, as GA resolutions almost always use the impersonal.)

by **Youssath** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:03 am

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The fourth subclause of the stating clause shouldn't have ‘our’ in it, as GA resolutions almost always use the impersonal.)

Alright! Do you think the word "a nation's" might seem too long-winded of a statement? I'm afraid it might be tedious to read at times...

Araraukar wrote:
Youssath wrote:why you think basic economic consensus does not apply here, that will be great.

OOC: In fringe cases, like Araraukar, almost everything (that is, food production on the large scale) is centralized through the state, because that way environmental issues can be strictly controlled and everything planned carefully. That is so that citizens don't need to pay for basic needs like groceries. (If they want something produced by a private individual instead, they need to find some agreeable price between the two of them; there are no set prices because on the large scale you don't need to pay for your food.)

It's different for tourists and it's complicated and I don't want to threadjack this into a discussion about my RP, but the prices of individual food items won't be an issue there either, and food stores exist more to be distribution points with storage capability and way to keep an eye on what people want and when - working for the whole "let's reduce loss of edible food" thing. Though in Araraukar the main point is to keep environmental effects to a minimum, rather than reducing costs.

Restaurants are an entirely different matter... EDIT: In terms of costs, not in terms of preventing food loss. That's still done and for the same reasons. You won't keep your restaurant licence for very long, if you're bad at food use planning.

2nd EDIT: Not got the brainpower to work my way through the proposal text today. Sorry.

That is... quite interesting indeed. If your citizens don't have to pay for basic goods and services - which is all provided by the state - I believe that your citizens own some domestic or foreign currency for their own private purchases, right? While it seems fantastic that basic welfare is provided by the state towards the people, how do you exactly address citizens with varying purchasing power in your country? The rich tend to spend and want more, and it can be environmentally damaging for food stores to distribute food based on "what people want and when" - since wants are not necessities and it can be difficult to ascertain what your local populace actually wants.

I can probably give you a good argument or two as to why centralization can be a good thing, since laissez-faire economics is ruthless against the weak (healthcare, healthy food) which is why governments do provide subsidization for these services (to fix the prices of these sectors, so that it is affordable to the entire population) and that economic centralization, if used correctly, can be used as a positive tool to maintain a large "encompassing interest" in the welfare of the state. Of course, there are reasons as to why this type of economics is not realistic, since often at times we tend to be more "selfish" and "greedy" for our own individual needs instead of the collective goals.

As to why Youssath maintains a mixed economy system (all industries must be state-owned or government-held, no private industries) while not fully embracing the centralization of the economy by the state, it's because it can be difficult to ascertain what our national economy actually needs (governments can produce more iron to meet export goals but at the expense of agriculture needs) and it can be damaging to the national economy if left untreated. Furthermore, we hold the concept that "no two nations are the same", which is even truer when we take a nation's geography into account. Assuming that a neighbouring nation with rich and arable land can produce more agriculture than you (lower cost of production too, since neighbouring farmers don't have to fertilize or maintain their crops as much as you do - this is called an economic advantage). If my nation just so happens to need food for its population, do I force my farmers to produce agriculture to at least try to be self-sufficient (when my lands cannot produce as much as my neighbour, and I will need to expend more resources to get similar outputs as the neighbouring nation) or do I simply conduct international trade to purchase agriculture (his economic advantage) at an agreed price? The general consensus Youssath has arrived is that not all countries can be self-sufficient in their own ways, and sometimes it can be cheaper to import goods abroad due to lower manufacturing and economic costs compared to producing it myself. You will see why self-sufficient countries like NK are doing terrible, while countries that open up to international trade tend to do better.

It's definitely fun to talk about economic stuff and provide scenarios, although I must say I have digressed far from the original post. Nevertheless, if you have any feedback for this repeal - feel free to reply back!

by **Kenmoria** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:36 am

Youssath wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The fourth subclause of the stating clause shouldn't have ‘our’ in it, as GA resolutions almost always use the impersonal.)

Alright! Do you think the word "a nation's" might seem too long-winded of a statement? I'm afraid it might be tedious to read at times...

(OOC: Those that do read the legislative text, as opposed to simply voting with the majority or their delegate, generally won’t be fettered by long-winded clauses. Yours are rather short, compared to a few repeals.)

by **Youssath** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:11 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Youssath wrote:Alright! Do you think the word "a nation's" might seem too long-winded of a statement? I'm afraid it might be tedious to read at times...

(OOC: Those that do read the legislative text, as opposed to simply voting with the majority or their delegate, generally won’t be fettered by long-winded clauses. Yours are rather short, compared to a few repeals.)

(OOC: Haha right, I guess I wanted to make this repeal at least "easy to read" and "approachable" for the masses to comprehend since it can be difficult to read a whole text of wall sometimes.

When your resolution passes, I will check on public consensus to determine whether will they support a repealing (and replacing) of GAR #469. Of course, your current legislation is excellent and I support it personally from me, although I serve to represent those who are in opposition towards your resolution. If it does get repealed (unlikely), I will see to it into helping you draft an improved revision of GAR #469.

Or maybe you can use this as a build-up for a second bill on food wastage since you have established a good precedent on this issue.

)

by **East Meranopirus** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:08 am

Youssath wrote:If you can explain your points more in detail as to why you think basic economic consensus does not apply here, that will be great.

Firstly, this entire clauses hinges upon the free market economy. That's not "basic economic consensus".
"Stating that businesses produce more stock than what is being sold is incorrect, as it contradicts economic theories that the free market will adjust accordingly to suit the supply and demand fluctuations of the free market"

And this one:
"Further stating a rise in food prices as a result of lack of supply from food wastage is inherently incorrect, since wastage only comes about from overproduction in supply which, by the supply-demand model, will lead to a decrease in food prices given constant demand"
It doesn't make very much sense to me. The original clause in the resolution, I believe, refers to food wasted during production, and not those wasted by consumers. Granted, the original clause was somewhat unclear, but I think what it's trying to say is because food is wasted in production, there is additional costs in production, thus driving the price higher. The supply-demand model, therefore, doesn't really apply here.

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:12 am

It hasn't even pssed yet

by **Youssath** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:51 am

East Meranopirus wrote:Firstly, this entire clauses hinges upon the free market economy. That's not "basic economic consensus".
"Stating that businesses produce more stock than what is being sold is incorrect, as it contradicts economic theories that the free market will adjust accordingly to suit the supply and demand fluctuations of the free market"

Not really. Even centrally planned industries do produce surpluses in certain economic industries. This type of "surpluses" is more prevalent in mixed economies rather than the free market economy, because of governments trying to "calculate" what is sufficient for the national economy (which is very difficult to do). You can't just go about saying, "I want 10K iron produced this year to meet consumption and exports", you have to factor in how much domestic consumption and iron exports you are hoping to achieve this year, not to mention the possible faults in the lines of production (poor quality iron, lower than 10K produced).

This is why countries often go for the free market economy, and it is one of the hardest to reason with. We leave it up to the free market to deduce what is required and right for the economy. It forms one of the fundamentals in economic theory that it can even be ascertained as "basic economic consensus", even for countries not practising free-market policies.

East Meranopirus wrote:And this one:
"Further stating a rise in food prices as a result of lack of supply from food wastage is inherently incorrect, since wastage only comes about from overproduction in supply which, by the supply-demand model, will lead to a decrease in food prices given constant demand"
It doesn't make very much sense to me. The original clause in the resolution, I believe, refers to food wasted during production, and not those wasted by consumers. Granted, the original clause was somewhat unclear, but I think what it's trying to say is because food is wasted in production, there is additional costs in production, thus driving the price higher. The supply-demand model, therefore, doesn't really apply here.

Mhm, ideally when food does get wasted - it is due to an overproduction of food that exceeds of that from consumption. I don't really think there is much of a difference of food being wasted by consumers (food thrown away) or by producers (unsold produce), but to say that there will be an increase in food prices just because we throw away our excess food (which is in abundance) is quite silly, don't you think?

If there is an excess in food supplies, the market will correct itself such that suppliers will be forced to drop their food supply levels (which is what I don't want to advocate for, why would you want to increase the risks of famine?) or drop their food prices to make it more competitive and affordable for the masses in the market. The supply-demand model does apply here, unfortunately. Of course, if you think otherwise, please do let me know!

Australian rePublic wrote:It hasn't even pssed yet

We are eagerly awaiting its passing.

by **Kenmoria** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:50 am

“Your third ‘stating’ subclause seems at odds with sense. Food wastage is, demonstrably, a problem, since it wastes energy and food. I understand what you are intending to say, but the wording seems strange.”

by **Araraukar** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:19 pm

OOC: To avoid derailing your thread, I TG'd you about the RP stuff, Youssath.

by **Youssath** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:46 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“Your third ‘stating’ subclause seems at odds with sense. Food wastage is, demonstrably, a problem, since it wastes energy and food. I understand what you are intending to say, but the wording seems strange.”

Reminding the international community that food wastage is not a problem, but rather a symptom of developed nations with strong purchasing power, and that some nations can produce more food than others because their abundance of arable land and geography allows for this economic advantage;

Hmm, you are right that food wastage is indeed a problem to begin with, since it does consume unnecessary amounts of energy and food in the market. I can break down this statement to form two points: one for allocative inefficiency that still provides positive externalities when consumed (used in other industries and helps society by reducing environmental impact by utilizing the full potential of our agricultural output) and another for the nature of the problem (food wastage is a symptom of developed nations with strong purchasing power and thus it might not be applicable to all nations at hand here - poor ones especially). I do feel that it can get repetitive and even contradictory, unfortunately.

Attempts to edit the proposal:

Remove the third 'stating' subclause due to potential misinterpretation.
Reminding the international community that while food wastage is a problem, it is simply due to the market allocative inefficiencies by both the free market (supply exceeds demand) and central economies (governments try to predict how much to produce and consume) and that if left to their own devices, the market can correct itself through market signals towards both suppliers and consumers through the price mechanism and food surpluses.
Further reminding that food wastage is a symptom of developed nations with strong purchasing power, and that reducing food wastage is an impossibility if time is required to transport food to developing nations - especially given the perishable nature of food.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: To avoid derailing your thread, I TG'd you about the RP stuff, Youssath.

Got it, thanks!

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:31 pm

It's not difficult to disprove the broad claim that surpluses can't exist. It is impossible to disprove the broad claim that surpluses can't exist in a perfectly competitive market, but considering that those do not exist, that's unimportant. If there exists a negative demand shock in labour markets with sticky wages, poof, persistent labour surplus in the short run. There could also be government policies that incentivise overproduction which persist because those policies are not removed. That a perfect market would solve something seems irrelevant when those markets are patently imperfect.

Regarding rich societies, you may want to instead argue that the costs associated with wastage are so small for rich consumers that resolving them is less efficient than just doing nothing. That doesn't argue against the existence of inefficient allocation, it just argues that resolving it would be more expensive than the costs of that misallocation.

I agree on most of the aid stuff. In-kind aid, however, is significantly less pernicious than monetary aid. It's only via a secondary industrial channel by which such aid could harm developing countries. The target resolution doesn't provide for aid directly to developing countries, it provides funds or grants to reputable organisations which would then provide services to those areas. Arguing otherwise, seems to me, an honest mistake.

The argument that the existence of any surplus is okay because what about famines would be great, if the food weren't left out to rot and instead preserved. But it isn't, so there's no solvency to that argument.

by **Youssath** » Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:35 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:It's not difficult to disprove the broad claim that surpluses can't exist. It is impossible to disprove the broad claim that surpluses can't exist in a perfectly competitive market, but considering that those do not exist, that's unimportant. If there exists a negative demand shock in labour markets with sticky wages, poof, persistent labour surplus in the short run. There could also be government policies that incentivise overproduction which persist because those policies are not removed. That a perfect market would solve something seems irrelevant when those markets are patently imperfect.

You are explaining in so much economic technicality that no one here will be able to understand what you are trying to say.
I would generally agree with you on Keynesian unemployment and government policies, but we are running a repeal here. Of course, you are correct that markets are patently imperfect (you will always have surpluses and deficits), but you need to realize that the free market does a better job at understanding the market forces in the economy due to the market signals sent by both producers and consumers and the price mechanism. Yes, no one said that the perfect market is perfect, but it sure as hell is a step up than having governments to control their economies as so as they please.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Regarding rich societies, you may want to instead argue that the costs associated with wastage are so small for rich consumers that resolving them is less efficient than just doing nothing. That doesn't argue against the existence of inefficient allocation, it just argues that resolving it would be more expensive than the costs of that misallocation.

Mhm. That's an interesting line of thought. I don't agree with you that the costs associated with wastage are small for consumers with a strong purchasing power (since they can afford to deal with the situation and after all, it is a GA resolution - people will refute that statement thinking its a contradiction). If you are willing to articulate more on that line of thought, I will make the following adjustments towards the repeal at hand here.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I agree on most of the aid stuff. In-kind aid, however, is significantly less pernicious than monetary aid. It's only via a secondary industrial channel by which such aid could harm developing countries. The target resolution doesn't provide for aid directly to developing countries, it provides funds or grants to reputable organisations which would then provide services to those areas. Arguing otherwise, seems to me, an honest mistake.

The resolution that will be passed in a few hours time does state that monetary and food aid should be donated towards poorer WA nations in order to reduce food wastage internationally. No matter what kind of aid it is, food or money, it is still benefiting the nation artificially and may cause them to go over-reliant if it continues. Of course, that's not to say that all aids are bad - humanitarian and disaster aid are incredibly important - but that the notion that we should donate our food and money to developing nations just for the sake of "reducing food wastage" is a foolish reason that can be exploited by many failing governments (along with the reasons stated in my repeal).

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The argument that the existence of any surplus is okay because what about famines would be great, if the food weren't left out to rot and instead preserved. But it isn't, so there's no solvency to that argument.

I can't mention the introduction of preservation of food and all. Trust me, I wanted to bring this into my repeal if you read my dispatch about this. But if I do that, it would be in violation of the General Assembly rules (introducing or mentioning legislation not previously known in the resolution).

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:28 pm

There's space between markets are imperfect and the state has a role to play and total state control of industrial production. State interventions can improve market efficiency. Unclear why 'this is a repeal' is a justification for non-topicality, but okay.

Regarding food and income, this is just marginal utility of income. The dollar has more marginal utility for a poor person. And time is more valuable for richer people. It's not unintuitive.

Are you reading the resolution to donate money from one nation to another rather than to an aid organisation which provides services?

Why can't you mention preservation? You can mention most anything you want as long as it doesn't unreasonably interpret the target. HM is veracity and relevance, the latter applies on an 'any' basis.

by **Araraukar** » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:31 am

Youssath wrote:You are explaining in so much economic technicality that no one here will be able to understand what you are trying to say.

OOC: Everyone keeps telling him that. Good luck at getting him to listen. :lol:

Since the target has passed, you might want to change the explanation above the draft in the first post.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:06 am

If someone wants to make an argument fundamentally based on 'theory says this does not happen', negating that argument requires advancing a separate theoretical framework. How a negative demand shock in a market with sticky prices isn't clear, is itself unclear to me.

by **Maowi** » Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:40 am

Youssath wrote:RECOGNIZING the introduction of resolution GA #469 as one of its very first kind to tackle food wastage worldwide;

'Perhaps this is just a peculiarity of the Maowi dialect, which is apparently considered by ... some ... to be full of grammatical errors, but I would find this sentence more elegantly phrased in a manner similar to thiis: "RECOGNIZING the introduction of resolution GA #469 as one of the very first resolutions tackling food wastage worldwide;"

UNDERSTANDING that the main aims of GA #469 is to prevent unnecessary overproduction of food and to minimize food wastage through the use of food donations, bureaucratic offices and public awareness;

'I believe the main aims of GA #469 are to prevent unnecessary overproduction of food and to minimize food wastage through the use of food donations, bureaucratic offices and public awareness.

HIGHLIGHTING that this resolution is not representative of other food industries in the world, most notably:
Fruit juice and beverage industries use "aesthetically unpleasing" fruits for their products, since it is economically cheaper with no difference in taste;
Fruit jams, wine fermentation and pastry baking industries are also users to 'aesthetically unpleasing' fruits, and that their products resemble none of it;

'And what exactly does this have to do with anything? Nowhere in the target resolution is it specified that measures to reduce food wastage must be taken ONLY if such food wastage is a result of the food being lacking aesthetically.

FURTHER HIGHLIGHTING that this resolution runs in contradiction to basic economic theories and justifications:
Stating that businesses produce more stock than what is being sold is incorrect, as it contradicts economic theories that the free market will adjust accordingly to suit the supply and demand fluctuations of the free market;

'So, are you saying that there is no problem to solve here? Even though just a few lines ago you called for a solution to this 'developing issue'? You can't have your cake and eat it, ambassador. This proposal is simply inconsistent. And in any case, so what if there is no overproduction of stock? If a particular business is producing no food wastage to reduce, they are unaffected by the target resolution.

[*]Further stating a rise in food prices as a result of lack of supply from food wastage is inherently incorrect, since wastage only comes about from overproduction in supply which, by the supply-demand model, will lead to a decrease in food prices given constant demand;

'To be completely frank, given the lack of convincing arguments so far for a repeal, there is no way I am supporting a repeal based on an assertion made in the preamble of the target resolution.

STATING that the measures suggested by GA #469 do not provide a sustainable remedy towards reducing food wastage:
[list][*]Highlighting that providing foreign aid towards poorer WA member states to reduce food wastage will only lead to an overreliance of aid by these governments, which in turn will greatly affect the geopolitical stability of the region should these WA donors refuse to provide any further donations;

'If a poorer nation is struggling, any donation of supplies is, in my opinion, beneficial. The giving of supplies does not preclude other, more long-term, assistance. Besides, foreign aid is merely stated as an option, not a necessity. Internal distribution of food to the poor is also an option, and is also more sustainable.

[*]Further highlighting that the introduction of food offices and initiatives are susceptible to corruption and that it does not address the bigger issue at play here such as poor infrastructural or logistical support and black markets;

'Any initiative is susceptible to corruption. If your government takes that attitude, I have not a clue how it gets anything done. Also, could you clarify what your claims of 'poor infrastructural or logistical support and black markets' refer to? They seem rather lacking in context - to me, at least.

[*]Reminding the international community that food wastage is not a problem, but rather a symptom of developed nations with strong purchasing power, and that some nations can produce more food than others because their abundance of arable land and geography allows for this economic advantage;
[*]And that while a nation's geography or food capacity cannot be changed, there can be better suggestions towards this resolution to help promote a win-win scenario among WA nations instead of merely donations and bureaucratic work;

'Are you able to give specific examples of such better suggestions? I would like to hear them, especially since you claim that they are better than those put forward in the target resolution.

OBSERVING that GA #469 can place an unreasonable burden on some food industries without proper relief, which forces them to raise food prices as a result from an increased cost of operation;

'I believe the use of 'reasonable' in clause 7 is a sufficient provision to prevent businesses from having to implement extortionately costly measures. And perhaps this is less clear-cut, but I would interpret clause 6.c. and d. in conjunction with clause 8 as requiring that national governments aid businesses financially in their efforts to reduce food wastage.

REMINDING the international community once again that food abundance and wastage is not necessarily an inherent problem since they can help to weather prolonged periods of natural disasters, along with the fact that food shortages can be a more devastating issue for the international community;

'But the target resolution mandates the re-purposing of food surpluses so that any edible food is actually eaten. I may be misinterpreting you, but if you are saying that left-over food can be used to later provide help during food shortages - well, that is exactly what GA #469 does.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #469, "Reducing Food Waste".

'I'm afraid it's no support from us, ambassador - definitely not without a well-written replacement ready to go.'

by **Kenmoria** » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:20 pm

Maowi wrote:'I'm afraid it's no support from us, ambassador - definitely not without a well-written replacement ready to go.'

(OOC: Australian rePublic and I are working on a replacement now - it should be ready within a few days.)

by **Maowi** » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:30 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Maowi wrote:'I'm afraid it's no support from us, ambassador - definitely not without a well-written replacement ready to go.'

(OOC: Australian rePublic and I are working on a replacement now - it should be ready within a few days.)

OOC: That's good to know, thanks

Still not sure I see the necessity of a repeal though, although I'll wait for the author to respond before making my mind up of course.

by **Youssath** » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:13 am

Back after a long time in the office. Let's get this bread done.

Maowi wrote:
Youssath wrote:RECOGNIZING the introduction of resolution GA #469 as one of its very first kind to tackle food wastage worldwide;

'Perhaps this is just a peculiarity of the Maowi dialect, which is apparently considered by ... some ... to be full of grammatical errors, but I would find this sentence more elegantly phrased in a manner similar to thiis: "RECOGNIZING the introduction of resolution GA #469 as one of the very first resolutions tackling food wastage worldwide;"

UNDERSTANDING that the main aims of GA #469 is to prevent unnecessary overproduction of food and to minimize food wastage through the use of food donations, bureaucratic offices and public awareness;

'I believe the main aims of GA #469 are to prevent unnecessary overproduction of food and to minimize food wastage through the use of food donations, bureaucratic offices and public awareness.

HIGHLIGHTING that this resolution is not representative of other food industries in the world, most notably:
Fruit juice and beverage industries use "aesthetically unpleasing" fruits for their products, since it is economically cheaper with no difference in taste;
Fruit jams, wine fermentation and pastry baking industries are also users to 'aesthetically unpleasing' fruits, and that their products resemble none of it;

'And what exactly does this have to do with anything? Nowhere in the target resolution is it specified that measures to reduce food wastage must be taken ONLY if such food wastage is a result of the food being lacking aesthetically.

FURTHER HIGHLIGHTING that this resolution runs in contradiction to basic economic theories and justifications:
Stating that businesses produce more stock than what is being sold is incorrect, as it contradicts economic theories that the free market will adjust accordingly to suit the supply and demand fluctuations of the free market;

'So, are you saying that there is no problem to solve here? Even though just a few lines ago you called for a solution to this 'developing issue'? You can't have your cake and eat it, ambassador. This proposal is simply inconsistent. And in any case, so what if there is no overproduction of stock? If a particular business is producing no food wastage to reduce, they are unaffected by the target resolution.

[*]Further stating a rise in food prices as a result of lack of supply from food wastage is inherently incorrect, since wastage only comes about from overproduction in supply which, by the supply-demand model, will lead to a decrease in food prices given constant demand;

'To be completely frank, given the lack of convincing arguments so far for a repeal, there is no way I am supporting a repeal based on an assertion made in the preamble of the target resolution.

STATING that the measures suggested by GA #469 do not provide a sustainable remedy towards reducing food wastage:
[list][*]Highlighting that providing foreign aid towards poorer WA member states to reduce food wastage will only lead to an overreliance of aid by these governments, which in turn will greatly affect the geopolitical stability of the region should these WA donors refuse to provide any further donations;

'If a poorer nation is struggling, any donation of supplies is, in my opinion, beneficial. The giving of supplies does not preclude other, more long-term, assistance. Besides, foreign aid is merely stated as an option, not a necessity. Internal distribution of food to the poor is also an option, and is also more sustainable.

[*]Further highlighting that the introduction of food offices and initiatives are susceptible to corruption and that it does not address the bigger issue at play here such as poor infrastructural or logistical support and black markets;

'Any initiative is susceptible to corruption. If your government takes that attitude, I have not a clue how it gets anything done. Also, could you clarify what your claims of 'poor infrastructural or logistical support and black markets' refer to? They seem rather lacking in context - to me, at least.

[*]Reminding the international community that food wastage is not a problem, but rather a symptom of developed nations with strong purchasing power, and that some nations can produce more food than others because their abundance of arable land and geography allows for this economic advantage;
[*]And that while a nation's geography or food capacity cannot be changed, there can be better suggestions towards this resolution to help promote a win-win scenario among WA nations instead of merely donations and bureaucratic work;

'Are you able to give specific examples of such better suggestions? I would like to hear them, especially since you claim that they are better than those put forward in the target resolution.

OBSERVING that GA #469 can place an unreasonable burden on some food industries without proper relief, which forces them to raise food prices as a result from an increased cost of operation;

'I believe the use of 'reasonable' in clause 7 is a sufficient provision to prevent businesses from having to implement extortionately costly measures. And perhaps this is less clear-cut, but I would interpret clause 6.c. and d. in conjunction with clause 8 as requiring that national governments aid businesses financially in their efforts to reduce food wastage.

REMINDING the international community once again that food abundance and wastage is not necessarily an inherent problem since they can help to weather prolonged periods of natural disasters, along with the fact that food shortages can be a more devastating issue for the international community;

'But the target resolution mandates the re-purposing of food surpluses so that any edible food is actually eaten. I may be misinterpreting you, but if you are saying that left-over food can be used to later provide help during food shortages - well, that is exactly what GA #469 does.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #469, "Reducing Food Waste".

'I'm afraid it's no support from us, ambassador - definitely not without a well-written replacement ready to go.'

1. Will do the following amendments on the wording now for the first statement. Thanks a lot in advance!

2. Right, another wording error. Will correct that as well!

3. It is the second statement of the preamble findings in GAR #469, which states that "retailers and wholesalers may refuse to purchase fruit and vegetables if they are considered aesthetically unpleasing, regardless of their actual quality or nutritional value". That itself is not representative of every retailer and wholesaler in the food industry, as there are some businesses that do use aesthetically unpleasing fruits and vegetables as stated above - thereby defeating part of these preliminary findings.

4. The resolution makes an assumption on the first statement of the preamble findings that food waste is generated because companies tend to have a policy of following this policy of: "(producing a) greater amount of stock is ordered than is sold". This is simply untrue, and it is even more prevalent in the food industry. No food business is sane enough to produce an excess amount of perishable food if they know themselves that market demand will never be able to meet the market supply. You will be running at a deficit here in your operation cost given the amount of unsold produce you have generated, and what all food businesses do and should ideally be doing is to produce what the market needs in correlation to the perishable nature of food. This is supported by basic economic theories, which states that if there is any surplus generated in the food industries, the market will generally trend towards reducing food production in order to maximize profits (perishable unsold produce = lost production) which will naturally solve the issue of food wastage (given that wastage can only be generated from food surpluses).

5. I have just given you a perfectly reasonable argument in Point 4. It's up to you whether you wish to accept this different perspective of the situation, ambassador.

6. As stated before, no two countries are the same, ambassador. Some countries are destined to have starving populations while others get to have six-figure calorie counts all thanks to the work of geography. When a nation gives food and monetary aid to another nation, it is beneficial yes (apart from the corruption and bureaucratic work, but I will not drive this point in), but if you sustain this aid long-term, it causes national governments to create a reliance on foreign aid and support. This is an extremely dangerous situation not because you are not solving the situation at hand here (which is the lack of food production in the first place), but rather because you leave these countries vulnerable to foreign espionage and influence, undermining regional stability in the long run.

7. Agreed, corruption tends to hit bureaucratic offices, which is why I did not make it the point of my argument here (although you can perceive this to be a reason for that - corruption is never a natural process of bureaucracy). When I refer to "poor infrastructural or logistical support and black markets", I mean the poor roads, airports and ports available for us to properly deliver the food aid to its destination. You can send all the food from the world towards these poor countries, but they will end up getting clogged at logistical bottlenecks simply because poorer nations often tend to have poor roads, which isolates communities apart and makes it generally harder to conduct proper humanitarian operations within the nation. Therefore, it makes it more expensive to generally conduct operations in poorer nations. Furthermore, you have to accept that not all food aid often gets to its destination, and it will end up in the black market at extortive prices if smugglers and illicits are able to bribe or steal aid from these organizations.

8. No, I won't give suggestions in this repeal. If you want, you can read my dispatch above here (which does expressly state the suggestions). Trust me, I have tons of ideas to give out as well, but I simply can't because it would risk being in violation of the Game Rules (do not introduce, recommend or even mention new legislation or suggestions within a repeal - which is true, since a repeal is simply to repeal a resolution based on its facts. Whatever happens afterwards, we can make the following amendments.)

9. Hmm, the use of the word "unreasonable" does make it fitting since there was no mention by GAR #469 to help these food businesses who are directly using food waste in their products and are effectively helping the environment in the first place. Having them to compete with other businesses with the same supply of "aesthetically pleasing" fruits and vegetables will increase food prices overall. I will think about replacing this word, but perhaps you can elaborate more on why you think "reasonable" is a better word is to justify? Also, this repeal doesn't aim to destroy this resolution as a whole. I am wholly in support of this resolution (and would be fine if this repeal fails too), but I feel that things can be better addressed in the resolution.

10. As stated previously, the resolution makes a bold assumption that food wastage is generated because of an excess in food production, and that in order to address it we should "prevent the overproduction (of food)" and to "requires all businesses in member nations to take every reasonable step to reduce the amount of safely-consumable food and drink that is discarded (which can only be generated from food surpluses, so this statement indirectly also calls for a reduction of food production)". This is a dangerous move to be making here, as I have stated previously, we should be looking towards environmentally-friendly and sustainable food prices and practices that benefit all parties at once, instead of merely reducing food production which can have dire consequences if these member nations happen to get caught in natural disasters or crises. The idea I'm trying to drive to is that food wastage, while a problem, should not be tackled in such a way that it paves another problem ahead in time (by reducing food production) - and that we should all look forward into creating a sustainable earth while keeping food prices and supplies consistent worldwide.

11. I am saddened to hear that you do not support this repeal, ambassador. It is not my intention to destroy Kenmoria's work, which is something I do advocate for personally, but I feel that as we are establishing the precedent (the first resolution on food waste), why not make a helluva good attempt on it, so that we don't have to revisit this issue once again? Hopefully, the arguments I have given can change your mind.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Australian rePublic and I are working on a replacement now - it should be ready within a few days.)

If you need any help with the drafting of the resolution, feel free to telegram me. I will be willing to provide some assistance to that.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:There's space between markets are imperfect and the state has a role to play and total state control of industrial production. State interventions can improve market efficiency. Unclear why 'this is a repeal' is a justification for non-topicality, but okay.

Regarding food and income, this is just marginal utility of income. The dollar has more marginal utility for a poor person. And time is more valuable for richer people. It's not unintuitive.

Are you reading the resolution to donate money from one nation to another rather than to an aid organisation which provides services?

Why can't you mention preservation? You can mention most anything you want as long as it doesn't unreasonably interpret the target. HM is veracity and relevance, the latter applies on an 'any' basis.

State interventions do improve market efficiency, you are correct on this, but it is not correct for all forms of market and industries. Government-mandated healthcare is a good example of this point right here, but we are talking about food here. Food, if left to government interventionism, can lead to some severe misallocation of resources within the market since not all the agricultural output goes to safe sapien consumption (some of the agricultural output goes to livestock, others for composting etc).

A dollar is still a dollar in the world of economics, ambassador. What you are trying to drive here is the perceived value of time and money for rich and poor people in general, but it is not representative of the general population (a rich person might still take the dollar over time if he values that more due to his position (CEO), and a poor person might still take time over dollar given his beliefs (family, honesty, values). This is not what we are trying to address here, sadly.

No, I didn't say that. Foreign aid is good only for natural disasters and humanitarian crises, but that's all. To give aid to a country to sustain itself is unsustainable in the long-term, and even if it does it will be vulnerable to foreign influence. Furthermore, there are ways to address this matter more appropriately rather than giving "money" to either nation or aid organization.

Preservation of the environment? That's what the new resolution will be doing in order to ensure sustainable food prices. Food preservation measures? Can't be introduced in a repeal, it has to be in the resolution. There are tons of ideas I would love to give out, but I can't do so until this resolution is repealed. Furthermore, the mention of preservation (which is not even mentioned in the resolution itself) can be interpreted wrongly as introducing legislation, which is what I am trying to avoid here.

Araraukar wrote:
Youssath wrote:You are explaining in so much economic technicality that no one here will be able to understand what you are trying to say.

OOC: Everyone keeps telling him that. Good luck at getting him to listen.

Since the target has passed, you might want to change the explanation above the draft in the first post.

Will do so, thanks!

by **Australian rePublic** » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:17 am

There should be a quarantine exemption clause

[LAST CALL] Repeal "Reducing Food Waste"

[LAST CALL] Repeal "Reducing Food Waste"

Who is online