by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:58 am
by Tinhampton » Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:03 am
Tinhampton wrote:I have no idea why you suggest that member states introduce a 10% tariff on all "imports of precious metals," whether or not they previously subjected those imports to zero tariffs, or why such a tariff would be of utility in allowing member states "to reduce current tariff levels to an average 3% across all industries."
While your proposal is pretty cool in principle, I cannot approve it, due to the prescriptive Article 1 targets and the demand that member states build ports in Article 3 (regardless of whether or not they actually need the extra ports).
by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:16 am
by Attempted Socialism » Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:41 am
The United Sts of America wrote:Just replied to your reply in the GE&T thread.
Didn't know there was a draft for laws in the forum, new player here and just dropped by the forums to see what the feature is. Future drafts will definitely be brought up in the forums
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:48 am
by Tinhampton » Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:26 am
by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:48 am
Tinhampton wrote:I still do not get the point of your Article 1a example.
Suppose that Samplestan imports five goods: apples (60% of imports), bricks (10%), Christmas trees (10%), doors (10%), and electronics (10%). You use the unweighted overall tariff (UOT). But you could say that tariffs should be no more than 3% of the value of everything imported - the tariff-to-good value (T/G value).
So Samplestan can:
- ONE - Keep T/G and UOT at 3%: charge a 3% tariff on everything
- TWO - Undershoot T/G and UOT: charge 10% on apples and 1% on everything else (T/G value 1.28%; UOT 2.8%)
- THREE - Undershoot T/G, overshoot UOT: charge 10% on apples and 2% on everything else (T/G value 1.36%; UOT 3.6%)
- FOUR - Keep T/G at 3%, overshoot UOT: charge 25% on apples, no other tariffs (T/G value 3%; UOT 5%)
Tariff packages ONE and TWO are obviously allowed. But should Samplestan be allowed to implement tariff packages THREE and FOUR - which give off the impression that Samplestan's average (headline) tariff is over 3%, when (in fact) 3% or less of the total value of all goods combined is consumed by tariffs? And if not, why not?
by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:19 pm
by Outer Sparta » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:36 pm
(c) To punish nations that do not abide by Article(1) by imposing a USD $100,000 penalty, as well as a decision on harsher penalties for subsequent failures to abide by Article(1)
(6) Failure to abide to Article(1) after 2 warnings from the WATC will result in 5 demerit points for the specific nation. An accumulation of 10 demerit points will result in a penalty of USD $100,000 which is to be paid to the World Assembly to fund other initiatives. Subsequent failures to abide to Article(1) will result in harsher penalties, which will be decided by the WATC, depending on the severity as states in Article(5)
by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:46 pm
by Outer Sparta » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:49 pm
The United Sts of America wrote:Reducing tariffs encourage trade, and a reduction in tariffs lead to lower prices for consumers. So things will be cheaper and more affordable, which leads to consumers having more disposable income. leading to more spending in other sectors/more savings, which improves the quality of life and boosts the economy. For industries which each individual nation deems as important and a higher tariff rate is needed, the overall tariff rate can still be reduced to 3% or lower through a lower tariff in other sectors. (see the post from tinhampton above).
Regarding the penalties, I'll change the real world reference. Do you have any suggestions for penalties
by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:56 pm
by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:08 pm
by The United Sts of America » Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:30 pm
Outer Sparta wrote:Category and strength? Also, how are mandatory tariff reductions a good thing? Why do you believe that mandating everyone reduce their tariff rates and dictating how their trade policies should be enshrined into international law?
You also have an illegality in these sections:(c) To punish nations that do not abide by Article(1) by imposing a USD $100,000 penalty, as well as a decision on harsher penalties for subsequent failures to abide by Article(1)(6) Failure to abide to Article(1) after 2 warnings from the WATC will result in 5 demerit points for the specific nation. An accumulation of 10 demerit points will result in a penalty of USD $100,000 which is to be paid to the World Assembly to fund other initiatives. Subsequent failures to abide to Article(1) will result in harsher penalties, which will be decided by the WATC, depending on the severity as states in Article(5)
Real-world references of currency cannot be used, and your usage of USD would break that rule.
by Juansonia » Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:39 pm
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
by The United Sts of America » Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:20 am
Juansonia wrote:OOC: I'd recommend amending it so WA members must only have tariffs below 3% for purposes of trade with other WA members.
by Fachumonn » Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:37 am
by Attempted Socialism » Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:31 am
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by The United Sts of America » Mon Oct 03, 2022 12:08 am
Attempted Socialism wrote:I don't think it will be productive to continue this draft, but if you choose to:
- Why max 3%? There's no logic to the number, so I presume it has been pulled from your backside.
- What about nations that need tariffs to protect nascent industries?
- Why spell out an example that itself isn't particularly helpful, when you could instead clear up the language of your resolution?
- What is 2 and 3 even doing there? Most nations won't be the ones to build seaports or hire staff for them. You also encourage something without ever thinking about the actual need. This is wasteful and a very bad idea.
- WATC can't enforce (1) unless it has the power to set tariffs in nations, and that's not allowed for as long as taxes are set by member nations.
- There is already a committee called WATC, the World Assembly Trade Commission, established in GAR#26 and upheld in extant GAR#41 and GAR#208.
- Your demerit point system is laughable. The WA also already has enforcement in cases of violations, which is to set fines and sanctions. I refer you to the passed resolution master list to read up on the Compliance Commission and Independent Adjudication Office.
This resolution has the quality of a someone who, after their first highschool economics class, has decided that tariffs are the devil's work without understanding the nuances behind, why they may be beneficial, or how to limit tariffs.
by The United Sts of America » Mon Oct 03, 2022 12:58 am
Fachumonn wrote:Ambassador The People: "You can bet this has no support from our delegation. We would like to see better thought-out resolutions in the drafting space."
by Heavens Reach » Mon Oct 03, 2022 3:55 am
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Oct 03, 2022 4:36 am
I understood the example; I maintain that it is a bad one. See Heavens Reach's comment for their elaboration on why, my thinking is along the same line. To add further, this is a tax, leading me to...The United Sts of America wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:I don't think it will be productive to continue this draft, but if you choose to:
- Why max 3%? There's no logic to the number, so I presume it has been pulled from your backside.
- What about nations that need tariffs to protect nascent industries?
- Why spell out an example that itself isn't particularly helpful, when you could instead clear up the language of your resolution?
- What is 2 and 3 even doing there? Most nations won't be the ones to build seaports or hire staff for them. You also encourage something without ever thinking about the actual need. This is wasteful and a very bad idea.
- WATC can't enforce (1) unless it has the power to set tariffs in nations, and that's not allowed for as long as taxes are set by member nations.
- There is already a committee called WATC, the World Assembly Trade Commission, established in GAR#26 and upheld in extant GAR#41 and GAR#208.
- Your demerit point system is laughable. The WA also already has enforcement in cases of violations, which is to set fines and sanctions. I refer you to the passed resolution master list to read up on the Compliance Commission and Independent Adjudication Office.
This resolution has the quality of a someone who, after their first highschool economics class, has decided that tariffs are the devil's work without understanding the nuances behind, why they may be beneficial, or how to limit tariffs.
1. In case you didn't understand the example, I didn't say ALL industries must be a fixed 3%. All industries must AVERAGE OUT to 3%, meaning nascent industries can be 10% while other strong industries at 1% etc. to average out 3%. etc.
Without the repeal of GAR#17 no WA resolution or committee can directly set tax policies in a member nation.2. WATC CAN enforce Article(1) should this law be passed
But at least you deleted it. Good.4. The demerit point system is a threat to deter older and MDC from bullying newer and LDC
I'm suggesting that this draft text is based on that view, perhaps implicitly, because this resolution presents a highschool level of understanding of tariffs as inherently bad and something to be absurdly limited (Without any regard for how to implement that), and it will not pass for that simple reason. If your understanding of tariffs is better, write that better understanding in the resolution text.5. Tariffs are NOT the devil's work, and I have no idea why you're suggesting so - if it's satire you're using, you gotta polish up your insulting skills? Tariffs are beneficial to protect industries, but also a barrier to international trade. Tariffs pass on expenses to consumers, lower tariffs mean more trade and less product cost for consumers. I didn't outlaw tariffs nor did I enforce a strict 3% for every single industry. 3% is AN AVERAGE ACROSS ALL, meaning industries that needs to be protected can have higher tariffs while industries which are stronger can have lower tariff rates, averaging out all to be 3%
WATC was created in GAR#26, but with the repeal in GAR#45, it would have ceased to exist had it not been for GAR#41 and GAR#208.6. GAR#26 is repealed, meaning it's laws aren't in effect. GAR#208 is about trade, but doesn't mention tariff. GAR #41is about life saving drugs, not even related lol?
This is criticism. Your resolution cannot reach the floor as-is, because it is illegal. You can take it or allow your resolution to fail on your own time.I suggest you read carefully, suggest practically, and leave your insults with yourself. Criticism is welcomed, but insults aren't.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by The United Sts of America » Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:03 pm
Heavens Reach wrote:Starting with style. Your preamble is very, very, very long. We've also never seen a resolution with an example of implementation in-text before, most likely because it's very strange to place one in the text of a law. In general, your proposal reads more like an argument for a resolution than like a resolution itself.
The formatting is also avant-garde, and not necessarily in a good way. The way the text is peppered with underlining for emphasis is a bit strange in and of itself, but it's also inconsistent, as bolding is also used for this purpose in parts of the text. But at the same time, it reserves some long-standing, almost cliched, formatting precedence like capitalizing the first word of each line of the preamble, so it's not entirely doing its own thing either. Overall, the formatting comes across as confused. And while this might seem like a small issue, the last thing you want is to write a proposal for serious consideration and then have your potential voters distracted by its formatting instead of paying attention to its content. Also, where are the indentations? Instead of numbering and lettering everything yourself, use the List= code.
- Food
- Vegetables
- Fruits
- Apples
- Oranges
- Bananas
You don't have to use this exact list structure, but you should use a list structure.
As for content, we question a few things. The first of which is whether or not there are instances where tariffs -- ones much higher than the average you propose -- aren't warranted and beneficial. It might well be that tariffs aren't beneficial when used aggressively (as they often are), but this proposal doesn't allow for this level of nuance. It's also not clear how making an average tariff ceiling will help the situation, nor how exactly how one implements an average tariff. For example, if one wants to tariff their top ten thousand imports at an absurdly high, say, 25%, and they import a hundred thousand different products, they could easily counterbalance this extremely high tariff by assigning a small tariff, say 1%, to everything else. Generally speaking, nations don't import a handful of products like in your example, but many, many, many products. They could tariff steel, copper, iron, tin, nickel, lithium, etc. at 25% (n=10000), and then place a small 1% tariff on back scratchers, ping pong balls, gum, etc. (n=99000) and end up with an average tariff of 3.4%. With a little more fine-tuning, they could easily get it under 3%. It actually encourages tariffing everything else, just to get away with absurdly high tariffs where desired.
You also do not have to specify that deviations from the resolution will be punished if you're not going to implement unique punishments (that aren't already given by standing law), as it's just assumed that disregarding a resolution will have consequences.
We also seriously question the wisdom of 4d. It completely glosses over the reasons for bottlenecking, and is only tangentially related to the proposal in that it makes the implicit assumption that bottlenecks are combatted by tariffs (which, are they? That doesn't sound right.)
Finally, you will never, ever pass this with 4e. The answer to the lack of nuance in the proposal is not to give the WATC carte blanche over tariff reduction.
by The United Sts of America » Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:05 pm
Attempted Socialism wrote:I understood the example; I maintain that it is a bad one. See Heavens Reach's comment for their elaboration on why, my thinking is along the same line. To add further, this is a tax, leading me to...The United Sts of America wrote:
1. In case you didn't understand the example, I didn't say ALL industries must be a fixed 3%. All industries must AVERAGE OUT to 3%, meaning nascent industries can be 10% while other strong industries at 1% etc. to average out 3%. etc.Without the repeal of GAR#17 no WA resolution or committee can directly set tax policies in a member nation.2. WATC CAN enforce Article(1) should this law be passedBut at least you deleted it. Good.4. The demerit point system is a threat to deter older and MDC from bullying newer and LDCI'm suggesting that this draft text is based on that view, perhaps implicitly, because this resolution presents a highschool level of understanding of tariffs as inherently bad and something to be absurdly limited (Without any regard for how to implement that), and it will not pass for that simple reason. If your understanding of tariffs is better, write that better understanding in the resolution text.5. Tariffs are NOT the devil's work, and I have no idea why you're suggesting so - if it's satire you're using, you gotta polish up your insulting skills? Tariffs are beneficial to protect industries, but also a barrier to international trade. Tariffs pass on expenses to consumers, lower tariffs mean more trade and less product cost for consumers. I didn't outlaw tariffs nor did I enforce a strict 3% for every single industry. 3% is AN AVERAGE ACROSS ALL, meaning industries that needs to be protected can have higher tariffs while industries which are stronger can have lower tariff rates, averaging out all to be 3%WATC was created in GAR#26, but with the repeal in GAR#45, it would have ceased to exist had it not been for GAR#41 and GAR#208.6. GAR#26 is repealed, meaning it's laws aren't in effect. GAR#208 is about trade, but doesn't mention tariff. GAR #41is about life saving drugs, not even related lol?This is criticism. Your resolution cannot reach the floor as-is, because it is illegal. You can take it or allow your resolution to fail on your own time.I suggest you read carefully, suggest practically, and leave your insults with yourself. Criticism is welcomed, but insults aren't.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement