[ABANDONED] INTERNATIONAL TARIFF AND TRADE ACT (ITTA)

[The United Sts of America]

Category: Free Trade; Strength: Significant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Assembly,

WHEREAS world economies have been more connected than ever and;
WHEREAS lower tariffs leads to lower prices for consumers and;
WHEREAS consumers would have more disposable incomes and;
WHEREAS all economies would see a boost in economic output through increased trade as a result of lower tariffs

UNDERSTANDING that nascent industries need to be protected for economic purposes,

UNDERSTANDING Lesser-Developed and developing countries are not as strong economically as More-Developed Countries,

ACKNOWLEDGING that absurd tariff levels serve as a hindrance to international trade,

DISAPPOINTED that there are no current tariff regulation laws,

APPALLED that current trade laws are not protecting new and Lesser-Developed Countries sufficiently from a minority but still present group of "big bully" countries in the World Assembly,

BELIEVING that it is in therefore the World Assembly's interest to encourage increased fair and free trade among member nations,

Be it enacted into Law in the World Assembly, as follows:

(1) All nations to reduce and maintain tariff levels to an average of 3% or less across all industries for trade among World Assembly nations.
An example, (a), as follows,
(a) Country XYZ has a nascent industry -mining for precious metals, and the country has a total of 5 industries including the nascent industry.
A 10% tariff for imports for precious metals from other countries to protect the nascent industry would mean a lower tariff level for all 4 other industries such that the average tariff rate is 3% across all industries. To do this, all 4 other industries must have a tariff import rate of maximum 1.25%. (10% + 1.25% + 1.25% + 1.25% + 1.25%)[tariff rate per industry] ÷ 5[Total no. of industries in country] = 3%[Highest Tariff Import Rate allowed]
Any combination of tariff rates are allowed, so long as the Average Import Tariff Rate per Industry is 3% or less

(2) All nations are strongly encouraged to build more seaports to ensure a smoother flow of imports and exports, reducing the amount of clogs and bottlenecks at seaports.

(3) All nations are strongly encouraged to hire more port workers to ensure a smoother flow of goods at seaports.

(4) The increased roles and responsibilities of The World Assembly Trade Commission referred to as "WATC" as established in General Assembly Resolution #208
The additional roles on top of those stated in GAR #208 of the WATC will now include,
(a) To oversee the tariff levels of each nation
(b) To enforce Article(1) in this Resolution
(c) To punish nations that do not abide by Article(1) by imposing any applicable financial penalties and/or relevant sanctions on member nations as appropriate deemed appropriate by the WATC
(d) To encourage, or pressure if necessary, nations experiencing severe bottlenecks and/or clogs at seaports to construct more seaports and hire more port workers
(e) To continuously promote reduction in tariffs in countries the WATC deems fit

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL comments and criticism welcomed for improvement of this Draft!

[Axerwaijhanz]

Nice

[Tinhampton]

Reiterating what I said in your GE&T thread:

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).

Also, why was this submitted without drafting? Doing this will not allow people to offer feedback on your proposals that you can act upon.

[The United Sts of America]

Got it, Edits made

[Attempted Socialism]

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

There's no rule that requires you to first draft your resolutions before submission, but seeing that both your resolutions are garbage, and the repeal is very clearly illegal (Reflecting on your awareness of the rules and the resolution you wish to repeal), I can only suggest that you withdraw both your shit resolutions and if you want to continue drafting, do so in threads here where you can get feedback. For the repeal specifically I will recommend that you don't post it here before you read the resolution again and correctly identifies what the resolution is doing and saying.

[The United Sts of America]

will do, thanks for the suggestions

[Tinhampton]

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%)

(Perhaps there exists a tariff package FIVE in which T/G is greater than 3% but UOT is not - I'm in a bit of a rush so couldn't conjure one up from my Samplestan example, although a FIVE would probably exist for a different hypothetical package of imports.)

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?

[The United Sts of America]

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?

Both T/G and UOT should be no more than 3% from the base price(the price at which the product is sold to the country). so 3 and 4 are out. only 1 and 2 is allowed

[The United Sts of America]

Hi all, just made some edits to the draft.

Included the establishment of the WATC and it's roles.

Please comment/suggest/criticize on this draft as I belief that there is still areas to improve and edit (but currently can't think of by myself)

Thanks everyone!

[Outer Sparta]

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.

[The United Sts of America]

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). Basically, it's to encourage trade and discourage isolationism for nations in WA along with all the economic benefits(increased disposable income etc.)

Regarding the penalties, I'll change the real world reference. Do you have any suggestions for penalties

[Outer Sparta]

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

You might have trouble getting support from other delegations in proposing essentially a complete loosening of trade laws. Even the rules of the WTO are skewed towards rich countries. How would your proposed committee ensure a fair playing field in making sure that it's not just developed countries who possess a comparative advantage in the realm of free trade?

[The United Sts of America]

Category and strength?

Just edited. Category is free trade, strength significant

[The United Sts of America]

That's the purpose. I'd like to loosen trade laws among WA nations, by reducing trade barriers(i.e. tariffs) so as to strengthen all of our economies.

regarding the part on ensuring a fair playing field, I'm waiting for more suggestions to improve on it. But what I'm thinking now is that although MDCs can have a signifcant comparative advantage over LDCs, the many MDCs would compete to reduce production costs so as to reduce price costs. This benefits the MDCs by boosting their manufacturing industry. For the LDCs, this provides an array of options for them to choose to import products from. LDCs can then purchase goods at a significantly lower price(since MDCs are competing to lower their prices to sell more goods) which benefits them as LDCs do not have the capability to manufacture efficiently and in a cost effective way compared to MDCs. Here, the tariff reduction would enhance the competition for manufacturing cheaper goods among MDCs as there is greater buying demand from LDCs because of lower tariffs resulting in lower import prices.
MDCs benefit from more manufacturing, LDCs benefit from cheaper goods. the 3% tariff level is not a fixed level. tariff levels can be 2%, 1%, or even 0%. Basically nothing more than 3% for the overall average across all industries

[The United Sts of America]

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.

Just edited and changed the real world reference. Thanks for pointing out that part!

[Juansonia]

OOC: I'd recommend amending it so WA members must only have tariffs below 3% for purposes of trade with other WA members.

[The United Sts of America]

OOC: I'd recommend amending it so WA members must only have tariffs below 3% for purposes of trade with other WA members.

Added "for trade among World Assembly nations" to Article(1). Thank you for the suggestion!

[Fachumonn]

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."

[Attempted Socialism]

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.

[The United Sts of America]

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.
2. WATC CAN enforce Article(1) should this law be passed
3. I will edit the WATC in the resolution to expand on the previously created WATC because the previous WATC is for trade, where mention about tariffs is not present
4. The demerit point system is a threat to deter older and MDC from bullying newer and LDC
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%
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?

I suggest you read carefully, suggest practically, and leave your insults with yourself. Criticism is welcomed, but insults aren't.

[The United Sts of America]

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."

Some edits have been made to the resolution. Let me know what you think and what areas can be improved. Thanks!

[Heavens Reach]

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.

1. Food
   
   1. Vegetables
      
      1. Fruits
         
         1. Apples
         2. Oranges
         3. 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.

[Attempted Socialism]

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.

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...

2. WATC CAN enforce Article(1) should this law be passed

Without the repeal of GAR#17 no WA resolution or committee can directly set tax policies in a member nation.

4. The demerit point system is a threat to deter older and MDC from bullying newer and LDC

But at least you deleted it. Good.

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%

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.

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?

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.

I suggest you read carefully, suggest practically, and leave your insults with yourself. Criticism is welcomed, but insults aren't.

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.

[The United Sts of America]

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.

1. Food
   
   1. Vegetables
      
      1. Fruits
         
         1. Apples
         2. Oranges
         3. 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.

I appreciate the comments and feedback. Especially appreciate the indentation part. I'm starting to see that this proposal's foundation is weak itself, and so no matter how many edits or changes made, it wouldn't be feasible. There's also obvious loopholes(as yu've pointed out) that countries can use to evade laws of this proposal. I'll be working on other proposals, improving on them from learnt experiences from this. Thanks for your comments, it helps me to realize that this proposal is simply not feasible because of the restrictions that the WATC faces when regulating tariffs and the impracticality of this proposal. I hope you'll comment on future proposals for improvement. Thank you very much!

[The United Sts of America]

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.

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...

2. WATC CAN enforce Article(1) should this law be passed

Without the repeal of GAR#17 no WA resolution or committee can directly set tax policies in a member nation.

4. The demerit point system is a threat to deter older and MDC from bullying newer and LDC

But at least you deleted it. Good.

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%

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.

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?

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.

I suggest you read carefully, suggest practically, and leave your insults with yourself. Criticism is welcomed, but insults aren't.

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.

(See post above for reply to Heavens Reach)
I'd like to thank you for your comments as well. I acknowledge and recognize the errors and impracticality of this proposal, and will work on improving future ones. I hope you'll comment on future proposals too. Thank you!