NATION

PASSWORD

DELAYED: Global Free Trade Agreement

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

DELAYED: Global Free Trade Agreement

Postby Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:30 pm

Cave Martins sloped into the corridor, obviously disgruntled at being there: as foreign minister for Panageadom, he had had to see over two previous messy withdrawals from the W.A., and, like most Panageans, had little love for the organisation, not least for its arcane legislative traditions that he had little knowledge of. However, political pressure from the Liberal Coalition's left wing and the board of directors at Panageaic Uranium had forced him to float an idea that had been sitting on the books for several years, and he pinned the drafted notice to the pock-marked wall.

Global Free Trade Agreement

Category: Free trade; Strength: Strong

Recognising that the welfare of its citizens should be one of, if not the, primary concerns of national governments.

Noting that such welfare is best served by an environment that is both peaceful and prosperous, especially in the basic consumer goods which citizens rely on to survive.

Further noting that free trade serves these aims admirably, by ensuring a system where, for free-enterprise economies, consumers may buy these goods at the lowest possible prices, in real terms, and that, by promoting a spirit of international cooperation and interdependence, free trade ensures destructive wars are less likely to emerge.

Noting in addition that free trade is likely to cause rapid growth in backward economies by ensuring healthy competition and investment from foreign sources.

Recognising that for statist economies, such policies are of limited effect, as the state, as the consumer of foreign goods, may still choose to purchase whichever foreign goods they please, regardless of price and/or real-world utility: as such, this agreement would not compromise their ability to act as the arbiter of their national economy.

Insisiting that free trade, especially in basic foodstuffs, as it is so fundamental to assuring the basic wellbeing of citizens in rich countries and poor, must overule the legitimate demands of member nations for national economic sovreignty.

Further Noting that such claims for free trade to be a legitimate goal of a supranational body are strengthened by the evidence that free trade is more effective when perpetuated as a large group of nations working in concert, rather than severally.

Hereby:

1: Extends the "external" terms (i.e. the reduction of tariffs on goods imported into a nation from abroad) of this resolution to imported goods from all nations, WA or not, who comply with WA regulations on labour and trade presently in effect and without repeal, such as they may exist. Naturally, "internal" clauses can only apply to nations bound by WA Resolutions. Terms will not be enforced on nations in a state of military conflict.
2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 25% of average global market value on any other consumer product.
3: Insists a) that no nation give any artificial subsidies to industries deemed vital to the production of basic consumer goods within their nation, most notably agriculture.
b) that no nation place anything more than 15% of subsidies of the market value of the product on any given product, except where that product is deemed neccesary to either a) the stability of the nation (for example, policing equipment, military expenditure) or b) the wellbeing of its populace (educational provision, healthcare products).
4: Encourages nations which have statist economies, where these reforms will have little to no effect, to purchase goods from the international marketplace in situations where such purchase will have beneficial effects on the wellbeing of their populace, over that of domestic production.
Last edited by Panageadom on Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:29 pm, edited 10 times in total.
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Oliver the Mediocre
Diplomat
 
Posts: 581
Founded: Aug 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Oliver the Mediocre » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:35 pm

1: Extends the terms of this resolution to all nations, WA or not, who comply with WA regulations on labour and trade, including, but not limited to: #118, Ethics in International Trade , #4, Restrictions on Child Labor , #7 Workplace Safety Standards Act and #23 Ban on Slavery and Trafficking.


Can't affect non-WA nations with a WA resolution, sadly.

Also, the section with direct references to other resolutions are a likely a house of cards (See "House of Cards"), though the "including but not limited to" clause might save it.
Oliver Marlowe
Quote Love
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time."

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:39 pm

Thank you for the quick commentary.

What I was trying to get was that the terms of reducing restrictions within a country must apply to not applying tariffs to non-WA members who follow said regulations.

On the second point...Ah.

-Cave Martins,
Foreign Minister
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Oliver the Mediocre
Diplomat
 
Posts: 581
Founded: Aug 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Oliver the Mediocre » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:58 pm

Panageadom wrote:Thank you for the quick commentary.

What I was trying to get was that the terms of reducing restrictions within a country must apply to not applying tariffs to non-WA members who follow said regulations.

On the second point...Ah.

-Cave Martins,
Foreign Minister


Absolutely glad to help. Certainly don't give up. I haven't been at this very long, I get a bit overwhelmed by all the past proposals and rules and whatnot. Posting a drafting thread here before submitting puts you ahead of the curve, as the experienced General Assembly Ambassadors I've been hanging around these days like to say. I look forward to your edited proposal! :)
Oliver Marlowe
Quote Love
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time."

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18435
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:10 pm

"sweeping" is not an accepted, legal, or even existing strength for proposals. There are only mild, significant and strong.
Curmudgeon, Bastard, Grumpy Old Man. And those are my good qualities.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:21 pm

*Corrected.
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18435
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:35 pm

Insisiting that free trade, especially in basic foodstuffs, as it is so fundamental to assuring the basic wellbeing of citizens in rich countries and poor, must overule the legitimate demands of member nations for national economic sovreignty.

Never, not ever, shall we agree to such a broad and ill thought out mandate such as this.

Recognising that for statist economies, such policies are of limited effect, as the state, as the consumer of foreign goods, may still choose to purchase whichever foreign goods they please, regardless of price and/or real-world utility: as such, they would not fall foul of the "bourgeois fallacies" of market economics they have identified.

This sounds more like an ideological diatribe than anything else. And it should be noted that bans for ideological reasons are prohibited.

2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 10% of average global market value on any other consumer product.

It really is not the place of the WA to dictate what tariffs rates are, or that all tariffs are to be annulled at a gesture.
Curmudgeon, Bastard, Grumpy Old Man. And those are my good qualities.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Mehayn
Envoy
 
Posts: 251
Founded: Apr 13, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Mehayn » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:03 pm

2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 10% of average global market value on any other consumer product.

Removing all tariffs on "basic consumer goods" would result in a HUGE loss of revenue for many developing economies.Also, "basic consumer goods" is too difficult to define.

James Murdoc
Mehayn Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:09 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Insisiting that free trade, especially in basic foodstuffs, as it is so fundamental to assuring the basic wellbeing of citizens in rich countries and poor, must overule the legitimate demands of member nations for national economic sovreignty.

Never, not ever, shall we agree to such a broad and ill thought out mandate such as this. (1)

Recognising that for statist economies, such policies are of limited effect, as the state, as the consumer of foreign goods, may still choose to purchase whichever foreign goods they please, regardless of price and/or real-world utility: as such, they would not fall foul of the "bourgeois fallacies" of market economics they have identified.

This sounds more like an ideological diatribe than anything else. And it should be noted that bans for ideological reasons are prohibited. (2)

2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 10% of average global market value on any other consumer product.

It really is not the place of the WA to dictate what tariffs rates are, or that all tariffs are to be annulled at a gesture. (3)


1: Would you disagree that it is the role of a supranational body such as the WA to intervene where direct damage to human beings was perpetuated without cause? Even coming from an isolationist background, that seems to contradict the basic tenet of having supranationality in any case.

2: Duly noted. But it is not an ideological ban: merely a statement that such a clause would neccesarily have less potency on those it was most likely to irritate.

3: I believe I may be excused for thinking that a bill designed to ensure free trade would mandate a reduction in tariffs.

-Cave Martins,
Foreign Minister
Last edited by Panageadom on Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:14 pm

Mehayn wrote:
2: Demands a) that nations place no restrictive tariffs on basic consumer goods, such as food, water, building materials, basic medicine, more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive, to enable their access at the lowest possible price.
b) that nations place a tariff rate of no more than 10% of average global market value on any other consumer product.

Removing all tariffs on "basic consumer goods" would result in a HUGE loss of revenue for many developing economies.Also, "basic consumer goods" is too difficult to define.

James Murdoc
Mehayn Ambassador to the WA


My thanks.

If such tariffs come at a net cost to the people of developing economies, which can be measured in lives due to the undernourished state of these economies, then I am afraid it is the position of my government - and, indeed, all those who support the notion of free trade - that the lack of harmful tax revenue must be viewed as a neccesary cost of economic development.

As for a lack of definition, what problems to you find with the definition I have provided?

...more broadly defined as all goods without which the citizen could not survive...


Yours,

-Cave Martins,
Foreign Minister
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Vocatus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 186
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Vocatus » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:59 pm

We don't have a particular problem with tariffs, but nobody tells us what not to subsidize. Why would you even seek to stop subsidies to basic consumer goods anyway? Wouldn't doing so result in fewer basic consumer goods?

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18435
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:49 pm

Panageadom wrote:1: Would you disagree that it is the role of a supranational body such as the WA to intervene where direct damage to human beings was perpetuated without cause? Even coming from an isolationist background, that seems to contradict the basic tenet of having supranationality in any case.

Yes, we would disagree. It is not the role of the WA to dictate economic policy as wide ranging as what you have proposed, which is nothing less than a complete and total overthrow of national economic and foreign policy for every WA member nation.

Panageadom wrote:2: Duly noted. But it is not an ideological ban: merely a statement that such a clause would neccesarily have less potency on those it was most likely to irritate.

Then why is this clause even necessary?

Panageadom wrote:3: I believe I may be excused for thinking that a bill designed to ensure free trade would mandate a reduction in tariffs.

You may be excused. You may also be wrong. "Free Trade" is not some blanket excuse to mandate national economic and foreign policies.
Curmudgeon, Bastard, Grumpy Old Man. And those are my good qualities.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Darenjo
Minister
 
Posts: 2178
Founded: Mar 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Darenjo » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:50 pm

No.
Dr. Park Si-Jung, Ambassador to the World Assembly for The People's Democracy of Darenjo

Proud Member of Eastern Islands of Dharma!

User avatar
Scandavian States
Diplomat
 
Posts: 889
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Scandavian States » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:12 pm

The Empire opposes this resolution most vigorously. While we do not engage in any kind of tariff or subsidy scheme to protect local industry, but we do impose various levels of tariffs uniformly based upon their nation of origin, the level decided upon by their standing with the Empire. Further, revenue from those tariffs is a significant part of our budget and keeps internal taxes from being crippling.

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:42 am

To the honourable delegates from:

Vocatus

While you are correct that such removal of subsidies would result in a short-term reduction in the production of consumer goods, it would also mean that, by the agency of free competition, the production of such consumer goods would be moved to locations where the production of such goods would be most effecient, meaning that the efficient production of consumer goods - and so, the availability of such goods would be maximised. *

Grays Harbour

I: You have not yet addressed the central issue: while we are obviously opposed to WA micromanagement, given the contention that artificial economic barriers to trade likely cause direct harm on civilian populations, should not the basic wellbeing of citizens override our isolationist prerogatives?

II: As all other clauses, it is required to explain the precise nature and constitution of the theoretical justification, and to demonstrate that the principle is not as abhorrent as thought.

III: Qualifying your statement with "blanket" clearly shows the argument's fallacy: any international bill designed to extend the cause of free trade must mandate some supranational involvement in national affairs - the spectrum from negligible to blanket has to be justified in terms of the potency of the bill to do good. It seems clear to my delegation that this bill does.

Scandinavian States

I apologise, but it seems clear that you do protect local industry - indirectly - by the imposition of political tariffs: a system, which we might add, adds a dangerous flavour of corporate interest to international policy. Furthermore, it seems clear that by denying your populace efficient access to basic goods in the name of imperial standing, you are "crippling" them in a far more potent way than the imposition of taxes - especially those whose damaging effects would be mitigated by the effects of increased growth and prosperity from free trade.

Yours thankfully,
-Cave Martins
Foreign Minister


(*OOC: Look at the EU and the Common Agricultural Policy: yes, CAP artifically boosts the production of food in France and Spain, but in doing so creates a disincentive for such food production to move to places like Africa: not only does the policy incur unfair costs on European taxpayers and consumers (in lower quality/quantity food), but halts the development of poverty-striken Africa, which clearly has vast agricultural potential.)
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:51 am

OOC: This rather overlaps with my own planned trade in agriculture resolution. While agreeing with your ideals, might you consider please holding off on this a bit? It'd be illegal anyway, at present, due to the Food Welfare Act, for which I have a repeal in queue.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9026
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:58 am

The World Assembly had one of these before: the World Assembly Economic Union. It was repealed. A replacement has been tried time and again and it's always been voted down. Nobody should be getting their hopes up, here.

- Dr. B. Castro

Knootoss wrote:OOC: This rather overlaps with my own planned trade in agriculture resolution. While agreeing with your ideals, might you consider please holding off on this a bit? It'd be illegal anyway, at present, due to the Food Welfare Act, for which I have a repeal in queue.

OOC: If anything, it speeds up the process already declared in the Food Welfare Act. It contradicts Ethics in International Trade massively, though.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18435
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:02 am

Panageadom wrote:I: You have not yet addressed the central issue: while we are obviously opposed to WA micromanagement, given the contention that artificial economic barriers to trade likely cause direct harm on civilian populations, should not the basic wellbeing of citizens override our isolationist prerogatives?

II: As all other clauses, it is required to explain the precise nature and constitution of the theoretical justification, and to demonstrate that the principle is not as abhorrent as thought.

III: Qualifying your statement with "blanket" clearly shows the argument's fallacy: any international bill designed to extend the cause of free trade must mandate some supranational involvement in national affairs - the spectrum from negligible to blanket has to be justified in terms of the potency of the bill to do good. It seems clear to my delegation that this bill does.

1.) Isolationist? hardly. We prefer to manage our own affairs, something this does not permit by mandating a one-size-fits-all policy on tariffs. You have not proven your point that citizens wellbeing is harmed by a nation being able to control their own foreign policy. You make a statement, then refuse to back your claim up. It is upon you to prove the worth of this, not for us to prove that it is not worthwhile, or is harmful.

2.) It is not necessary, and is entriely superfluous. Our position is that your "wxample" is needlessly ideological in nature.

3.) "International involvement" is one thing. mandating and dictating what each nations national and foreign policies are is quite another.
Curmudgeon, Bastard, Grumpy Old Man. And those are my good qualities.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:04 am

OOC: Panageadom may have to repeal that one, aye.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:38 am

My thanks to the delegates.

Dr. Castro, could you outline, given the proviso in the first clause, what the conflict with Ethics in International Trade is? I'm afraid I don't understand. Though my dear doctor, hope springs eternal.

To the bugle-calling of Greys Harbour: so you do prefer to manage your policies in isolation from foreign intervention? It's no criticism. And your assertion that we have not made an argument to support our central tenet - that free trade requires some international meddling for the general popular welfare - is clearly itself, unfounded. Without a desire to appear condescending, the simplified mechanism is this: free trade => greater competiveness => greater specialisation, both of location and industry => cheaper, higher-quality products delivered at a lower rate of taxation, in a stable international market => "peace and prosperity", to wax lyrical. May I ask for a restructuring of the same statement? An ideological segregationist, are we? It seems obvious to our government that there is a continuum between moderate influence and mandating policies: again, we find your argument rhetorical, rather logical.

Yours,

Cave Martins,
-Foreign Minister


(OOC: Knootoss: I'll certainly consider a delay. Knootoss and Glen Rhodes: oh dear...)
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18435
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:48 am

Panageadom wrote:My thanks to the delegates.

Dr. Castro, could you outline, given the proviso in the first clause, what the conflict with Ethics in International Trade is? I'm afraid I don't understand. Though my dear doctor, hope springs eternal.

To the bugle-calling of Greys Harbour: so you do prefer to manage your policies in isolation from foreign intervention? It's no criticism. And your assertion that we have not made an argument to support our central tenet - that free trade requires some international meddling for the general popular welfare - is clearly itself, unfounded. Without a desire to appear condescending, the simplified mechanism is this: free trade => greater competiveness => greater specialisation, both of location and industry => cheaper, higher-quality products delivered at a lower rate of taxation, in a stable international market => "peace and prosperity", to wax lyrical. May I ask for a restructuring of the same statement? An ideological segregationist, are we? It seems obvious to our government that there is a continuum between moderate influence and mandating policies: again, we find your argument rhetorical, rather logical.

Yours,

Cave Martins,
-Foreign Minister


(OOC: Knootoss: I'll certainly consider a delay. Knootoss and Glen Rhodes: oh dear...)

The only thing you left out was "From each according to their ability, To each according to their need".

Free Trade does not require international meddling. Nations have the right to set their own trade and foreign policy. We don't need one-size-fits-all meddling.
Curmudgeon, Bastard, Grumpy Old Man. And those are my good qualities.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:00 pm

What about countries who do not want to privatise industries for various reasons, like the management of critical infrastructure?

Also, as the ambassador from Grays Harbour quoted in the other draft, embargoes are established for a variety of reasons; political, diplomatic, social, war, etc, etc.
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:16 pm

Thanks again to the various comments:

Grays Harbour

There's no harm in assuaging the egos of a few ideologues who feel trampled under the progression of a succesful market-ideology. If you think that my position - and, indeed, the bulk of that of this bill - represents Marxist ideology in any way, shape, or form, you are much mistaken. However, there does seem to be harm in your refusal to advance an logically coherent argument: the W.A. has repeatedly mandated certain aspects of national trade and foreign policy: why, in particular, does this not qualify for the same kind of treatment? Or, as you insist, in a correctly Palmerstonian attitude, as the burden of evidence is on myself, could you illustrate why the arguments I have raised are not valid?

Charlotte Ryberg

That is, indeed, a very valid consideration. However, I feel this is adequately dealt with that, as consumers, states are still free to select the materials they wish to use to power their domestic industries, and are not limited in their statist industrial activities, so long as they can internally demonstrate that this is working towards either national stability or for the good of their citizenry as a whole: yes, this would take some power out of the hands of wanton dictators (although this is not the main tangent of the bill) to use domestic industry for their own ends, but it would not harm the legitimate endeavours of government to provide adequate healthcare, education, policing, &c.

That is indeed true. It seems, though, that the desires of petty power politics should not override the desire for the amelioration of the global population. It might, however, be worth adding an "except in wartime" proviso: what's your opinion?

Yours,

Cave Martins,
Foreign Minister
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Vocatus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 186
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Vocatus » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:02 pm

Panageadom wrote:Vocatus

While you are correct that such removal of subsidies would result in a short-term reduction in the production of consumer goods, it would also mean that, by the agency of free competition, the production of such consumer goods would be moved to locations where the production of such goods would be most effecient, meaning that the efficient production of consumer goods - and so, the availability of such goods would be maximised. *

(*OOC: Look at the EU and the Common Agricultural Policy: yes, CAP artifically boosts the production of food in France and Spain, but in doing so creates a disincentive for such food production to move to places like Africa: not only does the policy incur unfair costs on European taxpayers and consumers (in lower quality/quantity food), but halts the development of poverty-striken Africa, which clearly has vast agricultural potential.)


With all due respect, this would interfere with our ability to override the 'Invisible Hand' of the free market to force beneficial outcomes. Furthermore, we prefer to pick winners and losers. For instance, while our nation possesses arable land, we would prefer to export high-end electronics rather than agricultural products. But establishing such an industry is no easy. The only real way to do so is to artificially inflate wages and profits, at least until economies of scale are established.

In short, there is a question we both seem to be asking. Who can determine a better outcome: pure free market or thirty thousand bureaucrats with flowcharts? And for Vocatus the answer will always be the latter.

(OOC: The policies of Vocatus do not necessarily reflect my actual beliefs. I've picked an ideology for them and I'm running with it.)

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:11 pm

Memo sent from Cave Martins to the Vocatan delegate. It seems to have been heavily annotated by an aide. A note scrawled on the internal circular copy within the delegation reads, "Cave, you can't just say that kind of thing here!"

With utmost respect, fellow delegate, your principles seem (scribbled out) incompatible with the ideal goal of creating a better society, whether by market-orientated or bureaucratic means and lights. You seem to have admitted that you would rather mould a facade of a powerful economy, than one designed to actually provide in basic terms for its citizens: or indeed, to provide the wealth through a lively agricultural export market required for (scribbled, likely read "playing dress up") "high end" economic development, whether state- or market-driven. I seriously doubt that the poor and low-middle class of your population applaud your desire to forfeit their basic economic desires in food, real wealth and sustainable job development for a plan that ultimately derives its sustainability - the buckets of entrusted taxation which presumably have to be poured into such a system explicitly designed to contradict the demands of basic economic common sense - from nowhere. (Scribbled out Latin proverb, winestain).

And indeed, who can determine the better outcome for a nation's populace? The billions-fold global community, a composite of member citizens and member states each striving, through peaceful and rational economic cooperation, to achieve the best for themselves and their neighbours (at the very least, in their own interests of stability and resource availability, and at most, through a charitable optimism), or a few petty minded bureaucrats armed with all the tools of an unscientific and counterproductive profession in an explicit quest to sabotage the needs and desires of their hungry citizenry? I cannot help but side with the former, (long scribbled out section) friend.

Yours in earnest,
Cave Martins,
Foreign Minister


(OOC: For non-reflection...I'm obviously writing in character, but "bureaucrats with flowcharts" seemed all too easy to tear into. Do I sense an ideological rift? Apart from the (failed) historical examples that spring to mind, your nation reminds me faintly of many nations in the Middle East, who have decided, on the back of oil profits, they wish to become media magnates, despite the fact that they not only have no experience, but the whole society is geared towards a repressive, rather than freely (and probably commercially!) expressive society.)
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads