Global Food Distribution Act

[vitalinia]

Let the discussion begin!

I shall place my vote on Tuesday, so please cast your votes according in order for me to vote according to the will of our member states.

Thanks,
Hakim Zilativ
Ambassador General, the DR of Vitalinia

[sondra]

Global Food Distribution Act

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role of proper nutrition in maintaining the physical and psychological well-being of all persons;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the importance of proper nutrition in the growth and development of children;

NOTING the need of all peoples to have adequate supplies of good quality, healthy food;

DEFINES "food" as the appropriate and healthy substance(s) that a person uses or can use as a primary source of energy.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of food products between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to institute health and nutritional education programs within their school systems;

3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ESTABLISHES the following schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms:

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms)

5. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping;

6. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate trade disputes and pass rulings on exceptions claimed under Article 3;

7. ENCOURAGES STRONGLY the removal of all sales taxes levied on food;

8. CALLS UPON UN member nations to, except in cases where private entities already conduct such research, advance research into new and improved methods of food production and distribution as a priority within their research budgets insofar as is necessary and possible given their circumstance(s).

in any other circumstances, i'd say "yay!" for free trade. i'm not so sure about this time, tho. the gradual reduction of ALL tarriffs, duties, etc.? if i were a economically struggling nation (and i somewhat am ) how would this effect my economy?

from my limited knowledge of economics, wouldn't it affect my small businesses? my family-run farms would bankrupt under the influx of cheap produce. they'll flock to the cities and our percentage of poverty striken citizens would skyrocket. and in my country we execute the poor. not really, but you get my point, eh?

this is all conjecture, of course. i'm not the econ major (that would be Vitalinia ).

edit: if you guys didn't catch it, i'm voting nay.

[vitalinia]

my family-run farms would bankrupt under the influx of cheap produce. they'll flock to the cities and our percentage of poverty striken citizens would skyrocket.

Perhaps it would be that there will be a higher level of unemployment for a finite period of time, but I believe that the costs in this case would outweigh the benefits. The benefits are two fold:

1) the children of the struggling domestic farmers would then pursue education into something more lucrative than agriculture given that agriculture is something that said specific nation does not have an advantage in (in Vitalina's case, for example, these young bright minds would study to enter the automobile production sector). If they do this, then you will have more people trained in something that the nation already is good in producing thus bringing about nationwide specialization, which gives leverage to said specific nation on the world stage, thus makes the country better off in the long run.

2) Less tariffs equal food prices going down. Thus, people can buy more food. Thus, more happy, obese people, yay!

Then, on the flip side, are the COSTS:

1) Loss of sovereignty. If I want to starve my people, then cot dangit, I have the right to starve my people! Who says cheap food is a basic human right?

2) Period of higher than usual unemployment as the economy shifts. It would take some time to transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial one.

[sondra]

vitalinia said:

my family-run farms would bankrupt under the influx of cheap produce. they'll flock to the cities and our percentage of poverty striken citizens would skyrocket.

Perhaps it would be that there will be a higher level of unemployment for a finite period of time, but I believe that the costs in this case would outweigh the benefits. The benefits are two fold:

1) the children of the struggling domestic farmers would then pursue education into something more lucrative than agriculture given that agriculture is something that said specific nation does not have an advantage in (in Vitalina's case, for example, these young bright minds would study to enter the automobile production sector). If they do this, then you will have more people trained in something that the nation already is good in producing thus bringing about nationwide specialization, which gives leverage to said specific nation on the world stage, thus makes the country better off in the long run.

2) Less tariffs equal food prices going down. Thus, people can buy more food. Thus, more happy, obese people, yay!

hmm... i dunno. just because the prices go down, doesn't mean that people will have the money to buy it. ESPECIALLY if they lost their jobs*because* they couldn't compete with the lowering prices. in the same vein, just because people go to the city does not mean that they'll have the opportunity to get an education. if anything, they will be more of a burden to the government, as 1.) the government will have to feed, dress, and house them, and 2.) the wave of people will pack our public schools. quality of education would go down for all.

i do, however, agree with your cons. my vote is still nay.

[bigmazy]

yeessssss,but....and this is a biiig but,hehehe
when we finish feeding all this people we will have much bigger work force...and our mines will be working at 200%....spoke like a true dictator....
oh,yeah...voting for this....uhu

[vitalistan]

I'm voting AGAINST!!!

[vitalinia]

Vote as of now: 2 for, 2 against. we're all tied up.

[bigmazy]

cmon,people....were talking here about feeding hungry people...!!?!?!?!
Vote for,for,for...

[sondra]

we're talking about making making our own people hungry because we want cheaper food for... who? we're all fine the way we are. isn't this what caused the fall of rome? influx of cheap grain?? :\ my country has already voted on this resolution.

Edit: i wanna know what roncelynia thinks

[bigmazy]

Yessss,you are fine...so am I....but what with all those who are not?And,besides,our peope can handle it....there is plenty of food in the world for everyone,but still there are children dying hungry like dogs....and why?Just,so my average Jo could eat double-glazed donnuts and weight between 120 and 150 kilos.Well,not in my country...we will help or we will die helping...!!!!
Vote for,for,for......
oh,yeah...and screw romans,they were all dummasses anyway ;D ;D

[vitalinia]

Believe me, Vitalina. Your people will not go hungry because of cheaper food prices. That is an economic impossibility. Can you name me one third world country that is worse off due to lower costs of living? Remember, in the early 1800s, the United States was a mainly agricultural economy. The transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy via the Industrial Revolution only led to a higher standard of living for everyone in the country. Except the minorities. They built railroads or continued to pick cotton.

[sondra]

>:(don't try to lure us into your industrialistic consumerism. if anything, this region needs a revival of the traditional values it was based on! Protection of domestic produce! Down with manufactured goods! Arranged marriages for all!!

[The Holy Empire of Roncelynia]

Roncelynia votes in favor of the Global Food Distribution Act. We do not see a sizable or imminent threat to our economy by gradually eliminating all tariffs in the trade of foodstuffs with other UN nations, as outlined in article 3:

To address the concern that this may take away from a nation's sovereign right to adjust taxes and tariffs within their own nation, we do not believe this to be within the context of this particular resolution, which is aimed towards trade tariffs on foodstuffs between UN nations. Article 3 outlines this as a requirement. Although Article 7 "ENCOURAGES STRONGLY" the removal of all sales taxes levied on food, since this particular article lacks any detail as to where and who these taxes are levied against - local grown and produced foodstuffs and local sales taxes on food sold within their borders, or imported/exported traded foodstuffs - and since the wording "encourages strongly" does not and cannot force any UN member nation to remove sales taxes on said foodstuffs, we do not perceive this particular article to be a threat to a nation's sovereign right to adjust sales taxes within their borders as they see fit.

We would like to remind our other member nations that this resolution is only for food tariffs. We still have tariffs and taxes on all other traded goods, which can be adjusted to compensate for whatever overall economic fallout may occur from lowering the food tariffs.

To address the concern that the agricultural industries of our member nations might be put in jeopardy due to the the possibility of cheaper imported foodstuffs, member nations can enact country-to-country foodstuffs quotas. These quotas are two-country diplomatic agreements that can have the same protective effect as high tariffs, but do not invite retaliation from other countries. These country-specific quotas can help protect the local agricultural economy, forcing the local populace to purchase more domestic product, while still maintaining little or no food tariffs for the imported goods. Article 3 still maintains that exceptions to this proposal can still be made for protectionist mechanisms. We believe the spirit of this proposal to be for the greater good of those who are less fortunate, but not at the cost of the individual member nation's economies.

[vitalinia]

The time for debate is up.

RESULTS:

YAY: 3

NAY: 2

Accordingly, I shall vote IN FAVOR of the resolution as willed by the voters.