We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: International Trade Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Nationalist Freedom Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2115
Description[?]:
| We need to protect our indigenous firms and employment. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change International trade (this is a default in the absense of a specific free trade agreement or specific trade embargo)
Old value:: The nation does not impose any tariffs or quotas on imports.
Current: The nation imposes reciprocal tariffs on imports, with no tariffs imposed on states which impose no tariffs on our exports.
Proposed: The nation allows for imports, but imposes tariffs and quotas in certain areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:48:34, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | We already have a bill concerning this proposal. This violates the Common Courtesy Bill. |
| Date | 22:59:32, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | This isn't the same proposal (the other is for reciprocal tariffs only). My understanding of the Common Courtesy Bill was that you couldn't propose the same option, because that's what bill stealing is. Proposing a competing option is not bill stealing, and in fact is often done in real life to try to counter a measure. I'd have included that as a change in my amendment proposal had I known it wasn't considered the case. That said, we very strongly oppose this bill on the merits. Tariffs and quotas only cause prices to go up for consumers and maintain inefficient industries at great cost. They are the worst thing for the common person. The only justifiable tariffs are the reciprocal tariffs in the other bill, which can use our tariff power to force those of other nations down, but with the intent of creating bilateral free trade. |
| Date | 18:04:57, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | You notice how no one knows wtf they're talking about in relation to the Common Courtesy Bill? Maybe this is because there is no Centralized Common Courtesy Bill discussion. You see how having multiple discussions of the same matter is logically unfeasible and detrimental to the awareness of parties? Would you rather read a novel that is split up into paragraphs and these paragraphs are strewn about randomly in the book and you have to find them to know what's going on, or would you rather read a book that is compiled in order sentance by sentance and paragraph by paragraph? Which would be easier and reasonable to read? |
| Date | 04:25:37, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | PS- This hurts the Kanjoran economy. When we put up tariffs on a nation's products they have to put tariffs on their imports as well. This leads to more and more tariffs. This is very detrimental. |
| Date | 04:26:59, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | We will lose success in our exporting industries and this is very anti-capitalist. One might even call it communist......(finally a chance to call FFP a communist, sweet revenge) |
| Date | 04:37:19, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | We would add also that tariffs are actually bad for the economy of both the nation that placed the tariff and the nation that the tariff is placed on. The nation that placed the tariff is hurt by the lessening of competition making prices artificially high. The only reason we support reciprocal tariffs is that we think we need them to get other nations' tariffs down, because some incorrectly believe that tariffs are in their country's best interest. When Country X places a tariff on Cuntry Y's goods, both countries lose. |
| Date | 04:38:06, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | We apologize for the obvious typo above, as it looks naughty in a way we didn't intend. |
| Date | 14:20:54, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Secular Humanist Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | I greatly prefere the bill I proposed on the same subject, and will vote no to this. We should move towards a world without borders and tariffs, and in this kind of cooperative games a "tit-for tat" strategy has been proven winning. |
| Date | 01:35:43, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | I concur with SHP. |
| Date | 17:08:36, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Freedom Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | We need tarrifs to protect strategic industries (i.e. food, which we need to supply opursleves with in case of war) and to protect our job and our economy. |
| Date | 18:31:03, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | But these tariffs would lead to tariffs against us meaning our exports would fall and our industries will follow. |
| Date | 22:56:06, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Freedom Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | Don't be so rediculous. "Free-trade" is a myth. Certain strategic industries have to be protected. I wish you two studied economics so you'd understand this, because I'm tired of arguing with you. |
| Date | 23:16:30, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the International Trade Act |
| Message | I studied economics, which is precisely why I strongly oppose non-reciprocal tariffs. Economists, left or right, will tell you that protectionism results in tremendous waste. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 189 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 251 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to play the game independently and should not share their passwords or allow others to access their accounts. |
| Random quote: "John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?" - Emma Goldman |