Atlasia-Turkey Free Trade Bill (Law'd)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have no love for this trade agreement. Will most likely vote against. (In a crunch for time at the moment, will explain more later.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I fail to see any reason to even try to rally opposition, since the consensus in this body is apparently "FREE TRADE GOOD FREE TRADE GOOD" without question.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai, you explained your opposition to free trade in general to me, in a very lengthy and eloquently written PM just before I was elected.  I sympathise with many of the points you made to me; however, if you want to convince me to vote against this, you will need to explain specifically how it applies to Turkey.  I will tend to favor free trade agreements, unless there is good reason not to.

Ah.

Well, my only problem with Turkey is that they're not exactly a free or liberal society, and it has a tendency to censor, or crack down on undesirable organizations (Like gay rights groups, even though homosexuality is not illegal there). As someone said, just because it's not a theocracy doesn't mean that it's a free and fair state, it just leads to suppression of undesirable groups.

It's not a very stable place, with alot more infighting recently over the place of Islam in the government. And low, almost non-existant levels, of unionization make me worry that we would be sending the wrong message to simply pass a free trade agreement unfettered. The US developed mostly on our own, and because of that we realized the problems in our workplaces, we worked to remedy those problems, unions grew to combat the unfairness in the workplace, regulations were laid on businesses to protect and encourage fair labor practices. By sending our businesses (and some of our manufacturing work) elsewhere, we encourage an economy to grow without these protections.

Alot of people say that as their economy grows, they can make regulations of their own and will eventually correct these problems. I see two faults with such a statement. One: They rarely do. Often it leads to no trade at all, or violent demonstrations. Coups, rebellion, nationalization of industry, etc. This is caused by Two: International corporate entities discourage such, and can gain favor with influential figures in American and local politics in the target country. What non-first-world countries have we ever agreed to trade with later abolished child labor? Implemented fair labor practices and enforced them? Can anyone name three? One?

Free trade fosters peace, if countries roll over and accept our economic invasion, if people don't care about the race to the bottom and become our slave labor with a smile on their faces. But once countries want to change or do something that is not in our businesses self-interest, as they inevitably do, you have undesirable and violent movements spark, and this is part of the reason why South American socialism and near-fascism war with each other, and some who react violently to our influence. (When Bolivia tried to privatize their water, for instance, this resulted in what was essentially open rebellion.)

Free trade with developed nations, that's not a problem to me, and that's why the agreement with the European Union is A-OK in my eyes. I trust the European union to trade fairly, and treat it's businesses and workers fairly. I don't trust Turkey, and I certainly don't trust our businesses to treat more fresh meat fairly either. We should encourage proper development in other economies, through such clauses as encouraging regulation, discouraging long hours and child labor, we should explain that there's nothing wrong with unions and protections for workers. Do we want a world with fair, developed economies, or do we want a world where one part of the world is rich and prosperous and developed and free, and the other, impoverished, overworked, sick, and dependent on our corporations for the meager lives they live? We shouldn't pass trade agreement after trade agreement just to give our businesses more feeding ground.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Wow so now if a government doesn't fit Marokai's progressive wet dream we shouldn't trade with them?  This is getting absurd, who are we going to trade with?  The independent country of Fire Island?

I wouldn't call "don't overwork children and suppress individual liberty" my wet dream. If that's a "wet dream" to you, I'd re-evaluate your priorities.

Trade can work toward those goals.

PS: That's why I don't bother with sensible responses half the time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well if I were in the senate I would have responsed more eloquently and sensibly , its a perk of being out of office

Perhaps trying that once in awhile would get you back into office.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Have you undergone some sort of personality transplant lately? You seem like an honorary member of the Regional Protection Party. Genuinely curious here.

2. This is the exact same response you and I got from the Right when we supported banning trade with nations that criminalize homosexuality. Where was this attitude then?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I just pose one question to the Senators in support of this bill:

What, in your opinion, are free trade agreements for and what should they accomplish?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai, you explained your opposition to free trade in general to me, in a very lengthy and eloquently written PM just before I was elected.  I sympathise with many of the points you made to me; however, if you want to convince me to vote against this, you will need to explain specifically how it applies to Turkey.  I will tend to favor free trade agreements, unless there is good reason not to.

Ah.

Well, my only problem with Turkey is that they're not exactly a free or liberal society, and it has a tendency to censor, or crack down on undesirable organizations (Like gay rights groups, even though homosexuality is not illegal there). As someone said, just because it's not a theocracy doesn't mean that it's a free and fair state, it just leads to suppression of undesirable groups.

It's not a very stable place, with alot more infighting recently over the place of Islam in the government. And low, almost non-existant levels, of unionization make me worry that we would be sending the wrong message to simply pass a free trade agreement unfettered. The US developed mostly on our own, and because of that we realized the problems in our workplaces, we worked to remedy those problems, unions grew to combat the unfairness in the workplace, regulations were laid on businesses to protect and encourage fair labor practices. By sending our businesses (and some of our manufacturing work) elsewhere, we encourage an economy to grow without these protections.

Alot of people say that as their economy grows, they can make regulations of their own and will eventually correct these problems. I see two faults with such a statement. One: They rarely do. Often it leads to no trade at all, or violent demonstrations. Coups, rebellion, nationalization of industry, etc. This is caused by Two: International corporate entities discourage such, and can gain favor with influential figures in American and local politics in the target country. What non-first-world countries have we ever agreed to trade with later abolished child labor? Implemented fair labor practices and enforced them? Can anyone name three? One?

Free trade fosters peace, if countries roll over and accept our economic invasion, if people don't care about the race to the bottom and become our slave labor with a smile on their faces. But once countries want to change or do something that is not in our businesses self-interest, as they inevitably do, you have undesirable and violent movements spark, and this is part of the reason why South American socialism and near-fascism war with each other, and some who react violently to our influence. (When Bolivia tried to privatize their water, for instance, this resulted in what was essentially open rebellion.)

Free trade with developed nations, that's not a problem to me, and that's why the agreement with the European Union is A-OK in my eyes. I trust the European union to trade fairly, and treat it's businesses and workers fairly. I don't trust Turkey, and I certainly don't trust our businesses to treat more fresh meat fairly either. We should encourage proper development in other economies, through such clauses as encouraging regulation, discouraging long hours and child labor, we should explain that there's nothing wrong with unions and protections for workers. Do we want a world with fair, developed economies, or do we want a world where one part of the world is rich and prosperous and developed and free, and the other, impoverished, overworked, sick, and dependent on our corporations for the meager lives they live? We shouldn't pass trade agreement after trade agreement just to give our businesses more feeding ground.

I'm certainly glad I wasted my time writing that.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm certainly glad I wasted my time writing that.

Well, your argument is certainly very feel good and all, but it has no sound backing in economic theory. Regulations on trade inevitably create inefficiencies in markets, meaning the society is not creating the wealth that it can. Universal free trade, minus some areas that we wish to hurt economically, increases total output, lowers prices, promotes specialization and actually benefits the lowest workers in the end.

I never pretended it did. Now, your RPP-esque rhetoric aside, I'm quite obviously under no delusion that my ideas are about "profit profit profit." This is, unfortunately, a sad side effect of our economic arguments in real life and in this fantasy nation. People attack "feel good" policies on the basis that they "have no background in economic theory" but the point of my "feel good" rhetoric is, ironically, to point out the fact that we have an obsession with doing as much trade, gaining as much profit, employing as much cheap labor, as possible.

I asked the question earlier "What should free trade, in your mind, do and what is it designed to accomplish." The answers, predictably, revolved around abolishing trade restrictions, doing more trade with nations, obtaining more profit, etc etc. But what I believe trade agreements are supposed to be doing is spreading the proper market model, developing communities, educating the world. Ravaging the world with our race-to-the-bottom trade mentality does nothing of the sort.

When it comes to the economic conservatives, free traders, and libertarians of this board and in the real world, it's only because libertarians are unable to abolish child labor laws, among other common sense laws, that they press so hard to live vicariously through other nations via trade.

My concerns about what message we're sending, about what we're creating incentives for, remain, just as I said before, as does my question at the end of it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a double-standard from you and many others about work done here and work acquired elsewhere for our benefit here. By saying "regulations on trade hurt output" you may as well just make the argument "regulations in general hurt output" because the arguments can be used interchangeably. What difference is there? Are our people worth more? Superior to third worlders? Is the process in our market any different? No, to all of those, and there's no sense in trying to make the argument that free trade agreements shouldn't have any regulations or restrictions while simultaneously trying to implement new regulations and protections on our domestic market.

Ultimately, what "end" you're trying to shoot for here is critical to determining what policies we should take. If you, like others, want as much profit as possible then this method would be your best. If you, as I believe, think that the goal of free trade is fostering peace, and developing communities and nations desperately in need of being brought up, with the goal of creating a world where all nations and all their people are prosperous and liberal in their values, my route, the route of developing world economies through our image and our demonstration, is the way.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, you and Ben are fine members of the RPP on this topic.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay, I'm a bit upset a vote was called in the midst of a discussion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Perhaps when I see evidence that free trade actually liberalizes a country and causes them to develop properly with fair and developed-world labor protections, as opposed to either doing nothing to develop or modernize their labor standards or reacting violently to American/Atlasian influence, I'll implore the President to sign such trade agreements.

Given that no one has given me examples, however..

[Marokai Backbeat]

Disappointing.