Atlasia-Turkey Free Trade Bill (Law'd)

[Purple State]

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?

Off the cuff...

Primary purpose: Maximize the economic capacity of the economies involved by increasing specialization and efficiency in the market.

Secondary purpose: Utilizing the full extent of the global commons, sharing skills, culture, etc.

Tertiary purpose: Use in combination with smart power policies to pressure nations to acquiesce to our demands.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

FTA's are meant to break down economic barriers allowing countries to specialise in the production of goods in at which they are most skilled and most efficient in producing. It strengthens many countries by providing them access to a large market for there goods, namely the Atlasian middle class. It also benefits us cause it provides a market for our capitol goods, machinery, and other goods and services they can't produce yet or can't produce efficently but need for there industries or need to build there industries.

An FTA should simply be an agreement between two or more countries in which Trade barriers are removed or reduced by both countries. They should not include any legal or Political superstructures superior to the agreeing countries gov't. This would mean I would have voted against NAFTA and most RL trade agreements.

[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.

[Purple State]

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.

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.

[Ebowed]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

[Purple State]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

FTAs are implied agreements. If one party agrees and the other does not, it is null until both parties are in compliance.

[Ebowed]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

FTAs are implied agreements. If one party agrees and the other does not, it is null until both parties are in compliance.

Nothing in the writing of the bill suggests that this a free trade agreement.

In fact, some of the first free trade bills in Atlasian law are explicit repeals of previously agreed to free trade agreements, replacing them with language that merely removes all tariffs.  This was done to placate the concerns of libertarians and paleoconservatives who felt that free trade agreements represented a violation of national sovereignty.  All free trade legislation since then has been written using this same language - so going by precedent, we would have every reason to believe that these bills are absolutely not meant to be interpreted as "free trade agreements", but rather just free trade.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

The sad thing about this is that it was the Ottoman Empire, not the nation of Turkey, that committed the genocide. And it is terrible that the US allows Turkey to blackmail us into not recognizing such an atrocity of human history.

[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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

Hey now!

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Fritz]

I'm still sitting on the fence on this.  Marokai, I do appreciate your verbosity, but you didn't quite get at what I was looking for- that being specific reason to oppose this with Turkey.

Has the Secretary of External Affairs weighed in on this?

DoEA Policy: Europe

Turkey: Normal, although concerns remain about treatment of Kurds

Does this agreement shake up those concerns?

[Hash]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

The sad thing about this is that it was the Ottoman Empire, not the nation of Turkey, that committed the genocide. And it is terrible that the US allows Turkey to blackmail us into not recognizing such an atrocity of human history.

Of course. But it is a crime in Turkey to explicitly recognize the Turkish nation's role in the genocide, or even to acknowledge the genocide itself.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

The sad thing about this is that it was the Ottoman Empire, not the nation of Turkey, that committed the genocide. And it is terrible that the US allows Turkey to blackmail us into not recognizing such an atrocity of human history.

Of course. But it is a crime in Turkey to explicitly recognize the Turkish nation's role in the genocide, or even to acknowledge the genocide itself.

I know. The fact that they can't move on, even though, it's been almost a century, it sidgusting. My aunt is a high school teacher, and every year she brings in Armenian speakers to talk to her class about the genocide.

[tmthforu94]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

The sad thing about this is that it was the Ottoman Empire, not the nation of Turkey, that committed the genocide. And it is terrible that the US allows Turkey to blackmail us into not recognizing such an atrocity of human history.

Of course. But it is a crime in Turkey to explicitly recognize the Turkish nation's role in the genocide, or even to acknowledge the genocide itself.

I know. The fact that they can't move on, even though, it's been almost a century, it sidgusting. My aunt is a high school teacher, and every year she brings in Armenian speakers to talk to her class about the genocide.

Or maybe they just don't feel comfortable talking about it, as it still hurts many families. Countries don't like bringing up what they did wrong. I mean, I don't beleive the Holucaust is really mentioned in German history books at schools. America's books don't really bring out our faults either.

[Hash]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

The sad thing about this is that it was the Ottoman Empire, not the nation of Turkey, that committed the genocide. And it is terrible that the US allows Turkey to blackmail us into not recognizing such an atrocity of human history.

Of course. But it is a crime in Turkey to explicitly recognize the Turkish nation's role in the genocide, or even to acknowledge the genocide itself.

I know. The fact that they can't move on, even though, it's been almost a century, it sidgusting. My aunt is a high school teacher, and every year she brings in Armenian speakers to talk to her class about the genocide.

Or maybe they just don't feel comfortable talking about it, as it still hurts many families. Countries don't like bringing up what they did wrong. I mean, I don't beleive the Holucaust is really mentioned in German history books at schools. America's books don't really bring out our faults either.

blablabla. It isn't a criminal offense in Germany to recognize the Holocaust nor is it a criminal offense to recognize Indian massacres in the US.

[afleitch]

Turkey is an enigma. It doesn't fit into any box does it? It's Islamic, yet secularist by force, it's not quite Asian or European (it's certainly not Middle Eastern) It's Western, except when it isn't and it's 'free' except when it's not. It's these little contradicitions and the West's reponse to them that keep it outside the EU.

Given the nations that we do offer free trade to, usually on the pretext that it will help democracy etc, I can't see any reason why free trade should be witheld from Turkey.

[tmthforu94]

Turkey's record in oppressing journalists and suppressing discussion of their government's role in the Armenian genocide is quite worrying - and this is something that the Senate has criticized them for in the past.  I do wonder whether this would influence their desire to not remove tariffs on us while appreciating that we have removed tariffs on them?  (Given the wording of these bills, there is no guarantee that the other country will necessarily reciprocate the removal of tariffs.)

The sad thing about this is that it was the Ottoman Empire, not the nation of Turkey, that committed the genocide. And it is terrible that the US allows Turkey to blackmail us into not recognizing such an atrocity of human history.

Of course. But it is a crime in Turkey to explicitly recognize the Turkish nation's role in the genocide, or even to acknowledge the genocide itself.

I know. The fact that they can't move on, even though, it's been almost a century, it sidgusting. My aunt is a high school teacher, and every year she brings in Armenian speakers to talk to her class about the genocide.

Or maybe they just don't feel comfortable talking about it, as it still hurts many families. Countries don't like bringing up what they did wrong. I mean, I don't beleive the Holucaust is really mentioned in German history books at schools. America's books don't really bring out our faults either.

blablabla. It isn't a criminal offense in Germany to recognize the Holocaust nor is it a criminal offense to recognize Indian massacres in the US.

I know that. I was just trying to make somewhat of an example for what Alex Ham said, and that a lot of countries try to cover up the past.
 I don't think Turkey saying that talking about the genocide is a criminal offense is a great reason not to have free trade with them, so I do support this bill.

[Fritz]

I am inclined to vote in favor of this.

[Purple State]

I am going to introduce legislation making all FTAs actual agreements. That fair for everyone?

[Ebowed]

Or maybe they just don't feel comfortable talking about it, as it still hurts many families. Countries don't like bringing up what they did wrong. I mean, I don't beleive the Holucaust is really mentioned in German history books at schools. America's books don't really bring out our faults either.

This is pretty much the worst post ever.

As pointed out, it is a criminal offense in Turkey to print the fact that the Ottoman Empire orchestrated the systematic relocation and extermination of over a million people simply because they were Armenian.

They are not just 'uncomfortable' talking about it.

[HappyWarrior]

The SOEA is totally againest these bills.  Going to Ebowed's arguement on this I totally agree.  Fritz in terms of the foreign policy review Turkey was one nation I was on the fence for but I gave them the benefit of a doubt.  However I totally do not feel they are properly Stabalized and free for it to be appropriate for us to offer them an FTA.  Thanks for a request for my input.

[Ebowed]

I am going to introduce legislation making all FTAs actual agreements. That fair for everyone?

Have all of the countries that we have removed tariffs on indicated a willingness to sign on to free trade agreements?  Some countries, for example, may wish to retain certain tariffs that promote their own economies (the United States, in CAFTA, successfully sought an exemption for its Tennessee whiskey, which apparently can only be produced in Tennessee, and no where else, among the agreeing parties).  The issue of free trade agreements can become extraordinarily complex - part of the reason our legislation is written this way in the first place.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up a final vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

[Purple State]

I am going to introduce legislation making all FTAs actual agreements. That fair for everyone?

Have all of the countries that we have removed tariffs on indicated a willingness to sign on to free trade agreements?  Some countries, for example, may wish to retain certain tariffs that promote their own economies (the United States, in CAFTA, successfully sought an exemption for its Tennessee whiskey, which apparently can only be produced in Tennessee, and no where else, among the agreeing parties).  The issue of free trade agreements can become extraordinarily complex - part of the reason our legislation is written this way in the first place.

I have posted basic language just to get it in the queue. I would be happy to work with you to make sure that we amply deal with some of the more complex aspects of trade agreements.