Grand Pacific Economic Forum

[Bull Run]

(OOC: No Need to RP arrivals, assume all who are going to participate where/are in some way in attendence so we may go straight into the RP dialogue)

[center][img]http://www.indianholiday.com/images/oberoi-venya-vilas/7.jpg[/img][/center]

Political representatives along with Corporate & Industrial leaders steadily make their way into the elegant conference hall, purchased & remodeled by cooperating business giants within Kamchatka, eager to press forward economically for the new Union. Open strictly for nations of the Pacific, & ensuring the privacy of discussion to those in attendance from all who were not. Corporate & Industrial powers from the GKU have organized into a marketing union to better manage the difficult burden of lifting the new nations economy from stagnancy.

In depth cooperation & planning among many economic powers of the Pacific have culminated into this grand forum, to discuss a Trade & Marketing cooperation beyond all limits of those seen in the past of the Pacific & for the Pacific. To Establish an entity for a Pacific economic & trading hub, opening access to Asian, Oceanic, & even American resources & markets, this economic evolution will stand as an instrument for Pacific markets, a powerful tool to wield to the rest of the economic world. The Pacific has been selected as the beacon of future global economic dominance & raw indutstrial power. Presented to the attendees is the Pacific Trade & Markets Federation; a union of Pacific Economic power players & their civilian leadership, overseeing the new Grand Pacific Marketplace where all invested will have a say & will supervise over its policies. Membership rests soley on a nation's economic [b]investment[/b] into the Pacific Market, rather than a fancy signature & sincere word. The Federation's internal working will be governed by a Directorate seated in Kamchatka, while the Pacific market will be run by economic representatives from each respective Partner Nation, chosen at each nations descretion.

Food & drinks have been served and soon the small noise dies down.

A speaker greats the attendees, presenting himself to be among the Directorate of the Pacific Trade & Markets Federation. He bows slightly then begins as he stares hard & the walls & ceiling then finally allowing his eyes to rest among the seated men & women.

[i] "What we present to you today, is the foundation of a great new marketplace for the economies of Asia, Oceania, & West Coast of the Americas to be completely run by Pacific Parter Nations, who will reap the benefits of a Mamoth New trading hub private to the Pacific Powers & weild unchallengable economic strength to tho global market. We will sincronize & incredibly increase prosperity among Pacific Partners, to surge ahead the rest of the world in economic dominence. The goal of this cooperation is to seek & excersize a more perfect means to best utilize the Pacific's resources for the progress of trade, healthy market prosperity & economic strengthening of all Pacific Market Partners. We maintain the belief & foundation that Innovation leads to economic growth, in turn leading to a higher standard of living And this is by far the Greatest Innovation to reach the World, much more the Pacific Marketplace. Our own nations will guide Our own markets.

Presented here is a list of certain objectives we should seek to reach & maintain:"[/i]

[list]
[*]End of small monopolized trade & market establishments[/list]
[list]
[*]Unified Defence against non-Pacific intervention &/or protection from embargo on Pacific economies[/list]
[list]
[*]Securing best means of distribution of goods & services of the Pacific market
[/list]
[list]
[*]Protection from single power dominence over Pacific Market
[/list]
[list]
[*]Keep availabile trade Goods & Services & insure payments are made on time
[/list]
[list]
[*]Establish a Safety Net to protect partners in times of War & Disaster
[/list]
[list]
[*]Oversee an Economically Free Pacific Market
[/list]
[list]
[*]Overseen & supervised by the Supreme Body of Economic Partners, held by representatives of each Market Partner
[/list]
[list]
[*]Direct effect on Decisions through interaction between buyers & sellers by the Laws of Supply & Demand
[/list]

[i]"The Supreme Body will regulate activities of this trade & marketing hub on issues such as establishing solid & common trade routes, wether or not & how much to tax established routes, defence of transportation & production means, as well as policies for Pacific economic interaction with the rest of the world. Again these are just a few examples. Prosperous Business between Powers has the capacity to Supercede the long standing destructive influence & barbarism of geopolitics. The Pacific can now be the shining capital of the world economy. And this is completely in the hands of the men & women in attendance today. You may leave this forum today & never think back at this again or join in part of an evolution to bring the Pacific Market to the pinicle of the Global Economy."[/i]

The speaker remains where he is & prepares to take feedback, questions, or acceptances to the joint proposal.

[Subtleknifewielder]

"Many of these are indeed, admirable goals," stated the political representative from Australia, Duke Jameson of Darwin.

"But I have a question. In your second goal, you say 'Unified Defence against non-Pacific intervention.' What sort of intervention, and what sort of defence? Since this is an economic proposal, i assume some sort of economic leverege, but it does imply military force, so i have to be sure."

[Bull Run]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='27 April 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1272418796' post='2277955']
"Many of these are indeed, admirable goals," stated the political representative from Australia, Duke Jameson of Darwin.

"But I have a question. In your second goal, you say 'Unified Defence against non-Pacific intervention.' What sort of intervention, and what sort of defence? Since this is an economic proposal, i assume some sort of economic leverege, but it does imply military force, so i have to be sure."
[/quote]

The speaker turned to listen & address the first question.

[i]"The exact means of defence would of course have to be decided upon by the Economic Body. They could include a multitude of actions & procedures, all of which are up to the collective solutions deemed necessary by the Body."[/i]

[Imperator Azenquor]

[i]"As the representative of Vauleyo-Buryatia, a nation that has proudly rejected both the 'command' economy and the 'free market' as models for our economic system, I must voice my skepticism that such an organization would be compatible with our own economic policy. I will say that the proposal is a remarkable one that may significantly improve the economies in the region that join it. At first glance, I would say that this type of structure would work best between free market economies. With that in mind, I therefore pose the following questions:

1) Does the proposed economic entity require states to 'open' their markets to competition from other member states as a condition of membership?
2) If a state has chosen to protect a particular economic sector from external competition, would the proposed economic entity frown upon this?
3) Would a state be required to have an entirely 'free' market prior to entry into this organization, and would the organization seek to encourage the creation of a market economy in that state?

That is all"[/i]-Vauleyo-Buryatian Representative

[Triyun]

[quote]Unified Defence against non-Pacific intervention &/or protection from embargo on Pacific economies[/quote]

When we were invited to this summit we were told this would be for Asian rather than Pacific prosperity. We have many friends in Asia whose homeland are not on the Pacific Coast yet we consider them part of our community. We also do not necessarily extend that same feeling towards those on the west coast of the Americas.

[Bull Run]

[quote]...
1) Does the proposed economic entity require states to 'open' their markets to competition from other member states as a condition of membership?
2) If a state has chosen to protect a particular economic sector from external competition, would the proposed economic entity frown upon this?
3) Would a state be required to have an entirely 'free' market prior to entry into this organization, and would the organization seek to encourage the creation of a market economy in that state?

That is all"-Vauleyo-Buryatian Representative[/quote]

The Pacific Market does not force nor require a change in market from nations who participate in it. The market at large, that being the Market of participating Pacific nations would be "free". Though with supervision & overseeing of the market provided by all participants, essentially the entire market will be shaped by the nations in participation. What we (we being the Directorate of the PTMF) had forseen was a free and open market where goods & services moving into or out of the Pacific did so with precision & with extremely efficiant & most prosperous means to those in participation. In short, each partner nation is free to determine & excersize their own best means as well as extent of marketing on the large scale market. I hope this answers your questions.

[quote]When we were invited to this summit we were told this would be for Asian rather than Pacific prosperity. We have many friends in Asia whose homeland are not on the Pacific Coast yet we consider them part of our community. We also do not necessarily extend that same feeling towards those on the west coast of the Americas. [/quote]

We should clarify that the term "Pacific" entitles to the Continent/Regions bordering our Ocean, that being Asia, Oceania, & America. If you could specify as to which nation(s) you do not particularly hold in positive interest, we might better address your issues with this partnership.

[Kevin Kingswell]

A well dressed middle aged Asian man arrived wearing a clean and smart business suit and he waited for the others to make their comments before speaking. "Hello there I represent a number of important people in the Asian sphere and I was wondering what are the plans for dealing with anyone who doesn't follow these ideas".

[iamthey]

[quote]End of small monopolized trade & market establishments[/quote]

Greater Pacifica requests clarification of what this entails.

[quote]Protection from single power dominence over Pacific Market[/quote]
[quote]Oversee an Economically Free Pacific Market[/quote]

And don't these last two points contradict themselves as a free market provides that free competition and the natural emergence of the regional market will determine its structure. While the other implies a sort of intervention by an overseeing body to ensure that no one power can develop an economic hegemony or monopoly in any one sector?

Also what measures would be taken to ensure that a single power didn't gain dominance? If the committee would ultimately determine such things how are decisions made, do all participating nations receive a veto, or is it made by majority and therefore an issue of sovereignty?

Point is, if this group ultimately will have any significant say over pacifican economic policy then our participation will be limited at best.

Edited April 29, 2010 by iamthey

[Shadowsage]

The Holy American Empire expresses interest, so long as the little quirks are ironed out.

[Szent Korona]

[quote name='iamthey' date='28 April 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1272500201' post='2279078']
And don't these last two points contradict themselves as a free market provides that free competition and the natural emergence of the regional market will determine its structure. While the other implies a sort of intervention by an overseeing body to ensure that no one power can develop an economic hegemony or monopoly in any one sector?

Also what measures would be taken to ensure that a single power didn't gain dominance? If the committee would ultimately determine such things how are decisions made, do all participating nations receive a veto, or is it made by majority and therefore an issue of sovereignty?

Point is, if this group ultimately will have any significant say over pacifican economic policy then our participation will be limited at best.
[/quote]

We from Neo Tokyo agree with Pacifica.

[Bull Run]

[quote name='iamthey' date='28 April 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1272500201' post='2279078']
Greater Pacifica requests clarification of what this entails.

No one power "should" be allowed monopoly over a system designed for partnered use; it "should not" become the tool of one overpowering entity. I use the word "should" & "should not" because we want to stress the fact that rules & workings of the partnership would, after all, be decided upon by participants. What we have offered to all of you is a central starting point to begin a new economic system for Asia, Oceania, & America. One with broad & basic guidelines & examples reached by a brainstorming crew of economists. The real decisions will be made by the partnership. All we really ask is your cooperation & efforts in giving life to a revolutionary system & a new era of trade & marketing. Giving the partnership a try presents no danger to our economies, & should it succesfully launch, amount to a prosperous New Era; civilization would take a great leap forward in mass scale trade, economics, & global marketing & business.



And don't these last two points contradict themselves as a free market provides that free competition and the natural emergence of the regional market will determine its structure. While the other implies a sort of intervention by an overseeing body to ensure that no one power can develop an economic hegemony or monopoly in any one sector?

Also what measures would be taken to ensure that a single power didn't gain dominance? If the committee would ultimately determine such things how are decisions made, do all participating nations receive a veto, or is it made by majority and therefore an issue of sovereignty?

Point is, if this group ultimately will have any significant say over pacifican economic policy then our participation will be limited at best.
[/quote]


We did anticipate a free Inernational Pacific (Asian, Oceanic, & American) market with Supreme Supervision (far short of manipulative control) falling to the partner nations invested in it. Free trade bewteen partners, while Pacific goods & services not traded between Partners would accumulate into to a pool of said goods & services to be traded with the World market (nations not in partnership with the Pacific Trade & Marketing Federation). Of course this is merely the "concept blueprint" of sorts established by the Diractorate & is by no means final, as the Supreme Body of Economic Partners would decide what is final.

Obviously this system was not made perfect, but it was made with all the potential to be so. That said, any and all suggestions are more than welcome from all in antendance. We can make this happen if we make it together & make it right.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Bull Run

[Elrich von Richt]

While the goals of this conference are admirable, it must be made to be strictly economic and not have any basis on defense and war.
It must also be made to be acceptable for individual national economic systems. Our representative will arrive sometime in the week.

[Bull Run]

As it stands now (in theory) this economic partnership [b]will not[/b] interfere with individual national economic systems. Its defence would not be comprised of a standing armed force, but economic Safety Nets & Net teams responsible for monitoring partnership trade & transportation movements as well as providing any market updates to the Body. An entirely Free market will be in use overseen by the Partnership Supervising Body who each carry 1 vote for their nation &the power to Veto as their right as investors & partners in our market. Economic leverage for partners under foreign (including nations of the Pacific but not partnered) embargo would be among the means of Economic Defence for partners. Also. Free trade among partners would be guaranteed.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Bull Run

[freakwars]

These seem like admirable goals.

[Subtleknifewielder]

So, in essence, if a partner in this enterprise were threatened or embargoed, the hostile nation in question would find itself embargoed. A fairly straightforward solution, and hardly objectionable.

[Triyun]

We believe that Novak, the Slavic Federation, Slavo Russia, and Rebel Army should be invited to this forum. We would also like to propose to the nations of the Eastern Hemisphere that we agree to a summit to discuss a no-nuclear first strike policy to span across the hemisphere. There is no such thing as limited nuclear war, and these weapons have the potential to ruin the underlying basis of economic growth in the Pacific, access to clean water and food. Should these weapons ever be used again in this hemisphere, we fear for the environment which all our children shall grow up in.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Triyun' date='02 May 2010 - 09:51 AM' timestamp='1272819064' post='2283868']
We believe that Novak, the Slavic Federation, Slavo Russia, and Rebel Army should be invited to this forum. We would also like to propose to the nations of the Eastern Hemisphere that we agree to a summit to discuss a no-nuclear first strike policy to span across the hemisphere. There is no such thing as limited nuclear war, and these weapons have the potential to ruin the underlying basis of economic growth in the Pacific, access to clean water and food. Should these weapons ever be used again in this hemisphere, we fear for the environment which all our children shall grow up in.
[/quote]

Also admirable goals, but not the purpose of this meeting. If you wish to host a second conference with the aforementioned nations in attendance, we would be willing to send a representative.

[Mergerberger II]

[size=2]The Republic of Vietnam, still an emerging power in the Pacific, is currently not prepared to endure a Pacific-wide free market. First, we have the many of the same concerns as the Buraytian representative, none of which, I believe, you effectively answered. The Republic of Vietnam does not have a free economy, or rather it will not once the legislation, currently being debated in Parliament, is finally passed. Basic government oversight into our economy is key to ensuring that the people of Vietnam have a respectable, good life, free from the corporate tyranny inherent in the free market design. Basic laws against child labor, a short work day, vacation time, among others are key to this goal. For this reason we are not supportive of a free market across the Pacific, which, with what you have implied, would demand all regulations be ceased within all nations and corporations allowed to do as they please. For this reason, we ask the basic question: Does an involved party need to have a Free Market economy to enter into this pact?

A second concern of Vietnam, considering how, as already mentioned, we are still a rising economic power, is the limitation of certain industries to domestic corporations and interests for the reasons of national security or simply national prosperity. These limitations are achieved with tariffs and strict embargoes on foreign corporations representing these industries. How would these policies be affected by this new bloc?[/size]

[size=2][quote name='Bull Run' date='28 April 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1272497351' post='2279003']
The Pacific Market does not force nor require a change in market from nations who participate in it. The market at large, that being the Market of participating Pacific nations would be "free". Though with supervision & overseeing of the market provided by all participants, essentially the entire market will be shaped by the nations in participation. What we (we being the Directorate of the PTMF) had forseen was a free and open market where goods & services moving into or out of the Pacific did so with precision & with extremely efficiant & most prosperous means to those in participation. In short, each partner nation is free to determine & excersize their own best means as well as extent of marketing on the large scale market. I hope this answers your questions.
[/quote]
This raises another concern of the Republic. You state that the market will be a free market, yet you also state that goods and services will move in and out of Pacific nations with "precision" and "means". Precision and means both entail control. If there is control over the market, it cannot be construed as free. Precision also entails command, that is, a command economy. The Republic would not be interested in a bloc which regulates which goods can flow in and out of our sphere based on from whom and where they are coming. Could you clarify?[/size]

[Bull Run]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='30 April 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1272673507' post='2281913']
So, in essence, if a partner in this enterprise were threatened or embargoed, the hostile nation in question would find itself embargoed. A fairly straightforward solution, and hardly objectionable.
[/quote]

We agree.


[quote name='Triyun' date='02 May 2010 - 09:51 AM' timestamp='1272819064' post='2283868']
We believe that Novak, the Slavic Federation, Slavo Russia, and Rebel Army should be invited to this forum. We would also like to propose to the nations of the Eastern Hemisphere that we agree to a summit to discuss a no-nuclear first strike policy to span across the hemisphere. There is no such thing as limited nuclear war, and these weapons have the potential to ruin the underlying basis of economic growth in the Pacific, access to clean water and food. Should these weapons ever be used again in this hemisphere, we fear for the environment which all our children shall grow up in.
[/quote]


If you join in partnership you certainly have a say in such invitiations. Also, Nuclear policy of the partner nations is innitially not a major concern of the partnership unless made so by the Supreme Body. Broad defence planning will remain so unless the issue of market security is decidedly a major issue that will be addressed by the Body. Under the issue of Pacific enviromental protection, however, your concerns may carry more weight.


[quote name='Mergerberger II' date='02 May 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1272831036' post='2284041']
[size=2]The Republic of Vietnam, still an emerging power in the Pacific, is currently not prepared to endure a Pacific-wide free market. First, we have the many of the same concerns as the Buraytian representative, none of which, I believe, you effectively answered. The Republic of Vietnam does not have a free economy, or rather it will not once the legislation, currently being debated in Parliament, is finally passed. Basic government oversight into our economy is key to ensuring that the people of Vietnam have a respectable, good life, free from the corporate tyranny inherent in the free market design. Basic laws against child labor, a short work day, vacation time, among others are key to this goal. For this reason we are not supportive of a free market across the Pacific, which, with what you have implied, would demand all regulations be ceased within all nations and corporations allowed to do as they please. For this reason, we ask the basic question: Does an involved party need to have a Free Market economy to enter into this pact?

A second concern of Vietnam, considering how, as already mentioned, we are still a rising economic power, is the limitation of certain industries to domestic corporations and interests for the reasons of national security or simply national prosperity. These limitations are achieved with tariffs and strict embargoes on foreign corporations representing these industries. How would these policies be affected by this new bloc?[/size]

[size=2]
This raises another concern of the Republic. You state that the market will be a free market, yet you also state that goods and services will move in and out of Pacific nations with "precision" and "means". Precision and means both entail control. If there is control over the market, it cannot be construed as free. Precision also entails command, that is, a command economy. The Republic would not be interested in a bloc which regulates which goods can flow in and out of our sphere based on from whom and where they are coming. Could you clarify?[/size]
[/quote]

I suppose after all is said & done this is a mixed market. Not fully Commanded by, but certainly supervised & regulated by a body of participants. Also, on the question of free market systems; the partnership would not force any market system on a partner nor is it required. Personally, I do not see why a nation could not maintain its own prefered system. This is economic partnership; far short of free market assimilation.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Bull Run

[Mergerberger II]

[quote name='Bull Run' date='02 May 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1272836536' post='2284177']
I suppose after all is said & done this is a mixed market. Not fully Commanded by, but certainly supervised & regulated by a body of participants. Also, on the question of free market systems; the partnership would not force any market system on a partner nor is it required. Personally, I do not see why a nation could not maintain its own prefered system. This is economic partnership; far short of free market assimilation.
[/quote]
The concern of limitations and bans on foreign corporations involved in industries that are considered to be nationalized and in control of a single company or group of sanctioned companies, all domestic, remains up in the air.

[Bull Run]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' date='02 May 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1272836825' post='2284180']
The concern of limitations and bans on foreign corporations involved in industries that are considered to be nationalized and in control of a single company or group of sanctioned companies, all domestic, remains up in the air.
[/quote]

Perhaps, then, an endevour that should most be saught by this agreement is Pacific self sustainability?

[Mergerberger II]

[quote name='Bull Run' date='02 May 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1272837298' post='2284187']
Perhaps, then, an endevour that should most be saught by this agreement is Pacific self sustainability?
[/quote]

I am unsure of what you mean.

[Bull Run]

Take for example the issue of a certain amount of reliance on foreign corporations involved in nationalized industries and in control of single or group of domestic & sanctioned companies. If Pacific nation partners' corporations could take the place of foreign companies in involvement in certain industries then bans or limitations would not threaten the economy of the nation in question.

[Mergerberger II]

[quote name='Bull Run' date='02 May 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1272838040' post='2284204']
Take for example the issue of a certain amount of reliance on foreign corporations involved in nationalized industries and in control of single or group of domestic & sanctioned companies. If Pacific nation partners' corporations could take the place of foreign companies in involvement in certain industries then bans or limitations would not threaten the economy of the nation in question.
[/quote]

They could absolutely, however, threaten the security of the nation in question. Vietnam only uses domestic manufacturers and sanctioned companies for its arms manufacturing and we are not trusting of just any company that can make a jeep. We are not willing to give our military designs and technology over to a foreign corporation that our government has not sanctioned, and currently there are none sanctioned and it is unlikely that any would be.

They also threaten the economy of the nation in question in that if these foreign corporations come into a new, fledgling nation and immediately buys out the competition in that nation, thus creating a monopoly over their goods and services in that nation, then it can economically strangle the brand new nation and the country of origin of that corporation can, potentially exhibit control over that nation.

Additionally, protectionism is, in my opinion, necessary with the current global economy in which many corporations, (using my own nation simply as an example) that could threaten the growth of domestic Vietnamese corporations. While it does not necessarily hurt the people of the nation in question, it does absolutely hurt the economy of that nation and the capacity of that nation to produce its own goods and compete on a global level in the future.