obama- 0.7% of the GNP goes to the UN - Page 3

bub · 02-25-08, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

No, its not our job to police the world, remember?

you don't want to police the world?

then why do you attack the UN (0,7% of your GDP) and not your army (5%? 8% of your GDP??)

bub · 02-25-08, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

I'm sure everybody has heard the phrase, if you give a starving man a fish, you feed him for a meal. If you teach him how to fish, you feed him for life.

This is the direction I feel we need to take with regards to foreign aid.

then you should use your foreign aid to teach africans to use condoms, how to efficiently breed animals, how to save their environment (no over fishing, plant trees...)...instead of sending food.

WI Crippler · 02-25-08, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

then you should use your foreign aid to teach africans to use condoms, how to efficiently breed animals, how to save their environment (no over fishing, plant trees...)...instead of sending food.

Well I agree.

I just see no need to include the UN in this process.

bub · 02-25-08, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

Well I agree.

I just see no need to include the UN in this process.

if you can do that without the UN, good for you.

but the UN is not only designed to help third world countries, they also seek to promote peace, human rights...and for such matters, nations should be united (so that their interventions have more legitimacy: blue helmets in Lebanon or Kosovo are not killed by locals >< blackwater in Bagdad)

and I'd add that the USA are NOT contributing to the UN:

Quote:

The current operating budget is estimated at $4.19 billion[9] (refer to table for major contributors). Some member nations are overdue on their payments, most notably the United States.

United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

United States and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WI Crippler · 02-25-08, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

if you can do that without the UN, good for you.

but the UN is not only designed to help third world countries, they also seek to promote peace, human rights...and for such matters, nations should be united (so that their interventions have more legitimacy: blue helmets in Lebanon or Kosovo are not killed by locals >< blackwater in Bagdad)

Well we could do it without the UN.

The problem with the UN is that it cannot achieve those objectives of peace and human rights so long as they continue refuse to remove dictators from power.

bub · 02-25-08, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

Well we could do it without the UN.

The problem with the UN is that it cannot achieve those objectives of peace and human rights so long as they continue refuse to remove dictators from power.

yes thats a big problem (because of the 5 vetos: US, France, UK, URSS & China)

these vetos should be removed, but the 5 leader countries will refuse as they would loose power

WI Crippler · 02-25-08, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

yes thats a big problem (because of the 5 vetos: US, France, UK, URSS & China)

these vetos should be removed, but the 5 leader countries will refuse as they would loose power

Well, they'd all have to do it at the same time. Its like doing a shot of whiskey.

aegyptos · 03-01-08, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

yes thats a big problem (because of the 5 vetos: US, France, UK, URSS & China)

these vetos should be removed, but the 5 leader countries will refuse as they would loose power

Onteresting. Do you think a state such as Sudan or Monaco should have the same ability to influence events in the UN as great powers such as Russia, Great Britain or the United States? If so, under what theory of governance?

Monk-Eye · 03-02-08, 06:48 AM

"Anti-Federalism"

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

We have a per-capita GDP of over 40k. We are helping nations with per-capita GDPs of less than 1k.

You forget that this government was founded on republicanism, which at one time had a legitimate connotation beyond its current association with representative government and a puritanical degenerate political party.

The government was founded on the deontology of negative rights, noncoercive government, and directly apportioned taxation - libertarianism, voluntarism, individuality; rather than being founded on the consequentialism of positive rights, coercive government and indirectly apportioned taxation - insidious utilitarianism, bureaucratic collectivism, mob rules.

Centralized government is dangerous.
Anyone that adheres to it is an unprincipled deviant.

Monk-Eye · 03-02-08, 07:31 PM

"Fiat Currencies"

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

We have a per-capita GDP of over 40k. We are helping nations with per-capita GDPs of less than 1k.

I felt one more issue was worth mentioning.

Quote:

A purchasing power parity (link) exchange rate equalizes the purchasing power of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of goods.

There can be marked differences between PPP and market exchange rates.

This discrepancy has large implications; for instance, GDP per capita in the People's Republic of China is about US$1,800 while on a PPP basis it is about US$7,204.

In other words, PPP is the amount of a certain basket of basic goods which can be bought in the given country with the money it produces.

A Law of One Price (link) is applied so that, for example, an apple in all countries is equally expensive, otherwise the poorest countries would not be able to afford, or have access to staple commodities.