RE: calling all economists...... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Justme696 -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 12:02:53 PM)

quote:


What is the European Union?
A unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries.
What are its aims?
Peace, prosperity and freedom for its 495 million citizens — in a fairer, safer world.
What results so far?
Frontier-free travel and trade, the euro (the single European currency), safer food and a greener environment, better living standards in poorer regions, joint action on crime and terror, cheaper phone calls and air travel, millions of opportunities to study abroad … and much more besides.
How does it work?
To make these things happen, EU countries set up bodies to run the EU and adopt its legislation. The main ones are:
  • the European Parliament (representing the people of Europe);
  • the Council of the European Union (representing national governments);
  • the European Commission (representing the common EU interest).


What about the future?
The EU is not perfect — it constantly has to be improved.



http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/whatdoes/index_en.htm

and for defence and external policy
http://europa.eu/pol/cfsp/overview_en.htm


and the rest of the time...we disagree with eachother and fight against Europe, because we afraid to loose our borders...and end in one big country.



caitlyn -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 12:24:33 PM)

I'm reasonably well informed and did read your chart, showing who is responsible for the total debt. In my view, it completely supports my opinion. I believe it would be hard to improve on Lady Ellen's last paragraph in her contribution to this thread.
 
But, you didn't answer the question - What is the only way the United States can be responsible for half the debt, by not paying dues?
 
As a side note, I wouldn't say I have an anti-UN stance. I have a feeling that in it's current form, it would be better for everyone if the United States wasn't a member. This is not to say that the United States should isolate itself ... far from it in fact. That case can only be made if the assumption is made that the United Nation is the sole interface between nations. I don't believe anyone can make that case with a straight face.
 
I would also say, that I'm anti-alliance in general. Historically, alliances tend to have a habit of turning small conflict in to larger affairs ... not always, but often. It's a simple risk/gain scenario. From the American perspective, we are quite able, militarily, politically and economically, to take care of ourself. We have no logical reason to belong to military, political, or economic alliances - a good bit of risk, with virtually no gain.
 
So, stop making this a pissing contest. People are entitled to their opinion ... and the thought that opinions you don't agree with are opinions of the ill-informed ... says more about you, than you really should be showing on a message board intended for the open exchange of ideas.



Justme696 -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 12:26:48 PM)

quote:

From the American perspective, we are quite able, militarily, politically and economically, to take care of ourself. We have no logical reason to belong to military, political, or economic alliances - a good bit of risk, with virtually no gain.


Because America is so big..the EU had to make a fist. But agree...when you are big..then their is no need for (well less need..that is an important difference) for alliances.
As in real life...friends can be handy.



caitlyn -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 12:37:18 PM)

I totally agree, but in what form are these friendships?
 
Take the relative disaster in Iraq for example. Clearly the nation was bent on war, no matter what. Was any agenda served by having American politicians go in front of the United Nations, and bold faced lying? How did that make Americans feel? How did it make all other members feel? Do we have good will now, or bad will?
 
It's bad enough to be lied to by your own leaders ... but at lease Americans can vote them out of office. What of everyone else ... kind of at our mercy, and that just makes no sense to me.

The problem is, when you contribute a lot, you want your way a lot. That just is, what it is. If the United Nations was a collection of equal nations, that might be worth the effort, but in it's current form, it is a collection of nations, and one giant, often infantile military powerhouse ... aggressive, spoiled, and so new at this superpower game, that fuckups are reasonably inevitable.
 
Now, the alternative ... had the United States gone it alone, as they were bent on doing, and not cluttered up the United Nations with it's epic mistruths ... perhaps the United Nations could have, as a collection of equal states, gotten together to do something about Darfur. 



Justme696 -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 12:44:04 PM)

I don't think the UN is very equal..if you are smal..then you have nothing to say..well less to say.
The security council has only 5 members (permanent ones). 3 from the West and 2 from the East (old enemies??)
So there is always disagreeing.
The other countries...are there in other councels and can be veto-ed all the time..if the big brothers slept badly.
I am not sure what the value is of the UN anymore..and last year if I am vcorrect the UN asked herself that too.

BEsides that I honestly think it is all about economics (Sometimes pity or fear of all people fleeing from africa to the rest of the world).
Money makes the world spin.



kittinSol -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 12:51:21 PM)

You are still not explaining why the United States should leave the UN except that 'you have that feeling'. Is that all? You are still not explaining why the United States isn't paying its contributions.

quote:



The UN provides the United States with an international forum where we can protect our national security, advance our foreign policy objectives, and promote American values. The United States, together with other like-minded nations, seeks to uphold the UN’s founding principles. We share a commitment to maintain international peace and security; to fight poverty through development; to eradicate pandemic diseases; and to advance freedom, human rights, and democracy. Our leadership in the UN is critical to making the world more secure, democratic and prosperous. At the same time, the United States is committed to ensuring good stewardship of UN resources so these American goals are met effectively and efficiently.

 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.html

Whilst acknowledging their use of the United Nations, the USA are simply picking and choosing and basically refusing to pay their membership to the gym. American internal politics get translated into international policies at UN level... it's a crab basket.

It's a little like you leaving the supermarket with a truckload full of stuff and refusing to pay for anything else than the bog roll. But because you're bigger than everybody else, you can.

Anyway, it doesn't look like your wish will come true any minute: I think politicians know full well it's in their interest to further popular distrust of the United Nations whilst actively taking part in its proceedings - and using its resources.



Raechard -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 1:12:29 PM)

Can't we all go back to what we had before 'The league of nations?' it was just as effective as the UN and still gave politicians a free holiday every so often?



Justme696 -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 1:14:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

Can't we all go back to what we had before 'The league of nations?' it was just as effective as the UN and still gave politicians a free holiday every so often?


It doesn't matter how you call something when the engine is the same
and they have free time enough :P



kittinSol -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 1:14:46 PM)

No, we can't [:D] . We all know who created the beast: it's undestructible [&:] .



caitlyn -> RE: calling all economists...... (5/16/2008 10:53:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You are still not explaining why the United States should leave the UN except that 'you have that feeling'. Is that all? You are still not explaining why the United States isn't paying its contributions. 

Whilst acknowledging their use of the United Nations, the USA are simply picking and choosing and basically refusing to pay their membership to the gym. American internal politics get translated into international policies at UN level... it's a crab basket.

It's a little like you leaving the supermarket with a truckload full of stuff and refusing to pay for anything else than the bog roll. But because you're bigger than everybody else, you can. 


There is no "feeling" to it kSol ... but let me help you out. Your paragraph two and three above, are the answer to your question in paragraph one.
 
Simply put, what it is the purpose to anyone, of having a country as part of a group, that is only going to abuse that group? International forum ... blah, blah, blah ... which part of "We are going to do what we fucking want anyway!", isn't clear at this point? Thats not to say that is right, which it clearly isn't ... but we live in the world that does exist, not the one we dream about when we sleep.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125