Subject:
|
Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 20:42:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> <big snip>...
>
> > I'll stand by my assertion. The US is superior to the DPRK(2) by this
> > prosperity based metric. The DPRK system isn't working now and has no
> > prospects of working better in future. It's also superior to the DPRK by a
> > human rights metric. Therefore, to say that the US and the DPRK ought to be
> > equal (for example both having one vote on the UN HRC, or both having one
> > vote on how UN funds ought to be spent) strikes me as false. I found an op
> > ed yesterday (but can't find it now) arguing this very point...that based on
> > what is being decided, different countries ought to get different sized
> > votes... the one I like was a vote based on proportional contribution to the
> > UN budget.
>
> Uh, Lar, that may not be such a good idea - the US has a long history
> of failing to pay US dues. If the vote was based on current, true,
> paid-up dues, there would
> be many times when the US would have ZERO votes due to being in arrears.
>
> The idea makes sense to me, but with our past history, it wouldn't
> bode well for the US.
That's part of the original argument. If we don't get a vote unless we're
paid up, we (and other nations as well) will be falling all over ourselves
to pay up. ESPECIALLY if we get a 25% or so vote because of it.
I think there are a lot of possible schemes that could be considered that
are superior to "one country, one vote"... this is one of them. There are
others.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
79 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
