Subject:
|
Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:04:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
696 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > What payment scale would you set up to a 'better' United Nations so that all
> > countries would be represented fairly?
>
> Everyone pays whatever they want and then votes in direct proportion to how
> much they paid in order to decide what to do.
>
> So to implement the onion-vision all the US has to do is pay 51% (and that
> will work as long as the whole rest of the world doesn't stump up more money
> to outvote them)
>
> Set a minimum budget for the UN and if the UN budget drops below that, it
> goes out of business.
>
> OR everyone pays some amount as a minimum (per capita seems fair) and can't
> go below that
>
> or something... I'm brainstorming here, not advocating.
>
> The way it's set now is broken though.
It is broken--that much you convinced me (though it didn't take too long a
trip for me to see that...)
But, again, just brainstorming here...
Price per citizen, or any other scale of paying, tends to favour capitalist
societies ("western"), and poor countries would inherently not be able to
'ante up'.
It seems to me anyway, that financially 'poor' countries are the ones that
would most benefit from a "fixed" UN. Does America *need* the UN?
Aparently not. Does Haiti? I would imagine a little more.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
