It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Steps towards globalization listed in today's independant news

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
don't know if this has been posted elsewhere, but seems like a very important 'announcement'..take what you will from it...



TextThe most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today.


news.independent.co.uk...




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   


The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world where financial markets have to be harnessed rather than simply condemned.

In a groundbreaking move, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) has drawn up a visionary proposal that has been endorsed by a range of figures including Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate.
...
"One of the most important areas of failure is the environment. Without government intervention, firms and households have no incentive to limit their pollution." He said a global public finance system would force countries to acknowledge the external damage their policies had, "the most important being global climate change".
...
But - and the UN admits it is a big "but" - the US would have to sign up to Kyoto and carbon trading to achieve the $3.64trn that it believes the system would deliver over time
...
The UNDP says rich countries should build on this and go further. It proposes six schemes to harness the power of the markets:

* Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through pollution permit trading; net gain $3.64trn.

* Cutting poor countries' borrowing costs by securing the debts against the income from stable parts of their economies; net gain $2.90trn.

* Reducing government debt costs by linking payments to the country's economic output; net gain $600bn.

* An enlarged version of the vaccine scheme; net gain (including benefits of lower mortality) $47bn.

* Using the vast flow of money from migrants back to their home country to guarantee; net gain $31bn.

* Aid agencies underwriting loans to market investors to lower interest rates; net gain $22bn.
...
[Andrew Simms, director of the New Economics Foundation] "Our view is that you have to cap pollution, allocate permits and then you can trade. But it depends on how it is set up. Because you are dealing with a global commons of the atmosphere, the danger is that you could be effectively dealing in stolen goods." He said a system set up now to trade in pollution permits could end up permanently depriving poor countries that joined the system further down the road.


This is, well, this is definately an idea. Further, it has the support of some of the most prominent economic minds out there. To be honest, I am all for this concept. Simple endorsement won't nessesarily sway the vote of the men in power, however. The US is barely mentioned in this article, with the exception of the explicit quote above. Essentially, this will be asking the most powerful industrial nations to make sacrifices for the common good. Sound reasonable?
The problem occurs because this is not "The common US good", or "The Common Chinese Good" or "The Common German Good", ad naeseum. The idea of a nation state is ready to be swept by the wayside as our population and interconnectivity increases in the future. The physical nation-state is still alive and will not go down without a fight, I believe.
In any case, some people may spout off about the NWO taking charge, given that this is an initiative by the UN Development Programme. So what? if living in a world with less pollution, more equality, and a vast reduction in hunger and disease is what the NWO will bring, why not?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I'll chime in on this one............

The UN has all the answers here alright.......they just don't know the questions.......(or they do but are hiding them from you and I)

You can't throw money at the World's problems here and solve them..........and I certainly wouldn't want the UN to be the arbitrator of such funding when you consider the various corrupt dictators and governments they have as members speaking on behalf of human rights...........

The problem is overpopulation............too many people and not enough Earth to sustain them..............

The real answer is for 80% of all peoples to volunteer to stop procreating............and that will never happen..........

If it did we could have a population (500 million to a one billion max) on this planet that could enjoy a quality of life similar to the US without destroying our biosphere.......

......but it will never happen............

and more importantly.................the more you concentrate money and/or power the more exposed you are to abuse and oppression from the core of that centralization................

The UN says nation/states are obsolete??

Well then.........whose do they think is going to act as checks and balances on holding the UN accountable to any potential abuse??

Look folks................humans have not evolved past their lower brain stem functions of ritual, superstition, greed, fear, power and abuse yet to create a utopian one world society..........and no humans are capable of such pure impartical alturistic intentions to think that such concentration of authority, power and money will not corrupt them.........

I don't trust the UN any further than I could throw their headquarters into the Alantic Ocean...........

Besides..........the international bankers and their central banking cartels are the real enemies of the world's ills......they along with transnational corporations whose charters maximize profits and externalize costs without any consideration to society, national security, the environment or human dignity in general........they are the problem.......

.....its not the nation states.........they are just the puppets to the bankers/transnational corporations........

If I could make a perfect world it would be nation/states that only produce money supplies backed by an intrinsic value (ie gold, silver etc) with corporate charters and central banking organzations accountable to the nation they hold office or desolved into regional and local business and money supplies..................a "managed" captialistic free society so to speak.....couple that with a reduction through minimizing procreation (not abortion/not genocide but true controlled steralization) of all peoples in equal percentages of races and cultures to more manageable populations so that everyone can enjoy life would be the goal...................but its impossible...........

as a result we will either destroy ourselves first or end up with a world society alright......

.....one like 1984.............



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I was about to set this forum up my self.
The perspective would have been on Bible prophecy and the 7 year peace process propossed by the anti-Christ.

So much has been happening that seems to lead to Bible prophecy that this 7 trillion propersition is something that sounds very prophectic. It may take 20 years as it seems but thats the time I personally reckon it will take for Bible prophecy to start appearing obvious to the believers and maybe awaken those who never believed. But this is my current opinion and would expect Bible Prophecy sites to have caught on also. Yes greate idea I want world peace also but don't be fooled. It may require getting rid of a few millions of people in the process.

Anyway carry on people, not sure under which folder or section thisa story is in.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by futuretense

You can't throw money at the World's problems here and solve them..........and I certainly wouldn't want the UN to be the arbitrator of such funding when you consider the various corrupt dictators and governments they have as members speaking on behalf of human rights

I suspect you're talking about Venezuala here, right? With that I agree with you. The UN is not the ideal of rightousness and morality. That said, it is the most important forum we have for international appeals and diplomacy. The problem is that the world doesn not hold the UN to account. The negotiatiors that go into the chamber do not always represent the true needs of their countrymen and women.



The UN says nation/states are obsolete??

Well then, whose do they think is going to act as checks and balances on holding the UN accountable to any potential abuse??
....
Besides,the international bankers and their central banking cartels are the real enemies of the world's ills.they along with transnational corporations whose charters maximize profits and externalize costs without any consideration to society, national security, the environment or human dignity in general.they are the problem

its not the nation states, they are just the puppets to the bankers/transnational corporations


So, the nation states are not obselete, and they are supposed to keep the UN in check from commiting abuses. But the nation states are puppets to the transnational corporations? If the corrupted keep the corrupted in check, what hope do we, the people have? You certainly draw a bleak picture.
You also say that humanity has not evolved past our baser instincts. While there is some truth to that, we have fortunately arrived to the day with our survival instinct intact. That is to say, we are a bitter and quarreling society that wil do what is nessesary to survive another day. When we are presented with a problem that is greater than ourselves, say global warming or pandemics, we will unite (in some cases very loosely) towards eliminating the threat to our very continuity. Just what I think.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I was reading this thing, and the first two things I could think was this is true Globalisation with a bit of NWO mixed in.

Wow


I hope they can erradicate povity, but if that only cost 7b, it would have already been done.. right?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Umm... the same UN that ran those child sex-slave smuggling rings? The same UN that was led by a SS officer at one point? The same UN that is very much for gun control? The same UN that wanted control of the internet?

I mean, Jesus H. Christ, this is the worst idea I've ever heard of, especially when coming from these guys.

Who is going to keep a world government in check, when there's basicly one organization in control of everything?

Should power really be centralized into this one government? Since when has centralization of political power been good?

Ever seen Lord of The Rings? Ever wonder why there were originally 19 rings, untill 'Sauron' unified them into one? Ever wonder why not even that little innocent hobbit 'Frodo' can't resist the power of the ring, if he looks at it long enough?

Can this much power, absolute power, be handed down to a human, or even a group of humans? Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely, as we've heard many times before.

What if this world government goes totalitarian? Who is going to stop it? Especially with all the technology available today?

The Communists back in the day in Russia said their system would end all inequality, poverty, give food to everyone and everything would be great. They offered this utopia which didn't exist.
What makes the UN's utopia any diffrent? Are they really going to give all that money or will they just f us over?
The simple fact is that utopias don't exist.


Sorry but I think this is a bad idea.

[edit on 31/1/2006 by SwearBear]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SwearBear
Umm... the same UN that ran those child sex-slave smuggling rings? The same UN that was led by a SS officer at one point? The same UN that is very much for gun control? The same UN that wanted control of the internet?

I mean, Jesus H. Christ, this is the worst idea I've ever heard of, especially when coming from these guys.

Who is going to keep a world government in check, when there's basicly one organization in control of everything?

Should power really be centralized into this one government? Since when has centralization of political power been good?

Ever seen Lord of The Rings? Ever wonder why there were originally 19 rings, untill 'Sauron' unified them into one? Ever wonder why not even that little innocent hobbit 'Frodo' can't resist the power of the ring, if he looks at it long enough?

Can this much power, absolute power, be handed down to a human, or even a group of humans? Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely, as we've heard many times before.

What if this world government goes totalitarian? Who is going to stop it? Especially with all the technology available today?

The Communists back in the day in Russia said their system would end all inequality, poverty, give food to everyone and everything would be great. They offered this utopia which didn't exist.
What makes the UN's utopia any diffrent? Are they really going to give all that money or will they just f us over?
The simple fact is that utopias don't exist.


Sorry but I think this is a bad idea.

[edit on 31/1/2006 by SwearBear]


I don't think you have to apologize, I'd also say it's a bad idea...of course it's made to appear useful....and I'm not saying it actually isn't...but this centralized power keeps getting closer and closer...not to be afraid..but we gotta come together if this is gonna be made




top topics



 
0

log in

join