U.N. Sec-Gen: “Obama To Sign International Agreement To End Global Poverty”

a reply to: introvert

you believe you picked apart my argument?

So then the please show me how the UNs programs have worked so well?

What part of your position is skeptic. You are automatically rejecting it outright. My position aligns better with a skeptic view as at least I'm waiting to see what is proposed before I make a decision.

Yes, I dont buy it........because history has shown that when Obama is involved in something its seldom as he says it is ....Healthcare, Benghazi, Shutting down Gitmo, Negotiations with Iran in which they said they have come to an agreement when they actually STILL have not......

Theres a laundry list.....including failed UN policies.......

So yes I reject this proposal.......

But anyone with a lick of sense can look at the records.

Actually I did look at the records for the UN , and I am aware keenly of their activities through out the world, which is exactly why I came to that conclusion...

Its more surprising that anyone can look at them and think anything different.


Its like someone telling you the water is nice, and you scald your hand, a little later they tell you the same thing, you scald your hand again.........if you dont learn to stop putting your hand in the pot whose fault is that?

Last reply to you, because its futile, just as it has been in any other thread........

you dont debate you resort to petty personal attacks just like you use to do on your old ATS forum name

a reply to: boohoo

Since these options are currently available, why haven't the "Owners of Capital" stepped up and just done it already?

I guess we have a different take on economics. I don't understand how we can change an entire economic system without making incremental changes to the current system.

How can you implement a new system and then change what's wrong after the fact? Wouldn't it require us to do it the other way around?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

you believe you picked apart my argument?

I guess I should rephrase that. Your arguments fail on their own when you make absolute statements with no evidence to support it.

So then the please show me how the UNs programs have worked so well?

Remember, you said never. So all I have to provide is evidence of one working to debunk your claim.

The UN volunteer program has been very beneficial across the globe in not only teaching people the value of volunteering, but also addressing issues in places like Africa. Please take the time to read up. Link

Its more surprising that anyone can look at them and think anything different.

Of course, if you look at things with a political bias. You already came to a conclusion before you entered the debate. That's not very logical.

you dont debate you resort to petty personal attacks just like you use to do on your old ATS forum name

Just because I ask you to be accountable for what you say, that is a personal attack? I see.

Old ATS forum name? What are you talking about? I don't follow.

This sort of thing isn't going to benefit any of us. If you currently make much over the poverty line at all, you're going to get hit in the wallet pretty hard. Because I guarantee that they're not taking it out of the elite's pockets.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

you believe you picked apart my argument?

I guess I should rephrase that. Your arguments fail on their own when you make absolute statements with no evidence to support it.

So then the please show me how the UNs programs have worked so well?

Remember, you said never. So all I have to provide is evidence of one working to debunk your claim.

The UN volunteer program has been very beneficial across the globe in not only teaching people the value of volunteering, but also addressing issues in places like Africa. Please take the time to read up. Link

.

Stop being so pedantic and nitpicky. Instead of latching onto a word and hammering away at a narrow and specific meaning of it, realize that this is an informal board and people aren't going to speak extremely precisely all the time. The general idea of this person's statement is that the UN's intervention has a tendency to fail and fail pretty badly. Attack that instead of an imprecise statement.

This isn't a formal debate.

Sustainable Development is an integral part of Agenda 21. Sure it looks great, just like the TPP, to those who havn't looked beyond the headline talking points. The TPP is to help pave the way for this.

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

I do apologize. I am a literalist and take people's words for exactly what they mean. When MBTM said "NEVER", I took him for his word.

It's hard to have a productive discussion if we cannot take people for what they say and must read between the lines to find their true meaning. This being an informal internet forum, all we have are words to go by. We cannot assume intent or purpose behind those words unless we know more about the person.

The general idea of this person's statement is that the UN's intervention has a tendency to fail and fail pretty badly. Attack that instead of an imprecise statement.

Correct, but that is not what he said and when asked to justify that position with some sort of reasoning or evidence, the issue was deflected and the burden of proof was forced on to me. My entire point was to get him to justify his comments, and he could not.

So in all reality, even though I used his bad choice of words to make a point, the end goal was to address the issue of the UN and their success rate.

This isn't a formal debate.

Indeed. Perhaps if we treated it as if it were and our real reputations were on the line, we'd be more apt to bring to the table an informed opinion to debate, rather than uninformed generalizations that are anchored in political partisanship.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

We will have to wait and see what they come up with. It may be more of the same-ole, but we will find out soon enough.

Hopefully they work together to find better way to allocate resources to places that need it, and give control of certain resource-rich lands back to the people, instead of corporations who steal the land and sell the resources back to those people at a price they cannot afford.

There are many things that can be done, and I'm glad that we may begin that process. Again, we have to wait and see what happens.

I think this may involve decentralized and indigenous energy production in the global south. Stuff like this.

It has now been reported that Nigeria has signed a fresh Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Chicago-based infrastructure developer “New Generation Power,” and Washington, DC-based “Motir Seaspire,” which specialises in construction, infrastructure, and energy development.

As per the agreement, the two US companies will deliver 1,200 MW (1.2 GW) of utility-scale PV projects in Nigeria. The project amounts to $2 billion worth of investments. Not only would the project help to generate clean sustainable power, but it would also allow investment into energy infrastructure (transmission and distribution), lack of which has long been considered a major barrier.

Nigeria has huge untapped solar potential (not to mention fossil reserves), yet roughly 60% of Nigerians lack access to power. Once completed, the project is expected to deliver around 590,400 MWh/yr electricity – enough to power over 1 million Nigerian homes.

According to International Renewable Energy Agency, Africa’s renewable energy capacity is expected to quadruple to roughly 120 gigawatts (GW) by 2030 if investors can dedicate funds to the region.

Better access to more energy for things like water purification/desalination, schools and agriculture would lift a lot of people and nations out of poverty.

a reply to: JadeStar

Bingo! That is exactly the sort of program that I expect to come from the UN to help combat poverty, etc in this international agreement. From what I understand, it is a call for people of all UN charter nations to begin looking for ways to use technology and assets to assist in raising the living standards of poor nations.

It seems more logical. Or it could be a plan to take all of our wealth and enslave us in global socialism.

originally posted by: introvert
I don't understand how we can change an entire economic system without making incremental changes to the current system. How can you implement a new system and then change what's wrong after the fact? Wouldn't it require us to do it the other way around?

Due to the way our current economic system works, we CLEARLY have too many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the "owners of capital" to employ them for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization. No incremental changes are going to change this fact, the "Owners of Capital" can choose to either employ people on a large scale OR TO NOT. In the United States its clear the "owners of capital" have chosen TO NOT employ people on a large scale, prefering "tent cities" and "the jailing of homeless", INSTEAD of providing more section 8 housing and/or "make-work employment" arrangements.

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level. Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a DEFINITE reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those same high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. Government strong-arms this concept because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone whom is looking, that are able, qualified for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Basically due to the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it. That’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Note this will NOT be to the specific detriment of society, but as a means to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy, as the previously increased minimum education levels for employment. The real goal is decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time, but also not decreasing the supply of "potential workers" who's mere existance drive wages down for EVERYBODY. Keep in mind this cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. The reality is if everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs" suggest these days, we would ALL be making 0.25 cents a day. This is the strategy that will "End of Global Poverty".

The “owners of capital” have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and modern corporate labor, cost-cutting, strategies. These measures eventually will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers. Its easier to “pay less” or “nothing at all” to contracted or indentured “labor” when there is another willing laborer/slave, waiting in the wings, to do the work for less or nothing at all. In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS, the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or used flat out slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is that “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare.

The largest “recorded” wage increase to happen in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency, was after the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England.

But, how is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post the black-death-pandemic, still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables, more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare.

Here is some more history to consider from the 14th century, the Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". By 1381, the sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the "Statute of Labourers 1351". This statute was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages.

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

Think about that for a minute, the MARKET signaled that wages should have been higher, due to actual labor shortages caused by the Black Death, but the “owners of capital” still didn't want to pay it, so they wrote a law saying why they didn't have to conform to demands of the market. That's where we are today, a form of Neo-feudalism, driven by Fascist ideology and practices. Sadly a lot of people believe that events like the French revolution and the Peasants Revolt have had NO impact on the few freedoms that regular people do have today. MANY people today truly, especially Americans, believe its all unrelated stuff that has no bearing on their current circumstances.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JadeStar

Bingo! That is exactly the sort of program that I expect to come from the UN to help combat poverty, etc in this international agreement. From what I understand, it is a call for people of all UN charter nations to begin looking for ways to use technology and assets to assist in raising the living standards of poor nations.

Yes. The unsaid thing however may be that the reason the administration is on board is because they may see this as a way to counter the current and growing influence of China in developing infrastructure and resources in Africa.

It seems more logical. Or it could be a plan to take all of our wealth and enslave us in global socialism.

Well this *is* ATS. Where would we be without nefarious conspiracy theory?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: xuenchen

And how in the blue hell are they going to do that?


~Tenth

By cutting the pop by 7 billion. Kind of hard having poverty with only 500 million world wide.

in a last ditch effort to 'save' The western world system of finances/ credit/etc.

the IMF as the global bank-of-last-resort will be issuing SDRs (special drawing rights) to formerly sovereign nations...who sign Over their natural resources, mineral assets, oil... for these SDRs which will then be divvied out as 'credits' to each living person by their leadership--- thus poverty is negated in one swoop

the fly-in-the-ointment is the frivolous spending of these yearly 'credits' on crap like 5th generation cell phones instead of nutrition (get the drift of this grand experiment turned Sinister ?


in the course of things the Eastern World (China Russia) will be denied world hegemony of the financial sphere (gold & asset based money) as the West will propose a well clouded and disguised option to fiat money using the western world military might as leverage...

a reply to: xuenchen

Any time there is an 'International Agreement' I am against it unless it would be to ban all nuclear weapons. I don't remember electing anyone in the UN and I sure don't cede any power or liberty to them. The nutters in Washington DC are bad enough. I guarantee if the UN is involved this is bad for me and bad for America.

How much redistribution cost would it take to forever end poverty in India?

Because him ending poverty and Chicago and the US worked so well.

He is a joke.

I am completely embarrassed that I voted for him.

The U.N. has an exemplary record in financial management:


www.cato.org...



canadafreepress.com...


www.usatoday.com...





www.defenddemocracy.org...




Yep,all should give more money and power to the United Nations.

a reply to: Sunwolf

Here is another interesting light shone on their sorry record. Note the figure mentioned is "hundreds of billions"...

Yeah. Let's hit the tax payers up in developed countries for a globalized tax....you know, to "help" the UN cronies, I mean, poor underdevloped countries.

fee.org...

a reply to: St Udio

I read about this so call (Raping) I mean helping of poor nations before, a few years ago as just a plan before now becoming to fruition.

So this nothing more than getting the poor countries to sell their soul, give away their sovereignty and get in the pockets of big interest in the name of opening their doors to western capitalism in order to benefit their populations and their nations.

Can somebody point out how well is that approach is working for us in the US.?

How about working in the inequality and the separation of class in our own nation.

I'm curious, you all want to do nothing about the rigged system in place, just don't change anything? The system is geared towards the elite, wouldn't be moral to fix this? How would making the system more fair hurt you or anyone else?

We don't even know how they want to do this, but its automatically bad? Anything that changes this system is bad?