Sonntag, März 12, 2006

What the parasites are plannng...

Right now, the UN listens to the US to the extent it does by the fact that the US pays the lion's share of the UN's budget. Without the US income, the UN would be bankrupt.

Now the UN, or more exactly that mass of parasites that live off the UN, is trying to break with this terrible burden.

They want to start taxing the world in order to finanace their current and future operations.

Let's see what they are thinking: they want to skim off a tiny, tiny amount from world currency transactions. Since the volume of international currency transactions is huge, trillions of dollars every day, we're talking about millions of dollars every day.

To do what?

Call it what they want to - "financing for development" is one term - it is nothing less than that the attempt to initiate what is euphimistically called a "global redistribution of wealth".

But what they really want - and the "they" is the 18 international organizations and the 60 NGOs that were at the Paris meeting linked to above - is to control this money.

Because by controlling it they can spend it where they see fit, manipulating aid for their own political purposes.

This is appalling: in the name of aid, corruption and political incompetence will be rewarded; there are no incentives for these people to end poverty by giving domestic economies a kick-start, but rather to institutionalize endemnic poverty by rewarding incompetence.

And they will be under no control whatsoever. That's the real problem: giving the UN, that paradigm of financial responsibility, massive amounts of money with fundamentally no controls over what they do with that money.

The beneficiaries? Groups which do not file financial statements and whose responsibility is, at best, tenuous.

They want taxation? Not without representation, not without control over what they do.

Which is the last thing these members of the "international community" want: these parasites don't want their hosts having a say about their existence. Which, given the degree that these folks seem to be dedicated to undermining international norms of behavior - rules of behavior between nation-states - means that if the hosts were to wake up, they'd be more than slightly inclined to eliminate the parasites.

So the parasites are planning on taking control away from the hosts.


Jay Denari hat gesagt…

Here's what a preliminary document on this effort said in June 2005:
"In the case of new taxes, the principle of “no taxation without representation” means that parliaments must have the ultimate decision-making authority."
"Lack of parliamentary consultation on development questions has led to a variety of problems, such as misallocation of resources, excessive indebtedness and poor accountability all around. The parliamentarians on the panel all felt that greater involvement in development decisions was required in future, and that innovative financing offered an opportunity to ensure that such involvement would take place." -- By context, they're clearly talking about INCREASING debate (and thereby oversight of development aid expenditures) in national legislatures.

That sounds like acknowledgment of national sovereignty to me, not an effort to undermine it.

John F. Opie hat gesagt…

Hi Jay -

But there is this from the same document:

"For other panellists, however, at least some new fiscal levies could be instituted without seeking a universal consensus. The best example of this is given by flight departure taxes; these can be implemented at the country level and can generate a fairly predictable and rich stream. For two panellists, some version or another of an international tax may be more appropriately explored as a possible backup to the IFF in the post-2015 period (when total development assistance is projected to be lower). One panellist recalled that cross-border capital flows of a speculative nature were greatly
destabilizing to national economies and called for greater international regulation."

That first sentence for me is the key one: taxation without consent.

Adding representation when the very basis for raising the tax is not legitimate: if anything, it underscores the parasitical nature of this group.

And if anything the link is an acknowledgement that the NGOs and the like don't have the kind of clout that they would like to and want to force parliaments to address this: sorry, why should they want to listen when the track record of the NGOs is, at least in significant part, significantlly compromised?

Wanting to do good isn't enough when the real exploiters hide amongst the do-gooders.

Jay Denari hat gesagt…

Hi, John,

without seeking a universal consensus.
Those countries that have so far accepted such taxes (UK, France, maybe a couple others) didn't do so by fiat. Their legislatures VOTED in favor of them.

If your primary concern is that there be a popular debate on this issue, I agree with you, but I have no major objections to global travelers paying a tiny amount to help ease global problems. Those fees are no less "unconsensual" than are the various fees OUR govt imposes on airfare, utility bills, etc. (Not that I particularly like those, but then I don't like knowing my taxes go to fund nuclear weapons either.)

Yes, there are people of ill will among the NGOs, but no more than in any other large organizations. Like any group, some of them need to be made more transparent, but some of them run quite well.

Without the NGOs and UN, what do we have left to solve problems? By the general gist of your blog, it seems you support corporations going in and doing these things. But we've often seen them cozying up to dictatorial regimes and claiming it's "just business." That's no more acceptable, and history shows that when big business or big govt throw their weight around without some social force to counterbalance them, the everyday people tend to get crushed in the aftermath.

Given our global communications, food supply, economics, environmental issues, etc, and the fact that several nations now have the capacity to obliterate civilization as we know it, we NEED a much better international system of problem-solving. I'm not sure how to go about it, but believe a UN that's more independent of the individual governments' largess is probably a step in the right direction.