thedigger said:
The UN wants to run the world,the World Bank,which is predator organization,just like the Clinton Foundation.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...ratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation/
I agree that companies dodge their tax obligations to this country,by the way of these so called agreements,signed by our gov.
Take the TTP,we have not been told exactly what is in it,but sign it and you can find out in 4 years,no wonder Trumpy told them to stick it.
It was drawn up by corporations,the same ones that do not pay tax to this country.
The World Bank is and has always been part of the UN so far as I know. The UN is not trying a "takeover" - it was formed by the member nations of the UN.
Acronyms can be a pain - TTP?
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TTP
TPP? Trans-Pacific Partnership - there was no secret about it. America signed it but Trump did not like it (perhaps for valid reasons) and withdrew the USA's signature prior to it being ratified (it was never ratified but was replaced by the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP, which incorporates most of the provisions of the TPP and which there is no secret about either (I don't think it has been ratified yet). Here are some references listed on this article if you want to know what it is about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership
I notice that some of the Trump press, like Trump, talk about secrecy but that is "Fake News" for political purposes. Unfortunately politicians lie all the time, the media publishes it, and we tend to accept it as fact (who has time or understanding to read all these things)?
Again, I don't think internationals dodging tax is part of any signed agreement - it is a function of the USA preventing a system that records the flow of money between nations. If we knew where it was going (as originally proposed by the UN in 1948) we would not have the problem. However there are negotiations to try and prevent it (not easy) - it is largely a new problem of the electronic age.
There is no doubt that "globalisation" as we know it today has major problems - but it was not what was originally planned after WW2 (the USA prevented that and we got the present rather chaotic version where money flows invisibly around the world). It was not intended to interfere with trade within nations, simply to monitor money flow between nations. It is individual nations that apply tariffs (eg China on some of our imports) - the reverse of globalisation and not related to any interference by the UN. Nations are not going to stop trading with each other, so any change will mostly address such issues. Globalisation, both the 1948 version and now, is based on the premise that countries should focus on doing what they do best and trade with each other to get everything we need - Australia cannot economically produce cars like Japan can because our population is too small, Japan cannot produce iron ore as well as Australia because it has almost no iron ore, Greenland is not great at growing wheat and cattle ranching is not strong in Russia and Norway. The public's view of what globalisation is, is media-driven and very limited and focusses on the obvious problems with it, not with the fact that it is the way the world runs.
It needs to be kept in mind that the UN is not an autonomous organisation - it is simply somewhere for nations to talk together. The UN imposes nothing unilaterally, its decisions result from majority vote by its member nations (which are nearly all nations on Earth). So lambasting the UN is a bit purposeless, since it does not make its own decisions, the nations of the world make decisions in its forums. So blame them - blaming the UN gives them a cop-out (poliies happily blame "the UN" for these majority international decisions).
People forget after more than 70 years of no wars that the UN was designed to precvent further wars such as ww1 and ww2 that killed nearly 100 million people. The economic side such as the World Bank came from recognition that the rise of Hitler resulted from the 1930s depression and the reparations demanded from Germany after ww1, that drove it to near-starvation. So a different approach was taken with the UN, the German and Japanese economies were supported instead of destroyed after the war, nuclear war between Russia and America was averted and ultimately Eastern European countries became independent, starvation and disease were nearly made extinct throughout the world, and further depressions like the 1930s and 1890s were prevented. People have such sort memories. Now the USA and some others look like destroying the UN in the same way as the League of Nations was destroyed after ww1, largely because of a public and politicians with no understanding of history or the nature of the UN.
