No shortage of ambition at Turtle Bay
A bit of digging has turned up the latest outbreak of hot air from the UN, in which this time "The Economic and Social Council this afternoon held a general discussion on the reports of the Secretary-General on the role of the United Nations system in promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all". Source. After all, the UN has been so successful in giving us peace, love, understanding, slices of battenberg cake and so forth. Worse than the disconnect between the UN's aims and its inabilities to achieve anything are the statements from those making a grab for the megaphone.
And first up is Themina Janjua (Pakistan), 'speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China'. Pakistan, one might note "has weak trade freedom, financial freedom, property rights, and freedom from corruption. Imports are subject to a high average tariff rate and burdensome non-tariff barriers. The judicial system does not protect property rights effectively because of a serious case backlog, understaffed facilities, and poor overall security. Serious corruption taints the judiciary and civil service, making Pakistan one of the 20 most corrupt nations rated by the Index. Pakistan's financial market, though advanced for the region, is similarly constrained by regulation and bureaucracy". And Themina reckons "The developing countries had demonstrated dedication to implement their part of those commitments – to devise national development strategies, improve governance, and create a macroeconomic climate conducive for growth, trade and investment". Uh-huh.
Speaking in my name is Francisco Xavier Esteves (Portugal), 'speaking on behalf of the European Union': "Decent work was a key factor in improving the living and working conditions of millions of people, and could help poor people to improve those". Thanks Frankie, that was worth saying, wasn't it?
And Mohammed Sahib Majid (Iraq) must reckon that all is rosy in the gardens of Babylon, Fallujah, Basra and elsewhere as "It [is] time to mainstream and centralize the objectives of full and productive employment and decent work for all".
Tamara Kharashun of Belarus reckons "Liberal models had not always taken into account the need for social justice in a country. The solution to that problem should be multifaceted. In Belarus, the wage difference between the richest and the poorest was 1 to 5. The Government was paying attention to improving salaries. Belarus was bothered by the question of the politicization of providing aid. In the United Nations system and ILO efforts had to be made to provide unconditional assistance without discrimination". Belarus rates 145th for economic freedom by Freedom House's reckoning, and "Starting a business takes an average of 69 days, compared to the world average of 48 days. Entrepreneurship should be easier for maximum job creation. Obtaining a business license is difficult, and closing a business is very difficult. Burdensome regulations discourage private enterprises, leading small and medium-sized private companies to concentrate in retail and catering, where relatively low sunk costs prevent excessively high losses. The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business is limited by the national regulatory environment". Motes, beams, anyone?
I could go on, but instead will cut to the chase. Cuba....
"Economic growth in the last five years had only served to increase the wealth of the rich and the differences between developed and developing countries. Large multinational companies were duping the world. They were increasing poverty throughout the world".
Savour the implications of that statement: asymmetric economic growth is bad. In the same way, presumably, it is a bad thing if someone gets a pay rise and another person does not, as that increases 'inequality'. Who cares how big the cake so long as the slices are even? Perhaps Pedro Luis Pedroso
Speaking in my name is Francisco Xavier Esteves (Portugal), 'speaking on behalf of the European Union': "Decent work was a key factor in improving the living and working conditions of millions of people, and could help poor people to improve those". Thanks Frankie, that was worth saying, wasn't it?
And Mohammed Sahib Majid (Iraq) must reckon that all is rosy in the gardens of Babylon, Fallujah, Basra and elsewhere as "It [is] time to mainstream and centralize the objectives of full and productive employment and decent work for all".
Tamara Kharashun of Belarus reckons "Liberal models had not always taken into account the need for social justice in a country. The solution to that problem should be multifaceted. In Belarus, the wage difference between the richest and the poorest was 1 to 5. The Government was paying attention to improving salaries. Belarus was bothered by the question of the politicization of providing aid. In the United Nations system and ILO efforts had to be made to provide unconditional assistance without discrimination". Belarus rates 145th for economic freedom by Freedom House's reckoning, and "Starting a business takes an average of 69 days, compared to the world average of 48 days. Entrepreneurship should be easier for maximum job creation. Obtaining a business license is difficult, and closing a business is very difficult. Burdensome regulations discourage private enterprises, leading small and medium-sized private companies to concentrate in retail and catering, where relatively low sunk costs prevent excessively high losses. The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business is limited by the national regulatory environment". Motes, beams, anyone?
I could go on, but instead will cut to the chase. Cuba....
"Economic growth in the last five years had only served to increase the wealth of the rich and the differences between developed and developing countries. Large multinational companies were duping the world. They were increasing poverty throughout the world".
Savour the implications of that statement: asymmetric economic growth is bad. In the same way, presumably, it is a bad thing if someone gets a pay rise and another person does not, as that increases 'inequality'. Who cares how big the cake so long as the slices are even? Perhaps Pedro Luis Pedroso
Labels: Cant, United Nations
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 9:19 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
What did the Chinese have to say about economic liberalisation and poverty?
Ed - and your point is? I don't think the world has ever seen the economic and social mobility surge that we have seen over the last decade in India and China.
Someone in Croydonian's post, I cannot bear to read through the whole wadge again, "It [is] time to mainstream and centralize the objectives of full and productive employment and decent work for all".
Time to "mainstream" and "centralize objectives" and "full and productive employment and decent work" ('full and productive employment' isn't 'decent work'?) for all".
Anyone who doesn't understand that the United Nations is a one-worlder, Stalinesque outfit should have this tattooed onto their forehead.
I don't think the world has ever seen the economic and social mobility surge that we have seen over the last decade in India and China.
That is was my point. If we needed proof that capitalism raises the living standards of everyone, that proof is in China and India. Our socialists still don't understand it.
Sorry,Ed. I misunderstood your post. I completely agree with your point.
No sweat Verity, I am not very good at putting my point across succinctly...
» Post a Comment