Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : GET THE U.S. OUT of The U.N NOW! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (25)	3/9/2002 2:21:34 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 411

"This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." Arms control advocates said the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously destabilize the world by encouraging other countries to believe that they, too, should develop weapons. "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon." More article... @ latimes.com

To: calgal who wrote (25)	3/15/2002 10:32:58 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 411

This is a good article , You can see just what they want, a one world government Keynes anticipated the need for the IMF and the World Bank, but not on the lines insisted upon by the Americans. "We need," he said in 1943, "a central institution, of a purely technical and non-political character, to aid and support other international institutions concerned with the planning and regulation of the world's economic life." Instead, as Skidelsky shows, the US Treasury was determined "to concentrate financial power in Washington". Keynes backed gifts as well as low-interest loans for countries recovering from war, or otherwise impoverished. His open-mindedness and generosity, as well as professional rigour, might have resolved the problems of indebted poor countries long ago. Changes towards the direction of Keynes are now being signalled. UN agencies such as the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development are promoting a much larger role for social policy. The World Bank's policies on structural adjustment and social funds have come under sustained criticism for deepening rather than alleviating poverty, and denuding governments of already threadbare public services. The implication is the need to restore or create large-scale, if "basic", public services. The United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef), especially, have exposed the weaknesses of the strategy of economic growth, privatisation and cuts in public expenditure whatever the social cost. The Washington consensus is being challenged. Even Joe Stiglitz, the chief economist at the World Bank, wanted to start a palace revolution and soften the bank's rigid strategy. He was forced out of office. Like global warming the message about global polarisation has become stark. Change soon or there will be disaster. For Britain and other countries, as for the powerful financial international agencies, there has to be a revival of Keynesian planning for modernised social insurance, more jobs in the public services, more redistribution and less privatisation in the economy. society.guardian.co.uk