<p>and $7 Trillion.
and Decades (or more).
<a href=“http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article341967.ece[/url]”>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article341967.ece</a>
</p>
<p>so… who is ready to submit to the mighty control of the UN? I feel that nation-states have a lot of time left. The world isn’t ready for one global state. Look how much trouble the EU is having, and they only have a few members.</p>
<p>That’s a very interesting set of proposals. Wouldn’t it be fun to take a college course exploring those proposals?</p>
<p>I certainly see the value in the approach. For example, take the pollution issue. The hyper-growth industrialization of China is producing pollution at an enormous rate. This not only has an impact on the entire world, but it produces an economic inefficiency by artificially reducing the cost of production in China. The US and Japan could be much lower cost producers if we jettisoned our pollution controls, but we learned the serious long-term costs of that policy during our own unbridled industrial revolutions a century ago. Armed with that knowledge, it would indeed be preferable to prevent Love Canals and polluted watersheds before the fact rather than trying to remediate them afterwards. Preserving the environment is a very real economic cost of production (pay me now or pay me later) and one that really should be shared globally.</p>
<p>Similarly in the other areas, it is difficult to imagine discrete nation-states as being the only mechanism for managing a global economy where corporations operate in a largely borderless economy.</p>
<p>Offsetting some of the intriguing benefits of these proposals is the obvious problem that the UN (and many other pan-nation organizations) have proven to be highly corrupt, bureaucratic, and inefficient in their own right.</p>
<p>interesteddad</p>
<p>I think the theory behind a move like this would work (minus the corruption and inefficiency)… but practically, I don’t think it can happen.</p>