user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : There should be no more summits
Mithrandir, what you say makes a lot of sense. Which, unfortunately, is why it'll never happen...
Voted : Other (please comment)
Teleconferencing makes more sense...unless concrete agreements are made and accords needs to be signed...immediately...
Something you should really understand. It is a lovely belief that everyone in the world deserves so much more, but it's interesting how little THOUGHT people who talk about it put into this theory.
First off, most of 86% people who are NOT represented by the G8 are living in countries that in some way or totally have contributed to their own conditions, and at any time anyone tries to do anything to help them, be it the United States, Britain, United Nations, or whoever, invariably the country trying to help is labeled the 'aggressor' and blamed for any conditions that follow, and people forget how bad things were before.
Secondly, you do realize how much you'd have to give up in order to 'share the wealth'? Oh it's a wonderful thought to think about everyone in the world living equally, but just who do you think is going to pay for this, who is going to have to sell their homes, give up most of their wages, give up their cars, etc? It's you, it's me, it's people who have computers and the internet and who live in countries who have worked hard to get where they are.
So don't put blame where it doesn't belong, and don't expect equality without looking at how much you yourself are going to lose beforehand.
Voted : Yes, the G8 summits should continue just as they are
Once again, Jappy speaks the truth and tells the reality of it all.
I disagree Jappy. Are you saying that the poor deserve to be poor - that ex-colonial powers are only doing the best for everyone and not just for themselves? I do not think that is the case and it sounds as if you want to blame the victim. To be more inclusive does not mean rich countries have to become poor. It means sharing technology for poorer countries to be able to work themselves up to levels where they can become more self-sustaining.
Voted : The summits should continue, but be more inclusive
The G8 should continue but with two more members: China and South Korea. These two nations are industrial giants and are thus extemely important to be included in this group. It would therefore be the G-10.
As for the idea of any such group being exclusive. Sorry but that is how politics has always worked. The most influential countries have always met up- they rarely ever all agree (so it's not about controlling the world, it's more about making sure the great powers keep peace between themselves and discuss how to keep the global economy stable).
So keep the group- just add two more members- China and South Korea- making it into a G-10.
audreyanne - You are wrong. The G8 doesn't set out to do that at all. Besides which there are plenty of first world nations that are not in the G8 (Austalia for example). The G8 is supposed to be the most influential industrialised nations so that these key nations can form a core group to discuss stabilisation of the world economy which is in everybody's interest that they do so. Including Laos as an equal to Japan for in such a matter for example is not realistic, and will make the goal of finding a common ground of stabilising the global economy. Again, consider that the Dutch are more advanced than the Russians, yet it is the Russians who are included because nonetheless they have more clout and influence overall. This group should be about those who have the biggest impact on the global stage as it is they who have the capability more so to make or break the global economy- and that is why it is they that are and should continue to be key to these meetings. Keep in mind that anyway, all the other countries will continue to have a voice through the United Nations, and possibly the World Trade Organisation. The G-8's raison d'etre is much more specific and takes into account global realities into the context of the world economy.
For this reason, I strongly believe China and South Korea should be let into what would then be called a G-10, as they are influential and heavily industrialised. I don't think India is all that industrialised in comparison, but if they become so in the future, then that is when they should be let in also.
Mithrandir- "If anything, I think discussions should include all the world players and include comprehensive reforms of the international financial system and its governance architecture, lift restrictions for access to technology for poorer countries and reduction of agricultural subsidies in rich ones."
- That already exists. It's called the WTO. The G-8 does not seek out to challenge the WTO, but rather they discuss issues to help each individual of the G-8 to consider offers, deals and assertions from everbody else when at the WTO, and possibly the UN as well.
All I'm sure of is that the world needs more G3 concerts.
Voted : Other (please comment)
Cut costs, video conference, etc
|
|
