Part 3 – Taking A Hard Look At Obama’s Address To The UN General Assembly

So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration. Instead, we must work together to make sure the benefits of such integration are broadly shared, and that the disruptions — economic, political, and cultural — that are caused by integration are squarely addressed. This is not the place for a detailed policy blueprint, but let me offer in broad strokes those areas where I believe we must do better together.
United Nations http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/peacesecurity/ Over the decades, the UN has helped to end numerous conflicts, often through actions of the Security Council — the organ with primary responsibility, under the United Nations Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security.
UN Security Council http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/functions.shtml Functions and Powers
“Squarely Addressed?” Anyone think this sounds like a threat?  So what makes Obama so sure that his ‘BLUEPRINT” has to be followed? The tone of this paragraph is outrageous and spoken as if Obama was the head of the UN controlling all thinking and actions.

Blueprint Points

It starts with making the global economy work better for all people and not just for those at the top. While open markets, capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability to secure a decent wage. In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers.
UN  
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp2000_1.pdf 2000 Economic Globalization: Trends, Risks and Risk Prevention Gao Shangquan
Rutgers http://econweb.rutgers.edu/bordo/global.pdf The Globalization of International Financial Markets:What Can History Teach Us?* Michael D. Bordo “Globalization is viewed as the cause of many of the world’s problems as well as a panacea.
Unions need to be undermined frankly. Their efforts are needed to a small degree but the current trend is to rob the average member blind while those at the top enjoy the good life and practice socialism. Besides that they no longer represent those in local markets but have expanded globally to infect every country emerging from deep economic depression. Their demands are not realistic and their methods are strong-arm tactics which drive companies out of business.  Looks like Obama hasn’t paid attention to the realities of globalization.  Talk about too big to fail.  We have already seen how banking globalization can topple not just one but many countries. If you doubt that look at the World Bank and how countries have buckled under. Then speculate how so many in the financial and security field across the world have mysteriously died or committed suicide within the last five years.

In developing countries, labor organizations have often been suppressed, and the growth of the middle class has been held back by corruption and underinvestment. Mercantilist policies pursued by governments with export-driven models threaten to undermine the consensus that underpins global trade. And meanwhile, global capital is too often unaccountable — nearly $8 trillion stashed away in tax havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of effective oversight.  
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation http://www2.itif.org/2014-general-mercantilist-index.pdf The Global Mercantilist Index: A New Approach to Ranking Nations’ Trade Policies – “innovation mercantilist” versus “Global Mercantilist Index”
Looks like Obama poked a large stick at China in this paragraph.

A world in which one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable. I understand that the gaps between rich and poor are not new, but just as the child in a slum today can see the skyscraper nearby, technology now allows any person with a smartphone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast between their own lives and others. Expectations rise, then, faster than governments can deliver, and a pervasive sense of injustice undermine people’s faith in the system.  Pure Socialism by the book.

So how do we fix this imbalance? We cannot unwind integration any more than we can stuff technology back into a box. Nor can we look to failed models of the past. If we start resorting to trade wars, market distorting subsidies, beggar thy neighbor policies, an overreliance on natural resources instead of innovation — these approaches will make us poorer, collectively, and they are more like to lead to conflict. And the stark contrast between, say, the success of the Republic of Korea and the wasteland of North Korea shows that central, planned control of the economy is a dead-end. Obama sure knows how to ramble inanely.  First he wants a global system of governance now he says that a centralized governance using planned control is dead?  You can’t have it both ways.  Unless maybe you have a central control unit with overall guidance manual and then have continental divisions where a lesser mortal controls an entire area but is accountable to the central control unit, maybe.

But I do believe there’s another path — one that fuels growth and innovation, and offers the clearest route to individual opportunity and national success. It does not require succumbing to a soulless capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather recognizes that economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and poor, and growth is broadly based. And that means respecting the rights of workers so they can organize into independent unions and earn a living wage. It means investing in our people — their skills, their education, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business. It means strengthening the safety net that protects our people from hardship and allows them to take more risks — to look for a new job, or start a new venture.   OOHHH the old soulless capitalism skism  hmm.  Definitely overplayed and indicted himself on this one.  Then he replaces it with socialism.  Ain’t NO WAY this idiot should have been allowed to become president of a republic.  Azzwipes who voted for him –  he finally shows his colors and LOOK who you put in office.  Here is the royal OUR and WE again.  I am sure he had a stumble moment and really meant to say I and ME.

These are the policies that I’ve pursued here in the United States, and with clear results. American businesses have created now 15 million new jobs. After the recession, the top one percent of Americans were capturing more than 90 percent of income growth. But today, that’s down to about half. Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. And with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and basic research, I’m confident that such progress will continue.  Seriously?  Clear results?  Millions out of work, our debt ceiling raised and exploding through the roof like a volcano, fewer businesses, more businesses moving out of country, a failed healthcare system, open border mentality.  More people on social welfare programs.  More struggling to have a roof over their heads. He won’t be satisfied until he has our country looking more like Venezuela does now.  Riggggghhhhhhttt.  Results YOU were looking for maybe.

So just as I’ve pursued these measures here at home, so has the United States worked with many nations to curb the excesses of capitalism — not to punish wealth, but to prevent repeated crises that can destroy it. That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to create higher and clearer standards for banking and taxation — because a society that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot from within. That’s why we’ve pushed for transparency and cooperation in rooting out corruption, and tracking illicit dollars, because markets create more jobs when they’re fueled by hard work, and not the capacity to extort a bribe. That’s why we’ve worked to reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we’ve done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits are more broadly shared.  Excesses of capitalism?  You mean an upwardly mobile healthy economy?  Innovation and pride in supporting oneself.  Asks less from oligarchs?  You mean like the congress and your executive branch? Transparency?  If it gets any more transparent I will need x-ray glasses to read the bold print.

And just as we benefit by combatting inequality within our countries, I believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe. This is difficult politically. It’s difficult to spend on foreign assistance. But I do not believe this is charity. For the small fraction of what we spent at war in Iraq we could support institutions so that fragile states don’t collapse in the first place, and invest in emerging economies that become markets for our goods. It’s not just the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do.  Advanced Economics is a high level of gross domestic product per capita, as well as a very significant degree of industrialization.  Fancy words for BS. I do believe in giving countries support to grow.  Providing an education system and modeling good governance goes a long way to achieving without gross interference.  However, not every country or every group of people wants the same thing. It is what makes our world fascinating and special.  Utter conformity is simply complete control by one thought or mind. Who is to say that those in a country with fewer worries about gdp aren’t better off.  At least they aren’t ruined by the rat race and have a lot less stress factor. So why did Mr. Mogul here spend a lot of our tax dollars in the arms business? Support institutions? Which ones? Those that line the boards’ pockets or disseminate a lot of propaganda?  Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t the UN spends billions every year on this.  How well is their plans working?

And that’s why we need to follow through on our efforts to combat climate change. If we don’t act boldly, the bill that could come due will be mass migrations, and cities submerged and nations displaced, and food supplies decimated, and conflicts born of despair. The Paris Agreement gives us a framework to act, but only if we scale up our ambition. And there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement into force, and helping poorer countries leapfrog destructive forms of energy.  

So, for the wealthiest countries, a Green Climate Fund should only be the beginning. We need to invest in research and provide market incentives to develop new technologies, and then make these technologies accessible and affordable for poorer countries. And only then can we continue lifting all people up from poverty without condemning our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair.

Of Course, He just had to get this into the address.  Deliberately destroying dissenting careers and falsifying data is NOT about climate change but about control and greed.  I am all for reasonable husbanding of our environment and resources. I am definitely for preserving our most important needs like water, soil and plants.  I am NOT for those that impose their own tunnel vision views on everyone else.  There is a right and wrong way to consider all sides of an issue and make sure both have the best possible worlds.  Reintroduction of species to their home environments and education of their needs is a good example.  Why not build entire cities under glass domes or on elevated platforms so that they leave a smaller footprint.  Why not teach respect and other values which would hopefully lead to a better appreciation of both sides of an issue.  Why not coordinate and conserve but still maintain jobs.  Why not stop trying to manipulate nature and natural processes.  Earth is a living entity that could give a crap about a group of destructive humans.  Given a decade if all humans were erased, nature would find a way to correct or change living and non-living to conform to its agenda anyway. We with our base evil natures are the interloper.  Observing nature in a purely natural setting provides a lot of answers if any care to pay attention.

Part 3 of 7

–Uriel–

About Uriel

Retired educator and constitutionalist
Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Part 3 – Taking A Hard Look At Obama’s Address To The UN General Assembly

  1. upaces88 says:

    This man is Evil and truely deplorable!