highsea

^^^ works for me, it will only make a marginally relevant body even less so.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

gunnut

I just read an interesting piece in my local paper the other day regarding UN membership.

Do you know what continent has the highest representation in the UN as a percentange of their world population? Africa.

Who has the lowest? Asia.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

astralis

that makes sense. after de-colonization, large sections of european colonies became new nations, although most africans were still tribal in outlook. this prevented the consolidation of states as occurred in europe or asia throughout the era of nationalism.

thus, more states, and thus, more representation in the 1-country, 1-vote system.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

northface

Wrong! In fact PPP has more meaning in the real world. I can buy better quality say capsicum 1 kg for 25 cents in India, i get that for 12 Dollars in NZ. I pay 1.5 USD for 5 green chilli's packed in a branded packet in reunion Island in the Indian ocean, i don't pay anything for that in India. PPP has certainly more value reflecting real economic condition than a market exchange based mechanism.

"Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_%28PPP%29

gunnut

PPP might give you the purchasing power of similar or interchangeable items, but the quality might still vary. For example, things are safer in the US than in some 3rd world nation. Build quality is generally higher. Equal build quality will jack up your price in general.

Here's another question. How much is gasoline in India? Let's convert income into the equivalent in gasoline and see who gets more.

Certain things are cheaper in the US. Certain things are cheaper in India. In general, we pay more for better quality from similar items.

Officer of Engineers

And you absolutely don't get it. It means SQUAT ALL in the international scheme of things. Ok, so you can get capsicum for 25 cents/kg in India. Does that mean that I as a Canadian when I come to your country expect to pay $12-$15 for it? Does that mean when you come to my country, you can only pay 25 cents for it? Try it and see just how long you can do business. Get it? The value of the money doesn't change. Not one bit.

Just because capsicum is 25 cents in India and $12 in Canada/NZ, PPP skews it so that it means your 25 cents is worth my $12. Does that make sense in the real world? Yeah, just try to buy $12 of Canadian goods with an Indian 25 cents.

PPP has its place. What exactly I will leave it to others more learned than I but to use it to keep score in a p!ssing contest? You're going to go broke real fast.

__________________
Chimo

northface

Gasoline is around 1 dollar a liter. Thats a bad examply you gave. Makes Saudi richer than US.

I travel a lot. I see quality. Vegetables and food for example is excellent quality in India and extremely cheap. But for the protection given to farmers in Europe of US we could export real good stuff. Thats a bone of contention in WTO negotiations. However even if we try not drifting from the topic it's obvious even using exchange rate based ecomnomy India would still be in the top 10 or so. More so this was not the case or reason why China came into the UN in the first place. It was economically worse than India even at that spell of time.

My point was how do you give an organization credibility if you leave out the only self made democracy in Asia and a sixth of humankind? It may be the 4th largest Army or the 4th or 9th biggest economy but that is also an aside.

It looks stupid to see a proliferating Maoist dictatorship with nukes to the hilt backing dictatorships from Myanmar to Pakistan and all over Asia sit in judgement over India in the UNSC. If I had my writ i would walk out of the UN. It's got no meaning for India really. You can get in Pakistan and Saudi as UNSC for that matter and run things.

northface

The value of money did change in your next para. You contradicted yourself brazenly.

troung

We should dilute our own power why?

Personally we should forget the G4 and add in Laos, El Salvador, Albania and Kryskistan. Just as silly; or maybe Cambodia, Liberia, Nepal and Cyprus. Most of the world is poor and disfunctional so lets better reflect it.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

gunnut

See how silly that is?

Stuff you grow is the same the world over. I'm talking about processed goods and manufactured goods. People in the industrialized world pay more for the same type of goods performing the same function as those in 3rd world, but these items are of higher quality.

China was placed on the security council with veto power because China was part of the big 5 victors in WW2. As the colonel said, that was the KMT China, not communist China. Communist China was recognized by the world in the 70s, I believe. That's when the security council seat and the veto power went from KMT to the commie China today.

UN has no credibility within the US. Only the euro-wannabes in the US actually think of the UN as something more legitimate in international affairs than my home owners association.

Now you know how we feel.

northface

Quoting a one off item is. But if you have to look at a whole gamut of items for maintaining a paticular standard of living then it's not so silly and possibly a better yardstick to judge SOL.

Oh please..China was not a great WW2 victor. Thats not the reason it's on the veto council. Indian soldiers who fought WW2 as a voluntary army though under Brits in North Africa, Burma, Flanders, Italy contributed very significantly to the defeat of the fascist war machine. Graves of tens of thousands of our soldiers are testimony to that effort in Western Europe and North Africa.

Yes that makes sense. The clique of the UNSC sits as P5 preventing countries like India having a say. It gives them sole rights to international prestige and power and a say to poke, nose and meddle in other peoples affairs. Thats the reason India would rightly never sign the NPT.

The G4 was an attempt to try and change the UNSC structure to make it more representative and democratic. It failed. But from here onwards the UN will become lesser and lesser relevent. Already slowly opinion is building in countries like India and Japan that being a part of this organization is moribund. Maybe we can try building another trans national organization with more credibility than the UN is. I'm sure the time will come for that or the UN has to reform. No choice either way.

Officer of Engineers

Oh get off your BS. You know absolutely crap.

China has done far more than India than WWII and suffered a hell of alot more. And truth be told, more countries did more than India. India did not win WWII by herself.

The Chinese faced off 75% of the IJA and half of Japan's Air Force and even after Nanking, they didn't give up. The Chinese have killed far more IJA soldiers than India and the Burma Road campaigns were won by Chinese blood. The Chinese have done their share, far, far, far more than India.

And if you want to compare, Canada has done far more than India in WWII. At less than 10% of your population, we've committed over a million men in uniform and 3rd (number of ships) or fourth (tonnage) largest navy in the world and we were the ones who won the Battle of the Atlantic. And while it can be said that without India, the Brits could not have won WWII, without Canada, the Brits would have lost WWII.

Tronic

How about this. China had no choice BUT to fight; they were being raped by the Japanese on mass. China was fighting for survival, not because they had any loyalties to the Allies. India however was commiting 2 million men to a war which was not even ours...

Its quite pointless to compare the two. Canada was giving full support willingly to the British. India was going through revolution, lack of support for Indian troops and still managed to commit 2 million troops to the British for WWII. Yes, more troops then Canada. India was a British colony under revolution, Canada was a seperate country. All India had was what the British allowed India to have. We gave what we could most give, i.e. huge manpower and plenty of resources.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Tronic

sir, I believe you have just answered that yourself below.

bingo.

sir again, most Indians will not come to Canada to buy their goods.

Yes, you coming from abroad will find goods much cheaper in India, but then again, you will still be paying tax as you tow them back to Canada.

Julie

OoE....what if you went to India....and say.....purchased a 7mm Mag REMINGTON or WINCHESTER?