The chances are that that readers won't like this idea, but I am presenting it in case you do, and also because the idea might trigger a further idea in someone's mind that would be better than mine. We could solve our economic conflicts and create permanent peace in the majority of the world if the major economic powers were to merge into a single nation.This could be a parliamentary system with a legislature of perhaps 1000 elected representatives. The breakdown might be 15% of the legislators for China, 15% for India, 15% for the UK, 15% for the US, and 40% divided among all other nations which wished to join in proportion to their populations with the smallest nations having a minimum of one legislator. The new government could have a fixed tax to work with, so that taxation wouldn't drift. The taxes might be a 5% wholesale sales tax and a 5% income tax on income above the per capita aggregate income. All old currencies would be merged into a single national currency
yeah gold and silver.. come on your theory will just end up like the federal reserve Jewish run one we have now, bankers will just screw it up again, by printing more, just too create a phony gdp for the world stockmarket, to bubble up to again.. same outcome as whats going on currently, a fake boom and reallity bust.
The bankers would be no more powerful than they are now. But at the same time, you and other Americans would have more allies if we merged with other nations. In addition, that really would be the end of major wars, because the major nations would all be merged. Now, I actually expect many people to not like the idea. However, is there any alternative you can think of that would work and have similar benefits? If enough people try to discover an adequate alternative, someone might come up with it. This is one of the ways creative thinking works. People keep trying to come up with alternative ideas until someone finds one.
Never going to happen. Economies are supposed to conflict. The idea that the UK would have the same representation as the US does give me a chuckle though. Apparently our one world government isn't even going to try to pretend to be a democracy.
Economics separates into two parts: exchange theory and conflict theory. Unfortunately conflict is exaggerated within capitalism.
One world government.... How about $1 a vote? What would relieve economic warfare would be universal tax rates and universal labour laws and universal environmental regulations with massive automatic penalties for cheaters.
Not a chance that will work. Total corruption, no accountability, massive bureaucracy. The UN on steroids.
That would be more than just 'kicking away the ladder', it would be burning it. You can't expect the same laws in developing countries. Minimum wages, for example, are required (on efficiency grounds) but will necessarily be lower. First moving Western countries are able to control their pollution because of the considerable additional resources available to them.
Not really because it won't negate civil conflict and ultimately every region has it's own circumstances which make integration incompatible. But to be fair it is a nice idea but people are always going to be people and expect that everyone will want it. Well that could lead to laws as well as acts which could exploit those constituencies with a smaller voting power by those with a greater share. I think that the most realistic version of your idea would be a loose federation of nations which convene to talk about international issues. But we already have that in the form of the UN. As for war being waged over economic benefit I don't think that's really the case any more as most of the worlds markets are easily accessible. However wars over ideology seem more likely.
Pretty sure the Chinese hatred for the Japanese has more to do with them invading and using Chinese prisoners as guinea pigs for the same human experimentation that Germany was vilified for, but for which Japan gets a free pass in cultural memory.
I am pretty sure it was because they were looking for biological and chemical weapons that they had wanted to unleash on the US with their sub-launched airplanes.
They? That is where you fall down. You have to refer to specific conflict. I'm referring to something more general. Its easy to refer to hatreds and try to blame those hatreds. However, they're typically a symptom. Its difficult to be bothered with nationalism, for example, when things are going so well
Without looking at any other part of the monster, I promise that this one world scheme would be the end of the CONUS. Hillary and friends might approve. I do not.
