- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Wow, one person.
Do you believe that is the only time that has happened?
If the UN is the only option, or some global forum packed with third world dictators, then how come we negotiate out of it?
How about you give your alternative instead of just criticizing? Again, you offer no alternatives aside from leave without explaining how that would be better in solving the problems the UN cannot do now. Offering no viable alternatives is not a solution. I'll wait.
Awsome,then calculate this. Lets say you tear down the UN, and put up 2 40 story buildings on site, that area of midtown rent often goes for $5000+, in order to pay that rent and live in the city, you would need to make lets say $200,000 a year.
Okay... you do know that it's primarily office buildings around there no?
Which is going to bring in more revenue? people who drive to the un to work US tax free, or residential appartment skyscrapers which would add thousands of residents to ny and bring in tax and economic benefits.
Except your equation is lacking. Removing the UN removes, as I have calculated, over $300 million in spending. Tell me, replacing that with residential buildings, a mere two of them and causing office rents to decline significently in the area, how much is that going to bring in? You gave the counter argument, how about you do some math to show that such activity will bring in more than $300 million in spending along with increases in rent. I'll wait.
Put some effort into your posts.
The UN, is a drag on the city, the real estate is being wasted on the international house of dictators.
In your opinion. Which you have yet to substantiate with any calculations.
Good for you, you put the effort in but is was an incomplete picture. you speculated, wrongly I might add about what diplomats spend in the city
Show me how I was wrong about what diplomats spend in the city. Merely because you declare something wrong does not equate to being wrong. Where is your reasoning for why my calculations are wrong other than your belief that they are wrong which you have yet to substantiate. I'll wait.
and you failed to see the difference between having a building full of no tax paying freeloaders vs a residential housing skyscrapers that would eclipse any contribution the UN makes to the economy of ny.
No tax paying freeloaders? Tell me, what is the sale tax in NYC? Tell me, do foreign property owners get exempted from property taxes? As for your statement about residential housing skyscrappers, you again have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim. I provided basic spending and how that would add to the local economy. Where is your calculations showing that the residential housing would add more? You say it, but you don't show any math at all to even remotely back up such a claim. I'll wait.
Watch:
Cop out, you made a speculative calculation and excluded primary points to arrive at a poor conclusion.
Again, didn't have to change a single word to turn it around.
Answer, which would bring more to the economy of NYC, apartments there, or the UN?
Don't know. What I did was provide calculations for impact of UN spending in the city. I have nothing to compare it to aside from your insistence that residential would add more, yet I see absolutely nothing given by you to support such a position. So how can you assert that the apartments would add more when you have not done the math to calculate their economic activity?
All your argument is at this point is your desire to support your internal belief that the UN is bad economically with a desire not to do any work to show how such a belief is correct. I'm open to the notion that the apartments would be more then $300 million in activity, but as to date, you have not done an ounce of work to show that other than saying that they would. I'll wait.
So how about you back your claim up with something other than "I say so?"
You don't get how it works around here do you. When you live in NJ and work in ny, most of the time, you spend very little money in the city.
Since when did circumstantial evidence based on life histories count as empirical evidence?
So you're telling me that staff assigned to a diplomat who work long hours in the city don't spend their money in the city? That in the few hours they have outside of the city is where they spend the vast majority of their money? Really. Please provide evidence for this. I'll wait.
no, you just speculated how much they make. you have shown no evidence what they actually spend in the city, nor did you consider if the UN was the best value for the land.
Which is no different from what you are doing right now. Except based on research, my numbers are exceptionally lowballs:
Cato Handbook for Congress: The United Nations
That's for the 105 congress and based off of 1990s era data. The notion that a head diplomat gets paid much less than what the UN Secretary General got more then a decade ago is laughable.
And low and behold, $140,000 was the base pay of one of the Dutch diplomats at the UN, not the head one:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A1-D90U3QU84.html
Furthermore, I'm not even counting the actual UN Staff, just the foreign dignitaries entourages. So my bottom line number should be significently higher.
The burden of proof of cost falls on you. Not me. Stop trying to get me to do your homework. You claim that the UN costs more. Therefore it is your job to prove that they cost more than they bring in. You should be thanking me that I've given you base rates of spending to compare it to.
sorry man, doing math on the internetz doesn't mean much when you cant correlate it into the economy...
Better than your argument of "they cost more because I say so."
Put some effort into your posts for a change.