Fair enough, it wasn't him, but Roberto Micheletti got denied.
Wow, one person.
So no forum to air grievances, no global forum to publicly coordinate actions, no global forum to publicly raise money for military actions, nothing. Tell me how that is better. Explain to me how having no forum like the UN is a better outcome. I'll wait. Or maybe I won't.
If the UN is the only option, or some global forum packed with third world dictators, then how come we negotiate out of it?
Seriously, the league of nations was a failure, so is the UN, somehow we survive in spite of them.
What costs, your unconfirmed speculation?
It's real easy to calculate wages, spending and multipliers. Now it is your job to prove that the costs of hosting them are more. You argue that it is a net loss for NYC to have the UN building there. I gave spending multipliers which come out to over $300 million as well as increasing office space rents. It is your job to provide the costs.
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.
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.
The UN, is a drag on the city, the real estate is being wasted on the international house of dictators.
Relevancy? You argued that it is a net loss, that it costs the city more in economic activity then it provides. You should at least be able to speculate and give some tabulations as to how you came to such a conclusion. I was willing to put the effort in. Why won't you reciprocate? If you really believe the UN costs more then it gives out, then you should be able to at least provide basic costs to the city.
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, 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.
Watch: you speculated, sure. if you have anything concrete, id be interested in seeing it.
I did not need to change a single word in that (but I should have corrected your grammar) to turn that against your own argument.
I gave some tentative math. How about you do some of the same?
cop out, you made a speculative calculation and excluded primary points to arrive at a poor conclusion.
Answer, which would bring more to the economy of NYC, apartments there, or the UN?
Except that you asked me to remove the diplomats and staff who do not live in NYC. If I did that, I would be removing their spending and its associated multipliers, thus I would be computing a final number as if they did not spend any money in the city. So do you still believe you never said they didn't when you asked me to remove them from the spending calculations?
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....
I already did. I gave you conservative pay scales for staff and diplomats, took out taxes and savings and then ran a multiplier. I then did a realistic pay scale and staff levels and redid the numbers. Thus, I quantifies the actual impact that 2,688 people have as well as multiplier effects. I have done exactly what you asked for. Please review the thread before asking for things that have already been given to you.
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.
sorry man, doing math on the internetz doesn't mean much when you cant correlate it into the economy...