Reputation

[August1991]

The UN rejected recently Canada's bid to become a UN Security Council member. This made me think of reputation. Not Canada's, but the UN's.

Many people around the world think the UN is good. For these people, the UN is a good institution and it has a good reputation. If the UN decides something, many people trust the judgment of the UN.

But is that true? Can one trust reputation?

Link

As they say, the person who steals your pension will not be a dirty thief on the street. She'll be well-dressed, clean and well-spoken.

----

This recent financial crisis (like so many before) is ultimately about information, and reputation. For example, private rating agencies made a declaration, and people believed it.

----

If you have a good reputation, why do you pay the price to maintain it? Why not "sell" your reputation? (In this calculation, do you think of your children since they will share your family name too?)

Edited October 15, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

The reason why reputation is so valuable, is that those with good reputations are reluctant to sell it. That's the way with any valuable commodity. You're referring to discussions we've had about the UN here, as well.

I'm all in favour of UN reform, but we can't even get the Canadian government on the right track with respect to financial accountability. Maybe we could start there.

[GostHacked]

If we don't fix our system first we will all be getting orders from the UN.

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe when we were kids back in the 70s..the UN was still some noble peace generating organization of idealism..not any more...they are just a huge useless cruel machine..that likes to observe and study genocide at their liesure as the members eat steak bought with comfortable expense accounts...

CANADA SHOULD BE PROUD TO BE REJECTED BY THIS NASTY NOW UN-HOLY GROUP OF WEIRDOS WHO WANT TO RUN THE WORLD BUT REALLY DO NOT LOVE IT OR CARE...

As I like to say..there is no EVIDENCE of the UN - accomplishing anything that is good for the world...as rapes - tortures and murder take place in African nations...the UN...stands by and watches hoping that the region will slowly depopulate it self..a real cruel and lazy approach to solving these problems..

The UN has no real authority....Canada has MORE respect and authority in the world than the UN...........

CANADA IS THE REAL UNITED NATIONS!

[August1991]

The reason why reputation is so valuable, is that those with good reputations are reluctant to sell it. That's the way with any valuable commodity.

We live in a world where it is easy to adopt a reputation. Why not sell it?

IOW, the UN has no value - just like the organizations (Greenpeace et al) who supposedly protect animals and children.

MH, the UN, PETA the Green Party have become Bernie Madoff. Madoff had clean shoes and appealed to people born in the 1930s. The UN had UNICEF and appeals to people born in the 1950s.

----

I am neither cynical nor indifferent. I am simply curious about reputation.

If I worked at the UN, or a financial rating agency, or if I were a politician, I can understand the temptation to benefit from the reputation of the institution.

As I say, the "most competent" thieves have clean shoes and speak well.

Edited October 17, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

We live in a world where it is easy to adopt a reputation. Why not sell it?

It's easy to adopt a bad reputation.

IOW, the UN has no value - just like the organizations (Greenpeace et al) who supposedly protect animals and children.

MH, the UN, PETA the Green Party have become Bernie Madoff. Madoff had clean shoes and appealed to people born in the 1930s. The UN had UNICEF and appeals to people born in the 1950s.

----

I am neither cynical nor indifferent. I am simply curious about reputation.

If I worked at the UN, or a financial rating agency, or if I were a politician, I can understand the temptation to benefit from the reputation of the institution.

As I say, the "most competent" thieves have clean shoes and speak well.

So you don't like the UN, what would you do with it ? How would you reform it ? Or would you just destroy it ?

[Timothy17]

It's easy to adopt a bad reputation.

So you don't like the UN, what would you do with it ? How would you reform it ? Or would you just destroy it ?

I think most people would agree the UN has lost a lot of its good reputation, hence being denied anything by or from the UN really doesn't bother people. The UN was framed with a Cold War brewing and legitimized by the threat of nuclear holocaust. Since the end of the Cold War, I think it has been trying to justify itself by picking up new causes, but in the process picked up some highly controversial ones and by further prioritizing those causes (to which for each its followers would, naturally, desire their cause to be at the top of the list) has miffed a lot of people.

Humanitarian agencies and charities don't need governmental authority, so it is hard to justify the UN purely for its charitable or humanitarian pursuits, as these alone don't constitute or require governmental powers.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Timothy17

[Michael Hardner]

Humanitarian agencies and charities don't need governmental authority, so it is hard to justify the UN purely for its charitable or humanitarian pursuits, as these alone don't constitute or require governmental powers.

True, but they need an organization. And the UN is still a framework for discussion. Would it be better to have nothing at all ?

[wyly]

I think most people would agree the UN has lost a lot of its good reputation, hence being denied anything by or from the UN really doesn't bother people. The UN was framed with a Cold War brewing and legitimized by the threat of nuclear holocaust. Since the end of the Cold War, I think it has been trying to justify itself by picking up new causes, but in the process picked up some highly controversial ones and by further prioritizing those causes (to which for each its followers would, naturally, desire their cause to be at the top of the list) has miffed a lot of people.

Humanitarian agencies and charities don't need governmental authority, so it is hard to justify the UN purely for its charitable or humanitarian pursuits, as these alone don't constitute or require governmental powers.

you sound like a parent who has lost authority over their kids, now that the kids are on their own standing up for their own viewpoints you don't like it ....

as long as it was the gang of 5 vetoing everything and telling all the smaller countries what to do and when to do it, it was a good organization, now they've stood up and said hey we tired of following your agenda and we have our own concerns as well, so now you don't like the new reality...

Edited October 17, 2010 by wyly