World Politics

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Any thoughts about this European commitment to doubling aid as a proportion of GDP to 0.5%? Will there be any moves from the other G8 members to match this?

The thought is nice, but frankly I doubt we'll make it any time soon.

0,5% also sounds so terribly flimsy that you wonder why we 'give' so little, until you hear what amount of money that in reality is....

[Spock]

...compare it to ours and it's even smaller.

[Earniel]

Spock, are you talking about the percentage or the total amount?

If you're talking about the percentage, I'm curious. How much do you lot give?

If you're talking about the total amount of money, well duh, you probably have cities bigger than half my country.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

hmm, 10 times as many people live in new york compared to london, and new york's population is a tenth of the total population of uk, so new york's population accounts for 0.1% of the total globe!!

[Spock]

Total amount in dollars.

[Spock]

..it's just that "over there" is always criticizing us for what we give and we give tremendously from private and government. The fact that we're bigger, etc. doesn't mean we HAVE to give.

[Earniel]

Always, always... And always we get that sort of generalising...

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Always, always... And always we get that sort of generalising...

especially from the E.U. and other "friends".

I can't help it if we do give more and you think it is generalizing; it is a fact.
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion dollars.

so manipulating the data, something we learned in math class all those years ago, you can make a case for your argument; unfortunately the total facts wash it away.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Spock

so manipulating the data, something we learned in math class all those years ago, you can make a case for your argument; unfortunately the total facts wash it away.

Illogical, Mr Spock. By that token, one could argue that the rich should pay a lower rate of tax, because they're paying a larger total amount.

However, you do make an important point, in that people in all countries give a lot privately.

I doubt whether this is included in the proportion of GDP statistic. Bill Gates, for example, probably gives more as an individual to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation than many countries do in all types of aid.

My intention with the question was to discuss whether it is a good thing (this 0.5% target) whether it's likely to be achieved, and other issues. I didn't want to suggest "we're better than you", and it's slightly depressing that it was interpreted that way. Sometimes it seems that certain questions cannot be asked without being interpreted as an attack.

[Spock]

[QUOTE=The Gaffer]Illogical, Mr Spock. By that token, one could argue that the rich should pay a lower rate of tax, because they're paying a larger total amount.

It is not illogical, it is fact. Any math teacher worth his decimal points will tell you that.

An arbitrary figure for giving is moot when the existing giving already is as great as it is, IMO.

Attacking us is so routine, one sees it sometimes when it is not meant. If this is the case, I appologize.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Yet in a way Spock, you would expect America to pay more, because of it's larger population. If you took to collections, one with 100 people and another with 10, you'd expect the one from 100 people to have raised more.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Yet in a way Spock, you would expect America to pay more, because of it's larger population. If you took to collections, one with 100 people and another with 10, you'd expect the one from 100 people to have raised more.

This is exactly what I take issue with; you (generic usage)EXPECT. Did you ever stop to think what the world would be like if we didn't give or help? You can't help wonder why isolationism is having a recurrance here.

----------------------------------------------------
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent virture of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." - Sir Winston Churchill

[The Gaffer]

Quite.

Here's why I think it's a good idea:

1) By targeting a proportion of national income for aid we raise its profile in political discussions.

2) Rich countries are rich largely because of how they exploited the natural resources of the world as a whole, including developing countries. We have a moral duty to share it around.

3) We have a moral duty to help our fellow humans anyway.

4) There is good evidence that aid is most effective when it is channelled directly to developing countries' budgets. That in turn is most efficient and effective when it comes out of government budgets.

5) By funding aid from central taxation, donors are accountable to their population as whole for how it is spent, and not to interest groups.

[Spock]

Two, of several, terms that are overused by the p.c. crowd: "exploited" and "moral duty".

especially when it's applied to the USA

[The Gaffer]

I take your incessant snide remarks to indicate that you have nothing intelligent to contribute on the issue.

[Spock]

hold on, you're treading on thin ice, this isn't about you and your opinions it is about voicing opinions of everyone in the discussion.
It is not incessant to rebut that which is being discussed. It is not snide, which is defined as "malicious or derisive", to state facts and or one's opinion based upon life experience or facts.

[The Gaffer]

OK, your position is that it's the total amount that matters, not the percentage. (Or is it? You haven't actually said as such)

You have yet to explain why that should be so. I have explained why I think the percentage matters. I should also add that these people desperately need it.

You're the one who's on thin ice if you think

you EXPECT

and

Two, of several, terms that are overused by the p.c. crowd: "exploited" and "moral duty".

aren't snide remarks.

[Spock]

I think that aid should be a concern of all governments and not a function of the G-8 or whatever number they are up to now. Governments responsibility is to the people of their country -first- then they can parcel out aid. To put a percentage or a dollar amount on this because of any socialized wording, is wrong, IMO.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Spock

This is exactly what I take issue with; you (generic usage)EXPECT. Did you ever stop to think what the world would be like if we didn't give or help? You can't help wonder why isolationism is having a recurrance here.

Yes, I, and most other people, do expect America to give more in aid than say Britain, because of the larger population. Chrys posted earlier that New York has a tenth of the population of Britain, so America must have (this is a rough guess) about 10 times the population of Britain. Therefore, yes, I would expect America to give more in aid.

[Spock]

[QUOTE=Telcontar_Dunedain]Yes, I, and most other people, do expect America to give more in aid

see my post you refer to, there is no right to expect, only a hope or desire, yet peoples have come to expect and that is what I object to