Slashdot Mirror

Have any of the candidates suggested they will make any change to this graph:

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2006.png

Until that changes, nothing will.

We are the ones doing the dragging.

Not to belittle US assistance, but as a percentage of gross national income the US is way low on the scale. It's true that the absolute numbers that the US gives are very high (about twice as high as the next highest country), but it also helps to keep in mind that we aren't really sacrificing all that much in order to do it. About 0.17% of our GNI. Here's a page with some nice charts and numbers.

It's pretty common knowledge that the USA is both the largest source of foreign aid in terms of raw dollars and one of the smallest sources of foreign aid in terms of GDP.

What's less well known is that close to two-thirds of that aid go to Israel and Egypt for the the purpose of buying weapons.

These are such well known statistics that I'm surprised you're questioning them. The United States Government is, and has been for some time, the largest giver in absolute dollars of any nation in the world. There are tons of references to this online but here is one: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs Buried in that article is the knowledge that U.S. Citizens, outside the government, donate almost double what the Government does. No matter how you slice the numbers the United States through it's government and private citizens are the most generous givers in absolute terms of any nation and her citizens. Period.

The USA is by far the most generous nation regarding giving to the world's poor.

This meme is simply not true. Most developed countries donate more to the world outside their borders' poor both in government and private donations [1]. There are some studies that show private "aid" from the US as being some ridiculous multiple of government aid, but those studies invariably count things like immigrants sending money home to their family, and venture capital. As far as real aid goes, 90% of the money genuinely donated by generous Americans never makes it out of the country (other countries have welfare systems that take care of much of what US charities end up doing).

This simple logic can then be applied to the vampiric parade of entitlements currently sucking your wallet, and your future, dry.

Let's start with the defense budget. Say, maybe bringing it inline with the rest of the world.

The 2005 U.S. military budget was larger than that of the next 168 biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China.

And...

• While FY 2008 budget requests for US military spending are known, for most other countries, the most recent data is from 2005 (at time of writing). Using US spending at that time, we can compare US military spending with the rest of the world:
• The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
• The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
• The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
• It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.
• The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
• The six potential "enemies," Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

We're not the only country with our spending priorities skewed. Here's Global Spending Priorities in $U.S. Billions:

Military spending in the world - 780 Narcotics drugs in the world - 400 Alcoholic drinks in Europe - 105 Cigarettes in Europe - 50 Business entertainment in Japan - 35 Pet foods in Europe and the United States - 17 Basic health and nutrition - 13 Perfumes in Europe and the United States - 12 Reproductive health for all women - 12 Ice cream in Europe - 11 Water and sanitation for all - 9 Cosmetics in the United States - 8 Basic education for all - 6

Seems to me that with all this money being thrown at defense, we'd be a little better at providing said defense. Instead, we seem to be more interested in perpetuating a vaguely defined need. And what's up with "Basic Education" losing out to "Cosmetics", "Ice Cream", and "Perfume"? An educated world is a saner, safer world. To argue otherwise is to buy into a lie designed to keep you in your place. Let's stop being government's bitches and learn to think and act for ourselves.

College education is absurdly expensive right now, for any field, let alone going all the way to a medical degree. You might *think* that subsidizing such educations might be considered a good idea, something society should "invest" in, but apparently not...

Actually education is one area I do believe in subsidizing, just not how things are now. How I'd do it would be using public services. The military is a good example, but even then I'd still change the way it works. The way it is now someone enlisting has to sign up for Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) and have money deducted from their pay while in the military. What I'd do is for every year a person serviced, they'd have one year of college paid for. A person could enlist and serve one year then they could attend college one year, serve 4 years and get their bachelor's degree. Simply apply this to many other areas. Go to policy academy and work as a police officer one year then have a year of college paid for. Same for firemen. Another person could work as a teacher's assistant then have a year paid for.

And too bad about africa and the brain drain, perhaps they should work on rational nationalism and pride in nation and so on first.

That would be very difficult as African nations are artificially created lines on maps. Take Algeria. Algeria has two main groups, Arabs and Berbers. However there are different ethnic groups of Berbers, each with it's own customs. Or Nigeria. Nigeria is oil rich but out of different ethnic groups only a couple control the government and reap the benefits of the oil. In Botswana the Kalahari Bushmen have been forced off their ancestral homeland so diamonds could be mined.

This is just a beginning of an explanation of the problems in Africa, much of which comes from colonialism.

I honestly don't understand why people don't want to try and work and make their own nations/areas better, it is an alien concept to me.

Some do stay but it can be a real struggle for others to stay.

Let's only consider official US military spending, leaving off, say, war supplimentals, nuclear weapons (they're in the DOE), veterans benefits, interest on accumulated war debt, and so on. Percent of world GDP spent on military: 2.5%. Percent of US PPP GDP ($13.3 trillion) spent on the military (direct, official spending only: $548.9 billion): 4.1%. Percent of world military expenses from the US: 48%.

Let's fact check your other numbers, shall we? Note that we're using nominal GDP and nominal military expenditures.

China: GDP, 2.68 trillion. Official military budget, ~$30B. Some China hawks speculate as much as 70B, although if you're going to allow for that, you need to allow for all of the US's hidden expenditures as well. Either way, that's 1.1-2.6%.

Russia: GDP, $979B. Official military budget, $32B. 1.8%.

Saudi Arabia: GDP, $446B. Official military budget, 31.255B. 7.0%.

India: GDP, $1.0T. Official military budget, $32.35B. 3.2%.

Iran: GDP, $212.4B. Official military budget, $6.3B. 3.0%.

Greece: GDP, $356.258B. Official military budget, $7.648B. 2.1%.

Congo: GDP, $7.094B. Official military budget, $93.5M. 1.3% (perhaps your way-off numbers were including private spending on paramilitary forces?).

Singapore: GDP, $132.155B. Official military budget, $10.58B. 8.0%.

North Korea: GDP, ~$40B (est). Official military budget, $5.2174B (2002 est). 13%.

Now, these are your hand-picked nations. We've already covered the US, China, Russia, and India. Let's cover the other large economies of the world, shall we? Let's complete the top ten:

Japan: GDP, $4.366T. Official military budget, $44.3B. 1.0%.

Germany: GDP, $2.915T. Official military budget, $38.5B. 1.3%.

UK: GDP, $2.399T. Official military budget, $69.8B. 2.9%.

France: GDP, $2.252T. Official military budget, $65.0B. 2.9%.

Italy: GDP, $1.853T. Official military budget, $34B. 1.8%.

Canada: GDP, $1.275T. Official military budget, $17B. 1.3%.

Spain: GDP, $1.232T. Official military budget, $15.7B. 1.3%.

Brazil: GDP, $1.068T. Official military budget, $9.9B. 0.9%.

Remember, when looking at these numbers, that the US's % is 4.1%. We're half of the world's military expenditures with only a quarter of the world's economy and twentieth of it's people. These are the facts.

Or perhaps switching will cause things like ethanol generation to reach a critical mass where it's actually LESS expensive to use it than it would be to use oil. Go take an economics class, and learn that money != wealth. We won't be poorer unless we end up using a lot more energy to generate an alternative fuel than we do on oil. There's already a lot of investment in alternative solutions, as well as things like Canada's oil shale becoming worthwhile to mine for oil due to the price of oil, which will just increase our supply and stretch it further at current prices. You realize that oil is cheaper now (adjusted for inflation) than it was even in the 1970's, and even in the 1870's? We won't go through any kind of major wars or depression as oil prices increase, just like there was no depression or war when whale oil started dwindling in supply, even though it used to be absolutely vital to a number of industries. Alternatives are being invested in, and finding success in places like Brazil. Economies will shift around for sure, but I really doubt oil will cause any major wars. Rather, any more than it already does.

The only way to separate infrastructure from services that use it are laws though.

Hardly. I could go start a co-op right now that was arranged as I described. The only way to force everyone, everywhere to adopt such a structure involuntarily, of course, is to pass laws making it mandatory. If that's what you want then we'll simply have to agree that our goals are mutually exclusive, however much our preferences may be aligned.

You disagree with me with your first word, "Hardly". Then you agree when you say "The only way to force everyone, everywhere to adopt such a structure involuntarily, of course, is to pass laws making it mandatory."

a co-op is, by definition, limited by its forced equality.

There is no force other than legal involved in co-ops. I voluntarily joined two co-ops, nobody held a firearm to my head saying I had to join. Nor does anyone use one to force me to shop at either one either. Actually, I'd guess most people don't know about co-op or don't know one in their area. I'd heard of co-op more than 30 years ago but until I moved I didn't know of any or how they worked. I almost stumbled on the first one I joined. In a health food store, which didn't sell any health food, I asked where I could find a store that had a good selection of organic food. I went there liked what I saw and learned it was a co-op, then when I could I joined. From there I learned of others in the area, and joined a second one.

At any tyme if I don't like how either one is run there's nothing forcing me to remain a member, not only that but if I even decide to leave I will get a refund of my membership dues I paid when I joined. There's no force and no coercion involved.

at the same time it's hardly ideal for every member's investment to be limited to the least common denominator the way it is in a co-op

Though I have only limited experience I know of no co-op where people will monetarily invest more or less than others. All of the co-ops I know have the same membership dues for everyone. Everyone pays the same and everyone has the same vote.

There is also a basic principle in capitalism that the greatest profit results from fulfilling the most urgent needs. Its corollary is that, in general, those with the greatest accumulation of past profits (i.e. those with the most to invest) tend to make the most efficient decisions. Forcing an equal share in the decisions when the members have manifestly unequal decision-making abilities is hardly efficient.

As I state above there is no unequal decision making abilities in a co-op, now some may be more effective in persuading others but that's true in C and S corporations as well. Ineffective decision making also is found in these corporations. Chrysler had to be bailed out by the governmen tin the 1980s because of bad decision making, and corporations seek banruptcy for protection for the sane reason. Also another principle in capitalism is a voluntary exchange, which is exactly what a co-op is all about. Notice how "coop" is part of "cooperation" co-op members voluntarily agree to cooperate.

Oh, I want to touch on one other thing that's related, the Corporation. Originally a corporation was granted a charter with the requirement that it benefited and improved society, the public good, or to serve a public purpose in some way. Amount the first corporations chartered was the Dutch East India Company and the Honourable East India Company in 1602 and 1600 respectively. They were chartered because they served the purpose of improving society by encouraging international trade. Both of these corporations were shipping companies and where prior to corporat

"I'm sure most nations would prefer if the US just went back to their pre WWII isolationism"

OH RLY?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/world/main665329.shtml
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/index.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801640.html
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/008.html

Notice you didn't see a thread here encouraging people to ask Democrats [about taxes and Al Qaeda]

Well, this being a site whose demographic is more united in a concern with science than on an agreement about tax policy or foreign policy, no, you didn't.

I'm not a Democrat or running for President. (Yet...I've hit the age requirement, and looking at the current field of candidates, might just write myself in 2008.) But I'd love to hear such questions put to candidates.

Here's how I'd answer: well, sir, if you want to lower taxes, you have to lower spending. Now, given that Americans pay lower taxes than most nations of comparable economic development, I don't find the issue tops on my priority list; especially when we're talking about increasing taxes on the unearned income of the wealthy, whose share of the tax burden has fallen.

But as it happens, a tremendous amount of money is being wasted on American "defense" spending, especially in the Iraq occupation. (Not to mention American and Iraqi lives.) U.S. military spending makes up close to half of the world total, with the next tier of nations (the UK, France, Japan and China) with around 5% each. We could almost halve our military budget and still be outspending any other nation five to one! But talk about such spending cuts - which would enable significant tax cuts - and neoconservatives go apeshit. It's as if they view the military as America's penis and fear it shrinking. (I fear they've confused their rifles and their "guns".)

Meanwhile, they love to make a big fuss about cutting spending on welfare and social programs, which make up a very small amount of federal spending and wouldn't save the average American more than a few dollars a year.

Politicians love to lump "entitlements" all together, ignoring that the bulk of that is Social Security (third rail!) and that a large chunk is military retirement spending and VA benefits, which rightly should be counted under military spending. Actual welfare and social development spending is fairly small.

As for Al Qaeda, "retreating" is not a concept that applies to fighting criminals. The whole notion that a "war" can be fought against a criminal gang like Al Qaeda (which was not in Iraq before we fucked it up, and would fall apart there if we weren't recruiting for them with screwups like Abu Ghraib) is the root of the problem here.

What will happen if we pull out immediately? The same thing that will happen if we pull out next year, or in five years, or in twenty years - chaos. The question is whether we are smart enough to cut our losses.

In the game of go, there is a common strategic error (at least for beginners like me) where a player will try to save a group of stones with a "ladder", laying down more sones and trying to escape. But a knowledgable player will see the pattern develop, knows his pieces are doomed, and lets them fall rather than wasting even more resources to have them and even more fall.

Iraq is a quagmire; Cheney knew it thirteen years ago. The invasion was a stupid and criminal thing to do. Bush and company should be impeached for their crimes, and the U.S. (and U.K., which really bears the root responsbibility for screwing up the Middle East back to the British Mandate) should compensate the Iraqi people as best it can and get the hell out.

TFA says the goal of the project is nice, but cost is a big barrier. "A so-called hot rock well three miles deep in the United States would cost $7 million to $8 million, according to the MIT study. The average cost of drilling an oil well in the U.S. in 2004 was $1.44 million, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration."

Yea, so that's about six times more expensive. But wouldn't the savings be much more in the long run? And more "environmentally friendly"? After all, according to http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/ Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending US military spending was over $570 Billion in 2006. So why not spend, oh, say one percent of that figure to go towards coming up with clean energy?

Research needs funding. There is no entity that is as 'well funded' as a government of a developed country, the US in particular. Just consider the fact that more than 600 billion $ (that's 0.6 Tera-dollars or 60000000000000 US pennies!) are spent on the military this (and the coming) year and you'll see how powerful a government can really be and what potential it could have by simply collecting a few tax dollars here and there (for a unintentionally humorous take on what is being done with that kind of money check this page); compare that to charities or privately funded (even international) corporations and you'll see that (at least currently) they are peanuts by comparison.

A good emasure would be for example to see how much in % of the total world military expenditure the US spend (roughly 40% at 600+ billion dollar per year). Furthermore : global issue on US military spending
quote Linking military spending to the GDP is an argument frequently made by supporters of higher military budgets. Comparing military spending (or any other spending for that matter) to the GDP tells you how large a burden such spending puts on the US economy, but it tells you nothing about the burden a $440 billion military budget puts on U.S. taxpayers. Our economy may be able to bear higher military spending, but the question today is whether current military spending levels are necessary and whether these funds are going towards the proper priorities. Further, such comparisons are only made when the economy is healthy. It is unlikely that those arguing that military spending should be a certain portion of GDP would continue to make this case if the economy suddenly weakened, thus requiring dramatic cuts in the military.

I do not know if it is a fair arguing against GDP, but knowing that the US military has got 40% of the total world gross expenditure is scarry, for a nation which was not attacked in its territory by other nation in the last 100 years (I give you Pearl Harbor but one can argue that the mainland USA was not attacked after the Mexico US war), but which attacked many other country outside (Vietnam, Korea, the often forgotten Panama, Irak etc...).

money money money....money...
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/ Spending.asp

you don't have to denying evolution and global warming, just ignore it...

GP is of course wrong, I aint even gonna bother with a rebuttal for his unsubstantiated crap.

However if you want to take a look at the numbers then OECD is an excellent source. http://www.oecd.org/document/33/0,2340,en_2649_344 47_36661793_1_1_1_1,00.html

For a digest, http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp

You keep mentioning this East Timor, I never really paid to much attention to it because I didn't think the US was involved in it outside of not protesting it. You seem fixated on it so I brushed up a littlw and it seems that I'm once again correct. Wikipedia often gets rewriten to support one cause or another. So when I confirmed my position with the link you gave to the wiki as well as followed it to the same conclusion from other links in the site, I checked a few other placed too. It apears the the US didn't support anything at all. They just didn't object to it. You make it sound like we were directly behind it and ford was the most evil president until Bush.

I call BS. Ford and Kissinger encouraged or gave green light to Suharto to invade East Timor:

From the National Security Archives at George Washington University: Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East Timor, 1975: New Documents Detail Conversations with Suharto
Finally, according to the State Department, 90 percent of the weapons used in the invasion came from the United States. Two years later, as the atrocities in East Timor were reaching a peak, President Jimmy Carter authorized an addition $112 million in weapons sales to Indonesia.
Coverage of the fall of Suharto reveals with startling clarity the ideological biases and propaganda role of the mainstream media. Suharto was a ruthless dictator, a grand larcenist and a mass killer with as many victims as Cambodia's Pol Pot. But he served U.S. economic and geopolitical interests, was helped into power by Washington, and his dictatorial rule was warmly supported for 32 years by the U.S. economic and political establishment. The U.S. was still training the most repressive elements of Indonesia's security forces as Suharto's rule was collapsing in 1998, and the Clinton administration had established especially close relations with the dictator ("our kind of guy," according to a senior administration official quoted in the New York Times, 10/31/95).
But Suharto is a U.S. ally, and has conducted his atrocities with either the approval or the active participation of the U.S. government.
Despite the atrocities and numerous U.N. resolutions condemning the invasion and occupation, the U.S., Japan and a number of Western European countries continue to provide the invader with about $5 billion in annual economic assistance.
The Indonesian dictator (pdf) then raised the Timor issue, saying, "We want your understanding, if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action." Ford replied: "We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have."
Suharto needed Washington's go-ahead due to a 1958 agreement that prohibited Indonesia from using U.S.-origin weaponry, which made up 90 percent of Jakarta's arsenal at the time, except for "legitimate national self-defense." (2) For this reason Kissinger suggested that the invasion be framed as self-defense, thus circumventing any legal obstacles.
Ford, Kissinger and 1975
East Timor was ruled by Portugal for about 3 centuries. During World War II, thousands of East Timorese lost their lives helping Australia forces fight against the Japanese. East Timor was then invaded by Indonesia shortly after Portugal abruptly left, in 1975. This was the day after U.S. President Ford's visit to Indonesia, with what people have suspected as being a "green light" to invade. At that time, Indonesia had military, economic and politica

And what research was "Big Govt." funding? That's right kids, it was weapons research. Now what's "Big Govt." funding? Bread and circuses.

The freedom of the press is seriously threatened in Venezuela according to various journalism organizations and NGO's. According to the International Press Institute, the Inter-American Press Association and Human Rights Watch, the administration of President Hugo Chávez tightened its grip on the press in 2005, while groups close to the government, including the Bolivarian Circles, hampered journalists' ability to report. President Chávez's government introduced harsher penalties for libel, defamation and insult, which resulted in a growing number of journalists appearing before the courts. The National Assembly approved by a simple majority the controversial Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television, or gag law, which, in effect, makes the private radio and television system part of the state, which controls its schedules, programs and content.[54][55][56][57]
The freedom of the press is secured by two key clauses in Chávez' Constitution of Venezuela of 1999. The right to freedom of expression is set out in Article 57 and Article 58 of the Constitution. The right to express opinions freely without censorship (Article 57) and the right to reply (Article 58) are generally in line with international standards.

It's certainly of interest that the Human Rights Watch is concerned about this. Venezuela: Official Press Agency Distorts Human Rights Watch's Position:

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly stated that Venezuelans enjoy ample margins of freedom of expression. It has pointed out that the country's major newspapers and television channels are highly critical of or even opposed to the current government, and do not hesitate to express their views. Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch has also firmly opposed actions or legislation that might restrict this freedom.
In a letter sent to President Hugo Chávez on July 1, for instance, Human Rights Watch criticized the investigations opened by the Ministry of Infrastructure against RCTV, Globovisión, Televen and Venevisión. Such investigations, Human Rights Watch stated, could encourage a climate of self-censorship. In the same letter, Human Rights Watch also expressed its concern about the proposed television and radio law.

If I remain a little skeptical on this issue, it's because I need to know in a little more detail exactly the thrust of this law: "Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television". The idea of a government "seizing control of the airwaves" admittedly sounds really terrible... but then, the US government is already supposed to own the airwaves, and supposedly requires that the TV stations operate "in the public interest".

Also, you might want to consider this kind of information, when pondering the state of the Venezuelan news media:

Media, Propaganda and Venezuela:

Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez's economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela's own elite anti-Chavez media, which "controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president--if necessary by force."

• Former CIA Agent Affirms Possibility of Chavez's Assassination in Venezuela
• Venezuela's 'Anti-Bush' Fears Assassination
• Declassified CIA Documents Show United States Had Detailed Information Regarding The April 2002 Coup In Venezuela

• Media, Propaganda and Venezuela

Not only that, but we spend more than the next fifteen countries combined. The amount we spend on "defense" is astounding, especially as it relates to current threats and priorities in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Go here http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp and scroll down to the chart for Official Development Assistance and see what you find for the year 2005 in billions of dollars: ...

The USA gives out over double the amount of aid money than the next closest country. Yeah I can see why the world has contempt for us, we are such assholes and don't share any of the wealth right?

Let's have a look at that table again, and this time make it more REPRESENTATIVE, and talk about /per capita/ aid:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html

Of the five countries you listed, US comes 5th, not 1st:

1. France 26c per capita
2. United Kingdom, 25c
3. Germany, 21c
4. Japan, 20.4c
5. United States, 18c

So you know what? Yeah, get the fuck off your high horse.

As far as your comment about whoever has enough money for this fridge doesn't deserve that money you have no grounds to say that.

Go here http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp and scroll down to the chart for Official Development Assistance and see what you find for the year 2005 in billions of dollars:

1) USA 27,457
2) Japan 13,101
3) UK 10,754
4) France 10,059
5) Germany 9,915

From the comments you make I get the feeling you are one of those poor people that are jealous of people who have lots of money even though they worked their ass off for it compared to being lazy.

You know, I saw a refrigerator at Best Buy that has a TV and LCD control panel built in; it blew my mind, and it only costs 3.5 grand. Now, I like cool gadgets as much as the next guy, but I can't shake the feeling that whoever has the money to spend on a fridge like that (and not getting something industrial sized) probably doesn't deserve that much money to begin with -- give some of your money to UNICEF, don't buy a TV fridge.

It's my money, if I want to buy a TV fridge then I will buy a TV fridge. I could still give some money to some charities, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't splurge on some things. I have seen TVs in a lot of peoples kitchens, I don't have one myself but if I did want to add a TV to the kitchen this could be a great way to do it without having to worry about space issues.

As far as your comment about whoever has enough money for this fridge doesn't deserve that money you have no grounds to say that. If I worked my ass off to become successful enough to afford a TV fridge I damn well deserve to have that much money. From the comments you make I get the feeling you are one of those poor people that are jealous of people who have lots of money even though they worked their ass off for it compared to being lazy.

When I see this kind of wastefulness it really helps me understand why so much of the world has contempt for America -- the land of plenty!

Oh, like we don't give out billions and billions of aid already?

Go here http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp and scroll down to the chart for Official Development Assistance and see what you find for the year 2005 in billions of dollars:

1) USA 27,457
2) Japan 13,101
3) UK 10,754
4) France 10,059
5) Germany 9,915

The USA gives out over double the amount of aid money than the next closest country. Yeah I can see why the world has contempt for us, we are such assholes and don't share any of the wealth right?

a cellular phone may have many small parts consisting of over a dozen different types and colors of plastics. In a case like this, the resources it would take to separate the plastics far exceed their value

Ah but there's another reason to recycle cellphones, for the coltan in them. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a major source of coltan and the profits of mining it pay for the deaths of thousands. Much of the conflict in the Congo is a resource conflict.

Since the outbreak of fighting in August 1998

• * At least 3.3 million people, mostly women, children and the elderly, are estimated to have died because of the conflict, most from disease and starvation
• * More than 2.25 million people have been driven from their homes, many of them beyond the reach of humanitarian agencies.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp

This page has a bunch of charts with a bunch of data on it, not much of which is really clear as to a total aid picture. It does give snapshots of specific types of aid. (Most of it appears to deal with debt relief as opposed to humanitarian relief donations).

Wow, $311 billion. That's almost enough to pay for the U.S. Military Budget ($420 Billion). All the goverment has to do is spend as much as China on the Military ($62 Billion) and there's a savings of over what the (non)taxpayers are fleecing the government for.

Source: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/ Spending.asp

To still be blowing money on this dreamer nonsense when the national debt is approaching 9 *TRILLION* dollars is an embarrassment.

Spending on space science is chump change. If we want to reduce the debt, we need to stop spending seven times more on our military than any other nation on the planet. "Military" spending per capita for the U.S. is about $1,420 annually; NASA's budget is about $55.

"Bugger all"?

EIGHTY BILLION DOLLARS OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS is "bugger all?"

And that's not even COUNTING private funds originating in the U.S.

You have a very strange concept of "bugger all."

Cite for your figure?

I find $19,705 million for 2004 (cf France with $8,473 million).

source, found via

Remember that the idea of profit first is typically American, helping others is a cultural reflex shared by most EU countries, unlike the States...

A typical Euro-weenie stereotype. We give way more than you do.

While Adelman admits that "there are no complete figures for international private giving" she still says that Americans are "clearly the most generous on earth in public--but especially in private--giving".

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp#Sidenoteonprivatecontributions

.haeger

i see it's moderade flamebait now, good.

go read this AC http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.a sp

As an American citizen too, I think we can do better.

A: we give more foreign aid than any other country, but not per-capita or as a percentage of GDP.
B: a lot of those "gifts" include military aid. This aid does far more harm than good.
C: a lot of American foreign aid is required to be spent on American companies and contractors... basically all of our military aid, most of the aid we're sending to Iraq, the Saudi aid, etc.
D: most Americans couldn't point to Iran on a map. Very few of us travel the world, keep up with international news, or could describe any structure of government besides our own. Many can't even describe our own with any accuracy.
E: We elected a leader who claims that "I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."

The argument is analagous to how much money the United States gives to foreign aid. Many people would argue that since the United States gives more money than any other state, it is the most generous. However, when the amount donated is compared to GNP, the United states is very low (in 2004 we only gave .16% of our GNP to foreign aid). Compare this to states like Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Sweden that all give over .7% of their GNP to foreign aid. When was the last time you thought of these countries as being among the most generous?

check it out http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp

Yeah, like autochtonous economic development, something that first world nations have been fighting extremely hard for the past few decades. And guess what, food "aid" is in fact aid for the givers.

Windows was originally developed by Americans. Look where it has got us :)

But, seriously, it doesn't prove anything.

Businesses, don't browse the shelf to buy Indians, or Chineese. They buy resources with sufficient capabilities for a job.

Human resources are a product, like any other in a free market. Businesses "buy" these products because there is a value, or atleast a perceived value, derived from them. If a product is over qualified, then the cost may not be justifiable. I don't see anything shameful or unethical here.

Aside, about the colonisation topic, unfair globalisation can be termed "colonisation". Foreign governments are bullied/bribed into opening up their economies, while domestic markets are fiercely protected. Have you been reading up on the recent WTO developments?

>I wouldn't be suprised that there aren't a few former Spetznaz and other skilled former USSR special forces soldiers who are earning more than a few extra dollars as "technical consultants" helping Al Queso et al build better mouse traps that blow up Humvees...

Al-Q terrorists was trainded by CIA to fight Soviet army in Afghan War.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast /TerrorInUSA/Anatomy.asp
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/link scopy/RSblowback.html

Now U.S. troops in Iraq and Russian troops in Chechnya has problems with this Al-Q fighters.

>They now make several different (and suprising...) models, including one that has an IR seeker head (hint: Blackhawk Down).

RPG with IR seeker head does not exist.

>Much like how Russia is a US "ally" in the War On Terror (insert ominous music), yet is more than willing to sell (and help build) nuke stuff to Iran (hey, weren't they doing this with Iraq too?).

Where is Iraq nukes? Show us plz.

Wow there, I don't think the approximately three billion people who live their lives on under 2 dollars would agree with you on that. I do think that people who are living in extreme poverty should receive education, information, and the technology associated with them to permanently lift them out of poverty. Food and medicine alone can't do it. However, those three billion people really couldn't care less about surfing the 'net

These people really need such things as:

• Literacy
• Clean water
• Good governments - Many of the poorest countries have corrupt governments that do little but provide wealth for the rich and the military
• Women's rights - Women are often unable to say no to their husbands on sex. Among other things, that means more children and an increasing amount of overpopulation.
• Medicine & disease reduction - Yep, those are important too. It's really hard to get a job when you wasting away from AIDS or another one of those many pathogens out there.

That's only a short list of what needs must be met. More information is available at Poverty Facts and Stats.

resources are scarce

Are you serious ? An increasingly larger part of the economy is about services, digital goods, information, etc... things which by definition are not scarce, quite the contrary they are infinitely abundant. Even food is abundant, except that it's hoarded and over-consumed by a minority of the world population. The only really scarce resources are things like oil, minerals, and the environment itself.

The important thing is that fewer people loose under capitalism.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp and it's showing no sign of improvement, quite the contrary.

The government of the united states bails people out all the time, using bankruptcy protection.

But it can't do that systematically, or the economy would collapse.

As the number of skilled workers increase, overall productivity will increase

Except there is no correllation between productivity and employment. France has the highest per-worker productivity rate in the world, with a 10% unemployment rate which has been remaining constant for 3 decades now.

With more resources being produced, fewer people will go without resources

Then explain how come half of the world is starving, even though we already do produce enough food to feed everybody ?

I'm sorry but you're really parroting dated capitalist dogma here. The myth that the market self-equilibrates to an ideal position is proven wrong every day, even though proponents of the free market keep claiming that the reason is because governments interfere and that the markets should be even less regulated (just like communists kept claiming the reason communist countries were failing was because they weren't communist enough - it's just another form of dogma).

"The demand for cell phones and computer chips is helping fuel a bloody civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo."

Get over it the rest of the world has -never- liked us unless we were giving them foreign aid.

Just so everyone is on the same page, here are the relative numbers on how much foreign aid various countries give, in absolute dollars and as a percentage of GNP:

Chart

The West has actually over centuries taken way more out of Africa that it ever returned, and the trend is continuing to this day. The case can be made that European colonialist countries created a giant big mess in Africa over a long time period, and the effects of this are still being felt up to this day.

African countries' economy tend to have a large pre-industrial component. What they need most is a way to compete on the global market in a fair and equitable fashion. This means stopping farmers subsidies in Europe and the US.

Aid is not what they need most in fact (outside of disaster relief, like everywhere else in the world).