Thursday, December 30, 2004
Stingy?
UPDATE: I'm happy to say that I can now eat my words. The US upped its pledge to $350 million. Read the story here. I'm sure the world is grateful!
***
The US, the richest country in the world, has pledged $35 million in aid to the countries devastated by the tsunamis. The UK has pledged $96M, the European Union $44M, Canada $33M, and Japan $30M. Some other less rich countries have come up with comparable aid contributions, especially if you think in terms of how big the percentage of their contributions are against their gross national revenues (seen that way, they dwarf the US, as a matter of fact).
The Republicans are expected to spend OVER $30M for Bush's inaugaration alone. $35M to keep villages and in some places (like the Maldives), whole countries alive. And nearly the same amount of money for self-indulgent pomp, pageantry, and festive effects for an event that, in the long run, won't matter anyway. It just seems excessive and blatantly insensitive under the circumstances. It just seems wrong.
One UN offical is said to have been quoted as saying that the rich countries are being quite, err, ungenerous with their aid, which the US naturally took as a pointed shot aimed squarely at them. Prompting them to modify their initial pledge of $15M to the $35m that we're seeing now. Which, ofcourse, is not nearly half of what the UK, a country which is obviously much, much smaller than the US (smaller than the US state of Oregon, in fact) is offering.
The US (not counting territories beyond the 50 contiguous states) is 2.5 times the size of Western Europe and has a GDP of $10.99 trillion. Again, just to make this clear, the US, aka the richest country in the world with their $10.99 trillion GDP, is offering $35M in aid. $35 million is exactly 36.4%, or a little over a third, of what the UK, with a GDP of a mere 1.666 trillion is offering.
(And yes, the story isn't that much different if you look at per capita income, for all you economicists. UK Per capita GDP? $27,000. US Per capita GDP? $37,800. UK population living below the poverty line? 17%. US population living below the poverty line? 12%. The US is richer no matter how you slice it.)
So is the US stingy?
Well, There's the fact that the UN asks that rich countries give .7% of their GDP as aid to developing nations. The US, however, gives a noticeably much lower .13%, an amount which it justifies by saying it gives more in food and such - contributions to which it cannot (and does not) attach a specific monetary value.
And then there's the fact that there have been quite a few times where the pledged money doesn't even materialize anyway, the cash fading as fast as the public's interest.
Then there's also this New York Times article to ponder on.
Stingy? I don't know.
Of course, the US doesn't even really need to give anything. It's not under any obligation to help the world. The thing is, in recent years, it sort of has made itself the superpower of Earth - policing nasty terrorist nations, approving loans to poor countries, smoking out dictaors from their hiding holes, etc. It calls itself a world leader, even takes pride in the fact. It wasn't given this role by force, it took the responsibility upon itself.
And as a leader, well. One leads into the battle, but I'd hope one leads out of starvation and certain death as well.
*Country stats from the CIA's World Fact Book.
***
The US, the richest country in the world, has pledged $35 million in aid to the countries devastated by the tsunamis. The UK has pledged $96M, the European Union $44M, Canada $33M, and Japan $30M. Some other less rich countries have come up with comparable aid contributions, especially if you think in terms of how big the percentage of their contributions are against their gross national revenues (seen that way, they dwarf the US, as a matter of fact).
The Republicans are expected to spend OVER $30M for Bush's inaugaration alone. $35M to keep villages and in some places (like the Maldives), whole countries alive. And nearly the same amount of money for self-indulgent pomp, pageantry, and festive effects for an event that, in the long run, won't matter anyway. It just seems excessive and blatantly insensitive under the circumstances. It just seems wrong.
One UN offical is said to have been quoted as saying that the rich countries are being quite, err, ungenerous with their aid, which the US naturally took as a pointed shot aimed squarely at them. Prompting them to modify their initial pledge of $15M to the $35m that we're seeing now. Which, ofcourse, is not nearly half of what the UK, a country which is obviously much, much smaller than the US (smaller than the US state of Oregon, in fact) is offering.
The US (not counting territories beyond the 50 contiguous states) is 2.5 times the size of Western Europe and has a GDP of $10.99 trillion. Again, just to make this clear, the US, aka the richest country in the world with their $10.99 trillion GDP, is offering $35M in aid. $35 million is exactly 36.4%, or a little over a third, of what the UK, with a GDP of a mere 1.666 trillion is offering.
(And yes, the story isn't that much different if you look at per capita income, for all you economicists. UK Per capita GDP? $27,000. US Per capita GDP? $37,800. UK population living below the poverty line? 17%. US population living below the poverty line? 12%. The US is richer no matter how you slice it.)
So is the US stingy?
Well, There's the fact that the UN asks that rich countries give .7% of their GDP as aid to developing nations. The US, however, gives a noticeably much lower .13%, an amount which it justifies by saying it gives more in food and such - contributions to which it cannot (and does not) attach a specific monetary value.
And then there's the fact that there have been quite a few times where the pledged money doesn't even materialize anyway, the cash fading as fast as the public's interest.
Then there's also this New York Times article to ponder on.
Stingy? I don't know.
Of course, the US doesn't even really need to give anything. It's not under any obligation to help the world. The thing is, in recent years, it sort of has made itself the superpower of Earth - policing nasty terrorist nations, approving loans to poor countries, smoking out dictaors from their hiding holes, etc. It calls itself a world leader, even takes pride in the fact. It wasn't given this role by force, it took the responsibility upon itself.
And as a leader, well. One leads into the battle, but I'd hope one leads out of starvation and certain death as well.
*Country stats from the CIA's World Fact Book.
11:22:00 PM
