2
   

What America Owes The World...

 
 
kitchenpete
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 08:12 am
I have sympathy with ILZ's points and I can see that a system in which charitable donations can count, as they are offset againt tax in the US, right?

Other nations tend to believe that redistribution of wealth is, TO SOME EXTENT, a benefit to their own societies. America appears to use taxation and governmental spending for other purposes than social welfare, whether internal or external.

As I say, if tax relief is given on donations to charities (provided the charitable status providing such benefits is adequately regulated), these can be counted as part of the systematised "giving".

Set - I'm glad you provided a source of facts on the history of the USA. I don't doubt it - not because I'm British but because I know you tend to keep facts and opinions apart.

The size and natural resources of the USA have made it FAR easier for development in the past and current levels of immigration than for many other "indutrialised"/OECD countries, for which there is a premium on land and therfore the ability to house and feed people.

OBill, I hear what you say about other American expenditure but development of drugs often results in patented medicines which are too expensive for some nations to buy. Yes - the patent revenue is required to fund the research but maybe some kind of agreement on the supply of drugs at lower patent royalties would have to be developed before it can be said that this is "giving" in any way.

Good conversations among the sniping...I believe that % of GDP is a perfectly good comparison, ILZ.

Sorry it's taken so long to come back after my bookmark but I've been working abroad.

KP
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 10:05 am
I see no reason why we can take comfort in the fact that in dollar amounts, we, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, donates a little bit more than the netherlands.

Charity is judged on your capacity to give.

A poor man giving away $100 to someone in need is a great deal more generous than a Bill Gates giving away $1000.

There are plenty of charities that are dedicated precisely to "teaching a man to fish"

Organizations such as AID have been extraordinarily successful at helping people get educated, giving people job training, helping them start businesses, encouraging family planning, and essentially improving the quality of life for people in underdeveloped nations.

Yet even these organizations are strapped for cash.

There are plenty of means through which we can help people get back on their feet.

Stop trying to justify our gluttony McGentrix, we have nothing to feel proud about.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 10:15 am
Centroles wrote:
Stop trying to justify our gluttony McGentrix, we have nothing to feel proud about.


Was I justifying gluttony? I must have missed that as it was not my intent.

I think we should halt ALL foriegn aid until we get our own country under control, but as that would be ill-advised, I think that the world should take what "crumbs" we give and be happy about it and anyone that complains about the amount that we do give should shut up about it unless they are giving everything they personally make to world charities.

But that's just my opinion.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 12:13 pm
I hear you KP. 1 thing;
1. Charity is deducted from the amount of you owe taxes on... not the tax itself, so it is very much still a donation. For instance; in a 35% tax bracket, it may cost $65 overall to donate $100 but you are still coughing up $65.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 10:09 pm
Thomas wrote:
The American government is indeed giving a lot less in foreign aid than comparable countries. But it is also taking a lot less from the third world in tariffs, and it's allowing a lot more immigrants in than comparable countries. Moreover, its non-government initiatives are about as generous as those in Europe and Japan. I seem to remember an article in The Economist that evaluated the whole package, and concluded that America isn't out of line with other countries by that measure. Americans are just helping in a different way than Europeans and the Japanese.


I'd love to see this article. Frankly, I'm not willing to let it stand on the merits of your word alone, as it has already been demonstrated by Fedral that some such articles are faulty. In any case, this thread seems to have degenerated into pissing contest between America and the rest of the world. The comparison statistics I quoted earlier were primarily to show that we could give alot more than we do. In the end, how our contributions stack up against Europe is irrelevent. The point is that people on both sides of the Atlantic could (and should) give more than they currently do.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 10:15 pm
kitchenpete wrote:
OBill, I hear what you say about other American expenditure but development of drugs often results in patented medicines which are too expensive for some nations to buy. Yes - the patent revenue is required to fund the research but maybe some kind of agreement on the supply of drugs at lower patent royalties would have to be developed before it can be said that this is "giving" in any way.


KP


Hear, hear. Canada took a similar initiative last year:

Quote:
Canada plans special generic-drugs law for Africa

Canada said on Friday it is looking to quickly pass legislation that would allow it to start exporting cheap generic drugs to Africa to help combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The government was responding to a call from Canadian Stephen Lewis, the United Nations' special envoy on AIDS in Africa, urging rich countries to lift patent protection on key brand-name drugs to allow cheaper exports to Africa. Brand-name companies are concerned that the drugs, sold at a fraction of their current cost, will find their way back to North America and undercut the market.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 10:22 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Centroles wrote:
Stop trying to justify our gluttony McGentrix, we have nothing to feel proud about.


Was I justifying gluttony? I must have missed that as it was not my intent.


Unwittingly so, but yes, you were justifying gluttony.

Quote:
I think we should halt ALL foriegn aid until we get our own country under control, but as that would be ill-advised, I think that the world should take what "crumbs" we give and be happy about it and anyone that complains about the amount that we do give should shut up about it unless they are giving everything they personally make to world charities.

But that's just my opinion.


Your opinion is based on some kind of bizarre and morally outrageous retardo-logic.

I cannot reason with that anymore than I can reason with a dog chasing its own tail.
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 11:16 pm
I used to think that we shouldn't have to give the world any foreign aid at all. Now that Bush has ruined our image I actually have changed my opinion. Now more than ever we need to give a little generosity to the world. Something other than so called "Military Support". All we are doing now is the modern version of concurring nations with support through lies and deception. The world knows this but Americans are so brain washed that they them selves don't know it. Most Americans think we are out there doing the world a favor. Peace through strength is what they think. Just because we are living safely in our houses without the thread of bombs falling overhead we get a false sense of the world. Seing violence on TV is a lot different than living it. Our American government is no better than the terrorists that flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11.

So we are not a charitable nation at all. We are a selfish nation lead by liers, cheats and criminals. Open your eyes...
0 Replies
 
montypython43
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2004 02:06 am
Almost any here that are christians will probably remember the story of jesus watching the donations in the temple and blessing the poor person that gave 1 gold over the rich who gave more, due to the fact that the poor gave a higher "percentage" if you will. I am not a christian, but i do believe that this jesus guy had a very good point. what is important is how much you give out of how much you have, not the amount you give itself. hell, if some country like San Mariano (or however you spell it) gave 100 dollars worth to such causes as listed above, i'd clap 'em on the shoulder and say job well done. but when some country like ours donates a fraction of it's income that is almost infinitesmily small, when so much more could be afforded, something is wrong. there are so many causes that need funding, so much life saving research that needs funding. also, as i see it (and not to sound like an a-hole that just wants to patronize other countries) America could use the good pr. we have pissed off so many people lately that i'm surprised the white house is still standing sometimes. <end rant>
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Feb, 2004 06:32 pm
It is an observable fact of human nature that unsolicited gifts generally create more enemies than friends. Ingratitude is a part of human nature and groups of humans are even less grateful than individuals.

In most cases the poverty of the world is a result of the defective internal political and social structure of the place, and not any lack of resources (Lots of good examples of this are to be found in Africa, Latin America, and the remains of the Soviet Empire.). There are exceptions to this, but the recent economic trajectory of Zimbabwe provides a very stark (if a bit extreme) example. Good government, free trade and free movement of capital are the best and most reliable ways of reducing poverty - these are the key elements of what today is termed globalism.

Many of those here who advocate more aid also oppose the many manifestations of economic globalism. That is a contradiction. Better to export jobs than to make others dependent on our aid. You can't complain about the export of U.S. jobs in one breath and demand more foreign aid in the next - if you wish to be logically consistent.
0 Replies
 
Underworld
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 05:49 am
Re: What America Owes The World...
IronLionZion wrote:

In reality we give only .1% percent of GNP to foreign aid. The generally agreed upon goal for industrialized nations is about .7%. In fact, the United States dedicates a lower percentage to foreign aid than any other industrialized nation on Earth. We give only about 10.9 billion dollars a year. To put this in perspective, the Netherlands, a relatively small nation with only about 5 million people, gives 3.2 billion - almost a third of what America contributes. We can find 87 billion to fight a war, but its nearly impossible to muster up 1 billion to fight AID's.

While we Americans harp about our own poor - which are a legitimate issue as well - 2 billion people around the world live in poverty everyday of their life, trapped in chronic malnourishment. Three billion live on less than two dollars a day. In Africa 2.3 million die every year of Aids; the infection rate continues to increase; the numbers of infected approaching 40% in some countries. This is simply unacceptable.


First of all, the Netherlands has nearly 16 million people, not 5 million. And yes, we spend 0.8 % of our GDP to foreign aid. But the question should be, is foreign aid the best way to help the poor countries get rich and enjoy the same benefits that we enjoy today?

I think not, foreign aid is only temporary, you give the people money to buy food, but the next time they are hungry again ... it has no structural effect.

The best solution to help people all around the world is to drop protective legislation, what i mean by that is legislation that protects own industry and farmers. The developing countries have a huge advantage in labour costs, they can produce many things a lot cheaper than the OEDC countries. It is only because the US, EU, JAPAN and other rich countries prohibit this advantage because of barriers/quota's/subsidies, etc.

It is really a huge contradiction, one one site you beat the crap out of these countries and than you throw them a nickel in the form of development aid.

For a comparison, the money the developing countries got from trade in the last 10 years, equals the money the developing countries got from development aid in the last 50 years. And as time progresses trade will grow exponentially.

Quote:

Some contend that the United States owes the world nothing. They say we are a benevolent and generous super-power. What we give, we give freely. We deserve more recognition and thankfulness. Africa should do more for itself. The world's unhappiness is its own fault.


What every countries owns to another country is a fair chance to participate in world trade.

The reason why we don't allow fair trade is because we fear of losing our low skilled jobs to developing countries. What the rich countries have to do is move on, educate people better and focus on industries where higher skilled jobs are needed. Let competion decide where the jobs go and focus on the sectors that are competitive, it will be a win-win situation, for the rich as for the poor.

I am sorry if this has been mentioned before because i didn't read the complete topic.
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 06:23 am
America gives a lot of 'help' to other nations. Last time I looked it dumped more than 80 billion dollars worth of bombs on Iraq.
Before that, it dumped even greater quantities on Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq , etc.

The help from America is great, but probably not appreciated enough, especially in forementioned countries.

The sources of America's prosperity (Oil, WW2, ...) are great and abundant. America is a great country and we are all grateful for anything that it gives to the world.
We especially like : the Coca-cola, the Hamburger, the Great American Movie, and other goods of civilisation, which are dumbening our youth and turning them into nice fat smiling idiots, which are easily controllable citizens.
0 Replies
 
kitchenpete
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 12:58 pm
Welcome, montypython and Underworld

I hope you enjoy the discourse here on a2k.

KP
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 01:19 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
It is an observable fact of human nature that unsolicited gifts generally create more enemies than friends.


This is eminently arguable. I consider it hogwash.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 01:21 pm
Re: What America Owes The World...
Underworld wrote:

The best solution to help people all around the world is to drop protective legislation, what i mean by that is legislation that protects own industry and farmers. The developing countries have a huge advantage in labour costs, they can produce many things a lot cheaper than the OEDC countries. It is only because the US, EU, JAPAN and other rich countries prohibit this advantage because of barriers/quota's/subsidies, etc.

It is really a huge contradiction, one one site you beat the crap out of these countries and than you throw them a nickel in the form of development aid.


Take a bow underworld.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 03:20 pm
Re: What America Owes The World...
IronLionZion wrote:
In reality we give only .1% percent of GNP to foreign aid. The generally agreed upon goal for industrialized nations is about .7%.

Generally agreed upon by whom? Confused
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 03:33 pm
World Bank, US think tanks, statesmen and such Scrat. Entities over which nobody has more control than the US.

That's a very defensible statement (about the goal for development) ILZ made (even if some of his other math is fuzzy).
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2004 03:42 pm
I see that my rant went ignored!

There is still hope Smile
0 Replies
 
Underworld
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 03:33 am
kitchenpete wrote:
Welcome, montypython and Underworld

I hope you enjoy the discourse here on a2k.

KP


Thank you Smile
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 02:23 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
World Bank, US think tanks, statesmen and such Scrat. Entities over which nobody has more control than the US.

That's a very defensible statement (about the goal for development) ILZ made (even if some of his other math is fuzzy).

Interesting. Okay, then what inference am I supposed to take from this "fact"? That we should do more?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 10:27:14