Quoth TorgoX, via (who else?) the Guardian:
[Bush] said America was "leading the world when it comes to helping Africa", despite the fact that it gives only 0.2% of its GDP in overseas aid - well below the UN's 0.7% target.What is this "despite" doing here? There's no obvious -- and indeed, no actual -- connection between leading the world when it comes to helping Africa, and the UN target. It's a target for 2015, one that only five countries have reached, including none of those mentioned in the article. The EU as a whole gives 0.39 percent of GDP currently, and have an additional 2010 target of 0.56 percent, something that many of them probably won't reach.
If they wanted to be fair, they would just say "The US is helping Africa. Although most Americans will never go to Africa and couldn't name more than 3 countries in Africa, their tax money is being sent there to help people who will likely never be able to return the favor. How much are they helping? Well, it's charity, so everything counts."
Same thing happened after the tsunami, right? The US can never give enough charity to people in need to have anyone just say "thanks".
Re:Fair?
ziggy on 2005-07-21T13:46:45
Returning the favor is completely missing the point. It's not about making an investment with returns in kind or in actual dollars. It's about alleviating needless suffering....their tax money is being sent there to help people who will likely never be able to return the favor. But that's a side issue. There's no indication that throwing the entire US GDP for the next 10 years at helping Africa would solve the endemic problems, some of which are of western origin over the last few centuries, some of which have proven insoluble over the last 10,000 years or so (+/- a few millenia). That's not an excuse to give less or give nothing. But it's also not a reason to throw an arbitrary amount of money at the problem as set by the UN, the UK or anyone else.
Re:Fair?
pudge on 2005-07-21T15:10:10
Returning the favor is completely missing the point. It's not about making an investment with returns in kind or in actual dollars. It's about alleviating needless suffering.
Yeah, I have sympathy for the view that we shouldn't use the government for charity, but didn't address that in my post, since it's beside the point of my complaint, which is simple mischaracterization of the facts.
There's no indication that throwing the entire US GDP for the next 10 years at helping Africa would solve the endemic problems
Yes, and that is getting deeper into it than I intended, but I agree with it. I don't think more money is the answer, I think different policies are the answer. And if different policies prove effective, then we can expand those policies with additional funds, if warranted. Because you're right, the proposed funding level is almost entirely arbitrary.
Heck, the U.S. could give less than everyone else in both dollar amounts *and* percent of GDP and still be reasonably "leading the world," if the *way* in which it provided aid was simply more effective (which wouldn't take much!) (though that is not what Bush meant, I think).
Re:Fair?
ziggy on 2005-07-21T18:54:45
Ditto.Yes, and that is getting deeper into it than I intendedAnd I really don't want to start talking about political policy.I don't think more money is the answer, I think different policies are the answer.My point is that sometimes, you can swap out an aging VAX for a multi-million dollar StarCat and solve a whole mess of problems. But sometimes, you don't have limitless bank accounts to buy big iron, and you just have to roll up your sleeves, study the problem and find a better algorithm given the resources at your disposal.
Or something like that.
;-)
