quote:

Maya2001 said:

Problem with this is it is based of $ figures only.......... for the 3 rd largest populated country in the world and one of the wealthiest the $ figure shown  is piss poor  and as american should be seen as a shame not something to boast about

if broken done into a per capita basis based on population size  US would be at the bottom of the pile, and this needs to be taken into consideration as contributions come out of taxes paid. when looked at that way ... the US looks pretty shitty and selfish compared to nations with lot smaller populations therefore a smaller tax base to donate from,  the US might not even make the top 10 list this way as their may be countries who donate less so did not make the list but have small pop but when convert on pop. basis would have donated more per capita


US--       303 m pop   donates 12.9 bill  equivalent based on US pop
Japan --   128                             9.2             21.7 billion
Germany    82                             5.4             20
France        64                             5.2             24.6
UK             60                             4.9             24.7
Netherl      16.4                            3.4             62.8
Italy            59                              2.3             11.8
Canada       33                               2               18.4
Sweden         9                               1.8            60.6
Norway       4.7                              1.8           116


Who would have thought that based on population size and economy  that Norway would be the most generous country on that list???

And that the US is one of  the least generous considering it's size and  wealth????

quote:


"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.
Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.  

quote:

The computer and the World Wide Web are English inventions. Not that I can take any credit for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maya2001

quote:

Arguing with me on how americans arent innovators doesnt make you right, just because you misread what I am saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Fast Reply to no one or everyone.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.html

Take careful note of which country sits in the number one spot.

Problem with this is it is based of $ figures only.......... for the 3 rd largest populated country in the world and one of the wealthiest the $ figure shown is piss poor and as american should be seen as a shame not something to boast about

if broken done into a per capita basis based on population size US would be at the bottom of the pile, and this needs to be taken into consideration as contributions come out of taxes paid. when looked at that way ... the US looks pretty shitty and selfish compared to nations with lot smaller populations therefore a smaller tax base to donate from, the US might not even make the top 10 list this way as their may be countries who donate less so did not make the list but have small pop but when convert on pop. basis would have donated more per capita


US-- 303 m pop donates 12.9 bill equivalent based on US pop
Japan -- 128 9.2 21.7 billion
Germany 82 5.4 20
France 64 5.2 24.6
UK 60 4.9 24.7
Netherl 16.4 3.4 62.8
Italy 59 2.3 11.8
Canada 33 2 18.4
Sweden 9 1.8 60.6
Norway 4.7 1.8 116


Who would have thought that based on population size and economy that Norway would be the most generous country on that list???

And that the US is one of the least generous considering it's size and wealth????

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

I'll give you guys credit though.....in 1913 you convinced us to adopt/use—as a wealth transference vehicle-- this shity, privatized, debt-enhanced, central banking system that's been a prime factor for present /future economic distress.

As we say in America - You go girl.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Thing about the foreign aid numbers, it's not clear that every nation accounts for that aid in the same way. For instance, are the costs of aid workers, technical advisors, etc., included or not? Are private contributions included or not? I'm sure y'all can think of a couple more questions.

I really can't draw any conclusions without understanding the methodology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

A country is more likely to get aid if they support US foreign policy, not because of their needs. The US donated about one tenth to the developing world what it gives its own famers each year through the Farm Bill alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tantriqu

Back to the original thread title.

We don't hate you.
We appreciate your hospitality, your drive, and willingness to help; you're generally one of the first in when a natural disaster strikes outside your border; so thank you.
If you paid for health care and education, I'd be down there like a shot. 

But we wish you learned some history of other nations.  How many Americans know we burned down the first White House?  Less than 20%, I bet.  WWI started in 1914, WWII started in 1939, and historically, 'Saving Private Ryan' was a crock of US bullshit;  Spielberg, you little dumbass, read who else landed on D-Day.   As for 'My country, drunk or sober' racism, how many Americans will flame for even suggesting such treasonous talk in the current climate, blah blah blah?  More than 20%, I bet. 
you complain about your income taxes, yet you pay 1/3rd of what other industrialised nations pay, and professional athletes are paid what teachers should be paid.

So, a little more empathy, a little less reactionary, you'd be loved again.
Or maybe you could just let the Blue states vote to cecede; the south would implode itself back into the Stone Age, and we can deal with the more rational north. 

And while we're here, stop loudly complaining about the food/accomodations/public transport etc. when you're travelling.  Just stop.  Sheesh!

I completely agree... however Florida gets to concede to be a Blue state and part of the North. ..
Yeppers the Damn Brits *smiles and winks* tried to torch it back when it was called the Presidental Palace.
*shakes her head at how many people do not know that right along with ya*
Roosevelt changed the name. ( and many things)

Gwyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Well said, celticlord, the reality of the situation. US aid is an integral part of US policy and has nothing to do with helping ones fellow man. However, food aid, except in extreme emergency, doesn't help developing countries either but undermines their economy. In reality it is a subsidy to US farmers, nothing more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

From a purely capitalistic (i.e., pre-Keynesian) perspective, all economic aid is a subsidy. One could argue on that basis alone that foreign aid is of questionable benefit to recipient nations (and there's plenty of empirical data to support that proposition).

Whether humanitarian grounds override the economic arguments is a discussion for another thread.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

From a purely capitalistic (i.e., pre-Keynesian) perspective, all economic aid is a subsidy. One could argue on that basis alone that foreign aid is of questionable benefit to recipient nations (and there's plenty of empirical data to support that proposition).

Whether humanitarian grounds override the economic arguments is a discussion for another thread.....

If thats the case, what was your originally purpose of entering it into this thread ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The figures used can be skewed to show that America is the worlds largest giver of aid, or by using GDP as well, to show that they aren¬t, pro rata.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

The absolute dollars given is an empirical fact. Facts are neither skewed left nor right, but remain as they are.

The pro rata argument fails to impress chiefly because it presumes a moral obligation on the part of the US which has not been demonstrated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

The term "empirical" [..] simply means to rely on surface details without consideration of underlying systems.