Generous George disgorges less than $1 per African

[klusener]

Killing Hope by William Blum (go to the library, check it out, and read the chapters on Ghana and Congo)

Patrice Lumumba: http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/lumumba.html

Kwame Nkrumah: http://www.seeingblack.com/x060702/nkrumah.shtml

Even though these sites are helpful, the book goes into more specifics.

 

[PerennialII]

...I think the $1 criterion has probably been defined via something like "being able to participate in the actions of a society or so" ... could be wrong (?), but since quantifying poverty and even finding a real criterion for it are likely pretty hard jobs have likely just made up a number which applies & correlates to the poorest in Africa. The criterion naturally doesn't apply at all for analyzing poverty in developed countries.

 

[Art]

I just looked up the conversion rate...

This wouldn't be the same place you look your other facts up would it? As that might explain a lot. The Italian Lira is no longer legal currency, the Italians converted to the euro 3 1/2 years ago (1st Jan 2002).

Damn, shouldn't have told you that I could have made a fortune selling you some cheap.

 

[Pengwuino]

This wouldn't be the same place you look your other facts up would it? As that might explain a lot. The Italian Lira is no longer legal currency, the Italians converted to the euro 3 1/2 years ago (1st Jan 2002).

Damn, shouldn't have told you that I could have made a fortune selling you some cheap.

lol i know they switched to teh euro but that was the only big # conversion rate i could think of... geez quit being so picky

 

[Informal Logic]

In all fairness, the amount of initial commitment by the US was disappointing to some, such as Blair, though the amount was greater than the commitment from Blair/UK, for example.

At the same time, the point has been made that if the US was not engaged in the war in Iraq, the US would be in a better position to assist in other areas of the world such as Africa, truly helping to create stability and winning the hearts and minds of people. As has been the case with the Tsunami--though likewise Bush was not forthcoming with aid until after criticism, and likewise Tsunami contributions have been a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war. (Compassionate conservatism?)

Certainly aid needs to be provided, but with proper management, as already discussed. And it is nice to see a community effort, not just the US being responsible for all the ills of the world.

 

[Art]

lol i know they switched to teh euro but that was the only big # conversion rate i could think of... geez quit being so picky

Here you go - looked this up just for you as an example of trans-Atlantic co-operation.

 

[Art]

In all fairness, the amount of initial commitment by the US was disappointing to some, such as Blair, though the amount was greater than the commitment from Blair/UK, for example.

Certainly aid needs to be provided, but with proper management, as already discussed. And it is nice to see a community effort, not just the US being responsible for all the ills of the world.

That's what the UN Millenium Declaration is about. All 191 members of the UN signed up to this.

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...ationsAgreedattheUnitedNationsto07%ofGNPToAid

The 22 richest nations signed up to the 0.7% of GNP for ODA but only 5 have so far lived up to their commitment.
In Dollars the USA have been the biggest donators in recent years (previously it was Japan) but in % of GNP they are bottom of the list at 0.16%. (Top of the list is Norway at 0.87%).The USA's contribution is up from 0.11% in 2001 with most of the additional funds targeted to countries such as Pakistan in the aftermath of 9/11. The UK's contribution stands at 0.36% of GNP. (Figs quoted for 2004)

 

[Art]

And you never will. Period. We are not slaves of Africa. Africans should have enough sense to stop fighting.

As an analogy, you can take India. 50 years ago, it was a very poor country recovering from colonialism with life expectancies in the 40s. It faced a lot of the problems faced by Africans back then and now - health, poverty, illiteracy, unemployment,etc. Yet now, India is growing fast while Africa is still where it was 50 years ago.

India's GNP per capita per annum is $523 Which ranks them 139th in the world - If it was distributed equally that equates to just over the $1 a day official poverty level. Still sounds pretty poor to me.
As a reference point Luxembourg is top at $47,725 per capita pa and the USA are 3rd at $36,184 per capita pa.
Figs quoted 2000-2001

 

[Informal Logic]

That's what the UN Millenium Declaration is about. All 191 members of the UN signed up to this.

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...ationsAgreedattheUnitedNationsto07%ofGNPToAid

The 22 richest nations signed up to the 0.7% of GNP for ODA but I believe only 6 or 7 have so far lived up to their commitment.
In Dollars the USA have been the biggest donators in recent years (previously it was Japan) but in % of GNP they are bottom of the list at 0.16%. (Top of the list is Norway at 0.87%).The USA's contribution is up from 0.11% in 2001 with most of the additional funds targeted to countries such as Pakistan in the aftermath of 9/11. (Figs quoted for 2004)

I understand and am not necessarily disagreeing. However, at the same time remember that the US has become the world's largest debtor nation itself (do you think China would write this off?) And since the US has been the biggest contributor in recent years, perhaps a little more focus could be placed on the other 22 richest nations that are not living up to their commitment. This is all I am saying.

 

[sid_galt]

Africa, it had one of the brightest futures when leaders like Patrice Lumumba and Kwame Nkrumah were coming into power after years of European colonization in the 1960s. What happened to them? Lumumba was assassinated at the request of the U.S. president and Nkrumah was overthrown by the CIA.

What fact makes you think that Africa had a bright future under them? I could claim that Africa had an extremely bad future under them and my claim would be equally valid as yours unless you present evidence

 

[sid_galt]

India's GNP per capita per annum is $523 Which ranks them 139th in the world - If it was distributed equally that equates to just over the $1 a day official poverty level. Still sounds pretty poor to me.
As a reference point Luxembourg is top at $47,725 per capita pa and the USA are 3rd at $36,184 per capita pa.
Figs quoted 2000-2001

Yes it is. But my point is that India is overcoming its problems AND growing fast. India is WAY ahead of Africa even though both of them started at essentially the same point.

 

[klusener]

India's GNP per capita per annum is $523 Which ranks them 139th in the world - If it was distributed equally that equates to just over the $1 a day official poverty level. Still sounds pretty poor to me.
As a reference point Luxembourg is top at $47,725 per capita pa and the USA are 3rd at $36,184 per capita pa.
Figs quoted 2000-2001

hmmm.. please post links to support your posts, I was looking in the CIA worldbook and:

GDP - per capita: $3,100

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

 

[loseyourname]

He listed GNP and you listed GDP. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Pengwuino]

Thats a pretty big discrepency... unless most of their economy is made up of corporations of other nations...

 

[loseyourname]

Thats a pretty big discrepency... unless most of their economy is made up of corporations of other nations...

It could have something to do with the CIA factbook's GDP calculation methodology:

In the Economy category, GDP dollar estimates for all countries are derived from purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations rather than from conversions at official currency exchange rates. The PPP method involves the use of standardized international dollar price weights, which are applied to the quantities of final goods and services produced in a given economy. The data derived from the PPP method provide the best available starting point for comparisons of economic strength and well-being between countries. The division of a GDP estimate in domestic currency by the corresponding PPP estimate in dollars gives the PPP conversion rate. Whereas PPP estimates for OECD countries are quite reliable, PPP estimates for developing countries are often rough approximations.

I suppose India is considered a developing country (is it?), although its growth rate didn't seem that terribly high. At 6.2%, it was well below world leader Iraq at 52.3% (and everyone thinks the war is doing Iraq no good). Then again, maybe Art's numbers are just wrong.

 

[SOS2008]

Iraq is oil rich, or a "second world" country. Of course the oil resources will be gone some day, so smart oil-rich countries are following the path of developing countries too.

 

[Art]

hmmm.. please post links to support your posts, I was looking in the CIA worldbook and:

GDP - per capita: $3,100

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/gdpnumericcer.asp?TYPE=GRANK&TBL=NUMERICCER&vCOUNTRY=78

Source as requested.

As stated in my post this data is for 2000. Since which time India's GDP has risen from the $547 billion listed in this report to $650 billion (2004). Which sounds about right. The increase in the countries GDP does not translate directly into a commensurate increase in GDP per capita because of the large increase in population from 1.045 billion to 1.065 billion over the same time period. Thus latest GDP per capita = $610. I have no idea how the CIA derived their figure of $3,100? Maybe from the same sources who told them Iraq had WMD

Sources - http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/01/24/stories/2004012400690400.htm

http://www.iloveindia.com/population-of-india/

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/360608e0-868d-11d9-8075-00000e2511c8.html


Art

 

[Art]

Yes it is. But my point is that India is overcoming its problems AND growing fast. India is WAY ahead of Africa even though both of them started at essentially the same point.

You are comparing apples and oranges. India is a country. Africa is a sub-continent consisting of 55 independant countries, some of which are doing quite well and some of which are basket cases.
Here is a link if you want to look at data specific to each African country..

http://africare.org/about/where-we-work/where-we-work.html

 

[loseyourname]

Iraq is oil rich, or a "second world" country. Of course the oil resources will be gone some day, so smart oil-rich countries are following the path of developing countries too.

Are you downplaying the significance of a 52% increase in GDP over the span of one year? That's incredible, and I hope that money goes to good use, regardless of what it's coming from. I realize they can't continue to increase their oil exports forever, but the added wealth coming in right now can help to build up infrastructure and spark investment in industries with better long-term potential. It's up to them to use the money wisely, but personally I'd rather screw up than never have the chance.

Just a note to Art - India is a subcontinent. Africa is an entire continent. Other than that, you're right.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I don't understand this thread. Why do we (in the U.S.) have to feel guilty about not giving enough to other nations when we have people living below the poverty line in the U.S. (Appalachia, for example).

Charity begins at home.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't understand this thread. Why do we (in the U.S.) have to feel guilty about not giving enough to other nations when we have people living below the poverty line in the U.S. (Appalachia, for example).

Charity begins at home.

It is important to help other countries. I haven't read much on it but you could check out Buckminster Fuller's World Game to get a good idea that every country effects every other country and the more we work together the better off we will all be.
Ofcourse every country needs to make sure they are doing well themselves otherwise they will hinder the overall process. It requires a balance.

 

[SOS2008]

Are you downplaying the significance of a 52% increase in GDP over the span of one year? That's incredible, and I hope that money goes to good use, regardless of what it's coming from. I realize they can't continue to increase their oil exports forever, but the added wealth coming in right now can help to build up infrastructure and spark investment in industries with better long-term potential. It's up to them to use the money wisely, but personally I'd rather screw up than never have the chance.

As has been said in another thread--Israel can't take complete credit for what has been built there, and neither can it be said of Iraq, or any other country that has been sustained with U.S. aid to do so (though in the case of Iraq the U.S. is responsible for the destruction in the first place). So with this in mind, I really find Iraq to be a moot example.

Oil-rich countries often are the countries that provide the least amount of aid in comparison to their wealth (e.g., the Tsunami?). However, in time I might not blame them. Most of these countries, with the exception of Iran and maybe a couple of others, couldn't even rely on export of raw materials or agriculture or any other product that current third world countries have, and these products don't bring in much revenue. So oil-rich countries should be trying to industrialize, or like India, Taiwan, etc., begin to develop an educated/high-tech labor force.

But let's look at the U.S. with the same criteria, and ask what we are doing for exports (trade deficit) and to educate our labor force (increasing drop-out rates, poor test scores, fewer students in math/sciences), etc. We aren't doing a very good job these days, and one reason is we have a huge deficit, so aren't reinvesting in our own country. Sound selfish? If the U.S. goes down, the rest of the world goes down with us (at least for now).

 

[loseyourname]

Oil-rich countries often are the countries that provide the least amount of aid in comparison to their wealth (e.g., the Tsunami?). However, in time I might not blame them. Most of these countries, with the exception of Iran and maybe a couple of others, couldn't even rely on export of raw materials or agriculture or any other product that current third world countries have, and these products don't bring in much revenue. So oil-rich countries should be trying to industrialize, or like India, Taiwan, etc., and begin to develop an educated/high-tech labor force.

I think we're talking past each other here. I was never trying to laud Iraq for its charitable contributions. It just seemed to me that you were trying to say that a 52% increase in GDP in one year is not necessarily a good thing for a country. Even if that does not or cannot continue, it's a good thing. I agree with you that industrialization will eventually need to take place, but oil revenue in the short term can provide the money needed to industrialize.

 

[SOS2008]

I think we're talking past each other here. I was never trying to laud Iraq for its charitable contributions. It just seemed to me that you were trying to say that a 52% increase in GDP in one year is not necessarily a good thing for a country. Even if that does not or cannot continue, it's a good thing. I agree with you that industrialization will eventually need to take place, but oil revenue in the short term can provide the money needed to industrialize.

I'm not saying Iraq should provide aid at a time when this country is in need of being rebuilt itself (due to the invasion). However, the 52% increase in GDP would not be possible without U.S. aid, and therefore I don't take this/Iraq into account in regard to statistics provided in other posts. (BTW it's good to have you back.)

In reference to my conclusion, a similar thought was posted:

Of course every country needs to make sure they are doing well themselves otherwise they will hinder the overall process. It requires a balance.

This is especially the case with regard to the U.S.

 

[Art]

Just a note to Art - India is a subcontinent. Africa is an entire continent. Other than that, you're right.

No you're wrong - India is a country located in the Indian subcontinent which contains several other countries as well. There is an Indian subcontinent but no subcontinent called India.
http://www.cdc.gov/travel/indianrg.htm
Whereas Africa is a sub-continent consisting of many individual countries
http://www.cooltown.com/cooltown/mpulse/0602-africa.asp

BTW The use of the terms sub-continent or continent seems to be fairly interchangeable for both land masses.

 

[hitssquad]

GDP-CER vs. GDP-PPP

http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/gdpnumericcer.asp?TYPE=GRANK&TBL=NUMERICCER&vCOUNTRY=78

As stated in my post this data is for 2000. Since which time India's GDP has risen from the $547 billion listed in this report to $650 billion (2004). Which sounds about right. The increase in the countries GDP does not translate directly into a commensurate increase in GDP per capita because of the large increase in population from 1.045 billion to 1.065 billion over the same time period. Thus latest GDP per capita = $610. I have no idea how the CIA derived their figure of $3,100

As loseyourname just posted, the CIA Factbook uses GDP-PPP figures. Your AOL link is giving you GDP-CER figures (it says NUMERICCER in the URL). If you go to your AOL link and click PPP Method Tab...
http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/globrank.asp?TBLS=PPP+Method+Tables&vCOUNTRY=78&TYPE=GRANK

...you will see India $2,686.00 listed. That is probably the same figure the 2001 CIA Factbook used.


(PPP = Purchasing Power Parity. CER = Current Exchange Rate.)

 

[hitssquad]

http://www.cdc.gov/travel/indianrg.htm
Whereas Africa is a sub-continent consisting of many individual countries
http://www.cooltown.com/cooltown/mpulse/0602-africa.asp

BTW The use of the terms sub-continent or continent seems to be fairly interchangeable for both land masses.

Your second link above seems to be referring only to sub-Saharan Africa as the "African sub-continent." It is common knowledge that there are seven continents, that Africa is one of them and that the Indian subcontinent is not one of them.

 

[Art]

Your second link above seems to be referring only to sub-Saharan Africa as the "African sub-continent." It is common knowledge that there are seven continents, that Africa is one of them and that the Indian subcontinent is not one of them.

It is not as straight forward as that these days. There are disagreements re subcontinents, continents and their boundaries. This link for instance classifies subcontinental Africa as being only the country of South Africa http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/38.htm whereas others classify all of Africa as a subcontinent because it is joined to Asia by the isthmus of Suez. This link talks about the Indian subcontinent http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Indian-Subcontinent whereas this link claims it as a continent http://www.vepachedu.org/Indiancontinent.htm
The reason for so many interpretations is I guess because of the extended territorial rights countries can claim in regard to continental shelves. Ref current dispute Denmark vs Iceland, Britain, Ireland over continental shelf around the Faroe Isles.

 

[Art]

As loseyourname just posted, the CIA Factbook uses GDP-PPP figures. Your AOL link is giving you GDP-CER figures (it says NUMERICCER in the URL). If you go to your AOL link and click PPP Method Tab...
http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/globrank.asp?TBLS=PPP+Method+Tables&vCOUNTRY=78&TYPE=GRANK

...you will see India $2,686.00 listed. That is probably the same figure the 2001 CIA Factbook used.


(PPP = Purchasing Power Parity. CER = Current Exchange Rate.)

Thanks. So the comparisons are valid as the CER method was used for all data cited.

 

[russ_watters]

This is what the signatories of the Millenium Declaration in the UN say we should do. I cannot give a detailed response as to exactly how these 18 targets and the 0.7% of GNP were arrived at. Which by the way they say will only bring relief for half the people currently classified as in poverty.

In a previous post, you said 2% - where does this .7% come from? It does not come from the Millenium Declaration (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm for those who haven't read it - I hadn't). All the Millenium Declaration says on the subject is: "To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water." It does not say how to do it, nor does it give targets for contributions for anyone.

So again, tell me why we should be giving 2% - or .7% - or whatever.

In answer to those who say the African countries bring poverty on themselves I point out that all of them are ex colonies of western powers who apart from plundering their natural resources, left them with an inheritance of corrupt and suppressive administrative structures.

I recognize that it is partially the responsibility of the west to fix Africa and I agree that we should help. But what I want to know is why what we are doing isn't enough and why we should give 2% or .7% of our GDP to Africa.

...And I know I said you provided the "what" already, now I'm not so sure. Live isn't as simple as just assigning a quantity of money required to fix problems. What exactly should be done with that money? We could, afterall, just hand out $365 a year to each of Africa's 300,000,000 or so who are classified as in poverty. That would cost about $110 billion a year. Would that "fix" the problem? Would it be permanent or would they be forever dependent on us? Is that what you think we should do?

This may be a shocker: In a large number of countries, I think we should spend considerably more. Tens - even hundreds - of billions on one or two countries for a few years at a time. I can explain, but I doubt you'll actually like this proposal...

 

[alexandra]

So again, tell me why we should be giving 2% - or .7% - or whatever. I recognize that it is partially the responsibility of the west to fix Africa and I agree that we should help. But what I want to know is why what we are doing isn't enough and why we should give 2% or .7% of our GDP to Africa.

To be true to free market capitalist principles, the rich should not help third world, poverty-stricken countries. You're quite right, Russ - by capitalist principles, the rich should just continue to extract huge amounts of interest from the poorest populations on earth; it's not their problem if the poor starve. It's their own fault they're poor, after all - it has nothing at all to do with colonialism or the structure of the world economic system.

 

[Art]

In a previous post, you said 2% - where does this .7% come from? It does not come from the Millenium Declaration (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm for those who haven't read it - I hadn't). All the Millenium Declaration says on the subject is: "To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water." It does not say how to do it, nor does it give targets for contributions for anyone.



So again, tell me why we should be giving 2% - or .7% - or whatever. I recognize that it is partially the responsibility of the west to fix Africa and I agree that we should help. But what I want to know is why what we are doing isn't enough and why we should give 2% or .7% of our GDP to Africa.

As I believe I've already said the 2% fig is the sum the UN believes is necessary to eliminate world poverty. The 0.7% fig is the amount the richest 22 countries actually signed up to pay. As to why you should pay. You really need to ask your own gov't that as they signed up for it. You needn't worry yourself too much though as they are only actually contributing 0.16% (the lowest of all the signatory countries) which is up from 0.11% last year. The increase is largely due to additional ODA ($600m) to Pakistan for the 'War on Terror'. I guess paying for troops and military equipment is a kind of ODA (well Bush style anyway).
Now read this:

Agenda 21: Rich Nations Agreed at the United Nations to 0.7% of GNP To Aid
When the world’s governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations — Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD, known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). [Note that terminology is changing. GNP, which the OECD used up to 2000 is now replaced with the similar as GNI, Gross National Income which includes a terms of trade adjustment. Some quoted articles and older parts of this site may still use GNP or GDP.]

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...ationsAgreedattheUnitedNationsto07%ofGNPToAid

...And I know I said you provided the "what" already, now I'm not so sure.

Are you sure now?

Live isn't as simple as just assigning a quantity of money required to fix problems. What exactly should be done with that money? Meet the targets agreed in the Millenium Declaration We could, afterall, just hand out $365 a year to each of Africa's 300,000,000 or so who are classified as in poverty. That would cost about $110 billion a year. Would that "fix" the problem? Would it be permanent or would they be forever dependent on us? Is that what you think we should do?

I am not an expert on 3rd world development nor have I made any claims to be so I have absolutely no idea why you are directing this question at me. IMHO I suspect the people in the UN who persuaded the 22 countries to sign up to contributing 0.7% of their GNP are experts and presumably they put together quite a convincing case thus it seems logical to assume they know how best to spend the money and are not waiting with bated breath for mine or your input.

This may be a shocker: In a large number of countries, I think we should spend considerably more. Tens - even hundreds - of billions on one or two countries for a few years at a time. I can explain, but I doubt you'll actually like this proposal...

Russ I can say in all honesty I am not in the least shocked that you should hold this view, afterall I've read your posts. Bear in mind however this world is getting smaller by the day and eventually America is going to step on the toes of somebody who is going to kick her very hard in the butt.

 

[hitssquad]

this link claims it as a continent vepachedu.org/Indiancontinent.htm

That link says, "We should [...] address it as a Continent," implying that India is not currently recognized as a continent.

 

[hitssquad]

Trade-partner seeding

To be true to free market capitalist principles, the rich should not help third world, poverty-stricken countries.

Trade-partner seeding is widely thought to be mutually beneficial to capitalist nations and is explained in literary form in Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky.

 

[Art]

That link says, "We should [...] address it as a Continent," implying that India is not currently recognized as a continent.

Yes it says it is currently recognised as a sub-continent and is upgrading itself.

When Europe (~ 750 million people) is considered a separate continent from Asia, what is the reason Indian Continent (~1.5 billion people) is accorded a status of a sub-continent? In reality, the reason is that Indians don't consider it a continent. Why? Because Indians were constantly reminded by the British that "the Indian continent is a Sub-continent."

That was in 1999 I don't know if they have any kind of formal recognition, or how such recognition is achieved, since then but you will find several references on Google where it is referred to as the Indian continent
http://www.batashoemuseum.ca/shoesections/india.html
and here http://www.birminghamuk.com/cities/india.htm
Frankly I don't mind which. I thought it was a subcontinent until I checked on google and saw it wasn't cut and dried