UN official speaks truth, is slapped down

[opebo]

who cares who gave more?

this is all one big contest.  the victims are being used as pawns in this 'we gave more than yall...blah blah blah' argument.

as for the un, it should be closed down, with a small staff left to help us fight whooping cough in the ivory coast.

I don't really care.  I only gave $2.50 (100 baht) because I happened to be walking by the tent.  What bothered me was the absurd self-righteous double-talk the US produced.  We may or may not be the stingiest country on earth, but we're definitely the least connected with reality.

[??????????]

Wow! You gave 2.50! Certainly a whooping donation.

[WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My impression was that France was actually one of the first countries on the scene in Sri Lanka (along with India and Pakistan) with actual rescue assistance.

To my knowledge, the French have done nothing yet.  Australia and Japan were the first countries on the sceen.

I think that the Germans have donated a plane or something.

God, this Europe-bashing nonsense again. Now I remember why I left this stinking forum in the first place.

Judging from the article, WE IN THE U.S. didn't pick this fight, now did we?

[Platypus]

I think the most generous donation so far has been East timor's $50,000. It isn't much, but for East timor, the poorest country in Asia, and a victim of oppression by Indonesia for decades, it is a hell of a lot.

The US ($35 million) and Australian ($35 million Aussie-about $25 million US) also have been very generoud, imho. I think the British and Canadian, as well as the Japanese, have also sent large contributions.

$140,000 from a rich country is a start, but I would hope for a lot more...

[Middle-aged Europe]

To my knowledge, the French have done nothing yet.  Australia and Japan were the first countries on the sceen.

I think that the Germans have donated a plane or something.

Actually, Germany has donated 20 million euros and some water purification facilities so far.... and this airplane, of course.

[minionofmidas]

The UN guy was "slapped" since he was using a figure based off of percentage of GDP, which is a poor measure when the US GDP is greater than anyone elses.  

No, percentage of GDP is the most accurate and reasonable way to compare levels of giving.   If I give you $100 it means I'm a hell of a lot more generous than Bill Gates giving you a thousand.

Percentage of GDP would be the most accurate and reasonable way to compare levels of giving, if accounting of GDP were done in an accurate and reasonable way, which outside Western Europe it is not. The US, for example, have unilaterally stopped producing reliable data in 1991, and have since been producing ever more grotesquely inflated numbers (it's called hedonistic accounting. Should be called vanity accounting). Comparing what they give with that garbage, then, is going to undersell America's contribution.

[Platypus]

i heard that the french were planning a EU-wide fund for about 6 monmths into the future. Just how much the'll give to that, I dunno, but if it is a high amount then I applaud them in adance for forward planning, although more money now would not go astray

[Maastricht]

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3216,36-392502,0.html

I hope you understand that I'm quite disturbed by the fact that some of you guys could say such things as "The French have done nothing yet" while 122 french tourists died, and 100 is missing ...

[MODU]

The UN guy was "slapped" since he was using a figure based off of percentage of GDP, which is a poor measure when the US GDP is greater than anyone elses.  

No, percentage of GDP is the most accurate and reasonable way to compare levels of giving.   

Far from the truth.  What counts is the dollar amount, not percentage.  Otherwise, the Neatherlands could get away with donating $100K and say they are by far the more generous contributor than the US who has given $100Million. 

But, since you want to make the world dependent on US welfare, be prepared to have your taxes doubled.

By your calculation, no small country could be generous, even if its people were tithing.  Absurd.  Americans give a minute portion of their national income, which makes them the least generous of any 'developed' nation. (in fairness we're hardly as developed as Europe, but for arguments sake).

And you are ignoring the rest of my original post.  The UN guy looks at what the country donates in cash, and ignores what it does in relief.  The millions it costs to mobilize a fleet to bring stocked supplies (which we have to replace), to send relief personnel (which do not fall under the funding provided), and everything else.  We provide almost HALF of the world disaster relief aid.  That, if you include everything which we pay and provide for, is still much more (GDP % wise) that what everyone else provides.

Once again, you look only at one tiny bit of info while ignoring the whole picture in order to make an argument.

Typical.

[opebo]

if accounting of GDP were done in an accurate and reasonable way, which outside Western Europe it is not. The US, for example, have unilaterally stopped producing reliable data in 1991, and have since been producing ever more grotesquely inflated numbers (it's called hedonistic accounting. Should be called vanity accounting). Comparing what they give with that garbage, then, is going to undersell America's contribution.

Wow, this is really interesting, Lewis Trondheim.  Falsification of economic reporting would explain a lot of why the U.S., on paper, appears to be growing, while anecdotally most people see the situation as quite bad.

[Michael Z]

Tsunami aid pledges top $3bn

Germany has pledged $674m.

[David S]

The UN guy was "slapped" since he was using a figure based off of percentage of GDP, which is a poor measure when the US GDP is greater than anyone elses.  

No, percentage of GDP is the most accurate and reasonable way to compare levels of giving.   If I give you $100 it means I'm a hell of a lot more generous than Bill Gates giving you a thousand.

Percentage of GDP would be the most accurate and reasonable way to compare levels of giving, if accounting of GDP were done in an accurate and reasonable way, which outside Western Europe it is not. The US, for example, have unilaterally stopped producing reliable data in 1991, and have since been producing ever more grotesquely inflated numbers

Do you have a source for that comment?

[??????????]

China has pledged 10 million. What a joke. But I'm sure that's their entire military budget for the year.

[phk]

Alabama is sending a food stamp

[Platypus]

Australia is up to $1 billion aussie, about $700 million USD. Plus private donations, and it is probably about $3 billion aussie, $2,1 billion USD.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Interesting article - another good Scandinavian states the obvious and is quickly put in his place by the double-speaking Americans:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=4&u=/nm/20041228/ts_nm/quake_un_dc

So who says we don't run the U.N.?

I find it extremely "interesting" that people mind the generosity of others.  I didn't know charity was a matter of boasting.

In reality, whether America gives 0% or 100% of its wealth to charity is not the business of non-Americans.

[KEmperor]

This is complete garbage. Americans are by far the most generous people in the world. We give seven times more charity per capita than the French do. So how did these lies about American giving get around?

Start with U.N. official Jan Egeland's suggestion that Americans are "stingy." This calculation was made after Egeland added up all the money our government spends on foreign aid. But that completely ignores the much larger amounts of money private individuals and foundations give away. And that's what really bugs Mr. Egeland and the other international bureaucrats.

Americans wisely prefer to bypass the bureaucratic overhead and corruption of organizations like the U.N. and send their money directly to the source. We need look no further than the Oil-for-Food fiasco for an example of how royally U.N. bureaucrats can screw up an aid program.

[opebo]

Interesting article - another good Scandinavian states the obvious and is quickly put in his place by the double-speaking Americans:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=4&u=/nm/20041228/ts_nm/quake_un_dc

So who says we don't run the U.N.?

I find it extremely "interesting" that people mind the generosity of others.  I didn't know charity was a matter of boasting.

In reality, whether America gives 0% or 100% of its wealth to charity is not the business of non-Americans.

What I mind is that general lack of honest self examination Americans exhibit.  Most Americans seem convinced of a completely erroneous self-aggrandizement in every field, from politics to economics to charity.  Of course in reality the US is a fairly mediocre country qualitatively.. just big quantitatively.

Sure it is no ones business what you give or don't give - I for one redily admit I don't give much of anything.  But then again don't expect to get a free pass when you go around boasting, as Americans are so wont to do.

[opebo]

This is complete garbage. Americans are by far the most generous people in the world. We give seven times more charity per capita than the French do. So how did these lies about American giving get around?

Start with U.N. official Jan Egeland's suggestion that Americans are "stingy." This calculation was made after Egeland added up all the money our government spends on foreign aid. But that completely ignores the much larger amounts of money private individuals and foundations give away. And that's what really bugs Mr. Egeland and the other international bureaucrats.

Americans wisely prefer to bypass the bureaucratic overhead and corruption of organizations like the U.N. and send their money directly to the source. We need look no further than the Oil-for-Food fiasco for an example of how royally U.N. bureaucrats can screw up an aid program.

The reason Europeans don't give to charity is they've instituted a welfare state that gives poor people the right to support - which is quite a bit more comfortable than hoping some religious type comes around and gives you an old canned good if you repeat 'I love jesus' frequently enough and with sufficient feeling.

[MODU]

opedo,

hehehe . . . you make me laugh son, you really do.  Hope you stay secluded in your little corner of Missouri.  You do less damage there than you would anywhere else. 

But you make an excellent comment (don't let it go to your head).  Europe has "instituted a welfare state," which explains why they pay so much in taxes and lack the economic development which the US has in such a short period of time.  We care for our less fortunate through charity and direct donations rather than relying on the government to handle it.  This means it takes less time for those in need to receive aid, and more of the monies donated make it to the poor.  This is something the EU should look at and study before they continue with "business as usual" when more power is transferred from the individual member states to the central government.

[Gustaf]

That the two biggest economies in the world combined with the closest country geographically, Australia donate such a lot isn't that weird. It's a little irritating to have to point out that the US of course donates a lot since it's the world's biggest economy, but in per capita terms or % of GDP you do not.

Many European countries are contributing a lot, Sweden, which messed up ou relief effort badly, sent something like a dozen planes together with a few other Scandinavian countries.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's a little irritating to have to point out that the US of course donates a lot since it's the world's biggest economy, but in per capita terms or % of GDP you do not.

Does your judgement take into account US Corporate and Individual donations?