On Saturday, February 9, 2002, at 10:18 AM, Sean Luke wrote:
>
> Hey, I too think the US gets an unfair rap on the world stage by critics
> who turn a blind eye to the massive positive things the US has done for
> the world in the last 100 years. But don't push your argument too far:
>
> On Saturday, February 9, 2002, at 09:55 AM, newtontalk_at_newtontalk.net
> wrote:
>
>> Contrary to what people think. America does most of the good in the
>> world.
>
> There are twenty times as many people worldwide than in the U.S. For
> your argument to hold water, you'd have to claim that the average
> American does 20 times as much good as the average human. But we'll let
> this little piece of nonsense slip, and get to the hard numbers:
That is the most ridiculous piece of non-sense I have ever heard. What
the hell are you talking about. It is all about dollars.
We give more money plain and simple-period.
>
>> Let us think for a minute. No one and I mean no one gives more in
>> foreign aid to a vast number of countries around the world than the
>> U.S.
>
> Per capita, America ranks dead last among first-world countries giving
> aid. We appear to "give more" only because we have a larger
> population. But each American gives much MUCH less than each German, or
> each Canadian, etc., does.
Huh? Have you ever studied math? Again, per capita measurements are
totally meaningless.
We give more money than anyone dollars and in-kind combined. Period.
>
>> The U.S. funds the majority of all the money given to the IMF & World
>> Bank to the tune of 20+ billion dollars.
>
> Per capita, our IMF and World Bank funding is near the bottom.
Huh? Are you insane. Per capita is meaningless.
>
>> The U.S. pays the biggest percentage of the UN budget.
>
> UN dues are an odd beast; they're distributed weirdly. Even so, per
> capita, the US has lower UN dues than quite a lot of countries,
> including Japan. Japan faithfully and consistently pays their higher
> dues. We don't.
It is the math. The UN also conveniently likes to leave out the cost of
our in-kind contributions such as military vis a vis peacekeeping
operations. We pay for that don't we?
>
> But I don't view UN dues as charitable aid.
They are charity. From the American taxpayer to the rabble of the world.
The UN would fold tomorrow if we stopped contributing. Plain and simple.
> I view them as the price we
> pay (and a dang low one at that) to get nearly hegemonic control over
> the UN, and to have its headquarters in our country. That control
> enabled us to get resolutions in our favor for the last three military
> conflicts we've been involved in: that deal alone paid for *far* more
> than the entire $1 billion we're in arrears.
The UN is a tool. If you pay for the tool you use it as you see fit.
>
> Sean
Will
>
>
> --
> This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
> To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
> mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
>
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 10:02:23 EST