NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-B/eco_com_to_for_aid#

Who isn't surprised?

Who isn't surprised?
Me!

Well, percentage doesn't mean much...3% of US aid could be far more than 52% of Danish aid. Value is also important.

No. That's pretty retarded.

So, should all countries have to give to foriegn aid 3% of America's economy? Or the 52% that constitutes Danish aid?

This is based off of that countries finances...3% of America's government spending...

If the Danish can take complete care of their citizens with only 48% of the money they take in taxes, then why does it take America 97% of what they take in taxes (especially considering how capitalistic America is compared to the rest of the world)?



I mean, to dumb it down, you're saying that on a test, 5 out of 10 isn't better than 30 out of 1000.

No. That's pretty retarded.

So, should all countries have to give to foriegn aid 3% of America's economy? Or the 52% that constitutes Danish aid?

This is based off of that countries finances...3% of America's government spending...

If the Danish can take complete care of their citizens with only 48% of the money they take in taxes, then why does it take America 97% of what they take in taxes (especially considering how capitalistic America is compared to the rest of the world)?



I mean, to dumb it down, you're saying that on a test, 5 out of 10 isn't better than 30 out of 1000.

I think you've intepreted the date wrongly. Denmark cannot give 52% of its economy every year to aid!!!!

Definition on NationMaster: Relative commitment to aid and military expenditure. Official development assistance compared with military expenditure, 1995 %

Which I think means for every $100 the US spends on the military, it spends $3 on aid, and for every $100 Denmark spends on the military, it spends $52 on aid.

You still don't think that's a little rediculous? Do you know what the Pentagon spends it's money on?

They spend their money on the same bullshit sci-fi superweapons that you see in Austin Powers movies. And I'm not kidding you one bit. They want to hand over shitloads of money to Boeing (heh, no competitive market really even) to develop space lasers...

You still don't think that's a little rediculous? Do you know what the Pentagon spends it's money on?

They spend their money on the same bullshit sci-fi superweapons that you see in Austin Powers movies. And I'm not kidding you one bit. They want to hand over shitloads of money to Boeing (heh, no competitive market really even) to develop space lasers...

Ah...but Boeing would give shitloads back to the next candidtate for the election campaign... It's just trade. Africa gives too little to support election campaigns of anybody, so they don't get any back. Immoral? Maybe. Simple? Yes.

Not surprised.
Don't really care, either. :p

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-B/eco_com_to_for_aid#

Who isn't surprised?
So it's become a brownie points contest now, has it?

No. That's pretty retarded.

So, should all countries have to give to foriegn aid 3% of America's economy? Or the 52% that constitutes Danish aid?

This is based off of that countries finances...3% of America's government spending...

If the Danish can take complete care of their citizens with only 48% of the money they take in taxes, then why does it take America 97% of what they take in taxes (especially considering how capitalistic America is compared to the rest of the world)?



I mean, to dumb it down, you're saying that on a test, 5 out of 10 isn't better than 30 out of 1000.


Because they aren't responsible for the world's security? The Danes don't have to spend nearly as much on their military as we do.

You still don't think that's a little rediculous? Do you know what the Pentagon spends it's money on?

They spend their money on the same bullshit sci-fi superweapons that you see in Austin Powers movies. And I'm not kidding you one bit. They want to hand over shitloads of money to Boeing (heh, no competitive market really even) to develop space lasers...



Complain about it after we get nuked for not having it.

Not suprised, really. Just a little angry about that...

To be fair, this only ranks governments, not privite donations. I dont think its fair though to judge like this

This whole topic is horribly screwed.

I mean, a country like Denmark hands out peanuts compared to the US. However, the US doesn't commit nearly as many of their resources to aid forign nations as Denmark does, they just have a hell of a lot more resources than Denmark.
Also, while a country like Denmark makes very little difference between which nations it supports, the US does the exact opposite. I can't be arsed to look up exact numbers, but I think something like 30% of the US forign aid goes to Israel and Egypt. Denmark does no such thing. Or at least not on such a massive scale.

It's been a few years since I looked at numbers for any of this, but really, every time I hear about how generous US forign aid is, I laugh. US forign aid is more of a bribe for allies or potential corporate victims. Somehow that's not what I associate with the word 'aid' at all.

Some republicans might argue that the money they spend on military is in fact, a sort of "aid" they provide to other nations. :rolleyes:

Anyone ever hear of the PNAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC)?

I despise these men and their disshonest ways. They are a disgrace to their party let alone American Democracy. I fail to see how their methods are conceptually diferent than Al-Qaeda's. They wish to impose by force their way of life on other people and other nations. Al-Qaeda wishes the same, and they have applied the exact same strategy using their ways of combat to impose their ideals on other people.

why is "Relative commitment to aid and military expenditure" relevant?

why is "Relative commitment to aid and military expenditure" relevant?


Because it shows the United States is evil and all other nations are good.

Because it shows the United States is evil and all other nations are good.
Hahaha! Nah. What shows the US is evil is their neverending wars.

What I find interesting in getting a perspective here. A number of people here keep throwing American foreign aid into every discussion about America's role in the world, expecting everlating gratitude for it.
Looking at those numbers, it seems kind of unjustified for Americans to boast about their foreign aid, when their government is at the same time spending so much more on more aggressive issues, while other countries clearly set more humanitarian priorities.

What I find interesting in getting a perspective here. A number of people here keep throwing American foreign aid into every discussion about America's role in the world, expecting everlating gratitude for it.
Looking at those numbers, it seems kind of unjustified for Americans to boast about their foreign aid, when their government is at the same time spending so much more on more aggressive issues, while other countries clearly set more humanitarian priorities.
You can't draw that conclusion. There's no cause and effect thing going on here.
Not that your conclusion is wrong at all, but your basis for making it is fooked. I'm starting to feel inclined to pull up some numbers on what various nations forign aid actually goes to. That's what you can draw such a conclusion from. Not Military vs. Forign aid spending.

why is "Relative commitment to aid and military expenditure" relevant?
Because it comes from that wonderful bastion of human rights that we also call the United Nations.

Wow, I typed that without laughing! Excuse me for a few minutes.

What I find interesting in getting a perspective here. A number of people here keep throwing American foreign aid into every discussion about America's role in the world, expecting everlating gratitude for it.
Looking at those numbers, it seems kind of unjustified for Americans to boast about their foreign aid, when their government is at the same time spending so much more on more aggressive issues, while other countries clearly set more humanitarian priorities.Exactly.

Exactly.

My dear Canada, you seem to forget that it's also the people of the US that are charitable. The people of this country are by far the most charitable in the world, putting most other nations to shame. Our government gives more then enough aid to foreign nations. Has all of the money given to Africa (for example) done anything? If I recall, they still are incredibly poor and loaded with disease. Aide does not appear to matter, they need better governments there, free democratic societies, not tin-pot despots or communist wannabes.

Here's an interesting little article from Globalissues.org (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)

And a breakdown of what US aid is spend on (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development/aid/oldchartsoda.asp)

And a link to OECD's aid-at-a-glance (http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2649_34447_1783495_1_1_1_1,00.html) list

So, sure. US much applauded forign aid is really more like funding for partners in crime, past, present and future. For some real perspective, try looking up where various countries military aid went. It's nasty.

My dear Canada, you seem to forget that it's also the people of the US that are charitable. The people of this country are by far the most charitable in the world, putting most other nations to shame. Our government gives more then enough aid to foreign nations. Has all of the money given to Africa (for example) done anything? If I recall, they still are incredibly poor and loaded with disease. Aide does not appear to matter, they need better governments there, free democratic societies, not tin-pot despots or communist wannabes.

Well, then why not spend money and effort trying to establish such governments and democracies?
And, compared to what Irish people give to charities in relation to their income, the USA takes a very poor 2nd place at best.

AND, US citizens spend the same amount as they do on foreign aid as they do on porn.

I think that should be brought up whenever we discus US's contribution the world. It's equivelent to that spent on porn.

The first time I thought of that I thought of poor people crowding around a truck as it distributes a variety of pornographic material. Huh.

Well, then why not spend money and effort trying to establish such governments and democracies?
And, compared to what Irish people give to charities in relation to their income, the USA takes a very poor 2nd place at best.

You view charity as a big dick contest?

So using 2004 military spending figures we have

The USA giving 11,970,000,000
Demark giving 1,500,000,000


Which of those do you think would help the most? Again percentages are used by those that can not compete in raw power. In order to make themselves feel better about their inadequacies in other areas. Nice try though I give the OP a 4 on attempt scale.

So using 2004 military spending figures we have

The USA giving 11,970,000,000
Demark giving 1,500,000,000


Which of those do you think would help the most? Again percentages are used by those that can not compete in raw power. In order to make themselves feel better about their inadequacies in other areas. Nice try though I give the OP a 4 on attempt scale.

You sir are a gentleman, and a scholar.

Okay, because some of you were pointing out that 52% of Denmarks thingy, may not even be as much as that 3% that the US spends...

I shall quote, or attempt to remember what someone said during MUN.

I don't think you understand the word 'percentage.'

Percentage means if I take 10% of $100, and if I take 10% of $50, the impact on that money would be the same. There would only be 90% of that money left, no matter how much there was.

So while maybe that 3% is a helluvalot larger then that 52%, but the 52% made a greater impact in comparison to what was there originally.

Did that make sense? I know the girl in MUN just got laughed at.. I'm hoping I at least made sense.

Okay, because some of you were pointing out that 52% of Denmarks thingy, may not even be as much as that 3% that the US spends...

I shall quote, or attempt to remember what someone said during MUN.

I don't think you understand the word 'percentage.'

Percentage means if I take 10% of $100, and if I take 10% of $50, the impact on that money would be the same. There would only be 90% of that money left, no matter how much there was.

So while maybe that 3% is a helluvalot larger then that 52%, but the 52% made a greater impact in comparison to what was there originally.

Did that make sense? I know the girl in MUN just got laughed at.. I'm hoping I at least made sense.

The Graph states the following:

Definition: Relative commitment to aid and military expenditure. Official development assistance compared with military expenditure, 1995 %.


So if the US spends 399 billion on military and the aid it gave out for that year came to 3% of that. While Denmark spends around 3 billion on military and that year gave out 52% in aid when compared. You get the true numbers; it is not about the percentage because who the hell cares how much a country gave based on what it spends. All that matters is what can be done with that money. 12 billion in aid will accomplish more than 1.5 billion. Would you not agree with that?

I realize that it makes people feel more fuzzy to think they spent 52% compared to a paltry 1.5 billion compared to 3% or 12 billion. The reality is of course something completely different.

The Graph states the following:

Definition: Relative commitment to aid and military expenditure. Official development assistance compared with military expenditure, 1995 %.


So if the US spends 399 billion on military and the aid it gave out for that year came to 3% of that. While Denmark spends around 3 billion on military and that year gave out 52% in aid when compared. You get the true numbers; it is not about the percentage because who the hell cares how much a country gave based on what it spends. All that matters is what can be done with that money. 12 billion in aid will accomplish more than 1.5 billion. Would you not agree with that?

I realize that it makes people feel more fuzzy to think they spent 52% compared to a paltry 1.5 billion compared to 3% or 12 billion. The reality is of course something completely different.

Oh no, I realise that America gives a lot more money than Denmark, and therefore, is probably changing a lot more lives.

The more I think about it the more confused I'm getting. Maybe I'm tired, maybe I'm stupid.

I just wanted to point out yes, Denmark does give less than America. And yes, percentage in this case doesn't really matter because it's really about how much you're giving, and how it's being used, who's lives are you changing.

But just because Denmark spends less on it's military, doesn't mean that it's efforts aren't admirable. No matter how much it is, 52% is a LOT when you think of it in the percent-terms.

Again I'm fearing I didn't make any sense.

It's a sucky comparison. Gotta look at total aid in % GDP and per capita for government aid and private donations to charities.


All this shows is a country's priorities.

The whole arguement is bogus. It is a liberal way to say hey you guys suck and need to give more. Got news for you, the US gives massive aid to the world. Private donations are through the roof and then military assistance is second to none to other nations. Yes bailing out tsunami nations with the military counts as does overthrowing despots in Afghanistan and Iraq. People that harp on the US for not giving enough need to be slapped upside the head. Get a clue.

Oh no, I realise that America gives a lot more money than Denmark, and therefore, is probably changing a lot more lives.

The more I think about it the more confused I'm getting. Maybe I'm tired, maybe I'm stupid.

I just wanted to point out yes, Denmark does give less than America. And yes, percentage in this case doesn't really matter because it's really about how much you're giving, and how it's being used, who's lives are you changing.

But just because Denmark spends less on it's military, doesn't mean that it's efforts aren't admirable. No matter how much it is, 52% is a LOT when you think of it in the percent-terms.

Again I'm fearing I didn't make any sense.


Oh I am not saying what is given should be looked down upon. In fact all aid should be posted in amounts not percentages.

I am saying we should look down on those that want to use the percentage only as a form of measuring. For they are doing nothing but trying to make themselves feel better for giving a higher percentage of a smaller base amount to begin with. If I had $1000 dollars and gave 700 of it or 70% of what I had, it wouldn't do anything compared to someone giving 1 million dollars of the 100 million they had to start. Should I then go and announce to everyone that I gave 70% of my earnings to a charitable cause to make myself look bigger than I am? I say no, I should applaud the effort of the person that gave 1 million dollars to that same charity and strive to give more the next time around.

And for what is worth you are making sense, I just think we are both at the opposite ends of this issue.

Does this include military aide?
EX: US presence in Iraq/Afghanistan (can we at least pretend for a moment that its good intentioned?), UN-Peacekeeper assitance, etc. etc.?
Basicaly, forms of forign aid that dont get written up as 'Forign Aid'.

Oh I am not saying what is given should be looked down upon. In fact all aid should be posted in amounts not percentages.

I am saying we should look down on those that want to use the percentage only as a form of measuring. For they are doing nothing but trying to make themselves feel better for giving a higher percentage of a smaller base amount to begin with. If I had $1000 dollars and gave 700 of it or 70% of what I had, it wouldn't do anything compared to someone giving 1 million dollars of the 100 million they had to start. Should I then go and announce to everyone that I gave 70% of my earnings to a charitable cause to make myself look bigger than I am? I say no, I should applaud the effort of the person that gave 1 million dollars to that same charity and strive to give more the next time around.

And for what is worth you are making sense, I just think we are both at the opposite ends of this issue.

*nods head* Okalidokali then, that makes sense.

Look no matter how much money the U.S. gives inn forgien in aid means nothing to the government because Bush-Republicans are only doing it to get somthing in return. If it dindn't benifit bush, republicans, or his special intrest groups, no money would be given at all.

Look no matter how much money the U.S. gives inn forgien in aid means nothing to the government because Bush-Republicans are only doing it to get somthing in return. If it dindn't benifit bush, republicans, or his special intrest groups, no money would be given at all.

I'm sorry that's kind of silly.

Last time I checked, the US was a democracy.

Bush wouldn't be able to stop foreign aid without the majority's consesnt. Which I highly doubt he would get.

As a U.S. Citizen who is well informed on Bushes policies and polotics, I can tell you yes this is a domocrecy but the only support he need to give forgin aid id U.S. Congress and they have special intrest groups as well so it is not hard to give forgien aid to countries he wants and to sto forgien aid to countries he dislikes.

Military aid isn't by definition a good thing. Actually, it's almost always more of a good thing for the nation that provides it.
The procentage of forign aid vs. military spending is inane. There's no connection between the two, as a nations military and military aid are used to promote/secure national interests, whereas forign aid is used for (ideally) selfless acts.

It's nonsense to claim Denmark is more cheritable than the US based on those numbers, because it says nothing about how much the two countries actually spend.
It's equally idiotic to compare US$ amounts between the two countries, as the two doesn't have comparable economies - it's like comparing Bill Gates to me. If I give a million to some cause or other, that will be a mindblowing feat on my part. If Bill Gates gives a million to the same thing, it's almost offensive. I mean, the guy's pool costs more than that.

What will give some idea of how cheritable and selfless a nation is, is to look at how much of it's GNI it spends on forign aid. The Agenda 21 agreement, which both countries promised to live up to, holds that nations should pay 0.7% or more in forign aid. I think the numbers are (I provided updated links earlier):
US spends ca. 0.16%
Denmark spends ca. 0.72%

You get a much clearer picture if you actually look at how a nation spends it's forign aid. In the US case, forign aid is almost solely used to keep allies afloat, or pay damages to countries they've messed up.
Denmark on the other hand, spends most of it's forign aid on development programs in countries they have no direct ties with and won't themselves benefit from helping.

But as I've said before (paraphrasing): This thread is useless, uninformed and silly.

You are exactly right U.S. forgien zaid is only used to help the U.S.

I'm trying to figure out if the past two posts were typos or actual errors...

What about Sudan? What can the US get from Sudan?

Anyways, foreign aid is just a way to show off how much money your country has.

I'm trying to figure out if the past two posts were typos or actual errors...

What about Sudan? What can the US get from Sudan?

Anyways, foreign aid is just a way to show off how much money your country has.
I said ALMOST solely. But I suggest you look at the links I posted on p.2 - that should clear up any misconceptions about US forign aid. The source I posted isn't disputable ;)

Aide does not appear to matter, they need better governments there, free democratic societies, not tin-pot despots or communist wannabes.

Well, since lots of first world companies support said tin-pot despots and corrupt governments (e.g. Shell in Nigeria, shipping companies in Liberia, DeBeers in some of the diamond producing countries) I think we help keep those despots in place, much as we rail against them.

My dear Canada, you seem to forget that it's also the people of the US that are charitable. The people of this country are by far the most charitable in the world, putting most other nations to shame. Our government gives more then enough aid to foreign nations. Has all of the money given to Africa (for example) done anything? If I recall, they still are incredibly poor and loaded with disease. Aide does not appear to matter, they need better governments there, free democratic societies, not tin-pot despots or communist wannabes.The only use or interest the USA has ever had since the 60's in African nations has been in cheap and abundant resources, plenty of warlords to sell guns to and mouths closed shut.

All this shows is a country's priorities.
That is exactly true.

IT IS MEANT TO SHOW A COUNTRY'S PRIORITIES, PEOPLE!

And Denmark obviously values aid moreso compared to military than the US does. That's all.

That is exactly true.

IT IS MEANT TO SHOW A COUNTRY'S PRIORITIES, PEOPLE!

And Denmark obviously values aid moreso compared to military than the US does. That's all.And to say anything else is pure American demagogy.

If only the U.S. spent 0% on foreign aid. :(

The only use or interest the USA has ever had since the 60's in African nations has been in cheap and abundant resources, plenty of warlords to sell guns to and mouths closed shut.

Yes, and every other country was 100% committed to helping Africans and had no involvement in the Cold War. It was a different time then, with Third World nations being played like chess pieces in the superpowers' clash. The US of today is highly commited to African aid, be it through government or private contribution.

Yes, and every other country was 100% committed to helping Africans and had no involvement in the Cold War. It was a different time then, with Third World nations being played like chess pieces in the superpowers' clash. The US of today is highly commited to African aid, be it through government or private contribution.No matter how much is being done... it is quite clear to me that more has to be done.

That is exactly true.

IT IS MEANT TO SHOW A COUNTRY'S PRIORITIES, PEOPLE!

And Denmark obviously values aid moreso compared to military than the US does. That's all.
Exactly right. Why value peace when someone else already bought it for you. An ant lifts a lot compared to it's weight, but when it comes to an elephant we know who has the right of way. Nice of the other countries to make a show of carrying away a dead leaf or two, in the wake of having all the heavy lifting done for them.

If only the U.S. spent 0% on foreign aid. :(
The Government spends so little, you as a person wouldn't even realise it's gone.
If they spend nothing on the military however...

What does comparing foreign aid to military expenditure show? It's a pointless comparison. A more useful comparison would be actually how much aid is sent, or aid as a percentage of GDP.

But no, the person chose military expenditure. And why did they choose military expenditure, you ask.

Because it is the statistic which makes the US look most evil, so you supposadely enlightened, liberal, and multi-cultural Europeans can get up on your high horses and feel superior. Well congratulations, you've proved absolute jack shit except how you can really be assholes.

...Nice of the other countries to make a show of carrying away a dead leaf or two, in the wake of having all the heavy lifting done for them.
Are you pretending the US has brought us all peace again?

No matter how much is being done... it is quite clear to me that more has to be done.

Yes, and increasing aid money isn't the end-all. We need to force corrupt governments from power, eliminate trade barriers between nations, and establish stable, democratic systems as bulwarks against ethnic wars. Too much aid simply flows in to the pockets of corrupt dictators while the people starve.

Once these are established, the aid can be most effective and considerably increased. The first priority is building and rebuilding infrastructure, particularly international roads, rails, and ports. Next, we will need to dismantle the failed Soviet-style economic systems, and encourage economic diversification and proper investment and accountability of aid.

The end priority is to wean Africa from aid and make it able to sustain itself, which would be probably the greatest humanitarian accomplishment ever.

Exactly right. Why value peace when someone else already bought it for you. An ant lifts a lot compared to it's weight, but when it comes to an elephant we know who has the right of way. Nice of the other countries to make a show of carrying away a dead leaf or two, in the wake of having all the heavy lifting done for them.Care to explain exactly what kind of heavy lifting have the Americans done in Africa?

No matter how much is being done... it is quite clear to me that more has to be done.

Aid doesn't help the citizens of the recipient countries. It only enriches the coffers of other countries' governments, especially if the countries in question are African ones. Africa is the continent of dictatorships.

-snip-
No, it is an actual index, entitled "Commitment to Foreign Aid".
It's meant to illustrate the priority given to Foreign Aid, when compared with that most selfish of pursuits, the military.
Do you dispute that Denmark values Foreign Aid higher than the US Government on its list of policies?

Yes, and increasing aid money isn't the end-all. We need to force corrupt governments from power, eliminate trade barriers between nations, and establish stable, democratic systems as bulwarks against ethnic wars. Too much aid simply flows in to the pockets of corrupt dictators while the people starve.

Once these are established, the aid can be most effective and considerably increased. The first priority is building and rebuilding infrastructure, particularly international roads, rails, and ports. Next, we will need to dismantle the failed Soviet-style economic systems, and encourage economic diversification and proper investment and accountability of aid.

The end priority is to wean Africa from aid and make it able to sustain itself, which would be probably the greatest humanitarian accomplishment ever.Sounds good to me. If that's what you truly want, then I hope you didn't vote for Bush. If you did you've just made an ass of yourself.

"I don't think our troops should be involved in nation building." G. Bush in a live debate during the 2000 election campaign.

Sounds good to me. If that's what you truly want, then I hope you didn't vote for Bush. If you did you've just made an ass of yourself.
"I don't think our troops should be involved in nation building." G. Bush in a live debate during the 2000 election campaign.

No, I didn't. The same goes with 2000, 1996, and 1992; I voted for Gore, and wasn't old enough in 1996 or 1992 but was a Clinton supporter. We need to do more, and as the world's most powerful nation we have a duty to help other nations, in my opinion.

Aid doesn't help the citizens of the recipient countries. It only enriches the coffers of other countries' governments, especially if the countries in question are African ones. Africa is the continent of dictatorships.
only if you're stupid about it and actually give it to the governments.

I'm glad i come from one of the very few countries that give completely un-tied aid(they don't have to use Irish companies or preferential trade or any of that bull) I'm not glad about is that the government can't keep their promises to the international community and get the aid up to 0.7% like they promised.

Okay, because some of you were pointing out that 52% of Denmarks thingy, may not even be as much as that 3% that the US spends...

I shall quote, or attempt to remember what someone said during MUN.

I don't think you understand the word 'percentage.'

Percentage means if I take 10% of $100, and if I take 10% of $50, the impact on that money would be the same. There would only be 90% of that money left, no matter how much there was.

So while maybe that 3% is a helluvalot larger then that 52%, but the 52% made a greater impact in comparison to what was there originally.

Did that make sense? I know the girl in MUN just got laughed at.. I'm hoping I at least made sense.

This has probably been posted already, but I felt like responding anyway because I hate statistical bullshit games people play.

Yes. You're absolutely right. Except that you forget that regardless of what the percentages are (and percentages are often used to twist the results to further one's political arguements), the overall value of the aid comes down to how much is actually given.

Here's an example:

Denmark spend $100 on it's military, and $52 on foreign aid - that's the 52% in that graph.
US spends $100,000 on it's military, and $3,000 on foreign aid - that's the 3% in that graph.

Now, which Country had a larger impact on the world foreign aid fund?

So, yes, while the perecentages make it look like the US is slacking, the US spends more than the entire European block COMBINED. Stop arguing percentages and argue pure hard cold cash. You're telling me that the billions of dollars the US spends on foreign aid every year isnt worth as much as the hundreds of thousands spent by Denmark? Tell that to the people that benefit from that extra billion dollars spent by the US...

So, yes, while the perecentages make it look like the US is slacking, the US spends more than the entire European block COMBINED.

Foreign Aid:
The European Union - $37.13 billion in 2003
The United States - $16.25 billion in 2003

Development Aid:
The United States - $19 billion in 2004.
The European Union - $42.9 billion in 2004.

so long as you don't claim to be more generous or the most generous.
(don't make me use jesus! :D )

Foreign Aid:
The European Union - $37.13 billion in 2003
The United States - $16.25 billion in 2003

Development Aid:
The United States - $19 billion in 2004.
The European Union - $42.9 billion in 2004.
So much for those who discredited the percentages in favour of the cold hard cash comparison.

When I looked at the rankings on the nationmaster site and saw the definition... I immediately thought skewed data. It gives a false impression. It is linking military spending with foriegn aid. Any country with a big military budget looks like they are being cheap. If you put the amount of currency that actually was being donated rather than a comparison to military/foreign aid you would have a vastly different standing board.

Now if you wanted to say something like what country gives the greater percentage of its GDP in foreign aid... that I could see.. but the example you provided doesn't even do that.

My guess is that the States is one of the higher ranking donaters in the amount of money given. It is most likely not the one with highest percentage of GDP/foreign aid given though.

This poll was unfairly portrayed as what countries give the most in foreign aid. The stats provided are not adequate to back up the threads main point. Many of the nations were portrayed as stingy who in reality give millions worldwide.

My guess is that the States is one of the higher ranking donaters in the amount of money given. It is most likely not the one with highest percentage of GDP/foreign aid given though.

This poll was unfairly portrayed as what countries give the most in foreign aid. The stats provided are not adequate to back up the threads main point. Many of the nations were portrayed as stingy who in reality give millions worldwide.

Although this is, strictly speaking, refering to development aid, rather than foreign aid:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/OECDstatistics.jpg/497px-OECDstatistics.jpg

-snip-
ZING!

So much for those who discredited the percentages in favour of the cold hard cash comparison.
The European Union in 2003 had how many countries in it? I do not myself expect the United States to collectively outgive all of Europe. If any thing I would like to see the donation amounts broke down by nations and than bring up the rankings.... I think many European nations were given the shaft as far as the nationmaster site was concerned.

This poll was unfairly portrayed as what countries give the most in foreign aid. The stats provided are not adequate to back up the threads main point. Many of the nations were portrayed as stingy who in reality give millions worldwide.
Because that is not the point of them.
It is about commitment to foreign aid, ie the importance the Government allocates to giving aid, as compared to more selfish pursuits.
And for that it is valid.

The European Union in 2003 had how many countries in it? I do not myself expect the United States to collectively outgive all of Europe. If any thing I would like to see the donation amounts broke down by nations and than bring up the rankings.... I think many European nations were given the shaft as far as the nationmaster site was concerned.

There are figures for some of the constituent countries in the image I linked to a couple of posts above.

As far as the fact that there are more countries in the EU compared to the US being a single country - the EU has a combined population of about 450 million, while the US has about 300 million.

Although this is, strictly speaking, refering to development aid, rather than foreign aid:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/OECDstatistics.jpg/497px-OECDstatistics.jpg

Grampus .... thank you for the information. As I thought ... US had one of the highest donation amounts... but not in respect to the economy. That I am not surprised about at all.

I just dont like it when it appears as if billions in foreign aid are not appreciated. No matter which country is giving it they shouldn't have to worry that someone is going to find fault with the money given. I think it is tacky.

In an effort to put an end to silly speculations on how much various nations (US included) spend, I'm reposting the stuff I posted on page two.

Also, while what matters for the recipant of forign aid is the US$ amount, what matters to the donating country is the % of it's GNI or GNP.

Again, we've made a commitment to comply with Agenda 21. This deal states our nations should spend no less than 0.7% of their GNI's.

In the following 3 links, you'll find comparisons of both how much money the various nations actually fork over, and how big an impact it makes on the counties budgets.

You'll also find background information on what the money should be and is spend on, and various other comments, such as some historical reference.

You'll also be directed to a page with fairly simple breakdowns of what the various nations actually pay to, and the actual amounts.

Here's an interesting little article from Globalissues.org (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)

And a breakdown of what US aid is spend on (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development/aid/oldchartsoda.asp)

And a link to OECD's aid-at-a-glance (http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2649_34447_1783495_1_1_1_1,00.html) list

So, sure. US much applauded forign aid is really more like funding for partners in crime, past, present and future. For some real perspective, try looking up where various countries military aid went. It's nasty.

There are figures for some of the constituent countries in the image I linked to a couple of posts above.

As far as the fact that there are more countries in the EU compared to the US being a single country - the EU has a combined population of about 450 million, while the US has about 300 million.

Yes... 150 million people difference... let alone each individuals countries trading affiliations. Where one nation in the EU may not have the best trading affiliation with a Non EU country another EU country does.

Each country on that list has given substantial amounts. I applaud them all... but obviously others think if you don't give enough of your GDP that it wasnt really all that great. I think that is sad. Besides many countries have a greater rate of taxation. The government has a greater percentage of the nations income to give. The States is not that way. The States is actually pulling in some ways from a smaller pool of funds. Either way I think is is still being nit picky. I understand what you are saying and why.... it is a valid opinion. I just think giving should be appreciated.

My grammar is seriously faulty... must be getting tired :)

In an effort to put an end to silly speculations on how much various nations (US included) spend, I'm reposting the stuff I posted on page two.

Also, while what matters for the recipant of forign aid is the US$ amount, what matters to the donating country is the % of it's GNI or GNP.

Again, we've made a commitment to comply with Agenda 21. This deal states our nations should spend no less than 0.7% of their GNI's.

In the following 3 links, you'll find comparisons of both how much money the various nations actually fork over, and how big an impact it makes on the counties budgets.

You'll also find background information on what the money should be and is spend on, and various other comments, such as some historical reference.

You'll also be directed to a page with fairly simple breakdowns of what the various nations actually pay to, and the actual amounts.

I appreciate the information :)

What a surprise. The Swiss are right in the middle.

This has probably been posted already, but I felt like responding anyway because I hate statistical bullshit games people play.

Yes. You're absolutely right. Except that you forget that regardless of what the percentages are (and percentages are often used to twist the results to further one's political arguements), the overall value of the aid comes down to how much is actually given.

Here's an example:

Denmark spend $100 on it's military, and $52 on foreign aid - that's the 52% in that graph.
US spends $100,000 on it's military, and $3,000 on foreign aid - that's the 3% in that graph.

Now, which Country had a larger impact on the world foreign aid fund?

So, yes, while the perecentages make it look like the US is slacking, the US spends more than the entire European block COMBINED. Stop arguing percentages and argue pure hard cold cash. You're telling me that the billions of dollars the US spends on foreign aid every year isnt worth as much as the hundreds of thousands spent by Denmark? Tell that to the people that benefit from that extra billion dollars spent by the US...

Had you continued reading, which I currently think you didn't, you would've realised that was already pointed out to me.

I realised that more money is better. That's kind of obvious. But like many others have said, though I could never really phrase it correctly, the graph shows the country's priorities. So Denmark could be seen as viewing foreign aid slightly more than half as important as military spending.

No matter how much they give, doesn't that need to be applauded?

The European Union in 2003 had how many countries in it? I do not myself expect the United States to collectively outgive all of Europe.The Us currently outspends the whole world when it comes to military spending. It goes to show what the Nation's priorities are.

Had you continued reading, which I currently think you didn't, you would've realised that was already pointed out to me.

I realised that more money is better. That's kind of obvious. But like many others have said, though I could never really phrase it correctly, the graph shows the country's priorities. So Denmark could be seen as viewing foreign aid slightly more than half as important as military spending.

No matter how much they give, doesn't that need to be applauded?


Apparently you didnt read the first two sentences of my post...but whatever.

The US also provides what percentage of the UN Peacekeeping forces active in the World, along with what percentage of NATO troops? But I suppose all that's irrelevant...

Had you continued reading, which I currently think you didn't, you would've realised that was already pointed out to me.

I realised that more money is better. That's kind of obvious. But like many others have said, though I could never really phrase it correctly, the graph shows the country's priorities. So Denmark could be seen as viewing foreign aid slightly more than half as important as military spending.

No matter how much they give, doesn't that need to be applauded?
You can't make that assumption on the figures provided by the thread starter. Sure, the info I provided shows that your assumption is correct, but military spending relative to spending on forign aid isn't connected. There's just no way in hell you can ever say anything about either by comparing those two numbers.

The US may have pressing reasons to spend insane amounts of money on their military, or they may not. Comparing the spending to their spending on lifeboats, hospitals, powersupply or Coke subsidising is pointless.

Besides, it's not that hard to make a somewhat solid case for the current US military spending, without comming to the conclusion that America is any more militaristic than Denmark (not that I personally think that's the case).

It's not even comparing apples to oranges. It's just stupid.

Because they aren't responsible for the world's security? The Danes don't have to spend nearly as much on their military as we do.
Who’s fault is it to want to be world police … if we really wanted to get out of the biz we could be working a bit harder to make a non aligned global “police” (with a bit more spine then the UN hopefully)
But no we don’t want that cause then we would not be in charge … and they may have to act against us if we do something wrong *gasp* like we do to all the others

We spend the money cause we don’t want to have to answer to anyone else like we make others do to us.