I’m interested if anybody knows how much we give en toto.  That is, calculate how much Government money is given as aid, add private corporate donations, add private individual donations, add non-profit donations, add donations of time and skill that have monetary value and then tabulate the results.  I suspect the figure for total U.S. donations, when properly tabulated, would shed new light on the subject.

FYI--Charitable contributions by the private sector in America for 2003 totaled 241 BILLION dollars.  That is 2.2% of GDP.  The figure is not based on what individuals claim they gave, but is derived from what charitable institutions reported receiving.  This figure does not include international organizations centered outside the United States that receive contributions from U.S. citizens.  If that is figured in, the number is undoubtedly going to be higher.

Let’s frame this properly.  Simply looking at what the U.S. government does fails to account for much of what is done by the U.S. 

To help without harming is a damnably tough puzzle to solve.

DOF, aptly put.

Regards,

I just wanted to make a comment about the governments of south east Asia.  It seems that quite a few people here have suggested that the poverty in the region is a result of oppressive regimes.  That’s not always the case, for example (from what I’ve read) Thailand (with the exception of the muslim minority) and Burma, though both monarchies, enjoy tremendously high public support of the governments.  Moreover, Sri Lanka is in fact a democracy.  Indonesia admittedly is a bit of a “basket-case” nation, but that’s more a result of ethnic tensions versus oppressive government, though assuredly that exists there as well.

I think one of the major reasons that the region is so impoverished is that there is no potential for industry there.  There aren’t many natural resources.  Other than farming there’s very little that a person can do there.  I mean, they can probably do fairly well with secondary manufacturing, but look how the manufacturing industry has exploited the poor around the world.  I think some people in south east Asia would prefer to be poor than be near slaves to Mattel.

As for the original point of this thread, I think for once the US is actually doing better than Canada.  I think Canada so far has only donated (C)$4 million to the relief effort and the government has been dragging its feet in sending over D.A.R.T. the “elite” disaster response team. 

We have the capability to do a lot to help the people affected by the Tsunamis but so far we haven’t.  The D.A.R.T. team could have responded in a matter of hours and deployed to rescue the injured, provide medical assistance, and distribute food.  However, as far as I know, only a reconaisance team has been sent in.

SS. I believe your $4M figure is based on an early report made while people were on vacation.

Here is a quote from the Hindustani Times

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1177516,00410011.htm

As the government’s criticism and the death toll mounted, three ministers cut short their vacation and Ottawa scrambled to get its act together. On Wednesday, the defence minister raised Canadian assistance to the tsunami-hit nations from $4 million to $40 million and dispatched 25 tonnes of medical and food relief to Sri Lanka. Another plane with similar relief is bound for Indonesia.

Various provincial governments also chipped in, with British Columbia donating $8 million, Ontario $5 million, Alberta $5 million, and Nova Scotia and Manitoba $100,000 each. The Canadian Red Cross also received millions in donations.

On Thursday, Defence Minister Bill Graham, Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew and International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll faced a hostile media and announced more measures to help the victim nations.

Last night I heard that Canada is also matching private donations. Also, we just announced that we (US) are upping our aid to $350M.

Oh, I’m glad that we (Canada) are coming to our senses and beginning to distribute the needed aid.

DOF, I still love you, don’t worry. How to help them?  That’s a very hard question to answer, and I don’t think anyone really knows all of it.  Whatever the answer is, it’s got to be complex. 

I read a cover article in the NYT Magazine some time back about a philanthropist who is making the strong argument that it really IS all about sending money—bucketfuls of money—and applying it correctly.  Can’t remember his name now, but he was creating quite a furor in the world economic / charity organization circles. 

Maybe a combination of peacekeepers and educators bringing money to the region, with very strict conditions on their delivery, either bypassing the strongmen or forcing them to comply with the conditions if they want ANY piece of the action.  All I know is, once people can bootstrap themselves with sustainable food, education and hope, they can take it from there in more cases.  But they can’t just pick themselves up right now and do anything, and just hammering the dictator from the top down doesn’t solve any problems.  I tend to believe that comparative wealth suppresses many of the other problems, such as corruption and violence—we just have to get them there, without trying to change their ethnic culture and belief systems.

Whatever the answer is, it isn’t, to paraphrase Sam Kinison’s screaming, “Don’t send them food—send them suitcases so they can fucking MOVE!”

I just heard we’re boosting aid from $35m to $350m.  Now that’s more like it!  It’s an open question if it could have been handled more incompetently, though.  It reinforces my belief that the $35m is simply the first number to pop into GWB’s head.

I’m not a presidential speechwriter, but I can pretend:

Bush voice: “I have ordered in immediate infusion of $35m to get our aid started while we evaluate the scope of the disaster.”

There.  Was that so hard? Sounds good, leaves the door open for more without it looking like you’re reacting to criticism… (Mr. Bush, I am available.  It’s time you sent Karl Rove on vacation.)

“I’m like anyone else on this planet—I’m very moved by world hunger. I see the same commercials, with those little kids, starving, and very depressed.....Matter of fact, I think I have the answer. You want to stop world hunger? Stop sending these people food. Don’t send these people another bite, folks. You want to send them something, you want to help? Send them U-Hauls. Send them U-Hauls, some luggage, send them a guy out there who says, ‘Hey, we been driving out here every day with your food, for, like, the last thirty or forty years, and we were driving out here today across the desert, and it occurred to us that there wouldn’t BE world hunger, if you people would LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING’S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT’S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT’S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR SHIT, WE’LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE’LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!

--From an appearance on Rodney Dangerfield’s “It’s Not Easy Being Me,” 1984.

Thanks, Consi, that was the routine I was thinking of.

1) Hope you have done your part?
I believe that in all our discussions on aid we should remember the tragedy unfolding before our eyes and go out to donate. It does not matter how much one gives for any amount of aid helps. From the child who gives $5.17 from her piggy bank to Pfizer which is giving $35million, every cent helps. So hopefully you folks took the time and effort to donate cash. Cash is the most flexible rather than goods (unless one happens to own some water bottling corporation or drug company in the region) since often sending clothes and other stuff may cost more in transport. Here is a website (http://www.charitywatch.org/) that monitors aid groups to see how match cash gets through.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to correct some stuff that have been said.

2) Wealth: Create not Redistribute
As Jagdish Bhagwati pointed out creating wealth and growth is more helpful in lifting people out of poverty than wealth redistribution. India started out with a redistribution program but it was not until the past decade that the system changed to wealth creation leading to improvement in the lives of many.

Globalisation and trade, working for drug companies, Wal Mart, and even the local companies has helped the poor in East Asia. In 1999 50% of the of the population in the region was living below poverty line and in 2004 the figures has fallen to abour 30%.

If one takes a look at South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong in Asia, these country managed in half a century to transform their countries (which lacked natural resources) into well developed countries.

3) New Western “Imperialism”
The comment that “some people in south east Asia would prefer to be poor than be near slaves to Mattel” is seen as a form of new Western imperialism where development of the country is held back under the guise of “helping the people.” As mentioned by one Indian who is working in a call centre, there is no integrity in being poor and starving. Do we look at street panhandlers as people to look up to for them choosing to be poor than to work? Of course if by some you mean a small handful or in the sense of as of today, there have been some space tourist, then that may be true but the vast majority does not subscribe to that. In development people may see the quaint little village which tourists love to visit transformed but to campaign or argue that the people should preserve their lifestyles is conceited for it is akin to telling the locals not to change so that we may enjoy our visit more. It attempts to deny these people things that we already have so that our vacation may seem more “real.”

There have been many cases of what I would call “politcal-aid groups” that claim to champion the rights ot the people in developing nations. For example:
A) There was a particular world bank project in China where in exchange for loans there would be certain standards in labor and the environment. The political aid groups came in and lobbied the US government andeffectively ended the world bank support. China decided to go alone without the loans and of course without any of the labor and environment standards.
B) There was a factory or sweat shop (Adidas) in the South Asia. After much campaigning from political aid group the factory shut down. The end result is that many of the female workers ended up working in the sex industry. Children of the workers had trouble paying for school. But the campaigners who fought for the closure of these factories is not concerned that the workers as a result of their actions are now in a worse off position.
C) There was also a poltical aid group that claims to champion the rights of the workers in the country and an investigation shows that their all encompasing union only had less than 40 members in the country itself.

I am unsure of any country that has become developed through farming alone. The traditional theory of comparative advantage about “potential” for industry is to a certain extent not true with regards to manufacturing. Foreign investment in the countries bring in technology that gives these people the opportunity to use them. Foreign investment allows cash strap nations to develop their industries and economy without first going through the process of saving the money. And as a result often the main comparative advantage in comparison to developed nations is the lower cost of wages in these countries. But then while wages are low, cost of living is low too.

You have to remember that natural resource industry which I would classify farming too are primary industries right at the bottom of the value chain.

As for natural resources, in my opinion, unless the country has a good government in place at the time of discovering the resources there is a high chance that the natural resources would be a detriment to the country. At least with regards to oil, take a look at countries which discovered them at a time before they had good government, such as countries in Middle East, Nigeria etc, you would notice that in many cases the development of the country seem to have moved backwards.

4) Innovation
The comment that vaccines is “created out of a sense of utilitarianism” is painting a medieval age of invention with one kooky scientist locked in his or her room tinkering with science. But in the present day it cost a lot to develop medicines. Even if the scientist is working out of the goodness of their heart, there are cost in machines, testing etc. Furthermore, if you happen to be a kooky scientist working in your basement to find a cure for cancer and do not want to be paid, there is NOTHING stopping you from inventing your cure and then giving it to the world or simply not file a patent and disclose it to the world at large. The patent/capitalist system allows people who work just because of the money and people who work for the greater good to contribute.

5) Governments of Asia
Thailand is a democracy. They are a monarchy only in the sense the United Kingdom or Canada is a Monarchy. Myanmar is a military dictatorship not a monarchy. Furthermore, as have already been pointed out above, Asia is developing at quite a fast pace with a huge amount of people moving out of poverty. In fact, Asia is an extremely important part of the world econonmy and it has helped fueled the growth of the world economy. The downturn in US economy a few years back was buttressed by the growth in Asia. One of the reason for high oil prices is because of the growing demand in Asia. Sure there are still places with great amount of poverty but if say you visit China just 10 years ago and you visit it today you will see a great difference.

In fact, the growth in Asia is often lead first by a capable government. Sure in many cases they did not start out as democracy as seen in China. But countries such as South Korea were runned by the military until the 1980s when they became a democracy. Democracy may not equal development but development often leads to democracy. Contrasting the governments in many Asian nations with those of Africa and Middle East and you would see in Asia there is a desire to actually help their citizens.

6) Moving / Immigration
To be able to move first one must be able not just to leave but to enter another country. The last I checked, in many developed nations there is a backlash against immigrants or a feeling that their country is “too full.” Of course another problem with immigration is that of brain drain. For example, the British government hires a large number of nurses from developing nations thus depriving the countries of nurses which the country had spend money to train. It is as if the developing nations are subsidising the training of nurses for developed nations. Also in the US, if I recall correctly about half the population of students in engineering or science are non Americans. If you say walk around MIT you would see that a large number of students are not Americans. The same goes for post graduate studies. And often these people stay on in the US after their studies.

But it can be argued that often these people return back to their home countries once their home country gets it act together such as in India or China. Thus in doing so bringing back their experiences.

In my opinion it would seem that places that accepts the most immigrants often tend to be the most dynamic. And places with great restrictions on immigrants often are not doing as well.

What Pop Tarts said. Lots and lots of what Pop Tarts said.

I especially liked this: “Democracy may not equal development but development often leads to democracy.”

I’ve often wondered if the best way to bring down a tyrannical regime is trade and alternate media.  The more contact between the two cultures the worse it is for the tyrant.

On another note,
HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!!!

Bush voice: “I have ordered in immediate infusion of $35m to get our aid started while we evaluate the scope of the disaster.�

W doesn’t need a good speech writer with common sense. He has Fox.

Incidentally, according to the article at News Hounds, our initial public contribution was a pathetic $400K.

Shame on you for bashing Fox.  I believe it is reflection of your misogynistic attitude.  The other outlets could learn a thing or two by hiring many more reporters with the same journalistic integrity as Juliet Huddy, Kiran Chetry, and Page Hopkins. 

Regards,

Shame on you for bashing Fox.  I believe it is reflection of your misogynistic attitude.  The other outlets could learn a thing or two by hiring many more reporters with the same journalistic integrity as Juliet Huddy, Kiran Chetry, and Page Hopkins.

... and as hot as Dari Alexander! 

Pop Tarts,

As mentioned by one Indian who is working in a call centre, there is no integrity in being poor and starving.

I was referring to something the King of Burma said.  He noted that “while Burma has a low gross national profit, it has a very high gross national happiness”.  Not every culture is about material gain.  Quite a few of the Buddhist nations of Southeast Asia reject the commercialism that the west sees as progress based on principle.  Now I will grant that no one wants to be starving, but just because a nation doesn’t have a high GDP doesn’t mean that the populace is starving.  Indeed, there is starvation in some regions of southeast Asia, notably in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.  However, I think it is equally imperialistic to force countries to follow our model of development as it is to deny it to them.  We shouldn’t impose our ways of doing things upon other cultures.  We might mean well, but then again so did the Christian missionaries in South America.  Just because a country doesn’t choose to build factories and focus its efforts in commercial development doesn’t mean that the country is somehow “behind” us.  It might just mean that they care about something else other than financial gain and commerce.

I also wanted to add that the “development” that you refer to in nations such as China is based on the exploitation of the poor, or the politically dissident.  I don’t think that such development is something that should be striven for.  It’s true that the western “developed” countries’ success was originally based upon the exploitation of workers, but just because it was done that way here, doesn’t mean we should export that model to “less developed” nations.  Perhaps, we should have learned from our mistakes and try to export a model based more on fair trading and equitable treatment of workers.

More on PopTarts opening, on-target salvo

1) Hope you have done your part?

I was prowling around a bit ago and came across an editorial by Howard Dean over at Democracy for America. He suggested that, to have an immediate effect, cash would be the best thing to donate at his time.

His post provides a link to InterAction.org where one can find a list of agencies cooperating in the South East Asia tsunami relief effort. This is the page with the specifics

http://www.interaction.org/sasia/index.html

It is a good bit more comprehensive than the one in yesterday’s Post Dispatch

I hope no one us trying to force Burma to follow our model.  Any country that is stable, feeding its own people, and “ensuring domestic tranquility” without any oppressive measures should be left the hell alone - and closely studied.  There is a lot we could learn from them.

There’s also a lot many other countries could learn from us.  Though as Zilch said, it would pay to be selective when imitating the United States as some aspects of our culture are (to put it mildly) far less admirable than others.

I had a bunch of stuff i wanted to add to this thread earlier today, but my computer crashed (ATI video card problem) just as I was about to post. So frustrating.

Anyway, [bold]DoF[/bold], I just realized that the discrepency was caused by currency (Canadian and US dollars - the exchange is around 75%). As well I also had a good laugh at Ann Coluters comment.

[Quote]4) Innovation
The comment that vaccines is “created out of a sense of utilitarianism� is painting a medieval age of invention with one kooky scientist locked in his or her room tinkering with science. But in the present day it cost a lot to develop medicines. Even if the scientist is working out of the goodness of their heart, there are cost in machines, testing etc. Furthermore, if you happen to be a kooky scientist working in your basement to find a cure for cancer and do not want to be paid, there is NOTHING stopping you from inventing your cure and then giving it to the world or simply not file a patent and disclose it to the world at large. The patent/capitalist system allows people who work just because of the money and people who work for the greater good to contribute.

My earlier point was that vacciens were originally created through a sense of utilitarianism, not so drug companies could get rich while those who can’t afford drugs, die. I was also trying to make a point that we do not need the high level of productivity that our society (N.America) already demands. Other countries have done quite well in the innovative field, and they were not born of greed or capatalism (I do believe Russia was the first country to put a man in space).

Anyway, I was just trying to make people think that there may be an alternate healthier solution to how our society operates. It just seems overall we are missing the big picture. I have never seen so many peolpe have so much, yet still be so miserable.