News Generous George disgorges less than $1 per African

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Per
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the disparity between Africa's poverty and the wealth of the U.S., particularly in the context of U.S. aid and foreign policy under George W. Bush. Critics argue that the U.S. prioritizes military spending, such as the Iraq war, over humanitarian aid to Africa, which they believe is a moral failing. The conversation highlights the complexity of aid distribution, emphasizing that while charity is important, it cannot solve Africa's issues without addressing internal factors like governance and corruption. Participants debate the effectiveness of aid, with some asserting that Africa must take greater initiative in its development, while others point to historical exploitation and ongoing corruption as significant barriers. The discussion also touches on the role of education, infrastructure, and the need for a long-term strategy to foster economic growth in Africa. Ultimately, there is a consensus that aid must be managed effectively and that the responsibility for change largely rests with African nations themselves.
  • #31
Pengwuino said:
I think education shoudl be second. You should build an infrastructure and then once that's done and is showing itself to be stable, you advanced the infrastructure. This advancement should be done along with an advancement in education. Once you reach the next level of education and that new advanced infrastructure seems stable, advanced them both again. At the very bottom level however, infrastructure must come first because its hard to educate peopel with no infrastructure at all. What goods a bunch of teachers with no class room?

Yep, would overall think a whole lot of relief and development efforts stall on practicalities and red tapish issues ... reasonable implementation as important as sending the $s (seems to have been quite a problem in the past and likely in the present as well) ... mud huts make for great classrooms. :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ya know... ironically, the wants and needs of the poor and the "super rich", especially corporations, are one in the same. A developing nation, as we can see with China, is a great thing for corporations. New markets, new wealth, new customers, etc etc. Unfortunately, THE problem lies with corruption. I believe in Nigeria a few years back, 40% of the government budget just dissappeared and when you see it on graphs, its pretty much labeled as "Corruption".

My father has a client who is, coincadently, also from Sierra Leone, and he thinks corruption and tribal warfare is appauling in Africa. He also had somethings to say about AIDS but that's for another thread. The real problem is how do you stop it? I think what inevitably its going to come down to, as seizure inducing as this might be to those who might loath the likes of george w. bush, is military action. You simply cannot believe that a paper-pushing organization like the UN is going to fix corruption of a soverign nation or that throwing money at the problem will somehow make it go away. We're probably going to have to realize we're going to bomb someone, bomb a soverign nation, have casualities, and cause a lot of damage and we're going to have to swallow the fact that it must be done. We may lose a few thousand people for a few weeks, but hopefully this western world will finally be able to realize that a few thousand this year might save a few billion this century.

Big results warrent big steps and big sacrifice. It saddens me to see people thinking they can make a difference by giving a dollar here and there. What almos tmade me laugh however was one group saying "we can stop poverty in africa with just your signature!". Conversavtion of energy seeminly has a broader sense. You get what you put in and the less you really put in and sacrifice, the less you'll get out.
 
  • #33
Art said:
Where did u get this info from?

I just looked up the conversion rate...
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
klusener said:
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.

Source? I keep hearing all sorts of people were assassinated by US presidents lately... not, they are beign killed lately, but a lot of peopel are saying it lately
 
  • #36
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
...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.
 
  • #38
Pengwuino said:
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). :biggrin:

Damn, shouldn't have told you that I could have made a fortune selling you some cheap. :smile:
 
  • #39
Art said:
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). :biggrin:

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

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 :biggrin:
 
  • #40
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.
 
  • #41
Pengwuino said:
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 :biggrin:
Here you go - looked this up just for you as an example of trans-Atlantic co-operation. :biggrin:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
Informal Logic said:
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)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
sid_galt said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Art said:
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.
 
  • #45
klusener said:
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
 
  • #46
Art said:
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.
 
  • #47
Art said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
He listed GNP and you listed GDP. They aren't the same thing.
 
  • #49
Thats a pretty big discrepency... unless most of their economy is made up of corporations of other nations...
 
  • #50
Pengwuino said:
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.
 
  • #51
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.
 
  • #52
klusener said:
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 :smile:

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
sid_galt said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
SOS2008 said:
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.
 
  • #55
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.
 
  • #56
Math Is Hard said:
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.
 
  • #57
loseyourname said:
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).
 
Last edited:
  • #58
SOS2008 said:
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.
 
  • #59
loseyourname said:
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:
TheStatutoryApe said:
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.
 
  • #60
loseyourname said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator: