News Generous George disgorges less than $1 per African

[hitssquad]

GDP-CER vs. GDP-PPP

http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/gdpnumericcer.asp?TYPE=GRANK&TBL=NUMERICCER&vCOUNTRY=78

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

As loseyourname just posted, the CIA Factbook uses GDP-PPP figures. Your AOL link is giving you GDP-CER figures (it says NUMERICCER in the URL). If you go to your AOL link and click PPP Method Tab...
http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/globrank.asp?TBLS=PPP+Method+Tables&vCOUNTRY=78&TYPE=GRANK

...you will see India $2,686.00 listed. That is probably the same figure the 2001 CIA Factbook used.


(PPP = Purchasing Power Parity. CER = Current Exchange Rate.)[/color]

 

[hitssquad]

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.

Your second link above seems to be referring only to sub-Saharan Africa as the "African sub-continent." It is common knowledge that there are seven continents, that Africa is one of them and that the Indian subcontinent is not one of them.

 

[Art]

Your second link above seems to be referring only to sub-Saharan Africa as the "African sub-continent." It is common knowledge that there are seven continents, that Africa is one of them and that the Indian subcontinent is not one of them.

It is not as straight forward as that these days. There are disagreements re subcontinents, continents and their boundaries. This link for instance classifies subcontinental Africa as being only the country of South Africa http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/38.htm whereas others classify all of Africa as a subcontinent because it is joined to Asia by the isthmus of Suez. This link talks about the Indian subcontinent http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Indian-Subcontinent whereas this link claims it as a continent http://www.vepachedu.org/Indiancontinent.htm
The reason for so many interpretations is I guess because of the extended territorial rights countries can claim in regard to continental shelves. Ref current dispute Denmark vs Iceland, Britain, Ireland over continental shelf around the Faroe Isles.

 

[Art]

As loseyourname just posted, the CIA Factbook uses GDP-PPP figures. Your AOL link is giving you GDP-CER figures (it says NUMERICCER in the URL). If you go to your AOL link and click PPP Method Tab...
http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/globrank.asp?TBLS=PPP+Method+Tables&vCOUNTRY=78&TYPE=GRANK

...you will see India $2,686.00 listed. That is probably the same figure the 2001 CIA Factbook used.


(PPP = Purchasing Power Parity. CER = Current Exchange Rate.)[/color]

Thanks. So the comparisons are valid as the CER method was used for all data cited.

 

[russ_watters]

This is what the signatories of the Millenium Declaration in the UN say we should do. I cannot give a detailed response as to exactly how these 18 targets and the 0.7% of GNP were arrived at. Which by the way they say will only bring relief for half the people currently classified as in poverty.

In a previous post, you said 2% - where does this .7% come from? It does not come from the Millenium Declaration (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm for those who haven't read it - I hadn't). All the Millenium Declaration says on the subject is: "To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water." It does not say how to do it, nor does it give targets for contributions for anyone.

So again, tell me why we should be giving 2% - or .7% - or whatever.

In answer to those who say the African countries bring poverty on themselves I point out that all of them are ex colonies of western powers who apart from plundering their natural resources, left them with an inheritance of corrupt and suppressive administrative structures.

I recognize that it is partially the responsibility of the west to fix Africa and I agree that we should help. But what I want to know is why what we are doing isn't enough and why we should give 2% or .7% of our GDP to Africa.

...And I know I said you provided the "what" already, now I'm not so sure. Live isn't as simple as just assigning a quantity of money required to fix problems. What exactly should be done with that money? We could, afterall, just hand out $365 a year to each of Africa's 300,000,000 or so who are classified as in poverty. That would cost about $110 billion a year. Would that "fix" the problem? Would it be permanent or would they be forever dependent on us? Is that what you think we should do?

This may be a shocker: In a large number of countries, I think we should spend considerably more. Tens - even hundreds - of billions on one or two countries for a few years at a time. I can explain, but I doubt you'll actually like this proposal...

 

[alexandra]

So again, tell me why we should be giving 2% - or .7% - or whatever. I recognize that it is partially the responsibility of the west to fix Africa and I agree that we should help. But what I want to know is why what we are doing isn't enough and why we should give 2% or .7% of our GDP to Africa.

To be true to free market capitalist principles, the rich should not help third world, poverty-stricken countries. You're quite right, Russ - by capitalist principles, the rich should just continue to extract huge amounts of interest from the poorest populations on earth; it's not their problem if the poor starve. It's their own fault they're poor, after all - it has nothing at all to do with colonialism or the structure of the world economic system.

 

[Art]

In a previous post, you said 2% - where does this .7% come from? It does not come from the Millenium Declaration (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm for those who haven't read it - I hadn't). All the Millenium Declaration says on the subject is: "To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water." It does not say how to do it, nor does it give targets for contributions for anyone.



So again, tell me why we should be giving 2% - or .7% - or whatever. I recognize that it is partially the responsibility of the west to fix Africa and I agree that we should help. But what I want to know is why what we are doing isn't enough and why we should give 2% or .7% of our GDP to Africa.

As I believe I've already said the 2% fig is the sum the UN believes is necessary to eliminate world poverty. The 0.7% fig is the amount the richest 22 countries actually signed up to pay. As to why you should pay. You really need to ask your own gov't that as they signed up for it. You needn't worry yourself too much though as they are only actually contributing 0.16% (the lowest of all the signatory countries) which is up from 0.11% last year. The increase is largely due to additional ODA ($600m) to Pakistan for the 'War on Terror'. I guess paying for troops and military equipment is a kind of ODA (well Bush style anyway).
Now read this:

Agenda 21: Rich Nations Agreed at the United Nations to 0.7% of GNP To Aid
When the world’s governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations — Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD, known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). [Note that terminology is changing. GNP, which the OECD used up to 2000 is now replaced with the similar as GNI, Gross National Income which includes a terms of trade adjustment. Some quoted articles and older parts of this site may still use GNP or GDP.]

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...ationsAgreedattheUnitedNationsto07%ofGNPToAid

...And I know I said you provided the "what" already, now I'm not so sure.

Are you sure now?

Live isn't as simple as just assigning a quantity of money required to fix problems. What exactly should be done with that money? Meet the targets agreed in the Millenium Declaration We could, afterall, just hand out $365 a year to each of Africa's 300,000,000 or so who are classified as in poverty. That would cost about $110 billion a year. Would that "fix" the problem? Would it be permanent or would they be forever dependent on us? Is that what you think we should do?

I am not an expert on 3rd world development nor have I made any claims to be so I have absolutely no idea why you are directing this question at me. IMHO I suspect the people in the UN who persuaded the 22 countries to sign up to contributing 0.7% of their GNP are experts and presumably they put together quite a convincing case thus it seems logical to assume they know how best to spend the money and are not waiting with bated breath for mine or your input.

This may be a shocker: In a large number of countries, I think we should spend considerably more. Tens - even hundreds - of billions on one or two countries for a few years at a time. I can explain, but I doubt you'll actually like this proposal...

Russ I can say in all honesty I am not in the least shocked that you should hold this view, afterall I've read your posts. Bear in mind however this world is getting smaller by the day and eventually America is going to step on the toes of somebody who is going to kick her very hard in the butt.

 

[hitssquad]

this link claims it as a continent vepachedu.org/Indiancontinent.htm

That link says, "We should [...] address it as a Continent," implying that India is not currently recognized as a continent.

 

[hitssquad]

Trade-partner seeding

To be true to free market capitalist principles, the rich should not help third world, poverty-stricken countries.

Trade-partner seeding is widely thought to be mutually beneficial to capitalist nations and is explained in literary form in Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky.

 

[Art]

That link says, "We should [...] address it as a Continent," implying that India is not currently recognized as a continent.

Yes it says it is currently recognised as a sub-continent and is upgrading itself.

When Europe (~ 750 million people) is considered a separate continent from Asia, what is the reason Indian Continent (~1.5 billion people) is accorded a status of a sub-continent? In reality, the reason is that Indians don't consider it a continent. Why? Because Indians were constantly reminded by the British that "the Indian continent is a Sub-continent."

That was in 1999 I don't know if they have any kind of formal recognition, or how such recognition is achieved, since then but you will find several references on Google where it is referred to as the Indian continent
http://www.batashoemuseum.ca/shoesections/india.html
and here http://www.birminghamuk.com/cities/india.htm
Frankly I don't mind which. I thought it was a subcontinent until I checked on google and saw it wasn't cut and dried

 

[Shadow]

I don't know much about this issue. I've been really busy and haven't had time to do research on it. But is it not true that the British pound and Euro is worth significantly more than the dollar these days?

How much did the European Union donate to Africa?

 

[hitssquad]

the British pound and Euro [...] worth significantly more than the dollar these days?

xe.com/ucc

--
1.00 EUR = 1.21286 USD
1.00 GBP = 1.81256 USD
--


The World Factbook's figures are in USD, however, so it doesn't make any difference what the exchange rate is.

 

[Art]

I don't know much about this issue. I've been really busy and haven't had time to do research on it. But is it not true that the British pound and Euro is worth significantly more than the dollar these days?

How much did the European Union donate to Africa?

The european union act as independant states and accordingly different members have different policies regarding aid, here is a copy of a link I posted earlier in this thread detailing the amounts; both absolute and % of GNP for the 22 richest counties. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...to07%ofGNPToAid

The state I would be most familiar with on this list is Britain and I can tell you in 2001 they unilaterally forgave all bilateral debt owed to them by the poorest countries. As of yesterday following a meeting of the G8 finance ministers, the 7 other members of the G8 followed suit. I believe this will result in an immediate reduction of $40 billion from the gross external debt of subsaharan countries of $231 billion.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=AP&Date=20050612&ID=4882581
For those who wonder why this debt should be forgiven here's an interesting quote below;

The size of the debt trap can be controlled to claim all surplus production of a society, but if allowed to continue to grow the magic of compound interest dictates it is unsustainable. One trillion dollars compounded at 10 percent per year become $117 trillion in fifty years and $13.78 quadrillion in one hundred years, about $3.5 million for every man, woman and child in the Third World. Their debt is 50 percent greater than this and has been compounding at twice that rate -- over 20 percent per year between 1973 and 1993, from $100 billion to $1.5 trillion [only $400 billion of the $1.5 trillion was actually borrowed money. The rest was runaway compound interest]. If Third World debt continues to compound at 20 percent per year, the $117 trillion debt will be reached in eighteen years and the $13.78 quadrillion debt in thirty-four years

highlighting added by me.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm not saying that their debt should not be forgiven, but the fact that compound interest will eventually cause that debt to exceed the available wealth in the world is not, in and of itself, an argument to relieve all debt. You can relieve some of it, or change the way interest is charged, and still keep the uncontrollable spiral from happening. More cynically, you could seize every asset they have and declare the debt repaid. Further arguments are needed that all of the debt should be relieved. It seems to me that the best is the aid that is being given. It seems absurd prima facie to be giving a country money so that it can pay back the money you loaned it in the past.

 

[Art]

I'm not saying that their debt should not be forgiven, but the fact that compound interest will eventually cause that debt to exceed the available wealth in the world is not, in and of itself, an argument to relieve all debt. You can relieve some of it, or change the way interest is charged, and still keep the uncontrollable spiral from happening. More cynically, you could seize every asset they have and declare the debt repaid. Further arguments are needed that all of the debt should be relieved. It seems to me that the best is the aid that is being given. It seems absurd prima facie to be giving a country money so that it can pay back the money you loaned it in the past.

Yes you are right it is absurd for every $1 currently received in aid the 3rd world are paying the developed world (or more correctly the financial institutions) $13 in debt repayments. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/Scale.asp It has been suggested that one reason why aid was increased a few years ago was to ensure none of these countries did default on their loan repayments because there was a fear that if one refused to pay they might all follow suit.

And yes you are right you can as pointed out in the extract I posted limit debt and interest to just such a level as to ensure you only take every penny of surplus these countries produce. That way you can keep them tottering on the brink without ever actually falling into the abyss.
There are 2 convincing arguments I have heard as to why the debts should now be written off.
a) They have already repaid the money they originally borrowed many times over. As I posted on another thread, compound interest is a powerful tool. In that thread I was pointing out how $5000 invested at 14% compound int. will become $1,000,000 in a little over 40 years. (a compound int rate of 14% is the average yearly return from the major stock indexes over the last 100 years). This of course works in reverse and so relatively small sums can become massive debts very quickly.
b) The statement by George Brown (British finance minister) after the G8 meeting that this $40 billion writeoff will save 5 million lives within the next 5-10 years.

Burnsys who is from Argentina has submitted many posts on how the banking industry adversely affects his country where something like 78% of all government revenue is spent on debt servicing. I believe many of his opinions are entirely justified. Basic banking policy is designed to shift money from the less well off to the wealthy. A couple of simple examples; if you save with a bank the more money you deposit the higher rate of interest you are paid and if you borrow from a bank, the poorer you are the higher rate of interest you are charged. And yes I know this can be justified on the basis of competition and risk management but it doesn't change the fact that wealthy individuals (and countries) get a much better deal than poorer ones.

So well done to Blair and Bush for their actions in getting multilateral agreement on this important issue. Hopefully the momentum will carry through to the G8 summit proper in July when they are due to discuss future aid and fairer trade terms for the 3rd world.

 

[Art]

I came across this article which brings into question the officially reported level of aid provided by the richer countries.

In total, says the study, at least 61% of all donor assistance from G7 nations is phantom aid, with real aid in 2003 accounting for just US$27 billion, or only 0.1% of combined donor income. Nearly 90% of all contributions coming from the United States and France are considered phantom aid.

Link to full article
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/actaidusa/111722294385.htm

In other words, despite political grandstanding on the issue,
G7 donors are only one tenth of the way towards meeting the
0.7% target. And this paltry contribution pales in comparison
with the value of reverse flows from South to North, in the form
of ecological debts, unfair trade rules and South-North financial
flows, which stood at US$710 billion in 2003.

http://www.actionaidusa.org/Action%20Aid%20Real%20Aid.pdf

 

[vanesch]

So well done to Blair and Bush for their actions in getting multilateral agreement on this important issue.

Ha, and if Blair would negociate that his EU rebate will go entirely to 3rd world aid ?

 

[Art]

Ha, and if Blair would negociate that his EU rebate will go entirely to 3rd world aid ?

I doubt it, I suspect it's more likely he'll make his contribution to 3rd world aid from the money he saves from slashing the French farmers' subsidies of £10.4 billion.

 

[vanesch]

I doubt it, I suspect it's more likely he'll make his contribution to 3rd world aid from the money he saves from slashing the French farmers' subsidies of £10.4 billion.

I expected that one

Serious question, though: what makes french farmers so special ? Are there simply more of them, or what ?

 

[Art]

I expected that one

Serious question, though: what makes french farmers so special ? Are there simply more of them, or what ?

It's all quite complicated but the essence of it is the French do better than the Brits for 3 main reasons;
a) The French have reduced the number of farmers they have from 1.6 m in 1970 to just 600,000 today leading to greater economies of scale and so higher productivity. This means they can sell in their domestic market and make a nice profit whilst dumping their surplus abroad (including England) at EU minimum prices. The supermarkets in Britain use their huge clout to force the British farmers, who have not rationalised the industry anywhere near as much as the French, to match the prices offered by the French and so the British farmer's income is crap. Whilst France is the number 2 food exporter in the world. Obviously the strong £ vs the euro is another problem for the British.
b) As EU subsidies have until recently been geared to production the French have benefitted through their greater productivity. One of the main reasons why the French farmers are so upset now (2/3 voted against the constitution) is because the link between subsidies and production is being phased out in favour of subsidies for rural environment management. No prizes for guessing who is spearheading that change.
c) Finally the French (and just about every other EU member) does better than the Brits on discretionary farming subsidies per capita because these subsidies are dependant on co-funding (the EU matches contributions from the member states) such as for example the scheme to encourage young farmers; between 1990 - 97 the French helped 12,952 young farmers at a shared cost of 146m ecu the British helped just 27 at a cost of 152,000 ecu.
There are of course many other factors but I think the above covers the major issues.

 

[vanesch]

It's all quite complicated but the essence of it is the French do better than the Brits for 3 main reasons;
[...]

Complicated indeed !
But, if I understand well, all Blair has to do to get more money out of the EU, is to use his rebate to co-fund British farmers, and send the received EU subventions to the 3rd world, inviting the French to do the same

 

[Art]

Complicated indeed !
But, if I understand well, all Blair has to do to get more money out of the EU, is to use his rebate to co-fund British farmers, and send the received EU subventions to the 3rd world, inviting the French to do the same

Or abolish all EU food subsidies and allow Africa to compete internationally on a level playing field so they won't need handouts anymore. I read recently where Italy was actually exporting subsidized tomatoes to Africa undercutting the local producers. It really is a joke!

 

[vanesch]

Or abolish all EU food subsidies and allow Africa to compete internationally on a level playing field so they won't need handouts anymore.

What a terrible suggestion ! Do you realize how much jobs will be gone when all those aid agencies will have to close their doors ?
And how are we going to show our charitable intentions then ?

 

[marlon]

I don't get it. Africa is the poorest continent on Earth, with a veritable panoply of plagues. The U.S., being the richest, is also the most shameful for its parsimony towards these suffering.

What does this tell us of George W. Bush's charitable beliefs? The Iraq debacle consumes every few days the dollar amount slated yearly for the African people, and the obsession over the tsunami disaster relief ignored that Africa's biweekly needs outpace the tsunami's overall.

http://africare.org/​

Hey, here is a crazy thaught : how about for each 10 dollars the Africans receive, they must make two on their own...i assure you, you will have to abandon your african-aide - program in just a few weeks. Don't just blame the rich countries because they became rich by doing something. Blame some of the laziness, old-fashioned thinking and ancient society-models that are widely spread out over this entire continent. And Blame shallow ego-trippers like Bob Geldoff for setting up useless events that contribute to nothing but their own personal status. I say this Geldoff is a far bigger criminal then Bush...This 'artist' created his entire fame based upon the poverty of others...he oughtta be...errr well, what the helll

marlon

 

[Art]

Hey, here is a crazy thaught : how about for each 10 dollars the Africans receive, they must make two on their own...i assure you, you will have to abandon your african-aide - program in just a few weeks. Don't just blame the rich countries because they became rich by doing something. Blame some of the laziness, old-fashioned thinking and ancient society-models that are widely spread out over this entire continent. And Blame shallow ego-trippers like Bob Geldoff for setting up useless events that contribute to nothing but their own personal status. I say this Geldoff is a far bigger criminal then Bush...This 'artist' created his entire fame based upon the poverty of others...he oughtta be...errr well, what the helll

marlon

Brilliantly insightful, obviously a lot of deep thought and research led you to this profound conclusion; my only criticism is that it's a little verbose as your first 5 words would have sufficed to make your point :zzz:

 

[Art]

What a terrible suggestion ! Do you realize how much jobs will be gone when all those aid agencies will have to close their doors ?
And how are we going to show our charitable intentions then ?

That's easy we can employ the aid workers in munition factories, build up a huge store of bombs and then 'donate' them to some 3rd world country delivered express-air. Damn! that's another idea somebody else has already had

 

[vanesch]

Damn! that's another idea somebody else has already had

You're getting old, Art

 

[moose]

This was probably covered, but there is only so much the government can do for aid. The rest has to come from private charities or massive legislation has to be passed...This same exact thing happened with the tsunami aid stuff. People got angry because the government didnt give that much money, yet they gave all that they could. It turned out that the US gave TONS of supplies and money, but most of it was by private means because there is only so much the government can give.

 

[marlon]

Brilliantly insightful, obviously a lot of deep thought and research led you to this profound conclusion; my only criticism is that it's a little verbose as your first 4 words would have sufficed to make your point :zzz:

Tell me, what have you been doing recently to solve the socalled Africa-problems, aside from whining about it and blaming others ?

Like dexter and others said, the problems in Africa are due to internal corruption and medieval views on society

marlon

 

[vanesch]

Like dexter and others said, the problems in Africa are due to internal corruption and medieval views on society

And on top of that, they are black and stupid over there !
I even wonder if they smell good.

(guys, I'm kidding...)