Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loca...p-152754c.html

I saw a piece on that earlier today. My wife and I are astounded that anyone thought this was a good idea, and more astounded that it moved past the "few people talking in room" stage.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
edited to add: I suspect your foreign aid 'fact" is dependent on the defintion of "foreign aid." Cite please.

You are right, I suppose, that definitions matter, but I can't believe that you are siding with the troll on this one. (Or are you disputing it on the basis that you think maybe not _all_ European countries have a higher % GDP focused on foreign aid?)

Sorry club, no one will categorize the expense of the Gulf War II r the invasion of Afghanistan as "foreign aid". That hurts our numbers.

Search the archives of, for example "The Economist" for various charts.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You are right, I suppose, that definitions matter, but I can't believe that you are siding with the troll on this one. (Or are you disputing it on the basis that you think maybe not _all_ European countries have a higher % GDP focused on foreign aid?)

Sorry club, no one will categorize the expense of the Gulf War II r the invasion of Afghanistan as "foreign aid". That hurts our numbers.

Search the archives of, for example "The Economist" for various charts.

S_A_M

First and foremost (I sound like an R&B singer on grammy night), why is it based on % of GDP. This skews the numbers because our GDP is so much higher than everybody elses. Second, I'm ignorant on what counts as "foreign aid" but I suspect a lot of things we spend cash on world wide may not be included. Maybe they should be, maybe not, I'd just like to see the definition.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
First and foremost (I sound like an R&B singer on grammy night), why is it based on % of GDP. This skews the numbers because our GDP is so much higher than everybody elses. Second, I'm ignorant on what counts as "foreign aid" but I suspect a lot of things we spend cash on world wide may not be included. Maybe they should be, maybe not, I'd just like to see the definition.

On your first question, you are correct that we give more foreign aid than every country other than Japan because we are so big. That does not mean we are more generous, however.

On your second question, I don't know the answer.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
On your first question, you are correct that we give more foreign aid than every country other than Japan because we are so big. That does not mean we are more generous, however.

On your second question, I don't know the answer.

I don't care about "generosity." I think in many cases foreign aid is a waste of money because proper controls and oversights are not put in place. Rather, money is thrown at problems to assuage guilt, rather than to try to make a meaningful difference. Along the same reasons why I'm against the welfare state.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't care about "generosity." I think in many cases foreign aid is a waste of money because proper controls and oversights are not put in place. Rather, money is thrown at problems to assuage guilt, rather than to try to make a meaningful difference. Along the same reasons why I'm against the welfare state.

Foreign aid is often wasted for the same reasons that domestic pork is often wasted. This has more to do with corruption than guilt. And ideology factors in as well. E.g., the Bush Administration has cut medical aid to appease pro-life groups that don't want to be funding abortions. See Nicholas Kristoff's column in the NYT for an account of how scary it is to be pregnant in Chad. Saying that you're against foreign aid because it doesn't work more efficiently is like saying you're against automobiles because they pollute. The real reasons lie unstated in your last sentence.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'll take this as an admission that, defined conventionally, I am right.

I am not even clear on how it is defined conventionally. I can research this till the cows come home and I find myriad different accounts of what is and what is not foreign aid.

All I was asking was what your definition was so that I could understand what you were basing your conclusions on.

I read the article you posted before. It had no defintion of what it was calling foriegn aid and the author didn't cite to single source to show where he or she was getting their data.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You're saying other things that we do should be called foreign aid.

Actually, I was asking you what you called foreign aid.

It is my belief that the US spends alot of money on foreign aid each year. But maybe I have a different understanding of what foreign aid is than you have. I don't know though because you won't tell me what you are referring to when you use that term.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

pregnant in Chad.

Why do you have to bring the 2000 presidential election into every discussion?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't know though because you won't tell me what you are referring to when you use that term.

As I said above, I don't know how the term is defined. This argument is like a bad round of high school debate. Everyone who writes about the subject agrees that we spend less per capita on foreign aid, however defined, than anyone else, or almost anyone else, in the industrialized world. If you don't believe me, run a few Google searches.

joke

Heh. No wonder the Bushies don't want to spend money on that.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am not even clear on how it is defined conventionally. I can research this till the cows come home and I find myriad different accounts of what is and what is not foreign aid.

What percentage of GDP did the Nazis spend on "foreign aid?"

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What percentage of GDP did the Nazis spend on "foreign aid?"

Right 'cuz you can compare the US having troops in South Korea to the Nazis.

Nuff Said.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Everyone who writes about the subject agrees that we spend less per capita on foreign aid, however defined, than anyone else, or almost anyone else, in the industrialized world. If you don't believe me, run a few Google searches.

I did, but all those sources seem to refer to economic aid, which doesn't include humanitarian aid.

I don't see why humanitarian aid isn't foreign aid.

I also don't see why military aid isn't foreign aid.

So there seems to be at least 3 widely accepted categories of aid - economic, humanitarian, military. However, all the numbers that you have quoted and that get written about only seem to be directed to economic aid and leave out humanitarian and military aid.

Then there are those who talk of trade deficits as aid, too, but I can see how that is not the typical use of the word.

[Gattigap]

For some reason, I found this George Will column fascinating. Not because of its content (police patrols through housing projects), but because -- unless Will is pulling a Jayson Blair -- I'm trying to visualize him on the beat collecting info for this story.

Did he take off the bow tie?
If not, did it clash with the LAPD windbreaker?
Did he learn the right vernacular to yell out the window to gang members' girlfriends to gather info?
When he did so, did the girlfriend catch the Voltaire reference?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I saw a piece on that earlier today. My wife and I are astounded that anyone thought this was a good idea, and more astounded that it moved past the "few people talking in room" stage.

S_A_M

Like much in life, this would have reminded me how small my penis is.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Foreign aid is often wasted for the same reasons that domestic pork is often wasted. This has more to do with corruption than guilt. And ideology factors in as well. E.g., the Bush Administration has cut medical aid to appease pro-life groups that don't want to be funding abortions. See Nicholas Kristoff's column in the NYT for an account of how scary it is to be pregnant in Chad. Saying that you're against foreign aid because it doesn't work more efficiently is like saying you're against automobiles because they pollute. The real reasons lie unstated in your last sentence.

Then why is the amount we give as a percentage of GDP so important. So that we can be as stupid with our money as the enlighted countries in westen europe? This is another case of people being unwilling to look beyond the first level of the analysis. Reminds me of the welfare reform debate, where we were reminded time and time again that if you wanted to reform welfare you were against the poor, regardless of what effect the current system was having on the poor. Or the schools debate, where as long as we keep devoting more and more resources to education, we don't have to look further to see if the lack of that money is the reason we are not getting the results we want.

Back to foreign aid. Throughout the 90s, we gave billions to Russia without sufficient controls in place. The result? Most of that money went into the hands of the powerful and had little effect on stabilizing the democratic and economic institutions necessary to produce the type of system we wanted. But is was OK because we were giving the money. This is why the administration has been so opposed to turning Iraq over to the UN. We actually are looking for results this time, not just good appearances.