New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesA couple of million per country, vs. over a billion owed by the US to the UN?
in reply to a message by Nanaea
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/pkdebt.html
Not exactly the same thing. Unpaid embassy debts are fairly standard everywhere.
The US has the highest GDP of any country. As a proportion of GDP it gives the lowest 'catch free' aid of any country in the west. It doesn't even make the top twenty. (The UK doesn't make the top ten. We have nothing to boast about either).
http://www.garretwilson.com/books/p...ationalaid.html
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
And the question of debt is an interesting one. Given that the US consumes so much more of the world's resources; given that the US fuel 'habit' is entirely dependent on large parts of the world being underdeveloped and using lesser technologies (imagine the impact on the world if India and China consumed resources at the level that the US does) it can be argued that the US (and other western countries) pays only what it owes, and usually barely that.
Read these articles for further information:
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/ecological_debt/Articles/paradise020502.htm
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/ecological_debt/Articles/Ecologist_climate_debt.htm
It's all a matter of perspective.
Incidentally, something like fifty percent of US international aid goes to Israel and Egypt - countries with very healthy economies and democracies of their own...
'I will absolutely agree with you on that. I quite frankly don't care to see my tax dollars used to feed or clothe or defend people who don't have the incentive or wherewithal to set up and maintain their own democratic governments. Enough is enough, already.'
From posting on these boards I have come to think of you as an intelligent and interesting person, Nanaea; this is why I am so surprised by the apparent lack of compassion in these words? Perhaps I misunderstand.
Given that for a surprising number of countries the lack of a reliable political system arises from US 'intervention' and that war destroys infrastructure and community ties, it seems only fair that the US (and other western countries) should pay for this interventionist 'habit'.
Interventions:
http://www.cc.ku.edu/cwis/organizations/las/interven.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm
And obviously, Columbia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Korea.
But I'm sure we can agree that it would do the US and the world a lot of good if the US would concentrate on its own internal problems, and spend a little more on the people at home who need a helping hand.
Not exactly the same thing. Unpaid embassy debts are fairly standard everywhere.
The US has the highest GDP of any country. As a proportion of GDP it gives the lowest 'catch free' aid of any country in the west. It doesn't even make the top twenty. (The UK doesn't make the top ten. We have nothing to boast about either).
http://www.garretwilson.com/books/p...ationalaid.html
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
And the question of debt is an interesting one. Given that the US consumes so much more of the world's resources; given that the US fuel 'habit' is entirely dependent on large parts of the world being underdeveloped and using lesser technologies (imagine the impact on the world if India and China consumed resources at the level that the US does) it can be argued that the US (and other western countries) pays only what it owes, and usually barely that.
Read these articles for further information:
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/ecological_debt/Articles/paradise020502.htm
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/ecological_debt/Articles/Ecologist_climate_debt.htm
It's all a matter of perspective.
Incidentally, something like fifty percent of US international aid goes to Israel and Egypt - countries with very healthy economies and democracies of their own...
'I will absolutely agree with you on that. I quite frankly don't care to see my tax dollars used to feed or clothe or defend people who don't have the incentive or wherewithal to set up and maintain their own democratic governments. Enough is enough, already.'
From posting on these boards I have come to think of you as an intelligent and interesting person, Nanaea; this is why I am so surprised by the apparent lack of compassion in these words? Perhaps I misunderstand.
Given that for a surprising number of countries the lack of a reliable political system arises from US 'intervention' and that war destroys infrastructure and community ties, it seems only fair that the US (and other western countries) should pay for this interventionist 'habit'.
Interventions:
http://www.cc.ku.edu/cwis/organizations/las/interven.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm
And obviously, Columbia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Korea.
But I'm sure we can agree that it would do the US and the world a lot of good if the US would concentrate on its own internal problems, and spend a little more on the people at home who need a helping hand.
1