1. Mad Man and Company:
Realize this isn't the most up-to-date data, but I doubt levels of contributions have changed that significantly. Anyhow, the US barely gives more
development assistance than Japan (a nation that has been in deep recession for a decade), and when you add the numbers for the Europeans....
[note: the "-" symbols are inserted merely to divide the statistics, there are no negatives in here]
Major ODA Donors, 2001 Amount disbursed
(US$ million) - Share of
world total (%) - Share of
GNI (%) - Amount per
United States 11,429 - 21.8 - 0.11 - 36.2
Japan 9,847 - 18.8 - 0.23 - 106.4
Germany 4,990 - 9.5 - 0.27 - 61.2
Britain 4,579 - 8.7 - 0.32 - 75.3
France 4,198 - 8.0 - 0.32 - 69.7
Netherlands 3,172 - 6.1 - 0.82 - 196.8
Spain 1,737 - 3.3 - 0.30 - 30.3
Sweden 1,666 - 3.2 - 0.81 - 202.8
DAC Total 52,336 100.0 0.22 63.7
2. Nox - Where's the answer to the fact that your companies data has nothing to do with national strength?
3. Nox - Several answers to your "Rifkin indicts":
a. Rifkin is one person, and his piece is an editorial - not indicative of an anti-media bias - read a Charles Krauthammer editorial in either the NYT
or the WP, it will go just as far in the opposite direction
b . Rifkin is the president of a think tank (Foundation on Economic Trends), which means he has an agenda - he'd admit that himself
c. pick something apart in the article that is worth attacking, like an argument not a statistic, which...
d. Rifkin uses the Fortune 500, not the Business Week 1000 - you have in no way disproven his claim - if anything you are selectively using data to
support your own views, as he might be doing
e. Rifkin's article isn't anti-American, it's merely pro-European. Read the article. Rifkin says that Europe is advancing a new dream that is
increasingly relevant for the world and that the dream of the US is "faltering". He says that the US needs to live up to its dream. There's no
reason to assume a zero-sum relationship between Europe and the US in the article.
f. There's a lot of depth to the article, a lot of depth, if all you can attack is the use of 140 then start over.
4. More evidence US assistance is weak. US gives small percentage, ties it to the purchase of American products, and generally doesn't help the
Sweden ranks first with Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway following closely behind. Not only are these countries among the world's most generous
for their size, but each also ties a very small proportion of their development assistance. Japan and the United States sit near the bottom. The
Japanese development assistance score suffers because Japan takes in heavy interest payments on old loans. The United States gives little development
assistance for its size, ties much of it to the purchase of U.S. goods and services, and allocates it to countries generally richer or more corrupt
than recipients of development assistance from other donors. Small donors such as New Zealand, Greece and Ireland are pulled low for spreading their
development assistance thinly across many small projects.
5. More evidence - I'll include citations if people want but it is important to note that Bush pledged 15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa (hell, this
a centerpeice of the State of the Union a couple years back). Think we've given maybe, maybe, a billion of that so far.
6. Think the numbers used for American assistance are flawed because most accounts of development assistance include things like the Economic Support
Fund, virtually all of which goes to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan due to the Camp David accords and the 90's deal between Israel and Jordan. Don't
think that money really qualifies as "development assistance".