It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


USA vs. EU, the truth

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 07:55 PM
UN scale of assessments (regular budget) in 2001
(this isnt even an American site)
USA 22 %
Japan 19.628 %
Germany 9.493 %
France 6.283 %
United Kingdom 5.380 %
Italy 4.922 %
Canada 2.573 %
Spain 2.448 %
Brazil 1.702 %
Netherlands 1.688 %
Australia 1.604 %
Korea, Republic of 1.318 %
Russia 1.200 %
Belgium 1.098 %
Sweden 0.998 %

Surprise surprise.
Why is USA's contribution a nice, clean 22%? (I guess it hit a contribution cap.)

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:01 PM
The Palme initiative was a proposal to cap the US contribution to the UN budget to 10% of it's total (from 25%). This was proposed as a way to stop the US running up huge arrears and using them to 'blackmail' the rest of the UN.

The initiative was never implemented due to opposition from the US who, understandably, were quite happy with the current situation and the leverage it gave them.

The 0.7% of GDP target set by the UN was one of the Millennium Development Goals agreed by world leaders to halve poverty by 2015. This goal has nothing to do with the UN general budget, which is paid for from member contributions, and hence has nothing to do with the failed Palme initiative.

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:05 PM
The US's contribution is a nice round 22% because it decided to unilaterally reduce it's share due to new US budgetary legislation (the Helms-Biden Amendment).

see this page (one click) from your link:


posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:06 PM
Fair enough, I forgot the actual name of cap. I just did a quick search online, and the Palme initiative is obviously the wrong one.

It lowered from 25%, which was too high IMO.

We pay too much for the UN, which is dying anyway.

25% was much higher than any European country's contribution, and much more than what suggested by some people on this thread.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by Nox]

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:26 PM
I'm not taking the "pro" or "anti" US side here, but...

1. While we might be numero uno in terms of UN contributions, that doesn't mean we pay our bill. According to the Inter Press Service, 12-2-04 (

"Some U.S. politicians have threatened to reduce U.S. funds to the United Nations if Annan refuses to resign. Washington is the largest single contributor to the United Nations -- and also the largest single defaulter -- accounting for about 22 percent of the world body's regular budget.
According to U.N. figures released last week, the United States owes about 529 million dollars in unpaid contributions for 2004 and previous years. Of the 15 major contributors, the only other two countries in arrears are Brazil (75 million dollars) and Mexico (9.5 million dollars)."

2. This thread started as US vs. EU but the UN talk has turned into US versus individual EU nations. Add the EU member nations together and you get a number that larger than the US contribution (the numbers in the post by Nox would be at least 30%).

3. Think the porblem with the debt of the US is that so much of our debt is foreign. The American economy has been subsidized by the willingness of other nations to invest in the greenback. Their current hesitance towards the dollar creates the problem.

4. Not sure how debt levels demonstrate greatness or lack thereof. I'm confused.

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by pandoras_box
4. Not sure how debt levels demonstrate greatness or lack thereof. I'm confused.

Thank you, in my long winded way that's pretty much what I was trying to point out.
There's more to a country than it's financial state.
I care about people not $'s. I measure a countries greatness by it's treatment of it's population. The US gov is not treating it's people very well IMHO.
It's your country, you can make it great again, but ya gotta admit to it's shortcommings first. We're living in the century of deny, deny, deny, take no responsibility, blame someone else.
Your gov is not your country you are, take it back.


posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:45 PM
I think it's just stupid how there's so much propaganda against the US right now.
The US media is even attacking itself!

The two most highly criticized countries in the world are China and the US. No one seems to give a crap about public beheadings in Saudi Arabia, etc, etc.

You'd think it was the US's responsibility to take care of the rest of the world. Guess what? The US gives to charity voluntarily.

The first article I presented to you, another example how facts are twisted against the US. It claims that 61 of the top 140 companies in the world are European, while only 50 are American.

Can you see the bullcrap for what it is?
First, it assumes Switzerland and Britain are both part of the EU (they are not).
Second, why top 140? What the hell? Why not top 50 or top 100? They just decided to choose a number that would help the EU.

I PERSONALLY counted through Business Week's Global 1000 list, and found that the information was just bull. MOST of the top 140 companies are US companies.

Now, mind you, you won't find this Business Week article online (maybe you will I don't know). I have it stored on my hard drive.

(Figures are in Billions of US dollars)
The number on the right represents 2004 ranking, the number on the left represents 2003 ranking.
1 1 General Electric U.S. 328.11
2 2 Microsoft U.S. 284.43
3 3 Exxon Mobil U.S. 283.61
4 4 Pfizer U.S. 269.66
5 5 Wal-Mart Stores U.S. 241.19
6 6 Citigroup U.S. 239.43
7 9 BP Britain 193.05
8 10 American International Group U.S. 191.18
9 13 Intel U.S. 184.66
10 8 Royal Dutch/Shell Group Neth./Britain 174.83
11 21 Bank of America U.S. 169.84
12 7 Johnson & Johnson U.S. 165.32
13 14 HSBC Holdings Britain 163.09
14 12 Vodafone Group Britain 159.15
15 18 Cisco Systems U.S. 152.23
16 11 International Business Machines U.S. 150.55
17 17 Procter & Gamble U.S. 139.35
18 22 Berkshire Hathaway U.S. 136.86
19 26 Toyota Motor Japan 130.65
20 20 Coca-Cola U.S. 125.56
21 19 Novartis Switzerland 125.51
22 16 GlaxoSmithKline Britain 124.05
23 24 Total France 122.94
24 15 Merck U.S. 105.21
25 31 Nestlé Switzerland 104.87
26 32 Wells Fargo U.S. 99.85
27 28 Altria Group U.S. 98.20
28 36 ChevronTexaco U.S. 96.70
29 40 Roche Holding Switzerland 95.93
30 25 Verizon Communications U.S. 95.77
31 38 Royal Bank of Scotland Group Britain 94.37
32 23 NTT DoCoMo Japan 92.17
33 35 PepsiCo U.S. 91.28
34 33 Dell U.S. 90.08
35 46 UBS Switzerland 84.79
36 48 Eli Lilly U.S. 83.21
37 50 ENI Italy 82.07
38 37 Home Depot U.S. 81.73
39 41 United Parcel Service U.S. 80.69
40 60 Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Japan 79.02
41 29 SBC Communications U.S. 78.41
42 42 AstraZeneca Britain 78.36
43 44 Time Warner U.S. 77.64
44 49 J.P. Morgan Chase U.S. 75.25
45 58 Telefónica Spain 72.08
46 NR Samsung Electronics Korea 71.07
47 NR Gazprom Russia 70.78
48 51 Deutsche Telekom Germany 70.53
49 30 Amgen U.S. 70.02
50 27 Nokia Finland 66.95
51 65 3M U.S. 66.26
52 39 Fannie Mae U.S. 65.91
53 61 American Express U.S. 65.41
54 55 Unilever Neth./Britain 65.30
55 53 Hewlett-Packard U.S. 64.82
56 47 Comcast U.S. 64.64
57 34 Viacom U.S. 64.53
58 43 Abbott Laboratories U.S. 64.27
59 80 Aventis France 63.65
60 78 Siemens Germany 63.15
61 114 Genentech U.S. 63.04
62 62 Wachovia U.S. 61.94
63 99 Tyco International U.S. 61.72
64 57 France Télécom France 59.25
65 45 Oracle U.S. 59.18
66 111 eBay U.S. 58.08
67 54 Medtronic U.S. 58.05
68 63 Morgan Stanley U.S. 58.04
69 69 Barclays Britain 56.92
70 NR China Mobile (Hong Kong) China 56.66
71 74 BNP Paribas France 55.72
72 156 Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Japan 55.13
73 83 Merrill Lynch U.S. 54.58
74 76 Banc One U.S. 54.26
75 136 Qualcomm U.S. 54.25
76 71 U.S. Bancorp U.S. 54.16
77 103 BHP Billiton Australia/Brit. 53.16
78 67 L’ Oréal France 52.88
79 92 News Corp. Australia 52.24
80 59 Kraft Foods U.S. 51.47
81 98 SAP Germany 50.87
82 86 Banco Santander Central Hispano Spain 50.54
83 75 HBOS Britain 50.47
84 90 ConocoPhillips U.S. 50.17
85 636 Mizuho Financial Japan 50.01
86 77 Enel Italy 49.61
87 64 Bristol-Myers Squibb U.S. 49.13
88 68 Sanofi-Synthélabo France 48.46
89 93 E.ON Germany 48.12
90 56 Wyeth U.S. 48.04
91 84 Walt Disney U.S. 48.00
92 108 ING Groep Netherlands 46.58
93 73 TIM Italy 46.53
94 185 Motorola U.S. 46.30
95 91 Deutsche Bank Germany 46.05
96 66 BellSouth U.S. 45.71
97 94 Nissan Motor Japan 45.52
98 85 Goldman Sachs Group U.S. 45.39
99 115 DaimlerChrysler Germany 45.34
100 96 Texas Instruments U.S. 45.23

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:06 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
7. Literacy Spectrum;
Britain 100.00%
Germany 100.00%
Japan 100.00%
Switzerland 100.00%
New Zealand 99.80%
Australia 99.50%
Canada 99.00%
Russia 99.00%
France 99.00%
South Korea 97.40% 87.6%
Italy 97.40%
U.S. 95.50% 99.5% (UN) 97% (Newsweek 4/16/01)

Expanding on that:

Also, if you add up the EU debt, it isn't even close to the US debt. The US debt is over twice that of the EU's. No one cares for percentages; the truth is that the US has trillions of dollars more in debt than the EU. The gap between the EU and US debt is even higher than the total EU debt. And let's not forget the weak dollar...

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:34 PM
1. Britian is part of the EU. Yes, Switzerland is not part of the EU, but as for Britian...

2. Not sure how the "homebase" for a comapny is indicative of anything, especially in today's globalized economy.

3. Lists of companies still don't answer the dollar arguments as to why/how the US economy has been proped up by the rest of the world.

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:42 PM
I really don't see the "anti-US" bias in the media. Sure, there are reports/reporters/stations that are critical, but critical doesn't mean "anti."

Additionally, it seems to me that the general tone of the "pro-US, anti-EU" posts is that the rest of the world should be grateful for what the US has done. However, I'm not sure why. Seems to be a pretty good balance of things each side has done to help/hurt one another.

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:43 PM

Well of course the US is gonna top the lists of companies.
The US is one big corporation, uncaring of it's population.
Concerned only with profit margins.
The only thing the US is tops at is exploitation of world resources.
Can't you guys find anything that is not $ connected to redeem the US's world image.

Can't you see that money is not everything?
People before profit! Feed your need, not your greed!

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by pandoras_box
3. Lists of companies still don't answer the dollar arguments as to why/how the US economy has been proped up by the rest of the world.

Yes, and furthermore, a list of companies only signifies the number of successful entrepreneurs in a given country. It does not highlight the power of a country's economy, it's only an indicator of its private sector's capability.

The nation deficit, on the other hand, does display the stability and power of a country's economy.


posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:50 PM
Obviously, you people did not get my point.

I was refuting what was written in the first article on the first page I introduced.

I was using that list as a COUNTER to what had been claimed by the article, as a way of showing how online articles can't be trusted 100%. (The article stated that 61 out of 140 top companies of the global 500 are European). I succeeded in proving that article false.

It was mainly a statement that there are LOTS of propaganda working against the US right now, and we can all do with a little more researching. That article was written by an American too. Shameful.

No where did I mention that having the largest companies in the world was a symbol of power. NOWHERE.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by Nox]

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:37 AM
Great points here.

I find it soooooo funny how when all else fails, these US haters revert to the same old "america is evil" BS.

The fact is, the US is no more evil then any other nation, and actually DOES redeem it's self by contributing BY FAR the most help for the less fortunate!


posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:02 AM

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Is that so? How about some facts to back up THAT wild statement.

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:19 AM
America helps other nations

OK, you're moving the goalposts again, if the US contributes far more than any other nation, it also has a larger debt by far than any other nation. You can't class one thing in terms of a percentage of GDP and another thing as an absolute number when it suits you. Make your mind up.

Furthermore, you insist on looking at comparisons between the USA and the EU, so here it is:

Official development assistance in 2003.
Figures in $ millions

US - £15791 ($15.791bn)
EU - $36825 ($36.825bn)


edit: Damn you ANOK, you beat me to it AND used the same link as me.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Chris McGee]

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 06:17 AM
Question for you,

If there are two people who want to give money to charity. One has only got 10 dollars but gives 5, the other has 100 million dollars and gives 10 million, who is the more generous?

the pro US guys seem to be siding with the second guy whereas the pro EU people much prefer the first.

Is this not just another example of the different attitudes to life mentioned at the start of this thread?

The simple truth of the matter is neither the US or the EU are giving enough!

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 06:28 AM

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities. Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show U.S. aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the people of America is far more impressive than their government. As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion:

International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students
Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000
Source: Dr. Carol Aderman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002. (Aderman admits that there are no complete figures for international private giving. Hence these numbers may be taken in caution, but even with caution, these are high numbers.)

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:09 AM
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
capita (US$2000)
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 poorest:

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".

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in