For all the Anti-bush people and the economy.

[RussSchultz]

Natoma, your theories are very...interesting.

Most people would say a falling dollar would help drive exports, which would fuel American jobs.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma, your theories are very...interesting.

Most people would say a falling dollar would help drive exports, which would fuel American jobs.

Three to Five years ago I would have agreed with that assessment. However with the mass exodus of american manufacturing jobs (which is what is affected most by exports) to other nations such as China and India, I don't see this occurring in today's economic climate.

The falling dollar will pad the bottom lines of multinationals and drive up stocks, but I think one of the reasons why this recovery has been jobless (high productivity being another reason), is due to the fact that corporations can simply get more for their money by hiring overseas.

 

[Legion]

Its easy to make the us look good because of size and income per capita. But if you make 50g a year and give 2g to charity while the other guy in another country makes 15g a year but gives 1000 you still brag about your charity as being the best. Clearly its a lot harder for the guy who makes 15g a year to give and a higher percentage of his income. Theres a good parable for those of you in here that are christian on this kind of charity...

How is it a lot harder for the man who gives 1 out of 15gs? This seems like a strawman to me Pax. You don't know if people such as this do exist or for that matter how the statistics surrounding donations are formed. The dispersion of charity may not be as wide as you think. Infact i wouldn't be surprised to find out that EU funds mainly come from wealthy donators but the EU governments divide the total funds equally amongst the population. Needless to say that is be terribly dishonest.

This isnt an accurate portrait and merely used to show the false argument the us gov constantly makes. Ive never read that the us gives more privately to charity for foreign aid than elswhere.

Europe I meant the EU...

I would say the false argument is actaully to the contrary. You do not know how the division of funds work. You choose to reside on a rather christian esque moral presupposition (persons giving 1 out of 15gs) which evidence of some value agenda you have. Do you know this occurs outside of the US while not within the US? Of course not. Do you know if that person who makes 50g isn't giving 10gs? No, of course not. You simply choose to believe the US is in the wrong. Why do you consistantly do that?

Honestly, I see the value argument as rather insipid. Who are you to judge the value or reason behind a donator's charity? The argument that Americans could afford to give more, while true, is an example of you forcing your moral precepts on the rest of the world. Again you have no moral compas by which to judge the nature of their donations. You know nothing about them.

You haven't read anything about it? Not surprising. You probably haven't read much aobut the division of charitable funds across Europe either.

 

[Humus]

Humus,

The decline in the dollar has certainly helped the profit margins of multi-nationals. However, it has also raised prices for consumers who gobble up imports. And believe you me, we americans love our imports.

Yes, but when the import prices goes up, the consumers are more likely to choose products from the domestic industry, which may boost its economy. For instance, instead of buying an european or japanese car the consumer may choose to buy an american car. Especially in a large country like the US should this be a visible effect since most kinds of products that are imported are also represented in the domestic industry.

 

[Humus]

You haven't read anything about it? Not surprising. You probably haven't read much aobut the division of charitable funds across Europe either.

Have you? Until someone provides numbers of private charity, that part of the discussion is pure speculation.

 

[Natoma]

Humus,

The decline in the dollar has certainly helped the profit margins of multi-nationals. However, it has also raised prices for consumers who gobble up imports. And believe you me, we americans love our imports.

Yes, but when the import prices goes up, the consumers are more likely to choose products from the domestic industry, which may boost its economy. For instance, instead of buying an european or japanese car the consumer may choose to buy an american car. Especially in a large country like the US should this be a visible effect since most kinds of products that are imported are also represented in the domestic industry.

That's why I wrote what I did just above.

 

[Legion]

Have you? Until someone provides numbers of private charity, that part of the discussion is pure speculation.

Should i have? I do not recall making the moral supposition.

 

[Clashman]

As the US gives so much less publically it would be nice to see how much privately is given to foreign aid.

And I think that maybe the key word to that is "foreign". The U.S. may give alot to charity, but I would be willing to bet that most of it, (that is not tied to religious purposes), probably goes to address domestic issues, such as blood donations, urban poverty, etc. I don't think all that many private donations go to fund foreign aid, and in fact many of the problems private donations are set up to alleviate in the U.S. are already taken care of in the public systems in Europe.

 

[pax]

Legion Im not argunig the us is in the wrong anymore than other countries. As a whole the western world are cheap. We get multiple times in terms of investment profits and manyn times raping the wealth of the poor from those starving third countries than we give back in aid. Private or public.

What I am saying is that the US is in no way that charitable. And Europe at .35% of per capita only looks good in relative terms of public funding of foreign aid. Its still MUCH too low.

UN asked that .7% of per capita be devoted to poverty in the global arena...

All countries have failed this modest demand to curtail the worst suffering this world can dish out. And the world as it stands is extremely wealthy. We can easily afford it and in fact the expanded market and other economic benefits of doing it for long term are much better than the short term approach of hoarding wealth.

So NO I dont think the us or canada or europe are really being good at this. We arent generous.

 

[Humus]

Should i have? I do not recall making the moral supposition.

This is what you wrote:

Pax those numbers are for GOVERNMENT aid, not total contribution. As has been pointed out many times, the amount of aid given for charity by the US (IMF, personal funds) is substantial and around the same order that the amount the government gives.

i agree this same point has be argued on numerous occassions. Apparently it has yet to sink in.

There's nothing to sink in unless someone provides numbers. Until then, it's an argument based on speculation.

 

[Humus]

That's why I wrote what I did just above.

But you said that it balanced out well. That's not how I see it. A weak currency boosts the economy (at least in terms of the country's own currency, though not necesarily in terms of real value). I see two pluses and one minus. The export industry gains, the domestic industry gains, the import industry loses.

 

[Humus]

UN asked that .7% of per capita be devoted to poverty in the global arena...

All countries have failed this modest demand to curtail the worst suffering this world can dish out.

Actually, that's not true. Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Sweden meets the 0.7% target.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

 

[Legion]

There's nothing to sink in unless someone provides numbers. Until then, it's an argument based on speculation.

Joe among others have provided information in the past concerning this material. What exactly are you trying to suggest by quoteing me here?

 

[Legion]

and in fact many of the problems private donations are set up to alleviate in the U.S. are already taken care of in the public systems in Europe.

such as? Please give an example. Please explain without using indy media references.

 

[Humus]

I'm suggesting exactly what I wrote, that until someone shows numbers there's nothing that can sink in. Of course I'm not going to let an argument without data sink in. I remain sceptical until there's proof.

 

[Humus]

such as? Please give an example.

Such as taking care of homeless people or others that have slipped through in society. The wellfare system takes care of them already, so private charity don't need to do much beyond that.

 

[Legion]

such as? Please give an example.

Such as taking care of homeless people or others that have slipped through in society. The wellfare system takes care of them already, so private charity don't need to do much beyond that.

Oh? and the welfare systems in the US don't take care of the homeless people? A rather ludicrous suggestion. A value judgement. Especially when i hear sotries about how homeless people livein public bathrooms in England.

I am rather tired of the PC mantra of "slipping through the cracks."

Humus can you please give examples. This sounds more like socialist propaganda.

 

[ByteMe]

The estimate for charitable giving in 2002 is 2.3 percent of gross domestic product. This is only somewhat lower than the 2.4 percent of GDP found for 2001, comparable to 2.3 percent in 2000, and somewhat higher than the 2.2 percent of GDP reported in contributions for 1999. Giving above 2.0 percent of GDP was standard in the 1960s, but dropped below that level from 1971 through 1999. The historical record of Giving USA goes back to 1955, when the publication was created by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC).


http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/charityholds.html










How accurate that is I dunno, but it was taken from the IRS ( I think).

So how does europe do?

 

[Fred]

Its actually rather hard to quantify as I recall, since the definition of a charity can be nebulous (is the IMF which gives grant and loans technically a charity!). I don't have numbers handy, but the stereotype is that the US gives a lot in private aid. Of course, since things are tax deductible here, one naively expects the net per capita contribution total would favor the US over the EU for private charities. But that could be wrong.

I think there was an Economist article about this several years ago, one who's conclusions im quoting from memory.

But anyway, it would be somewhat flawed and unfair to just compare numbers of government aid in a vacuum. Especially since tax rates are so much higher in Europe.

Comparitive numbers are not valid unless you have the full picture available, so we really are just speculating..

 

[jvd]

Hmmm its really clintons fault for all the problems. Since they started in the first months of bush's tenure .