Cantr II Discussion Forum

joo wrote:Y
That might not be the best thing to boast about: http://www.poverty.com/internationalaid.html

If you look at aid contributions in total dollars, you'll find that the US is solidly on top of the list.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_e ... -aid-donor

joo wrote:Your opinion seems to be based on the assumption, without much evidence, that he is guilty

He admitted his guilt several times.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/desti ... ttack.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004 ... 41029.html
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/02ukblast.htm

Isn't the total amount a rather meaningless figure?

Um, no...

Discounting total money is usually done by those who rankle at their own collective generosity in comparison when every drop of sweat helps. I would take a hundred people giving one dollar/euro each compared to 5 people giving 5 (unit of currency) each. While each of those five may have sacrificed more....the one hundred have by a mathematical certainty, had a greater impact. But money alone is never a good enough measurement of aid provided...toil, hands and human sweat are needed. Of that I don't have the information to make a comparison, though I suspect the ratios are similar.

That MLK quote is classic, thanks for that.

Yeah, well, but those hundred will each only have contributed one hundredth to the greater impact, while each of the five will have contributed one fifth to the smaller. Or to look at it from a slightly different perspective, if each of the hundred had contributed as much as one of the five, the generated good could have been five times as big, which raises the question why they put so little effort in it.

That's assuming that they can afford to give more. Just because someone gives less, does not mean that they put less effort into what they give. If someone can only give a few dollars (or whatever currency you wish to imagine), and others can give thousands of dollars- the ones that give more might make a bigger monetary impact, but it doesn't mean the other's contribution is so little because they don't put the effort in it.

I'm just going with the analogy of individual people, not the countries. I just don't think it's right to assume people don't put effort in what they give, just because they may not be able to give as much as someone else.

You are of course right. The original statistic takes this into account though.


(What it doesn't seem to take into account is privately donated money. I guess the figures might look quite different if it did.)

Hey...I was just stating a mathematical certainty. Can 100 euros buy more than 25euros?


It pretty much indefeasible.


Those that gave more, in pure monetary sense gave more per individual and should be praised for doing so. Those who gave less, but gave nonetheless deserve no less praise for we did not measure the worth of a heart. To do so would be merely semantic and with no resolution beyond pointless argument.

We still did invade a sovereign country and we would be mad as heck if someone did it to us. Its so strange the hypocrisy of it all and I am blaming my own country for this. For some reason those who thought that KSM deserved(s) a trial are happy that an UBL didn't get one. It supports a political platform in our divided country. The same press that could not wait to get Abu griab (sp?) pictures out thinks we cannot handle the pictures of the man whose skull we blew in to pieces through the left eye. The same press that told of how we were tracking him from his satellite/cell phone remained quiet for this one. I am happy with the results, but we could have been there in what 1996 I think (give or take 2yrs) and this would be a dead thread and the nationalism would be forgotten so that we could just play cantr.

So its done...even if it was a violation of international law, right now the evil empire is hard to touch.

As (Doug?) it was said, if they are so mad at us, stop taking our money.

That will teach us!

Be well

Piscator wrote:(What it doesn't seem to take into account is privately donated money. I guess the figures might look quite different if it did.)

The United States does seem to be good at having people individually donating money for causes, though I don't know what it's like in other countries. According to the link Doug R. posted, the US donates almost twice as much as #2 on the list (the UK).
Doesn't the US have debt? Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't just not care about that. I remember some time ago seeing the debt clock around 9 trillion. Now it's over 14 trillion, but who's going to force the US to pay? However, I really don't like the fact that the US government is choosing to control the economy more and increase spending. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/po ... f=business
Is free market not good? Why are we choosing this?
Edit: I don't know if the proposal was accepted, but I imagine that this is how the situation is now.

CN wrote:‎"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that" -- Martin Luther King, Jr

Joshuamonkey wrote:who's going to force the US to pay?

The countries with which the US trades to sustain itself, maybe?