PDA

View Full Version : Netherlands 'does most for poor'


Alonzo
08-13-2006, 06:14 AM
The Netherlands is the rich nation which does the most to improve lives in developing countries, a Center for Global Development (CGD) report says.
The UK is 12th in the annual Commitment to Development Index of the world's 21 richest nations and Japan ranked last.

CGD President Nancy Birdsall welcomed a "steady" improvement in commitment to poverty reduction in recent years.

But, she added, help had fallen far short of promises made by world leaders in 2005 - the "Year of Development".

The CGD's measures a broad number of factors for the index, rather than merely the amount of aid countries provide.

It also examines several policy areas - such as trade investment migration and environment - while aid is measured not only in terms of quantity but as a share of its income and the quality of aid given.

'Room for improvement'

While the Netherlands led the pack on generous investment and aid as well as measures to curb greenhouse gases, the CGD added they could work harder.

By contrast Japan ranked in last place due to a combination of factors including its low aid and high barriers to imports and migrants from poorer nations.

As a member of the EU the country imposes tariffs on farming imports from developing countries making it harder for farmers in those nations to escape poverty.

Meanwhile, despite the US giving the largest amount of aid that donation was the smallest in relation to the size of its economy.

The CGD added that a lot of the money was also contingent on the purchase of US goods, and so was in fact a"backdoor subsidy for American interests".

America was also criticised for its handling of aid in Iraq with the CGD claiming that only 90 cents in every dollar was lost to violence and corruption.

Trade barriers

However, the country fared well on the trade front, ranking second after New Zealand as barriers to exports from developing countries are not as high as those from the other nations in the Commitment to Development Index.

Elsewhere the UK ranked first in the investment component of the Index for its efforts to boost technology and increase jobs. It also achieved the highest score for its environmental record.

But the index penalised the country for selling arms to "undemocratic governments".

"The lives of a billion people could be improved in the next decade if rich countries reform their trade, migration and investment policies," David Roodman, CGD researcher and chief architect of the CDI.

"Politically, these changes are difficult. However, if rich countries are truly committed to development, they could easily bear the short-term costs of the reforms and the spread of prosperity would serve the interests of all countries."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4785813.stm

Rider
08-13-2006, 02:24 PM
Zo wrote- Meanwhile, despite the US giving the largest amount of aid that donation was the smallest in relation to the size of its economy.
Nothing slanted about that, right? Of course they don't talk about private donations or the donations that pass throught the UN. Oh, and thatÂ*Â*thing about defending the free world for 50 years during the cold war. Not to mention WWII when we stingy Americans liberated the Netherlands What tripe!

Alonzo
08-13-2006, 04:38 PM
You're paranoid. Now stating a fact, according to a report, on a country is slanted?

Rider
08-13-2006, 04:41 PM
No Zo, of course not; it's stating the fact in a twisted, misleading way. And "paranoid" implies that I harbor an unreasonable fear. Owing to the obvious bias of the piece, I'd say my concern is quite reasonable.

Alonzo
08-13-2006, 04:47 PM
Like giving context? You don't think stating how much we give, in proportion to our economic size (The standard being used to rate the countries after all) is reasonable?

Rider
08-13-2006, 04:59 PM
Zo said- Like giving context? You don't think stating how much we give, in proportion to our economic size (The standard being used to rate the countries after all) is reasonable?
The only reason this standard is being used is to minimize our support and provide a mechanism to place us last in the list and I think that anyone outside of the standard American haters realizes this.

Nathan Brazil
08-13-2006, 11:14 PM
Okay, since the US is sooo eeevil for giving the least percentage of it's GDP to the Turd World, we won't become more eeevil if we give less, right?

So let's all give the ungrateful bastards less and give ourselves a party instead.

CheesyMuslim
08-13-2006, 11:25 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. But this kind of Anti American Slant on our diverse giving duties sickens me.
2. Where the hell has the Netherlands been when there's a tsunami, or major earth quake in a foreign lands?
3. I don't see any Netherlands flags on helicopters bringing in aid, does anyone else?
4. I hope they can get geared up for the next major event.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Cobra
08-13-2006, 11:28 PM
Screw most them, why give aid to any ungratefull countries or people, it does nothing to serve our intrests and they hate us just as much half the time. Not to mention we're bashed when we do help for not helping enough, it's a no win situation IMO.

Alonzo
08-14-2006, 01:59 AM
Wow, anything that gives less than glowing review of the u.s. is denounced as biased. Funny, no one has denounced them for bias against Japan:

By contrast Japan ranked in last place due to a combination of factors including its low aid and high barriers to imports and migrants from poorer nations.

They even criticized the Netherlands:

As a member of the EU the country imposes tariffs on farming imports from developing countries making it harder for farmers in those nations to escape poverty.


And praised the u.s.:

However, the country fared well on the trade front, ranking second after New Zealand as barriers to exports from developing countries are not as high as those from the other nations in the Commitment to Development Index.


Seriously, this is ridiculous. The u.s. is a major country, it described our position and answered a question many would have: the u.s. gives the most, why didn't they top the list?

Mayberry
08-14-2006, 02:08 AM
Screw most them, why give aid to any ungratefull countries or people, it does nothing to serve our intrests and they hate us just as much half the time. Not to mention we're bashed when we do help for not helping enough, it's a no win situation IMO.

I'm beginning to like you Cobra! Honestly, the whole thing sounds like a primer for the Communist Manifesto. Let's make it a competition to see who can give away the most the fastest. Puh-leez. Feed the starving pygmies in New Guinea. A little help in a disaster I can see, but the world seems to think that America should be supporting everyone. Horse puckey. We have no obligation to support anyone but ourselves. Articles like this only serve to show America in yet another bad light. As Cobra said, most of them take our "aid" and then spit in our face. To hell with 'em.

Nathan Brazil
08-14-2006, 03:13 AM
Seriously, this is ridiculous. The u.s. is a major country, it described our position and answered a question many would have: the u.s. gives the most, why didn't they top the list?


Because the US does give the most. So they already top the list that counts, ie, total number of money wasted on ungrateful primitive bastards. That greedy socialists don't think it's enough falls definitely in the "tough shit" category.

Here's an idea:

This is a free country. If you and your ilk feel that our national "contribution" (actually it's tribute) is too small, then why don't you guys pony up some more of your own money, voluntarily?

Or is your real problem not that the United States doesn't give "enough" but that it's people are not only free to make those kinds of choices but choose not to give as much as you think proper?