The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3088772.stm
$87bn needed.
Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
Yet we can muster it to kill.
*shakes head*
$87bn needed.
Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
Yet we can muster it to kill.
*shakes head*
Page:
The Guardian had a piece about agricultural subsidies in the EU on Monday. Guess how much we give to those farmers? $86.8 billion! What a coincidence. They have a very nice list of what we could do with that money, sourced from the World Bank, OECD, WHO and various NGOs. Replace the word 'farmers' with 'warmongerers' and we can see exactly what that Iraq money could have done:
Cancel 10% of foreign debt for all African countries: $30bn
Reduce worldwide infant mortality by two-thirds: $20bn
Achieving universal education: $10bn
Fund AIDS treatment, prevention and support for a year in low and middle-income countries: $7bn
Remove all landmines from severely affected countries in south east Asia: $5.5bn
Provide universal access to water and sanitation: $5bn
Buy one long-lasting insecticidal net for evey sub-Saharan African: $3.4bn
Double the annual Foreign Direct Investment into the 49 least developed countries: $2.7bn
Eradicate polio: $1bn
Fund the International Committee of the Red Cross for a year: $0.6bn
Pay for TB control in 22 high-burden countries: $0.5bn
Total: $85.7bn
But I guess that would make no difference at all. Three cheers for war.
Cancel 10% of foreign debt for all African countries: $30bn
Reduce worldwide infant mortality by two-thirds: $20bn
Achieving universal education: $10bn
Fund AIDS treatment, prevention and support for a year in low and middle-income countries: $7bn
Remove all landmines from severely affected countries in south east Asia: $5.5bn
Provide universal access to water and sanitation: $5bn
Buy one long-lasting insecticidal net for evey sub-Saharan African: $3.4bn
Double the annual Foreign Direct Investment into the 49 least developed countries: $2.7bn
Eradicate polio: $1bn
Fund the International Committee of the Red Cross for a year: $0.6bn
Pay for TB control in 22 high-burden countries: $0.5bn
Total: $85.7bn
But I guess that would make no difference at all. Three cheers for war.
Hip hip ho.....*trails off into resigned disgust*
Heh. An excellent post Unknown Kernel. I'm intrigued as to how IB's definition of "make a minor and temporary impact on (world problems)" will still stand...
SHEEPY wrote:
> I'm not sure what to wear
>
> My black t-shirt with red star... or my red t-shirt with black Hammer
> and Sickle. And what about my feet? Will be storming over grass, I
> don't want to get my new shoes dirty.
I'm wearing my t-shirt that has a big quote on the front:
'Revolution against evil blair!!!!'
Then it has goes on to say '!!!eleven' for some inexplicable reason.
> I'm not sure what to wear
>
> My black t-shirt with red star... or my red t-shirt with black Hammer
> and Sickle. And what about my feet? Will be storming over grass, I
> don't want to get my new shoes dirty.
I'm wearing my t-shirt that has a big quote on the front:
'Revolution against evil blair!!!!'
Then it has goes on to say '!!!eleven' for some inexplicable reason.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Cancel 10% of foreign debt for all African countries: $30bn
10% of the debt that a lot of them aren't paying for anyway. Regardless, leaving them with £270billion of debt which, if they were paying for, would still leave them utterly crippled. Let's face it, the only effective way to tackle those debts is to completely irradicate them. so that's $300bn of expenditure needed to make a worthwhile difference.
> Reduce worldwide infant mortality by two-thirds: $20bn
Don't know much about it, to be honest. But I do know that a lot of it has to do with education, which I'll go into in a minute. A lot is also about disease control, health care and maternity monitoring. All of this not only costs a hell of a lot of money, but it isn;t a one-off cost. It requires continual re-investment to ensure that the system stays in place. overall, this would cost far more than the figure quoted here.
> Achieving universal education: $10bn
Ridiculously optimistic. The US education budget is $53.1 billion. How can you hope to educate the world with less than a fifth of that?
Uk expenditure on education way back in 2000 was £44.1 billion - sterling. A figure of $10bn for universal education is quite simply laughable.
> Fund AIDS treatment, prevention and support for a year in low and
> middle-income countries: $7bn
Firstly, AIDS is an ongoing, incurable problem. Supporting it and preventing it for a year will have virtually no long term benefits. The only real answer, without a miracle cure, is long term education, and I've already demonstrated how costly that can be.
> Remove all landmines from severely affected countries in south east
> Asia: $5.5bn
I recently read that it would cost "$2bn per year for ten years" to achieve that. So unless some cheap alternative to removing mines has been found, such as forcing Pop Idol audiences to run across mined areas flailing their arms and screaming for Will Young, then I suspect that figure to be quite optimistic.
> Provide universal access to water and sanitation: $5bn
Another laughable figure. Utility companies in the UK alone spend hundreds of millions every year *maintaining* our own water supply. Building them worldwide from scratch would cost an astronomical fee in comparison to the paltry $5billion quoted there.
> Buy one long-lasting insecticidal net for evey sub-Saharan African:
> $3.4bn
That's great, but it won't make as much of a difference as you might think. Contrary to popular belief, malaria stricken mosquitoes don't only attack you in your sleep. I recently saw a documentary on this very subject which indicated that mosquitoes start biting far earlier than generally believed, leaving people at risk for several hours before they begin to protect themselves. To make a more effective impact, I'm afraid it's again about yet more education. It's not like $3.4 bn is a huge sum in malaria terms anyway, given that some $15bn a year is spent on treating and controlling it already.
> Double the annual Foreign Direct Investment into the 49 least
> developed countries: $2.7bn
Eh? Angola alone, one of the nations listed as "least developed" received almost $2billion dolars FDI itself in 1999. Mozambique, in the same year received almost half a billion as well, as did Sudan. Perhaps FDI isn't as high as it was in 1999, but I think whatever source quoted $1.35bn as total FDI was more than a little conservative.
> Eradicate polio: $1bn
That one figure is the only one I disagree with in the opposite direction. I don't think it would cost that much. Fewer than 20 countries worldwide report any cases at all. I would be surprised if it cost more than half that much to entirely wipe it out.
> Fund the International Committee of the Red Cross for a year: $0.6bn
Closer to $0.7, but agreed.
> Pay for TB control in 22 high-burden countries: $0.5bn
I doubt it somehow. Even in the UK we're still spending millions controlling it, and we don't have a problem. And with issues such as drug resistant TB plaguing places like Russia and whatnot, getting it under control to begin with would likely cost at least as much in any one country. Then there will be ongoing support costs for decades to ensure that it stays under control. So the overal costs is likely to count in the tens of billions.
Now, I agree with the principal, which is pumping more money into where it is needed in these areas, and I think, if all the money was concentrating on one or two issues, rather than on several as listed here, significant ground could be made. And I've never said that more money wouldn't help. However, the money has to be spent more wisely than we have seen historically, centering on education and infrastrucure rather than blind assistance.
But where does the money come from? From farming subsidies? The effect on the economy could be crippling. From the Iraq occupation? What of Iraq? they have no form of real government, no infrastructure, and they'll likely be plunged into the same problems they had before. Probably worse.
But at the end of the day, I don't want yet more of my taxes spent on aiding foriegn problems. I think we spend a more than fair amount on that as it is. It is the people who should top up the aid from their own pockets. Sponsor a child, run a marathon for charity, drop your change in the charity box in Mcdonalds, however you want to do it. The bottom line is that the developed countries are pouring huge amounts of money into helping the developing countries, and historically, these huge numbers have made little impact. So whilewe can sit here and quote figures all day, the truth is that solving problems like these is more complicatd and more expensive than we understand, and takes a significant amount of time to happen.
You want to change the world? You want a little to go a long way? So contribute and stop whinging that other money gets spent on other things.
> Cancel 10% of foreign debt for all African countries: $30bn
10% of the debt that a lot of them aren't paying for anyway. Regardless, leaving them with £270billion of debt which, if they were paying for, would still leave them utterly crippled. Let's face it, the only effective way to tackle those debts is to completely irradicate them. so that's $300bn of expenditure needed to make a worthwhile difference.
> Reduce worldwide infant mortality by two-thirds: $20bn
Don't know much about it, to be honest. But I do know that a lot of it has to do with education, which I'll go into in a minute. A lot is also about disease control, health care and maternity monitoring. All of this not only costs a hell of a lot of money, but it isn;t a one-off cost. It requires continual re-investment to ensure that the system stays in place. overall, this would cost far more than the figure quoted here.
> Achieving universal education: $10bn
Ridiculously optimistic. The US education budget is $53.1 billion. How can you hope to educate the world with less than a fifth of that?
Uk expenditure on education way back in 2000 was £44.1 billion - sterling. A figure of $10bn for universal education is quite simply laughable.
> Fund AIDS treatment, prevention and support for a year in low and
> middle-income countries: $7bn
Firstly, AIDS is an ongoing, incurable problem. Supporting it and preventing it for a year will have virtually no long term benefits. The only real answer, without a miracle cure, is long term education, and I've already demonstrated how costly that can be.
> Remove all landmines from severely affected countries in south east
> Asia: $5.5bn
I recently read that it would cost "$2bn per year for ten years" to achieve that. So unless some cheap alternative to removing mines has been found, such as forcing Pop Idol audiences to run across mined areas flailing their arms and screaming for Will Young, then I suspect that figure to be quite optimistic.
> Provide universal access to water and sanitation: $5bn
Another laughable figure. Utility companies in the UK alone spend hundreds of millions every year *maintaining* our own water supply. Building them worldwide from scratch would cost an astronomical fee in comparison to the paltry $5billion quoted there.
> Buy one long-lasting insecticidal net for evey sub-Saharan African:
> $3.4bn
That's great, but it won't make as much of a difference as you might think. Contrary to popular belief, malaria stricken mosquitoes don't only attack you in your sleep. I recently saw a documentary on this very subject which indicated that mosquitoes start biting far earlier than generally believed, leaving people at risk for several hours before they begin to protect themselves. To make a more effective impact, I'm afraid it's again about yet more education. It's not like $3.4 bn is a huge sum in malaria terms anyway, given that some $15bn a year is spent on treating and controlling it already.
> Double the annual Foreign Direct Investment into the 49 least
> developed countries: $2.7bn
Eh? Angola alone, one of the nations listed as "least developed" received almost $2billion dolars FDI itself in 1999. Mozambique, in the same year received almost half a billion as well, as did Sudan. Perhaps FDI isn't as high as it was in 1999, but I think whatever source quoted $1.35bn as total FDI was more than a little conservative.
> Eradicate polio: $1bn
That one figure is the only one I disagree with in the opposite direction. I don't think it would cost that much. Fewer than 20 countries worldwide report any cases at all. I would be surprised if it cost more than half that much to entirely wipe it out.
> Fund the International Committee of the Red Cross for a year: $0.6bn
Closer to $0.7, but agreed.
> Pay for TB control in 22 high-burden countries: $0.5bn
I doubt it somehow. Even in the UK we're still spending millions controlling it, and we don't have a problem. And with issues such as drug resistant TB plaguing places like Russia and whatnot, getting it under control to begin with would likely cost at least as much in any one country. Then there will be ongoing support costs for decades to ensure that it stays under control. So the overal costs is likely to count in the tens of billions.
Now, I agree with the principal, which is pumping more money into where it is needed in these areas, and I think, if all the money was concentrating on one or two issues, rather than on several as listed here, significant ground could be made. And I've never said that more money wouldn't help. However, the money has to be spent more wisely than we have seen historically, centering on education and infrastrucure rather than blind assistance.
But where does the money come from? From farming subsidies? The effect on the economy could be crippling. From the Iraq occupation? What of Iraq? they have no form of real government, no infrastructure, and they'll likely be plunged into the same problems they had before. Probably worse.
But at the end of the day, I don't want yet more of my taxes spent on aiding foriegn problems. I think we spend a more than fair amount on that as it is. It is the people who should top up the aid from their own pockets. Sponsor a child, run a marathon for charity, drop your change in the charity box in Mcdonalds, however you want to do it. The bottom line is that the developed countries are pouring huge amounts of money into helping the developing countries, and historically, these huge numbers have made little impact. So whilewe can sit here and quote figures all day, the truth is that solving problems like these is more complicatd and more expensive than we understand, and takes a significant amount of time to happen.
You want to change the world? You want a little to go a long way? So contribute and stop whinging that other money gets spent on other things.
Right...so your method of keeping your pride intact is to look at the figures provided, say "No, that isn't true", give some figures of your own (which, as you've already used spurious figures to support your argument, are suspect to say the least), and then try to say "We could argue facts all day, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm right"?
Man...I'm arrogant, but I bow in the presence of a true master. I mean, I at least pay lip service to reality when trying to convince others of the correctness of my opinions.
Man...I'm arrogant, but I bow in the presence of a true master. I mean, I at least pay lip service to reality when trying to convince others of the correctness of my opinions.
Whatever dude. If you like, you can find all those figures on the net. Happy hunting.
As I said, those figures aren't mine but they do come from respectable organisations who have presumably researched the problems pretty thoroughly.
To be honest I thought the figures for education and sanitation were very low, but this is obviously about providing basic neccessities rather than a western standard. Water and sanitation don't need vast treatment plants; they can be provided with cheap wells and latrines built from local materials. How much would this cost? I don't know, but I think the OECD and Oxfam know more about it than we do.
To be honest I thought the figures for education and sanitation were very low, but this is obviously about providing basic neccessities rather than a western standard. Water and sanitation don't need vast treatment plants; they can be provided with cheap wells and latrines built from local materials. How much would this cost? I don't know, but I think the OECD and Oxfam know more about it than we do.
*pop*
Were you wrong, Belldandy, or what?
Were you wrong, Belldandy, or what?
I think I can chip into the war effort with my generous financial aid of 0.01p.
Page: