Recently someone in one of my classes was talking about donations to Haiti and mentioned some statistics about it. This made me curious and so I looked up some more statistics.
I noticed that a lot of wealthier countries aren't even on the list, while some poorer countries were. Guyana, which apparently isn't very wealthy, has donated quite a large portion of their GDP.
Economic powerhouses like China and Japan have some pretty low numbers relative to their GDPs and population. Canada might be one of the bigger surprises with 3.92 dollars donated per person (US is 0.53).
I myself am somewhat disappointed not to see Korea anywhere. If anyone could find another source of statistics with a broader range of countries, that'd be awesome.
On February 08 2010 13:41 iCCup.deL wrote: Pretty much as you'd expect. It's really close to Nth America so they're gonna donate more and Canada has a small population.
On February 08 2010 14:16 DivinO wrote: Surprised to see US on top. So many people yell about the US not giving enough...when our own economy is in shambles..foreign aid isn't so bad.
huh? US always give a lot, just maybe not the most per capita.
Japanese generally put out for int situations. To be fair Haiti is in the US' sphere of influence.... also the US economy is disproporitionately larger than just about any other economy.
On February 08 2010 14:16 DivinO wrote: Surprised to see US on top. So many people yell about the US not giving enough...when our own economy is in shambles..foreign aid isn't so bad.
Try sorting that table by "% per person". Doesn't look that good then anymore, even more so if you consider that the USA most likely have lots of political reasons behind offering help. Really, having the default view set as "donated total" is completely misleading/unobjective. Try comparing the land mass or even population numbers of USA and Luxemburg, eh? Of course random tiny Eurasia states can't donate as much as the world's third largest country. And with the other two large countries hating America and having nothing to gain there, there is no surprise at all for me here.
On February 08 2010 14:16 DivinO wrote: Surprised to see US on top. So many people yell about the US not giving enough...when our own economy is in shambles..foreign aid isn't so bad.
Try sorting that table by "% per person". Doesn't look that good then anymore, even more so if you consider that the USA most likely have lots of political reasons behind offering help. Really, having the default view set as "donated total" is completely misleading/unobjective. Try comparing the land mass or even population numbers of USA and Luxemburg, eh? Of course random tiny Eurasia states can't donate as much as the world's third largest country. And with the other two large countries hating America and having nothing to gain there, there is no surprise at all for me here.
Uh... the numbers don't represent the full extend of aid. They don't account for private donations (it even says that in the original link), and it's only talking about financial contributions or commitments to give towards certain projects; human capital is not accounted for. Your point is misleading as well.
Not to mention the fact that you're making a pissing contest out of disaster relief...
On February 08 2010 14:16 DivinO wrote: Surprised to see US on top. So many people yell about the US not giving enough...when our own economy is in shambles..foreign aid isn't so bad.
Try sorting that table by "% per person". Doesn't look that good then anymore, even more so if you consider that the USA most likely have lots of political reasons behind offering help. Really, having the default view set as "donated total" is completely misleading/unobjective. Try comparing the land mass or even population numbers of USA and Luxemburg, eh? Of course random tiny Eurasia states can't donate as much as the world's third largest country. And with the other two large countries hating America and having nothing to gain there, there is no surprise at all for me here.
Having the default view set as donated total isn't any more unobjective than writing a news article based on government pledges and trying to compare it to the generosity of a nation. The US gives a larger percent of its GDP to private philathropy than any other country. It gets so old after every disaster that someone has to post a link showing how much each government pledges and the US gets knocked because we prefer to donate privately instead of having our government spend our money for us.
low numbers from china because they are selfish and only look out for themselves just look at how they refused to cut co2 emissions at copenhagen or how through protectionism stifled exports of rare metals
Sadly, no matter how much money they get it wont really fix the country. They have been independent for ~200years and was a huge shithole even before the quake.
edit - why all the dick wagging? Who cares how much USA contributed on a per capita basis. No one owes Haiti anything. I'd consider everyone on that list pretty damn generous.
why can't we be proud that we're moving more and more into a global community that actually supports one another instead of this pissing contest.
What you guys miss here is that, first the information in that thread isn't really reliable and second it accounts only for money sent. Some countries have been, in my opinion, clever than others and instead of sending money which it will get stolen on the way they sent food, water, medicines, doctor teams etc. At least half of the money sent won't really get to the haiti people.
There are nations such as Iran, Venezuela or Cuba whom i'm not surprised to not find mentioned in the article that sent a lot of help to Haiti. For example Iran sent medical gear, Venezuela sent a big ship with food and Cuba sent a large medical team.
Other countries beside sending the money, also helped by sending lots of food, medicines, tents, water, etc and doctors, emergency teams, constructors, psychologists, etc. And these are hard to quantify in $ value. France for example sent many engineers and USA sent troops to ensure security and stability in the area.
5.050.504 dollar form netherlands lol, that seems pretty old data because from what I've seen we're at 100,6 million eurohttp://www.giro555.nl/nl-NL/Content.aspx?type=NewsItem&id=962. However we didn't much aid in other ways except a rescue team.
That's the government right? The whole private individual/organizations breakdown would be more interesting rather than government largess.
Money hardly counts for crap though. Real help come in the form of volunteer efforts, medical expertise, and reconstruction efforts. Yes, I donated. $200. I sort of wished I could have went on site and helped though.
Oh and the US government aid sometime counterproductive e.g. US military control of airports that turned away doctors without borders. I expect that some other foreign aid packages would likewise be somewhat inappropriate i.e. added in to inflate monetary value but doesn't address the pressing needs of people in Haiti.
Inaccurate list. Iunno about other countries, but like Navane said, in the Netherlands some public fund raising campaign alone ended up with over 83mil. The 5 million listed seems to be coming from Dutch health & humanity related organizations. I'd estimate (no back up source ) our country has donated over 100mil (which is pretty awesome I think, looking at how our the population is like 16~ mil). That's a HUGE difference with the amount listed on there and leads me to believe that the whole list must be totally inaccurate.
Anyway, a more interesting report would be one showing where all the money has gone to.
Don't look at percentage...countries with lower GDPs generally also have a smaller population to maintain. Asking a large nation to commit the same percentage as a lower GDP nation with not nearly as many government programs is stupid. Look at the actual amount donated, and look at how the nation is actively assisting.
On February 08 2010 19:21 Mora wrote: No one owes Haiti anything. I'd consider everyone on that list pretty damn generous.
In 1825, in return for recognising Haitian independence, France demanded indemnity on a staggering scale: 150 million gold francs, five times the country’s annual export revenue. The Royal Ordinance was backed up by 12 French warships with 150 cannon.
The terms were non-negotiable. The fledgeling nation acceded, since it had little choice. Haiti must pay for its freedom, and pay it did, through the nose, for the next 122 years.
Historical accountancy is an inexact business, but the scale of French usury was astonishing. Even when the total indemnity was reduced to 90 million francs, Haiti remained crippled by debt. The country took out loans from US, German and French banks at extortionate rates. To put the cost into perspective, in 1803 France agreed to sell the Louisiana Territory, an area 74 times the size of Haiti, to the US, for 60 million francs.
Weighed down by this financial burden, Haiti was born almost bankrupt. In 1900 some 80 per cent of the national budget was still being swallowed up by debt repayments. Money that might have been spent on building a stable economy went to foreign bankers. To keep workers on the land and extract maximum crop yields to pay the indemnity, Haiti brought in the Rural Code, instituting a division between town and country, between a light-skinned elite and the dark-skinned majority, that still persists.
The debt was not finally paid off until 1947.
French donations amounted to $33,000,000.
A revolutionary franc was 4.5 grams of silver. A quick bit of maths reveals that France owes Haiti $265,000,000 in silver (assuming silver is $18.5 an once).
However in 2004 the Haitian government estimated the damage at nearly $22 billion (including interest). Food for thought.
i donated about 150$ i think, i hope it will help a little. Sweden used to be good at this, we have it on the TV everyday that people should donate here from sweden.
On February 08 2010 19:21 Mora wrote: the world makes me proud!
yay for helping each other.
edit - why all the dick wagging? Who cares how much USA contributed on a per capita basis. No one owes Haiti anything. I'd consider everyone on that list pretty damn generous.
why can't we be proud that we're moving more and more into a global community that actually supports one another instead of this pissing contest.
you people annoy me.
I agree.
Just because Haiti is going through bad times doesn't mean every single country is obligated to care.
Interesting stats. tbh the $ per person stat isnt that meaningful. I guess unless you factor in wealth distribution of the donating country. I think absolute/total dollars is more useful here, at least in terms of getting shit done in Haiti hehe.
In 1825, in return for recognising Haitian independence, France demanded indemnity on a staggering scale: 150 million gold francs, five times the country’s annual export revenue. The Royal Ordinance was backed up by 12 French warships with 150 cannon.
The terms were non-negotiable. The fledgeling nation acceded, since it had little choice. Haiti must pay for its freedom, and pay it did, through the nose, for the next 122 years.
Historical accountancy is an inexact business, but the scale of French usury was astonishing. Even when the total indemnity was reduced to 90 million francs, Haiti remained crippled by debt. The country took out loans from US, German and French banks at extortionate rates. To put the cost into perspective, in 1803 France agreed to sell the Louisiana Territory, an area 74 times the size of Haiti, to the US, for 60 million francs.
Weighed down by this financial burden, Haiti was born almost bankrupt. In 1900 some 80 per cent of the national budget was still being swallowed up by debt repayments. Money that might have been spent on building a stable economy went to foreign bankers. To keep workers on the land and extract maximum crop yields to pay the indemnity, Haiti brought in the Rural Code, instituting a division between town and country, between a light-skinned elite and the dark-skinned majority, that still persists.
The debt was not finally paid off until 1947.
French donations amounted to $33,000,000.
A revolutionary franc was 4.5 grams of silver. A quick bit of maths reveals that France owes Haiti $265,000,000 in silver (assuming silver is $18.5 an once).
However in 2004 the Haitian government estimated the damage at nearly $22 billion (including interest). Food for thought.
We also owe the native Indians the entire continent of America.
Too bad they're never going to get it back. That's darwinism for you.
On February 10 2010 01:36 Black Gun wrote: wow, germany donated less per capita than the global average. i feel kinda ashamed...
first i also thought "what a shame", but i think we also sent a lot of doctors, medicines, ...
maybe, but still we are one of the richest countries in the world and one of the largest economies - even when accounting for our maybe above-average medical and logistical help, we still shouldnt be donating less money than the global average.
On February 08 2010 19:21 Mora wrote: No one owes Haiti anything. I'd consider everyone on that list pretty damn generous.
In 1825, in return for recognising Haitian independence, France demanded indemnity on a staggering scale: 150 million gold francs, five times the country’s annual export revenue. The Royal Ordinance was backed up by 12 French warships with 150 cannon.
The terms were non-negotiable. The fledgeling nation acceded, since it had little choice. Haiti must pay for its freedom, and pay it did, through the nose, for the next 122 years.
Historical accountancy is an inexact business, but the scale of French usury was astonishing. Even when the total indemnity was reduced to 90 million francs, Haiti remained crippled by debt. The country took out loans from US, German and French banks at extortionate rates. To put the cost into perspective, in 1803 France agreed to sell the Louisiana Territory, an area 74 times the size of Haiti, to the US, for 60 million francs.
Weighed down by this financial burden, Haiti was born almost bankrupt. In 1900 some 80 per cent of the national budget was still being swallowed up by debt repayments. Money that might have been spent on building a stable economy went to foreign bankers. To keep workers on the land and extract maximum crop yields to pay the indemnity, Haiti brought in the Rural Code, instituting a division between town and country, between a light-skinned elite and the dark-skinned majority, that still persists.
The debt was not finally paid off until 1947.
French donations amounted to $33,000,000.
A revolutionary franc was 4.5 grams of silver. A quick bit of maths reveals that France owes Haiti $265,000,000 in silver (assuming silver is $18.5 an once).
However in 2004 the Haitian government estimated the damage at nearly $22 billion (including interest). Food for thought.
We also owe the native Indians the entire continent of America.
Too bad they're never going to get it back. That's darwinism for you.
Why so much talk of Haiti all of a sudden? How about donating money to all the other countries in the world who suffer all the time; african countries etc.
Donating money to Haiti has become so politically correct. Not that there's anything wrong with donating money to Haiti of course.
North Korea probably has more suffering people than Haiti. When did someone ever donate money to NK?
Wow Dominican Republic being mashed in "Others" is just wrong -_- We have done more than any other country considering our size. I bet we would be in like $10 bucks per capita. Seriously...
Dominicans have died helping Haiti. I'm 20 years old I and I study in the best university of the country and me and my friends that have absolutely no reason to dedicate time or money to helping Haiti have even flown there to help.
Maybe we are not a top contributor in total but they should had put us in a separate category. I don't know why but that gets on my nerves. I am actually mad >( Countries aiding Hait after the earthquake... Ooo... Good for them! Try helping them for 200 fucking years!
I just deleted like 2 paragraphs I had reading with more rant after a lot of meditation... I'm just going to leave it at that.
The wikipedia version includes a more detailed account of the aid sent by each country. The responses under that article has a lot of country's citizens complaining that their country sent aid and other country's citizens flaming that certain countries did not send aid as expected.
I think pretty much almost every country in the world sent or did SOMETHING.
On February 08 2010 14:16 DivinO wrote: Surprised to see US on top. So many people yell about the US not giving enough...when our own economy is in shambles..foreign aid isn't so bad.
Try sorting that table by "% per person". Doesn't look that good then anymore, even more so if you consider that the USA most likely have lots of political reasons behind offering help. Really, having the default view set as "donated total" is completely misleading/unobjective. Try comparing the land mass or even population numbers of USA and Luxemburg, eh? Of course random tiny Eurasia states can't donate as much as the world's third largest country. And with the other two large countries hating America and having nothing to gain there, there is no surprise at all for me here.
Having the default view set as donated total isn't any more unobjective than writing a news article based on government pledges and trying to compare it to the generosity of a nation. The US gives a larger percent of its GDP to private philathropy than any other country. It gets so old after every disaster that someone has to post a link showing how much each government pledges and the US gets knocked because we prefer to donate privately instead of having our government spend our money for us.
Isn't it especially silly this time around because 1.5$/person doesn't look bad at all (to me) o_O
On February 08 2010 14:16 DivinO wrote: Surprised to see US on top. So many people yell about the US not giving enough...when our own economy is in shambles..foreign aid isn't so bad.
Try sorting that table by "% per person". Doesn't look that good then anymore, even more so if you consider that the USA most likely have lots of political reasons behind offering help. Really, having the default view set as "donated total" is completely misleading/unobjective. Try comparing the land mass or even population numbers of USA and Luxemburg, eh? Of course random tiny Eurasia states can't donate as much as the world's third largest country. And with the other two large countries hating America and having nothing to gain there, there is no surprise at all for me here.
Having the default view set as donated total isn't any more unobjective than writing a news article based on government pledges and trying to compare it to the generosity of a nation. The US gives a larger percent of its GDP to private philathropy than any other country. It gets so old after every disaster that someone has to post a link showing how much each government pledges and the US gets knocked because we prefer to donate privately instead of having our government spend our money for us.
A majority of the donations given by the US were probably made by the richest of the rich, people who can afford to give lots of money. I haven't given any money because my family is facing possible bankruptcy, and I've got to worry about where I'm going to live and how I'm going to eat over the next year. I don't think that the situation that I, and probably many other Americans are in, should reflect poorly on the generosity of the US as a whole. We've got all the wealth in a small population, and that population undoubtedly spurred our overall donations given to the top of the charts. How is America as a whole being non-generous? If and when I am put in a situation where I have a lot extra money during some disaster, there's no doubt that I would give donations where they are needed.
EPT
