RE: [Futurework] Priorities anyone?

[Harry Pollard]

Ed,   The problem is that giving debt relief and piles of money to Africa will not advance the condition of ordinary Africans a smidgen.   It will probably finish up in the same Swiss banks as did the earlier money.   Even South Africa which should be expected to  be a good place is becoming a complete mess. See the Human Rights page at:   http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/africa11.html   The whole thing is driven perhaps by the peculiar economics of the neo-Classicals.   If the G8 countries give $50 billion to Africa, it means that a lot of people will be put to work producing things to be given away. That provides jobs (albeit useless ones) for the unemployed.   Come to think of it, it has the same characteristics as the mountains of cheese and butter that Western economics have managed to build.   Well, if those unfortunate Africans can’t have justice, at least they can have a slice of bread and butter (if they can get some bread).   Harry   ******************************* Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042 818 352-4141 *******************************     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 8:42 AM To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: [Futurework] Priorities anyone?   The following two news items say a lot about our priorities. If the G8 countries were to contribute $50 billion to African aid by 2015, they would have attained a level of aid equal to 5% of current global military expenditures or about 10% of current US military expenditures. But I’m not going to bet that it will happen. The military has become a huge business and the $1.035 trillion figure is undoubtedly low, given the following: "But the report said the figures might be on the low side as countries are increasingly outsourcing services related to armed conflicts, such as military training and providing logistics in combat zones, without classifying them as military expenditures." Ed P.S.  I hope I have my billions and trillions right.  I don't think I've ever worked with numbers quite so high. From this morning’s Globe and Mail: That meets a key Blair objective, though the pledge doesn't mention the British leader's hope of increasing aid from the current $25-billion (U.S.) to $50-billion. Also left out of the pledge of support for Africa will be Mr. Blair's other goal of getting all summit countries to commit to raising foreign aid to an amount equivalent to 0.7 per cent of each country's economy by 2015. The United States, which is now giving an amount equal to 0.16 per cent of its economy, objected to the setting a numerical target. and From the Vancouver Sun June 8, 2005 Global military spending reaches $1 trillion The U.S. accounts for almost half of all expenditures By Mattias Karen Stockholm, Sweden -- Global military spending in 2004 broke the $1 trillion US barrier for the first time since the Cold War, boosted by the U.S. war against terror and the growing defence budgets of India and China, a European think-tank said Tuesday. Led by the United States, which accounted for almost half of all military expenditure, the world spent $1.035 trillion on defence, equal to 2.6 per cent of global gross domestic product, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said. Besides its regular defence budget, the U.S. has allocated $238 billion since 2003 to fight terrorism, according to the report. "These appropriations are now assuming extraordinary proportions," said SIPRI researcher Elisabeth Skons, who co-authored the organization's annual report. Adjusted for inflation, the figure for global military spending in 2004 is only six per cent lower than its Cold War peak in 1987-1988, Skons said. The Cold War was the struggle for power and prestige between the western powers and the Communist bloc from the end of the Second World War until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Total military expenditure grew six per cent in 2004 over the previous year, in line with an average annual increase since 2002, the institute said. South Asia, northern Africa and North America made the largest increases. In Western Europe and Central America, military spending fell. But the report said the figures might be on the low side as countries are increasingly outsourcing services related to armed conflicts, such as military training and providing logistics in combat zones, without classifying them as military expenditures. Such outsourcing has more than doubled in the last 15 years, and was estimated to have reached $100 million during 2004, SIPRI researcher Caroline Holmqvist said. The researchers predicted it would double again from current levels by 2010. "This is a global phenomenon," Holmqvist said, adding it was difficult to provide exact figures. "This is an industry that is not largely regulated." As a region, South Asia saw the biggest rise in military expenditure, largely because India boosted its defence budget by 19 per cent in a move that could provide a "real setback" to the country's attempts at ending a decades-long conflict with neighbour Pakistan, Skons said. "Just a few years ago, it looked like they would be able to reach a peaceful settlement," she said. "Now India has increased [military spending] again." The report is based on official national budgets in most cases, and independent studies for countries like China, where, Skons said, "it's obvious that the official figures are very wrong." Associated Press and Canadian Press

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework