5 ms·

The absence of private contributions makes the chart rather meaningless. Take for example The Netherlands: a pledge of 4.3 million dollars according to the data

The absence of private contributions makes the chart rather meaningless. Take for example The Netherlands: a pledge of 4.3 million dollars according to the data. This was an initial pledge by the government shortly after the disaster. In the mean time over 42 million euros in private contributions have been donated to relief organizations and the Dutch government will double that amount.

ajross 17y ago
But it's a log plot. Adding a factor of 20 just moves the Netherlands up by 1.3 units on the graph, which means it's still landing below the median even without including the private contributions of the other nations. Sorry, but the Dutch dropped the ball on this one, at least relative to other EU governments. As other folks have pointed out, simple proximity makes the much higher US contribution sensible and sane. But really, the Netherlands, Italy and (especially) Germany need to be up near the UK and France.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > But really, the Netherlands, Italy and (especially) Germany need to be up near the UK and France. In the end, it's their choice based on their values, means, and priorities. The extent to which Americans turn out for private charity is one thing I'm particularly proud of about the USA, but in the end it's everyone's choice individually.
- roc 17y ago
  Why? So they can have a 'score' that's on par with other nations? Isn't it entirely possible that the actual aid physically deliverable in the short term has been maximized? That is, that the Dutch might be better off waiting and raising/sending targeted expertise and funds during the inevitable, but not starting any time soon, reconstruction phase? (Where much of their expertise is something that very few other nations could even offer) I suppose it wouldn't hurt to pledge that they'll do that now, but any amounts tied to unspecified quantities of work would be fiction anyway. So the number would only be moved for the sake of making it move.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > That is, that the Dutch might be better off waiting and raising/sending targeted expertise and funds during the inevitable, but not starting any time soon, reconstruction phase? (Where much of their expertise is something that very few other nations could even offer) Please tell us more about this reconstruction expertise that few countries have. (The Dutch have unique expertise in reclaiming land from the sea, but that's not relevant to Haiti.)
    - roc 17y ago
      You don't think erosion is an issue in Haiti?
      - anamax 17y ago
        Huh? Much of the Netherlands is below sea level. That's their unique expertise. Erosion from above sea level stuff is an issue almost everywhere. And, it's not clear that erosion is high on Haiti's list of significant problems.
- felixmar 17y ago
  The chart has base e, not base 10. My point is not about how much the Dutch have donated or not, but to show that the inclusion of private donations of all countries would significantly change the chart.
- lena 17y ago
  See the comments for the article. The numbers used are so far off that they are meaningless.

ajross 17y ago

But it's a log plot. Adding a factor of 20 just moves the Netherlands up by 1.3 units on the graph, which means it's still landing below the median even without including the private contributions of the other nations. Sorry, but the Dutch dropped the ball on this one, at least relative to other EU governments. As other folks have pointed out, simple proximity makes the much higher US contribution sensible and sane. But really, the Netherlands, Italy and (especially) Germany need to be up near the UK and France.

lionhearted 17y ago
> But really, the Netherlands, Italy and (especially) Germany need to be up near the UK and France. In the end, it's their choice based on their values, means, and priorities. The extent to which Americans turn out for private charity is one thing I'm particularly proud of about the USA, but in the end it's everyone's choice individually.
roc 17y ago
Why? So they can have a 'score' that's on par with other nations? Isn't it entirely possible that the actual aid physically deliverable in the short term has been maximized? That is, that the Dutch might be better off waiting and raising/sending targeted expertise and funds during the inevitable, but not starting any time soon, reconstruction phase? (Where much of their expertise is something that very few other nations could even offer) I suppose it wouldn't hurt to pledge that they'll do that now, but any amounts tied to unspecified quantities of work would be fiction anyway. So the number would only be moved for the sake of making it move.
- anamax 17y ago
  > That is, that the Dutch might be better off waiting and raising/sending targeted expertise and funds during the inevitable, but not starting any time soon, reconstruction phase? (Where much of their expertise is something that very few other nations could even offer) Please tell us more about this reconstruction expertise that few countries have. (The Dutch have unique expertise in reclaiming land from the sea, but that's not relevant to Haiti.)
  - roc 17y ago
    You don't think erosion is an issue in Haiti?
    - anamax 17y ago
      Huh? Much of the Netherlands is below sea level. That's their unique expertise. Erosion from above sea level stuff is an issue almost everywhere. And, it's not clear that erosion is high on Haiti's list of significant problems.
felixmar 17y ago
The chart has base e, not base 10. My point is not about how much the Dutch have donated or not, but to show that the inclusion of private donations of all countries would significantly change the chart.
lena 17y ago
See the comments for the article. The numbers used are so far off that they are meaningless.