5 ms·

This is going to sound flippant, but I mean it very seriously. This is a much better way to spend money than spending billions to make the world hate you.

herbst 10y ago
IMO you are absolutely right. There is nothing flippant about that when it just reflects the truth
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
You have your numbers wrong. The US does spend... Well, hundreds of billions on making the world love US. The actual problem is two-fold: 1. We spend trillions on making them hate the US. 2. We aren't actually very efficient with the hundreds of billions we spend on making them love the US. It's spent on short-sighted projects that often transparently benefit the US at the cost of the locals. To some degree, this is getting better with leadership from eg, The Gates Foundation, but we could wield our economic power much more efficiently. These problems stem from a fundamental lack of leadership in the US: the US population are emotional-high junkies who are led by a bunch of spineless, selfish people. This is crippling the US, at home and abroad, because we are unable to do anything but lurch between emotional highs, are unable to have an actual vision for the future (and make reasonable plans to see it through), and are unable to wield our power effectively. The US is trapped in short-term optimization thinking because of the junky behavior of its population.
- herbst 10y ago
  What kind of efforts are you talking a out? From my perspective the hate against the US. is only growing with barely anything holding against that.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    The US spends huge amounts on food, medicine, and development aid -- 32 billion a year in economic investments (as opposed to military, which is another 10 billion a year). Since 9/11, the US has probably spent around 500 billion on helping countries develop, fighting famines, curing diseases, etc. We've just also spent something like 3 or 4 trillion on ineffective and damaging wars, spy programs, etc. My point is that we're spending the money on goodwill already, we'rr just undermining it with other actions and not spending it effectively.
    - herbst 10y ago
      I guess that is why this happens totally unnoticed to many other western countries, if you cut it down to percentage on national income this is nothing compared to anyone else. On that scale United Arab Emirates did 6 times as much as the U.S. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/09/foreign-aid-which-countries-are-the-most-generous https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Could you explain?
        herbst 10y ago
        I was wondering which affords the U.S. makes to be more loved in world. Your example is something that obviously nobody speaks about in other western countries as it is way less they contribute on a %/countries income factor than anyone else. Nearly every country does a lot of foreign aid, the U.S. just happens to be one of those who do less than others so that surely does not help their global image.
        SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        Everyone I've ever spoken to who was serious about foreign aid and development spending was aware of the US, because they spend much more thab those nations by dollars. I think you're just making a tangential nationalist dig, because this tangent has nothing to do with the US a) getting recognized for their work in poor countries (they do) or b) being able to use their money more effectively (which is what I was talking about).
tim333 10y ago
I've wondered if there was some way to demonstrate it was smarter than say military spending. Looking briefly it seems the US spends $26bn/yr on non military aid and about $600bn on military stuff. I'd guess if they spend $500bn on military and another $100bn on soft power / direct cash to the starving etc the world would be safer and happier. How to prove it for the budget controlling politicians though? I mean $40bn for the 40m at risk of starvation in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia given directly would not only stop starvation but pull the whole region out of poverty and do more to make people think the US cool than spending that on nukes they don't need say.

herbst 10y ago

IMO you are absolutely right. There is nothing flippant about that when it just reflects the truth

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

You have your numbers wrong. The US does spend... Well, hundreds of billions on making the world love US. The actual problem is two-fold: 1. We spend trillions on making them hate the US. 2. We aren't actually very efficient with the hundreds of billions we spend on making them love the US. It's spent on short-sighted projects that often transparently benefit the US at the cost of the locals. To some degree, this is getting better with leadership from eg, The Gates Foundation, but we could wield our economic power much more efficiently. These problems stem from a fundamental lack of leadership in the US: the US population are emotional-high junkies who are led by a bunch of spineless, selfish people. This is crippling the US, at home and abroad, because we are unable to do anything but lurch between emotional highs, are unable to have an actual vision for the future (and make reasonable plans to see it through), and are unable to wield our power effectively. The US is trapped in short-term optimization thinking because of the junky behavior of its population.

herbst 10y ago
What kind of efforts are you talking a out? From my perspective the hate against the US. is only growing with barely anything holding against that.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  The US spends huge amounts on food, medicine, and development aid -- 32 billion a year in economic investments (as opposed to military, which is another 10 billion a year). Since 9/11, the US has probably spent around 500 billion on helping countries develop, fighting famines, curing diseases, etc. We've just also spent something like 3 or 4 trillion on ineffective and damaging wars, spy programs, etc. My point is that we're spending the money on goodwill already, we'rr just undermining it with other actions and not spending it effectively.
  - herbst 10y ago
    I guess that is why this happens totally unnoticed to many other western countries, if you cut it down to percentage on national income this is nothing compared to anyone else. On that scale United Arab Emirates did 6 times as much as the U.S. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/09/foreign-aid-which-countries-are-the-most-generous https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Could you explain?
      - herbst 10y ago
        I was wondering which affords the U.S. makes to be more loved in world. Your example is something that obviously nobody speaks about in other western countries as it is way less they contribute on a %/countries income factor than anyone else. Nearly every country does a lot of foreign aid, the U.S. just happens to be one of those who do less than others so that surely does not help their global image.
        SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        Everyone I've ever spoken to who was serious about foreign aid and development spending was aware of the US, because they spend much more thab those nations by dollars. I think you're just making a tangential nationalist dig, because this tangent has nothing to do with the US a) getting recognized for their work in poor countries (they do) or b) being able to use their money more effectively (which is what I was talking about).

tim333 10y ago

I've wondered if there was some way to demonstrate it was smarter than say military spending. Looking briefly it seems the US spends $26bn/yr on non military aid and about $600bn on military stuff. I'd guess if they spend $500bn on military and another $100bn on soft power / direct cash to the starving etc the world would be safer and happier. How to prove it for the budget controlling politicians though? I mean $40bn for the 40m at risk of starvation in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia given directly would not only stop starvation but pull the whole region out of poverty and do more to make people think the US cool than spending that on nukes they don't need say.