From: gquangle@synoptics.com (Garrick Quangle)
Subject: [POL] Re: Biggest military spenders ' nations
Organization: Synoptics Inc. Santa Clara, California.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:24:18 GMT

Sorry if this is a repost but I have not seen it surface on SCV yet!

Giao@informix.com writes:
> Even though I'm grateful that anh Nhan Tran has spent the time and efforts
> to post the news for us,  I would like to dispute the choice for this
> message header (actually the UPI article's title is misleading as well).
> The statistics that the economists used were in the period between
> 1978 and 1989.  That was the past.  The more proper verbs should be "was"
> and "garnered."  With the Soviet Union's collapse and the reduction in
> the Vietnamese armed forces, the number between 1989 and 1992 should be
> smaller.  Actually, the original list probably changed a lot too!

  How do you know that there is an actual reduction in the Vietnamese
  armed forces??? What source is it you get it from???Please elaborate.
  If there is no idication that things have changed,it is absolutely
  correct not to distinguish between past and present.


>
>> In article <199211061555.AA05795@peora.sdc.ccur.com> tran@peora.sdc.ccur.com
writes:
>>
>> 11/05
>>
>> Biggest military spenders garner the most aid
>>
>>    TOKYO (UPI) -- The developing world's biggest military spenders are
>> collecting more international aid than poor countries that restrain arms
>> expenditures, according to research presented Thursday by two World Bank
>> economists.
>>    The 13 developing countries ranked as the highest military spenders received
>> an average total of $5.9 billiion per year in assistance from 1978 to 1989.
>>    That compares with $5.3 billion received by the 35 nations registering as
>> the lowest military spenders among a list of 114 countries, the economists
>> found.
>>    Co-author Jalaleddin Jalali told an international conference on arms
>> reduction and economic development the high military spenders were those
>> countries which ranked in the top 50 percent in three categories: military
>> expenditures as a percentage of the gross national product and total government
>> expenditures plus military imports as a percentage of all imports.
>>    Ten out of the 34 countries ranked as the largest military spenders were
>> also among the world's top 20 aid recipients, the findings showed, and 21 were
>> among the top half.
>>    The 13 spenders falling into the top 25 percent of the three categories were
>> Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Angola, Libya, Jordan, Laos, Yemen,
>> Iran, Ethiopia and Mozambique.

> Even though the premise of the research was well-intended, I have to say
> that the results are hardly conclusive.  The more meaningful numbers would
> be amount of aids and military spending per capita.  If $5.3 billion is
> going to 35 very small countries, obviously the citizens of those countries
> are getting a bigger share of the pie compared to a populous country like
> Vietnam.
 
  Well,if the number is to be quoted as military spending per capita,it
  would not be entirely meaningful either since the GDP per capita right
  now in Vietnam is awfully low anyway ( $250 per head if I am not
  mistaken although I am afraid this number is quite inflated already).
  Thus,if let 's say the Vietnamese communist government spends $100
  per capita on military budget,this number alone is low compared to
  the U.S spending but very high comparing to the GDP per capita of VN
  (40 % of GDP).Please do not try to distort the truth by taking
  something out of context.Vietnam is one of the poorest nation on
  earth (the communist regime has virtually made the country bankrupt)
  and it can ill-afford to spend a significant amount of the GDP for
  reinforcing their armies.However,without its army,the regime can not
  impose their ruling and continue their domination on the Vietnamese
  people.That is why they continue their army's buildup relentlessly
  obviously to secure their government's position.
  Overhere,Giao is saying that these facts as quoted in the UPI article
  are misleading but I am afraid his logic and reasoning is one that is
  the culprit;-)))
  Are these facts so hard to swallow that Giao has to resort to trying
  to distort the truth,that he has to say this newsource is misleading
  and so on.Perhaps he is so used to some other kinds of news,unlike
  the AP or UPI .I wonder what kind of newsource that is ;-(((
>
> Another skewed factor in the research is that the authors appeared to ignore
> the difference between economic and military aids and lumped them
> together.  So the conclusion is not whether or not the world has been coddling > > > >dictators.  It's rather: the world has been encouraging the military hawks in
> these countries to waste money in the military programs for no real
> improvements in their economies so that the armed industries could
> prosper.
>
> Just my two cents worth :-)
>
> Giao
>
 
  Just my $0.03  ;-)))
 
  Garrick
 
  Disclaimer: all opinions expressed herein are only mine.