On 3 Jul 2003 00:13:37 -0700, dvdfan9@hotmail.com (Ken) belched the
alphabet and kept on going with:

>Michael Cash wrote:
>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>> 
>>>http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030701-115649-1264r.htm
>>>
>>>"Many of those most opposed to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq now argue that
>>>American participation is vital to the success of a proposed 5,000-strong
>>>multinational peacekeeping mission to enforce a cease-fire. Among them are
>>>U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leading European powers ? including
>>>France ? and the editorial page of the New York Times."
>> 
>> Why does a country with 6% of the world's population pay 22% of the
>> UN's expenses?
>
>Because the contributions are loosely assessed on a "capacity
>to pay" / "contributing country's share of world GDP" basis?

If it seems reasonable to assess 6% of the world's population 22% of
the operating expenses of the Would-Be World Government, then would it
also be reasonable for non-Sepponians to quit bitching about 6% of the
world's population using 25% (give-r-take) of the world's resources?


>
>The average annual budget for the UN is about USD 1.1 billion,
>of which the US are supposed to pay 22% -- i.e. about USD 250M.

About 250 million too much.
>
>Japan's contribution assessment is about 19.6%.
>
>The EU's contribution assessment is about 37%
>See e.g. http://www.un.int/france/pdf/fiche10.pdf

I thank you heartily for the link, and hope that others will benefit
from it. But I don't really care that much about the matter. I will
use the time I save to sort/organize this mountain of porn I've been
downloading instead. It's important to prioritize, you know.
>
>As a comparison, the US federal budget is about USD 2200 billion

Also waaaaaay too damned much.

>per annum -- i.e. two thousand times the UN budget -- of which the
>US Department of Defense gets about USD 400 billion.
>The states' aggregate budget is about 1100 billion.  These figures
>help put the US contribution to the UN in perspective.

Yes, perhaps they do. But they would put it in better perspective for
someone who accepts the premise that Sepponia should be paying them
anything at all. Zero times any multiple yields the same result, so no
matter what the US federal and state budgets are, it really doesn't
help me with understanding the UN budget.
>
>With its population of 280 million, the US contribution works out
>to less than a dollar per person per year, for a country whose
>GDP in 2001 was about USD 36000 per capita.

I want my dollar back.
>
>It's also interesting to note that the UN budget office said in
>2001 that the US contribution arrears amounted to about USD 1.3
>billion -- i.e. the arrears accumulated by the US exceeded the average
>annual UN budget...  Claims by the US that they are "paying" 22% of
>the UN budget should thus be taken with a generous amount of salt.

Alright. I will take your word as to the amount the US is in our ears
on regular UN dues. But doesn't the US make non-dues contributions to
the UN as well? I'm asking you because: 1) you seem knowledgable 2)
you seem to give a shit and 3) I have heard that such contributions
are made. What is the status on those sorts of contributions?




--

Michael Cash



"There was a time, Mr. Cash, when I believed you must be the most useless
thing in the world. But that was before I read a Microsoft help file."

                                Prof. Ernest T. Bass
                                Mount Pilot College


http://www.sunfield.ne.jp/~mike/