Are rich countries shafting Haiti?
That seems to be Peter McCawley's thesis. First he runs the numbers:
* 50,000 to 100,000 people: the likely death toll in Haiti.
* US$1.2 billion: the amount of international assistance pledged to Haiti so far.
* US$14 billion: 2009 bonus payments, US investment bank, Morgan Stanley.
* US$20 billion: 2009 bonus payments, US investment bank, Goldman Sachs.
* US$45 billion: total bonuses paid by major Wall Street banks in 2009.
We could doubtless go on, but the picture is pretty clear. Bonus payments to a relatively small number of rich bankers in the US are a factor of 20 or so larger than international aid pledges to Haiti.
What do we make of this? First, we should obviously take statements by the leaders of rich countries about their concern to respond to the disaster in Haiti with a grain of salt. By their actions we shall know them. And their actions are rather puny.
Second, the people of Haiti are essentially on their own. At the end of the day, they will get little help from rich countries. Response to the terrible disaster, and recovery, is basically in their own hands. The crumbs from the tables of rich countries will help, it is true, but only a little.
I don't think you can actually draw any real conclusion from those numbers - it's completely apples to oranges. That bonus money is private capital, it's not as if the U.S. treasury paid those bonuses and then decided to scrimp on aid to Haiti. (Yes, yes, without the Treasury there would be no bonuses but I don't think that point is relevant for this discussion).
If McCawley wants to bemoan the fact that the U.S. spent more money to bail out its financial institutions than to rescue Haitians, fine. But what a private company does with its own money isn't really a good proxy for what the U.S. government does with its taxpayers'.
(AP Photo)
