Well, you're right. I did say that. A bad choice of words on my part. I accept I was wrong and apologise for my slipshod writing.

I don't like resorting to statistics, because laymen such as we are likely to get them wrong. We've seen examples of statistics being presented on these threads before, distorted out of recognition in order to bolster an argument. However, the following statistics do represent my understanding of the problem and if they are wrong, then so am I.

Europe represents 15% of the world's population. It owns just under 30% of the whole planet's net worth.

USA and Canada represent just 5% of the world's population. Between them, they own almost 35% of the world's net worth.

(Source: UN-WIDER report on worldwide distribution of household wealth as quoted in Wikipedia).

Simple arithmetic tells me that this means 1 person in 5 owns 65% of the world's net worth while 4 people in 5 have to share a meagre 35%. Now, I don't know how much is necessary to raise the standard of living of the world's most impoverished people above subsistence level, but I am convinced that the wealthiest 20% can afford to give whatever is needed and still have copious amounts of wealth left to indulge their selfishness.

So I was wrong to say giving large amounts of aid would impoverish us: it wouldn't hurt us at all! Why, US and Canada could probably do it by themselves, and still only fall to Europe's standard of living. Fat chance of it happening though.

As for the charge of arrogance, maybe I am. But not in this case.