I don't think it's a question of gross numbers involved or dollars spent. I think it's a question of seeing that the dollars get to the people who can do the most good with them for the most people.
My grandparents had neighbors named Mike and Mary who were from olde Russia. One day Mike and some of the neighbors were talking politics. A fellow named Newton who was one of the better educated Americans in the conversation accused Mike of being a Bolshevik. Mike was crestfallen and he went home and told Mary what had happened. This made Mary very mad. The next time she saw Newt, she gave him hell. Mary told Newt, "they called Mike a Bolshevik in the old country, that's why we had to come here!"
I don't think speaking Russian would help; thinking Russian would.
Your email pal,
Tom L.
Brad De Long wrote:
> >Dear Brad,
> >
> >I'm sure that there are many Americans of Russian-Slav decedent who would
> >like
> >to take a crack at helping Russia. You might not be able to get high toned
> >academics with big credentials---even though they do exist---is that what
> >Russian American relations need anyway. How about some plain, honest people
> >who are literate and numerate and could be understood by the Russians.
>
> This is what Soros was trying to fund, no?
>
> I would love to spend $40 million a year sending 10,000 (or, allowing for
> bureaucratic inefficiency, 5,000) Russian-speaking Americans of Russian
> descent to Russia each year to be useful...
>
> After spending $4 trillion preparing to defend ourselves against the
> Russians over the past fifty years, the least we could do would be to spend
> ten (or even one) percent of that on programs to make the Russians
> democratic, prosperous, and happy...
>
> Brad DeLong