Does Charity Really "help" anyone?

[retaildaytrader]

Quote from MarketMasher:

Handing money over is probably the easiest and least personal and probably what is considered charity by most.

This is a great point. Most people who give money want to remain detached from the issues. They sign a check and hand it over to whoever believing that it will be used for a good purpose. The truth is the money is seldom used for a good purpose like what is demonstrated in the video. In the video, bags of rice are simply thrown out of a plane to strangers on the ground. Who are these people on the ground grabbing the bags of rice? Will throwing rice out of a plane really permanently help the people on the ground?

In Africa, this has been done for decades with NO results. Africa looks and feels the same now as it did 25 years ago. People are just as poor if not poorer.

The solution is for people like Bill Gates to become personally involved and build companies in places like Kenya versus simply throwing a bag of rice out of a plane or giving a shot to a youngster. Instead of Soros donating money to the NPR, why not create a company and Soros become the CEO of that company? No one wants to think that what Gates and Soros are doing might be doing more harm then good.

 

[nutmeg]

Remember what's her name took the fall for the Red Cross, a couple years ago?

Mainstream charities, too political. F "em.


"Advocates For the Blind Blast Mr. Magoo"

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0MMVaRpYOds?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0MMVaRpYOds?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

On the flip side I've been working with a group teaching blind dogs to help the guides. Not working out well though. {:>)

 

[Mayhem]

Quote from retaildaytrader:

In Africa, this has been done for decades with NO results. Africa looks and feels the same now as it did 25 years ago. People are just as poor if not poorer.

Yep, if you immunize everyone, throw them bags of rice to live another day, you end up with more people living to adulthood to have more babies that need to be immunized. There is no industry. There is no sustainable economic development. There is no growth but for more babies that need to be immunized and more mouths to feed.

This all works out for the "charity" bureaucracy since it is a self-perpetuating cycle that keeps creating a bigger misery market for various bureaucrats, hangers-on, and the idle rich like Soros, Gates, and Bono to mine for personal gain, satisfaction, and/or public recognition.

 

[denner]

Quote from Mayhem:

Yep, if you immunize everyone, throw them bags of rice to live another day, you end up with more people living to adulthood to have more babies that need to be immunized. There is no industry. There is no sustainable economic development. There is no growth but for more babies that need to be immunized and more mouths to feed.

This all works out for the "charity" bureaucracy since it is a self-perpetuating cycle that keeps creating a bigger misery market for various bureaucrats, hangers-on, and the idle rich like Soros, Gates, and Bono to mine for personal gain, satisfaction, and/or public recognition.

As sad as it may be, you are entirely correct.

It's analogous to the prison system, whereby we opt to incarcerate rather than execute. The state bears the cost of imprisonment, which can be an astronomical figure for lifetime incarceration. Execution eliminates the costs and sends a direct message to perps.

But it's all for moot because the system is designed simply to enhance the relationship between government and crony industries that can feed off of this relationship.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from Mayhem:

Yep, if you immunize everyone, throw them bags of rice to live another day, you end up with more people living to adulthood to have more babies that need to be immunized. There is no industry. There is no sustainable economic development. There is no growth but for more babies that need to be immunized and more mouths to feed.

This all works out for the "charity" bureaucracy since it is a self-perpetuating cycle that keeps creating a bigger misery market for various bureaucrats, hangers-on, and the idle rich like Soros, Gates, and Bono to mine for personal gain, satisfaction, and/or public recognition.

I agree that the bureaucracy is often a big drain on monies collected. That might also be true of disease-related charities. When you think about it, their objective should be to put themselves out of business by eradicating whatever disease they are a charity for.

Education is what lowers birthrates. The more educated populaces tend to have fewer children.

Still, the circumstances of where and to whom you happen to be born is a big factor. It would be nice if you could choose.

I've wondered if people who believe in reincarnation are generally more charitable (in personality, not necessarily money). I'd have to think that somewhere in the back of their mind they consider that in the next go-round it's they who could be on the other side of someone saying "You're not worth it.".....

 

[ivanbaj]

This guy has some cool data:

Watch from 1:50 till about 2:50:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_mccandless_the_beauty_of_data_visualization.html

 

[Sam Mcgee]

For millions of years, Africa was a continent where most of the people were happy and the environment was stable. It was all the influence from outside that messed them up in the last few hundred years. It would be impossible to return the continent to what it was. However, I believe that if you reduced the outside influence to a minimum the people there would eventually find their own solutions to create something similar to what they once had.

 

[retaildaytrader]

I dont consider the Red Cross as a charity. The Red Cross is basically an organization that provides disaster relief, blood services and other services during wartime to soldiers. Its not an organization that would throw bags of rice out of a plane to random people, but instead serves all people during disasters for short-term emergency relief. It is almost like a quasi government agency as Congress has helped it out on a few occasions and even granted it a charter. I believe the Red Cross is included the nation's national response plan along with FEMA and the National Guard.

So I would not put it in the same circle with all charities, but regard it more as a needed service during times of emergency. If the Red Cross were to have financial problems, then I have no doubt Congress or the President would step in to help them out unlike other charities.

I make donations to the Red Cross each year because I have seen how they work first hand during hurricanes and know how it impacts the world around us. In an emergency, the first people on the scene will not be FEMA or the National Guard, but member of the Red Cross. The Red Cross is the only organization I donate to yearly.

 

[number22]

Charity doesn't only help who is in need, but it also helps people who is willing to help. So, you need to help charity if you can, but you have to choose it carefully. Not all charity are created equally.

My favor one is salvation army, which is very local. They raise money locally and spend it locally most of time. I would be very skeptical about any international charity, most of them are probably a front of intelligence agency for government/corporation, or worst case, terrorist organization.

 

[hippie]

Quote from MarketMasher:

I suppose it depends on how you are defining the word. It means different things to different people.

For some, handing over some money is charity. For others, volunteering their time is. For people like Gates and Buffet who have the resources, it probably means something different.

Handing money over is probably the easiest and least personal and probably what is considered charity by most. A Mother Teresa-type would be the most personal and on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Not so sure about Mother Thresa is any better!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_position