Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
Charity doesn't solve problems, it temporarily alleviates symptoms.
Reduced Societal Damage: "Liberals with too much money who would otherwise donate to the Democrats."Natural Selection: "Bleeding Hearts pissing money away on Bums Going Their Own Way, tot he detriment of their own offspring."
The Carter Center (non-profit) mostly eliminated the Guinea worm, but I'll grant that stuff like this is pretty rare.
Charity has solved many people's problems of not starving to death, or getting essential surgery.If a guy wants to spend his own time and money on something like operation smile so some poor kid doesn't have to go through life with a cleft palate who am I to tell him no? What business is it of mine? It's not like socialism, I'm not making anyone do anything.Normally I agree with you, but charity is a personal choice to help individual people. Why does everything have to be some society changing permanent fix?
To Greg Popovich, What business is it of yours or anyone else what they do with their money? Especially those who play professional sports where the average career is not that long. Anyone with a brain and good sense should know that around 90% of those who are lucky to be good enough to play professional sports will wash out by the time they are 30 years old. It isn't as though the tax men from all levels of government combined isn't going to take half of what they make anyways. So in effect, they already do give back to their communities....by legal force under the threat of jail if they don't pay their taxes.
I think in local terms it has solved problems. There are individual cases of desperate irresponsible people who did change their lives after they received a hand out. Of course it's more often the case that these people just enjoy the largesse and continue their stupid lifestyle.So large social problems ... hmm. I think the colonization of the New World was kind of charity, because a lot of the indentured servants were sent to the Americas in order to "help them". Of course they were forced to as slaves, but it was meant partially as charity rather than let them live useless hungry lives in Britain and the continent.
Today's charities are de facto businesses. They exist solely for the purpose of self-perpetuation, and the LAST thing they wish to accomplish is solving the problem that allowed them to come into existence. Some people will tell you that because the population is ever-changing and ever-growing, you will always have people with cancer, missing limbs, starved, or whatever and so those types of charities will always be needed. However, Jesus himself stated that "you will always have the poor among you." That doesn't give license to establish huge bureaucracies with PAID staff getting to handout Other People's Money so they can virtue-signal.About 20 years ago when I discovered there were universities that had undergraduate and graduate level degree programs specializing in how to operate a non-profit/not-for-profit organizations, I finally figured out what a scam charities actually are. The gall some of these people have (looking at you United Way) browbeating employees making VERY middle class wages to "give" while they themselves pull in $200,000+ is rank hypocrisy. Give to individuals directly, if you must; leave the over-bloated charities behind.
Anonymous: Yup, they are businesses. Over at Heartiste I broke down how most ''charities'' spend their budget - that vast majority of it is on paid ads... For the charity. The next time you hear a spot for the Wounded Warrior Project don't think they did it out of the goodness of their heart, to support vets, or patriotism. Nope, that broadcaster is selling soap, or miracle herbal remedies, or gold coins, or the Wounded Warrior Project. If it doesn't say ''AD Council'' (AKA space filler for unsold spots) it was paid for.The perfect example of self-perpetuation is the March of Dimes. ''The organization was founded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938, as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, to combat polio.'' can't blame FDR for that one, he actually had Polio, it put him in a wheelchair.As you probably know, it won ''the war on Polio'' with the Salk vaccine. Did they then have a victory party and go away? Oh hell no!
The highest-paid employees of the top 100 UK charities received on average £255,000 each ($344,000) in 2017. This is vastly higher than the average income of their donors.Source: https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-2017-highest-earners/special-report/article/1427306
Charities solve problems better than government. The US hospital system was pretty much started by Catholic charities, and has done a lot of good. St. Judes was pretty much the result of charity (thank you Danny Thomas). They certainly don't solve all problems, but proper charity, when focused and local, can do a lot of good.Now if you are talking about organizations masquerading as charity, such as the Red Cross or Clinton foundation, then I agree with you.
Hey, Dickhead, some charities make a HUGE difference. I know, because I work with (not for) two that support our veterans. Both prove their worth everyday and no one running them abuses the roles they play. Overhead is always a concern and kept in check to maximize the benefits garnered from the donations. If I ever discovered that the opposite was happening then the offenders would get a MAJOR ass kicking from your's truly!!I will agree that this is usually NOT the case and why I ignore those charities. It's a shame that they can't be fixed and the abusers punished accordingly!
Local charities can maintain the human touch and judgement. Juggernauts like the Clinton Foundation or the current Red Cross are primarily interested in their self continuation. Emphasis on the last part or the post, "other people's money."
i worked at 2 places where there was pressure to give united way money with 100% of employees participating.lots of pressure and persuasion were ranged against me, in the gentlest possible way.but i am a hillbilly so no go.they got a plaque if they had 100% participation. they got no plaques the years i was there!
I, too, distrust most charities but I vastly prefer them to government run largesse (aka wealth redistribution).
Charity is often just a way for people who made their money dishonestly to avoid tax.
Post a Comment