Helping up injured old ladies in China

[2dimes]

So you donate $50 directly to a person who would have made less than that in six months. He goes to pick up his cash, a pittance to you but a large sum of money in his location. Someone then murders and robs him.

You might as well run him over with a van.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm pretty sure there have been individuals who have been helped by charitable donations, probably millions. Even a few dictators too. Are you really asking me for a source of African leaders who have stolen money, aid, supplies, shelters? Or is it only Republican presidents in America who do that hehe

'never' is your word. Perhaps there is no corruption at all in Africa, yes, hungry armies just let the aid land on their air strips, and they let the food pass through their hands and hand it to the weakest amongst the people (cuz you know that's how humans are, they always treat the poorest and sickest and ugliest and most hungry the nicest and make sure they are first in line!)

...and the leaders don't even take a cut! You want a source? Yeah, they had an African scribe right there, watching it all go down, writing every word spoken and recording every pound pilfered, so that the truth of their actions can be released for all to see! Cuz that's how humans are

You're using the fact that some charitable efforts may be inhibited by corrupt governments as a justification for not giving any money to charitable efforts in Africa, it seems, which is why I used 'never'. But you also have an obsolete idea of what charitable donations can mean in 2013. One of the most effective charities out there is GiveDirectly. This organization takes cash that you give them, and gives it directly to African individuals through a cell phone app, basically. There's no government involvement in that process. Would you be willing to donate to that effort?

That's probably the best way.

I give a lot of credence to the charity organizations that have at their core jump-starting markets in places where they don't strongly penetrate. Cash transfer and microcredit are two of the biggest successes in that arena, and I won't be surprised if they gain even more traction in coming years. Traditional charities aimed at global health initiatives (Deworm the World, Against Malaria Foundation, etc.) can be very effective if done correctly, but it's not obvious to me that they are as good at targeting the root causes of poverty.

Do you think the larger charitable organizations (who definitely have to coordinate with foreign governments) are worth the costs?

On an individual level, I don't have much use for the larger organizations. The marginal impact of my charitable dollar is (generally) much higher with a smaller organization. However, the problem of scale becomes relevant as more people donate. There's a great case study happening right now. GiveWell is the leading online organization dedicated to rigorously checking the effectiveness of charities. For the last several years, they have listed Against Malaria Foundation as their most effective charity (and hence the one people should donate money to). Prior to this, AMF had pulled off a $250,000 malaria net distribution very effectively, and with the proper amount of institutional rigor, leading GiveWell to believe that they deliver the most good for the dollar (and could save a life for approximately $2,000). As a result of the GiveWell ranking, AMF's funding ballooned to $10 million. As a result, they basically have had no major net distributions in over a year -- they didn't have the resources to coordinate a distribution that big (and they do have to coordinate with governments to do so). Consequently, GiveWell removed them from the list of recommended charities just a couple of days ago with their new yearly rankings. Not because they think AMF is ineffective -- just because AMF has to figure out how to operate on a scale an order of magnitude larger than it was used to. So I don't have a simple answer to your question.

[Dukasaur]

So you donate $50 directly to a person who would have made less than that in six months. He goes to pick up his cash, a pittance to you but a large sum of money in his location. Someone then murders and robs him.

You might as well run him over with a van.

That might happen, or it might not.

Right here in Canada, we find that 90% of poor people who win a lottery prize of life-changing magnitude, fail to actually change their life, piss away all the money, and are poor again within five years. Okay, fine. But what about the 10% that beat the odds?

It's much the same with charities. Sure, a huge percentage of the money you give to poor people overseas will just be "donated" to the local warlord or otherwise wasted. But the part that gets through to some salvageable person is the part that is meaningful. The rest can just be chalked up to transactional costs.

[2dimes]

I am happy for a percentage of money donated to go toward, hopefully trust worthy people, to make sure a larger percent is used to hire another trustworthy person to physically dig a safe drinking water well in a village. Truck medications or operate the rice plate drones.

As for phatscotty's thieves. In certain locations they are a huge part of the reason the family I hope to help is poor. If I could run over the thief with a van twice I would have to prayerfully consider it.

It would be nice to "teach them to fish" but often it just never works. Some of these places are perpetually populated by orphans.

[BigBallinStalin]

My main concern about the larger charitable organizations, which typically have to establish ties with the foreign government, is that the donations not only bankroll some government officials/thugs directly, but the donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"

Of course, I'm not sure what the magnitude of that harmful effect is, but it's a major concern which doesn't feel good to encourage.

[2dimes]

donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"

Is that vastly different from, "Get a job/make something to trade with/grow food/be productive? Pfft, I got this app so americans can send me money yo!"

[2dimes]

Abusing charity is not a strictly human trait. Path of least resistance.

http://tune.pk/video/417671/How-To-Stea ... ike-a-Boss

[_sabotage_]

China's Red Cross: Daughter of Red Cross Boss's mistress, who he was also fucking, posts pictures on her Weibo of shoes and purses that she got from him. When people berate her as a whore, she says she has millions of dollars, so what?

Investigations of Red Cross reveals that he was siphoning of these millions to keep his mistress and second mistress in luxury.

Apart from a single anecdotal story, you may look into the work of Professor of Biodiversity at University of Montreal to see what happens to charitable donations.

Apart from all this; a few years work from a few dedicated permaculturists completely changed the face of one county in India. After seeing what one permaculturists with 20 ladies could do in a short time with a few acres, 10,000 local women joined them and they reestablished sustainable and profitable practices in the area.

On the topic at hand, I held an English corner with my students on the topic nearly two years ago. My students were mainly professionals: engineers, doctors, some minor government officials. The consensus was fear; they didn't want to get "robbed" for helping someone up. China has a vast array of conmen and beggar kings who use a wide variety of techniques to relieve you of your money.

As for corruption of officials: yes. An important thing to understand though, is that the US legalizes corruption which in China is still considered corrupt, such as lobbyists, campaign donors, granting of contracts. Just because we have official channels for corruption doesn't make it less corrupt.

I do not condone these things, just ask you to look to your own country before you point the finger. The US had multi-million dollar lawsuits stemming from a person saving someone, just for the saved person to sue them. We have also had a long history of murdering and then leaving bodies on display.

The enemy is at home. They can point the finger abroad and distract some, but in nearly all things that they point to China about, they actually encourage: the one-child policy for example. If you wish to feel good by comparison, then enjoy yourself, but it is a false comparison.

[BigBallinStalin]

donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"

Is that vastly different from, "Get a job/make something to trade with/grow food/be productive? Pfft, I got this app so americans can send me money yo!"

I mean, what you're saying is in the same ballpark, but the consequences for developing countries are greater than for countries whose institutions can already do the heavy lifting.

The closest I get to 'donating' to Americans is by buying products and tipping for services most likely produced by illegal immigrants.

[Metsfanmax]

My main concern about the larger charitable organizations, which typically have to establish ties with the foreign government, is that the donations not only bankroll some government officials/thugs directly, but the donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"

Of course, I'm not sure what the magnitude of that harmful effect is, but it's a major concern which doesn't feel good to encourage.

I think that it is significantly outweighed by the help given to the citizens of those countries. The most significant issue preventing them from altering their own governmental structures is their own poverty -- it's impossible to be politically active when you're spending 18 hours per day doing enough work to make sure there's food on the table and that your roof doesn't fall down. Marginally, then, the money you're giving to the impoverished citizens (who have very little money) has a much greater effect than the percentage siphoned off by the local 'thugs' (who presumably have significantly more money).

[BigBallinStalin]

My main concern about the larger charitable organizations, which typically have to establish ties with the foreign government, is that the donations not only bankroll some government officials/thugs directly, but the donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"

Of course, I'm not sure what the magnitude of that harmful effect is, but it's a major concern which doesn't feel good to encourage.

I think that it is significantly outweighed by the help given to the citizens of those countries. The most significant issue preventing them from altering their own governmental structures is their own poverty -- it's impossible to be politically active when you're spending 18 hours per day doing enough work to make sure there's food on the table and that your roof doesn't fall down. Marginally, then, the money you're giving to the impoverished citizens (who have very little money) has a much greater effect than the percentage siphoned off by the local 'thugs' (who presumably have significantly more money).

If that was true, then there'd be no revolts or any kind of civilian unrest in developing countries.

Also, I don't see why poorest of the recipients will somehow become more politically active because they got a immunity shot or a bag of rice. You'd have to subsidize them enough and assume that they'd only work 8 hours a day, and... then what? Why would they become politically active? Why not simply work more and pay for more important things?

Finally, it's a weak assumption that subsidies will induce that kind of change. If anything, they placate, which is why so many governments use tariffs, enact price controls, and subsidize their own peoples' food. Besides, if it really had that potential, then any thug would be keen to control it and take the credit.

[AndyDufresne]

I donated a few bucks to Oxfam earlier this morning.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

I donated a few bucks to Oxfam earlier this morning.


--Andy

They do good work. I donated $50 to them for the typhoon relief effort. I also donated like $25 earlier this year to become a "member," which means I get plenty of fundraising e-mails and letters

[notyou2]

Buy a goat instead of a Christmas present for your sister who has everything.

https://plancanada.ca/GiftsofHope/shopexd.asp?id=47

[notyou2]

Is Jesus loving America more tolerant and compassionate than heathen China?

Significantly. Could you drive a truck over the feet of or even merely ride a motorbike past a child that had been run over. Even people in North America that think Confucius is a greater teacher than the other guy have too much compassion in their hearts to act like those in met's video. Though we're catching up I suspect.

I would stop to help an old lady in need at the risk of having to pay her $20000 medical bill.

People in New York are afraid to help someone who has been stabbed out of fear that it is a trap and they will be robbed. Not because they think someone has tried to inconvenience them by placing a half dead child on the road.

Quoted before he tries to change his tune.

What happens in China sounds similar to the emptiness in our charitable donations. Billions of people in developing nations suffer from poverty, hunger and disease, and Western nations give a pittance in foreign aid and charitable donations targeted at these problems (relative to their own wealth). The people who walked by that poor girl are not substantially different from the Western nations that do very little in the face of suffering in other nations when they could do so at relatively little cost.

Now I know you're a good person notyou2 even if you might not drop a loonie into the unicef abortion funding box. I bet if you watched that video of the kid being run over you cringed when the guy hit the gas and ran over it the second time with the back wheels, because there is a huge difference between that and not tithing to church or state.

Could westerners afford more charity and do more good? Certainly. Would it solve poverty? No, but it would be the right thing to do. Then again not doing it is a pretty far cry from that video in my opinion.

I would not be surprised if you give more money to charity than a typical "Christian" too.

Not sure you understood my post.

What I was saying is that you can find indifferent people in both countries for whatever reasons. However, for years western civilization has considered themselves as superior to third world civilizations as based upon several factors including religion, charity, compassion, etc. I am not convinced western civilization is correct in these generalizations.

[2dimes]

I'm less convinced myself now. There are probably extremes everywhere.

I was surprised to see that video. Not to see a person walk by, but several and a second person drive on the child. Probably that was an extreme. I certainly hope it's not normal now and I just don't get out anymore. I can't help but imagine the second driver to run over the body must have done that before or at least seen it.

I suppose I might just be soft.

Fake break down stories and movies scenes have made me slightly apprehensive for sure. In the last decade, times I have pulled over to ask if someone needs help, I have thought about things I never used to.

[Metsfanmax]

My main concern about the larger charitable organizations, which typically have to establish ties with the foreign government, is that the donations not only bankroll some government officials/thugs directly, but the donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"

Of course, I'm not sure what the magnitude of that harmful effect is, but it's a major concern which doesn't feel good to encourage.

I think that it is significantly outweighed by the help given to the citizens of those countries. The most significant issue preventing them from altering their own governmental structures is their own poverty -- it's impossible to be politically active when you're spending 18 hours per day doing enough work to make sure there's food on the table and that your roof doesn't fall down. Marginally, then, the money you're giving to the impoverished citizens (who have very little money) has a much greater effect than the percentage siphoned off by the local 'thugs' (who presumably have significantly more money).

If that was true, then there'd be no revolts or any kind of civilian unrest in developing countries.

Also, I don't see why poorest of the recipients will somehow become more politically active because they got a immunity shot or a bag of rice. You'd have to subsidize them enough and assume that they'd only work 8 hours a day, and... then what? Why would they become politically active? Why not simply work more and pay for more important things?

Finally, it's a weak assumption that subsidies will induce that kind of change. If anything, they placate, which is why so many governments use tariffs, enact price controls, and subsidize their own peoples' food. Besides, if it really had that potential, then any thug would be keen to control it and take the credit.

There is no guarantee that a stronger political system will result from these donations. My point is that a persistent and stable political advocacy on behalf of these citizens is difficult, nigh on impossible, when almost all of their time is focused on the fact that they don't know whether they will have food tomorrow. Cash transfer programs have a proven record of leaving the individual with a permanently higher consumption rate*, giving them more time and energy to focus on improving their situation rather than subsisting at the bare minimum. Some of them may decide to just earn more money -- but that would also be good, because they'd be working in constructing a stronger and more stable market in their area, improving the economic conditions of those around them as well.

*The available evidence does not suggest that it 'placates' people because it's unlikely that any particular individual will ever again receive a charitable donation, at least on that level. However, if that's a concern you have with cash transfer, consider supporting microfinance organizations instead.

[Phatscotty]

well, to put it another way, the more stable a country is, the more infrastructure etc, the more aid will reach the intended targets, in general.

So, would you support GiveDirectly, since it bypasses that and doesn't need a stable government to deliver impacts?

But what you said that got me involved here was about 'how simple and cheap it would be to just feed everyone in the world'.

I said that we collectively have a lot of wealth and developing nations have very little wealth, and we are giving very little of that to those developing nations. On an individual level, we should feel morally culpable that we're not giving more to individuals in other countries that don't have nearly as much wealth as we do. Whether or not that translates into effective foreign policy at the federal level is a different issue.

I don't know what that is or anything about it (givedirectly) but if you works for you then I am happy for ya and them and the beneficiaries. 2 gold stars for you As for me I like to keep the charity as local as possible and for national emergencies.

I can see why people think that, but I'm confused you say that we have a lot of wealth. As you know, I would say collectively, we have a lot of debt, and it's about to go into unpayable status. We already have to borrow just to make the interest payments on the debt. I think a lot of people think our uber high standard of living = wealth, and maybe it does in some other ways, but not so much on paper. Wealth needs to be accumulated, and that's impossible when spending almost twice as much as is earned (our situation) and I think some people also misunderstand that borrowing all this money at the expense of the next generation isn't real wealth either, it's more like a shell game or musical chairs.

I know your heart bleeds on these things (not an insult) and you can do whatever you like with your own money (hopefully) but I suspect you have a much larger international redistribution of wealth idea or global tax or something. As for me and you and this conversation, really we aren't on the same page but that isn't a bad thing. I'm just focusing earlier in the process, and saying we are killing the goose that lays golden eggs. The goose needs to be protected and nurtured and encouraged and loved and maintained, we can't just split the goose's belly open expecting to get unlimited golden eggs.

We are breaking the machine that generates the wealth, so I focus on that, not how rapidly we can make the wealth disappear on a problem that will not be solved and will be exactly the same in 24 hours when the starving stomachs start to growl again. It's like a grocery story 'wow, there is so much food in here!' 'we can feed everyone!' yeah.....for about 2 hours, and then THERE'S NOTHING LEFT FOR ANYONE.

[Metsfanmax]

I can see why people think that, but I'm confused you say that we have a lot of wealth. As you know, I would say collectively, we have a lot of debt, and it's about to go into unpayable status. We already have to borrow just to make the interest payments on the debt. I think a lot of people think our uber high standard of living = wealth, and maybe it does in some other ways, but not so much on paper. Wealth needs to be accumulated, and that's impossible when spending almost twice as much as is earned (our situation) and I think some people also misunderstand that borrowing all this money at the expense of the next generation isn't real wealth either, it's more like a shell game or musical chairs.

You're confusing federal revenue with the accumulated wealth and private holdings of individuals of Western nations. Whether or not the government is in debt and has a serious problem, my own meager grad student resources are luxurious compared to the people in Kenya who are supported by GiveDirectly, that live on what 65 cents would buy in the U.S. every day. I can substantially help these people without decreasing my own quality of life.

I know your heart bleeds on these things (not an insult) and you can do whatever you like with your own money (hopefully) but I suspect you have a much larger international redistribution of wealth idea or global tax or something.

I'm trying to convince people that poor citizens in Africa need your money more than your American neighbors. They have a national emergency every day.

[mrswdk]

I saw a video online where an old(ish) lady had fallen off her bike and was now lodged under the rear wheels of an articulated lorry. She was begging with the driver to not simply drive over her and leave the scene.

There was a bit of an outcry earlier this year when someone filmed a police car (sirens off) hitting a pedestrian who was crossing the road and then just driving away. The police car was going fairly fast so the pedestrian got thrown a fair distance.

[Phatscotty]

I wasn't confusing it for private holdings of individuals. I never considered it, nor would I.

Good luck with your mission

[2dimes]

Ok, I fell on some ice crossing the street tonight. The lady walking ahead did not even look back that I noticed. The volkswagon coming seemed to be stopping though.

[BigBallinStalin]

Was that the time you dropped your cell phone in a nearby wet dog dish, 2dimes?

[BigBallinStalin]

My main concern about the larger charitable organizations, which typically have to establish ties with the foreign government, is that the donations not only bankroll some government officials/thugs directly, but the donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"

Of course, I'm not sure what the magnitude of that harmful effect is, but it's a major concern which doesn't feel good to encourage.

I think that it is significantly outweighed by the help given to the citizens of those countries. The most significant issue preventing them from altering their own governmental structures is their own poverty -- it's impossible to be politically active when you're spending 18 hours per day doing enough work to make sure there's food on the table and that your roof doesn't fall down. Marginally, then, the money you're giving to the impoverished citizens (who have very little money) has a much greater effect than the percentage siphoned off by the local 'thugs' (who presumably have significantly more money).

If that was true, then there'd be no revolts or any kind of civilian unrest in developing countries.

Also, I don't see why poorest of the recipients will somehow become more politically active because they got a immunity shot or a bag of rice. You'd have to subsidize them enough and assume that they'd only work 8 hours a day, and... then what? Why would they become politically active? Why not simply work more and pay for more important things?

Finally, it's a weak assumption that subsidies will induce that kind of change. If anything, they placate, which is why so many governments use tariffs, enact price controls, and subsidize their own peoples' food. Besides, if it really had that potential, then any thug would be keen to control it and take the credit.

There is no guarantee that a stronger political system will result from these donations. My point is that a persistent and stable political advocacy on behalf of these citizens is difficult, nigh on impossible, when almost all of their time is focused on the fact that they don't know whether they will have food tomorrow. Cash transfer programs have a proven record of leaving the individual with a permanently higher consumption rate*, giving them more time and energy to focus on improving their situation rather than subsisting at the bare minimum. Some of them may decide to just earn more money -- but that would also be good, because they'd be working in constructing a stronger and more stable market in their area, improving the economic conditions of those around them as well.

*The available evidence does not suggest that it 'placates' people because it's unlikely that any particular individual will ever again receive a charitable donation, at least on that level. However, if that's a concern you have with cash transfer, consider supporting microfinance organizations instead.

Think about what your stance implies. If you subsidize someone who is poor, they'd somehow become richer. If this was true, then practically zero people in the US would be poor due to decades of welfare subsidies. What else is missing from that equation, and what is it that developing countries lack or are deficient in?*

*those missing variables aren't encouraged by subsidies