Moderator: Community Team
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.BigBallinStalin wrote:That's probably the best way.Metsfanmax wrote: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?Phatscotty wrote: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
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.Do you think the larger charitable organizations (who definitely have to coordinate with foreign governments) are worth the costs?
That might happen, or it might not.2dimes wrote: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.
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.2dimes wrote: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!"donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"
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 wrote: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.
If that was true, then there'd be no revolts or any kind of civilian unrest in developing countries.Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote: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.
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 lettersAndyDufresne wrote:I donated a few bucks to Oxfam earlier this morning.
--Andy
Not sure you understood my post.2dimes wrote: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.notyou2 wrote:Is Jesus loving America more tolerant and compassionate than heathen China?
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.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.Metsfanmax wrote: 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.
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.
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.BigBallinStalin wrote:If that was true, then there'd be no revolts or any kind of civilian unrest in developing countries.Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.
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 youMetsfanmax wrote:So, would you support GiveDirectly, since it bypasses that and doesn't need a stable government to deliver impacts?Phatscotty wrote: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.
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.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'.
As for me I like to keep the charity as local as possible and for national emergencies. 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.Phatscotty wrote: 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'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.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.
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?*Metsfanmax wrote: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.BigBallinStalin wrote:If that was true, then there'd be no revolts or any kind of civilian unrest in developing countries.Metsfanmax wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.
*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.
