Charitable colonialism

[Skybird]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/op...lex.html?_r=2&

[em2nought]

Which all just goes to show that you can't fix stupid.

People are responsible for "most" of their own condition.

[Betonov]

Inside any important philanthropy meeting, you witness heads of state meeting with investment managers and corporate leaders. All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left.

This


The rich should spend more. Catering to the wealthy keeps the middle class fed, and catering to the middle class keeps the lower class fed

[u crank]

Interesting piece. Some of the numbers are hard to grasp.

the nonprofit sector has been steadily growing. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits increased 25 percent. Their growth rate now exceeds that of both the business and government sectors. It’s a massive business, with approximately $316 billion given away in 2012 in the United States alone and more than 9.4 million employed.

It's kinda funny. If the super rich did nothing in regards to charity they would be bigger monsters than they are already made out to be. When they do give they are called on their motives and methods.

[Skybird]

The charity sector in Europe and Germany as growing steadily, too, although for other reasons than rich people. Social wellfare is an industry in itself over here. a six-digit number of jobs would get lost and enormous profits interests be in danger if the claims for social wellfare would decline for whatever a reason. Institutions have a high interest to produce new receivers of benefits - and whether such receivers get just invented by claim, out of nothing, or indeed are becoming manifest in a real, material understanding, is of totally zero interest there.

The system cannot afford to have things improving.

Which says a lot about how rotten and sick and perverted it all indeed has become.

[the_tyrant]

Wait what?

That was a poorly written article, he simply mentioned that there are problems with charity, but doesn't really "say" anything.

[mookiemookie]

Often I hear people say, “if only they had what we have” (clean water, access to health products and free markets, better education, safer living conditions). Yes, these are all important. But no “charitable” (I hate that word) intervention can solve any of these issues. It can only kick the can down the road.

So the implication in the article is "why spend anything on charity because it's all pointless anyways and like trying to empty the ocean with a thimble".

Mr. Buffett is obviously a man of means, so if he's got the answer to the structural problems with charity (which I will agree there's many), then why doesn't he organize a charity that attempts to make a structural difference in society that makes real change instead of applies band-aids to the problem? Treat the disease instead of the symptom.

This comes across as a whine.

[Wolferz]

I guess the neuvo chic thing these days is to use a massive pile of cash to give your kids a charitable, tax free foundation.

Mr Buffets' Novo Foundation must be poor or something. The link to it at the end of the Op Ed provides this...
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
Apache Server at www.novofoundation.org Port 80 It makes me wonder why peeps are dumb enough to donate to these money sinkholes.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Wait what?

That was a poorly written article, he simply mentioned that there are problems with charity, but doesn't really "say" anything.

Read again.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So the implication in the article is "why spend anything on charity because it's all pointless anyways and like trying to empty the ocean with a thimble".

You too - read again. That^ is not what he said. It's your autonomous reflex only.

Originally Posted by u crank

Interesting piece. Some of the numbers are hard to grasp.

And when you try to grasp them it becomes meaningless in the context of what he is trying to say.
Take your quote for example.

the nonprofit sector has been steadily growing. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits increased 25 percent.
Non profit is a huge sector much of which has nothing to do with charity, much of the growth in non political "charitable" non profits is of course accommodated by the huge number of scam "charities" which bloom after any well publiciced tragedy, Katrina being a good example in that timeframe.
Someone recently made a topic concerning a selection of charities which do very little or even nothing but simply gain money for their own "administrative fees" by having a name that is almost identical to legitimate charities.

[AVGWarhawk]

Often the results of our decisions had unintended consequences; distributing condoms to stop the spread of AIDS in a brothel area ended up creating a higher price for unprotected sex.

Isn't the higher cost of unprotected sex also a deterrent to AIDS?