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.

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?