Charity, the root of all evil?

[Beskar]

Charity is an inefficient process because in the vast majority of these 'charities', 90% is spent on administration. So give £10 to give £1 in aid.

[HoreTore]

Charity is an inefficient process because in the vast majority of these 'charities', 90% is spent on administration. So give £10 to give £1 in aid.

That depends heavily on which charity you're talking about.

For organizations like Doctors without borders and the Red Cross, little is lost to administration.

@rory: how can Ms. Mfofo "change on her own volition" when she is mired in poverty and her country suffers a critical shortage of food?

How could the Tsunami victims in Thailand expect a Tsunami? Should we just tell that they were silly to build their life near the ocean?

[rory_20_uk]

Many charities do spend a small amount on administration. But overall, in the long-term do they help the societies that they go to? Or provide a temporary sticking plaster?

She can't change. Nor can Medicines sans Frontiers stop the raiders killing her whole family because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Tsunami victims? There are people that live far more precarious lives than them. What about almost everyone in Bangladesh living on what is a massive flood plane.

I guess the world isn't a nice place and bad things happen to people that don't deserve it. Shocking I know. But it is true of all animals that are pushed to the edges of their ecosystem - they are more likely to die.

[Greyblades]

Pity there isnt a treaty of some kind that forces first world countries to interviene when human rights are violated on such a scale.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Some charities are good, some charities are bad. Some are run very efficiently, some are borderline scams for those who donate. Charities that are run by the right people like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are probably better then government towards spending money to improve regions. Simple things like buying a million dollars of mosquito nets can do so much more good then sinking a million dollars into a water purification center or some other infrastructure that will be destroyed by conflict in 10 years time.

However, charity by itself is nowhere close to enough to support the world's most needing communities and regions. You need government aid. Personally I don't see why the US hasn't taken a couple million dollars annually and just puts it in the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation with the condition that x% of dollars must be spent towards improvement measures.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How long have we been trying wealth re-distribution (calling it foreign aid, subsidies, or whatever)? How well is it working?

How do you deal with corruption? That is the component that exacerbates all of the problems involved. Minimize corruption and ALL efforts would improve.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How long have we been trying wealth re-distribution (calling it foreign aid, subsidies, or whatever)? How well is it working?

How do you deal with corruption? That is the component that exacerbates all of the problems involved. Minimize corruption and ALL efforts would improve.

Your first sentence is really misguided. Any sort of tax break or increase is a form of wealth re-distribution. Taxes themselves are inherently wealth re-distribution. The type of wealth re-distribution you are talking about hasn't really happened because for the most part, most of the wealth re-distributed is towards the wealthy through taxes. Welfare and Medicaid are really stopgaps that prevent large portions of the population from starving or dying, not really to carve up the entire wealth of the rich.

For the most part, charity has been the dominant factor then any sort of "wealth re-distribution" so you really should be asking "how long have we been trying charity? How well is it working?"

Your second sentence means nothing really. Where is the corruption? What is the corruption you are talking about?