If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   You're not helping   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 86
    More: Interesting, Warren Buffett, Peter Buffett, return on investments, nonprofit sector, Urban Institute, opinion pieces, eco  
•       •       •

5104 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Aug 2013 at 1:56 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-04 09:51:50 AM
I have found that any statement that begins with "My dad is a big deal, and I think.." should probably have a pinch of salt added.
 
2013-08-04 09:53:44 AM
Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?
 
2013-08-04 09:57:38 AM

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?


Teach a man to fish after you've used a net to empty the lake of fish and he will be a great source of slapstick humor.
 
2013-08-04 10:26:21 AM

bunner: Teach a man to fish after you've used a net to empty the lake of fish and he will be a great source of slapstick humor.


I will be stealing this forever. Thanks!
 
2013-08-04 10:30:08 AM
When billionaire Warren Buffett pledged to give away 85 per cent of his fortune in 2006


Gee, I wonder why he feels that way?
 
2013-08-04 10:34:01 AM
Wait! Upon further review (actually reading the article), he has some good points.

I retract my claim that he cares about an inheritance. He just genuinely cares about creating sustainable economic conditions for people.
 
2013-08-04 10:34:41 AM
Somewhere, Andrew Carnegie is laughing at this guy.
 
2013-08-04 10:36:56 AM

NewportBarGuy: Wait! Upon further review (actually reading the article), he has some good points.

I retract my claim that he cares about an inheritance. He just genuinely cares about creating sustainable economic conditions for people.


I sort of jumped the gun, too. I wouldn't want to dissuade the wealthy from charity, but being selective and thinking about the bigger picture is certainly a good idea.
 
2013-08-04 10:43:36 AM
It's not necessarily about charity in the usual sense.  It's usually a simple matter of putting massive profits back into play to create and maintain a robust job base.  A living wage isn't really munificent largess, it's the bedrock of a viable working class community who will happily bust their asses for you, by and large, if they can have some semblance of a comfortable life on what they make for their time and work.  Stagnant wealth serves nobody except the wankstains who hoard it and then meet at the club, once a month, for the bank balance pissing contest fandango.  People like that need to discover Star Wars action figures.
 
2013-08-04 10:48:06 AM
Yes and no.

Giving to people is bad. Giving to systems can be good, it can be bad. It depends on the system, and how realistic you are in your expectations of what the money will be able to do.

Example: giving your dollar to the Sally Struthers-esque 'help feed a poor kid in Africa with flies on his eyes' doesn't do a damn thing but help line the pockets of the person running that 'charity'. Giving money to a starving person in the street feeds them for a day, but it also helps them to be justified in thinking 'waiting for people to give me things is a proven business model, if I'm just willing to be miserable and patient in the interim'.

However, giving money to some charities is extremely effective. The Carter Foundation has just about entirely eradicated the Guinea worm, a horrible parasite that has been afflicting humanity since at least Biblical times. Polio is on the way out. Real efforts are being made at doing the same to malaria. There's simply no way that giving a billion dollars to a group like that wouldn't make a difference.

Or, you can be indirect. Giving a $2bn endowment to your city orchestra may not feed the starving, but it will damn sure provide beautiful music for generations to come.

You just have to do your homework, and treat it like any other business decision.
 
2013-08-04 10:49:20 AM

Nabb1: I sort of jumped the gun, too. I wouldn't want to dissuade the wealthy from charity, but being selective and thinking about the bigger picture is certainly a good idea.


Well, you actually hit the nail on the head. Carnegie focused his money very well and it had quite a lasting impact on humanity. He was simple and focused. I think you can say the same about Buffett and Gates. Gates especially with his focus on trying to cure curable things. All he does is provide the logistics to make sure impoverished people can get things we can get at any clinic or hospital. Sure, he has education as a goal and that will require ALL of use to get on the same page about how we should educate our kids. Lot of money on lobbying, compromising, testing things, failing succeeding... You could call that one a pipe dream, but I'm glad he's at least making the effort.

No, Buffett's kid is making a good point. Deploying capital in a focused effort on a single thing can really do wonders. But you have to have the right people to do it who focus on it like a laser and don't think of it as a business to run in perpetuity.

For example... I like what Clooney is doing in Sudan, but at the end of the day he is basically throwing his money away. Not the direct aid to people/refugees, but his satellite and other stuff to get rid of a dictator. The only thing that would solve that is a private Army or some sovereign state deciding to take him out.

Warren's son is right about one thing, it has become big business when it should be focused on a goal and ready to close shop the second they reach that goal. Some charities are different, but I'd say the best ones would operate like a light infantry unit. Go in, destroy the problem, and evac.
 
2013-08-04 10:52:37 AM

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?


Give your son a billion dollars and he can hire someone to fish for him.
 
2013-08-04 10:52:57 AM

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: I sort of jumped the gun, too. I wouldn't want to dissuade the wealthy from charity, but being selective and thinking about the bigger picture is certainly a good idea.

Well, you actually hit the nail on the head. Carnegie focused his money very well and it had quite a lasting impact on humanity. He was simple and focused. I think you can say the same about Buffett and Gates. Gates especially with his focus on trying to cure curable things. All he does is provide the logistics to make sure impoverished people can get things we can get at any clinic or hospital. Sure, he has education as a goal and that will require ALL of use to get on the same page about how we should educate our kids. Lot of money on lobbying, compromising, testing things, failing succeeding... You could call that one a pipe dream, but I'm glad he's at least making the effort.

No, Buffett's kid is making a good point. Deploying capital in a focused effort on a single thing can really do wonders. But you have to have the right people to do it who focus on it like a laser and don't think of it as a business to run in perpetuity.

For example... I like what Clooney is doing in Sudan, but at the end of the day he is basically throwing his money away. Not the direct aid to people/refugees, but his satellite and other stuff to get rid of a dictator. The only thing that would solve that is a private Army or some sovereign state deciding to take him out.

Warren's son is right about one thing, it has become big business when it should be focused on a goal and ready to close shop the second they reach that goal. Some charities are different, but I'd say the best ones would operate like a light infantry unit. Go in, destroy the problem, and evac.


I think there's places for both. It's great to focus on the long term, but there's nothing wrong with alleviating immediate suffering. You really need both in some sort of balance. I think I'd make a great philanthropist, so if anyone is willing to assist me in accumulating a vast sum of wealth, I promise to do you proud.
 
2013-08-04 10:56:27 AM
The laws suck.  Charities are only required to keep accurate books and have very low disbursements demands as to how much goes to the people they serve. Tax loopholes abound for everybody with enough money to not need them.  Charities, like any other corporate whorehouse, are largely designed to move money in one direction and have accountants and attorneys show them how to skim the cream off.
 
2013-08-04 10:58:56 AM

bunner: Charities, like any other corporate whorehouse, are largely designed to move money in one direction and have accountants and attorneys show them how to skim the cream off.


Not all of them, but the ones you are referring to (Report on celebrity charities designed at tax avoidance vehicles)... We should put all of them in GITMO. Those people are the scum of the earth. The people, their lawyers and accountants and enablers.

Who the f*ck takes a loan from a charity? Yeah, tighten the laws on those who do it for personal gain. I'd love to see that.
 
2013-08-04 11:03:57 AM
The most charitable thing you can do for a poor family is to give them 10,000.00 out of your stash of millions under the condition that they listen while you explain how money works.  And answer a quiz.  Downside, finding out how money actually works is like accidentally walking in on your mom while she's taking a dump.  The "money fairy" that we accuse the poor of waiting on either has to stop coming down the billionaires' chimneys or start expanding her route.
 
2013-08-04 11:14:52 AM

bunner: The most charitable thing you can do for a poor family is to give them 10,000.00 out of your stash of millions under the condition that they listen while you explain how money works.  And answer a quiz.  Downside, finding out how money actually works is like accidentally walking in on your mom while she's taking a dump.  The "money fairy" that we accuse the poor of waiting on either has to stop coming down the billionaires' chimneys or start expanding her route.


Uh, giving poor people who have no experience managing money $10,000 (which doesn't go very far these days) is to going to get them put of poverty. They'll probably pay off some debts and buy some sort of consumer goods with whatever is left.
 
2013-08-04 11:20:34 AM

Nabb1: Uh, giving poor people who have no experience managing money $10,000 (which doesn't go very far these days) is to going to get them put of poverty. They'll probably pay off some debts and buy some sort of consumer goods with whatever is left.


Sounds a lot like the Bush stimulus checks. I swear to god, that was the dumbest things I've ever seen in my life. I was sitting there, looking at the National Debt and watching them give out checks because our current account was in surplus. Seriously, what a waste of money. And $300? Wow. Hooray!

Simplified analogy, agreed. That one just made my head spin. I also don't agree with giving them direct money, but his idea of teaching them about money is something we should have a class for in every high school to make sure that even if kids have financially illiterate parents, why try to give them some baseline.

I remember being taught to balance a checkbook in high school. I wonder how often that occurs today.
 
2013-08-04 11:26:33 AM
No business, even a non-profit, will ever completely eliminate the need for its own existence, because the people who run the business would rather perpetuate the problem that creates the need than put themselves and their colleagues out of a job. Charities, pharmaceutical companies, pretty much all bureaucracies are examples.
 
2013-08-04 11:28:04 AM
Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.
 
2013-08-04 11:28:36 AM

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Uh, giving poor people who have no experience managing money $10,000 (which doesn't go very far these days) is to going to get them put of poverty. They'll probably pay off some debts and buy some sort of consumer goods with whatever is left.

Sounds a lot like the Bush stimulus checks. I swear to god, that was the dumbest things I've ever seen in my life. I was sitting there, looking at the National Debt and watching them give out checks because our current account was in surplus. Seriously, what a waste of money. And $300? Wow. Hooray!

Simplified analogy, agreed. That one just made my head spin. I also don't agree with giving them direct money, but his idea of teaching them about money is something we should have a class for in every high school to make sure that even if kids have financially illiterate parents, why try to give them some baseline.

I remember being taught to balance a checkbook in high school. I wonder how often that occurs today.


The stimulus wasn't intended to get anyone out of poverty, though. It was intended to just put some quick cash in a lot of people's hands. I used it for a surround sound systems, but I wasn't teetering on the edge of poverty, either.

I bet they don't even teach kids how to balance a checkbook in this age of ATMs, debit cards, and online banking. We're cavemen compared to these kids.
 
2013-08-04 11:30:22 AM

bunner: Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.


You can do whatever you want, but dumping $10k in a poor person's lap most likely will not lift them out of poverty. But, feel free to pool that cash and prove me wrong. And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat.
 
2013-08-04 11:31:03 AM

DarwiOdrade: No business, even a non-profit, will ever completely eliminate the need for its own existence, because the people who run the business would rather perpetuate the problem that creates the need than put themselves and their colleagues out of a job. Charities, pharmaceutical companies, pretty much all bureaucracies are examples.


Poor people are why rich people are rich.  Because they gave them every dime in their loot chest, 1.29 at a time, 80,000,000 times a day.  Poor people are to rich people what plankton is to humpback whales.
 
2013-08-04 11:32:17 AM

Nabb1: bunner: Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.

You can do whatever you want, but dumping $10k in a poor person's lap most likely will not lift them out of poverty. But, feel free to pool that cash and prove me wrong. And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat.


The issue for grads in the job market is slightly more complicated than you're implying here.
 
2013-08-04 11:33:58 AM
Every so often, I click the show posts from ignored users area and remind myself just how many dolts come here to say "It works like this and that's all there is to it and I just said so, so tough c*nt crust, I know how things really are!"  And it's sort of amusing.  I really appreciate the toggle, however.
 
2013-08-04 11:35:17 AM
Remember!  You have to learn to BLOW THE JOB CREATORS BETTER THAN THE OTHER GUY or you are a worthless, communist failure!1!1!!  * snort*
 
2013-08-04 11:38:09 AM

LasersHurt: And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat. (NABB)

The issue for grads in the job market is slightly more complicated than you're implying here.


He does have a point. Labor is a buyers market. It sucks, but that's where we're at. I was always working and never finished my 4 year degree. I got an entry level (part-time) gig and fought my way to where I'm at. Lived on Ramen and water for many years fighting for it.

I want everyone to be gainfully employed that can be. This is just the worst labor market I've seen in my life. Opportunities are there, but there is a lot of nepotism in hiring right now. It's all in who you know. I've heard tell the 70's were as bad as this, but we got through it. I'm just hoping we find a way through soon.

I know far too many people with advanced degrees, massive debt, and sh*tty job prospects.
 
2013-08-04 11:42:09 AM

NewportBarGuy: LasersHurt: And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat. (NABB)

The issue for grads in the job market is slightly more complicated than you're implying here.

He does have a point. Labor is a buyers market. It sucks, but that's where we're at. I was always working and never finished my 4 year degree. I got an entry level (part-time) gig and fought my way to where I'm at. Lived on Ramen and water for many years fighting for it.

I want everyone to be gainfully employed that can be. This is just the worst labor market I've seen in my life. Opportunities are there, but there is a lot of nepotism in hiring right now. It's all in who you know. I've heard tell the 70's were as bad as this, but we got through it. I'm just hoping we find a way through soon.

I know far too many people with advanced degrees, massive debt, and sh*tty job prospects.


Hell I rode the nepotism train into the station, got my job because I knew a guy in an IRC channel. It's a crap-ass market out there for precisely the reasons you mentioned - it's a buyer's market where they CAN ask for more experience and offer less pay because they'll get away with it.
 
2013-08-04 11:45:08 AM

LasersHurt: it's a buyer's market where they CAN ask for more experience and offer less pay because they'll get away with it.


Yeah, that's called "pulling the floorboards out for your new paneling."  It never ends well.  "We made more money by screwing our workers!"  "Yeah, unfortunately, people are trading wheelbarrows full of it for SPAM and goldfish crackers."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-04 12:08:33 PM

bunner: Yeah, that's called "pulling the floorboards out for your new paneling."  It never ends well.  "We made more money by screwing our workers!"  "Yeah, unfortunately, people are trading wheelbarrows full of it for SPAM and goldfish crackers."


The thing is that wealthy people aren't generally looking out for future generations of wealthy people, they are out for themselves.  They don't give a crap about the long term, they'll be dead by then so they could care less.
 
2013-08-04 12:33:00 PM
So no one else has figured out a solution to the labor glut yet?

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?


Clearly, it is.
 
2013-08-04 12:35:07 PM
This is not a revelation. We have learned this many times over but never seem to apply it. Those who figure this out tend to retire soon thereafter.
 
2013-08-04 01:00:17 PM
he's just upset that daddy's pissing away his inheritance.
 
2013-08-04 01:12:15 PM

bunner: DarwiOdrade: No business, even a non-profit, will ever completely eliminate the need for its own existence, because the people who run the business would rather perpetuate the problem that creates the need than put themselves and their colleagues out of a job. Charities, pharmaceutical companies, pretty much all bureaucracies are examples.

Poor people are why rich people are rich.  Because they gave them every dime in their loot chest, 1.29 at a time, 80,000,000 times a day.  Poor people are to rich people what plankton is to humpback whales.


Yes, the wino panhandling in front of the train station is truly the reason why people make money in this country, and he would be much better served if somebody just handed him a wad of Benjamins....

Some people are poor because of the system.

Some people are poor because they're stupid and make poor decisions.
 
2013-08-04 01:17:52 PM

bunner: I have found that any statement that begins with "My dad is a big deal, and I think.." should probably have a pinch of salt added.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-04 01:24:12 PM

Fark It: Yes, the wino panhandling in front of the train station is truly the reason why people make money in this country


Yeah, boyee, false equivalencies are the most prescient argument on earth.  I keep some in the junk drawer just in case.
 
2013-08-04 01:26:16 PM

bunner: Fark It: Yes, the wino panhandling in front of the train station is truly the reason why people make money in this country

Yeah, boyee, false equivalencies are the most prescient argument on earth.  I keep some in the junk drawer just in case.


I guess your junk drawer is where you got this gem:

"Poor people are why rich people are rich. "
 
2013-08-04 01:28:03 PM

Fark It: "Poor people are why rich people are rich. "


You get enough rocks, you can make a wall.  You're the one saying poor = pissing in their pants by the mailbox with 18 cents and a Marlboro as en toto liquidity.  And that's.. I dunno.  Are you amused?  I'm sort of "huh" about it.
 
2013-08-04 01:30:56 PM
By the way, you're an utter dolt and a troll and I only clicked the show posts from ignored users button to wade through the "LOOK HERE YOU!" farmers.  Make this a good one.   :  )
 
2013-08-04 01:31:16 PM

LasersHurt: Nabb1: bunner: Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.

You can do whatever you want, but dumping $10k in a poor person's lap most likely will not lift them out of poverty. But, feel free to pool that cash and prove me wrong. And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat.

The issue for grads in the job market is slightly more complicated than you're implying here.


I know. I was responding solely to his incredibly poor analogy.
 
2013-08-04 01:32:05 PM
What will end the greatest amount of poverty is the ending of corruption.  Corrupt politicians and agencies are what perpetuates poverty.
Clean out what is rotten then something healthy can grow.
 
2013-08-04 01:34:24 PM

bunner: Fark It: "Poor people are why rich people are rich. "

You get enough rocks, you can make a wall.  You're the one saying poor = pissing in their pants by the mailbox with 18 cents and a Marlboro as en toto liquidity.  And that's.. I dunno.  Are you amused?  I'm sort of "huh" about it.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-04 01:36:46 PM

Fark It: bunner: Fark It: "Poor people are why rich people are rich. "

You get enough rocks, you can make a wall.  You're the one saying poor = pissing in their pants by the mailbox with 18 cents and a Marlboro as en toto liquidity.  And that's.. I dunno.  Are you amused?  I'm sort of "huh" about it.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x320]


Bad troll.  No cookie.  Bye Plato.  Hey, you think memes are profound, so here's one.   :  )

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-04 01:40:04 PM

rev. dave: What will end the greatest amount of poverty is the ending of corruption.  Corrupt politicians and agencies are what perpetuates poverty.
Clean out what is rotten then something healthy can grow.


Can you imagine what would happen to the GPD if, for one year, nobody skimmed, conned, finagled, pork barreled, overcharged, took a few home that they wouldn't miss or inflated contracts?  Just did what the f*ck they told the boss they would do?  Just cut the sh*t and took home what they honestly earned?
 
2013-08-04 02:12:36 PM
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Have your dad give you enough fish for 20 lifetimes and you can preach the morality of hard work.
 
2013-08-04 02:22:15 PM

bunner: finding out how money actually works is like accidentally walking in on your mom while she's taking a dump.



I want the Wall Street Journal to use that as the front headline someday.
 
2013-08-04 02:23:07 PM
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-04 02:24:12 PM

EvilEgg: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Have your dad give you enough fish for 20 lifetimes and you can preach the morality of hard work.



www.independent.co.uk

"I didn't grow up in the ocean - as a matter of fact - near the ocean
- I grew up in the desert. Therefore, it was a pleasant contrast to see
the ocean. And I particularly like it when I'm fishing."
 
2013-08-04 02:45:35 PM

Nabb1: bunner: Saying that you shouldn't give people who've never had money any money is the same sh*t as telling the kid with 90,000.00 in loan debt that he has to come back when he has three years of experience.

You can do whatever you want, but dumping $10k in a poor person's lap most likely will not lift them out of poverty. But, feel free to pool that cash and prove me wrong. And if that employer doesn't want someone without experience, that's just tough shiat.


but what if the employer deems the applicant overqualified, but not qualified enough for a position the next level up?

/in my recent job search, this happened to me five times.
 
2013-08-04 02:49:57 PM

dumbobruni: /in my recent job search, this happened to me five times.


That's code for "You're not 25 but if we tell you you're too old, you an sue us."
 
2013-08-04 02:51:37 PM

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?


Teach all the poor to fish and you can make a billion selling ropes, nets, rods and line. Use this  money to push out competitors in those lines of business, and get the local governor to appoint you a monopoly. Also, buy a large number of farms surrounding the streams that feed the Sea of Galilee, and begin fish farming. As soon as the poor have run out of the fish in the Sea of Galilee, you can sell them cheaper, net-free fish in return for their services in guarding your fish pens, or feeding your fish, or harvesting the corn that you use to feed your fish, or drying the fish you've made. Feel free to get into the business of importing clothing and renting shelter to your wage slaves (who now have to buy your fish). And as your market reach expands, you'll have to start buying up potters and shipping salted, partially liquified fish (garum) abroad on your (wholly-owned) camel caravans.

/No , not hard at all...
 
2013-08-04 02:59:51 PM
This just in: guess who Warren Buffett is not leaving the bulk of his fortune to?

I'm not saying that Peter Buffett as his nose in a splint over the billions he is not inheriting, but really, it's rather clichéed to point out that large foundations have not "cured" or "solved" poverty. It is not true, however, that charitable money is concentrated solely o bandaid or temporary solutions.

Many great charitable trusts are highly efficient (using only their income or donations for their operations and thus having 100% of income dedicated to operations rather than administrative spending and plush carpet and high-paid sinecures for the children and grandchildren of the founders). Many of them concentrate on long-term assistance to create wealth and jobs for the needy.

Intelligent donars are aware of the obstacles to the total elimination of poverty, just as Mother Theresa was aware that there were thousands of paupers in the Calcutta streets for every one she could help. She just carried on carrying on, which I think is the right response, although I don't like her and her right wing political or religious opinions.

She did good. That was almost good enough, although I would have liked to see her do better, such as giving more painkillers to people dying of HIV under her care, and what not.

The problem is too big for private action, no matter how earnest, efficient and large.

There are political and economic factors making it impossible to eliminate all poverty.

One, the idea of a natural rate of unemployment put forward by (largely conservative) economists versus the lefty idea of full employment. Governments, even the supposedly socialist governments of people like Obama, aim for a level of unemployment which keeps the labour market fluid rather than full employment. This is because Obama is not a commie or a socialist or even a social democrat, and because he couldn't do a damn thing if he were. He's the POTUS, not Supreme Emperor of the World.

Two, after we have intentionally insured that some people will be unemployed and thus poor, we intentionally insure that minimum wages will not lift workers out of dire poverty, and that social welfare will not extend to illegals. Basically, all of the conservatives and moderates (and most of the liberals) are working to make sure there is enough poverty to keep them safe from say, inflation, or recession, or competition for rare spots for their children in the good schools, or what not.

In short, the people who point out that charity does not work are the people who make damn sure it doesn't work because communism.

There is enough food to feed everybody in the world. We all know that. We all know that the problem is distribution. Most of us don't know or care where the bottlenecks are. The bottlenecks are our fat (largely white, largely male, largely conservative) asses. WE ARE THE BLOCKAGE WE CLAIM TO WANT TO REMOVE FROM THE SYSTEM.

But not really. Or poverty would have vanished through the collective love of Jews, Christias, Muslims, Buddhists, Communists, Socialists, etc. for humanity more than a thousand years ago.

The only sense in which conservatives are truly conservative is the original meaning of the word, namely "tight-fisted", "penny-pinching", "miserly", and they are not truly that if it is somebody else's money. The only thing conservatives can all agree on cutting is foreign aid and assistance. They get a cut of the pie on everything else, including the slack-jawed, gapped tooth hillbillies who resent the black urban welfarists because it cuts into their "white Protestant entitlements".

So bugger Peter Buffett. Nobody asks "What would Peter Buffett do?"
 
2013-08-04 03:27:54 PM

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.


Dynamite the lake and you'll have excellent returns for the next quarter.
 
2013-08-04 03:30:14 PM

Nabb1: Somewhere, Andrew Carnegie is laughing at this guy.


Its worth remembering though, that while Andrew Carnegie gave away lots of his wealth/built libraries he achieved that wealth on the backs of his employees who were treated poorly. So I guess that makes him slightly better than the Walton Family?
 
2013-08-04 03:31:55 PM

brantgoose: There are political and economic factors making it impossible to eliminate all poverty.


And a whole lot of legislation designed to make sure that even people who come up with viable personal solutions can't exercise them without getting in hot water with revenue farmers, zoning wankers, and a horde of people who contribute nothing but gray and mind stares at the people who would try and support themselves in a manner that doesn't give them a cut.
 
2013-08-04 03:48:53 PM
In this thread:  Assholes claiming that if you can't entirely fix poverty, then feeding a person for a day only makes things worse.
 
2013-08-04 03:58:49 PM

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. sit in a boat all day drinking beer.


FTFY. At least that's how my wife says it.
 
2013-08-04 04:19:43 PM

brantgoose: So bugger Peter Buffett. Nobody asks "What would Peter Buffett do?"


His point is a lot of people give money to charities just to feel good, they don't care about actually fixing things and won't do anything themselves to fix things.
 
2013-08-04 05:08:40 PM

BunkyBrewman: Give a man to fish and he will eat for a day,teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

/is that statement really that difficult to comprehend?


Teach a man to fish and you create a competitor. Give a man a fish and you create a customer.

/capitalism
 
2013-08-04 05:27:11 PM

WhyteRaven74: brantgoose: So bugger Peter Buffett. Nobody asks "What would Peter Buffett do?"

His point is a lot of people give money to charities just to feel good, they don't care about actually fixing things and won't do anything themselves to fix things.


Professional charity management counts on that.
 
2013-08-04 06:01:16 PM

FloydA: bunner: I have found that any statement that begins with "My dad is a big deal, and I think.." should probably have a pinch of salt added.

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x426]


Have you read some of the crap that guy said?  He's a perfect example.  No charging interests on loans?  Do you want the entire world economy to come crashing to a halt?

/The meek shall inherit the Earth?  It's like he's living on a different planet!
 
2013-08-04 06:19:35 PM
I somewhat agree with him, but it is of course not true in all cases. I mean, Germany, China, Japan, South Korea, Russia/Soviet Union eventually became massive economies and even superpowers after the massive devastation of World War 2, the Chinese Revolution, and the Korean War; some with help some without help. Yet Africa, for the most part, has yet to fully stand on its two feet despite decades of aid. But at least they are improving.
 
2013-08-04 06:25:42 PM

That_Dude: No charging interests on loans?  Do you want the entire world economy to come crashing to a halt?


Again?
 
2013-08-04 06:26:11 PM

NewportBarGuy: Warren's son is right about one thing, it has become big business when it should be focused on a goal and ready to close shop the second they reach that goal. Some charities are different, but I'd say the best ones would operate like a light infantry unit. Go in, destroy the problem, and evac.


 No mega charities get my money any more, Charities are often started by someone with some zeal, to do good, but they can then get run by people with either different aims, whose aim is to keep the charity running and growing. And if they're too big, it's much easier for that to happen. It's hard to track what they're up to.
So, I only give money to a charity with one simple aim, that can be expressed simply. With no corporate sponsors, no celebrities.
 
2013-08-04 07:21:52 PM
FTFAAn example of unintended consequences from a well-intentioned attempt to help others was when the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDs in a red-light district resulted in creating a higher price for unprotected sex.

How is this a bad thing? Some johns wear condoms so that slows down the spread of AIDS. Better than no Johns using condoms. Plus, if the women are able to charge higher rates they probably don't need to see as many clients in a day, which also likely slows down the viruses spread.
 
2013-08-04 08:24:43 PM
sounds like some rich douchebag just wants to keep daddy's money to himself


amirite?
 
2013-08-04 08:46:48 PM
If Buffet didn't give poor people his money, what would the son be doing to pay his bills? HE SPEAKS FROM FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE!!
 
2013-08-04 08:56:52 PM
I don't give my money...I give my time & mind.
 
2013-08-04 09:08:19 PM
Hell, P.J. O'Rourke has been saying this for 25 years.
 
2013-08-04 09:11:31 PM
Does he hate the jews?
 
2013-08-04 09:18:13 PM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-08-04 10:21:13 PM

DoomPaul: I somewhat agree with him, but it is of course not true in all cases. I mean, Germany, China, Japan, South Korea, Russia/Soviet Union eventually became massive economies and even superpowers after the massive devastation of World War 2, the Chinese Revolution, and the Korean War; some with help some without help. Yet Africa, for the most part, has yet to fully stand on its two feet despite decades of aid. But at least they are improving.


for your WW2 comparison: Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union had an industrial base before the war. Heck, the expansion of the Soviet Union's industrial base during the war was a reason why Germany lost. The infrastructure was damaged, yes. But the knowledge of the people how to engineer and produce was not.

European colonies in Africa were generally used simply for raw materials, and almost never for production. Infrastructure was woefully underdeveloped away from coastlines. The industrial base and knowledge just did not exist outside of a handful of countries like South Africa and Algeria. Colonialism also drew borders that did not respect tribes, and different ethnic groups that didn't get along were forced to live together.

Combine that with brutal wars for independence (Portuguese colonies especially) and tribal disagreements leading to civil wars and power struggles, and Africa never stood a chance. Think of it as the mess that happened in Yugoslavia, occurring over and over again in nearly every country.

The civil wars in the DRC (formerly Zaire) killed over 6 million people from 1996-2008. after Angola fought an 8 year struggle for independence, it fell into 25 years of civil war mostly funded from outside (NATO & South Africa vs USSR and Cuba).

A lot of the economic aid that Africa does get comes with strings attached, such as buying all supplies from the country that gives the aid, which prevents an industrial base from forming.

South Korea received a total of $19 billion (today's dollars) in economic aid, and another $40 billion in military aid, since the end of the Korean War from the US alone. And South Korea was allowed to use that economic aid to develop its own economy, not buy stuff from the USA.

China didn't listen to the IMF, OECD, and World Bank, and forced foreign firms to train locals.
 
2013-08-04 11:20:21 PM

bbfreak: Nabb1: Somewhere, Andrew Carnegie is laughing at this guy.

Its worth remembering though, that while Andrew Carnegie gave away lots of his wealth/built libraries he achieved that wealth on the backs of his employees who were treated poorly. So I guess that makes him slightly better than the Walton Family?


no reference avail now
but carnegie required his company managers make in salary no more that 60 times the lowest employee
encouraging some innovation and improvements
 
2013-08-04 11:57:06 PM

whistleridge: Yes and no.

Giving to people is bad. Giving to systems can be good, it can be bad. It depends on the system, and how realistic you are in your expectations of what the money will be able to do.

Example: giving your dollar to the Sally Struthers-esque 'help feed a poor kid in Africa with flies on his eyes' doesn't do a damn thing but help line the pockets of the person running that 'charity'. Giving money to a starving person in the street feeds them for a day, but it also helps them to be justified in thinking 'waiting for people to give me things is a proven business model, if I'm just willing to be miserable and patient in the interim'.

However, giving money to some charities is extremely effective. The Carter Foundation has just about entirely eradicated the Guinea worm, a horrible parasite that has been afflicting humanity since at least Biblical times. Polio is on the way out. Real efforts are being made at doing the same to malaria. There's simply no way that giving a billion dollars to a group like that wouldn't make a difference.

Or, you can be indirect. Giving a $2bn endowment to your city orchestra may not feed the starving, but it will damn sure provide beautiful music for generations to come.

You just have to do your homework, and treat it like any other business decision.


I notice you didn't list the most effective way history has known that giving can boost the economy: For a service. Or, as we peasants call them, jobs.
 
2013-08-04 11:57:48 PM
static.guim.co.uk
I thought I had made that clear, and so on, and so on
 
2013-08-05 12:01:54 AM

ajgeek: So no one else has figured out a solution to the labor glut yet?


Clearly the answer is Amnesty, a process which would legalize 11-20M workers to bring them formally into a labor pool already experiencing 7.5% unemployment to go along with depressed wages and a negative savings rate.
 
2013-08-05 12:03:25 AM

o5iiawah: ajgeek: So no one else has figured out a solution to the labor glut yet?

Clearly the answer is Amnesty, a process which would legalize 11-20M workers to bring them formally into a labor pool already experiencing 7.5% unemployment to go along with depressed wages and a negative savings rate.


Oh hell, just open the borders to every country who agrees to do the same.

/Yes, your guys can come here to work if I can go there to retire.
 
2013-08-05 12:05:15 AM

brantgoose: This just in: guess who Warren Buffett is not leaving the bulk of his fortune to?

I'm not saying that Peter Buffett as his nose in a splint over the billions he is not inheriting,


Yes, you are. Stop lying.

/And maybe RTFA.
//But that's just crazy talk.
 
2013-08-05 12:54:20 AM
I believe in personally giving small domination bills (usually ones) to young single mothers.
 
2013-08-05 02:15:07 AM

dumbobruni: DoomPaul: I somewhat agree with him, but it is of course not true in all cases. I mean, Germany, China, Japan, South Korea, Russia/Soviet Union eventually became massive economies and even superpowers after the massive devastation of World War 2, the Chinese Revolution, and the Korean War; some with help some without help. Yet Africa, for the most part, has yet to fully stand on its two feet despite decades of aid. But at least they are improving.

for your WW2 comparison: Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union had an industrial base before the war. Heck, the expansion of the Soviet Union's industrial base during the war was a reason why Germany lost. The infrastructure was damaged, yes. But the knowledge of the people how to engineer and produce was not.

European colonies in Africa were generally used simply for raw materials, and almost never for production. Infrastructure was woefully underdeveloped away from coastlines. The industrial base and knowledge just did not exist outside of a handful of countries like South Africa and Algeria. Colonialism also drew borders that did not respect tribes, and different ethnic groups that didn't get along were forced to live together.

Combine that with brutal wars for independence (Portuguese colonies especially) and tribal disagreements leading to civil wars and power struggles, and Africa never stood a chance. Think of it as the mess that happened in Yugoslavia, occurring over and over again in nearly every country.

The civil wars in the DRC (formerly Zaire) killed over 6 million people from 1996-2008. after Angola fought an 8 year struggle for independence, it fell into 25 years of civil war mostly funded from outside (NATO & South Africa vs USSR and Cuba).

A lot of the economic aid that Africa does get comes with strings attached, such as buying all supplies from the country that gives the aid, which prevents an industrial base from forming.

South Korea received a total of $19 billion (today's dollars) in economic aid ...


i remeber seeing a documentary about zambia on PBS. it talk about how after its civil wars it was in massive debt and needed help from the IMF. IMF agreed to help on the condition that zambia eliminated all of its tariffs and economic protections. Immediately, all local farmers went out of business because they were undercut by subsidized U.S. corn. The texile industry collapsed as "humanitarian" 2nd hand clothes from the U.S. came in and put them out of business.

So the IMF caused a massive famine and depression after a decades old civil war.
lots of people died.
Pretty terrible organization if you ask me.
 
2013-08-05 04:40:26 AM
Maybe if we stopped stealing money from actual useful people and using it to pay losers to be fat, stupid, lazy wastes of skin....
 
2013-08-05 06:08:53 AM
Prodigal jealous?  Maybe.

But, I have wondered much the same thing.  It really is another form of Cultural Colonialism, where the wealthy attempt to mold the flock in something that is both more controllable and happier.

Another side effect of this concentration of non profit capital is that is not free to create wealth building enterprises.  And it gives longer control to smaller numbers of people.
 
2013-08-05 10:36:32 AM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: i remeber seeing a documentary about zambia on PBS. it talk about how after its civil wars it was in massive debt and needed help from the IMF. IMF agreed to help on the condition that zambia eliminated all of its tariffs and economic protections. Immediately, all local farmers went out of business because they were undercut by subsidized U.S. corn. The texile industry collapsed as "humanitarian" 2nd hand clothes from the U.S. came in and put them out of business.


sounds about right. the IMF and World Bank did that to several African countries in the 1980s.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/11/hearafrica05.developmen t
 
2013-08-05 12:13:58 PM

o5iiawah: ajgeek: So no one else has figured out a solution to the labor glut yet?

Clearly the answer is Amnesty, a process which would legalize 11-20M workers to bring them formally into a labor pool already experiencing 7.5% unemployment to go along with depressed wages and a negative savings rate.



The sad part is that you think those immigrants are not already here working.   Really, it's sad that you are so incredibly stupid you believe that 11-20 million people will magically appear out of thin air if Congress passes immigration reform.  It's disappointing that you are so amazingly, mind-bogglingly dense that you don't realize that the people who will receive amnesty are already here, already working, and the only thing that will change is that they won't be working under the table any more will have to pay income tax.

But then, it's not surprising.  You are a very, very stupid person.
 
2013-08-05 07:42:33 PM

Nabb1: NewportBarGuy: Wait! Upon further review (actually reading the article), he has some good points.

I retract my claim that he cares about an inheritance. He just genuinely cares about creating sustainable economic conditions for people.

I sort of jumped the gun, too. I wouldn't want to dissuade the wealthy from charity, but being selective and thinking about the bigger picture is certainly a good idea.


You mean we're allowed to read the articles?  Why didn't somebody tell me that years ago?  I assumed it was REQUIRED to just go off the headline.
 
2013-08-06 12:29:08 AM

ajgeek: So no one else has figured out a solution to the labor glut yet?



There's always mass deportation, but libs get all mouth-foamy about that

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 86 of 86 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report