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?
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.
Nabb1: Somewhere, Andrew Carnegie is laughing at this guy.
brantgoose: There are political and economic factors making it impossible to eliminate all poverty.
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.
brantgoose: So bugger Peter Buffett. Nobody asks "What would Peter Buffett do?"
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.
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]
That_Dude: No charging interests on loans? Do you want the entire world economy to come crashing to a halt?
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.
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.
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?
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.
ajgeek: So no one else has figured out a solution to the labor glut yet?
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.
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,
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 ...
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.
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.
Want the rest of the Farking story? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 23 2017 01:11:59
Runtime: 0.368 sec (368 ms)