I was only a few days away from off-topic and then this happened and 
then I need a couple of hours to catch up. :(

Anyway, I get your point even if it is not the best example (AFAIK there 
was no real existing mosquito net market). Clothes is indeed a better one.

As for my own field. I had the pleasure the last year to go a couple of 
times to hospitals in less developed countries (tanzania, rwanda and the 
amazon region). There often is equipment but it is second hand and often 
broken (even when it arrived). This broken equipment draws valuable 
resources to get fixed. There are plenty of examples where donated 
equipment (dubbed "Junk for Jesus" by a friend of mine, after the most 
common source) made the situation worse.
At one place they were offered a new CT machine, including service for 
two years (uncommon, generally things are donated as is). The staff with 
experience was seriously considering turning the offer down. After that 
period they would have to fix it themselves, they knew they would lack 
money and expertise to do so.
(Aside, my field is cardiology as some of you may remember. There was 
one functioning ECG machine in one of the biggest hospitals in the 
country, but they did have two state of the art echo-machines, and by 
now perhaps also a CT. Well, if they also can use that to get a CT from 
the heart, they will have another ECG amplifier when the CT itself 
collapses in 3 years)
So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try to 
neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)

There are hardly any biomedical technicians in these regions and they 
never were there so there is in that sense no market disruption.
Some years ago GE wanted to donate equipment to a hospital in Rwanda, 
the director of that hospital (no points for guessing her gender) said: 
"that is OK, provided you train my technicians also". Which resulted in 
a training program that was set up with founding money from GE. The 
course was set up in such a way that the technicians during their 
training still had to work in their own hospitals. I hope most of them 
will keep their jobs after they have finished their training.
An interesting point will also be if they will get more pay because they 
are now qualified to do the job they already did. Especially because 
there is no money to begin with.
BTW I though it was quite funny to see someone mentioning that not 
having to buy clothes would free up that money to be spend on other 
things. Understandable for someone from a society where everything is 
convertible into money, but funny anyway.

On 31-7-2013 19:42, Shay wrote:
> We've all heard stories of misguided charity organizations destroying
> micro-economies with no-cost goods. The stories go something like this:
>
> * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
> * The poor people sell the nets for food
> * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
> * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
> * The no-cost mosquito nets get sold-off / used up
> * No more mosquito nets. No more craftsmen.
>
> Google, Apple, and Microsoft are now monetizing no/low-cost software and
> *intentionally*(?) creating the above situation. The creators of that
> software are making nothing or (MUCH worse) very little. The 'very
> little' is much worse, imo, because I suspect the half-starved parasites
> will fight to defend the host.
>
> Not saying (or not saying) the large companies are evil, just wondering
> if we should all be more careful where we put our "spare" money, time,
> talent, and personal information.
>
> Just a hunch. Definitely open to changing my mind on this one. I'm very
> far away from the issue.
>
> -Shay


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message