Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:

>
> when small/start-up, may be 10 or 20% is spent on management,
> advertisement, and other local (rich-country) posts.
>
> But once big enough, it happens often than 80% of received money get
> spent on structural posts ("we are big, we need a central office; we
> need permanent staff; we need efficient advertisement to collect more
> money; our directing board needs accommodations for planes & hotels
> worldwide; we need to rent exposition centres to achieve better
> knowledge of our actions in our donators... ")
>


This is why I give my charity money to people living on the street, directly.

they need to get drunk to get to sleep then my money is doing some good.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 12:31, Stephen wrote:

> This is why I give my charity money to people living on the street, directly.

> they need to get drunk to get to sleep then my money is doing some good.
>
>
Indeed. I gave to a small local commerce selling biological food and 
which was in financial difficulty. They started a local crowd funding to 
keep on running. I thought that a worthwhile spending.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> biological food

I love how nonsensically redundant new-age terminology is.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-08-02 03:19, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> On 2-8-2013 8:14, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>
>> Every works is worth a rewards.
>> The charity should be inspired rather by the saying (guess the book ?):
>> "if you give a man a fish, he will eat one day. If you learn a man to
>> fish, he will eat every days".
>> Charity for day one is ok, but long-term repetition of the same action
>> become counter-productive if the charity is true to itself.
>
> Exactly so indeed. As you may have guessed, I am quite critical about
> charities as most blindly just go on distributing fish without providing
> the fishing poles. I may be exaggerating some, but not much. It has been
> the policies of ngo's in the past, and it is the policy of IMF.
>
> Thomas
>

And even then, some of those fish are left on the port loading dock to 
rot because those charities haven't thought about the logistics* of 
ditributing the fish to the people in need.

*which usually include spreading vitamin Z here and there.
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>
> Maybe, maybe they still need more and higher quality food, tools,
> repairs to their home, vaccinations etc before considering imported
> luxury goods.
>

Try telling that to Mugabe.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

"scott"  wrote in message news:51fb7635$1@news.povray.org...

>> How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend?

> Enough to support a local textile industry. If they get free clothes where 
> does that money then go that previously supported the textile industry? If 
> it stays locally (eg food, tools, education) then it's not easy to argue 
> the local economy will be badly affected.

The money spent on textiles disappears along with the textile market. The 
money generated by the textile market no longer exists. It cannot be spent 
on medicine or education because it's GONE. These people aren't receiving an 
allowance.

The rules of money can unfortunately be (temporarily) bent, but money is 
fundamentally a placeholder for debt. No need ... no market ... no exchange 
... no debt ... no money.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot"  wrote in message news:51fb60ab$1@news.povray.org...
> - Ban the dumping of goods, food, etc in the third world.
> - Stop the IMF from dumping loans in the third world.
> - Critically assess what /exactly/ the net results of providing 
> micro-credits are, and /how/ they are provided. All is not well there.
> - The western countries being the world leaders in armament production 
> should stop exporting them (or dumping older versions). This is utopia, I 
> know.
> - we have replaced colonialism by a subtle form of neocolonialism in some 
> countries.

> I probably could go on a while by mentioning mineral resources...

That is a perfectly valid answer to the question as I asked it, but it 
illustrates a difference in our vernaculars: I include NONE of the 
organizations responsible for those policies when I say "we." The IMF et al. 
are "they."

Not that I can completely deny my own culpability for *their* actions.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

>>> How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend?
>
>> Enough to support a local textile industry. If they get free clothes
>> where does that money then go that previously supported the textile
>> industry? If it stays locally (eg food, tools, education) then it's
>> not easy to argue the local economy will be badly affected.
>
> The money spent on textiles disappears along with the textile market.
> The money generated by the textile market no longer exists. It cannot be
> spent on medicine or education because it's GONE.

And then, now that everyone has clothes, who says another market won't 
open up or grow that would generate even more money than the textile 
industry did? I'm not saying that will certainly happen, but it's a bit 
short-sighted to not consider that possibility.

Post a reply to this message

"scott"  wrote in message news:51fbab51$1@news.povray.org...

> And then, now that everyone has clothes, who says another market won't 
> open up or grow that would generate even more money than the textile 
> industry did? I'm not saying that will certainly happen, but it's a bit 
> short-sighted to not consider that possibility.

It might. The question is whether we, the relatively powerful, should stomp 
mud holes in fragile economies. Examine the track record and come to your 
own conclusions, but don't off-handedly reject the premise of the original 
post: Throwing free stuff into markets can and has caused suffering, and we 
should think carefully before doing so.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
> opposed to it.

I think we completely agree on this point.

One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck choosing 
between using illegal software and giving up access to (most) media. Would 
be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.

> Definitely, but hardware is actually a thing, not just a number like
> software. Same for books.

I've heard this from a lot of people, but the only distinction I see is 
this: Words, ones, and zeroes can be manufactured by the poor; (most) 
physical goods cannot. The problem is that both are making $$$$ for 
/somebody/, but, in the case of words, ones, and zeroes, the manufacturer is 
too easily excluded from that $$$$.

> And finally, please keep in mind that money is in no way an accurate
> representation of invested effort, wealth or happyness. It has lost this
> property long ago. Nowadays even money is just a number.

It makes me happy to dig ditches (seriously), but I know that digging free 
ditches for a megacorp would put someone out of work and increase wealth 
disparity.

Post a reply to this message