4 ms·

Instead you would "rely" on a politician taxing his voters. Which he will be doing because his notion of "profit" is not measured in dollars but in votes. In o

by vog 16y ago

Instead you would "rely" on a politician taxing his voters. Which he will be doing because his notion of "profit" is not measured in dollars but in votes. In other words, the politician invests taxes where "we" want them to. So the proper question is not whether some politician wants to help poor nations, but whether we want to help them. And that's quite a fair question, which is of a much higher quality than the question whether some individual (billionaire) wants to help them. (After all, taxes are our money and politicians are "just" managing it for us.)

gaius 16y ago
Well, no, not really. This is another aspect of the last government's spending patterns: they measured "success" or "progress" in terms of how much they spent, not the end result. Jo(e) Voter can be told spending a billion on aid is good; he perhaps doesn't see that half of that goes to well-paid quango employees back home, and the other half into a dictator's Swiss bank account. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, on the other hand, is completely focussed on outcomes.
kiba 16y ago
If it is so important to help poor nations, why don't people just vote with their money instead of having to vote in pandering politicians who will nonetheless squander the money? I mean, at worst, only 51% will get their money spent on things they thought are great noble causes.(Let just assume that every Noble Cause is important) That's not taking into consideration on weather the politicians are managing it wisely.
- vog 16y ago
  > why don't people just vote with their money It would be really great if that was possible. However, we can't simply buy "$1 worth of helping poor nations" in the way we buy products in the supermarket. And that's why we can't "vote" with our money. (The appearance of micro payments might change that, though.) So we have to trust some organization with the money, and that leads to exactly the same issues of trust. However, the government is under greater pressure and control than most other organizations. Or, at least they should, in a democracy. So trusting them with the money is not worse than trusting any other help organization with the money - except, of course, when you know the people of the help organization personally. But most people don't have such connections.
  - kiba 16y ago
    With private charities, at least I can move my money around or start my own. Beside, democracies suck in actuality. Theory doesn't mean much of anything if they don't work in reality. The Californians vote for programs but not for higher taxes. There are whole lot of lobbying that's going on. Who have time to read thousand pages bills made by congressmen?

by vog 16y ago

gaius 16y ago

Well, no, not really. This is another aspect of the last government's spending patterns: they measured "success" or "progress" in terms of how much they spent, not the end result. Jo(e) Voter can be told spending a billion on aid is good; he perhaps doesn't see that half of that goes to well-paid quango employees back home, and the other half into a dictator's Swiss bank account. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, on the other hand, is completely focussed on outcomes.

kiba 16y ago

If it is so important to help poor nations, why don't people just vote with their money instead of having to vote in pandering politicians who will nonetheless squander the money? I mean, at worst, only 51% will get their money spent on things they thought are great noble causes.(Let just assume that every Noble Cause is important) That's not taking into consideration on weather the politicians are managing it wisely.

vog 16y ago
> why don't people just vote with their money It would be really great if that was possible. However, we can't simply buy "$1 worth of helping poor nations" in the way we buy products in the supermarket. And that's why we can't "vote" with our money. (The appearance of micro payments might change that, though.) So we have to trust some organization with the money, and that leads to exactly the same issues of trust. However, the government is under greater pressure and control than most other organizations. Or, at least they should, in a democracy. So trusting them with the money is not worse than trusting any other help organization with the money - except, of course, when you know the people of the help organization personally. But most people don't have such connections.
- kiba 16y ago
  With private charities, at least I can move my money around or start my own. Beside, democracies suck in actuality. Theory doesn't mean much of anything if they don't work in reality. The Californians vote for programs but not for higher taxes. There are whole lot of lobbying that's going on. Who have time to read thousand pages bills made by congressmen?