5 ms·

Doctors without a frontier? It's sad though, I think many europeans would like to donate money for people in need, but when you find out things like this ... A

Doctors without a frontier? It's sad though, I think many europeans would like to donate money for people in need, but when you find out things like this ... Americans really managed to ruin this as well.

jacalata 9y ago
Already said in this thread, but to make sure you see it: > The American Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross are independent organizations, with very different reputations.
austinheap 9y ago
Charities around the world are run unethically. It's far from an American-exclusive thing.
- orf 9y ago
  Sure, but the extent of it seems to be American exclusive. Are there not a bunch of cancer charities that simply do nothing but enrich the owners?
  - thechao 9y ago
    Perhaps Americans are more diligent in tracking down bad actors?
    - vkou 9y ago
      Americans give more money to charities, because the services they tend to provide are provided by governments in Europe. Hence, there's more charities, more attention given to them, etc.
MistahKoala 9y ago
Mystified as to why you seem to think this is in some way an American problem. We have lots of fake charities in the EU.
- jopsen 9y ago
  In the EU charities aren't as big... Or as well branded. At least not the sketchy ones. Most big charities I know in the EU have good records... Particularly the state-sponsored ones. - to be fair I could be uninformed :)
  - mcv 9y ago
    Some EU charities are huge. The Red Cross has branches everywhere in the EU. Greenpeace's main office is in Netherland. Those are two massive brands.
  - MistahKoala 9y ago
    I don't think that's at all true. There are many large organisations that spend a significant amount on staffing and marketing, masquerading as charities. The state-sponsored ones are some of the worst, as they're recycling taxpayers' money to lobby the governments that pay them, with a revolving door of lucrative executive and lobbying jobs keeping it all afloat.

jacalata 9y ago

Already said in this thread, but to make sure you see it: > The American Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross are independent organizations, with very different reputations.

austinheap 9y ago

Charities around the world are run unethically. It's far from an American-exclusive thing.

orf 9y ago
Sure, but the extent of it seems to be American exclusive. Are there not a bunch of cancer charities that simply do nothing but enrich the owners?
- thechao 9y ago
  Perhaps Americans are more diligent in tracking down bad actors?
  - vkou 9y ago
    Americans give more money to charities, because the services they tend to provide are provided by governments in Europe. Hence, there's more charities, more attention given to them, etc.

MistahKoala 9y ago

Mystified as to why you seem to think this is in some way an American problem. We have lots of fake charities in the EU.

jopsen 9y ago
In the EU charities aren't as big... Or as well branded. At least not the sketchy ones. Most big charities I know in the EU have good records... Particularly the state-sponsored ones. - to be fair I could be uninformed :)
- mcv 9y ago
  Some EU charities are huge. The Red Cross has branches everywhere in the EU. Greenpeace's main office is in Netherland. Those are two massive brands.
- MistahKoala 9y ago
  I don't think that's at all true. There are many large organisations that spend a significant amount on staffing and marketing, masquerading as charities. The state-sponsored ones are some of the worst, as they're recycling taxpayers' money to lobby the governments that pay them, with a revolving door of lucrative executive and lobbying jobs keeping it all afloat.