5 ms·

There is an interesting book called Lords of Poverty from Graham Hancock. It's from 80s when he used to work as a correspondent for the Economist in Africa. He

There is an interesting book called Lords of Poverty from Graham Hancock. It's from 80s when he used to work as a correspondent for the Economist in Africa. He claims that foreign aid and charities that raise tons of money from Western people for different projects in Africa are a total waste of money. The amount of corruption and waste is so huge that majority of the money people from US or EU donate ends up going directly to local strongmen who buy new cars etc and almost none of the money ends with the people it was intended for. This is why I don't donate to charities. I believe for every dollar I would donate perhaps $0.1 would actually reach the destination and be spent on helping people. I'd rather donate directly to people in need after I meet them and can see that they are legit and there aren't several layers of middlemen leaching off the donated money.

bkmartin 9y ago
Check out charitywater.org I had the same concerns, but these guys are legit and get it done for the people who need it.
scandox 9y ago
He currently gets quite a roasting on Wikipedia for his "unscientific theories". It does appear his main interest after that book is The Orion Correlation Theory and let's say "exciting" Archaeology.
- richardknop 9y ago
  Yeah he is otherwise famous for his "alternative" archeology with books like Fingerprints of the Gods etc. Which by the way is a great book and although there is a lot of outlandish claims I wouldn't say it's totally crazy. Nothing wrong with speculating and exploring non mainstream ideas. But I still think Lords of Poverty is a legitimate book and he had a lot of on the ground experience in Africa to observe how foreign aid is distributed and wasted. So I don't like dismissing his earlier work even if you find his later, let's say fictional work, dubious.
  - scandox 9y ago
    My instincts about International Charity / NGOs are the same as yours. However I'm not willing to easily accept that instinct since it is potentially self-serving. I think that we have to consider if a book written in 1989 can still be considered useful information and we also have to consider the writer's commitment to intellectual and factual rigour.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      Fair enough. But since your instincts are same would you not consider donating money directly to selected people in need you meet in real life or while traveling? Or going to do charity directly yourself to actually make a real change? I have friends who quit their jobs and went to third world countries and worked for charities on the ground for 6 months or so. This seems way better than giving money to some organization which claims it will spend it to help those people. Not sure if Occam's razor applies here but given how much money is being funneled to charities and foreign aid and how little has been actually achieved it seems likely to me that the money is being wasted, probably ending up in hands of corrupt local officials and strongmen most likely.
  - simonh 9y ago
    I loved reading Fingerprints of the Gods, but it’s utter tosh. I’ve also seen him on TV shows and I wouldn’t trust a single thing in any book the guy has ever written. He shows complete and utter disregard for plain proof that any of his theories must be wrong. Any and all counter evidence is merely ‘one data point’ while even the flimsiest, most contrived point in his favour is strong or convincing evidence. He’s very entertaining and obviously a clever guy, but utterly unreliable.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      Well, there is a sequel called Magicians of the Gods. I also wouldn't trust him too much but I'm willing to entertain interesting theories, nothing wrong with that. I especially liked his work on Sphinx erosion patterns in Egypt together with Dr Robert M Schoch from Boston University (and I am not saying we should overthrow the ancient Egyptian history based one factor like erosion pattern but it is intriguing). Another interesting thing is the newly discovered 11,500 years old Gobekli Tepe, which is really interesting. I enjoy reading stuff like this in my leisure time or during long flights. Doesn't mean I trust it completely of course ;)
- scrollaway 9y ago
  He is not the only one to make that point though. de Mesquita is less controversial and makes the same point in The Dictator's Handbook.
orcdork 9y ago
I'm not sure that true. As in - not true at all, unless you really want to believe it to be true. No, 70% of foreign aid is not 'stolen off the top' http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2017/jan/17/rand-paul/no-70-foreign-aid-not-stolen-top/ http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2017/jan/17... How Much Aid is Really Lost to Corruption? https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-much-aid-really-lost-corruption https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-much-aid-really-lost-corrupti... Where does aid money really go -- and what is it spent on? http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/09/opinion/where-does-aid-money-really-go/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/09/opinion/where-does-aid-mon... While there are large issues on the way foreign aid is distributed, including corruption and more recently local NGOs being sidelined, it's nowhere near close to your "perhaps $0.1" estimate of reaching locals. The idea that almost all the assistance is wasted is not only untrue, but harmful.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  Those statistics don't include the amount of money spent fund-raising for more money, e.g. the big ones can spent almost a third of their fund raising on more fund raising: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03113/Charities_3113867a.JPG http://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03113/Charitie... I'm not a fan of funding more chuggers on my high street. And then how much is spent on the head office, and the executive pay and a whole load of other things that get hidden in a bunch of different buckets?
  - JoBrad 9y ago
    Most charities file a 990 that includes a calculation of how much money they spend on fundraising relative to how much they raised, for example.
    - collinmanderson 9y ago
      looks like 6% fundraising for red cross, highest paid employee is $600k. https://p.widencdn.net/wmrybb/FY-2016-Form-990 https://p.widencdn.net/wmrybb/FY-2016-Form-990 (linked from http://www.redcross.org/about-us/who-we-are/governance http://www.redcross.org/about-us/who-we-are/governance )
leonroy 9y ago
> This is why I don't donate to charities. I believe for every dollar I would donate perhaps $0.1 would actually reach the destination and be spent on helping people. I'd rather donate directly to people in need after I meet them and can see that they are legit and there aren't several layers of middlemen leaching off the donated money. Sorry to pick on one point but isn't that throwing the baby out with the bath water? Let's Encrypt, Liberty, Khan Academy, Wikipedia, Seed Bank are a few of the charities I regularly donate to. I can understand not volunteering for humanitarian relief which is supposed to end up halfway across the world in some poorly governed LEDC but there are a lot of worthy causes which are well run.
- Retric 9y ago
  Wikipedia is a horrible charity if you look at how they spend their money. They get a huge income stream relative to what they use for the website.
  - ericmason 9y ago
    Citation? https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...
RobertoG 9y ago
"This is why I don't donate to charities." If that worry you so much, there are more direct and accountable charities available. I would recommend Watsi(1) (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watsi (I'm not affiliate with them except as a donor.)

bkmartin 9y ago

Check out charitywater.org I had the same concerns, but these guys are legit and get it done for the people who need it.

scandox 9y ago

He currently gets quite a roasting on Wikipedia for his "unscientific theories". It does appear his main interest after that book is The Orion Correlation Theory and let's say "exciting" Archaeology.

richardknop 9y ago
Yeah he is otherwise famous for his "alternative" archeology with books like Fingerprints of the Gods etc. Which by the way is a great book and although there is a lot of outlandish claims I wouldn't say it's totally crazy. Nothing wrong with speculating and exploring non mainstream ideas. But I still think Lords of Poverty is a legitimate book and he had a lot of on the ground experience in Africa to observe how foreign aid is distributed and wasted. So I don't like dismissing his earlier work even if you find his later, let's say fictional work, dubious.
- scandox 9y ago
  My instincts about International Charity / NGOs are the same as yours. However I'm not willing to easily accept that instinct since it is potentially self-serving. I think that we have to consider if a book written in 1989 can still be considered useful information and we also have to consider the writer's commitment to intellectual and factual rigour.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    Fair enough. But since your instincts are same would you not consider donating money directly to selected people in need you meet in real life or while traveling? Or going to do charity directly yourself to actually make a real change? I have friends who quit their jobs and went to third world countries and worked for charities on the ground for 6 months or so. This seems way better than giving money to some organization which claims it will spend it to help those people. Not sure if Occam's razor applies here but given how much money is being funneled to charities and foreign aid and how little has been actually achieved it seems likely to me that the money is being wasted, probably ending up in hands of corrupt local officials and strongmen most likely.
- simonh 9y ago
  I loved reading Fingerprints of the Gods, but it’s utter tosh. I’ve also seen him on TV shows and I wouldn’t trust a single thing in any book the guy has ever written. He shows complete and utter disregard for plain proof that any of his theories must be wrong. Any and all counter evidence is merely ‘one data point’ while even the flimsiest, most contrived point in his favour is strong or convincing evidence. He’s very entertaining and obviously a clever guy, but utterly unreliable.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    Well, there is a sequel called Magicians of the Gods. I also wouldn't trust him too much but I'm willing to entertain interesting theories, nothing wrong with that. I especially liked his work on Sphinx erosion patterns in Egypt together with Dr Robert M Schoch from Boston University (and I am not saying we should overthrow the ancient Egyptian history based one factor like erosion pattern but it is intriguing). Another interesting thing is the newly discovered 11,500 years old Gobekli Tepe, which is really interesting. I enjoy reading stuff like this in my leisure time or during long flights. Doesn't mean I trust it completely of course ;)
scrollaway 9y ago
He is not the only one to make that point though. de Mesquita is less controversial and makes the same point in The Dictator's Handbook.

orcdork 9y ago

I'm not sure that true. As in - not true at all, unless you really want to believe it to be true. No, 70% of foreign aid is not 'stolen off the top' http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2017/jan/17/rand-paul/no-70-foreign-aid-not-stolen-top/ http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2017/jan/17... How Much Aid is Really Lost to Corruption? https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-much-aid-really-lost-corruption https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-much-aid-really-lost-corrupti... Where does aid money really go -- and what is it spent on? http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/09/opinion/where-does-aid-money-really-go/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/09/opinion/where-does-aid-mon... While there are large issues on the way foreign aid is distributed, including corruption and more recently local NGOs being sidelined, it's nowhere near close to your "perhaps $0.1" estimate of reaching locals. The idea that almost all the assistance is wasted is not only untrue, but harmful.

mattmanser 9y ago
Those statistics don't include the amount of money spent fund-raising for more money, e.g. the big ones can spent almost a third of their fund raising on more fund raising: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03113/Charities_3113867a.JPG http://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03113/Charitie... I'm not a fan of funding more chuggers on my high street. And then how much is spent on the head office, and the executive pay and a whole load of other things that get hidden in a bunch of different buckets?
- JoBrad 9y ago
  Most charities file a 990 that includes a calculation of how much money they spend on fundraising relative to how much they raised, for example.
  - collinmanderson 9y ago
    looks like 6% fundraising for red cross, highest paid employee is $600k. https://p.widencdn.net/wmrybb/FY-2016-Form-990 https://p.widencdn.net/wmrybb/FY-2016-Form-990 (linked from http://www.redcross.org/about-us/who-we-are/governance http://www.redcross.org/about-us/who-we-are/governance )

leonroy 9y ago

> This is why I don't donate to charities. I believe for every dollar I would donate perhaps $0.1 would actually reach the destination and be spent on helping people. I'd rather donate directly to people in need after I meet them and can see that they are legit and there aren't several layers of middlemen leaching off the donated money. Sorry to pick on one point but isn't that throwing the baby out with the bath water? Let's Encrypt, Liberty, Khan Academy, Wikipedia, Seed Bank are a few of the charities I regularly donate to. I can understand not volunteering for humanitarian relief which is supposed to end up halfway across the world in some poorly governed LEDC but there are a lot of worthy causes which are well run.

Retric 9y ago
Wikipedia is a horrible charity if you look at how they spend their money. They get a huge income stream relative to what they use for the website.
- ericmason 9y ago
  Citation? https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...

RobertoG 9y ago

"This is why I don't donate to charities." If that worry you so much, there are more direct and accountable charities available. I would recommend Watsi(1) (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watsi (I'm not affiliate with them except as a donor.)