4 ms·

Progress is real. Who is driving that progress? Is it the global elite in general, is it a handful of rich people who do actually make a difference, or are thei

Progress is real. Who is driving that progress? Is it the global elite in general, is it a handful of rich people who do actually make a difference, or are their efforts just noise and something else is driving the progress? I genuinely don't know; hoping someone has the data.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
I'm thinking it's a mix of government action, organizations like the UN / UNESCO and the Red Cross, and both governments and donators that donate to said organizations so that they can do their work without needing to scrounge for money.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Many of these large governmental or bureaucratic organizations suffer from extreme inefficiency and ineptitude. The Red Cross's complete failings in Haiti have been widely reported. NPR ran a particularly scathing report [1] on it that includes nothing short of quite forward allegations of fraud. The Red Cross, for their part, make claims about what they did and provide extremely high level claimed expenditures, but then refuse to provide specific details of programs and costs. As the article mentions when you donate to the Red Cross first they immediately take a cut of that money for themselves. Then its distributed to other charities which then take an administrative cut. And then in carrying out the program there are more 'administrative' cuts. In one program NPR reviewed, administrative costs alone ate up 1/3rd of all donations. Later in the article the Red Cross, upon discovering NPR is investigating their efforts, sends an email to NPR suggesting that, 'NPR and ProPublica were "creating ill will in the community, which may give rise to a security incident.. We will hold you and your news organizations fully responsible." When the Red Cross says things like it "provided homes" for more than 130,000 Haitians - they include among those 130,000 "people who went to a seminar on how to fix their own homes, people who received temporary rental assistance, and thousands of people who received temporary shelters — which start to disintegrate after three to five years." In total the Red Cross's half a billion dollars in Haiti ended up creating 6 permanent homes. And this sort of inaction is not an isolated incident. [1] - https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    Large corporations are inefficient also. People work all day sewing clothes but all the profits are siphoned off by foreign capitalists.
- Retric 8y ago
  In 1990, more than 60% of people in East Asia were in extreme poverty. The dramatic shift had little to do with the UN/UNESCO or Red Cross and a lot to do with local governments not failing as hard as they did 50 years ago.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  You must be kidding. These elements are minor contributors. By far and large the opening of the world to free markets is what has solved many of these issues. If what you claim was true, then we would have solved poverty 40 years ago already. Just look at China and South-East Asia in general. They are coming out of poverty by becoming rich, not because someone is parachuting goods every day.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    > not because someone is parachuting goods every day. Charity of that sort arguably undermines local economies and makes people dependent on future charity. That's why poverty is better addressed by supporting free markets.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Yes, we totally agree on that. Free markets give an incentive for individuals to work for themselves.
hkmurakami 8y ago
Wrt polio, that's a Rotary International led effort, which is a very dispersed organization with 1.2 million members around the world contributing time and money to various causes. "Rotary, along with our partners, has reduced polio cases by 99.9 percent worldwide since our first project to vaccinate children in the Philippines in 1979. We are close to eradicating polio, but we need your help. Whether you have a few minutes or a few hours, here are some ways to make a global impact and protect children against polio forever." https://my.rotary.org/en/take-action/end-polio https://my.rotary.org/en/take-action/end-polio
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I don't think there is any one-size-fits-all answer, but one major contributor is rarely given credit -- nuclear weapons. Bear with me, I'm serious. When you look back at our history war is nearly always the cause for the greatest suffering. It causes starvation, 'involuntary migration', and so many other things. Whatever has been built up in an area, it does a wonderful job of tearing down. Look at Libya for one of the most stark contemporary examples. Libya was steadily developing and seeing increased prosperity as a model of what Africa could become. Now, it's been reduced to neglected, unstable, and impoverished rubble since we 'freed' them. And this didn't used to just be a story of Mideastern nations. This was the story of the world. The one thing that changed this was nukes. Mutually assured destruction is why the Cold War is now called the Cold War, and not World War 3. And it's why direct unrestrained confrontation between developed nations has really become a thing of the past. Countries like China would never have been able to develop if not for the peace and stability that nuclear weapons have enabled. We can even look to nations like India. It's surreal to imagine that until 1947 that entire nation was just a property of the British Empire. Even the notion of a British Empire is surreal! But now that they have gained their independence and are a nuclear nation, they are also gradually increasing in prosperity as Indian decisions are being made to put Indians first. And as a nuclear power their decisions, independence, and developments are all effectively guaranteed, at least until we develop technology that can effectively render nukes harmless. Like so many things in life, some of the greatest progress comes not from directed efforts, but from paradoxical places you would never even imagine to look in the pursuit of your goal.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

I'm thinking it's a mix of government action, organizations like the UN / UNESCO and the Red Cross, and both governments and donators that donate to said organizations so that they can do their work without needing to scrounge for money.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Many of these large governmental or bureaucratic organizations suffer from extreme inefficiency and ineptitude. The Red Cross's complete failings in Haiti have been widely reported. NPR ran a particularly scathing report [1] on it that includes nothing short of quite forward allegations of fraud. The Red Cross, for their part, make claims about what they did and provide extremely high level claimed expenditures, but then refuse to provide specific details of programs and costs. As the article mentions when you donate to the Red Cross first they immediately take a cut of that money for themselves. Then its distributed to other charities which then take an administrative cut. And then in carrying out the program there are more 'administrative' cuts. In one program NPR reviewed, administrative costs alone ate up 1/3rd of all donations. Later in the article the Red Cross, upon discovering NPR is investigating their efforts, sends an email to NPR suggesting that, 'NPR and ProPublica were "creating ill will in the community, which may give rise to a security incident.. We will hold you and your news organizations fully responsible." When the Red Cross says things like it "provided homes" for more than 130,000 Haitians - they include among those 130,000 "people who went to a seminar on how to fix their own homes, people who received temporary rental assistance, and thousands of people who received temporary shelters — which start to disintegrate after three to five years." In total the Red Cross's half a billion dollars in Haiti ended up creating 6 permanent homes. And this sort of inaction is not an isolated incident. [1] - https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Large corporations are inefficient also. People work all day sewing clothes but all the profits are siphoned off by foreign capitalists.
Retric 8y ago
In 1990, more than 60% of people in East Asia were in extreme poverty. The dramatic shift had little to do with the UN/UNESCO or Red Cross and a lot to do with local governments not failing as hard as they did 50 years ago.
ekianjo 8y ago
You must be kidding. These elements are minor contributors. By far and large the opening of the world to free markets is what has solved many of these issues. If what you claim was true, then we would have solved poverty 40 years ago already. Just look at China and South-East Asia in general. They are coming out of poverty by becoming rich, not because someone is parachuting goods every day.
- goatlover 8y ago
  > not because someone is parachuting goods every day. Charity of that sort arguably undermines local economies and makes people dependent on future charity. That's why poverty is better addressed by supporting free markets.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Yes, we totally agree on that. Free markets give an incentive for individuals to work for themselves.

hkmurakami 8y ago

Wrt polio, that's a Rotary International led effort, which is a very dispersed organization with 1.2 million members around the world contributing time and money to various causes. "Rotary, along with our partners, has reduced polio cases by 99.9 percent worldwide since our first project to vaccinate children in the Philippines in 1979. We are close to eradicating polio, but we need your help. Whether you have a few minutes or a few hours, here are some ways to make a global impact and protect children against polio forever." https://my.rotary.org/en/take-action/end-polio https://my.rotary.org/en/take-action/end-polio

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

I don't think there is any one-size-fits-all answer, but one major contributor is rarely given credit -- nuclear weapons. Bear with me, I'm serious. When you look back at our history war is nearly always the cause for the greatest suffering. It causes starvation, 'involuntary migration', and so many other things. Whatever has been built up in an area, it does a wonderful job of tearing down. Look at Libya for one of the most stark contemporary examples. Libya was steadily developing and seeing increased prosperity as a model of what Africa could become. Now, it's been reduced to neglected, unstable, and impoverished rubble since we 'freed' them. And this didn't used to just be a story of Mideastern nations. This was the story of the world. The one thing that changed this was nukes. Mutually assured destruction is why the Cold War is now called the Cold War, and not World War 3. And it's why direct unrestrained confrontation between developed nations has really become a thing of the past. Countries like China would never have been able to develop if not for the peace and stability that nuclear weapons have enabled. We can even look to nations like India. It's surreal to imagine that until 1947 that entire nation was just a property of the British Empire. Even the notion of a British Empire is surreal! But now that they have gained their independence and are a nuclear nation, they are also gradually increasing in prosperity as Indian decisions are being made to put Indians first. And as a nuclear power their decisions, independence, and developments are all effectively guaranteed, at least until we develop technology that can effectively render nukes harmless. Like so many things in life, some of the greatest progress comes not from directed efforts, but from paradoxical places you would never even imagine to look in the pursuit of your goal.