3 ms·

Government redistribution can have in well-run countries handling cost around 3-5%; too many charities are closer to 15%. The charity costs include publicity a

by rfrey 16y ago

Government redistribution can have in well-run countries handling cost around 3-5%; too many charities are closer to 15%. The charity costs include publicity and fundraising drives. To make apples-to-apples comparison you'd have to include the cost of the IRS infrastructure and the cost to society of the entire tax collection and avoidance machine. Government handles essential concerns That this is not self-evident is, well, self-evident. Much criticism of government spending is around governments focussing on whatever lobby yells loudest, while charities are market driven: i.e. they fill actual needs that someone sees in the community. A lot of local leaders in Africa have criticized the B&M Gates Foundation for being too disruptive for the good of beneficiaries. A lot of local leaders in Africa do considerably less well under a privately allocated distribution than they do from government aid.

hugh3 16y ago
Yeah, given that a lot of Africa's "local leaders" are a major part of Africa's problems I'm disinclined to believe what they say.
bertil 16y ago
> include the cost of the IRS infrastructure Nope: what matters is marginal costs and raising rates isn't nearly as expensive and cash-burning as “awareness” campaign. > whatever lobby yells loudest, while charities are market driven That statement appears self-contradictory to me. Lobbies introduce market concerns to a generally one-man-one-vote representative democratic process. My point about Africa is not about who should be labelled a leader or a government: it is that development doesn't need just money, it needs institutions, education, trust… Things that take time; things with massive externalities. Throwing billions like fastballs won't help anyone from benefitting from those. Do you think that William Kamkwamba (the heavily publicized boy who couldn't go to school, yet made a windmill himself) needs 10k$ or 100M$, or does he need roads, electricity, running water to his village? Of all the hundreds of charities that offered to help him, none suggested infrastructure. Local government are deeply corrupted, but all state-sponsored projects seem far more relevant for me, albeit less photogenic.

by rfrey 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

Yeah, given that a lot of Africa's "local leaders" are a major part of Africa's problems I'm disinclined to believe what they say.

bertil 16y ago

> include the cost of the IRS infrastructure Nope: what matters is marginal costs and raising rates isn't nearly as expensive and cash-burning as “awareness” campaign. > whatever lobby yells loudest, while charities are market driven That statement appears self-contradictory to me. Lobbies introduce market concerns to a generally one-man-one-vote representative democratic process. My point about Africa is not about who should be labelled a leader or a government: it is that development doesn't need just money, it needs institutions, education, trust… Things that take time; things with massive externalities. Throwing billions like fastballs won't help anyone from benefitting from those. Do you think that William Kamkwamba (the heavily publicized boy who couldn't go to school, yet made a windmill himself) needs 10k$ or 100M$, or does he need roads, electricity, running water to his village? Of all the hundreds of charities that offered to help him, none suggested infrastructure. Local government are deeply corrupted, but all state-sponsored projects seem far more relevant for me, albeit less photogenic.