3 ms·

I would encourage everyone to read "When Helping Hurts". It lays out why it is bad for Americans' first response to throw money at an international problem. So

I would encourage everyone to read "When Helping Hurts". It lays out why it is bad for Americans' first response to throw money at an international problem. Some of the reasons why we should be slow to give money: We should encourage self-empowerment. If there are local laborers who can clean up after a natural disaster, we should empower them to help their community We should avoid short term solutions. Instead of donating a super expensive tractor to a farming community that can't maintain it, donate a tractor that they can maintain We should strengthen the community. Instead of sending a Dr to heal people across the world, send a Dr to train local Dr's who heal the locals And, to be clear, the model of being thoughtful of where and how to give is much harder than giving money. This is not a cop out

ALittleLight 5y ago
I've heard a similar idea with giving free food to an area. Influx of free food puts local farmers out of work - they can't compete with free. When the charity dwindles the former farmers can't spin up their production in time and famine reoccurs.
mxkopy 5y ago
>We should encourage self-empowerment. If there are local laborers who can clean up after a natural disaster, we should empower them to help their community Usually, though, this empowerment is just giving them money. >Instead of sending a Dr to heal people across the world, send a Dr to train local Dr's who heal the locals Similarly, subsidizing study-abroad programs could have a similar effect. I agree that stupidly giving out money is exactly that, stupid. But let's not let the pendulum swing too far the other way - the solution, much of the time, is giving out money, wisely. EDIT: I say the solution is to give out money much of the time because money offers freedom in ways that a good tractor doesn't; moreover, we might not know the comparative need of tractors vs doctors at as high a resolution or in as nuanced a way as the locals do, considering that we haven't lived where they have for X amount of years. Money lets them allocate according to their needs in real time and as specifically as they want. Of course this assumes the people that the money is going to is in the best interests of the people in general, and that's where wisdom and discretion come into play.
tasty_freeze 5y ago
I agree with everything you said, and so does Singer. But I want to point out that a large part of Singer's book is about "effective altruism", giving in a way that helps. He talks about how the shallow analysis of Charity Navigator focuses mainly on operational overhead, while a few charity evaluation sites have boots on the ground to study how the charity is using its spending and measuring results. See the "Best Charities" link on the site below: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/ https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/

ALittleLight 5y ago

I've heard a similar idea with giving free food to an area. Influx of free food puts local farmers out of work - they can't compete with free. When the charity dwindles the former farmers can't spin up their production in time and famine reoccurs.

mxkopy 5y ago

>We should encourage self-empowerment. If there are local laborers who can clean up after a natural disaster, we should empower them to help their community Usually, though, this empowerment is just giving them money. >Instead of sending a Dr to heal people across the world, send a Dr to train local Dr's who heal the locals Similarly, subsidizing study-abroad programs could have a similar effect. I agree that stupidly giving out money is exactly that, stupid. But let's not let the pendulum swing too far the other way - the solution, much of the time, is giving out money, wisely. EDIT: I say the solution is to give out money much of the time because money offers freedom in ways that a good tractor doesn't; moreover, we might not know the comparative need of tractors vs doctors at as high a resolution or in as nuanced a way as the locals do, considering that we haven't lived where they have for X amount of years. Money lets them allocate according to their needs in real time and as specifically as they want. Of course this assumes the people that the money is going to is in the best interests of the people in general, and that's where wisdom and discretion come into play.

tasty_freeze 5y ago

I agree with everything you said, and so does Singer. But I want to point out that a large part of Singer's book is about "effective altruism", giving in a way that helps. He talks about how the shallow analysis of Charity Navigator focuses mainly on operational overhead, while a few charity evaluation sites have boots on the ground to study how the charity is using its spending and measuring results. See the "Best Charities" link on the site below: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/ https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/