3 ms·

The grandparent spoke of corruption. In your comment you ignored the corruption comment and instead commented how your community had benefited and that therefor

The grandparent spoke of corruption. In your comment you ignored the corruption comment and instead commented how your community had benefited and that therefore you supported the organization. By not addressing the corruption it could be interpreted that you're okay with corruption as long as you benefit from it. Was that your intention?

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
alleged, unsubstantiated corruption, is that what you meant to write?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 3y ago
  Ehh, the Red Cross’s budget is 3 Billion and they spend 670 million on disaster relief and 360 million on admin. If your goal is to support disaster relief then they are an inefficient use of your resources. However, they also run blood drives and then sell the blood which is part of their overall budget independent of donations. $921 million is just salaries for people running blood drives, with similar expenses for overhead on supplies and equipment.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    In fairness, internal combustion engines are an inefficient use of resources. They just happen to be the best option. It is basically impossible to design an organisation that directs resources to economically unproductive people. $700 / $3,000 going to the right spot could be reasonably effective. I mean, at least the Red Cross won't take a fraction of the money and use it to fund ruinous, murderous and pointless rampages across Afghanistan. So they're doing better than the US government. And I think they might be outperforming the major churches for number of abuse scandals although that sort of thing is hard to measure. So it is less efficient than personally doing something locally, but if the local community is going OK then I could imagine the Red Cross might be the next best alternative.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Spending only $700 out of $3000 on the stated mission is doing a decent job, since when?
      - Retric 3y ago
        They aren’t allocating 2/3 of monetary donations to blood drives. Running blood drives is a major part of their mission, it’s also largely self sustaining because they are selling the blood.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

alleged, unsubstantiated corruption, is that what you meant to write?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Retric 3y ago
Ehh, the Red Cross’s budget is 3 Billion and they spend 670 million on disaster relief and 360 million on admin. If your goal is to support disaster relief then they are an inefficient use of your resources. However, they also run blood drives and then sell the blood which is part of their overall budget independent of donations. $921 million is just salaries for people running blood drives, with similar expenses for overhead on supplies and equipment.
- roenxi 3y ago
  In fairness, internal combustion engines are an inefficient use of resources. They just happen to be the best option. It is basically impossible to design an organisation that directs resources to economically unproductive people. $700 / $3,000 going to the right spot could be reasonably effective. I mean, at least the Red Cross won't take a fraction of the money and use it to fund ruinous, murderous and pointless rampages across Afghanistan. So they're doing better than the US government. And I think they might be outperforming the major churches for number of abuse scandals although that sort of thing is hard to measure. So it is less efficient than personally doing something locally, but if the local community is going OK then I could imagine the Red Cross might be the next best alternative.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Spending only $700 out of $3000 on the stated mission is doing a decent job, since when?
    - Retric 3y ago
      They aren’t allocating 2/3 of monetary donations to blood drives. Running blood drives is a major part of their mission, it’s also largely self sustaining because they are selling the blood.