3 ms·

".but I think that's what he's going for: To make me (and the federalis) think he's a "nice guy"." I don't think Gates cares what you think. "History has shown

".but I think that's what he's going for: To make me (and the federalis) think he's a "nice guy"." I don't think Gates cares what you think. "History has shown rather completely that charity is useless or harmful" Wow. What history are you referring to?

mynameishere 19y ago
What history are you referring to? The history of Africa. Billions and billions and billions of dollars thrown away. It's still very poor.
- nostrademons 19y ago
  This is largely because people give away money stupidly, not because people give away money. Until recently, most aid to Africa was distributed top-down. Western organizations would send money to African governments or African NGOs, which were supposed to distribute the money to their people. However, since Africa is so corrupt, the money usually got "stuck" at some warlord, who squirreled it away in a Swiss bank account or bought a nice palace or private security detail for himself. Very little of it reached the people it was supposed to help. Bottom-up charitable programs in Africa have been very successful. Things like the Gates Foundation, various micro-capital organizations, and direct school-to-school exchanges have made a measurable difference in the lives of many Africans.
  - byrneseyeview 19y ago
    "This is largely because people give away money stupidly" But is that an accident of history (people care more about making money than about giving it away?) or a characteristic of charity? From what I've read, less than 1% of the increase in standards of living during the last 200 years can be attributed to charity. Given the number of fortunes that are charitably disposed of, giving money away rather than investing it is akin to making your target group worse off so you can feel better about yourself; it's selfish and destructive, and but for a trick of language, it would be blatantly uncharitable. See also: http://slate.com/id/2110817/ http://slate.com/id/2110817/
- Caligula 19y ago
  Giving money to Mugabe and his ilk is not charity. It is stupidity.

mynameishere 19y ago

What history are you referring to? The history of Africa. Billions and billions and billions of dollars thrown away. It's still very poor.

nostrademons 19y ago
This is largely because people give away money stupidly, not because people give away money. Until recently, most aid to Africa was distributed top-down. Western organizations would send money to African governments or African NGOs, which were supposed to distribute the money to their people. However, since Africa is so corrupt, the money usually got "stuck" at some warlord, who squirreled it away in a Swiss bank account or bought a nice palace or private security detail for himself. Very little of it reached the people it was supposed to help. Bottom-up charitable programs in Africa have been very successful. Things like the Gates Foundation, various micro-capital organizations, and direct school-to-school exchanges have made a measurable difference in the lives of many Africans.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  "This is largely because people give away money stupidly" But is that an accident of history (people care more about making money than about giving it away?) or a characteristic of charity? From what I've read, less than 1% of the increase in standards of living during the last 200 years can be attributed to charity. Given the number of fortunes that are charitably disposed of, giving money away rather than investing it is akin to making your target group worse off so you can feel better about yourself; it's selfish and destructive, and but for a trick of language, it would be blatantly uncharitable. See also: http://slate.com/id/2110817/ http://slate.com/id/2110817/
Caligula 19y ago
Giving money to Mugabe and his ilk is not charity. It is stupidity.