You know, that's a strange one. Goddammit, if my family was starving for calories, I'd take all the GM food I can get.

"What's that? Genetically modified grain? I'll have a sack of that, and be quick about it!"

The_Metatron wrote:You know, that's a strange one. Goddammit, if my family was starving for calories, I'd take all the GM food I can get.

"What's that? Genetically modified grain? I'll have a sack of that, and be quick about it!"

Would it solve the real problem?

No you become aid dependent and eating bad food to boot.

No, what I take exception to is your judgment of "bad food". GM does not equal "bad".

But, food aid is unlikely to solve the problem that caused it to be necessary in the first place.

Be that as it may, I don't give to charities. I prefer to share my wealth personally, with whom I choose, for purposes I deem fit.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Once again quoting the American situation. Please dont compare. What your shitty government does when it comes to world aid does amount to bugger all. Just sending cheap modified excess food that nobody else will buy is not the answer.

Your answer is to assume the the Netherlands government is where people with excess money should send their money if they want to help people who are diseased and/or starving somewhere else. Right?

As noted, that's a profoundly retarded idea. I expect you to stick up for it given that you brought it up, and I'm happy to keep mentioning it. It's one of many idiotic ideas about charity that are out there and deserves to die many shameful deaths.

Loren Michael wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Once again quoting the American situation. Please dont compare. What your shitty government does when it comes to world aid does amount to bugger all. Just sending cheap modified excess food that nobody else will buy is not the answer.

Your answer is to assume the the Netherlands government is where people with excess money should send their money if they want to help people who are diseased and/or starving somewhere else. Right?

As noted, that's a profoundly retarded idea. I expect you to stick up for it given that you brought it up, and I'm happy to keep mentioning it. It's one of many idiotic ideas about charity that are out there and deserves to die many shameful deaths.

You dont mind the fat cats living off the back a so called charity.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Once again quoting the American situation. Please dont compare. What your shitty government does when it comes to world aid does amount to bugger all. Just sending cheap modified excess food that nobody else will buy is not the answer.

Your answer is to assume the the Netherlands government is where people with excess money should send their money if they want to help people who are diseased and/or starving somewhere else. Right?

As noted, that's a profoundly retarded idea. I expect you to stick up for it given that you brought it up, and I'm happy to keep mentioning it. It's one of many idiotic ideas about charity that are out there and deserves to die many shameful deaths.

You dont mind the fat cats living off the back a so called charity.

Who are these fat cats that I don't mind?

Try these:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-439946/The-charity-fat-cats-betray-generosity.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/development-fat-cats-private-sector-values

http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/5/2128.htm

And that is just in Britain and there are plenty more stories.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Try these:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-439946/The-charity-fat-cats-betray-generosity.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/development-fat-cats-private-sector-values

http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/5/2128.htm

And that is just in Britain and there are plenty more stories.

Ah, so what you're saying is that you haven't read the thread. Otherwise you'd notice the links like http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities that I linked to, and you'd maybe notice the title and theme of the thread, which is about people being dumb about where and how they spend their money. The "you" in the title is more appropriate for some than others, apparently.

Given that you responded to my http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities link post, my assumption is that you'd attempt to grapple with something before running your mouth. I will be less charitable about my assumptions about you in the future. Thanks at least for that gift of knowledge.

I suppose you not bothering to educate yourself of the content of this thread goes hand-in-hand with the retarded proclamations you're littering the thread with.

I dont give to charities. That stuff you posted does not interest me.

All I say to everyone (and I am not the only one) DONT GIVE MONEY TO CHARITIES.

It is a rip off! Dont even you see that?

You're not interested in reading that would make your opinion an informed opinion, and then you go on shouting uninformed opinions.

I'm right in treating your word-droppings as retarded, ignorant dreck. By all means keep going though.

Loren Michael wrote:You're not interested in reading that would make your opinion an informed opinion, and then you go on shouting uninformed opinions.

I'm right in treating your word-droppings as retarded, ignorant dreck. By all means keep going though.

Look if anything is retarded dreck it is exactly what you are posting.

You dont get it do you. Just because your useless country cannot give foreign aid you think that we all have to contribute to stupid charities.

If you want to waste your money that is your business. If it makes you feel you better that is all right by me.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:You're not interested in reading that would make your opinion an informed opinion, and then you go on shouting uninformed opinions.

I'm right in treating your word-droppings as retarded, ignorant dreck. By all means keep going though.

Look if anything is retarded dreck it is exactly what you are posting.

You dont get it do you. Just because your useless country cannot give foreign aid you think that we all have to contribute to stupid charities.

If you want to waste your money that is your business. If it makes you feel you better that is all right by me.

You have a weird fixation on foreign aid that isn't actually relevant to this thread.

Loren Michael wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:You're not interested in reading that would make your opinion an informed opinion, and then you go on shouting uninformed opinions.

I'm right in treating your word-droppings as retarded, ignorant dreck. By all means keep going though.

Look if anything is retarded dreck it is exactly what you are posting.

You dont get it do you. Just because your useless country cannot give foreign aid you think that we all have to contribute to stupid charities.

If you want to waste your money that is your business. If it makes you feel you better that is all right by me.

You have a weird fixation on foreign aid that isn't actually relevant to this thread.

Of course it is relevant.

My government gives foreign aid. Yours does not (or very little). This is compensated (well that is what you believe) by charities.

Go ahead. Keep the charity fat cats in their high standard of living at the expense of the people that should get the money.

You have a wierd fixation about charities.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:You're not interested in reading that would make your opinion an informed opinion, and then you go on shouting uninformed opinions.

I'm right in treating your word-droppings as retarded, ignorant dreck. By all means keep going though.

Look if anything is retarded dreck it is exactly what you are posting.

You dont get it do you. Just because your useless country cannot give foreign aid you think that we all have to contribute to stupid charities.

If you want to waste your money that is your business. If it makes you feel you better that is all right by me.

You have a weird fixation on foreign aid that isn't actually relevant to this thread.

Of course it is relevant.

My government gives foreign aid. Yours does not (or very little). This is compensated (well that is what you believe) by charities.

Go ahead. Keep the charity fat cats in their high standard of living at the expense of the people that should get the money.

You have a wierd fixation about charities.

I'm not sure what your fixation with foreign aid is as it makes up only a small part of charitable giving. While I agree with you on the fact that many charities have a poor record on directing money to the poor(which is part of why I support getting rid of the tax deduction for charitable giving), I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge the same is often true of foreign aid.

One study showed 99% of money sent to Chad for a health program was used for other purposes. We also know that depending on how aid is received it can hurt domestic economies by inflicting them with 'Dutch disease'. We've seen studies show that foreign aid often helps prop up defense spending.

Both governmental aid and charitable giving are imperfect and further education and research into how to maximize the benefits of the programs would be useful.

As someone well versed in charity donations, I can say I do not suck at giving charitably, unless giving money to Against Malaria Foundation, Deworm the World, International Planned Parenthood, Resurge International, and others is using money unwisely.

I do like the idea about investing the money and donating it later, but there are so many problems today that are getting better over time that there might not be as many useful charities 50 years from now. Also, there is the possibility your investments go awry and you lose big.

GT2211 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Look if anything is retarded dreck it is exactly what you are posting.

You dont get it do you. Just because your useless country cannot give foreign aid you think that we all have to contribute to stupid charities.

If you want to waste your money that is your business. If it makes you feel you better that is all right by me.

You have a weird fixation on foreign aid that isn't actually relevant to this thread.

Of course it is relevant.

My government gives foreign aid. Yours does not (or very little). This is compensated (well that is what you believe) by charities.

Go ahead. Keep the charity fat cats in their high standard of living at the expense of the people that should get the money.

You have a wierd fixation about charities.

I'm not sure what your fixation with foreign aid is as it makes up only a small part of charitable giving. While I agree with you on the fact that many charities have a poor record on directing money to the poor(which is part of why I support getting rid of the tax deduction for charitable giving), I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge the same is often true of foreign aid.

If people want to optimize the effects of their dollars, which is kind of where I gestured this thread toward, it's not too difficult to do some research about what happens to money when it goes into an organization.

If there's no transparency, that should be a warning sign right there.

The presumption that foreign aid money is optimal is crazy because (1) it presumes that government aid priorities are the same as the individual who is putting in the money and that (2) government takes a smaller cut of the money going in to foreign aid than a specialized charity. The latter may or may not be true; it clearly depends on the government and the charity. The former is almost certainly false, unless one gets one's views about morality and justice and such from the government, which is creepy.

It also ignores the notion that people might have excess money for whatever reason that they want to give to needy people in the best possible way. Giving that money to a rich nation's government (or even a poor nation's government) is idiotic, both for the above two reasons, and because of collected taxes, as pointed out by Scot, only a maximum of something like 1% goes to foreign aid, whether or not that money succeeds on merits (1) or (2) above.