To Help Poor People It's Better Not To Give Your Money To Charities

  • Thread starter James Arbour@quality.com
  • Start date
J

James Arbour@quality.com

Guest
It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
invest it in the
stock market.

Since the beginning of the so-called global
economy, the capitalist revolution under Ronald
Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, hundreds of millions of Third World poor
people
have moved out of poverty into the middle class. The large majority
in this success story has occurred in China and India but also smaller
countries
like Chile and Malaysia.

Spending money selfishly ironically helps many other working people. And it
is another
manifestation of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" at work.

For instance when you buy a new house, hundreds of workers, from the
construction
laborers and craftsmen, product manufacturers, real estate, and insurance
employees etc. make money.
Often some of the construction materials come from Third World sources
benefiting people there. The same
phenomenon occurs when you buy a new car, appliance, other product or
service.

I recall a few years back when my wife and I visited a Cuban tourist resort
for a week's
vacation. I recall that when we arrived at the resort rather late at night
all the staff were there lined up to meet our bus and clapped to welcome us.
The main reason was, of course,
that we were going to spend money and help them in their employment. Again
this is capitalism
at work, even in Cuba, a Marxist/socialist country under Castro.

The failure of government-to-government aid by the rich West to the
impoverished Third World
was made evident in the 1970s when our mainly socialist administrations
(like Trudeau's Liberals in Canada)
transferred hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money for government-run
projects while our banks
loaned billions of dollars to corrupt Marxist governments, loans which
defaulted on. Nothing was accomplished.
The poverty in these Third World nations got even worse.

Today, donors to charities operating in poor African, South American and
Asian countries are just throwing good
money after bad. Last year in Canada 82,000 federally regulated charities
took in about $40 billion in
donations from Canada. In the U.S. it would have been $400 billion or more.
And how much of this money actually
went to help poor people. Some of it went to terrorist organizations for
weapons and explosives.

The charity industry has become a growth industry in NA but it is worse than
zero sum. Yes, it does employ
many people, but these people would be doing more for society if they got
real jobs.

For charity to the poor, these people are middle-men and women. They are in
a sense, parasites.
It would be much more effective for people who want to help the suffering
poor, to give their charity gifts
directly to needy people they know, or to donate directly to a local
hospital without giving their money to a foundation
or charity institute like the Red Cross or Salvation Army.

For example, a couple of years ago at Christmas I gave a contribution to the
Salvation Army of several hundred
dollars. After which, for several years I kept getting solicitations from
the SA through the mail about every two of
three years. Just the expense of this would have consumed a big part of my
original donation.


The following article "Charities turn out tax disaster" is by Dean Beeby of
the Canadian Press. Please read it.

http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/11/18/pf-4664849.html
 
On Nov 18, 6:47 am, James Arb...@quality.com wrote:
> It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
> invest it in the
> stock market.
>
> Since the beginning of the so-called global
> economy, the capitalist revolution under Ronald
> Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, hundreds of millions of Third World poor
> people
> have moved out of poverty into the middle class. The large majority
> in this success story has occurred in China and India but also smaller
> countries
> like Chile and Malaysia.
>
> Spending money selfishly ironically helps many other working people. And it
> is another
> manifestation of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" at work.
>
> For instance when you buy a new house, hundreds of workers, from the
> construction
> laborers and craftsmen, product manufacturers, real estate, and insurance
> employees etc. make money.
> Often some of the construction materials come from Third World sources
> benefiting people there. The same
> phenomenon occurs when you buy a new car, appliance, other product or
> service.
>
> I recall a few years back when my wife and I visited a Cuban tourist resort
> for a week's
> vacation. I recall that when we arrived at the resort rather late at night
> all the staff were there lined up to meet our bus and clapped to welcome us.
> The main reason was, of course,
> that we were going to spend money and help them in their employment. Again
> this is capitalism
> at work, even in Cuba, a Marxist/socialist country under Castro.
>
> The failure of government-to-government aid by the rich West to the
> impoverished Third World
> was made evident in the 1970s when our mainly socialist administrations
> (like Trudeau's Liberals in Canada)
> transferred hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money for government-run
> projects while our banks
> loaned billions of dollars to corrupt Marxist governments, loans which
> defaulted on. Nothing was accomplished.
> The poverty in these Third World nations got even worse.
>
> Today, donors to charities operating in poor African, South American and
> Asian countries are just throwing good
> money after bad. Last year in Canada 82,000 federally regulated charities
> took in about $40 billion in
> donations from Canada. In the U.S. it would have been $400 billion or more.
> And how much of this money actually
> went to help poor people. Some of it went to terrorist organizations for
> weapons and explosives.
>
> The charity industry has become a growth industry in NA but it is worse than
> zero sum. Yes, it does employ
> many people, but these people would be doing more for society if they got
> real jobs.
>
> For charity to the poor, these people are middle-men and women. They are in
> a sense, parasites.
> It would be much more effective for people who want to help the suffering
> poor, to give their charity gifts
> directly to needy people they know, or to donate directly to a local
> hospital without giving their money to a foundation
> or charity institute like the Red Cross or Salvation Army.
>
> For example, a couple of years ago at Christmas I gave a contribution to the
> Salvation Army of several hundred
> dollars. After which, for several years I kept getting solicitations from
> the SA through the mail about every two of
> three years. Just the expense of this would have consumed a big part of my
> original donation.
>
> The following article "Charities turn out tax disaster" is by Dean Beeby of
> the Canadian Press. Please read it.
>
> http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/11/18/pf-4664849.html




Hundreds of millions have died of starvation and hunger related causes
since those two assholes created your so-called capitalist revolution.
 
<James Arbour@quality.com> wrote in message
news:ZnX%i.9573$LL1.1351@fe04.news.easynews.com...
> It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
> invest it in the
> stock market.


Or like Bush, be charitable to rich people and generously dispeerse gov't
welfare to corporations.
Reaganomics never worked and still doesn't.
 
"timeOday" <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote in message
news:jK2dnRhiRKn-Pt3anZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> <http://www.theonion.com/content/news/reaganomics_finally_trickles_down>



lol... what crap... here's the abysmal failure of this theory right here:

"Had Mr. Kellener received that money in 1981, like the Democrats wanted, it
would only be worth $4.24 today because of inflation," Treasury Secretary
Henry M. Paulson, Jr. said during an official announcement of the economic
policy's success at a press conference Monday. "Instead, Kellener has a
solid $10 to spend right here and now. The system works, and our current
president intends to keep making it work."


it assumes that the $10 just magically loses value due to inflation while
totally ignoring the fact that it could easily have multiplied several times
over in value had it accrued interest from investment... the presumption
held by the rich is that those who are not, are incapable of intelligently
handling personal finance... what hubris that these devoted sheep swallow
with such voracity...

a CONservative is either ultra-wealthy or a deluded fool...
 
"Bush's Bizarro World" <BushSickness@WH.net> wrote in message
news:9m_%i.22309$lD6.5981@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> <James Arbour@quality.com> wrote in message
> news:ZnX%i.9573$LL1.1351@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
>> invest it in the
>> stock market.

>
> Or like Bush, be charitable to rich people and generously dispeerse gov't
> welfare to corporations.
> Reaganomics never worked and still doesn't.

Why?
 
On Nov 18, 5:47 am, James Arb...@quality.com wrote:
> It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
> invest it in the
> stock market.
>
> Since the beginning of the so-called global
> economy, the capitalist revolution under Ronald
> Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, hundreds of millions of Third World poor
> people
> have moved out of poverty into the middle class. The large majority
> in this success story has occurred in China and India but also smaller
> countries
> like Chile and Malaysia.
>
> Spending money selfishly ironically helps many other working people. And it
> is another
> manifestation of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" at work.
>
> For instance when you buy a new house, hundreds of workers, from the
> construction
> laborers and craftsmen, product manufacturers, real estate, and insurance
> employees etc. make money.
> Often some of the construction materials come from Third World sources
> benefiting people there. The same
> phenomenon occurs when you buy a new car, appliance, other product or
> service.
>
> I recall a few years back when my wife and I visited a Cuban tourist resort
> for a week's
> vacation. I recall that when we arrived at the resort rather late at night
> all the staff were there lined up to meet our bus and clapped to welcome us.
> The main reason was, of course,
> that we were going to spend money and help them in their employment. Again
> this is capitalism
> at work, even in Cuba, a Marxist/socialist country under Castro.
>
> The failure of government-to-government aid by the rich West to the
> impoverished Third World
> was made evident in the 1970s when our mainly socialist administrations
> (like Trudeau's Liberals in Canada)
> transferred hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money for government-run
> projects while our banks
> loaned billions of dollars to corrupt Marxist governments, loans which
> defaulted on. Nothing was accomplished.
> The poverty in these Third World nations got even worse.
>
> Today, donors to charities operating in poor African, South American and
> Asian countries are just throwing good
> money after bad. Last year in Canada 82,000 federally regulated charities
> took in about $40 billion in
> donations from Canada. In the U.S. it would have been $400 billion or more.
> And how much of this money actually
> went to help poor people. Some of it went to terrorist organizations for
> weapons and explosives.
>
> The charity industry has become a growth industry in NA but it is worse than
> zero sum. Yes, it does employ
> many people, but these people would be doing more for society if they got
> real jobs.
>
> For charity to the poor, these people are middle-men and women. They are in
> a sense, parasites.
> It would be much more effective for people who want to help the suffering
> poor, to give their charity gifts
> directly to needy people they know, or to donate directly to a local
> hospital without giving their money to a foundation
> or charity institute like the Red Cross or Salvation Army.
>
> For example, a couple of years ago at Christmas I gave a contribution to the
> Salvation Army of several hundred
> dollars. After which, for several years I kept getting solicitations from
> the SA through the mail about every two of
> three years. Just the expense of this would have consumed a big part of my
> original donation.
>
> The following article "Charities turn out tax disaster" is by Dean Beeby of
> the Canadian Press. Please read it.
>
> http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/11/18/pf-4664849.html


What a novel way to justify selfishness! And just in time for the
holidays.

I'll never keep up with the depths to which right-wingers will sink to
out-Scrooge Scrooge. Why, even Christianity is now largely about
hating the poor and revering the rich.

MLW
 
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4740b3f3$0$20623$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Bush's Bizarro World" <BushSickness@WH.net> wrote in message
> news:9m_%i.22309$lD6.5981@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> <James Arbour@quality.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZnX%i.9573$LL1.1351@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>> It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
>>> invest it in the
>>> stock market.

>>
>> Or like Bush, be charitable to rich people and generously dispeerse gov't
>> welfare to corporations.
>> Reaganomics never worked and still doesn't.


> Why?


it presumes (a non-existent) altruism by those whom are conditioned to
believe success is determined by the amount of wealth one accumulates... not
by how much one contributes toward the overall health of the economy... the
reality of such a presumption is the need for collective bargaining... as
well as tax incentives for charitable causes... social conscience is
abandoned in favour of fulfilling immediate gratification desires and our
planet begins to convulse after generations of environmental exploitation...

okay... i'll admit... i took it much further along than you or anyone else
might have liked... but... c'est la vie... there's lotsa kooks on these ngs
spouting mindless mantras... here's one that causes people to think...
trickle down... is exactly that... a trickle that leaves the impoverished to
die of thirst...

here's something that offers some hope however... (and in case you believe
yourself either to be altruistic or someone who's just simply reacting to my
claims above and believes otherwise):

http://www.kiva.org/

you too can be a capitalist banker whom provides financial investment
support to those whose meagre needs being fulfilled result in dramatic
benefits...
 
"Bush's Bizarro World" <BushSickness@WH.net> wrote in message
news:9m_%i.22309$lD6.5981@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> <James Arbour@quality.com> wrote in message
> news:ZnX%i.9573$LL1.1351@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
>> invest it in the
>> stock market.

>
> Or like Bush, be charitable to rich people and generously dispeerse gov't
> welfare to corporations.
> Reaganomics never worked and still doesn't.
>


Your brain never worked and still doesn't
 
On Nov 18, 5:47 am, James Arb...@quality.com wrote:
> It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
> invest it in the
> stock market.
>
> Since the beginning of the so-called global
> economy, the capitalist revolution under Ronald
> Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, hundreds of millions of Third World poor
> people
> have moved out of poverty into the middle class. The large majority
> in this success story has occurred in China and India but also smaller
> countries
> like Chile and Malaysia.
>
> Spending money selfishly ironically helps many other working people. And it
> is another
> manifestation of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" at work.
>
> For instance when you buy a new house, hundreds of workers, from the
> construction
> laborers and craftsmen, product manufacturers, real estate, and insurance
> employees etc. make money.
> Often some of the construction materials come from Third World sources
> benefiting people there. The same
> phenomenon occurs when you buy a new car, appliance, other product or
> service.
>
> I recall a few years back when my wife and I visited a Cuban tourist resort
> for a week's
> vacation. I recall that when we arrived at the resort rather late at night
> all the staff were there lined up to meet our bus and clapped to welcome us.
> The main reason was, of course,
> that we were going to spend money and help them in their employment. Again
> this is capitalism
> at work, even in Cuba, a Marxist/socialist country under Castro.
>
> The failure of government-to-government aid by the rich West to the
> impoverished Third World
> was made evident in the 1970s when our mainly socialist administrations
> (like Trudeau's Liberals in Canada)
> transferred hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money for government-run
> projects while our banks
> loaned billions of dollars to corrupt Marxist governments, loans which
> defaulted on. Nothing was accomplished.
> The poverty in these Third World nations got even worse.
>
> Today, donors to charities operating in poor African, South American and
> Asian countries are just throwing good
> money after bad. Last year in Canada 82,000 federally regulated charities
> took in about $40 billion in
> donations from Canada. In the U.S. it would have been $400 billion or more.
> And how much of this money actually
> went to help poor people. Some of it went to terrorist organizations for
> weapons and explosives.
>
> The charity industry has become a growth industry in NA but it is worse than
> zero sum. Yes, it does employ
> many people, but these people would be doing more for society if they got
> real jobs.
>
> For charity to the poor, these people are middle-men and women. They are in
> a sense, parasites.
> It would be much more effective for people who want to help the suffering
> poor, to give their charity gifts
> directly to needy people they know, or to donate directly to a local
> hospital without giving their money to a foundation
> or charity institute like the Red Cross or Salvation Army.
>
> For example, a couple of years ago at Christmas I gave a contribution to the
> Salvation Army of several hundred
> dollars. After which, for several years I kept getting solicitations from
> the SA through the mail about every two of
> three years. Just the expense of this would have consumed a big part of my
> original donation.
>
> The following article "Charities turn out tax disaster" is by Dean Beeby of
> the Canadian Press. Please read it.
>
> http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/11/18/pf-4664849.html


Um. you got it backwards. The Reagan economics has lead to more
people being impoverished. The majority of a nation's wealth is
controlled by an ever smaller percentage of the population. Reagan
and his followers has dismantled the mechanisms that has created a
large middle class.
 
<James Arbour@quality.com> wrote in message
news:ZnX%i.9573$LL1.1351@fe04.news.easynews.com...

> I recall a few years back when my wife and I visited a Cuban tourist
> resort
> for a week's
> vacation. I recall that when we arrived at the resort rather late at night
> all the staff were there lined up to meet our bus and clapped to welcome
> us.
> The main reason was, of course,
> that we were going to spend money and help them in their employment. Again
> this is capitalism
> at work, even in Cuba, a Marxist/socialist country under Castro.


No - that was merely commerce, not capitalism.
Commerce is totally OK under both socialism and communism - regardless of
what you were told during the Cold War.

Capitalism is based on it's root-word, "Capital".
It allows you to profit from merely "owning" a thing, without having to lift
a finger.
It's a very immoral process, and requires a large, central authority to
enforce it.

Commerce is just two people agreeing to trade some stuff.

.... And while I'm deprogramming you here, it's probably worth pointing out
that capitalism is also not "Christianity", nor "democracy" nor most of the
rest of the things you were cowed into believing a half-century or more ago.
 
<James Arbour@quality.com> wrote:
> It is much better in helping people to spend your money on yourself or
> invest it in the
> stock market.
>
>

I think we should just give it straight to the wealthy so it can trickle down
to the hands of the needy just like deficit driven economic theory says it's
supposed to but never does.

We should keep promoting bogus and failed economic theories that never worked
in the first place because we're mentally ill old ****s surviving on a taxpayer
funded pension who never worked a day of their lives in the private sector
because they were career civil servants like you.

If you ever held down a real job in your miserable life and perhaps had more
than a liberal arts degree, you wouldn't be promoting such naive ideological
bull **** and snake oil where you have the gall to call others socialists when
it's obvious that you don't even know what the word means.


Ross John "Clay Northwood" / "Clint Hunter" / "anonymous@dizum" (and now
dereksmythe@intuition.com, cyberpunk@dizum.com, Arizona@sagebrush.com and and
sidbrown@abercrombie.com) Lambourn is a right wing freedom hating hypocrite,
asshole, attention starved loon and liar. He is a retired career civil servant
who resides in Canada sucking from the social safety net and living off a tax
payer funded pension. It's no end of irony that he sees himself as a
capitalist. He frequently uses the above pseudonyms to fake support for the
gibberish he posts on Usenet.

He is also a noted seditious America hating traitor who has continually called
for the suspension of the US Constitution and the cancellation of American
civil liberties. Lambourn is consumed with hate and bitterness and expresses
it by posting incoherent screeds based on his distorted and delusional view of
the world.

Most know him for his early morning, booze fuelled rants which rarely make
sense and serve no other purpose than to feed his perverse cravings for public
ridicule.

He can be found under dozens of sockpuppets,
including:"Cerberus", "Supply Sider", "Prescience", "Counterspin" "Bruce
Roberts" "Classical Liberal" "FA Hayek Jr" "Deflector", "Chameleon" "Nemesis"
"Hedonist" "Ludwig Von Mises Redux" "Cognizance" "Libertarian" "Erik Trammel"
"Nemo" "Proteus""ciceroii" "Supply Sider" "Libertarian" "Prescience"
"scotus" 19th- century liberal ect.


I guess that it's true when they say that being Conservative is a sign of
mental illness.

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday August 13, 2003
The Guardian

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can
be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and
aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's
four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing
talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same
affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealized past and condoned
inequality".
 
On Nov 18, 3:50 pm, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoe.org> wrote:
> "timeOday" <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jK2dnRhiRKn-Pt3anZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > <http://www.theonion.com/content/news/reaganomics_finally_trickles_down>

>
> lol... what crap... here's the abysmal failure of this theory right here:
>
> "Had Mr. Kellener received that money in 1981, like the Democrats wanted, it
> would only be worth $4.24 today because of inflation," Treasury Secretary
> Henry M. Paulson, Jr. said during an official announcement of the economic
> policy's success at a press conference Monday. "Instead, Kellener has a
> solid $10 to spend right here and now. The system works, and our current
> president intends to keep making it work."



The $10.00 is still only worth $4.24 in 1981 dollars, because of
inflation. Mr. Kellener can invest his ten bucks if he wants and it
will draw some interest, but the interest is losing value too.
Kellener is stacking up pennies in interest, but that stack can't get
very high, because it's all happening on a slowly sinking boat. Then
you've got taxes...
 
Back
Top