Jump to content
Schaublin

Bizarre and Suicidal

Recommended Posts

Well, my son's just back for Christmas from (DR)Congo and tells a very different story. We can all find examples of generosity being abused, or of corruption and maladministration etc ... and then use that to excuse ourselves from helping the poor. That's not at all clever.

 

For me, it's a simple thing: what would I want if the roles were reversed, and I was struggling to bring up my family in sub-saharan Africa, or wherever? I think that it's not just a charitable option, but a moral imperative that we do what we can to help those whose plight is desperate.

 

Of course we should do so intelligently. Poorly targetted aid can quite literally do more harm than good. It strikes me that if the same level of financial acumen, and commitment, that so impresses me on these boards were directed to tackling some of the economic injustice in the world, we'd see some really life-changing good being done.

 

[To avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying above that individuals posting here are not generous; my point is a broad one.]

 

Nail, head etc.

 

Throwing money at something doesn't make it go away, in fact it can often make situations far worse. Also, interfering and not understanding other cultures and interpreting situations through Western beliefs and ideologies can equally be as harmful.

 

I still think the UK needs to concentrate on itself now. Does the UK have energy and food security? Or has it been importing these essentials off the back of what could soon be a failing currency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nail, head etc.

 

Throwing money at something doesn't make it go away, in fact it can often make situations far worse. Also, interfering and not understanding other cultures and interpreting situations through Western beliefs and ideologies can equally be as harmful.

 

I still think the UK needs to concentrate on itself now. Does the UK have energy and food security? Or has it been importing these essentials off the back of what could soon be a failing currency?

Throwing money at something doesn't make it go away, in fact it can often make situations far worse

 

Anybody who realy understands FIAT monetary systems knows that it is the problem NEVER the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, my son's just back for Christmas from (DR)Congo and tells a very different story. We can all find examples of generosity being abused, or of corruption and maladministration etc ... and then use that to excuse ourselves from helping the poor. That's not at all clever.

 

For me, it's a simple thing: what would I want if the roles were reversed, and I was struggling to bring up my family in sub-saharan Africa, or wherever? I think that it's not just a charitable option, but a moral imperative that we do what we can to help those whose plight is desperate.

 

Of course we should do so intelligently. Poorly targetted aid can quite literally do more harm than good. It strikes me that if the same level of financial acumen, and commitment, that so impresses me on these boards were directed to tackling some of the economic injustice in the world, we'd see some really life-changing good being done.

 

[To avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying above that individuals posting here are not generous; my point is a broad one.]

 

Well, my son's just back for Christmas from (DR)Congo and tells a very different story.

 

Please elaborate on this very different story.please. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please elaborate on this very different story.please.

Simply that (a) when financial aid is followed through to those most in need, without being siphoned off by corrupt middle-men, or wasted on bloated semi-charitable organizations; and (B) when it stimulates rather than strangles local initiatives; and © when it's allied to structural (socio-economic) change where possible; and (d) when it's culturally and technologically appropriate ... it can be so hearteningly life-changing.

 

That all sounds rather grand and theoretical. In fact the particular project he was involved with was helping with the development of locally-made prosthetics for those who were mutilated in the civil war (twentieth-century wooden legs, if you will). How can that not be money well-spent? And why on earth do some on this thread say that we should spend that money (mostly voluntarily raised but with some tax-payers' money helping fund the logistics of the enterprise) in this country instead? It's not either / or: shouldn't we all do a bit to help wherever we can, including (and perhaps especially) in those parts of the world where the need is greatest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simply that (a) when financial aid is followed through to those most in need, without being siphoned off by corrupt middle-men, or wasted on bloated semi-charitable organizations; and (B) when it stimulates rather than strangles local initiatives; and © when it's allied to structural (socio-economic) change where possible; and (d) when it's culturally and technologically appropriate ... it can be so hearteningly life-changing.

 

That all sounds rather grand and theoretical. In fact the particular project he was involved with was helping with the development of locally-made prosthetics for those who were mutilated in the civil war (twentieth-century wooden legs, if you will). How can that not be money well-spent? And why on earth do some on this thread say that we should spend that money (mostly voluntarily raised but with some tax-payers' money helping fund the logistics of the enterprise) in this country instead? It's not either / or: shouldn't we all do a bit to help wherever we can, including (and perhaps especially) in those parts of the world where the need is greatest?

 

It is always either/or when there is a finite amount of resources.

 

No, that is bizarre and suicidal behaviour - which is being put forward as 'right thinking'. It is not right thinking to divert resources away from your own people to others - it matters not whether those resources are stolen by middle-men or not - the impoverishment of one's own people is the same.

 

It is depressing to see so many people having their empathy (deliberately and cynically) mis-directed and exploited in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not content with using stolen wealth to finance foreign wars against people who pose no threat to us, the UK Government is keen to show how kind it is by stealing money from its own people in order to give it to people thousands of miles away.

 

[

 

Am I missing something or was the UK Government not democratically elected? None of the larger political parties indicated that they would do a u-turn on British foreign aid policy in their election material so it should not be a surprise that aid continues to be given.

 

There is a humanitarian imperitive involved. It is a natural human instinct to want to help when we see images of a tsunami or an earthquake. That instinct is inherent and the fact that the perple in need of help live overseas does not change that. Your views on aid would be very different if it was you or a famiy member trapped under rubble and you were relying on the kindness of strangers to dig you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I missing something or was the UK Government not democratically elected? None of the larger political parties indicated that they would do a u-turn on British foreign aid policy in their election material so it should not be a surprise that aid continues to be given.

 

There is a humanitarian imperitive involved. It is a natural human instinct to want to help when we see images of a tsunami or an earthquake. That instinct is inherent and the fact that the perple in need of help live overseas does not change that. Your views on aid would be very different if it was you or a famiy member trapped under rubble and you were relying on the kindness of strangers to dig you out.

 

People's altruism and concern is being abused by those who control television - just as their ignorance is exploited. The same people that support a war of aggression against the Afghans - where remotely controlled drones kill people from half way across the world, no doubt think they are decent people because they sent some money to Haiti. Both these actions are wrong.

 

BTW anyone who voted in the farcical elections this year, voted for war in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

I don't have first hand knowledge of how governments allocate money to overseas charities and I'm not British.

 

But I do know this:

1) when governments spend money the generally waste money on administration. So of that 500 you'd need to deduct the cost of natural gov't wastage

2) charities can deduct any percentage of your donation for running costs. 70% and higher towards the cost of running an organisation? Perfectly legal, as is 90%. Running a charity can be a very profitable business even when not for profit.

 

I love to give 'cause it makes me happy. I have great empathy for those who suffer overseas as well as at home....but I don't think for a moment that when large amounts of money are involved everyone has the same intention as I would. Just not human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, my son's just back for Christmas from (DR)Congo and tells a very different story. We can all find examples of generosity being abused, or of corruption and maladministration etc ... and then use that to excuse ourselves from helping the poor. That's not at all clever

 

well there's nothing you can do about that if the money was STOLEN from you, i.e. taxed.

 

if, on the other hand, you were making voluntary payments to a charity and you found out that the management were taking the p1ss, you could cease payments to that charity and give to another instead.

 

It strikes me that if the same level of financial acumen, and commitment, that so impresses me on these boards were directed to tackling some of the economic injustice in the world, we'd see some really life-changing good being done.

 

cool, so you'll stop cheerleading extortion then?

 

In fact the particular project he was involved with was helping with the development of locally-made prosthetics for those who were mutilated in the civil war (twentieth-century wooden legs, if you will). How can that not be money well-spent?

 

different people place different values on things.

 

And why on earth do some on this thread say that we should spend that money (mostly voluntarily raised but with some tax-payers' money helping fund the logistics of the enterprise) in this country instead?

 

no idea. as I mentioned before, national borders are arbitrary, imaginary lines.

 

It's not either / or: shouldn't we all do a bit to help wherever we can, including (and perhaps especially) in those parts of the world where the need is greatest?

 

I'm helping you with your logic :)

 

Am I missing something or was the UK Government not democratically elected?

 

it's a macro sized extortion racket with a public relations figure ("PM") chosen by an arbitrary popularity contest from pre-screened candidates.

 

the PR figure was introduced fairly recently in historical terms, but it remains to be funded by extortion.

 

None of the larger political parties indicated that they would do a u-turn on British foreign aid policy in their election material so it should not be a surprise that aid continues to be given.

 

and no-one here has said that they expected a u-turn anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, my son's just back for Christmas from (DR)Congo and tells a very different story. We can all find examples of generosity being abused, or of corruption and maladministration etc ... and then use that to excuse ourselves from helping the poor. That's not at all clever.

 

For me, it's a simple thing: what would I want if the roles were reversed, and I was struggling to bring up my family in sub-saharan Africa, or wherever? I think that it's not just a charitable option, but a moral imperative that we do what we can to help those whose plight is desperate.

 

Of course we should do so intelligently. Poorly targetted aid can quite literally do more harm than good. It strikes me that if the same level of financial acumen, and commitment, that so impresses me on these boards were directed to tackling some of the economic injustice in the world, we'd see some really life-changing good being done.

 

[To avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying above that individuals posting here are not generous; my point is a broad one.]

Well said!

 

I have visited some of the places where at one time or another, aid has/had been required and met, spent time with and spoken to people who live there. The generosity/hospitality of the vast majority of the people in these countries is astounding; they would quite literally give you their last spoonful of rice.

 

The selfish, self centred attitudes of many in the comfortable, wealthy (yes wealthy, even the poorest of this country have food, running water, clothes and a roof over their heads) is a constant shock to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, it's a simple thing: what would I want if the roles were reversed, and I was struggling to bring up my family in sub-saharan Africa, or wherever? ...

Simple: I would want my corrupted and economically beaten down country to be invaded by a democratic nation and be made a special economic zone with a good amount of independence, but enough dependence for the corrupt elites to be thrown out and to establish a safe drinking water supply and the most basic net of healthcare and social security. Given the vast natural reserves of many of these countries, that would be a very realistic goal to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO thats the world you are in.Your ignorance to the TRUE reality of the world is eye watering but so obvious from this statement.You are living in a consensus reality.You are taking your world view from MSM total PROPOGANDA and all of your posts totally reflect that repeated view of the illusion they whish you to believe.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT RIGHT!!!

I take my world view from reading, travelling and meeting people over many years.

 

I think you are mistaken. Just because I believe we have a very comfortable life here, relative to the vast majority of the world, does not mean I am blind the the wrongs that are occuring around us. The rich and powerful have always exploited others, but it is not as bad here and now as it has been, or still is in many other places.

 

You guys really are paranoid :blink:

 

I mean, do you honestly think sending people to school is brainwashing? Did you go to school?

 

If so, were you brainwashed or, perhaps, are you now brainwashed from reading all the conspiracy nonsense? :unsure: Just an honest question.

 

PS whats MSM?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple: I would want my corrupted and economically beaten down country to be invaded by a democratic nation.

I heard this from many Zimbabweans (ndebele and shona) on visits between 1996 and 2001 (increasingly so from 1998 onwards).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple: I would want my corrupted and economically beaten down country to be invaded by a democratic nation and be made a special economic zone with a good amount of independence, but enough dependence for the corrupt elites to be thrown out and to establish a safe drinking water supply and the most basic net of healthcare and social security. Given the vast natural reserves of many of these countries, that would be a very realistic goal to achieve.

 

 

Believe me when I say this-

 

In India, even today there are people who wish England invades India again and gets rid of corrupt politicians. Wishful thinking I know. For both nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believe me when I say this-

 

In India, even today there are people who wish England invades India again and gets rid of corrupt politicians. Wishful thinking I know. For both nations.

I was thinking more of "failed" states in Africa. Certainly India has its share of problems too, but some of the African states seem so beyond repair that this would possibly be the "best" solution. Redrawing state borders possibly would be the next step to improve things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people choose to use some of their wealth to help people thousands of miles away - presumably because helping those around them is not glamorous enough...
Wow. The worst post I've ever seen on GEI.

 

Those around them are already well-off enough, whether or not they "feel" well-off, they are.

 

Congratulations on managing to avoid State theft.

 

 

So, you are pleased that you live in a country where the State extorts money from people in order to enrich people thousands of miles away.

 

It's not extortion or theft if the government is democratically elected. You fail to realize that the people have chosen this course of action via their representative institutions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking more of "failed" states in Africa. Certainly India has its share of problems too, but some of the African states seem so beyond repair that this would possibly be the "best" solution. Redrawing state borders possibly would be the next step to improve things.

There are enough strong countries, politically and economically, in Africa that such drastic action is unnecessary. The good performers will eventually help lift the poorer performers via political and economic contagion.

 

There has been a lot of progress in Africa and it's not all natural resources either. Growth in real estate, telecoms, finance, and businesses adjacent to agriculture has been strong in a number of countries, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana - to name a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believe me when I say this-

 

In India, even today there are people who wish England invades India again and gets rid of corrupt politicians. Wishful thinking I know. For both nations.

BTW, I have just finished watching Michael Wood's "The Story of India" (on DVD). Fascinating really, beautiful images, but obviously not on present day problems.

 

http://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are enough strong countries, politically and economically, in Africa that such drastic action is unnecessary. The good performers will eventually help lift the poorer performers via political and economic contagion.

 

There has been a lot of progress in Africa and it's not all natural resources either. Growth in real estate, telecoms, finance, and businesses adjacent to agriculture has been strong in a number of countries, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana - to name a few.

While there is some progress, there are states that would have enough resources to cover basic health care/water supply for their population, and still the money just disappears into dark channels.

 

I know that what I wrote earlier is not pc, but I believe that for some states and especially for the poorer 75% of their population this would be a liberation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not extortion or theft if the government is democratically elected.

 

yes it is.

 

if 51% of the population decide to rape and pillage 49% of the population then it's still rape and pillage.

 

You fail to realize that the people have chosen this course of action via their representative institutions.

 

you fail to realise that no-one can represent someone as well as he/she can represent himself/herself, and that those institutions are actually there to plunder you.

 

it's a macro sized extortion racket with a public relations figure ("PM") chosen by an arbitrary popularity contest from pre-screened candidates.

 

the PR figure was introduced fairly recently in historical terms, but it remains to be funded by extortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes it is.

 

if 51% of the population decide to rape and pillage 49% of the population then it's still rape and pillage.

 

 

 

you fail to realise that no-one can represent someone as well as he/she can represent himself/herself, and that those institutions are actually there to plunder you.

 

Even if we accept that as true, a country can't really function with a 60 million person parliament, or about a 50 million person parliament counting eligible voters only. So what is the alternative?

 

Again, representative democracy is the best form of government we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, I have just finished watching Michael Wood's "The Story of India" (on DVD). Fascinating really, beautiful images, but obviously not on present day problems.

 

http://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_India

 

OT so apologies in advance-

Its a nice watch. Some inaccuracies, but still no point in faulting it as it was well made. Translations from the Vedas and Upanishads (religious texts) show they were written possibly closer towards to north pole. Contentious issue that one.

 

Back to the topic, how many of you would be contributing to a charity for withdrawing money from the cash point? I have no problems per se, but at least I should get a choice who gets my money or will the gubberment make that decision for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. The worst post I've ever seen on GEI.

 

Those around them are already well-off enough, whether or not they "feel" well-off, they are.

 

 

 

It's not extortion or theft if the government is democratically elected. You fail to realize that the people have chosen this course of action via their representative institutions.

 

Is government and the decisions flowing from it democratic? Not sure if that's quite true. How many 'U' turns have there been, broken election promises, 'tough choices' and how is a two or three party system at all democratic when they are 'all in it together'?

 

I did that. Did the lot on taking two kids out of poverty in SE Asia. I'm just a working bloke, an ordinary working bloke. I don't mind being exceedingly charitable but I'll do it on my own terms thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if we accept that as true, a country can't really function with a 60 million person parliament...

 

yeah, so what. we don't need a parliament. hell, we don't even want a parliament - the gov't has used threats of violence to coerce itself into our lives.

 

can't see why you think the number 60,000,000 at all relevant.

 

So what is the alternative?

a free-market.

 

in your everyday life, you're already familiar with the methodology, e.g. when you go to a shop, you offer payment for the goods you want, rather than threatening the staff with a baseball bat 'till they hand over the goods.

 

probably the vast majority of transactions in your life are not coerced. transactions involving the gov't and a few other criminals are the exception to this.

 

Again, representative democracy is the best form of government we have.

democracy is power in the hands of the many.

 

government is power in the hands of the few.

 

'democratic government' is a contradiction in terms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×