NationStates Jolt Archive

ok, it was Red Nose Day (http://www.rednoseday.com/) in the UK last night - basically a massive comedy telethon in the name of charity. They throw in the occasional film of how poverty or disease is ruining lives and destroying families in Africa, about child poverty or domestic violence in the UK, and others. The films from Africa really touched me, and lead me to think how we can possibly let this happen.

watch some of these and tell me you feel no remorse, no pity, no pain for them: http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/video1.html
i defy someone to tell me that it is not wrong.

something needs to be done about this, and i urge anybody reading this to donate some money (http://www.rednoseday.com/index.shtml) to the RND cause, now.


turning to the politics of the situation, this is one of the times in my life when i truly feel disgusted with something - with some people (i usually try to be open minded and respectful of others' opinions). some people will claim that inequality is ok, that trickle-down economics works, that poor people don't deserve the luxury of the rich as they are fundamentally lazy.
want to see where this leads? want to know where right-wing economics leads us? here, to Africa, where the very few have all the wealth and the power, and the protection of the state, and the rest are left to die in shanty towns and the street. where AIDS and disease are an incurable plague, killing millions, and where these people could live a lot longer, and happier, able to watch their children grow up, if only they could afford the medicines necessary. the simple truth is that they should not have to afford the drugs they need - drugs which (apparently) here in the UK we can find down the local pharmacy, and which many of us can get for free.
in comparison to this we have a venerable socialist paradie. we, in the West have so much (look at this for a quick reminder), while millions starve to death or die slowly and painfully from a disease that can be both prevented and passified.
somebody tell me it is not our duty to help these people; somebody say that we deserve what we have, and they deserve to be where they are, and i will loose all respect for that person without question.

now i'm not saying i have some grand plan to end it all, just that people all round the world need to be far more aware of this. i dunno, i'm just letting off some steam really... we're so obsessed with ourselves, our own welfare, our greed that, for the most part, we ignore these people - people we, the West, can help. trade for example; last night i thought an apt metaphor for world trade is two fat kids trading sweets between each other, playing 'piggie in the middle' with the poor kid in between them never getting any. Europe and America achieving a massive amount of trade between each other - investing in each other's economies, helping each other grow, leaving out Africa all together...
everyone is too engaged in the rat race, trying to take what is best for them, trying to be the best, or the richest, or whatever. it doesn't matter - just be thankful that you have a roof over your head, food to eat, clothes on your back and (access to) a PC to play NS with ;)

sorry, rant over.


http://www.colinturnbull.com/image_25starvingik2.jpg

I always cry watching comic relief :( I ended up turning it off part way through last night because I was so upset :(

Oh, yeah, this reminds me I was going to donate money for some project in Africa (I was planning this during all those Tsunami charity actions).

I always cry watching comic relief :( I ended up turning it off part way through last night because I was so upset :(
yeah i nearly cried (yeah i'm a bloke... shut up :rolleyes: )

think i'm gonna get one of those white band thingys http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/getaband.html#online

I donated £50 last night.

It would be simple to help Africa out. Cancel all third-world debt. Normally I'd not support such a move, but most of those countries are paying back interest, and they can't even touch the original debt itself anymore because the interest is so high. In the 80s, in the Ethiopian famine, the country was exporting fod to pay. =/ This is not a problem of the econmic model though. "some people will claim that inequality is ok, that trickle-down economics works, that poor people don't deserve the luxury of the rich as they are fundamentally lazy."

Generally, you'd be wrong here. However, Africa simply doesn't have the ability to pull herself up. Of course, this leaves me open to comparisons to individuals who get into debt, but that was their own doing. A lot of Africa had nothing to do with what got them into debt, I'll wager. *Shrugs*

It would be simple to help Africa out. Cancel all third-world debt. Normally I'd not support such a move, but most of those countries are paying back interest, and they can't even touch the original debt itself anymore because the interest is so high. In the 80s, in the Ethiopian famine, the country was exporting fod to pay. =/ This is not a problem of the econmic model though. "some people will claim that inequality is ok, that trickle-down economics works, that poor people don't deserve the luxury of the rich as they are fundamentally lazy."

Generally, you'd be wrong here. However, Africa simply doesn't have the ability to pull herself up. Of course, this leaves me open to comparisons to individuals who get into debt, but that was their own doing. A lot of Africa had nothing to do with what got them into debt, I'll wager. *Shrugs*
i know that, but thats what this economic model brings, when taken to the extreme - some people in Africa are wealthy, healthy and powerful. most are too poor to live. yes they cannot drag themselves out, but that's not the point - the inequality-gone-mad (what i generalise as 'right wing economics') is what has put them in that situation in the first place. this is a point that some people really aren't going to like, and i know it is not as simple as that, but when it boils down to the fundamentals, i believe that's the problem.
the situation is, of course, made worse (read 'impossible') by the continent's debt problems, and the prices that pharmaceutical companies in the West are charging for the drugs the people need.
in my view, cancel 3rd world debt and force all pharmaceutical firms to supply their drugs to Africa for free.

I realise that what I'm going to say here will make a lot of people think I'm an insensitive and uncaring person, but here goes anyway. I was laughing through most of the short appeal videos - especially the one about homeless kids in Britain, where Fearne Cotton said 'I hope it's not your child out on the streets tonight'. I hope so too. I haven't got a kid, to the best of my knowledge, so I would be extremely worried if he or she were out on the streets. It would raise issues beyond the fact that my kid ran away.
And the appeal for money to combat AIDS. In the short video I saw there was an 8 year old African girl, can't remember her name, having a blood test. She was HIV+. Now, I agree, that's sad. But the voiceover then said this - 'This would normally be a death sentence, but with your help, <girl's name> will be given the drugs that will help her live a much longer life.' But the truth is, she'll most likely die in around 20 years (before she reaches 30). So we're paying to give people like her a longer life, where they are in perpetual fear of so much - starvation, rebel uprisings, not to mention any slight infection at all. And she, and others like her, are consuming food that could go to healthy people - people who have a chance of living beyond 50.
Maybe we shouldn't be focusing on what we can do - how much has been raised by Comic Relief since it started? Around half a billion pounds. That's quite impressive. Well, no, it's not. If the countries with the 5 largest economies in the world donated 0.01% of their annual GDP, that money could solve world hunger for decades ahead. Half a billion doesn't even manage half a decade.
I'm not saying that Comic Relief and other charity telethons are bad things, but they bring up the problem once a year, and people give £10, or £50, whatever, remember it for a few days, maybe a fortnight, then just forget about it. Remember Band Aid, and Live Aid. I personally don't, but I know about it. That solved things didn't it? Err...no. There's still widespread famine in Africa, and very little healthcare. Nearly half of the African population are starving. The average African life expectancy is under 50. No other continent has an average life expectancy of under 60. Africa has 25% of the world's population...and 1.6% of the world's health funding. Less than half of African countries are anything resembling democratic. Due to corruption in African goverments, over a quarter of aid never reaches the people that need it. Over 40% of people have no access to clean drinking water. Is £500 million over 20 years really going to help? No.

It will help a bit, overall my familly gave £100+ and I also organised all the events at my school, unfortuntly a offspin of that was I had to take part. I really hate the appeal videos, but there nesscary and always remind me of why I've done all that work.

they should do comic relief in other countries too, they'd raise so much more money

they should do comic relief in other countries too, they'd raise so much more money
It's seems to be a purly British thing, like Children in Need.

i didnt watch it because i knew i would just end up getting depressed, but i gave what i could afford to give

It's seems to be a purly British thing, like Children in Need.yeah, but it really is a shame, I'm pretty sure people in other countries could be just as generous, and we're only a tiny little country yet we manage to raise tens of millions of pounds every year, just think how much bigger countries, especially america could raise if they did the same thing

and we're only a tiny little country yet we manage to raise tens of millions of pounds every year,
i thing i read somewhere that last year or 2003 it raised about £60 million overall, which is like a pound from each person

It makes me cry, too. Everytime someone posts on here about how aid to Africa is uesless, I just want to smash their head up against a wall. :mad:

yeah, but it really is a shame, I'm pretty sure people in other countries could be just as generous, and we're only a tiny little country yet we manage to raise tens of millions of pounds every year, just think how much bigger countries, especially america could raise if they did the same thing
I raised that point on another thread, thy expect to raise at LEAST 70 million this year, and I hope they do. Thats more than a Pound for everyone in the UK. If we could get America to do the same thing, and to do CiN as well then that could be over 400 million every year, it would make a HUGE diffrence to Africa.

It makes me cry, too. Everytime someone posts on here about how aid to Africa is uesless, I just want to smash their head up against a wall. :mad:
yeah, i know what you mean, the good thing about comic Releif and Children In Need is that they don't just show you the people who are suffering but they also show you how the money is being spent and how it's helping so you know that it's helping people

I raised that point on another thread, thy expect to raise at LEAST 70 million this year, and I hope they do. Thats more than a Pound for everyone in the UK. If we could get America to do the same thing, and to do CiN as well then that could be over 400 million every year, it would make a HUGE diffrence to Africa.
the rest of Europe could bring in around 500 million extra, so if the US and Europe did comic relief we'd be aprroaching 1 trillion a year :)

What sickens me the most is that I'm an American and they aren't pulling their weight for anyone. Some people believe that because they earned their money, they don't have to give anything to anyone. That's very true but why wouldn't you want to give $5.00 to someone who is so emaciated. They're people, too. I think a lot of Americans forget that. I guess it's easier to not care than it is to care for, some people anyway. Trying to help them seems too helpless so they leave that part of the world behind, where people are so emaciated that their bones start to tear. :rolleyes: :mad: :(

What sickens me the most is that I'm an American and they aren't pulling their weight for anyone. Some people believe that because they earned their money, they don't have to give anything to anyone. That's very true but why wouldn't you want to give $5.00 to someone who is so emaciated. They're people, too. I think a lot of Americans forget that. I guess it's easier to not care than it is to care for, some people anyway. Trying to help them seems too helpless so they leave that part of the world behind, where people are so emaciated that their bones start to tear. :rolleyes: :mad: :(
i think the problem is, nowadays, both in the US and the UK, everything needs to be a media spectacle to get any attention at all. thats why comic relief and red nose day is so brilliant - it actually gets people engaged (especially schools, so many people (myself included) have grown up with it almost as a tradition) and gets the attention of the whole country. that's the point, and it works :)
of course it is quite sad that you need to have such a thing just to get attention... :headbang:

What sickens me the most is that I'm an American and they aren't pulling their weight for anyone. Some people believe that because they earned their money, they don't have to give anything to anyone. That's very true but why wouldn't you want to give $5.00 to someone who is so emaciated. They're people, too. I think a lot of Americans forget that. I guess it's easier to not care than it is to care for, some people anyway. Trying to help them seems too helpless so they leave that part of the world behind, where people are so emaciated that their bones start to tear. :rolleyes: :mad: :(
WTF are you on? American's give more to charity per capita than anyone else in the world.

Most world poverty is due to government corruption - hence the need for smaller government. Capitalism has no more in common with corruption than height has with promiscuity.

WTF are you on? American's give more to charity per capita than anyone else in the world.

Most world poverty is due to government corruption - hence the need for smaller government. Capitalism has no more in common with corruption than height has with promiscuity.
are you crazy? capitalism = greed which is the cause of corruption. the corrupt governments in power in Africa use capitalism and the idea of meritocracy to keep the millions in poverty. think about it for a second, if the governments were 'big' (authoritarian) and subscribed to more left wing economic policies of wealth redistribution, the poor in Africa would be better off. the corrupt and ultimatley greedy leaders of corrupt governments are corrupting capitalism to an evil form

Bozzy, what evidence are you refering to? I've never seen something that says we give the most per capita. Perhaps you could show me. If you think there's no greed in America either you're blind, in denial, or you have a lot of money. I don't know, but PM is right. Capitalism does equal greed, in noncapitalist countries output and growth are not priorities like they are in capitalist countries.

are you crazy? capitalism = greed which is the cause of corruption. the corrupt governments in power in Africa use capitalism and the idea of meritocracy to keep the millions in poverty. think about it for a second, if the governments were 'big' (authoritarian) and subscribed to more left wing economic policies of wealth redistribution, the poor in Africa would be better off. the corrupt and ultimatley greedy leaders of corrupt governments are corrupting capitalism to an evil form
It is the governments in these nations that 'redistribute' the wealth already - to themselves. Capitalism plays no role in their corruption.
Greed and presonal responsibility are not the same. Capitalism is like a knife - wielded irresponsibly it can be harful. It also can be a valueable tool. When wielded correctly it creates a beautiful model where your reward is proportionate to your contribution to society.

in my view, cancel 3rd world debt and force all pharmaceutical firms to supply their drugs to Africa for free.

That sounds great in theory, but outside of theory, it is quite harmful. If we just go and cancel all 3rd world debt, which means a majority of the countries near or below the equator, then everyone's economy is going to be hit in a negative way in the 'global north' where the loans are from and in turn that will hurt the ability to give a lot of aid. This idea will also mean that the 3rd world countries would have an extremely hard time getting anyone to loan them any money ever again because you know eventually its just going to be defaulted anyways. So far, with these two suggestions, we have hurt the economy of just about every nation and made it next to impossible for any country in the 'global south' to ever get a loan again.

With the second part of your plan, again, it seems great but comes with many downfalls. Again it would be a huge hit to most of the western countries' economy, but even more than that you will have to explain to the thousands of families that work for these companies why they are now going to be unemployed because that is what would happen. We would have workers that may already be sturggling that are now on unemployment, welfare, and many other government programs just to stay out of poverty. Don't get me wrong, the drug companies could do a lot more to help these countries out, but making all drugs free is going to do a lot of harm to many pepole. You may say the positive outweighs the negative here and that is your choice, but getting rid of all debt and making drugs free to poor nations isn't all helpful.

It is the governments in these nations that 'redistribute' the wealth already - to themselves. Capitalism plays no role in their corruption.
Greed and presonal responsibility are not the same. Capitalism is like a knife - wielded irresponsibly it can be harful. It also can be a valueable tool. When wielded correctly it creates a beautiful model where your reward is proportionate to your contribution to society.
i suppose we're thinking different sides of the same triangle (if that makes any sense)
capitalism is ok in many countries (the West), and it is used irresponsibly by the governments of many countries in Africa to, as you say, redistribute the wealth to themselves. all i'm saying is that they do use capitalism to further their own greed, and that more left wing economic policies might benefit the poor more (if the leaders of govt. there had redistribution of wealth to the masses as their primary concern, rather than the fulfillment of their own greed)

and for the record, i am socialist, so my view may be somewhat biased :D


edit: must get on with some work. be back later.

The videos for Comic Relief are getting more and more powerful each year, and although disturbing, they MUST be shown to highlight three things that there should be a war on: AIDS, HIV, and Poverty, and lack of welfare.

I have to say that although I am a fan of The Office, I thought Ricky Gervais's video sequence was disgusting.

I know he was trying to be funny, but showing him jetting off to New York for the high life after making a statement about how he did not want to go to Africa was in bad taste and not funny at all, and came straight after a powerful serious video too.

You can do sketches like that, but that one was enacted terribly, and I don't see what contribution it made positively.

I both love and hate Red Nose Day.

I appreciate the purpose. I like that normal people are encouraged and do donate and/or do something to alleviate suffering. Some of the comedy is good too (though some of it seems a bit forced).

I hate it because it makes me very self consious of my denial, watching reminds me of a fact that I try and imagine isn't there. Can you blame me for that? Surely a any decent person would go mad if they didn't. It depresses me that such huge lengths have to be gone to to get people to donate to charity. It shows government as institutions that only care for themselves, and maybe their citizens.

Though I did like Alan Partridge's interview with the Milky Bar Kid (Simon Pegg).

Unfortunately, I'm currently skint, so the sum total of my donations to charity in the last week has been just over a tenner. I am getting a job, though, and I was thinking of setting up one of those £2 a month donations with oxfam. I know it's sod all, but I can't afford more.

I both love and hate Red Nose Day.

I appreciate the purpose. I like that normal people are encouraged and do donate and/or do something to alleviate suffering. Some of the comedy is good too (though some of it seems a bit forced).

I hate it because it makes me very self consious of my denial, watching reminds me of a fact that I try and imagine isn't there. Can you blame me for that? Surely a any decent person would go mad if they didn't. It depresses me that such huge lengths have to be gone to to get people to donate to charity. It shows government as institutions that only care for themselves, and maybe their citizens.

Though I did like Alan Partridge's interview with the Milky Bar Kid (Simon Pegg).


Alan Patridge was brilliant.

Another highlight for me was when the Little Britain duo announced that Jonathan Ross would donate 1.5 million

Ross squirmed, mumbling he wished he could.

Well he could, quite easily.

Unfortunately, I'm currently skint, so the sum total of my donations to charity in the last week has been just over a tenner. I am getting a job, though, and I was thinking of setting up one of those £2 a month donations with oxfam. I know it's sod all, but I can't afford more.
don't feel bad, I only managed a fiver and I felt horrible watching those films but I don't have another penny that I could donate, I don't have a job

Unfortunately, I'm currently skint, so the sum total of my donations to charity in the last week has been just over a tenner. I am getting a job, though, and I was thinking of setting up one of those £2 a month donations with oxfam. I know it's sod all, but I can't afford more.

Your donation will go a long way. To the people of Africa who need it, it's far from sod all.

Respect to you.

i suppose we're thinking different sides of the same triangle (if that makes any sense)
capitalism is ok in many countries (the West), and it is used irresponsibly by the governments of many countries in Africa to, as you say, redistribute the wealth to themselves. all i'm saying is that they do use capitalism to further their own greed, and that more left wing economic policies might benefit the poor more (if the leaders of govt. there had redistribution of wealth to the masses as their primary concern, rather than the fulfillment of their own greed)

and for the record, i am socialist, so my view may be somewhat biased :D


edit: must get on with some work. be back later.
In theory the removal of corruption in either case would have a positive effect. However we've seen history proove over and over again that giving people freedom and responsibility provides better results where communism has proven incapable of seperating itself from corruption.

In theory the removal of corruption in either case would have a positive effect. However we've seen history proove over and over again that giving people freedom and responsibility provides better results where communism has proven incapable of seperating itself from corruption.

Agreed. My suspicion would be that there are two main reasons for this;

First, if the people are being ill-treated by a corporation or company, rather than the state, they've got much more chance of someone caring if they complain. After all, if you piss of Nike, you can always get a job with Microsoft. You piss of the Soviets, and you invariably got a new job - as a heavy manual laborer in Siberia.

Second, people actually benefit themselves personally from ferreting out corruption. If your boss is corrupt, you can get him in trouble, and get yourself better conditions. If your local soviet officer is corrupt, you could well be getting something yourself, if he's hoarding food or something. Obviously, that's a stark and non-encompassing example, but you see what I'm trying to get at.

ok, i just spemt ages making a post about red nose day at PB so I'm gonna post it here to make it feel less like a waste of time:

http://www.rednoseday.com/index.shtml I don't understand why other countries don't do something similar. In 2003 RND raised over £60million ($115,566,855) to help people in Britain as well as in Africa and it makes a big difference, there's been 9 RND and it's raised over £289million ($556,647,020) since it began and Comic Relief has raised £377million since it began in 1985, it's a huge amount of money considering this is such a small country, if we can raise that much with a population of just over 60million then just imagine how much other countries could raise too! The US has a population of nearly 300million, France has over 60million people, Germany has over 82 million and I just think it's really sad that they aren't getting involved too. And it's not just RND there's Children In Need ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/pudsey/ ) too which raised £30million ($57,783,427) for kids around the world that are poor, hungry, alone and/or abused, maybe celebrities in other countries aren't as willing to give up their time to volunteer and help but I doubt it, if they saw some of the things that they show us over here I'm pretty sure they'd be more than willing to help out, the short films they show break my heart and I just wish more could be done to help

Bozzy, what evidence are you refering to? I've never seen something that says we give the most per capita. Perhaps you could show me. If you think there's no greed in America either you're blind, in denial, or you have a lot of money. I don't know, but PM is right. Capitalism does equal greed, in noncapitalist countries output and growth are not priorities like they are in capitalist countries.

I can. Facts are only inconvinient when your argument is not based on any - like yours. Private donations in America leave the world in the dust.

Also, greed is not exclusive to America - though in America there is more freedom and opportunity to pursue it (or anything else) if one wishes. Slotheness is not rewarded and mediocrity is less acceptable here than elsewhere. I don't consider that bad.

If capitalism were synonymous with greed than private donations in the most capitalist nation in the wrold would be non-existant. Read on and recognize the fallacy of your argument.

Output and Growth = Jobs and prosperity. That is why capitalism is superior in every way to socialism.



America's Tsunami of Giving

by Larry Elder
Posted Jan 7, 2005

Last year, American government provided 35 percent of worldwide relief aid. In private contributions, American individuals, estates, foundations and corporations gave over $240 billion to charitable causes in 2003, according to Giving USA Foundation. Privately, Americans give at least $34 billion overseas.

Josette Shiner, former Empower America president, points out that more than 80 percent of Americans belong to a "voluntary association," and 75 percent of households report charitable contributions. Shiner wrote in 1999, "Americans look even better compared to other leading nations. Accons.

According to recent surveys, 73 percent of Americans made a charitable contribution in the previous 12 months, as compared to 44 percent of Germans, and 43 percent of French citizens. The average sum of donations over 12 months was $851 for Americans, $120 for Germans, and $96 for the French. In addition, 49 percent of Americans volunteered over the previous 12 months, as compared to 13 percent of Germans and 19 percent of the French."

Of the 184 subscriber nations of the World Bank -- which provides financial assistance and debt relief to developing countries for particular sectors or projects with low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants -- contributions paid in by America make up over 17 percent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) focuses on providing financing for general support of a country's balance of payments and international reserves. Again, of the IMF's 184 nations, the U.S. does the heavy lifting, providing 17.5 percent of contributions.

What about debt forgiveness? The United States forgave about $14 billion in foreign debt from the late '80s through 1995. Since 1994, the U.S. has worked with the Paris Club -- an informal forum of creditor countries -- to review, negotiate and adopt debt relief programs for poor countries, recently badgering France and Germany into agreeing to forgive 80 percent of the $39 billion owed by Iraq.

America twice assisted Europe in World Wars I and II. America took the lead in defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and continues to provide troops and military assistance to European nations and Southeast Asia.

United Nations' Egeland brags about his native Norway, which, in giving, he says, "is No. 1 in the world." Norway gives 0.92 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to foreign aid development, versus 0.14 percent in this country. " . . . We have . . . no country up to the 1 percent . . . line of foreign assistance in general," says Egeland, "and we have, I think, three . . . Scandinavians that have exceeded -- and Holland -- the 0.7 percent line of gross national income for assistance." Yes, Holland gave $12.2 billion in foreign aid in 2003, but that was following two years in which it received more aid than it gave.

Besides, these numbers overlook Americans' private contributions, which equal 2.2 percent of our GDP. Add the value of volunteer time contributed, and -- even when calculated at minimum wage -- that gives you another $100 billion.

Add in the amount of money spent to protect other (often wealthy) countries -- military spending is 3.3 percent of our GDP, versus Sweden's 1.7 percent, Denmark's 1.6 percent, Norway's 1.9 percent, and Holland's 1.6 percent -- and, as Ronald Reagan might have put it, not bad. Not bad at all.

As to the tragedy in southern Asia, consider other actions taken by the United States so far: providing aircraft carriers, transport planes, helicopters, military support, logistical support, ships carrying food supplies, reconnaissance planes and warships, sending disaster assistance teams, shuttling supplies and advance teams to Sumatra's northwest coast and sending cargo planes carrying Marines and water purification equipment to Sri Lanka.


Plus ( If you've even read this far ;) ) when you look at it state by state it is even more interesting. Most STATES outgive most Eurpoean nations. As one would expect, the red states tend to give much more than the blue states.
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

Two types of charity:
1. What your government gives.
2. What your people give through private philanthropy.

The US government provides a tremendous amount of aid money, but if you figure on a per capita basis, it might not appear to be as much as other nations whose governments give money.

Americans are more philanthropic than anyone else.

An upcoming study, to be published in full in spring 2005 by the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish & Community Research, finds that the top 6% of annual American charitable contributions exceeds the combined efforts of all other nations to aid victims of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.

The study, Mega-Gifts in American Philanthropy, Volume II: 2001, by Gary A. Tobin, Alexander C. Karp, and Aryeh K. Weinberg, shows that in 2001 American individuals, corporations, and foundations donated nearly $13 billion in mega-gifts (donations over $1 million) without the impetus of a major disaster, including the attacks of September 11. The total for all tsunami relief, both private and governmental, stands to date at approximately $10 billion.

According to the study, the wealthiest Americans annually donate to charitable causes at levels that other peoples and nations barely reach even in the face of a major crisis such as the tsunami.

"Americans are so generous that every year, a number of single donors give gifts that dwarf the aid offered by other countries to those affected by the tsunami," said Gary Tobin, one of the authors of the study. "Americans give at emergency levels every day. When the rest of the world has forgotten about this crisis, Americans will keep giving generously to this and thousands of other causes."

According to Giving USA, published by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, Americans donated approximately $241 billion in 2003. The next most generous nation, the United Kingdom, donated 7 billion pounds sterling, or approximately $70 billion when adjusted for population differences. France ($20 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) and Germany ($12.25 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) also lag far behind the United States in charitable donations.

Contrary to the tradition of governmental support, which is more pronounced in much of the rest of the developed world, the size and volume of American mega-gifts often creates trends that the American government then follows, according to the Institute's report. When the news of the tsunami reached American households, individuals, foundations, and corporations donated more than $300 million. The United States government then pledged $350 million.

The report also shows that mega-givers open up entirely new areas of philanthropy, encouraging social awareness and action for previously underrepresented needs. Bill and Melinda Gates donated over $350 million in funding for AIDS research in Africa; the American government followed suit with a multi-billion dollar aid package.

The study shows that Americans also demand accountability for their gifts, especially those sent abroad. According to the report, "financial scandals that have plagued global efforts, including the oil for food scandal of the United Nations and the bloated personal bank account of the likes of Yasser Arafat create great skepticism and caution among donors who want to know that the monies they give will actually go for the intended purposes when they donate internationally."

According to the report, the recent debate over American generosity points out "a fundamental difference between Americans and the rest of the world regarding the faith that Americans place in individual choice and the resulting moral vision as expressed through philanthropy."

These findings are based on research conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, San Francisco, an independent, non-partisan think tank, which provides innovative research and pragmatic policy analyses to Jewish and other communities around the world. For more information, see "American Mega-Giving: A Comparison to Global Disaster Relief."

Originally posted by B0zzy
I can. Facts are only inconvinient when your argument is not based on any - like yours. Private donations in America leave the world in the dust.

Also, greed is not exclusive to America - though in America there is more freedom and opportunity to pursue it (or anything else) if one wishes. Slotheness is not rewarded and mediocrity is less acceptable here than elsewhere. I don't consider that bad.

If capitalism were synonymous with greed than private donations in the most capitalist nation in the wrold would be non-existant. Read on and recognize the fallacy of your argument.

Output and Growth = Jobs and prosperity. That is why capitalism is superior in every way to socialism.

First off, I did not say that greed is not present in other nations. Greed is present throughout all nations. However, if you read my post you will see that I was refering to charity directed towards the starving in Africa.

Originally Posted by Oksana
What sickens me the most is that I'm an American and they aren't pulling their weight for anyone. Some people believe that because they earned their money, they don't have to give anything to anyone. That's very true but why wouldn't you want to give $5.00 to someone who is so emaciated? They're people, too. I think a lot of Americans forget that. I guess it's easier to not care than it is to care, forsome people anyway. Trying to help them seems too helpless so they leave that part of the world behind, where people are so emaciated that their bones start to tear.

That is the topic we are talking about. Volunteering, Tsunami aid, and wartime support are not relevant to my post. I did not say we didn't give money. I said a lot of Americans seem to be plagued with this idea that we do not have a responsiblity towards humanity. That is bullshit. We do. If you seem to believe this to be untrue look at the first page in this forum. The fact is that more could be done to help out Africa yet it's not. Tsunami relief and volunteering is great but it does not put food in the mouths of African children. As for capitalism, if it were not for Socialism we would not have private donations. Much of the aid that is recieved by America is through the government. Social welfare is key in Socialism. As for private donations, that comes from a person's heart. Social welfare, private or not, isn't emphasized in Capitalism. The American government is a product of mainly Capitalism with influences from Socialism as well. A pure Capitalist society would not entail social welfare.

As for your link, it does not work.

I read one of those reports, it said Americans gave a hell of a lot, I can't rember how much, but Bill Gates and other rich Americans give almost half.

Anyone remember the threads on the tsunami aid, which just degenerated into a 'my country gave more than yours' slanging match? Seriously guys, it doesn't matter who gives the most.

Originally posted by IV Stalin
Anyone remember the threads on the tsunami aid, which just degenerated into a 'my country gave more than yours' slanging match? Seriously guys, it doesn't matter who gives the most.

Well put, Stalin. I don't think specific amounts matter. I just think that people should care. When people stop caring the world becomes a dangerous place for all of us. :)

I said a lot of Americans seem to be plagued with this idea that we do not have a responsiblity towards humanity. That is bullshit. We do. .
If you consider that true then you must be insenced at the Europeans who have almost HALF the participation rate in private charitable giving. Americans are overwealmingly more willing to dig into THEIR OWN POCKETS to give to those in need than any other nations citizens. If you feel that is inadequate you should start with other developed nations with half or less as much giving.


As for capitalism, if it were not for Socialism we would not have private donations. Much of the aid that is recieved by America is through the government. .

No, you put the cart before the horse - more is given privately. Private donations often set the tone for the government - as my prior post made clear.

As for private donations, that comes from a person's heart. Social welfare, private or not, isn't emphasized in Capitalism. The American government is a product of mainly Capitalism with influences from Socialism as well. A pure Capitalist society would not entail social welfare.

So then you're saying that America is not only the most capitalist and successful nation in the world, but also and seperatly has the collective biggest hearts. Thank you. It is nice to be appreciated.


As for your link, it does not work.
Crap - I'll try to fix it - thanks.

Originally posted by B0zzy
No, you put the cart before the horse - more is given privately. Private donations often set the tone for the government - as my prior post made clear.

That is my point. I don't believe that Capitalism or Socialism, in its truest form, is the best form of government. I also realize that Socialism in reality does not always accomplish what it is meant to in theory. However, Socialism is an iortant force that should be apart of any government. Like I said, when social welfare stops becoming a priority, we are all in danger.

Another highlight for me was when the Little Britain duo announced that Jonathan Ross would donate 1.5 million

Ross squirmed, mumbling he wished he could.

Well he could, quite easily.

That's one of the things that bugs me; how all these celebrities are telling us to donate money and talking about how it's such a great cause when they themselves are hugely rich and could make a huge donation and a huge difference.

Apart from that (and the annoying songs) I think it's great and I also wish other countries and the US would get involved. It doesn't take much to give a pound each but would save so many lives.

i donated a tenner just as i did for the bl and rpca

yeah, but it really is a shame, I'm pretty sure people in other countries could be just as generous, and we're only a tiny little country yet we manage to raise tens of millions of pounds every year, just think how much bigger countries, especially america could raise if they did the same thing

Give me a break!

The U.S. is the MOST GIVING Nation in the World BY FAR!

Regards,
Gaar

Give me a break!

The U.S. is the MOST GIVING Nation in the World BY FAR!

Regards,
Gaar

my highly atractive arse is it. how much do you give to charity..you as an individual? maybe america does give out alot as a country but look at the size of the fucker...you can not tell me that the majority of americans ar eincreadably charitable

Give me a break!

The U.S. is the MOST GIVING Nation in the World BY FAR!

Regards,
Gaar
so then why not have a red nose day too?! it doesn't make sense! I wasn't trying to say that Americans aren't generous, I just think it's amazing how much money can be raised in one night just from people giving a few quid or buying a red nose for £1, and we get to see where the money goes and exactly how and who it helps, it just seems silly that other countries (and I don't just mean America, there's plenty of other MEDCs that could do this) don't have Comic Relief, or Children in Need for that matter

so then why not have a red nose day too?! it doesn't make sense! I wasn't trying to say that Americans aren't generous, I just think it's amazing how much money can be raised in one night just from people giving a few quid or buying a red nose for £1, and we get to see where the money goes and exactly how and who it helps, it just seems silly that other countries (and I don't just mean America, there's plenty of other MEDCs that could do this) don't have Comic Relief, or Children in Need for that matter

what other naton could create such a thing?..none the idea ,along with the hovercraft,harrier,cricket and imperailism is essentually british.it is such a shame other counttries do not have something simmilar

Give me a break!

The U.S. is the MOST GIVING Nation in the World BY FAR!

Regards,
Gaar
no. bad. lets not have a 'my country is more charitable than yours' shitfest :mad:

no. bad. lets not have a 'my country is more charitable than yours' shitfest :mad:

but sir he pushed it to far :(

ok

Flashheart']but sir he pushed it to far :(

ok
good boy. heel.

:p sorry

good boy. heel.

:p sorry

... :( ???


i just dont want to know

Flashheart']... :( ???


i just dont want to know
:confused: now i'm confused too :confused:

:confused: now i'm confused too :confused:


me to aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (head explodes)

no if news spread out i was dead 5 thousand chicks would kill themselves and i wouldnt want that my consience

Flashheart']me to aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (head explodes)

no if news spread out i was dead 5 thousand chicks would kill themselves and i wouldnt want that my consience
it can be our little secret... ;)

or..... actually those 5 thousand chicks would need consoling...... *plots*

it can be our little secret... ;)

or..... actually those 5 thousand chicks would need consoling...... *plots*
hey! what do you need 5,000 chicks for when you're married to me!

hey! what do you need 5,000 chicks for when you're married to me!

the more the merryer?
maybe he wishes he was a mormon...

Flashheart']the more the merryer?
maybe he wishes he was a mormon...
I'm not good enough :(

I'm not good enough :(
no no no no no not that at all.... :fluffle: :fluffle: sorry :(


its just, you know, its five thousand chicks!! i'll say it again: five thousand chicks.... the mind boggles :eek: :p

no no no no no not that at all.... :fluffle: :fluffle: sorry :(


its just, you know, its five thousand chicks!! i'll say it again: five thousand chicks.... the mind boggles :eek: :p
that wasn't a very good apology :(

;) no no no no no not that at all.... :fluffle: :fluffle: sorry :(


its just, you know, its five thousand chicks!! i'll say it again: five thousand chicks.... the mind boggles :eek: :p

not just his mind either ;)

Flashheart'];)

not just his mind either ;)
:(

:(
gah now i feel bad :(

how can i make it up to you? :(

gah now i feel bad :(

how can i make it up to you? :(

....i wont comment

gah now i feel bad :(

how can i make it up to you? :(
i could think of a few ways

I flew to London for two weeks for new years and one night found myself in Treforest, Wales where i got pretty well wasted and gave 20 pounds to the pubkeeper's tsunami appeal jar.


Also... the phoenix symphony called to bug me so I gave them 10$, ditto the ACLU + my 25$ yearly deal.

I think I also gave 5$ to the james randy educational fund...
and 5$ to wikipedia.


I'm a student at university so thats about all I can afford. Besides, i buy tickets to the symphony.

Give me a break!

The U.S. is the MOST GIVING Nation in the World BY FAR!

Regards,
Gaar


Thats simply a lie.

The US lags behind many developed nations in terms of giving-as-proportion-of-GDP. The us is greedy and stingy.

Thats simply a lie.

The US lags behind many developed nations in terms of giving-as-proportion-of-GDP. The us is greedy and stingy.
I'd ask for supporting evidence, but I won't because I know you have none because you are completely and totally incorrect. But if it makes you feel good to be so, be my guest.

Flashheart']my highly atractive arse is it. how much do you give to charity..you as an individual? maybe america does give out alot as a country but look at the size of the fucker...you can not tell me that the majority of americans ar eincreadably charitable
Um, yes I can. And unlike you, I'd be correct.

so then why not have a red nose day too?! it doesn't make sense! I wasn't trying to say that Americans aren't generous, I just think it's amazing how much money can be raised in one night just from people giving a few quid or buying a red nose for £1, and we get to see where the money goes and exactly how and who it helps, it just seems silly that other countries (and I don't just mean America, there's plenty of other MEDCs that could do this) don't have Comic Relief, or Children in Need for that matter
First of all, the US has several charitable events every year, most are regional (for ex: walk-a-thons), but some are national (Jerry Lewis Telethon)

Second - American's give plenty already. We tend to give even more only when there are unusual disasters - Hurricanes and floods for example.

American donors are also getting mroe sophisticated and a bit jaded. As you saw during the tsunami - we are not quite so gullible anymore as to give blindly without checking to be sure the money is actually going to the cause. It is sad that we have to check.

Um, yes I can. And unlike you, I'd be correct.

my personal visits to america prove you rong
your personal visits to anyware were probably in your head

i know from experiance that americans as a people are no more charitable than any other fucking countrys people are, now maybe we are just looking at you as an individual, maybe you do cive money to charity and feel good about it and want to tell the wholle frigin world you do,if so i have no problem but if you take a good look at those around you you may notice that no-one is constantly giving to charity and holding fundraisers or anything of the sort
so dont say americas people are more charitable than any others because quite frankly its been a long day and i am rather tired although i would love to shoot holes in your messianic national ideas.......sorry i am going a bit over the top

That is my point. I don't believe that Capitalism or Socialism, in its truest form, is the best form of government. I also realize that Socialism in reality does not always accomplish what it is meant to in theory. However, Socialism is an important force that should be apart of any government. Like I said, when social welfare stops becoming a priority, we are all in danger.
Socialism as you describe it is simply compusory charity. I think that business, charity and the government should have minimal overlap. This creates efficiencies, transparency and reciprocal oversight. In socialism they are far from seperate and that potential is denied. Social welfare can be a priority without it being a government priority.

That said, there are many government responsibilities which could be mistaken for socialism which are not. For example public roads.

Flashheart']my personal visits to america prove you rong
your personal visits to anyware were probably in your head

i know from experiance that americans as a people are no more charitable than any other fucking countrys people are, now maybe we are just looking at you as an individual, maybe you do cive money to charity and feel good about it and want to tell the wholle frigin world you do,if so i have no problem but if you take a good look at those around you you may notice that no-one is constantly giving to charity and holding fundraisers or anything of the sort
so dont say americas people are more charitable than any others because quite frankly its been a long day and i am rather tired although i would love to shoot holes in your messianic national ideas.......sorry i am going a bit over the top


Oh, well then in that case - I didn't know I was dealing with such an expert in the subect. Had I know you had taken such a thorough and methodical approach before determining your narrow-minded prejudice I would have been far more critical of your intellectual laziness. Of course, it may just have been that you were in a 'blue' state.

not sure what the source is for this information. plus it relates to the tsunami appeal only. but it does give specific figures. if anyone can take the time to work out where this guy got his figures from i'd like to know, cheers.

http://www.michaelbuffington.com/archives/2004/12/relief_funds_co.html

throwing money at this problem for the last 30 years has achieved what exactly?

it has achieved the virtual impossible, it's made the situation in Africa worse than it was.

I say we give them nothing anymore, so people there will start questioning their own governments corruption instead of waiting for some UN/US/Euro handout.

What do you do when a man has no food? Give him a fish or give him the tools to catch his own fish? The Euros believe the first, I believe the second option.

A Marshall plan for Africa, only to those countries with representative democratic governments, no money to tinpot dictatorships, thus the people in those countries will no longer support the tinpot dictatorships and the dictatorships will crumble.

Oh, well then in that case - I didn't know I was dealing with such an expert in the subect. Had I know you had taken such a thorough and methodical approach before determining your narrow-minded prejudice I would have been far more critical of your intellectual laziness. Of course, it may just have been that you were in a 'blue' state.

yep tuttle is a bit extreem, come tommorow he will like you :)

Invade Africa and kill even MORE people! That's a great idea you have, there...

yep tuttle is a bit extreem, come tommorow he will like you :)

no fucking wont

http://www.suntimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimesNEW/basket6st/basket6st1110533608.aspx

the uk alone has givel swaziland in africa more than a million pounds in aid in the last year. the king will be spending roughly the same amount on his birthday celebrations. until the government resolves to address the poverty issue, money alone will not solve this problem.

Flashheart']no fucking wont

You will.
You are just a bit contraversial (sorry about the spelling).
remember i was just the same...then i learnt that americans, like us, vary from person to person.
Now i think what you meant to say is that america should not count itself
more charitable than any other MEDC

Originally posted by B0zzy
Socialism as you describe it is simply compusory charity. I think that business, charity and the government should have minimal overlap. This creates efficiencies, transparency and reciprocal oversight. In socialism they are far from seperate and that potential is denied. Social welfare can be a priority without it being a government priority.


Please back this up with some evidence. I know that won't be a problem for you since you have it. Why would you even say that social welfare shouldn't be a government priority? My original argument was that individual citizens should have responsibility for this world. Governments should aid other countries because if we didn't nobody would feel any humanity towards people when they need it. The whole idea that social welfare shouldn't be government priority is trivial. Military top priority and currently we're using it to give "aid" to Iraq. :rolleyes:

Please back this up with some evidence. I know that won't be a problem for you since you have it. Why would you even say that social welfare shouldn't be a government priority? My original argument was that individual citizens should have responsibility for this world. Governments should aid other countries because if we didn't nobody would feel any humanity towards people when they need it. The whole idea that social welfare shouldn't be government priority is trivial. Military top priority and currently we're using it to give "aid" to Iraq. :rolleyes:
Hmm, where to start. Well, your worst gross misstatement is this:

Governments should aid other countries because if we didn't nobody would feel any humanity towards people when they need it.:
No, the government does not make people feel anything. People will feel altruism just fine without any guidance from 'the government'. (or more specifically, the people running the government) That is why private charity in America DWARFS federal aid. I find it sad if you are the kind of person who would not give out of your pocket but rather leave it to your government to decide who needs it more.

Here's a funny one;

The whole idea that social welfare shouldn't be government priority is trivial. Military top priority and currently we're using it to give "aid" to Iraq.

I think you meant 'erroneous', not 'trivial'. But your intent is still clear. Social welfare is not the juristiction of government. I stand by that. The role of government within that context is simply to provide an environment where people can suceed or prosper on their own merits. Those unable to can fall back to MANY NGOs which can provide services far more adequatly than a government handout could. I doubt you could even define the difference between the role of a charity and the role of a government, could you...

As far as the action in Iraq (you just can't help but you there) The current administration has positioned that as a mission of mercy as well as self interest. I suppose it is easy to forget that S.H. ordered a hit on our president and made clear he wanted to attack America and our allies any way possible. Every administration for the last 20 years knew he was not to be trusted. Sometimes just carrying the big stick is not enough. Just ask Ka'daffy'.

Please back this up with some evidence.
Umm, well you'll have to pay more attention in school if you don't know what a CPA, an auditor or a watchdog organization do. I'll try to sum it up briefly;
NGO charities are regularly audited by private and public accountants. When was the last time you saw the audit for FEMA? (Just why did they pay $30 mil to people for hurricane damage in areas far from where there were any hurricanes???) There are private non-profits who monitor the IRS and there are, of course, government auditors who monitor (and issue licenses to) CPAs. It is not perfect, but it works. Eliminating all but the government would result in a disaster of epic proportion.