Charity and the Real Root of Poverty
L: Doug, our readers are hoping to live well for the rest of their lives. If they are successful, they’ll have some money left over at the end. Some have wondered, given your low opinion of trying to use the state to improve the human condition, if there’s a private charity you think might be a good place to direct funds they no longer need.
Doug: No.
L: That’s it? No?
Doug: Most charities aren’t worth the cost of the gunpowder it would take to blow them to hell.
L: And the permitting for the demolition — fuhgeddaboudit. But can you explain why?
Doug: Sure. Charities are largely counterproductive. Their main beneficiaries are not the intended recipients, but the givers. They get some tax benefits, but mainly they get the holy high of do-goodism. Frankly, the idea of charity itself is corrupting to both parties in the transaction.
For instance, take Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Both are geniuses at their businesses. But they’re the type of geniuses I consider to be idiot savants. If they really wanted to improve the state of the world, they should continue doing what they do best, which is accumulating wealth. Or, actually, creating it — as opposed to dissipating it by giving it away. Giving money away breaks up a capital pool that could have been used productively by those who build it for making new wealth (which increases the amount of wealth that exists in the world).
Worse, giving money away usually delivers it into the hands of people who don’t deserve it. That sends the wrong moral message. People should have, or get, things because they deserve them. And you deserve things because you earn them. In other words, wealth should be a consequence of doing things that improve the state of the world. Endowing groups, or individuals, because they happen to have had some bad luck, or are perpetual losers, is actually immoral.
When money is given away, it’s almost as bad as government welfare. It makes it unnecessary for the recipient to produce, and that tends to cement him to his current station in life. The very act of making an urgent situation non-urgent takes away the incentive, the urgency, to improve.
Morally speaking, charity is not a virtue, it’s a vice.
L: The giver gets to feel good at the expense of the people whose independent drive they undermine. But what about the programs that are specifically designed to teach an individual to fish, rather than to just hand out fish — those that teach job skills, for example — do you see them the same way?
Doug: I’m not saying that programs like that can have no positive effect. There are people who genuinely want to improve themselves, but, for whatever reason, just can’t manage it on their own. But charity is not the best way to approach the issue.
Look, the basic point I’m making is that the best way to reduce the amount of poverty in the world is to create more wealth — as much as possible, as quickly as possible.
The essence of a charity transaction is to transfer wealth from those who have shown they can create it to those who have not shown they can. I mean, if a man doesn’t know how to “fish,” which isn’t exactly rocket science, after all, you have to wonder why. Money is best left in the hands of the most competent and productive people, and the best way to tell who’s the most competent and productive is generally to look at who’s created the most wealth.
L: And the more wealth there is in the world, the better off everyone is — even those who end up working for the creators.
Doug: Right. And those employees are creating and earning on their own wealth as well. It sure has a lot more dignity than being a welfare bum. Besides, if they are competent and creative, there’s no reason for them not to rise to the top.
L: And as we’ve discussed before, you need large pools of capital to develop new technologies, and new technologies tend, on average, to improve the lot of the little guy proportionally more than the guy at the top of the social pyramid.
Doug: Yes. Charity exists, mostly, to make the donor feel good. It assuages guilt people accrue over a lifetime, for real or imaginary reasons.
L: I remember that interview John Stossel did with Donald Trump, in which he asked him to explain why he gave a billion dollars to the UN. Trump looked poleaxed for a minute, then got up and walked out of the interview.
Doug: [Laughs] That’s a polar extreme opposite to charity. That was giving money to an organization that is itself destructive. Counterproductive in the extreme. The UN, which is just a corrupt club for governments, should be abolished, not subsidized. And here’s this fool actually feeding the beast.
It’s a perfect example of what most so-called charitable giving is about. It’s an excuse for people to display their fine philanthropist plumage. It’s a never-ending contest of one-upmanship, to see who can be the king of the hill of fools for a day, by giving the most. In most cases, it’s not about what the money is going to, it’s about being a big shot among peers and getting invited to all the most fashionable parties. They get to socialize with celebrities and others who, in our corrupt society, buy fame by giving away money — which in many cases was either easily earned or unearned.
In most cases, philanthropy doesn’t arise from a love for one’s fellow man, but from a need to assuage guilt, a need to show off, and a lack of imagination.
L: So, your basic argument is like the old saying about it being common sense that it’s better (and cheaper) to put a fence at the top of a cliff, rather than to put an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. That is, rather than putting band-aids on the poverty-stricken, it’s better not to have any poverty-stricken. Therefore, it’s better to allow wealth to continue accumulating and creating more wealth. And that means that any effort to take wealth away from the wealthy — the productive — and give it to the non-productive, is… counterproductive.
Doug: That’s basically the argument. Yes. And it’s true for both practical and ethical reasons.
L: Okay. So, what happens when you run into literally starving orphan babies in Haiti, the way you did? Even if you allow wealth to accumulate, and society becomes 50 or 100 times wealthier, and that decreases poverty by 50 or 100 times — or maybe 1,000 times. There will still be some cases of people who, through genuinely no fault of their own, truly need a helping hand — and the consequences would be dire if they don’t get it. What would you advocate in those situations?
Doug: Well, in the first place, though I’m not a Christian, let me quote Jesus of Nazareth. He said, “The poor, you will always have with you.” He had a different context in mind, but he was quite correct. That’s because in most cases, poverty is not a function of bad luck.
It can be, sometimes, of course. Perhaps if you’re born in a country with a brutal and repressive regime, or if you’re born with mental handicaps — there are all kinds of things that can happen. But generally, with a few such exceptions, poverty is simply a sign of bad habits. In a relatively free country, it’s a sign of an inability or unwillingness to save, which is to say, to produce more than you consume. It’s a sign of a lack of self-discipline. Sloth that afflicts those not willing to learn skills they can sell to other people. It can be a sign of having no self-respect, as among those who spend all their money on drugs and alcohol, which are debilitating, rather than strengthening.
In the vast majority of cases, those who suffer from poverty are not victims of anything other than their own bad habits.
L: Wow. Tough words.
Doug: It’s even worse than that. Think about it. Let’s say we’re looking at some place where there’s been a drought, or some other serious natural disaster, and then organizations like the UN ship in thousands of tons of food. What happens when that food hits the local market?
L: Does it even get there? Doesn’t the local dictator usually take it and sell it in some other country where people can pay for it, and then stash the cash in a Swiss bank account?
Doug: Well, that’s the first thing that happens, of course. But even when it gets through to them, such aid rarely helps the people it’s supposed to help. In fact, it usually hurts them, because, as I was saying, when all that free food hits the local market, it drives the price of food down so low, the local farmers can’t produce profitably.
What happens when you drive the local farmers out of business? They stop planting, there’s no crop the next year, and the shortage of food becomes even worse. The very acts of these charities trying to help people in famine-stricken areas prolong the famines.
Now, I’m not saying that if you know someone who needs a helping hand, and you feel good about helping — which is different from feeling guilty about not helping – that you shouldn’t do it. It can be a good-karma thing to do – and I do believe in karma, incidentally.
But when these things are institutionalized, they create distortions in the marketplace.
L: People may think it strange to hear you talking about markets in famine-stricken places or regions devastated by earthquakes, etc. But markets are everywhere. They are not physical places in New York and London, but are aspects of human psychology. They are patterns of human behavior created by people when they enter into voluntary transactions — as distinct from government action, which is always based on coercion. In today’s world, famine can still be caused by storms, drought, and other natural events. But it’s more often caused, and always aggravated, by distortions in the market: taxes, wars, idiotic regulation, runaway inflation, and the like.
Doug: And when a big charity intrudes on one of these weakened, distorted markets, it usually adds even more distortions, prolonging the problem.
Consider these charitable organizations going around the world treating diseases. The reason these countries have these terrible diseases that kill so many people is because they are economically undeveloped. Keeping people alive via extraordinary measures in such a place only results in more people competing for the same scarce resources. The answer to the problem is not to send in teams of doctors, so that you’ll have even more destitute people producing no wealth, but to free the local market so the people can become wealthy. The disease will go away as a consequence — this is the only permanent cure. What they are doing is the exact opposite of what they should be doing; they are making things worse.
L: Sounds pretty cold, Doug, to say, “Don’t send doctors-”
Doug: Well, don’t forget that a lot of people have supported the likes of Mugabe and deserve the economic ruin they are getting — and the diseases that are going to follow. Send doctors in if it makes you feel good, but it’s putting band-aids on smallpox. Don’t imagine that you’re actually helping solve the problem. People who do this kind of thing, I believe, do it because of feelings of guilt and shame they carry around inside. I understand them, but I don’t agree with them.
It does sound cold-blooded, and I’m sorry. I like kids and dogs and the same things most people like. But I’m not talking about whatever I or others might imagine is nice. I’m talking about the only real way to solve such a problem.
It’s disgusting to see the hot-shot yuppies self-righteously driving around the African bush in their new Land Rovers, pretending they’re eliminating poverty. That’s where most of the money goes, in fact. High living and “administration.”
L: You didn’t let me finish. I was saying that it sounds cold-blooded, but who’s really more cold-blooded: the one who knowingly spends precious resources on measures, knowing they won’t be effective and will lead to greater sorrow, or the one who has the courage to make the hard decision and reach for the real, long-term solution?
Doug: Yes. That’s the way I see it.
L: It occurs to me, reacting to the distinction you made earlier between individual charity and institutional charity, that perhaps it’s like religion. Whether we agree with their beliefs or not, it’s clear that many people derive value from those beliefs. But when religions become organizations and dogma sets in, they can get really destructive.
Doug: Well, as an individual, if I come across a person who I have reason to believe is worthy of my charity, and my trust, I might act individually. But yes, when things get organized, they get bureaucratized. It’s just the natural course of things; it seems almost universal that as organizations get older and more structured, they become counterproductive to their intended purposes.
Charity is especially prone to this problem because of the phony ethical notions that now seem to pervade Western society. It’s gotten worse over the last 100 years. People have come to believe that an instrument of coercion, the state, has to take care of them. Perversely, when the state engages in charity – which isn’t charity, because tax-supported giving is not voluntary — it discourages true charity. People who have money taken from them by the taxman have less of it to give to those they might know who genuinely need help.
L: The Tragedy of American Compassion. Marvin Olasky.
Doug: Great book. I think the Chinese are much more intelligent than Westerners in this regard. The only charity you find in most oriental societies is organized by beneficial societies that seem less pervious to squandering. Peer pressure and moral approbation keep them in line, unlike governments, which exist primarily to serve themselves. And taxes tend to be a lot lower in the Orient, so people have more money to give, if that’s their inclination.
In fact, one of the horrible aspects of this issue, in the United States, is that large amounts of money are stolen from estates in the form of death taxes. The idea seems to be that the government will deploy wealth more wisely than the children of its creators. But this is ridiculous. It’s part of the whole ethical morass that charity and taxation are tied up in, in the U.S.
Suppose you have a Chinese and an American, of equal intelligence, work ethic, education, skills, etc. — and an equal amount of starting capital. The American who starts with a dollar might end up with a million. But the Chinese guy in the same circumstances will end up with 50 million. All because of the difference in taxes and regulations.
But it’s worse than that, because whatever amount of money the American is going to leave to his kids, half of it is going to disappear down the tax rat hole, while 100% of the money the Oriental guy leaves will go exactly where he wants it to go.
That has major implications for wealth accumulation of the sort that we help people achieve. It’s another reason for the diversification of political risk we keep reminding people is so important.
But sadly, even if an American ends up with $100 million, odds are he won’t leave the bulk of it intact as an effective capital pool, to be expanded upon by his chosen heir. He’ll give it to some charity that will be run for the benefit of its board of directors. They get to be big shots with other people’s money — corrupting both themselves and the intended recipients.
L: So, the bottom line is that if you had a magic wand and could abolish all charitable institutions with a wave of it, you’d do it. And you would not replace them with anything. You’d use the wand to reduce taxes and regulations everywhere, to allow for more wealth creation. And for those few desperate cases clinging to the bottom rungs of the social ladder, you think individual conscience would suffice.
Doug: Exactly. To me, charity should be strictly an individual, one-to-one thing. That’s the only way you can know that it can really help, and even then it doesn’t always work. Once you have to hire somebody to run a charitable organization and have secretaries and assistant vice-presidents in charge of light-bulb changing, it’s just another bureaucracy headed for disaster, dissipating wealth as it goes, and doing more harm than good even among the intended recipients of the charity.
L: I don’t see a lot of immediate investment implications here, but there’s certainly a lot of food for thought for those intent on wealth accumulation.
Doug: Let’s just say that your moral obligation to the rest of humanity – insofar as you have such an obligation — is to keep your capital intact. First, that means to deny it to the state, which will very likely use it in a destructive way. Second, direct it to those who will use it to produce more — not to unproductive consumers. Third, take some personal responsibility, and do it yourself — don’t devolve it upon some unknown board of worthies who will have their own ideas about what to do with your money.
L: Got it. Thanks.
Doug: You’re welcome.
Doug Casey
Whiskey & Gunpowder
May 17, 2010
ShareThis
So that is what its like to live and breath with a cold, uncaring heart.
I I say DOUG is full of CRAP and he has devised a stance to justify his selfishness and bigotry…. the statement “In the vast majority of cases, those who suffer from poverty are not victims of anything other than their own bad habits” is simple an outright lie… It may be so in some cases; but making that statement shows how unaware he is and how he sees what he wants to see… If a “Charity” is aimed and directed towards “teaching a starving farmer how to fish”… or an uneducated person how to produce and create wealth it is good and morally healthy for all concern… including assholes like Doug… Throughout the world and esp. in this country poverty has been created by the powerful physically denying the opportunities and resources for certain groups to create wealth and learn what needs to learned in order for wealth to be hereditary and common place across ethnic divides…. I have seen Endowments make a difference for individuals and communities who otherwise would not have had a chance to improve their lot in life without the Generosity of Higher Moral Thinkers… who are more intelligent on all levels than this Doug Character… Maybe someone should “Blow him to Hell…” as he put it???
hmm, I’m not so sure. There are a LOT of charities that are local affairs that you can really become involved with (especially your local churchs). You can thus get a pretty good feel for if your money is being used effectivly. Whether from bad luck or bad choices, sometimes people could use a helping hand. Receiving one doesn’t necessarily doom them.
Gee Doug, if only Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would listen to you they might have some real success instead of being ‘idiot savants’. Your true genius lies in your realization that you could get rich merely by being a huckster and salesman without actually working steadily for years and producing something of value like those poor schmucks.
And yes, you are correct, most poor people are poor because of their own faults. I’m sure that a smart guy like you would have done just as well if you had been born in Haiti, the fact that you were born in the richest and most secure nation in history didn’t factor into your success at all! Which is why you are completely justified in your utter contempt for the US government at all times and in all circumstances and in your ceaseless efforts to deny them any funds whatsoever from your ‘capital’.
I want to be just like you Doug so I am going to buy some of that TEOTWAWKI real estate you are hawking down there in Argentina. It must be the financially sophisticated thing to do because you said so. There is just one thing though, this Argentinian I know Fernando Aguirre, he says that Salta is a remote and crime ridden backwater and that you are a liar trying to ripoff the potential expatriates. He does not understand why you would promote emigration to Argentina when he is actively trying to do the reverse and emigrate to the US. He seems to believe that despite it’s faults the USA’s long tradition of personal freedom and respect for the rule of law will be important factors in surviving any TEOTWAKI scenario. But then he is not an arrogant genius like you, what does he know!
The truth is hard for many to accept but your point of view is in my opinion, right on. It takes guts to admit that money no matter how much has no positive effect; because nature will always have it’s way in the end. History has repeated many times proving your point of view but naive denial and emotions rule our gutless politicians and voting public. P.T. Barnum was right, “there’s a sucker born every minute.”
The thrust of his argument could be seen as a problem with two choices for action: Be compassionate, and have the problem continue forever, or be “cold-blooded” or “hard-hearted” and actually solve the problem.
My own observations as an adult, of governmental compassion, began with LBJ’s “Great Society” programs. By and large, none of them have actually solved any social problems. Aspirin might reduce the headaches caused by a brain tumor, but they won’t cure the disease.
Casey is talking about curing the disease, not just alleviating the symptoms.
Interesting piece, but Donald Trump did not donate $1 billion to the UN. It was Ted Turner. Only someone dumb enough to marry Jane Fonda would give the UN $1 billion.
I agree completely with Doug Casey. Virtually all charities and academic instiutions are in existance for their own convenience and pleasure. So I don’t give anything to any large charity except one; USO. Yes, they have a big expensive administration. However, as a former military officer I know directly what they do for our troops so I accept the inefficiency and graft knowing that, perhaps 20 cents on the dollar gets to my fellow troopers. In addition, Mr. Casey needs to think about innocent bystanders who usually have little or no control over their lives: The very young and the very old. So, I make an effort fo find a way to get some of my hard earned money to deserving persons on a one-to-one basis.
In particular, since I began giving charitable gifts 30 yeasrs ago I have always sought to make them narrowly targeted so that 100% of my money went to solve a specific self-limited problems. For example, I found a worthy elderly person who could not afford the rising rent in an area I purchased a condominium. After investigating her financial situation and personal history I allowed her to live in the condominium for the price of the condo fees until she died thirteen years later. Her financial situation was one of bad luck and not of her making and at her age and state of health she had no way to continue to earn enough to afford even a small efficiency apartment. So every dollar I did not receive in market rental rates went towards her living arrangements. This not only allowed her to live the rest of her life in dignity but also saved the tax paying public considerable amounts of money it would have cost to support her. Later on I sold the condominium and put the profits towards my children’s higher education. A win-win situation.
Since that time I have found specific needs of hospitals and other insitutions that I could fund directly. This is usually the purchase of a specific item of need that I pay for directly to prevent diversion of any funds to “administrative costs”. In one case I know (grew up with) a specific person who runs a worthwhile crisis outreach program for children and adolescents who have no control over their lives and are in trouble. I place a certain amount directly into this program for which I get a report back as to its use.
Finally, again for children who have no say in their predicament, when Thanksgiving and Christmas approach I find a local group that provides food, children’s clothing, toys, and payment of 2 – 3 months rent and utilities for a needy family with children. Yes, a father and/or mother can divert some of this to their own use but, I always require evidence in the form of receipts and letters to see that at least something gets to the children. And the charity stops there so that the family does not become used to ongoing “unearned income”.
If we all did this, then with the expenditure of a fraction of what is now thrown away in charitable giving, we could all provide a considerable boast to peoples lives in an efficient and dignified manner that does not create or perpetuate an underclass.
Hope some of you will take on this challenge.
Sterling Too
If you say that you believe in karma, then you also know that it is a wheel; a person who appears to have everything in one moment can experience the utter devastation of his status and power in the very next moment, when the seeds of his sowing have borne fruit and the harvest-season of personal karma approaches. It is simplistic to equate high status or even the ability to generate material wealth with “karmic deservingness” on the part of the wealthy person, and to equate poverty or the inability to generate wealth with “karmic underservingness”. karma is more holistic than that; while it contains justice, the justice of the karmic wheel is not linear; for example, a person could be karmically situated in a position of status and wealth precisely because he owes such a heavy karmic debt, and can repay such a vast debt only through the good works he is enabled to accomplish through his wealth! With this in mind, the power of the voluntary act of giving is elevated to a whole new level: it is the very key to freedom from karma. When all give, and give voluntarily, then abundance and freedom will become universal. A ruthless and ungiving attitude toward those who are on the suffering arc of the karmic wheel is the worst possible attitude.
Of course, this does not mean that charity, as typically understood, is the right answer to the concept “to give”. I agree with much of doug’s attitude toward the institutionalized forms of monetary charity, particularly the deep ego-attraction this type of giving holds for the poweful elites who tend to engage in it. However, only an absolutely heartless attitude could insist that all simple acts of helpful kindness, such as meals provided to the hungry, or medical treatments provided at low or no cost to those who are in pain, is in any sense necessarily corrupting to the recipient of such giving. BALANCE is the key, and the recipient of help must truly desire improvement, and must strive to offer something in exchange for what he receives, even if that is only a truly heartfelt ‘thanks” and an inward urge to use the opportunity given for real benefit. It is only in the charity which institutionalizes the gift of receiving into the right or the demand to receive, that corruption unquestionably sets in.
you guys are something else.
technology helps the little guy more than the one at the top of the pyramid? oh, so the starving child in africa who has never seen a computer is better off from technology and bill gates isn’t?
i LOVE how you are so sure that charity is just a selfish act. how would you know? have you ever done anyhting that isn’t selfish? doubt it.
oh, and quoting jesus. yeah, jesus would totally agree with you. just hoard money and do nothing except accumulate wealth. that’s EXACTLY what he was about
Sooner shall a camel pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven.
What does it profit a man……..?
Does money really matter? Or is it a marker for something else?
Despite a pledge to cut the health gap between the richest and poorest, the difference in life expectancy is widening.
Does anyone think that the 12.5% SS Income TAX extorted by our Central Government to support their bureaucratic charitable giving e.g. UN, US and Foreign Nation bailouts, industry takeovers, and union wages, benefits, and pensions is working (SS IOU’s at $3 trillion)? While Doug may have taken the charitable intentions of all to the extreme right of center, I have no doubt, no doubt, that if we were less TAXed, and less burdened with a Socialist Government we would be light-years ahead of where we are today. If we would think for a moment of the roots of poverty I’m sure we will find a government behind it, sustaining it. For this I believe Doug has it right.
Um yeah, whoever this guy is, he hasn’t thought this through all that well. I know of at least two amazing charities – Habitat for Humanity and Smile Train. The latter repaired my adopted (from China) son’s cleft lip and cleft palette with first rate surgery provided by western doctors that donate their services for free! Better tell them to stop that nonsense. Aided by people around the globe who donate to this great charity Smile Train is a model of efficiency and grace, something it would seem Casey it utterly without! I believe this will be the last time I read this rag and will do my best to promote that philosophy going forward!
[...] Charity and the Real Root of Poverty [...]
[...] Charity and the Real Root of Poverty [...]
To Poster #1 So that is what it is like to live and breathe without a functioning brain.
People are not nor do they want to be pets.
To Posters # 3, 7 & 10 Uhhh… think you missed the point. Poor is an economic condition corrected by work, education and efficiency. Removing the incentive/urgency/need to care for and be responsible for oneself and progeny perpetuates the problem. The poor are innately no different than you, but they do behave differently. Could they all be Gates or Buffet? NO. The author delineates between individual giving-resulting in the highest impact/transfer on the intended and institutional giving-resulting in the highest impact/transfer to the giver. The more important question is how do you help without encouraging unproductive behavior to continue? The cries of heartlessness are mostly a con. Life is full of HARD choices, when avoided they comes back in many unforeseen ways.
Charity like your food should be locally grown and consumed.
[...] Charity and the Real Root of Poverty 5th Annual WALK TO END POVERTY – Today in Montclair, 94611Emes Ve-Emunah: It's about Poverty – Not StatisticsTen Things You Should Know About Poverty In AmericaSociologias: Is Corruption the Cause? The Poverty TrapAWMOK Kitschenette» Blog Archive » Fortune TellingPoverty Charities Make a Huge DifferenceStock Trading Course: Your Foothold To A Fortune » about stock marketSamsung Wave and Galaxy S on way to Vodafone UK | Technology …Alright, Which Of You Has A Spare Plane Ticket You'd Like Me To …Cut Down Your Plastic Bag Use With the Reduce Smash Can | EcoSalon View the Contact Powered by Terms [...]
Brrrr……….. It was cold as ice in that column.
This man below, (Matthew 19:16-26), had obeyed commandments, but Jesus could see through to his heart.
His real god was his money.
There are many rich Christians, as well as many poor Christians, in this world.
It is where “their heart is,” and what they do, that matters.
Matthew 6:19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
Mt 6:20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Mt 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Mt 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
Matthew 19:16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life ?”
Mt 19:17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
Mt 19:18 “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
Mt 19:19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’’
Mt 19:20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Mt 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Mt 19:22 When the young man, heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Mt 19:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mt 19:25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
Mt 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
James 2:15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
James 2:16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
Note to self:
Self, don’t bother to read anything by Doug Casey!
note to junior may:
amen. recasting jesus’s message as blessing the single minded pursuit of earthly wealth is obscene.
Charity in a form which reduces one’s ambition to become self sufficient and no longer in need of charity is what’s obscene. SFAIK, Habitat for Humanity requires that the recipient put forth effort into the project.
Western people sent all manner of help into Africa. The infant mortality rate declined, and many people recovered from or avoided previously fatal diseases. We define that as good. But the population outstripped the carrying capacity of the land, so the “surplus people” moved to the cities. The political structures then forced these people into living conditions of joblessness and squalor.
Question: Was the end result of these charitable efforts positive or negative? Is hopelessness a desirable goal? Me, I call that a negative result of that charity.
“It ain’t so much what ya do, it’s how you do it. First, think ahead about long-term what-if consequences.”
I believe that Doug is right to a certain extent as much as it pains me to say it. Throwing money around without giving any thought to how it effects different situations probably does more harm than good. There has to be a balance though. You cannot just allow people to starve to death but at the same time you need to give them the tools/skills/education that they need to take control of their own life. There are very few people anywhere that are completely self made. Everyone has had a hand up in some form or another even if it was only the good fortune to be born in a country like the USA. What I dont like about the tone of Mr. Casey’s articles is that you get a sense of poor = less than human, worthless, completely their own fault; rich = good, deserving, right, moral, without fault. At least thats what I read between the lines, if Im wrong let me know. I dont believe that poor people are completely to blame for their circumstances just as rich are not completely responsible for their circumstances. I think that what Mr. Casey espouses makes it convenient for wealthy people to ignore or somehow feel like they bear no responsibility for the welfare of their fellow man. We all have habits that are not good. We all have made poor choices. The difference is that sometimes the effect of a poor choice is magnified depending where you are at socially. A poor person who buys a $4.00 cup of coffee at starbucks every day would be stupid, but a person with a decent salary it has little or no effect on them. The amount of money spent is the same its just the effect that choice has on a particular person. When a 17 year old girl from a well to do family gets pregnant it has less of an effect on that family than on a family that is in public housing. The same bad choice is amplified in the poorer family. Does that mean that people bear no personal responsibility for their choices, not at all. People should be held accountable, but you dont have to throw the baby out with the bath water and write people off as subhuman. Just because you have the money that allows you to make bad choices without severe consequences does not make you a better person.
I’ve been poor. Poor enough that I didn’t have enough to eat to keep up my strength to do my work on the job, sweating my first payday. I felt that my letter from Ike with, “Greetings!” was a reprieve. Helluva note when going into the Army seemed like an improvement in one’s life. Well, ignorance will do that…
I never knew any way to not be poor but to work. When one paycheck didn’t do enough to suit me, I figured out ways to make money on the side. Many a sixteen-hour day or a seven-day week over a thirty-year period. Eight to five for somebody, five to midnight for me. I got over all that “poor” deal. Got a fair number of scars to show for it, too.
I never, ever ask anybody else to do anything I haven’t done or won’t do–or more than I have done.
I’ve always figured that I had sole responsibility for the consequences of my decisions and actions. Bad stuff isn’t society’s fault, or “they” or “him”. Nope, it’s on me for good or ill. So, if I’m willing to accept the Oopsies, it seems only fair to bask in the glow of the rewards as well.
So charity as I myself judge the need or credibility of the beneficiary? Fine. Generic cherity as decided by others? Hey, who are these others to run my life?
I agree with much of what Doug states here with some exceptions. While some comments may seem a little harsh, he does allow for charity on a more individual level where one would be a better steward of his money. We don’t like to hear that as it’s just easier to give money than one’s time – Which is why charity is big business today. This does play on guilt rather that love of fellow man or a God centered heart. I read Marvin Olasky years ago and from what I recall he wasn’t quite as brazen as Doug is here. Some main points he outlined in The Tragedy of American Compassion were: Charity should be individual/personal not controlled by the State as what has happened here in America and Europe – It is now thought by many Americans that instead of family and Church aiding the “poor” in a more effective/personal manner, it is now Government’s role. The Progressive movement has been key in affecting this change with the Church idly sitting by. He was concerned with the increase in “generational poverty” where charity becomes a way of life for individuals with no real incentive to better one’s self. Charity he believed was necessary, but shouldn’t be easily acquired without some stigma attached. He did make the distinction between the poor who by no cause of their own were in need (orphans, old aged, sick) and those who could work, but would refuse it if they were the recipients of routine giving. This is a great read!
-I disagree where Doug groups all charities together as being self promotional, ineffective, and waste of funds on admin, yuppies, etc.. There are some very effective organizations which are run efficiently sending almost 100% of giving to the sick, orphaned, etc.. in remarkable ways.
-I don’t understand the concept of just concentrating wealth to lift the world as a whole. The wealthy do provide jobs and are the backbone of civilized society by providing jobs and other community benefits but this doesn’t seem be translatting much to a global scale. While being against the confiscation of wealth through progressive taxes, inheritance tax, etc… I know that extreme concentration of wealth in few hands has in world history been cause for unrest and violence.
Doug said – “Well, in the first place, though I’m not a Christian, let me quote Jesus of Nazareth. He said, “The poor, you will always have with you.” He had a different context in mind, but he was quite correct. That’s because in most cases, poverty is not a function of bad luck.” “In the vast majority of cases, those who suffer from poverty are not victims of anything other than their own bad habits.” – How do you know this? Yes, here in America this might be hard to dispute, but in many parts of the world climate, tyrannical governments, ethnic cleansing, etc.. prevails. A large portion of the affected are children. Don’t know the reason for the Jesus quote here. Doesn’t really help the argument. Want to really know what Jesus said about giving to the poor? http://vimeo.com/5833626
At 35:40 minute mark the “The poor, you will always have with you.” verse is addressed, but I recommend watching the whole video.
For a Christian, charity should not be the result of guilt, but a God centered love for one’s fellow man. To whom much is given, much is expected…
Jesus never existed, you tools.