Greed vs. Giving… Trickle down charity is a recipe for real long term success

Flopping Aces ^ | 12-27-11 | Vince

[Starman417]

Rush Limbaugh caused a bit of a stir recently when he asked the question: “What do you think has fed more mouths, greed or charity?” The question seemed particularly untoward given that Christmas was right around the corner. Who besides Gordon Gekko might ask such a ludicrous question? Rush, obviously… and it turns out that it’s not such a ludicrous question after all.

Of course when he says greed, what he is really referring to – and he says as much – is self interest. Basically what he is arguing is that while giving charity to someone may make the donor feel good and sometimes has a positive effect on the recipient, the real way to improve the lot of people is to act in your own self interest – within the rule of law of course – and the benefits will flow to others, either directly or via giving. You might call this trickle down charity.

Not long ago I wrote a piece about Steve Jobs stating that despite giving Jack to charity, he did more to improve the lives of people around the world over the last 35 years than possibly anyone other than Bill Gates. Of course Gates has given away tens of billions of dollars, but in reality he has benefited the world far more by founding and growing Microsoft than anything he has done or likely will ever do with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

To understand the level of failure that charity & giving can accomplish one need only look at Africa. In her brilliant book: Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa", Dambisa Moyo writes: “Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population -- over 350 million people -- live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.” Moyo argues that not only does aid actually destroy much of the potential economic development of African nations and enables corrupt leaders to maintain their power, at the same time it encourages would-be dictators to attempt to overthrow existing regimes, which in turn creates more war and poverty.

Food is one of the most brutal forms of aid. Many countries receive aid in the form of American agricultural products. The result of these gifts is that, as local farmers cannot compete with free food, their farms fail, and any chance of self sustainability vanishes. It’s the whole notion of “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day… Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” In the case of Africa the world’s aid (and food is only part of that problem) is destroying the capacity of the recipients to become self sustaining, resulting in a vicious circle of aid, corruption and poverty.

Here in the United States the record of success via “giving” is largely the same. After six decades and trillions of dollars of government “aid” in the form of welfare and government education, the poverty problem is not only not getting any better, but it’s actually getting worse! We have record levels of people with no discernable skills, little ability to support themselves and most seeking support at the public trough. A smashing success of compassion!

[Mr. K]

WHY ISN’T RUSH RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT YET???

Heck even if it was only symbolic it would be a hoot

[DManA]

It isn't greed that feeds it's the freedom to act in our own self interest. They are almost polar opposites. Greed destroys wealth, self interest builds it.

This glorification of greed is so idiotic. It only feeds the enemy. The Bible condemns greed again and again. Jesus Himself commanded us to act in our self interest - 'Love your neighbor as yourself.

[Mr. K]

I think you are missing Rush’s point-

Rush IS talking about that same self-interest you are talking about, but using a Liberal term for it (greed)

[DustyMoment]

Food is one of the most brutal forms of aid. Many countries receive aid in the form of American agricultural products. The result of these gifts is that, as local farmers cannot compete with free food, their farms fail, and any chance of self sustainability vanishes. It’s the whole notion of “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day… Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” In the case of Africa the world’s aid (and food is only part of that problem) is destroying the capacity of the recipients to become self sustaining, resulting in a vicious circle of aid, corruption and poverty.

The bolded part is exactly what I was going to say. Giving food to "poor" countries isn't helping them other than at the moment. It's simply making them dependent on others to take care of them instead of making them dependent upon themselves. This is the same strategy that the Democrats have practiced in America for decades.

And what have we gotten for it?? Obama, a government that is bloated, out of control and a country that is broke. We need to learn how to "fish for ourselves" instead of waiting for the government to feed us. This was what the Founders intended when they broke away from Englend and it is the very same policy that was practiced by the early Pilgrims at Plymouth. If you didn't work to help build the colony, you didn't eat!!

There's charity, and then there's greed. We need to learn how to differentiate between the to and understand the effects of each.

[ScottinSacto]

As the sign always says, “Don’t Feed the Bears!“ But we never apply that proper logic to the allegedly more developed sentient beings only a few rungs up the evolutionary ladder.

[ScottinSacto]

As the sign always says, “Don’t Feed the Bears!“ But we never apply that proper logic to the allegedly more developed sentient beings only a few rungs up the evolutionary ladder.