Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giving Makes You Rich
CONDÉ NAST PORTFOLIO ^ | November 2007 | Arthur C. Brooks

Posted on 11/11/2007 12:36:48 PM PST by Vision Thing

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
I've always heard that the more you give, the more you get. Here's someone's attempt at proving it.

If this has always been true, perhaps it'll explain why lib dems hate charitable giving: It enrichens the giver. And we all know how lib dems don't want anyone to become richer, especially if its not from the efforts of their big government programs.

1 posted on 11/11/2007 12:36:49 PM PST by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vision Thing
As an abstract, the poor will spend the money, and increase economic activity in the community and that raises everyone's boat as it were as the money stays in the community for the most part. Plus, the Laws of God have never been repealed to mankind's detriment...
2 posted on 11/11/2007 12:45:47 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: padre35
As an abstract, the poor will spend the money, and increase economic activity in the community and that raises everyone's boat as it were as the money stays in the community for the most part.

It's amazing that this doesn't work for big-goverment programs. You'd figure that the redistribution of wealth would increase economic activity in all cases, but the economic status of the nation during 60s and 70s were proof against this notion.

Also, the article mentions that both individuals and a nation's GDP as a whole become richer through charitable giving. It doesn't mention whether governments become richer when they give money to the poor. I'm betting this is the only time when the Laws of God don't apply.

3 posted on 11/11/2007 12:57:00 PM PST by Vision Thing (hillary is unstable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vision Thing
It's amazing that this doesn't work for big-goverment programs.

Probably because the Government is working with stolen money.

4 posted on 11/11/2007 1:02:26 PM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vision Thing
Winfield Scott Stratton
 
 
Itinerant Carpenter Strikes It Rich
By Ed Hunter, Victor
...
"Stratton continued to practice his quiet acts of philanthropy after the sale when the world thought he would buy mansions and yachts to demonstrate his financial success. Instead, he built the Mining Exchange building in Colorado Springs, donated land for the Downtown Post Office building construction and donated a park to the city for people to enjoy. Stratton also purchased and expanded the trolley car line in Colorado Springs for the benefit of the public."
...

5 posted on 11/11/2007 1:02:42 PM PST by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
Probably because the Government is working with stolen money.

And also perhaps because the government gives not to help the recipients, but to make the recipients more dependent on the goverment.

6 posted on 11/11/2007 1:05:33 PM PST by Vision Thing (hillary is unstable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
Probably because the Government is working with stolen money.

Great point.

7 posted on 11/11/2007 1:07:54 PM PST by Lijahsbubbe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VxH

Stratton’s giving helped his community. More than likely, he benefited from the increased economic activity resulting from his charitable gifts.


8 posted on 11/11/2007 1:09:41 PM PST by Vision Thing (hillary is unstable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vision Thing

And this goes to the nature of Govt programs, as well as money staying in a community, in the 70’s the economy was much smaller, Govt dollars didn’t have the impact that they have today.

It’s one of the arguments about Capital Flight and the rise of Corporatism.

Govts however, remoe money from local economies and then redistribute it to whomever they are trying to buy off, rather then who provides the best service to the community.


9 posted on 11/11/2007 1:11:10 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vision Thing

I agree. The percentages won’t change regardless of what you do. Give an uninspired, socially “victimized”, led to believe needs all kinds of help, lazy-ass $500,000. Broke as fast as they can spend it.


10 posted on 11/11/2007 1:12:30 PM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vision Thing

The more LOCAL the charity and the oversight of fund dispensation, the more it gets to where it is really needed.


11 posted on 11/11/2007 1:14:27 PM PST by LZ_Bayonet (There's Always Something.............And there's always something worse!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LZ_Bayonet

I had a rant on that, but will sum up by saying I totally agree.


12 posted on 11/11/2007 1:21:18 PM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LZ_Bayonet

Yup. When the funds travels through fewer layers of beauracracy, fewer people are taking their cut of the funds, leaving more for the intended recipients.


13 posted on 11/11/2007 1:24:27 PM PST by Vision Thing (hillary is unstable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vision Thing
It doesn't mention whether governments become richer when they give money to the poor. I'm betting this is the only time when the Laws of God don't apply.

God's laws apply in this situation, too. Governments don't benefit, because they're not really being charitable, plus they have to steal the money first.

14 posted on 11/11/2007 2:01:55 PM PST by Disambiguator (Political Correctness is criminal insanity writ large.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
Probably because the Government is working with stolen money.

A much bigger issue, IMHO, is that while the recipient of private charity knows that they have no legal or moral right to demand their gift, much less its continuation, a recipient of government welfare has the legal authority to demand present and future payouts. Government-mandated subsidies are prone to corrupting people's behaviors even when run well. Most welfare systems are designed to maximize that corruption.

15 posted on 11/11/2007 2:11:57 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: supercat
You said it. I know doctors whom no longer take government welfare recipients, because they don't show up. No retribution to the patient and no way to recoup the time.

Hillary care will be a total failure based on what we know already.

16 posted on 11/11/2007 2:19:30 PM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Milton Friedman showed studies that as government assistance goes up, private giving goes down. The problem is that only 20% of government welfare costs actually go to the poor. The other 80%, local, state, and federal is wasted in administering the programs.

Except for a few bogus charities, like the March of Dimes, most private charities get 50% of their money to the needy. And Churches get 75-80% of their donations to the poor. This is the real reason for public-private programs. Even though it 'violates' the anti-church bias of the government, such programs are 4x to 5x more beneficial than anything the government can do directly.

17 posted on 11/11/2007 2:26:07 PM PST by DJtex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LZ_Bayonet
The more LOCAL the charity and the oversight of fund dispensation, the more it gets to where it is really needed.

Certainly local charities are often better than nationwide bureaucracies, though larger organizations are needed in some cases (e.g. a small locally-based hurricane relief organization probably wouldn't be very helpful, since it would have nothing to do when its area wasn't hit, or be totally swamped with its own problems when it was). The primary difference between charity and government welfare, though, isn't size, but rather entitlement. If there's a law that says people who sit at home on the couch all day will get $X/month, then sitting at home on the couch all day becomes a perfectly legitimate way of "earning" $X/month.

18 posted on 11/11/2007 2:26:53 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
Hillary care will be a total failure based on what we know already.

Be very careful with terms like "failure" and "success", since they are extremely viewpoint-dependent. I believe one of Hillary's goals is to trash the health-care system that's available to the middle class, and I believe that Hillarycare, if implemented, would be extremely successful at doing so. Many other liberal programs which are widely derided as failures on FR are likewise very successful when one recognizes their real goals.

The difficulty is in getting others to see what the real function of all those programs is (i.e. pushing 'equality' between the lower and middle class, thus protecting the elite class from competition)

19 posted on 11/11/2007 2:35:33 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: padre35
As an abstract, the poor will spend the money, and increase economic activity in the community and that raises everyone's boat as it were as the money stays in the community for the most part.

I wonder what you think of supply side economics.

20 posted on 11/11/2007 2:42:44 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson