I don’t know about anyone else, but it seems that many of the habits I have today, whether good or bad, were formed early in life and the older I get the more difficult it becomes to change. That’s true for me in every area including generosity.

The statement that a person should never give money if it endangers their long term financial future also troubled me at first. That statement would be hard to refute, however, as a Christian, and regular giver, I found myself challenging my own thinking.

I realized that it’s not the statement, but the perspective. The Word of God says just the opposite: giving doesn’t endanger our long term financial future, giving secures our long term financial future.

The Bible says in Malachi 3:10-12 (TLB) that if we…

“Bring all the tithes into the storehouse He will open up the windows of heaven for us and pour out a blessing so great we won’t have room enough to take it in! Try it! Let me prove it to you! Your crops will be large, for I will guard them from insects and plagues. Your grapes won’t shrivel away before they ripen,” says the Lord Almighty. “And all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land sparkling with happiness. These are the promises of the Lord Almighty.”

Giving may not make sense from an earthly perspective, but I can tell you from having tested Him, that His word is true!

But, I also strongly agree with the poster who has trouble relying on Carnegie’s quoted philosophy as a reason not to give to charity. In fact, Carnegie’s position in that speech was to advocate not paying workers a living that would allow them to get ahead because he (and other wealthy individuals) knew better what should be done with the money, and paying workers better would just result in them having nicer lives, which wasn’t a necessity. It is this backward philosphy that drives so many people into poverty in the first place.

Niles had an interesting post and some keen awareness.

To me, deepali had the most telling and insightful comment (#46)…”Oh, and Trent, great post. I think what matters the most is that you ‘give’, regardless of what form that takes and who the worthy recipient might be.”

(Maybe deepali could be a guest contributor. The brevity and thought behind that comment certainly clarified things for me in an instant.)

Congratulations on taking such a committed stand. I agree with you, 100%. I particularly liked this statement, “The key is to look at what you have in terms of both money and time and give what makes the most sense, but never forget to give.”

You thought it through well.

Good luck with all of those arrows coming at you. You’ll have the hide of a rhino at the end of this month.

Cade

I am going to consider changing some of our donations. Instead of child sponsorships, for instance, I might choose projects from the Stephen Lewis Foundation.

Also, although I personally prefer to donate to the “starving children”, there are all kinds of things to donate to. Medical research, universities, youth activities, SPCA, etc. If you disagree with where someone donates their money, you can find something that you feel does merit your support.

It’s similar to the problem we have in the media when an organization is quoted for a news story or political ad: it’s relatively trivial to create a non-profit organization with whatever name you want, then say things that make it sound like you’re representing a larger group. I could, for example, register “Families for a Stronger Moral America” and then say whatever I wanted, endorse whoever I wanted, since most people would never actually check up that the organization is a one-man show.

That’s not to say that the organizations are all scams, or that you shouldn’t donate your time and money, only that you should look for organizations promoting “sustainable” development, and “capacity-building”. We want to help people help themselves so that they’re not dependent on us, or anyone else, for donations. Independence is the goal, and organizations that just “hand stuff out” only create dependent cultures

@deepali: Let me clarify myself. I’m not trying to say that all aid organizations are scams, just that what we in the “first world” might accept as “reasonable administrative costs” can actually be wasteful and detrimental when followed in the “third world.”

For example, having a modern office with utilities like plumbing and electricity, plus some all-terrain SUVs with the non-profit’s name decaled on the side. These administrative costs may seem reasonable to us, but in practice only serve to further separate the aid workers from the people they’re trying to help. The people can then see these aid workers driving in these nice cars, taking their kids to private “international schools”. Or, when the organization is also staffed with locals, they use their access to the cars to take their own kids to school, or for other non-official purposes.

Another issue is how we use the phrase the “third world”. The problem is that there is the reality of the situation, and the “image” that is presented by the media to your average “first world” citizen.

The image (I’ll give America as an example):

Most people in America have never left their own state, much less been to another country. They’ve never lived in a place with a drastically different culture, standard of living, government, etc. They might intellectually know that the world is broken up into hundreds of different countries, but at a visceral level, Africa is one big unit. So take any of the news coming from the entire continent (say, the recent election troubles in Kenya), and your average American thinks that Africa as a whole is experiencing it.

When we’re asked for charity through the media, it’s for the “starving children”. Ask any American who those children are, and you’ll probably get the same description of the little girl with flies in her eyes, no water, no food, surrounded by rock ruins, from the same commercial. And our response is knee-jerk: they are starving, so they need food, so we’ll give money to buy food for them. Transaction complete, warm fuzzy feeling obtained, guilt assuaged.

The reality:

There isn’t a set living standard/culture/definition for a “third world” country any more than there is for a “first world” country. Both are broad categories that cover large variations in living standards.

Some countries like Ethiopia, for example, are at the bottom of the rung, where just obtaining food and clean water is the #1 priority. In those countries, yes, an argument can be maid for more money over skill, as the people need to be at least reasonable alive and healthy before they can take care of themselves.

Or in countries with persistent and regular violence, organizations like the Red Cross are needed to keep the people alive, they need as much money and skill as they can get, and it’s not about capacity building, but keeping the people from being wiped out.

But then take country like Tanzania, which is often touted as a jewel of Eastern Africa in terms of its stability, its progress, and its openess to foreign aid organizations. They even have Scientologists there! They’re stilling living on less that $140 a year, but they’ve had 40 years of knee-jerk charity, and now there’s a definite “expectation” of charity from the West.

All foreign influence effects culture, aid included. In some cases, a “perfect storm” of traditional beliefs and poorly guided foreign influence can make countries weaker rather than stronger.

If I’m saying that the knee-jerk charity is wrong, then I’m saying that we need to look at the underlying cultural values and history before we can jump from problem to solution. If the problem is: starving children, we can’t just jump to “then give them food”, we have to ask, why are they starving? Because there’s not enough food. Why isn’t there enough food? Many reasons, because, like I said in my first post, people have forgotten the “correct” way to farm (ie., the way they were farming before we came along), but also because of say, recent droughts. Well, what’s causing these unprecedented droughts?…

The knee-jerk reaction doesn’t foster cultures of self-responsibity, but one’s of independence. Let me elaborate.

Take a culture that values pushes responsibility for events onto external factors, then set them up with foreign aid based on an external source handing down things, and you’ve got a problem.

When I say a culture that “values pushes responsibility for events onto external factors” I mean when people have a disconnect in cause/effect. Where they do (or don’t do) something, and then when the repercussions of their act (or lack thereof) comes, they blaim (or braise) God. Remember when I talked about droughts?

For decades, Tanzanians tore down trees around and on Mt. Kilimanjaro to make charcoal, despite warnings from environmentalists. They were warned that the lack of trees would alter the local weather patterns, causing the rain clouds to simply pass by rather than stick around. But knee-jerk reaction: we need heat, burning charcoal makes heat, Kilimanjaro has lots of trees to make charcoal: take the trees. It took years before the government stepped in.

Instead of finding another solution to the heating problem, they took the quickest path. Fine for them then, but now, decades later, they complain that God is punishing them for some “unspecified” sinning, because now there’s major water shortages, and therefore less food, and hey look, now we’ve got starving children.

In summary, I’m just saying that real foreign aid must focus on the long-term goal of creating self-responsible/sufficient countries. Short-term, knee-jerk responses are fine to start out (especially in crises), but they have to be monitored and phased out before cultures become dependent on them.

The AIDS problem for example is hitting hard and fast, and so the knee-jerk reaction is our best bet now: throwing condoms at them in boatloads, promoting safe sex, abstinence, anything. But that’s only going to last for so long, because the AIDS problem is also heavily fueled by cultural practices (rape, molestation, fear of testing, fear of talking openly, fear of sex education, AIDS victims as outcasts) and a billion more that I can’t think of.

@deepali: I’m not trying to misrepresent the aid agencies as a bunch of crooks, and I’m not trying to say that people should be denied Western conveniences or say that they’re somehow wrong to want them. Of course people want more goodies.

As for saying “what Africa needs”, I’m saying that you and I may understand that different countries (and even different regions within a given country) may need different styles of aid (stuff vs. skills) that the average American has never been out of their own bubble and largely sees “the third world” as a single unit, and takes the knee-jerk approach simple problem: no food, simple solution: give them food.

Also, yes it’s condescending to tell another country how to fix their problems, if the advice was unasked. It’s quite another thing to ask someone for help, to ask for advice on how to “fix things”, then say “well who asked for your opinion?”

Peace Corps only goes into countries with invitation, and leaves when asked.

Also, my greatest assumption underlying all of this is that the goal is to create self-responsible nations that take care of themselves as much as possible, with as little need for foreign dependence. If that’s not the case, then my arguments probably fall apart.

I’m saying that it’s there’s no simple answer or simple solution, and that for the most part, donating your money “for the children” is great for the warm fuzzy feeling, but that it’s not going to fix the problem, only maintain the status quo.

Let’s be clear that I’m not at all promoting throwing in the towel, only saying that you can’t be sure your charity is actually helping until you see the results first-hand, and that it’s a lot easier to gauge your impact by giving your time (because you’re there as it happens), then by giving your money (which means you have to then check up later).

Again, sorry for the long post, and if any thought seems to have dropped off suddenly or is poorly organized/presented/misspelled, it’s probably because I didn’t exactly outline all this out. Also, you’re right, I didn’t think of that. ;)

Be Happy!

It also disgusts me that he and Warren Buffet are leaving no inheritance to their children or grandchildren. Who do they think sustained them emotionally and suffered from their absence as they built their empires? Is it the children of Africa or their own progeny they’ll want gathered around their hospital bed in the end? I can understand wanting your kids to be self-reliant and unspoiled, but why accumulate excessive wealth if not to pass it on to the next generation? Set up an annuity so your heirs aren’t rolling in money, but don’t leave them penniless and at the mercy of financial tragedy and a fickle economy. Maybe someone who has never been short on rent or had to choose between medicine or groceries can’t appreciate that poverty equals violence and disinheriting is potential child abuse. To me, blood is thicker than PR, and charity begins at home. I’m not impressed by someone who tithes heavily or volunteers for great causes if they neglect or mistreat their own family.

For that matter, who do these billionaire entrepreneurs make their money from? It’s the common people who work for cheap wages at their companies and buy their inflated products. No matter what Wall Street would have us believe, greed is not good. Wealth doesn’t always trickle down, and the middle class is disappearing as the rich get richer and make the poor poorer. If I don’t get an inheritance, it will be because Reagan stripped my father’s federal pension, not because he’s trying to teach me a lesson or thinks more of a charity than his own family.

I, for one, give to my church a tithe of my earnings. I do this without reservation because I know that I am supporting community-outreach programs that are helping those in need in the surrounding area. If my church was a country-club, with the tithe only going to build a bigger parsonage and get prettier stained-glass windows I would think twice about where my tithe should go.

In addition, I also give my time to my church’s programs (something many of the tithers above don’t mention doing). I make sure my money is doing good because I take part in the services that are being provided.

I know that the intrinsic rewards that I have received have surpassed the value of what I have given. So, there are people who give to their “cults” for the same reasons and from the same place in their hearts that you do, Michelle. We do exist.

I am Christian who believes in tithing – and I don’t see this as risking my financial future – as others have posted, I do see how God has blessed that in my life. However, beyond that 10%, I know that given resources at this point in my life my time is a better donation. I fully expect that as I get older and more financially secure I will be able to give more monetarily.

There are two dangers I can think of concretely:

1. The super-rich frequently make their massive fortunes off the backs of others. Consider Andrew Carnegie and his cohort, and their union busting activities.

2. When people who have amassed mind-boggling fortunes start donating, they can create significant turmoil and bad consequences with their philanthropy. Consider Bill Gates and his mass vaccination program. Because of the sheer amount of money he’s pouring in, he’s destabilized the WHO’s general health promotion efforts.

In this particular case the problem isn’t necessarily that he’s pushing vaccination, it’s that he’s not funding 100% of the costs. Vaccination programs require a lot of expensive infrastructure (like giant refrigerators and distribution networks) that doesn’t exist in poor tropical countries, and the countries are expected to pay for it. In order to take advantage of the vaccination money, they have to stop existing health programs to fund the infrastructure build-out.

Also, a lot of his work smacks of traditional First World “charity” work (subsidies for First World businesses, e.g. we’ll give you $2 billion for a major public work project, but you have to use all the money to hire our companies to build it, and by the way they’ll charge you a 500% markup).

Moreover, back to the moral argument, yes, the robber barons are good at amassing fortunes. That does not qualify them for working optimally toward the public good, or administering funds responsibly in the best interest of others.

I’d argue that those are separate skills, which are not frequently found in the same individuals.

Don’t forget the value and importance of time which I believe can be more important than a donation.

Comment #41?? You are absolutely right!! GIVE WHAT YOU CAN!

People in developing countries are not any different than people in the US or Europe. We all want stuff, it’s human nature. Don’t fault the “noble savage” for wanting the western lifestyle.

And as for “what Africa needs”, I think we should let the Africans decide, don’t you think? It’s a little condescending to be telling another country how to “fix things”, when we’ve got our own problems.