Because it's not about "love" as this propaganda outlet for Capitalism would have you believe. It is about power to choose who they think is worthy of societies assistance. It is absolutely anti-democratic and at the mercy of out-of-touch billionaires trying to whitewash their bad images.
@@teerificbitch Some are being forced to work 24/7 to earn a $900 a month and fear that if they are not competitive enough, they will loose their job. Such a lovely society.
@@laMoria that is change, every era has had it..try to visualise the people who were casualties of the switch from the agrarian age to the industrial one. The old has to give way to the new (& young)
@@teerificbitch Lol that's literally taking away responsibility from the most powerful and putting it in the hand of the powerless. Cruel. I mean cute. I mean... What DID you mean??
"Innovation comes from the private sector" Bit of research online shows a lot of modern tech companies started because of public sectir loans or research
I've always been taught this, "Give man a fish and he will eat once. TEACH that man HOW TO fish and he will eat all his life." Some people just need a "push to the right direction." It's not just free money, free roof above their heads or free food that poor or homeless people need. Training for potential jobs will change their lives.
Lu G. “Teach that man how to fish and he will eat all his life.” if you’ve inly read between the lines, that means training for jobs/ to earn a living. Not every word written is limited to its literal meaning. Logic has to be applied when analyzing words, sentences, paragraphs, narratives.
Maybe that mindset isn't profitable enough? Also, someone once told me that rich people need poor people because if everyone started moving up the ladder, they wouldn't "feel rich enough" anymore and that isn't something they're willing to give up.
@@alexeialeksandr7606 It's about keeping poor people desperate enough to keep working for stagnant wages because they're all competing for crumbs while the rich ransack our society. Socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.
Does anyone genuinely believe that charity from the wealthiest in society comes from altruistic intents? They did not do everything in their power to acquire their wealth to give it away. Charity saves them more than they give away. It is a financially motivated decision no different than all others. edit: typo
It's usually the same wealthy people and corporations who lobby the government's attention and resources away from the 'interest of the people' who say the government isn't acting in the 'interest of the people'.
I have mixed feelings about this video. Did it address the main question in the title? It was 26 minutes of poorly glued superficial content I would say. But hopefully the ideas will get covered more.
I always said to my teachers if there is so much charity and all this billions are given to help and resolve problems, how it is possible that nothing is changing and that they are more and more people homeless, poor etc.. The billionaires are getting richer, powerful and changing laws systeem in their favor.. 😯😯
What poor countries, that are generally run by corrupt governments, need to understand is that while corruption may enrich themselves, money eventually runs out because the people are poor. Governments need to understand that the success of their people means a richer country, a more powerful country that can become involved in geopolitics. Rich countries need to help these governments through advice and counsel...and money should only be part of the deal when governments provide a plan that will allow their country to grow economically. I don't know, but this has got to happen. Technology etc. should be shared to allow countries to develop! Stop giving and begin producing solutions to poverty and lack of education!
Are the mosquito nets being giving are locally made? There was an issue with this practice of NGO companies sourcing the mosquito nets from developed countries instead of using locally made nets. And as a result businesses lost revenue that would have been circulated within the community.
Classic colonialist economic model. Make the colonies break backs for raw materials. Make poor break backs in own country to make goods. Sell back to poorer country for profit.
I absolutely agree, I'd worry that outsourcing will definitely increase the bill, give a man a net and he can protect his own family, give a man/woman the tools/machinery and you solve the problem and start an industry 😉
Jesus Christ what is going on in this video?!? It's like two different videos with a massive Bloomberg ad in between them and not one second even touches upon the question raised in title.
Charity in today's world is widely misused. They are one of the most ineffective use of money. The organizations operating cost in most of them is 80% and only 20% goes to the actual work
Probably even less than that. Around 5% of funds actually goes towards aiding people. If non profits actually used 20% it would make a huge difference.
@@tresgrospoutou Several poor people ARE CAUGHT IN BIG PROBLEM please report (please cover) INDIA 1 FEBRUARY *no* to *CAA* ... *NEWSstaff*.. People r unhaply how they can show documents(paper) in country like india because several people r uneducated they not maked/make any paper , some r so poor, some lost their papers (documents) with huge water(flood) so their r 100 problems so they have no document(paper)
albarinos asuqwet Billionaires don’t just play with “liberal news.” They’re the ones always pushing supply-side economics in our government (which primarily comes goes to the right), but not paying workers enough regardless.
Has someone thought that a straightforward solution might just simply stop to exploit under developed countries? Or maybe have a strong progressive taxation and a cap to personal accumulation of resources to avoid the wealth extraction from the society in the first place? I could go on...
@Lucas ...would you be willing to pay a higher price for everything you consume? What we dont realise is that while we cry about the poor labor conditions of laborers in China and third world countries. We love the fact that we can get cheap affordable products. The western doesn't pay the real price for resources that they get from the third world also often turning a blind eye to the Dispot leaders who they " jump into bed" with and wreck the very institutions that should serve "the people."
@@ndimec2117 yes, i will pay more. It is all about relative distribution of wealth. The market and our economies will adjust to a different baseline and we might also consume less. If the prices will be higher compared to what we earn in dev countries, we will be less prone to exploit them and less inclined to consume useless stuff
@@ndimec2117 “but, but, Venezuela!” “Yeah what about it? The fact that their economy has been crushed by US sanctions for decades because they know socialism won’t fail unless they force it to?”
@@lucapistolesi5447 it’s not about you paying more. I imagine you have the resources to do so. Its more that it will cost those at the lowest points in society who would feel that additional cost strongest
@angelsrosena your government shouldn't allow that. In Germany wenn you don't have a job, government give you money and help you found a job and an apartment. If you are not German you need to at first hier work and then you have also this privileges.
Less anecdotes and case studies - more analysis please! Great video, though! But shouldn't the title be "Charity - is giving justified from the point of view of democratic ideals"? *Efficiency* of charity versus government policies wasn't addressed at macro level. I would have expected more from *The Economist*!
Pennies from unjustified fortunes to buy support to continue the current social order. Wealth and income inequality is allowed to get worse. 70-80% top marginal tax rate. Not intended to raise government revenues but strongly encourage a flattening of inequality. If you're already a big earner why bother going in for a raise when almost all of it will go to government? Would government spend it wisely? Maybe... maybe not. That's not the point. A high marginal tax rate pushes the private sector to do the right thing. We all hate centrally planned economies. We should hate private sector central planning just as much. Allowing a worsening wealth inequality is to advocate for private sector central planning.
The Charities, a lot of them, are great and do effective work without spending money on their own structure. Donate to the charity you know, the one you can visit. The hard data thing is interesting - I already have the feeling, I need the hard data to choose who to donate if I'm donating to an organization acting far from my home.
True philanthropists would not exploit their employees, not harm the environment, not put people on the streets, not demand 2000% profit margin, not avoid taxes. And if you have something to give after all that, you can donate anonymously in silence and don’t use a tax break.
The last time philanthropic endeavours were as high (relative to gdp) as they are now was c100 years ago at the peak of the Gilded Age (also the highest levels of inequality up until now.) The Vanderbilt’s, Rockefeller’s, Rothschild’s etc lobbied on the behalf increasing philanthropic responsibilities in lieu of in increased taxes. It worked until post WW1. Philanthropy went up but nothing really changed for the proletariat until mandatory taxes were introduced. Long story short. Last time taxes were this low and philanthropy was this high, inequality was at its previous peak and 2 world wars happened. In the words of Rutger Bergman: “Taxes, taxes, taxes”.
People tend to believe that homeless people are homeless because they simply had no other options, but that’s not true. Most homeless people are either mentally disabled or drug addicts and simply can’t be taken in to society by just giving them an apartment or a job. Very few homeless people are homeless “just because” they can’t find work.
"According to the World Bank … China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015" A generation to lift ~850M people out of severe poverty, with the aim of eradicating it completely in 2020. ~ By the same token, previous government policies had caused such abject poverty in the first place. ~ If those two don't make clear how much more influential government is/can be than private…
Everyone I know doesn't give to charity. Instead, they work on themselves first. Charity has not helped Africa, for example, no matter how much money we pour into it. If you really want to help someone, help educate people and start helping individuals, not people you consider "the poor" and "underprivileged."
I think there is nothing wrong with knowing that your kids may never lack for the basics but am opposed to the idea that they totally disregard the existent of lack. In that same breath I think I don't need a billion to see that my neighbor is need of help. Be kind cause it take time not money.
You cannot effectively defeat a corrupt philanthropist from giving to the needy--of course not. Wrong angle. You can only do so by prosecuting him for the environmental laws, the consumer protection laws, the tax laws, the anti-labor laws, the anti-graft laws he has violated and all the other crimes he or she has committed.
That's brilliant charitable country's live longer and helps our world survive I worked at red Cross we raised 1.5 million on lock down and I now work at vinies charity store we love our world that gives and does charity thank you everyone that gives and volenteers
From an economic perspective that is very accurate. In my opinion, a taxable charity institution is what's needed and the government literally forcing the richest to pay 1% of their total wealth each year to this charity.
What kind of evil do you have to be to actively spend money on destroying people's lives just so you can get richer, even tho you can already own whatever you want to own? This is sickening
“Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at whim.” Clement Attlee (1920)
although some tax money is really wasted xD they have build a bridge for a highway, but it’s no connected to a street. there is just a bridge in the fields, you cannot use it 🤦🏼♀️
@@philosoftfurkitusjunkyard2462 That depends on how you define wealthy. I live in a great neighborhood, my kids go to an excellent school, and my Vanguard Index Fund seems to indicate I can retire by the normal retirement age.
Kitu's Junkyard No, I was referring to helping the poor by simply writing a check. Bloomberg turned a $10 million severance package into a $22 billion fortune and he should share some stories on how to do well in life. E.g., stay in school, work hard, avoid drug and alcohol abuse, stay humble, take calculated risks, etc. No doubt the people in this video mean well, but what they’re missing is helping people to help themselves. It’s a values judgement. Unfortunately, being non-judgemental is today’s deleterious zeitgeist. Feed a man for a day or teach him to fish so he can feed himself for a lifetime.
@@opensourceguy730 you're a poltergeist? yeah, sounds too naive for me. i see men lots of them, senseless, with kids, lots of them, fighting over fishes in an overfished pond.
For me it's Animals Asia, World Animal Protection, RSPCA, and various local charities. For my husband it's World Vision. I like the logic approach, and yet, in reality, I end up supporting bears and elephants because I don't think enough people do, and because it's so horrid what's happening to them (e.g bear biling).
A problem made by a small group hoarding too many resources won't be fixed by that group giving away part of their money for causes they like. The problem is their existens and that is fixed with taxing and regulation.
The phenomenon that billionaires can buy social change through foundations has been inevitable in our system. This just shows the decision making inefficiencies of democracy. By no means it is desirable that individuals have that much influence in society, however radical change, needed now more than ever, can never happen when too many people participate in policy making. Especially not when two parties run a government alternately, undoing everything their predecessors have achieved.
This is the second time PR has got a new name ... the first time it changed into "marketing" (a word created the Edward Bernays himself). Like Milton Friedman said in 1970, their goal should be only profit ... let's tax them and have the State take care of us.
From my experience in cancer biology, the science wouldn’t be happening without generous local donations. Yes the established scientists have government and state funding for their work but that “funding” is becoming more and more an honorary badge. Govt barely pays the bills.but does allow the private donors to know that their money is going to something serious and worthwhile.
It's too easy to hate on the rich. I can't say I know what the top 1% are like, but I know I'd rather have a greedy businessperson donate huge sums to save face rather than one who doesn't donate at all.
The point is they donate money which would otherwise have gone to taxes. Ideally the taxes would then fund governmental programs which would be directed by democratic means.
"I'd rather have a greedy businessperson donate huge sums to save face rather than one who doesn't donate at all" The problem highlighted in the video is that many of the face-savers are taking far larger sums out via the various damage they're causing-eg the climate denier lobby movement, the fossil fuel & addiction companies etc. Me, I'd prefer a greedy businessperson to stop causing $1Bn damage while donating $100M.
I have benefitted from the Robin Hood Foundation through The Ali Forney Center in NYC . In my experience, a lot of non profit CBOs have terribly low program expense ratios. As for the donors, it doesnt help to spend 10% of your time and money dismantling a system of you're gonna spend the other 90% propping it up.
They paid for my room & board + amenities for about a year, and I actually got on my feet. I also got to see a number of plays on Broadway including Hamilton with everyone but Lin Manuel Miranda. It's a mixed bag.
The philanthropy should be structural improvement. Wages are always enough to reliably pay the rent for one bedroom apartment local commute to be legal. Public schools are adequately funded equally and all supplies at school with no homework allowed.
Poverty will never end, it was there in the beginning of the world and so shall it be in the end the world. Every effort to end poverty is all in vanity.
The average person should not donate money to charity, donate your spare time if you have any We are at the precipice of balancing corporate responsibility and government intervention Invest your money by buying local, building up relationships with those around you, and getting those you love who need help into programs that can help them.
@@mitchellokeefe7053 Did you not watch the video? Poor classes are the ones burdened with reimbursing the government when they pass damaging tax cuts to the wealthy.
We need systemic change not more altruism, just a fair society, where people aren't viewed and treated like commodities. Capitalism needs to be suspended. It rewards the greedy, and those who are willing to exploit the weak and vulnerable.
Charity is a sweet idea but not a solid system for a society to rely on. Charity outreach is unevenly spread amongst those that need it and often of temporary nature. Societal issues should be dealt with by the state. If the state would offer jobs to the jobless, provide free addiction counseling and an opportunity for everyone to get an education, there is no need for charity.
The 'tax breaks' mean that money given to charities is not taxed and, consequently, the charity gets more money. The person who gives to charity does not end up with more money than they started with.
@8:50 "it's an arsonists convention where everyone is under the mistaken impression that they're firefighters"... Brutal analogy. Anand is a hero of mine. Perfectly frames the reality we live with today.
Like always, it's all just money games. The only one losing, is the simple person giving. If you want to do real charity - Plant some local plant, give food to a hungry person, say to someone random "Have a nice day". The moment you let a third party into the equation, something is bound to go wrong. Keep your charity where you can directly see the imapct.
Lol, all democracies have become plutocracies. Well done peasants! Now go run along, and vote in the next elections. Your votes are of the utmost vital importance.
We need structural changes. We got here with structural change. We still need schools without homework and wages that are a living and taxes that are appropriate to wealth and poverty.
My Bro in law lost his wife last year after long 4years of battle with cancer which he had lost his job and he has two small kids... If anyone who can help them that would be really great....
Paul Tudor Jones's clearly has never heard of things such as NASA or GPS if he is going to be making statements about all 'innovation" coming from the private sector.
@@lucaswilson3045 What exactly is your point? That is like saying no company in the US develops their technologies, their employees and/or contractors do. If NASA wasn't there as a client, a lot of the technologies attributable to them may not exist or would be stuck behind patent walls and would be trade secrets if wholly developed by private enterprise. If the very money that funds and the market that drives these technologies into existence is through the government, then it is a pretty disingenuous position to take that that innovation is coming from the private sector since economics would dictate that innovation in a non-existent market is a waste of money. This is why even though we have asteroids in our solar system with enough precious metals on them to crash the global markets for them, but no one has bothered to go and get them because it would not be economical to go and get them. The investment to get the resource would be more costly than the expected return, at least at present. No private sector enterprise is going to engage in a venture it can't expect a return from, and space was/is no different at, and well into NASA's inception. Additionally, part of NASA's mission statement is, " We will develop and transfer cutting-edge technologies in aeronautics and space.". The government tries not to be the sole competitor in any market. NASA is no different, many of the technologies it developed, either on it's own, or through contracting them ( which in many instances would mean they have the rights to patent them for themselves ) are either made freely available, or are made available through transfer programs to other private sector companies so that they can be further developed. Again, another example of the government, or more specifically, NASA, providing innovation to entities in the private sector. Through this arrangement, the private sector can then innovate on top of those developed technologies. I would argue that you make a distinction that Paul Tudor Jones doesn't, and that is that you at least acknowledge some innovation comes from the government. I think you attribute way too little in the example of NASA we are on right now. But Paul Tudor Jones's statement of, " ... innovation as it does in virtually everything in the world comes from the private sector. " virtually asserts that the government provides nothing. Like in many other instances the capitalist society we live in, you need only follow the money to find the source. This is no different, and your statement does little to shed light on anything other than splitting hairs and semantics. If a contractor comes up with some 'innovation', under a NASA contract, using NASA facilities, NASA tools, and NASA funds, etc, don't act like it isn't NASA who made the innovation by making it possible in the first place.
In the religion of Islam, giving money as donation should be the last option. It is better to provide jobs for the needy than to push them to be more dependent and lazy.
There are some real flaws in the giving industry. It is one thing to feed someone today. But unless you motivate the poverty stricken to engage in supporting themselves, with the help of education, and skill development, the giving industry is only creating "money junkies."
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
If "charity" is based on "love" and purely "given," then why do corporations and the wealthy need a tax break?
To encourage them giving more money!
@@shahidulhchowdhury6411 But the tax break will just get bigger, and force more taxes on the poor and middle class, did you not watch the video?
So they can give out more to the causes they care
Because it's not about "love" as this propaganda outlet for Capitalism would have you believe. It is about power to choose who they think is worthy of societies assistance. It is absolutely anti-democratic and at the mercy of out-of-touch billionaires trying to whitewash their bad images.
The rich can argue that Government are corrupt and fail their people
Paying their employees living wages would be enough. No charity needed.
But then how would they build clout and become worshiped as living gods?
*plays Soviet music
Minimum wage is decided by the government.
is that what you say to the unemployed homeless guy on the street or do you give them a buck?
No false. that would be wrong, charity choice are personal, raising wages involves higher costs for the business and higher risks for stockholders.
”Real altruism would be doing less harm.” Spot on.
Lol that's literally taking away all responsibility of the less fortunate people and putting it into the rich's hands. Cute.
@@teerificbitch Some are being forced to work 24/7 to earn a $900 a month and fear that if they are not competitive enough, they will loose their job. Such a lovely society.
@@laMoria that is change, every era has had it..try to visualise the people who were casualties of the switch from the agrarian age to the industrial one. The old has to give way to the new (& young)
@@teerificbitch Lol that's literally taking away responsibility from the most powerful and putting it in the hand of the powerless. Cruel. I mean cute. I mean... What DID you mean??
"Innovation comes from the private sector"
Bit of research online shows a lot of modern tech companies started because of public sectir loans or research
That's tech innovation. Nonprofits provide socially oriented innovations that can inform and influence public policy
Monetization comes from the private sector.
Like the internets
DARPA 🤘🏻
The innovations don't seem to be changing much insofar as reducing human suffering. Many foundations allow the rich to park tons of cash for later.
I've always been taught this, "Give man a fish and he will eat once. TEACH that man HOW TO fish and he will eat all his life."
Some people just need a "push to the right direction." It's not just free money, free roof above their heads or free food that poor or homeless people need. Training for potential jobs will change their lives.
Lu G. “Teach that man how to fish and he will eat all his life.” if you’ve inly read between the lines, that means training for jobs/ to earn a living. Not every word written is limited to its literal meaning. Logic has to be applied when analyzing words, sentences, paragraphs, narratives.
Maybe that mindset isn't profitable enough? Also, someone once told me that rich people need poor people because if everyone started moving up the ladder, they wouldn't "feel rich enough" anymore and that isn't something they're willing to give up.
@@alexeialeksandr7606 It's not just about something being lucrative. It's about having the determination to get out of the living situation.
@@alexeialeksandr7606 literally ego problem of sociopaths 😒 EAT THE RICH
@@alexeialeksandr7606 It's about keeping poor people desperate enough to keep working for stagnant wages because they're all competing for crumbs while the rich ransack our society. Socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.
Does anyone genuinely believe that charity from the wealthiest in society comes from altruistic intents?
They did not do everything in their power to acquire their wealth to give it away.
Charity saves them more than they give away. It is a financially motivated decision no different than all others.
edit: typo
What's your point? Everything we do is based on "self interest".
Rich dude: "In a perfect world a government should act in the interest of its people. Private charity wouldn't exist."
* Agrees in Denmark *
It's usually the same wealthy people and corporations who lobby the government's attention and resources away from the 'interest of the people' who say the government isn't acting in the 'interest of the people'.
@@videomakville thank you....took the words out of my mouth. Totally agree
"In a perfect world a government should act in the interest of its people.
Rich guys wouldn't exist"
@@PSYCO89one Being rich should not be a problem, what is a problem is letting people not pay proportional taxes as they get richer.
isnt this socialism though?
I have mixed feelings about this video. Did it address the main question in the title? It was 26 minutes of poorly glued superficial content I would say. But hopefully the ideas will get covered more.
Can't agree more
Totally Agree with that.
Charity = A WAY TO DODGE TAXES
So what ?
@@alenpaul2523 so what what
Does donating give you a bigger tax break than what you donate?
At least it’s going to charity rather than Uncle Sam
It's insane how someone can criticize EA just because this movement really use logics on their activities.
just worry about one day someone will ask them for analysis of their results
I always said to my teachers if there is so much charity and all this billions are given to help and resolve problems, how it is possible that nothing is changing and that they are more and more people homeless, poor etc.. The billionaires are getting richer, powerful and changing laws systeem in their favor.. 😯😯
The child mortality rate for every single country on Earth has decreased severely within the last 60 years.
ther geving it back to the oil company mor power is a scam
Because a lot of that "charity" isn't to make the world better, but to make the rich feel better about themselves 😐
You could say the same for government programs. Except the situation is even worse. They are even more inefficient.
@@frusia123 I agree.
Apart from tax benefits, they also buy public love and affection in some cases. Biblically speaking, they've already been rewarded.
What poor countries, that are generally run by corrupt governments, need to understand is that while corruption may enrich themselves, money eventually runs out because the people are poor. Governments need to understand that the success of their people means a richer country, a more powerful country that can become involved in geopolitics. Rich countries need to help these governments through advice and counsel...and money should only be part of the deal when governments provide a plan that will allow their country to grow economically. I don't know, but this has got to happen. Technology etc. should be shared to allow countries to develop! Stop giving and begin producing solutions to poverty and lack of education!
Are the mosquito nets being giving are locally made? There was an issue with this practice of NGO companies sourcing the mosquito nets from developed countries instead of using locally made nets. And as a result businesses lost revenue that would have been circulated within the community.
Classic colonialist economic model. Make the colonies break backs for raw materials. Make poor break backs in own country to make goods. Sell back to poorer country for profit.
I absolutely agree, I'd worry that outsourcing will definitely increase the bill, give a man a net and he can protect his own family, give a man/woman the tools/machinery and you solve the problem and start an industry 😉
I don't have all the answers but some are fairly obvious
Jesus Christ what is going on in this video?!? It's like two different videos with a massive Bloomberg ad in between them and not one second even touches upon the question raised in title.
Charity in today's world is widely misused.
They are one of the most ineffective use of money. The organizations operating cost in most of them is 80% and only 20% goes to the actual work
When I donate, I give directly, for that very reason.
Probably even less than that. Around 5% of funds actually goes towards aiding people. If non profits actually used 20% it would make a huge difference.
"An arsonists' convention where everyone thinks s/he's a fire-fighter."
Well put. Why accumulate it in the first place
Are we now quoting lines in the video?
Best response ever!!!!
The problem with charity is it never explains how much will solve the problem.
😊
"What do we want?" "Green gas" - Sorry, no. We don't want any fossil energy. So much about Bloomberg.
Disclaimer: "This video is sponsored by Michael Bloomberg"
well the economist is own by the bilionaires so they are just a PR for liberalism and the 1%
@@tresgrospoutou Several poor people ARE CAUGHT IN BIG PROBLEM please report (please cover) INDIA 1 FEBRUARY *no* to *CAA* ... *NEWSstaff*..
People r unhaply how they can show documents(paper) in country like india because several people r uneducated they not maked/make any paper , some r so poor, some lost their papers (documents) with huge water(flood) so their r 100 problems so they have no document(paper)
albarinos asuqwet Billionaires don’t just play with “liberal news.” They’re the ones always pushing supply-side economics in our government (which primarily comes goes to the right), but not paying workers enough regardless.
Great way to make their case to tax them more? Cuz why not🤷🏻♀️
@@inderjeetsingh4746 And sadly now we are facing tyrants who against our Indian farmer. It's been more than 3 months since farmers protest
Has someone thought that a straightforward solution might just simply stop to exploit under developed countries?
Or maybe have a strong progressive taxation and a cap to personal accumulation of resources to avoid the wealth extraction from the society in the first place?
I could go on...
@Lucas ...would you be willing to pay a higher price for everything you consume? What we dont realise is that while we cry about the poor labor conditions of laborers in China and third world countries. We love the fact that we can get cheap affordable products. The western doesn't pay the real price for resources that they get from the third world also often turning a blind eye to the Dispot leaders who they " jump into bed" with and wreck the very institutions that should serve "the people."
@@ndimec2117 yes, i will pay more. It is all about relative distribution of wealth. The market and our economies will adjust to a different baseline and we might also consume less. If the prices will be higher compared to what we earn in dev countries, we will be less prone to exploit them and less inclined to consume useless stuff
@@ndimec2117 notice how pretty much all of Europe’s laughing at your claims because they aren’t remotely true.
@@ndimec2117 “but, but, Venezuela!”
“Yeah what about it? The fact that their economy has been crushed by US sanctions for decades because they know socialism won’t fail unless they force it to?”
@@lucapistolesi5447 it’s not about you paying more. I imagine you have the resources to do so. Its more that it will cost those at the lowest points in society who would feel that additional cost strongest
I am so happy you guys helped these homeless people. Deep down i have always firmly believed that no one should be homeless.
sure, they're doing what you don't.
@angelsrosena your government shouldn't allow that. In Germany wenn you don't have a job, government give you money and help you found a job and an apartment. If you are not German you need to at first hier work and then you have also this privileges.
Less anecdotes and case studies - more analysis please!
Great video, though! But shouldn't the title be "Charity - is giving justified from the point of view of democratic ideals"?
*Efficiency* of charity versus government policies wasn't addressed at macro level. I would have expected more from *The Economist*!
Pennies from unjustified fortunes to buy support to continue the current social order. Wealth and income inequality is allowed to get worse.
70-80% top marginal tax rate. Not intended to raise government revenues but strongly encourage a flattening of inequality. If you're already a big earner why bother going in for a raise when almost all of it will go to government? Would government spend it wisely? Maybe... maybe not. That's not the point. A high marginal tax rate pushes the private sector to do the right thing.
We all hate centrally planned economies. We should hate private sector central planning just as much. Allowing a worsening wealth inequality is to advocate for private sector central planning.
The Charities, a lot of them, are great and do effective work without spending money on their own structure. Donate to the charity you know, the one you can visit. The hard data thing is interesting - I already have the feeling, I need the hard data to choose who to donate if I'm donating to an organization acting far from my home.
True philanthropists would not exploit their employees, not harm the environment, not put people on the streets, not demand 2000% profit margin, not avoid taxes. And if you have something to give after all that, you can donate anonymously in silence and don’t use a tax break.
The last time philanthropic endeavours were as high (relative to gdp) as they are now was c100 years ago at the peak of the Gilded Age (also the highest levels of inequality up until now.) The Vanderbilt’s, Rockefeller’s, Rothschild’s etc lobbied on the behalf increasing philanthropic responsibilities in lieu of in increased taxes.
It worked until post WW1. Philanthropy went up but nothing really changed for the proletariat until mandatory taxes were introduced.
Long story short. Last time taxes were this low and philanthropy was this high, inequality was at its previous peak and 2 world wars happened. In the words of Rutger Bergman: “Taxes, taxes, taxes”.
People tend to believe that homeless people are homeless because they simply had no other options, but that’s not true. Most homeless people are either mentally disabled or drug addicts and simply can’t be taken in to society by just giving them an apartment or a job. Very few homeless people are homeless “just because” they can’t find work.
"According to the World Bank … China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015"
A generation to lift ~850M people out of severe poverty, with the aim of eradicating it completely in 2020.
~
By the same token, previous government policies had caused such abject poverty in the first place.
~
If those two don't make clear how much more influential government is/can be than private…
china is a capitalist economy, they open their country to foreign investment
Billionaires charity is like the philandering husband buying his wife flowers -just placating to avoid suspicion
American law is freedom of all. There is no corruption in america
@@angelabakloyvovtchaikovsky1609 There is no coutry named USA in the top 10 least corrupted nation
8:18 -8:57 Well said! "....It's an arsonists convention in which everyone is under the mistaken impression that they are firefighters."
Everyone I know doesn't give to charity. Instead, they work on themselves first. Charity has not helped Africa, for example, no matter how much money we pour into it. If you really want to help someone, help educate people and start helping individuals, not people you consider "the poor" and "underprivileged."
"Real altruism.... stop doing business the way they do business..."
I think there is nothing wrong with knowing that your kids may never lack for the basics but am opposed to the idea that they totally disregard the existent of lack. In that same breath I think I don't need a billion to see that my neighbor is need of help. Be kind cause it take time not money.
Charity should be recognize as a Human right of reciprocity compassion real solidarity without any political tendancy a human skill for humankind
You cannot effectively defeat a corrupt philanthropist from giving to the needy--of course not. Wrong angle. You can only do so by prosecuting him for the environmental laws, the consumer protection laws, the tax laws, the anti-labor laws, the anti-graft laws he has violated and all the other crimes he or she has committed.
That's brilliant charitable country's live longer and helps our world survive I worked at red Cross we raised 1.5 million on lock down and I now work at vinies charity store we love our world that gives and does charity thank you everyone that gives and volenteers
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch” Milton Friedman
From an economic perspective that is very accurate.
In my opinion, a taxable charity institution is what's needed and the government literally forcing the richest to pay 1% of their total wealth each year to this charity.
Uhhhh, yes there is. I've had people buy me lunch several times. I have also bought other people lunch.
People vote for people that do charity and give it creates better worlds well done for making a difference
What kind of evil do you have to be to actively spend money on destroying people's lives just so you can get richer, even tho you can already own whatever you want to own? This is sickening
“Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at whim.” Clement Attlee (1920)
It shows who really cared at the quality of life.
Who really did their work
although some tax money is really wasted xD they have build a bridge for a highway, but it’s no connected to a street. there is just a bridge in the fields, you cannot use it 🤦🏼♀️
Why not help show people how wealth is created? Personal discipline, resilience, persistence, and kindness.
I take it you are not wealthy?
@@philosoftfurkitusjunkyard2462 That depends on how you define wealthy. I live in a great neighborhood, my kids go to an excellent school, and my Vanguard Index Fund seems to indicate I can retire by the normal retirement age.
@@opensourceguy730 oh, I thought we're discussing Bloomberg level of wealth. is that where you're at? I'm poor.
Kitu's Junkyard No, I was referring to helping the poor by simply writing a check. Bloomberg turned a $10 million severance package into a $22 billion fortune and he should share some stories on how to do well in life. E.g., stay in school, work hard, avoid drug and alcohol abuse, stay humble, take calculated risks, etc. No doubt the people in this video mean well, but what they’re missing is helping people to help themselves. It’s a values judgement. Unfortunately, being non-judgemental is today’s deleterious zeitgeist. Feed a man for a day or teach him to fish so he can feed himself for a lifetime.
@@opensourceguy730 you're a poltergeist? yeah, sounds too naive for me. i see men lots of them, senseless, with kids, lots of them, fighting over fishes in an overfished pond.
The CEO and Admin staff benefit the most. The real cause only gets 10-20% of all donations or so, I guess.
Topestrade
+1. 4. 8. 4. 2. 0. 0. 5. 3. 9. 4
For me it's Animals Asia, World Animal Protection, RSPCA, and various local charities. For my husband it's World Vision. I like the logic approach, and yet, in reality, I end up supporting bears and elephants because I don't think enough people do, and because it's so horrid what's happening to them (e.g bear biling).
A problem made by a small group hoarding too many resources won't be fixed by that group giving away part of their money for causes they like. The problem is their existens and that is fixed with taxing and regulation.
The phenomenon that billionaires can buy social change through foundations has been inevitable in our system. This just shows the decision making inefficiencies of democracy. By no means it is desirable that individuals have that much influence in society, however radical change, needed now more than ever, can never happen when too many people participate in policy making. Especially not when two parties run a government alternately, undoing everything their predecessors have achieved.
Do you have the slightest evidence to back up your claims?
This is the second time PR has got a new name ... the first time it changed into "marketing" (a word created the Edward Bernays himself). Like Milton Friedman said in 1970, their goal should be only profit ... let's tax them and have the State take care of us.
When you help homeless it makes a difference and less likely to carry on out breaks
Love they brought in Anand Giridharadas
That man speaks truth
Why is it billionaires that decide who and what deserves help? It's just big capital manipulating average Joe.. Wake up
what do they have to do when they're awake?
@@philosoftfurkitusjunkyard2462 Vote for Warren
@@heinedenmark that's what being woke means? wake me up when there's a better offer.
They don't. You have no right to thier money.
They don't. You have no right to thier money.
From my experience in cancer biology, the science wouldn’t be happening without generous local donations. Yes the established scientists have government and state funding for their work but that “funding” is becoming more and more an honorary badge. Govt barely pays the bills.but does allow the private donors to know that their money is going to something serious and worthwhile.
Government funding is drying up due to tax cuts for the Rich
Maybe government funding wouldn't be drying up if those people paid taxes.
Would they still donate if they didn't get a tax write-off?
It's too easy to hate on the rich. I can't say I know what the top 1% are like, but I know I'd rather have a greedy businessperson donate huge sums to save face rather than one who doesn't donate at all.
The point is they donate money which would otherwise have gone to taxes. Ideally the taxes would then fund governmental programs which would be directed by democratic means.
"I'd rather have a greedy businessperson donate huge sums to save face rather than one who doesn't donate at all"
The problem highlighted in the video is that many of the face-savers are taking far larger sums out via the various damage they're causing-eg the climate denier lobby movement, the fossil fuel & addiction companies etc.
Me, I'd prefer a greedy businessperson to stop causing $1Bn damage while donating $100M.
I go can go both ways easily
@@RBuckminsterFuller your level naivete is frightening.
I have benefitted from the Robin Hood Foundation through The Ali Forney Center in NYC
.
In my experience, a lot of non profit CBOs have terribly low program expense ratios. As for the donors, it doesnt help to spend 10% of your time and money dismantling a system of you're gonna spend the other 90% propping it up.
They paid for my room & board + amenities for about a year, and I actually got on my feet. I also got to see a number of plays on Broadway including Hamilton with everyone but Lin Manuel Miranda.
It's a mixed bag.
The philanthropy should be structural improvement. Wages are always enough to reliably pay the rent for one bedroom apartment local commute to be legal. Public schools are adequately funded equally and all supplies at school with no homework allowed.
Taxes > charity.
From all given, for all the years given, if charity worked it would not be needed today.
Hello . I just turned 67 and i am sharing some benefits. Let me know if you are interested . I'm just helping the few I can
Poverty will never end, it was there in the beginning of the world and so shall it be in the end the world. Every effort to end poverty is all in vanity.
Giving a charity is taking a step back, not changing direction.
Really interesting video, confirmed some of my own personal views on celebrity charity. The BP "actor-lists" were a bit dire though.
Hi brother hope you are doing well and I call you upon to get involved in our music school foundation.
Great production... Easy to follow
Less than 10% of what you give goes to help anyone, huge salaries, ''volunteers'' expenses, theft, and general sloppiness eats the other 90%!
Pay your f"""in taxes. How about that?
Karl marx is the new power of the world
@@angelabakloyvovtchaikovsky1609 Not what I meant but I like the spirit!
ironic profile photo?
No because 70% of the taxes for the war on poverty go to the bureaucracy that's responsible for the program and only 30% to the poor
@@davinbradley7721 - where do you get your number?
Pretty long Bloomberg add.
If you donate now, we will send you this adorable blanket!
The average person should not donate money to charity, donate your spare time if you have any
We are at the precipice of balancing corporate responsibility and government intervention
Invest your money by buying local, building up relationships with those around you, and getting those you love who need help into programs that can help them.
ITS IRONIC THAT ROTHSCHILD OWNS THIS THE ECONOMIST. ENOUGH SAID.
Pay your taxes fully and let the government be in charge. Less charity, more social oriented programs
I'm not against what ur saying but are you saying this seriously or making fun of what he's saying?
Not in America! America is founded on limited government and it should stay that way. Government has no business running welfare.
Pay tax and u will get lot of weapons
Matias Guzman right because the government has such a great track record of managing money.
And what about people in other countries?
easy fix: billionears and companys PAY tax and pay workers a living or higher wage. stop wast money on greedy wars
They do.
@@mitchellokeefe7053 No they don't
@@omyhaby1912 please show me the proof that they don't
@@mitchellokeefe7053 Did you not watch the video? Poor classes are the ones burdened with reimbursing the government when they pass damaging tax cuts to the wealthy.
Did Bloomberg sponsor this video?
a golden age of giving, a golden age of generosity, and a golden age of hypocrisy as well?
STILL the blue-collar worker is the biggest taxpayer and donor for charity.
NEVER will the rich ever truly be able to help the common folk.
We need systemic change not more altruism, just a fair society, where people aren't viewed and treated like commodities. Capitalism needs to be suspended. It rewards the greedy, and those who are willing to exploit the weak and vulnerable.
$100 to house a family for one night that they otherwise would be homeless...Ah here I am a PhD student earning ~$60 a night, worse than homeless.
donations should not be ta deductible , problem solved..
effective altruism sounds awesome 😍🤩 still the fact is that there are some philosophical issues left
Thank you so much for this video!!
Charity is a sweet idea but not a solid system for a society to rely on. Charity outreach is unevenly spread amongst those that need it and often of temporary nature. Societal issues should be dealt with by the state. If the state would offer jobs to the jobless, provide free addiction counseling and an opportunity for everyone to get an education, there is no need for charity.
The 'tax breaks' mean that money given to charities is not taxed and, consequently, the charity gets more money. The person who gives to charity does not end up with more money than they started with.
Effective Altruism is as based as it gets.
Dear The Economist
Pleases make more video like this, please.
You guys give me motivation and inspire me thanks so much
Hello . I just turned 67 and i am sharing some benefits. Let me know if you are interested . I'm just helping the few I can
I get taxed quite alot, this is my charity.
I don't donate anything ever because people like me never got a dime from any charity growing up.
@8:50 "it's an arsonists convention where everyone is under the mistaken impression that they're firefighters"... Brutal analogy. Anand is a hero of mine. Perfectly frames the reality we live with today.
Like always, it's all just money games.
The only one losing, is the simple person giving.
If you want to do real charity - Plant some local plant, give food to a hungry person, say to someone random "Have a nice day".
The moment you let a third party into the equation, something is bound to go wrong.
Keep your charity where you can directly see the imapct.
Lol, all democracies have become plutocracies. Well done peasants! Now go run along, and vote in the next elections. Your votes are of the utmost vital importance.
Well done bro that's bueatiful helping poverty is the best and homeless other wise it becomes our problem
they gouge their own people to say look at me I am so generous stop stealing from others by selling stuff that doesn't work.
Accusing Bloomberg is a bold move. Trump was right calling lefts extremists after all 🤦🏻♂️
We need structural changes. We got here with structural change. We still need schools without homework and wages that are a living and taxes that are appropriate to wealth and poverty.
We are lead to believe that the same government that can't conduct an orderly airlift would be better spending this money than NGOs?
Love the PR, go bloomberg
My Bro in law lost his wife last year after long 4years of battle with cancer which he had lost his job and he has two small kids... If anyone who can help them that would be really great....
Paul Tudor Jones's clearly has never heard of things such as NASA or GPS if he is going to be making statements about all 'innovation" coming from the private sector.
NASA doesn't come up with most of their technologies-contractors do
@@lucaswilson3045 What exactly is your point? That is like saying no company in the US develops their technologies, their employees and/or contractors do. If NASA wasn't there as a client, a lot of the technologies attributable to them may not exist or would be stuck behind patent walls and would be trade secrets if wholly developed by private enterprise. If the very money that funds and the market that drives these technologies into existence is through the government, then it is a pretty disingenuous position to take that that innovation is coming from the private sector since economics would dictate that innovation in a non-existent market is a waste of money. This is why even though we have asteroids in our solar system with enough precious metals on them to crash the global markets for them, but no one has bothered to go and get them because it would not be economical to go and get them. The investment to get the resource would be more costly than the expected return, at least at present. No private sector enterprise is going to engage in a venture it can't expect a return from, and space was/is no different at, and well into NASA's inception.
Additionally, part of NASA's mission statement is, " We will develop and transfer cutting-edge technologies in aeronautics and space.". The government tries not to be the sole competitor in any market. NASA is no different, many of the technologies it developed, either on it's own, or through contracting them ( which in many instances would mean they have the rights to patent them for themselves ) are either made freely available, or are made available through transfer programs to other private sector companies so that they can be further developed. Again, another example of the government, or more specifically, NASA, providing innovation to entities in the private sector. Through this arrangement, the private sector can then innovate on top of those developed technologies.
I would argue that you make a distinction that Paul Tudor Jones doesn't, and that is that you at least acknowledge some innovation comes from the government. I think you attribute way too little in the example of NASA we are on right now. But Paul Tudor Jones's statement of, " ... innovation as it does in virtually everything in the world comes from the private sector. " virtually asserts that the government provides nothing. Like in many other instances the capitalist society we live in, you need only follow the money to find the source. This is no different, and your statement does little to shed light on anything other than splitting hairs and semantics. If a contractor comes up with some 'innovation', under a NASA contract, using NASA facilities, NASA tools, and NASA funds, etc, don't act like it isn't NASA who made the innovation by making it possible in the first place.
The $$$ they donate goes back into their pockets/business. Not a dime goes to the community that foots their tax bill.
11:56
Yeah, of course the person who won't live to see the climate crisis sees nothing wrong with taking oil money....
People who make 20k don't pay federal tax due to standard deduction. They may pay a bit of state tax. So I'm not sure about his argument.
In the religion of Islam, giving money as donation should be the last option. It is better to provide jobs for the needy than to push them to be more dependent and lazy.
I believe in the charity in COVID 19crisis
There are some real flaws in the giving industry. It is one thing to feed someone today. But unless you motivate the poverty stricken to engage in supporting themselves, with the help of education, and skill development, the giving industry is only creating "money junkies."