Is this a good result?

[2ndRateMind]

According to google, the world produces $76,000 billion each year. and gives $259 billion in charity. That's 0.034%. Meanwhile, 36 million people a year die of hunger.

Any comments?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[jgh7]

Well if this was a multiple choice test and the options were

a) Good
b) Bad
c) Neutral
d) all of the above

I would choose b. I don't know if throwing more money on the issue would necessarily solve it though.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

I have to confess to an error. It seems I inadvertently added an extraneous 0. That should read 0.34%, not 0.034%. Nevertheless, giving 34 cents out of every $100 earned clearly has not solved the hunger problem. Perhaps we should consider doing more.

As for 'throwing money at the problem', I think the world, given this statistic, which includes all charitable giving, not just poverty relief, can hardly be accused of that.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[hoiskii]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

I never give to charities.
I know no charity that would solve the course of any problem. After all, it is not in the best interest of any charity to solve the root of the problem.

Whne I see I can help directly, I do. I.e., when I saw a school kids watched movies on an old CRT (!) TV, I bought them a new one....

[2ndRateMind]

I think it is only sensible to be reasonably critical of charities when one is considering how to dispose of one's money. Some are not financially transparent, some of those spend rather more on 'administration' than is warranted by their front-line activities. One wants 'the most bang for the buck', and to weed these kinds of organisations out of consideration is just plain common sense. But to rule out all charities altogether does, I think, rule out supporting many good people who are doing many good things in the world. And I am not persuaded that is a good result, either.

As for charities having an interest in the persistence of the problem(s) they address, well, I think the world has a considerable distance to travel before this becomes a dilemma for them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Yes, we need God's kingdom.

Humans were not designed for self rule we need Jesus.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Yes, we need God's kingdom.

Humans were not designed for self rule we need Jesus.

Hmmm. Not sure about that. Seems something of a counsel of despair.

I just think we need people in charge, nationally and globally, who don't particularly want power or wealth, and don't particularly want to be in charge, at all. But, when given the authority, who will rule for the benefit of the least amongst us, the weak, the poor, the vulnerable and the marginal. Not for the greatest, who have proven they need no special considerations, anyway. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of individual democracies tend to elect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Yes, we need God's kingdom.

Humans were not designed for self rule we need Jesus.

Hmmm. Not sure about that. Seems something of a counsel of despair.

I just think we need people in charge, nationally and globally, who don't particularly want power or wealth, and don't particularly want to be in charge, at all. But, when given the authority, who will rule for the benefit of the least amongst us, the weak, the poor, the vulnerable and the marginal. Not for the greatest, who have proven they need no special considerations, anyway. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of individual democracies tend to elect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, as Winston Churchill once stated, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Yes, we need God's kingdom.

Humans were not designed for self rule we need Jesus.

Hmmm. Not sure about that. Seems something of a counsel of despair.

I just think we need people in charge, nationally and globally, who don't particularly want power or wealth, and don't particularly want to be in charge, at all. But, when given the authority, who will rule for the benefit of the least amongst us, the weak, the poor, the vulnerable and the marginal. Not for the greatest, who have proven they need no special considerations, anyway. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of individual democracies tend to elect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I was simply expressing my faith. All Jehovah's Witnesses believe that humans were not designed for self rule and can never EVER succeed in self governing the planet. We believe God's kingdom government is the only solution to mankind's problems... but that's no surprise to anyone, everyone knows Jehovah's Witnesses won't shut up talking about the Kingdom ...lol

Don't worry, these are all faith based statements.


JW

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness: "Humans were not designed for self rule we need Jesus."

Alas, Jesus seems to be unwilling or unable to take the job. Maybe... Could that be because he is dead?