Holiday Myths: Giving to Charity

[Jam930]

This is not the time of year for charity.

Oh so it's not the time of year for charity.

Every day is the time of year for charity. Any kind.

Wait... so it IS the time of year for charity??

This is not the time of year for charity.

Oh so it's not the time of year for charity.

Every day is the time of year for charity. Any kind.

Wait... so it



...yeah... I thought it was kinda funny. I won't do it again.

Well what I really wanted to say is that A LOT of people just live off food stamps and crap like that. People that are perfectly healthy and capable of working.
They're leeches and just leech off of the hard work of decent citizens.

Most of this government aid crap like this is just legalized theft.

People should either work their own life or they can just decide not to... and die. If you can't work, get in a hospital... and when you're better, work and pay off that bill too.

[flypie743]

Flypie, seriously... Did he claim that all stereotypes are true? No. On top of that, stereotypes are not part of this thread, so please just leave it.

It is part of this thread. We were talking about donating to the poor. People said that they don't want to donate because the poor are lazy, and I am saying that is a stereotype.

[GuidoHunter]

Flypie, seriously... Did he claim that all stereotypes are true? No. On top of that, stereotypes are not part of this thread, so please just leave it.

It is part of this thread. We were talking about donating to the poor. People said that they don't want to donate because the poor are lazy, and I am saying that is a stereotype.

You first brought up stereotypes in regard to the poor being able/not being able to get into college. That's what was irrelevant to the thread.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[flypie743]

Re: RE: Holiday Myths: Giving to Charity

This is going to stem many people hating me, but.. Why am I donating to lazy people in the first place? The rule in this country is "If you're poor, get a job". I already pay tax dollars to lazy people who are on unemployment and welfare, why should I give away more of my hard-earned cash to help someone else instead of myself?

I believe that I come first. I am the most important thing in my life. Everything else comes second. Now, if you want to call that self-centered, go right ahead. Who are you living your life for if not for yourself?

~Squeek

One of the most false beliefs about poor people is that they are lazy. Have you ever heard of the working poor? People who can barely put food on the table working 5 jobs and have kids. They are poor and maybe they only have a low-paying job. Sometimes the poor people can't get jobs. It is not that they are lazy. Not that some aren't. I am not saying that some people are poor and are lazy. However, the stereotype is that all people who are poor are lazy and should get a job.

There is nothing wrong with yourself coming first. I for one believe that I come first and than my family and friends. That doesn't make me unwilling to help out those who need it and to donate money from time to time.

That is where I first bought up stereotypes...when Squeek said that he didn't want to donate to lazy poor people, and I said that poor people being lazy was just a stereotype.

[DracIV]

Tasselfoot wrote:

Drac... what about people who made glow-stuff (clocks, watches, toothpaste, etc) in the 40s and 50s. the substance used to create the glow? Radon. their products killed thousands of people. same with Asbestos. now, those people were successful. they made money. did they help people? they thought their products were, but they weren't. they killed. slowly.

also, what about a guy who day trades his own money. they have no clients who they are making money for... they are only profiting for themselves.

there are plenty more scenarios that i can give to continue proving you wrong, but i think i got my point across.

Tass, those were bad examples, mostly because you were wrong. The glow-in-the-dark item sellers became rich because they helped people. The fullfillment of a desire or a perceived desire still counts as helping. It only matters that the people decide that it helps. Do you know what happened when we discovered what radon and abestos did? The people who sold that stuff lost all their money. They suffered major losses and people got angry and stopped buying the items that they could see hurt along with helping, and the companies only recovered after they stopped using those non-helping items. This is such an obvious flaw in your example because you just showed exactly what I was talking about; when you help people you succeed and when you hurt them you fail.

Day traders is a stupid example. Day trading is a form of gambling. Gambling is a minigame within society. With gambling, randomly you can do good or do bad, and they are leeches. But the game rules are set and they are buying and selling to people who need help getting stocks or getting rid of stocks. They help on the small scale, even if they are ruining the stock market on the whole. Have you noticed how a day trader can make $12,000 in a day and go bankrupt the next?

It is a simple societal rule. There are no steady exceptions because we all know that Lady Luck plays a part in life. Don't use stupid examples because this is a simple rule that a vast majority of the world knows and only fate can change this rule and only for a moment. Just look at all the multi-million-dollar-lottery winners who went bankrupt within a year (all of them).

[The_Q]

It may be cold, callous, and harsh, but what Jamie said is essentially correct. They ought to work harder. Sure, there are the working poor, but they often have five jobs at different McDonald's or some other job that barely pulls any weight. Earlier on in life they may have (if not must have) made some decisions that directly effect their inablility to obtain wealth. Early children could be one, laze could be another. The point is that they made the decisions that led them to being poor and they can make the decisions to get out of it, even if it is harder to fix than it is to break. Now that we have that covered, mind if we just stop talking about it? The point of the thread is charity, not the poor.

Drac, you keep missing something. The reason people buy the things that are big sellers are for two main reasons.
1. It's a fad.
2. They like the product because it is something they value more than the dollar price.

Why you don't seem to understand that your "societal rule" is bad is beyond me. Case and point: If I give all of my money away to charity, what do I get? A cardboard box in the ghetto, that's what. It is not true that HELPING people will get you anywhere in life. It IS true that utilizing them will. If you don't harm them, they'll work for you.

Q

[PowerCosmic]

I don't really see how everything can have a price, because I am sure there are some people who just wouldn't do something, regardless of the amount of money or anything else that was offered them. I would appreciate hearing the explanation of how everything has a price From the Q.

If everyone were to work only for themselves, society wouldn't really work. Despite everyones motives, people work together, because working together is what makes a society much stronger than the individual elements that compose it. For example, although most companies are only out for profit, they are in fact working together with the rest of the society because they provide a product that is useful and contributes to society. People that donate 1 million dollars for a tax break are still donating 1 million dollars to help other people in need. Thus, the company that contributes and gets a tax break will be more successful than the company that does not.

Basically, selfish people are allowed to be selfish by the people that are not. If everyone only worked towards getting themselves rich, then no one would be rich, because society wouldn't function properly. A society can't be made up entirely of day traders, to use the example from earlier in the thread. There have to be people who care less for personal gain than for the well being of others for everything to function properly.

[Tasselfoot]

i already said part of that Power... i'm glad that alot of people aren't selfish, because it allows me the freedom to be.

and Drac... is Poker gambling? its not all luck. Day trading is not all luck either. the people that are bad at it lose all their money. the people that are good at it make millions. look at Warren Buffet. or, to go back to poker... Doyle Brunson, Huck Seed, Phil Hellmuth, etc etc etc. and, please explain to me how someone who is a day trader TRADING ONLY THEIR OWN MONEY helps anyone but themselves. if they are good at it, they won't lose their money. its called hedging. anyone who has taken Finance 101 knows what hedging is and how important it is.

and believe me, you don't want to get into a debate dealing with finance. it'd be like arguing econ with Q.

[DracIV]

The Q said:

Why you don't seem to understand that your "societal rule" is bad is beyond me. Case and point: If I give all of my money away to charity, what do I get? A cardboard box in the ghetto, that's what. It is not true that HELPING people will get you anywhere in life. It IS true that utilizing them will. If you don't harm them, they'll work for you.

What you get is contentment and inner peace. I specifically said that the success came in different forms. And what is this junk about people buying everything solely because it is a fad? Is that why you buy food? You buy it because it helps you, even if the need it fulfills is perceived.

and Drac... is Poker gambling? its not all luck. Day trading is not all luck either. the people that are bad at it lose all their money. the people that are good at it make millions. look at Warren Buffet. or, to go back to poker... Doyle Brunson, Huck Seed, Phil Hellmuth, etc etc etc. and, please explain to me how someone who is a day trader TRADING ONLY THEIR OWN MONEY helps anyone but themselves. if they are good at it, they won't lose their money. its called hedging. anyone who has taken Finance 101 knows what hedging is and how important it is.

Games like Poker, Day Trading, or slot machines are all gambling games. When that day trader sells a stock, do you think it just goes poof? Someone wanted that stock and held a perceived need for that stock, and that day trader fulfilled it. The way a day trader wins is by fullfilling other people's needs and your own needs at the right times to make a profit. Also, unrelated to the initial reason for success but still related to the success it self, that rich day trader continues on and helps people by buying their products and putting cash in their pockets. By extending his perceived needs to include many more items, that day trader just helped tons of people by buying their products and giving them a profit. Would you consider that day trader a success if he bought and sold only to himself and took all his millions and kept it in a drawer? Even putting the money in a bank helps someone- the bank and its investors and the loan-users. Additionally, although just a minor thing, day traders pay a fee every time they trade. Each time you buy and sell your stock you pay a transaction fee and that person receiving the transaction fee now has enough money for a new pair of shoes. It is impossible to earn a living within society without helping people in some way, and virtually impossible to avoid helping people somehow without breaking the law.

[Tasselfoot]

for the record... we're talking about charity. we aren't talking about working and getting paid. my apologies for continueing the tangent.

also... contentment and inner peace? you've got to be kidding me. are you Ghandi or something? i'm Jewish... but the line between that an being an atheist is getting fuzzy. so, i don't give two pulls of a bulls dong about contentment or inner peace. i don't believe in an after life... i HIGHLY doubt there is a supernatural entity. so talking about contentment and inner peace is complete bullcrap. i care about myself, my money, my woman, and not many things/people beyond that.

[talisman]

1. There are poor people that live off the government that don't need to.

2. There are poor people that live off the government that do need to.

3. Some poor people had the opportunities presented to them early in life to make choices that would lead to a more financially independent future.

a. Some made those choices.

b. Some didn't.

4. Some poor people never had these opportunities presented to them. (Lack of meaningful education, lack of a stable home life, lack of an environment conducive to growing up.)

5. Some wealthier people choose to donate to charity. These people are not doing anything wrong.

6. Some wealthier people don't choose to donate. These people are not doing anything wrong.

7. Some wealthier people choose to volunteer. This is not a bad thing.

8. Some wealthier people choose not to volunteer. This is not a bad thing.

Ok?

I mean, complain all you want, nothing is going to change the facts.

[The_Q]

Talisman has the current situation down pat. That's good. His only inaccuracy is on number 2 when he implies that people need government. This is a lie that can be discussed later.

First, let me attack your views on business. To believe that the market survives solely on the principle that people help people is equivalent to believing that Christianity is based off of people hating other people. It's just not right. The point of the market, ask ANYONE who deals in it, including yourself, is to try to rip off everyone else. How would I be doing this, you might ask. Well, let me show you several examples. Bargain stores or haggling, both very much existant today (in fact, I like haggling at bargain stores. It's fun to confuse the cashiers). Both are places or situations in which both parties intend to rip off the other. The customer wants to get the lowest price possible and the vendor wants to rack up the price as far as it goes. Bargain stores manage to accomplish both. In, say, a dollar store a consumer might find hundreds of items that they can use for an incredibly low price. I've seen stereo systems in there before (overstock, most likely. Supply and demand, don't you love it?) that sell for under 15 dollars when their retail value should be around 100. The funny thing is, the consumer says "WOW, what a DEAL!", buys the item and leaves. The vendor says "Haha, sucker, I've got 300 more in the backroom that I can now charge MORE for." Both end up thinking they got the good deal. Who didn't, though? Both got the good deal, of course! The consumer got the stereo that they value at around 100 dollars and saved around 85 dollars on, but the vendor sold a stereo that they had too many of and can now rack up their price more WHILE making a decent profit off of it (normally somewhere between 50-90% profits. Yeah, munch on that number you quantitative people!).

Let's take another real world example. The AK-47. This gun was mass produced by the USSR to support it's troops. Great weapon, when you think about it, but it's cheap and easy to produce. Therefore, they overproduced. Now you can buy an AK-47 on the market for 45 lbs. USSR gun contrators benefit, so do the people who shoot AK-47's.

Now, let's hit this whole "inner peace" issue. What makes people think that doing things that do NOT benefit the common good is great in the eyes of God? I don't donate because it's the common good. I feel great that I'm helping more people out AND helping myself in the process. When you come up with a better plan, let me know.

Q

[DracIV]

Q, you forgot a point. You just agreed with me if you didn't notice. You just proved that people like it when your item helps them and makes their life easier and that the successful people are those who help other people while making a profit through deals that help both sides. You then went on and said that you feel great from doing charity, and no one cares if you help yourself in the process. In fact, the entire point of capitalism is to help others, but also help yourself at the same time. I don't have a better plan than helping others because that is the plan I use.

Though I need to ask again, why the hell do people focus on the part that doesn't matter, and ignore completely when I gave the full list of "successfully finacially, religiously, emotionally, or mentally." The exact reward depends on the person. For people like Tas the reward is almost always financially. For donating it is often an emotional or mental reward (like happiness or more knowledge about the world). Oh yeah, and Tas, it doesn't matter if you care or not; the action is what matters.

[The_Q]

COMMUNISM is helping others. SOCIALISM is helping others. CAPITALISM is helping yourself. That is the fact, not the opinion.

What you don't seem to grasp, though, is that helping people is not what capitalism is about, it's just a side effect. People won't buy things that hurt them (except for those that are so extremely stupid that it's a miracle they lived to even touch money). That means that the only things they will buy are things that do them no good or no bad OR things that will help them later on. This is called marketing. I don't make the product with the customer's well being in mind. If that were so I'd pay them to take the product off of my hands. When you make a deal that benefits both sides you have an economically efficient outcome.

You have little grasp of economic principles at all. I'd recommend the same book as I do to all beginners. The one that started me. The Armchair Economist by Steven E. Landsburg. Please, for my sanity, read it.

Q

[GuidoHunter]

Socialism is the state helping others. Being a kind and generous person is a person helping others. There's a big difference.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com