This is all great but where are the details. What are the specific things that governments and individuals can do to alleviate poverty and make a world that is fairer for all? Reading the authors of the article I'm led to think maybe the idea is to donate substantial sums of money to Oxfam, World Vision, Amnesty International, CARE, PLAN and Greenpeace.

Would that be money well spent? What have been the successes so far? What are their budgets and what fraction of their budgets goes to useful causes that have made a difference?

"Governments must reduce the volatility in energy prices, food prices and the financial markets by ensuring sensible regulation, adequate protection for the rights of poor and vulnerable people, and long-term environmental sustainability." - - - That is a gigantic, gigantic, incredibly huge project, but it gets listed here as if all we need to do is make a phone call. Where are the specific proposals for making these things happen?

"Governments must show decisive leadership to build a global economy that is green and where better lives and livelihoods for all is more important than a system that rewards a privileged few." - - - How?

Listed as authors of the article:

Australian NGO Chiefs:
Andrew Hewett, Executive Director, Oxfam Australia
Tim Costello, Chief Executive, World Vision Australia
Claire Mallinson, National Director, Amnesty International Australia
Dr Julia Newton-Howes, Chief Executive Officer, CARE Australia
Ian Wishart, National Executive Director, PLAN Australia
Steve Shallhorn, Chief Executive Officer, Greenpeace Australia

United, they declare: “This is not just about money. It is about sustained attention, international collaboration and clear political will to tackle big issues.”

United, they list big issues.

United, they deliberately avoid the biggest issue of all – population pressure and its continuing growth in areas of the most deprived.

United, they deliberately avoid the second-biggest issue – the prevention of women in those areas from accessing the rights and the means to control their own fertility.

United, they deliberately avoid even discussing limits to the capacity of environmental resources to cope with even rudimentary human needs on the scale of present numbers.

Maybe they are united in feeling good about being able to bypass these essentials – that it is “the problem of someone else”.

If that is so, how better is their activity than that of shore-line scavengers - collectors of flotsam from never-ending tragedies of human shipwreck

In the absence of real action on the part of governments (who recieve far more from poor countries on interest earned then they give back in aid) it is left to private organisations such as these to attempt to address some of the issues raised by Colinsett.

"United, they deliberately avoid the biggest issue of all – population pressure and its continuing growth in areas of the most deprived."

- some groups do focus on short term disaster relief (such as MSF), but sustainable development is an increasing concern that requires a greater investment and global refocus beyond the scope of these organisations largely reliant on private donations.

"United, they deliberately avoid the second-biggest issue – the prevention of women in those areas from accessing the rights and the means to control their own fertility."

- Access to appropriate reproduction technology is key to sustainable development. It is hampered by inadequate funding among poorer countries and cultural issues specific to some regions. sitting on your arse complaining that someone doesn't do something about it acheives nothing.

"United, they deliberately avoid even discussing limits to the capacity of environmental resources to cope with even rudimentary human needs on the scale of present numbers."

- rudimentry human needs? The level of consumption among us in the 'west' is far far above rudimentry.

Not sure about this, but i've heard it said that the world can sustain 9 billion people on current food production - if we eat the calorie intake of the average citizen of Bangladesh. While population management is vital, a callous approach towards those who are suffering from those bloated with overindulgence is a bit rich.

Collective computer modeling has produced these hypothetical set pieces on the political chess board! How sad say the modelers! How true say the man made global warming deniers! As these political global warming prophets of doom only stray into common observations after economic distress and factual occurrences. Now are these collective thought bubbles driven and funded by government or a result of industries empirically practiced results.

* Access to appropriate reproduction technology is key to sustainable development. It is hampered by inadequate funding among poorer countries and cultural issues specific to some regions. sitting on your arse complaining that someone doesn't do something about it acheives nothing.*

McFly, I remind you that quite good progress was being made in places
like sub Saharan Africa, when along came the Bush regime, with
Vatican lobbyists and other religious extremists blowing in their
ear, so much good work was cancelled and abstinence was the new
solution, according to them. Anyone who even mentioned abortion
had any funding cut off immediately, so many clinics closed etc.

You are quite correct, sadly I cannot get rid of the pope or even
get rid of the Bush regime. All I can do is express my disgust,
that Western Govts are too lilly livered to put both the above in
their place and start giving women in the third world, what women
in the first world take for granted, ie. proper family planning.

Just shipping more boat loads of food to Africa, is not going to
solve anything.

McFly I agree with your statement: “a callous approach towards those who are suffering from those bloated with overindulgence is a bit rich.”

It is the bloated overindulgence of their individual mission, the unwillingness to plea for help from Governments or elsewhere in order to address the causes giving rise to the horrendous problems they attend to, by Medicines Sans Frontiers and other ambulance-chasers, that raise my ire.

I find it extremely callous of them to neglect to do so. They carry on with their good works in total disregard for the 1994 Cairo Conference which determined an effective (if it were to be implemented) plan for action to address the fundamental issues giving rise to the problems. There are other NGOs which do address them (Bill Ryerson’s radio initiatives among them) to greater effect; but they receive little media attention.

It is way beyond time that the authors of the article, and the organizations they represent, stopped “sitting on their arses” in silence about the underlying cause of the problems they individually work at. The people whose concerns they are striving for have every right to eventual equality with ourselves in relation to opportunity for rudimentary human needs – and I would wish that such is eventually achieved. How rudimentary? – it’s a bit rich to expect 6.7 billion people, even at Bangladeshi standards, to be maintained by the earth’s environment. If ever 9 billion is reached it will be of very temporary duration. In the meantime, the silence of the authors is abominable.

Won't failure to tackle the financial crisis hinder our capacity to deal with poverty, human rights, er, climatic challenges and other issues? It sounds a bit like complaining about mum or dad urgently looking for a job because, hey, there's no food in the fridge, a leaking roof and the kids are screaming at each other. And, when times are tough, isn't it the automatic monthly debits to organizations like the above that are likely to be the first to go?

HAH! ...when I see Tim Costello making a public announcement that at least 60% of his 200k plus salary package is going back into 'poverty alleviation'....then the NGO's will have more sympathy from me.

Why do I say 'PUBLIC' announcement? aaah simple! Because Tim, during his less financially rewarding time at Wesley Mission (if memory serves me correctly) was critical of another NGO Leader for his 'HIGH salary of $160,000 lavish lifestyle and luxury apartment, and he did so on the public record as found in the ABC transcript I've put here in the past.

TIM likes to criticize...

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1150747.htm

REVEREND TIM COSTELLO, WORLD VISION: Some of the quotes in that book I felt were very troubling because the American televangelists who also preach a prosperity gospel, have bred the greatest cynicism that you might have towards authentic Christian faith by turning it into that get-rich formula.

Hmmmmmmm.... 220k? :) nah..that's not 'rich'...just a battler from Sunshine.

Here are Tims words from the ABC

KERRY O'BRIEN
Melbourne's Wesley Central Mission today vowed to review the salary package of its controversial superintendent, Reverend Tim Langley, after it was revealed he was earning $160,000 a year, as well as living in a luxury apartment supplied by the Uniting Church.

REV TIM COSTELLO, BAPTIST MINISTER: Look, I was shocked and I think most clergy in the church are dumbstruck. When you have a religious calling, you understand it's about sacrifice and service. You're not in it to make money.

You were SHOCKED Tim? I'm more shocked that you could say that and now accept 200K plus yourself. After all....

"your not in it to make money" are you :)

I'm DUMBSTRUCK.

NGO's whining about 'World Poverty' without addressing:

-Population control
-Political causes.
-Employment opportunities for those who will now live rather than die
-The population multiplication effect of simply 'fixing poverty'..when in fact it would become worse.

nah.. I'm cynical. To me all this whining is more about 'donate donate donate' so that I can maintain the 'lifestyle to which I'm rapidly becoming accustomed to'.

Good find, Boaz.

Just in case anyone is suspicious about your unsupported quotes from the Kerry O'Brien interview, here is the reference.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s139045.htm

I am royally p!ssed off by these people lecturing me, when they stuff their own pockets on the back of the misery of others.

Amnesty International doesn't declare executive pay, but in any case is not a charity in the sense used in this article, more an activist operation.

Greenpeace falls into the same category, which is a shame, because they seem to be populated with individuals with a keen sense of propriety. The Board managed to squeeze out a $25k honorarium to its chief last year, on account of the hours of selfless work on their behalf. This example of true commitment went unnoticed in the mainstream charity industry.

World Vision is the worst offender. It's just a marketing organization, its constant vainglorious self-promotion necessary for the continued welfare of its overpaid management.

http://www.worldvision.com.au/aboutus/annualreport/

The others mentioned are also major salary-machines - Oxfam, at the last (2007) count, had six executives earning over $100,000.

CARE Australia is very coy about its remuneration at an individual level, but does confess to spending $934,912 in salaries for its senior executives.

Plan at least does not pay its Board members, but the National Executive Director takes home a $145k package.

How do these people sleep at night, in the knowledge that their livelihood is entirely dependent on the continued suffering of others?

There's an entire industry of spongers out there, dipping into your pocket to support their lifestyle, all the while dripping platitudes about supporting good works.

It's obscene.

I tend to agree with the criticism against the high wages collected by CEOs of charity orgnisations.

There is some misguided argument that to get talented people, you need pay for their expertise and experience. I don't really buy that.

The financial crisis proves that paying higher wages does not really mean anything, although I would not criticise the efforts of Tim Costello or imply that I would not want to be rewarded for my own efforts.

Neverthless, criticism of hypocrisy is indeed justified if warranted.

Pericles says "Oxfam, at the last (2007) count, had six executives earning over $100,000."

As far as executive salaries go this is a pittance. I have tradesmen working for me that with a bit of over time earn more than that.

Any person with that level of talent is worth far more, and is probably donating 80% of his value.

The old adage "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" still applies, (see greenpeace)

When I read the “ NGO Chiefs “ article the word - RESERVATIONS- came to mind.
Reservations, that “$18 billion” or any similar amount would solve the problems of the undeveloped world.
Reservations, about the concept of a “right” to receive housing, health and education, and a commensurate obligation on the part of others to provide such.
Reservations, that any program that does not prominently push -not just populations controls- but, drastic population reductions will succeed.

But, I am sure the NGO Chiefs had no such reservations and, judging by their highly remunerated positions , I would think the only reservations they ever had were of a five star nature.

PS: I suggest we should scrap the NGOs Chiefs article and replace it with Colinsetts posts.Colinsett makes a darn side more sense!

The idea that we can end poverty even for the existing population, let alone for the 9 billion expected in the future is sheer nonsense, as is the idea that it is all somehow the fault of us Westerners. Most of humanity is in a Malthusian trap, and before the last century, all of it was. Technological advances occurred, but the population just grew to eat up any surplus and restore the accustomed level of misery. The high living standards enjoyed by survivors of the Black Death were not matched until the late 19th century, despite more than 500 years of technological progress, as explained in the lecture on the 14th century in Radio National's "Thousand Years in a Day" series. There are twice as many Ethiopians now as when Bob Geldof launched his heartrending appeals during the famine of the 1980s.

We got out of the trap because development brought changes that made large families expensive for the parents, unnecessary for ensuring surviving children or support in old age, as well as for national defence, and easily avoidable. Unfortunately, education, healthcare, sewer systems, old age pensions, etc. require quite a high level of GNP per capita. See this graph plotting environmental footprint, i.e. consumption, against rank on the human development index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Highlight_Findings_of_the_WA_S0E_2007_report_.gif

No country is giving its people wonderful lives on a tiny footprint. It is clear that we could cut ours in half without really hurting people, as there is a lot of waste, but given the relative numbers, it would make very little difference. It would take the resources of 3 Earths to give everyone a modest European standard of living.

Aid that isn't aimed at helping people get themselves out of the trap is useless. Helping people avoid unwanted pregnancies is an important first step, and Yabby is spot on about the damage that is being done by the religious fundamentalists. I only give money to organisations that are prepared to recognise the problems outlined by Colinsett.

Poverty can be a spiritual issue just as much as a physical. In India Hindus would rather die than eat their beloved grand mothers (sorry cows). In Zimbawe once a great food provider for Africa is run by corruption and the UN sits on its hands because its ruler is black. In our own country much of our welfare money is spent on grogs, cigarettes and gambling.

Giving more money to food agencies is only one small part of the puzzle. A few of our rock stars who adopt the messiah complex (very much like some environmentalist) would have us believe otherwise.

I am sure that your gardener is worth every penny that you pay him, Shadow Minister.

>>As far as executive salaries go this is a pittance. I have tradesmen working for me that with a bit of over time earn more than that.<<

But are you really sure that a manager in a business that has no product save the misery of others, whose main functions are the organization of begging on street corners, sending begging letters and employing roomsful of call-centre jockeys is worth more than your gardener?

I would suggest that any "executive" work that needs to be done can be done in an afternoon by a retired mortgage broker.

For free.

After all, it is supposed to be a charity.

*Any person with that level of talent is worth far more, and is probably donating 80% of his value.
The old adage "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" still applies, (see greenpeace)*

I remind you that the CEO of Lehmans earnt 400 million $ and still
sent the company broke! Meantime Gerry Harvey draws a very modest
salary and his company still thrives. I have yet to see a statistic
which shows that the highest paid CEOs are the best ones.

But in this case, that is not even the point. I once saw an
interview where it was revealed that the CEO of the Red Cross
apparently was earning around 450k$. Thats the last time that I
donated to the Red Cross. If they can afford to pay those sorts
of salaries, they clearly don't need my donation.

If a high salary is needed to motivate somebody working for charity,
then clearly its a business, not a charity.

Part of their "business plan" would be to try and make people feel
guilty about not donating enough to the poor. Its a bit like
the Catholic Church really, selling indulgences. That made them
a great deal of money!

Pericles,

Your attempt to paint me as fat cat shows an ignorance of the real world would probably put you as minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements.

I work for a large organisation with people reporting to me. The tradesmen get paid a market related wage, and often leave for better.

"Executive" work is not the mindless shuffling of paper that you imagine, but generally requires a depth of understanding of economics, people and systems for which your retired mortage broker would be ill equiped.

The wrong person in the job leads to well intentioned but breath taking incompetencies such as the existing NSW gov that has not only squandered peak revenues and achieved very little, but piled up debts for future administrations to deal with.

Yabby,

Your example of Gerry Harvey who holds a majority stake in the company taking only $1m in salary is inappropriate, considering that his wife is also MD and their dividends were about $30m after tax.

As controlling share holders they would appear to be rorting the system if they drew any more, and hardly need it.

The CEO of the red cross who earns $500k would easily earn 10x that in business, and giving up nearly $5m in salary would by most be seen as an act of charity.

If you choose not to donate to them on the grounds you have given why not donate to the NSW labor party who ascribe to the ideals of charitable incompetence that you cherish.

Your small-mindedness does you no credit, Shadow Minister.

>>Your attempt to paint me as fat cat shows an ignorance of the real world would probably put you as minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements<<

If I were similarly inclined, I would observe that your adulation of "executive work" is typical of a lower-middle manager in a large corporation.

Fortunately, I am able to rise above such pettiness.

For what it is worth, I am absolutely certain that the task of running a charity, with no need to understand market dynamics, or to constantly revisit and re-tune product strategies, or to balance seasonal variations in sales and stock levels, or to build and motivate diverse teams to a common goal, does not require "a depth of understanding of economics, people and systems for which your retired mortage broker would be ill equiped [sic]."

On that we shall have to differ, unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.

And please don't use the "they must be worth it, look how much they are paid" argument.

Pericles,

In my work I can see the difference between someone with a in depth understanding of the issues and those that are merely competent. We have just completed a overhaul of design provided to my client by consultants and have stripped out $4m of overdesign and complication and built a system that is easier to run and maintain.

This required a couple of months of our time for a small fraction of the savings, and is why in spite of our high fees we cannot meet demand for our services.

Likewise an exception CEO will boost his company's profits by far more than his renumeration.

I don't have an adulation for "executive work" as you put it, but admire competence in all fields and the ability to work beyond standard abilities.

The reason CEOs are paid so well is that very few can do what they do, and is the same reason that Picasso paintings go for $30m.

Explaining this to someone with no experience is like talking about sex to my 5 yr old daughter. Her response is similar to yours.

"Yuck, why would anyone want to do that."

Shadow Minister, the real truth is that no matter how much CEOs
are paid, many are still monkeys, so its not the money that is
the issue.

All this of course came about by the American system, where
"consultants" were paid to advise on salaries. No doubt by
advising that huge ones were paid, they would get the job again
the following year.

Has it worked? Absolutalty not.

http://www.manifest.co.uk/news/2004/20040510Forbes.htm

Some 2003 figures of salaries to CEOs of major world companies.

Note that the CEO of UBS went on to nearly bankrupt the bank with
losses, he was on nearly 7 million.

Yet the head of Toyota, earning less then a million, heads the
world's most successfull MV company, whilst his American, highly
paid CEO mates at GM and Ford, have driven their companies to
within an inch of bankrupcy and the story is not over yet.

So your theory is flawed, as we see a world of highly overpaid
CEOs, who are little more then monkeys, running away with huge
salaries, as they drive their companies into the ground. On the
way out, the golden handshake or parachute, usually awaits. Ha!

Yes, I too have found that the execs are an offensively over-rated bunch - the authors not excepted. The money they get is probably best understood as part of a feudal system: "who's your daddy", mentor, society patron, etc., all prevail over brains, agility and character. Yabby's reference to corporate failure is not just some apocryphal scuttlebutt: most of such shocking corruption is so routinely managed in-house that it does not even reach the gossip lines of urban myth.

The greater the pay, the more likely that it will lure the greedy, stupid, dishonest, arrogant and psychopathic. What is needed badly are certain measures of sacrifice, humility, courage and empathy - that last quality being a most useful type of imagination, and best sourced from those who seek to understand and respect subordinates. Such qualities always prove a far better guide to those better suited to leadership.

Instead we get people like Peter Costello, who proves again how affirmative action works for the mediocre, this time with an appointment to the World Bank For "anti corruption"!

Based simply around his record of cowardice, "Tip" Costello hasn’t even got the bottle to head a primary school cricket team; such breathtaking embarrassment that people kept mentioning his name and the word "leadership" in the same sentence for so long! It seems that so many supported him because they liked the idea that if people just want something so much then that should be enough. Kinda describes their nasty dumbass ideology too really.

Then there's Malcolm Turnbull heading the Libs! Amid this crash, they’re keeping a straight face selling his "credibility" as an economics guru because he was a leading dealer with Goldman Sachs Oz. By that perverse measure, Turnbull as PM in the Ubercrash would be like getting Ivan Milat as Chief of Police to tackle a massive wave of violent crime.

Is this getting getting confusing, Shadow Minister, or is it just me?

I'm trying to fathom the relevance of this contribution of yours, to the issue of executive remuneration in the charity industry.

>>We have just completed a overhaul of design provided to my client by consultants and have stripped out $4m of overdesign and complication and built a system that is easier to run and maintain.<<

I'm not entirely sure what it illustrates.

Was the CEO in this equation smart or stupid?

Did he do a lousy job first (giving it to ineffective consultants) then redeem himself by getting you to streamline the design?

Either way, if the savings on the system were $4m, the scale of the project is far above any required to run a charity. Think of the variables involved, then match the skills required to manage those variables against the capabilities of your averagely successful mortgage broker.

I think you'll find there's not much daylight between them.

Yabby, Pericles and others,

For every one company that goes to the wall there are hundreds of others that excel doing things better than before.

The ones that failed probably improved efficiencies 20% whilst the opposition increased by 50%.

Market conditions and other variables often have as much to do with it as CEO compentencies.

The CEO of the red cross handles hundreds of millions, and a kindly but only reasonably competent manager will get far less done than a highly skilled one. And with that kind of money the savings would be in 10s of millions. A few hundred k a year to get that person is well spent.

If this confuses you still Pericles, I cannot explain it in smaller words.

For highly skilled managers of charities who are giving up a substantial portion of their earnings and sacrificing the prosperity of their families to be criticised by people who probably donate less than 1% of their earnings is a little rich.

all I see is jealousy and spite against those that least deserve it by those who sancitmoniously hold them up to values that I highly doubt they come any where near themselves.

Yeah: "you're just jealous, not good enough, don't understand the rarified air of funny money we oligarch parasites inhabit", etc.

Shadow, can you enlighten us all on how we should regard the great "efficiencies" and achievements of excellence by such outfits as Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, WaMu, Northern Rock (can we keep going)? How did such unproductive firms of usurers justify annual bonuses of up to USD 1 billion for certain execs?!

And how's that derivatives bubble brewing lately? And how to explain the great "efficiencies" achieved by such speculative rubbish when their very (short-term!) survival now depends on bail-outs by prostitute-politicians and infiltrating usurer-apparatchiks like Paulson?

I notice that you managed to sidestep the questions put to you, Shadow Minister. I guess with a handle like yours, that's par for the course.

Never mind. At least you managed to introduce further confusion to your position.

Which of these statements of yours do you believe in more?

Or would it simply be the one favoured by the client who pays you the higher fees?

>>The reason CEOs are paid so well is that very few can do what they do, and is the same reason that Picasso paintings go for $30m.<<

>>Market conditions and other variables often have as much to do with it as CEO compentencies<<.

Both statements can of course be true. But only if you are willing to argue "one the one hand... but of course on the other..."

But I suppose that's what consultants excel at, isn't it?

You talk in generalities. I am being specific. There is nothing at all challenging, from a CEO's perspective, in managing an organization that does no R&D, no product design, no product development, no manufacturing, has no shareholders, no profit targets, and has a "sales" operation that consists of begging money from the general public, using guilt as a primary motivator.

Compared to a real business, it has no risk, no penalties for failure and a management expense pot that is fundamentally optional - you simply select a ratio that is acceptable to your image, and away you go.

Jealousy and spite have nothing to do with it. The job can be competently filled by a retired mortgage broker, who would perform perfectly satisfactorily, and take far less from the value chain in doing so.

mil-observer

Did you actually read my posts?

My jealousy reference was to the CEO of charities not of banks.

The companies you mentioned were not the originators of the toxic financial instruments, rather traders in the instruments.

An even worse case of poor corporate governance is NSW labor, whose bankrupting of the state in a time of record income whilst not actually spending anything on upgrading schools and infrastructure is overshadowed only by Robert Mugabe. With your political leanings this must be hard to swallow.

Your last post displayed more political buzz words than I have seen for a long time. This financial crisis must be the opportunity of a life time to trot them out. The benefit of 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, a pity that foresight is required.

Hi Shadow. Presume all you like about my "political leanings", but your references to NSW Labor and Zimbabwe are both grist to my own mill too, though for different reasons.

On NSW Labor and its monetarist black holes, we can get plenty of gruesome detail from that Carr guy who gets half a mil each year from Macquarie Bank. As for Zimbabwe, that country is a good demonstration of what happens when the UK and Crown can't get over their own petulance about having their imperialist butts kicked by the natives. Blair cut the compensation deal for Zimbabwe's continued recognition of white farmers' land claims - contrary to processes during the peace deal - thus ensuring that Mugabe had to keep good his promises of national reclamation. The rest is just a recent installment in the history of imperialist embargoes and destabilization.

Also, your reference to charity CEOs - as distinct from their banking counterparts - is similarly misdirected. Ridiculously overblown, even counter-intuitive, salaries and bonuses for charity CEOs (like the pompous "CEO" abbreviation itself) prove for the charity sector microcosm the wider neo-lib hyper-corruption and injustice perhaps more obviously obscene in the banking sector.

Btw, if you check my posting history you'll see that I've been railing against those same enemies of humanity for a few years now. My actual "foresight" on this massive worldwide crash (actually just my critical mind's appreciation and discernment for information sources) earned me much ridicule, other abuse and smug dismissal from the neo-lib fanatics. Now they all seem to say that I'm a fraudulent post-facto "prophet of hindsight"!

Pericles,

I just missed your latest post, but you have unwittingly answered your own question. Yes both statements are almost always true. A good CEO might preside over a loss of millions instead of hundreds of millions in a bad market.

If the world was a simple unchanging one dimensional environment, a retired mortgage broker could manage a large charity organisation.

With respect to the simplicity of the job, a first year MBA student will tell you that the CEO will have to control:

-Shareholders have been replaced by stakeholders i.e. major contributors and governmental interests who expect the maximum results for minimum contribution and results are expected within very tight budgets.
-The product is aid to the needy, and product design incls developing efficient ways to do it in diverse circumstances with old and new technology.
-Manufacturing is replaced by distribution, (as it is for whole sale organisations such as Kmart etc), and a marketing branch that has to find the funds amongst huge competition from different charities.
-On top of this add huge political interference from every twit that thinks his moral view is absolutely the most correct, and you have a job in which your mortgage broker will crumble. The penalties for failure are the same as for any senior manager, dismissal and loss of reputation.

MO

Having read some of your posts, I would say that ranting against all things capitalist does not constitute foresight of the present crisis and that your claim is somewhat gratuitous.

My understanding of the land reform issues in Zimbabwe were that the UK put up hundreds of millions of pounds for land reform, but baulked at it being used to buy commercial farms to be given to Mugabe’s cronies. When they tried to implement an actual redistribution, they were prevented from doing so by Mugabe’s regime on the basis that the “colonialists” should not dictate how the regime should spend the aid. This indicates a political myopia that excludes all information not supporting one’s opinion, which you have my condolences.

I'm not sure how you work this one out, Shadow Minister...

>>you have unwittingly answered your own question. Yes both statements are almost always true. A good CEO might preside over a loss of millions instead of hundreds of millions in a bad market.<<

And this justifies six-figure salaries... how?

But let's pass on that for a moment.

>>Shareholders have been replaced by stakeholders i.e. major contributors and governmental interests who expect the maximum results for minimum contribution and results are expected within very tight budgets<<

Maximum this, minimum that. Good weasel words.

And those "tight budgets" are simply a percentage of beggings. Beggings down, management expenses down. Tough ask.

Incidentally do you see any evidence of these stakeholders taking any real interest in these lovely, generalized concepts?

Ever?

>>The product is aid to the needy, and product design incls developing efficient ways to do it in diverse circumstances with old and new technology<<

This is "product design"? I think you are simply quoting generic blah from the nearest Management for Dummies book.

>>Manufacturing is replaced by distribution, (as it is for whole sale organisations such as Kmart etc), and a marketing branch that has to find the funds amongst huge competition from different charities.<<

Yep, you have to work on distribution, I guess.

But what's this about "huge competition from different charities".

Is that wise? Is that sane? How much time, money and effort, do you recommend should be spent in the "my charity's better than yours" game?

As a CEO, how much of your hard-earned beggings is it legitimate to spend, on what are after all little more than alpha-male bragging rights?

>>The penalties for failure are the same as for any senior manager, dismissal and loss of reputation.<<

So far, you have failed to identify a single measurable that would indicate failure. Nor, incidentally, do the charity businesses themselves

Plenty of words. No specific measurables.

Are you sure you're not a consultant?

Shadow, I am not “against all things capitalist”, contrary to your presumption about my posts. I recognize useful functions of people and institutions wagering capital in many enterprises (I've done it myself too). What I oppose vehemently are two closely inter-connected practices: usury and imperialism, very relevant to this global catastrophe. In APRIL 2007 (as “mil_observer”), I railed against “an inefficient socio-economic system. Just ask people in real estate or banking to find out how such irrationality keeps pumping the big bubbles of debt”.

Neo-lib/econo-rat pundits keep bleating today about how “a recession may be possible”! Consider these following from my JUNE 2007 reading material (which earned me ridicule):

“Although...regulation cannot save the bankrupt system...and nothing but a ban of the hedge funds is appropriate to their criminal behavior”;

“Bear Stearns...attempts to renegotiate are not due to 'humanitarian instinct', but to the fact that Bear Stearns faces paying up to 100 times the value of the each defaulted mortgage, in lost derivatives bets to the hedge funds!”;

“Chinese Economists Warn of Potential for New Financial Crash...”;

“The BoE...warns that the collapse of one major equity deal could trigger a general economic crisis...the result of banks and hedge funds lowering standards in order to...make high-interest loans into the big leveraged buyouts...One [likely trigger] for this crunch 'could be the failure of a large leveraged loan deal...leaving the lead intermediaries...with unexpectedly large commitments', and causing the value of existing debt to fall suddenly across the entire high-yield, or 'junk' bond markets...clearly similar to 'subprime' and 'optional payment' mortgages and other exotic mortgages which are popping the housing bubble, 'the U.S. subprime mortgage market...a useful case study of how lax lending behavior and deteriorating fundamentals can test the structure of a market'”, and;

“We have a financial system which can not be saved. There's no way of functioning under the existing ...financial system of the world - can't do it! We have a crisis, where the system is threatened with coming down in various ways”.

Shadow Minister

You can continue defending the indefensible ad infinitum, meanwhile reality begs to differ with your spurious claims:

<<< "News reports have suggested that six major financial institutions participating in the (bailout) program have plans to pay their executives billions of dollars," said Pelosi and Reid, who represent California and Nevada, respectively. "Such reports understandably infuriate many Americans."

Critics of the bailout program told Reuters earlier this month that its restrictions may not rein in CEO pay at banks getting government cash infusions because the rules are vague and subject to interpretation.

While the pay limits do restrict things like so-called "golden parachute" severance awards, they set no precise limits on corporate leaders' pay, the critics said.>>>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7954027

Fractelle,

The governing boards of large companies are made up with representatives of the shareholders who have a vested interest in maximising their profit. They do not hire a man for a large sum of money unless he has a track record of insight and innovation that generates far more profit than he is paid.

Because I feel that attacking the CEO of the Red Cross because he earns about $500k p.a. is small minded and petulant does not mean that I automatically agree with some of the most extreme examples, and I have an issue with the way most of these packages are structured.

Pericles

You first say

“I am being specific. There is nothing at all challenging, from a CEO's perspective, in managing an organization that does no R&D, no product design, no product development, no manufacturing, has no shareholders, no profit targets, and has a "sales" operation that consists of begging money from the general public, using guilt as a primary motivator.”

Then when I give you specific examples of responsibilities that would be expected of him that contradict your statement, instead of eating crow like you should you then say “Plenty of words. No specific measurables.”

This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. All I did was to show how inept your statement was, it did not require a dissertation on specific goals for the CEO of the red cross.

Yes it is very basic management for dummies. As you are not there yet, I suggest you gain some very basic understanding of a topic before pontificating on it. (I wonder if your next insights will be on neurosurgery?)

MO

Your last post is so full of rhetoric and unsupported assertions that it is not worth tackling without a stiff whisky.

Eat crow, Shadow Minister? Now that's funny.

Spot the disconnect:

My proposition: There is nothing at all challenging, from a CEO's perspective...

Your reply: I give you specific examples of responsibilities that would be expected of him...

You insist on confusing the writing a list of impressive-sounding responsibilities, with the actual performance of complex tasks.

There is no CEO-level complexity in the tasks that are required to run a charity, however many words you use to describe them.

I'm pretty sure that you could make the job description of a 7-11 checkout sound challenging, if you include enough phrases about financial management and logistics. But the reality is often somewhat less exacting.

As indeed running a charity would be perfectly suited to a retired mortgage broker.

And in case you think I am making this all up from my position "as minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements", I would just like to point out that there do exist charities that are run - very efficiently indeed - by (*gasp*) unpaid volunteers.

In fact, a friend of mine has just gone back to work after donating a year of his time, for free, to one such effort. All staff operate on the same basis, either on sabbatical, or following retirement, from their place of work. Even the computers are donated, not bought.

And before your next sneer, no, he was not working in the public service, but for an enlightened SME.

Of course, these organizations tend not to be the ones you automatically associate with the word "charity" in the corporate sense.

But that is only because they spend their time helping other people, as opposed to helping themselves.

[and to Shadow's other canard - about Zimbabwe and Empah]

Shadow, imagine if you had won a war of independence, and part of the peace deal involved the imperialists' commitment to pay for compensation to ensure the continued privileges of colonial white on your best land. Britain pays up but then that same imperialist power reneges on that pledge on the grounds that it only benefits "Mugabe cronies"! Of course, a diplomatic charade follows, as imperialist toadies with identity problems like Howard and Downer taking up the slack, offering incentives of special deals for the more affected white farmers, while pursuing one of the nastiest and most discriminatory immigration restrictions since White Australia.

Of course, the above covers just part of the history. That same imperialist power then lavishly sponsored a fake opposition of British-educated toadies in public, while running a covert murder-and-mayhem campaign in efforts to discredit ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe.

Pericles,

Your attempts to ridicule my comments on the requirements of the CEO of the red cross are trite and purile and do not affect their validity. I might take you seriously if you actually attempted to show what I wrote was incorrect.

Simply calling him a non accountable chief beggar again and again is the simplistic drivelling that errodes any credibility that you used to have.

We are also involved in a much smaller way in the local community help scheme. This is very ably run by unpaid volunteers, as are most small charities, and managed by persons with little or no management training (such as your retired mortgage broker)

Many larger charity organisations are also mostly volunteer based as is the red cross with many itermediate positions filled purely by volunteers. But as with your friend, these unpaid volunteers cannot afford to do this permanently, and few participate longer than a year and as a result most large charities require continuity and professional management.

However, comparing what your friend does with what the CEO of the red cross does is like comparing the manager of a small shop with the head of BHP, and if you cannot comprehend the differences in scale and complexity then you are blinkered either by prejudice or ignorance, and reason has no sway.

MO

I recommend you discuss the side effects of what ever you are on with your doctor.

Next you will be claiming that the holocaust was the worst case of mass suicide ever.

Your comments on Zim are so fantastical as preclude you from ever being taken seriously again.

"The governing boards of large companies are made up with representatives of the shareholders who have a vested interest in maximising their profit. They do not hire a man for a large sum of money unless he has a track record of insight and innovation that generates far more profit than he is paid."

That's the theory Shadow Minister and it would work if we lived in an ideal world. But, what about the company that is under pressure to sign up a Chief Exec quickly in order to maintain confidence in the market, or any other real-world example for that matter, and makes the wrong choice? You live in a world of cant if you think there are no pedestrian CEOs out there and that everthing works perfectly. What about the decision of the Qantas board (after which Margaret Jackson was dumped) to significantly change the operation, which luckily ended up being voted down by the shareholders? The business talk now is that it would have been a disaster in light of the (unforseeable) global financial meltdown.

It just goes to show that some CEOs really are dummies and some circumstances can make even the best CEOs look like dummies. Either the times suit an individual or they don't. As everyone has to live and make a crust, there will always be mistakes made. And every company, like any individual, must have its ups and downs.

Slight correction there, Shadow Minister.

>>Your attempts to ridicule my comments on the requirements of the CEO of the red cross<<

You mentioned Red Cross, not I.

My remarks were directed specifically at the signatories to the article, Australian NGO Chiefs.

Take another look at the scale of operations of those organizations, and tell me again how complex their functions can possibly be.

>>However, comparing what your friend does with what the CEO of the red cross does is like comparing the manager of a small shop with the head of BHP<<

There you go again, you see - that's why I have to pull you up on your flights of fancy.

My friend was a volunteer at the coalface, not the CEO.

The comparison was not with the Red Cross, which is a major international organization. And which, incidentally, has a mission substantially different to that of any of the NGOs on the panel under discussion.

And while we are making dumb comparisons, the scale of operations at BHP dwarfs that of the panel members, all put together.

Exaggeration is not going to make your case for you Shadow Minister.

Nor, for that matter. will sneers, insults and put-downs

Thanks, Shadow. You just got yourself dismembered on this discussion's micro specifics, thus better demonstrating your failure to grasp those bigger strategic matters of our own side-chat. A really dirty shame that you tried invoking ghosts of Auschwitz in your defence of imperialism and its own ghettoizing antics over "race", etc.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if you really are a "shadow minister", given the levels of corruption and other degeneracy predominating in our oligarchical political system.

Pericles

The “Australian NGOs” you referred to in your earlier post were CARE and Oxfam which are international organisations with budgets in the Hundreds of millions.

My “case” which you claim I have not made is that the major aid organisations need to pay managers to run their organisations. As I have given examples of the responsibilities of senior execs in these organisations, and the simple fact that all of these organisations see the need to follow this model would suggest that, unless the sole purpose of these organisations is self enrichment, the case for professional management is very strong.

On the other hand you case for purely volunteer based management by “retired Mortgage brokers” runs contrary not only to current practise, but even basic management theory, would appear to be completely without foundation.

To top this off, you have not offered up even one scrap of support for your case, and your only connection with anyone in any charity organisation is a mate who volunteered to “work at the coal face”.

I challenge you to offer more than the hot air and sarcasm you have supplied so far to support your inane pontification.

RobP,

Your comments are valid. To add to that, it is as important to ensure that the character and skills of a CEO fit that of the company and the market, and that board members are not always as rational and impartial as they should be. This occasionally results in a person who was super star in one position being a dud in another.

MO

This is not a competition to fit in as many socialist slogans as possible.

Considering that Mugabe's thugs have directly murdered 10s of thousands and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths indirectly, the holocaust comparison has significance.

Maybe because he is black you feel that it is OK to butcher his opponents and not be held to account?

"Inane pontification"? That's rich, Shadow Minister.

>>The “Australian NGOs” you referred to in your earlier post were CARE and Oxfam which are international organisations with budgets in the Hundreds of millions<<

Two of them were. The signatories were their local heads. They're branch offices.

>>My “case” which you claim I have not made is that the major aid organisations need to pay managers to run their organisations<<

And my "case" is that their CEOs are paid far too much for the undemanding role they perform, and with the lack of risk that they undertake.

>>As I have given examples of the responsibilities of senior execs...<<

You provided a list of tasks. The issue is not the tasks themselves, but their complexity and challenge. You fail to make a "case" for this. My case is that on a scale of 1 to 10, they would be batting a 2 or 3.

>>On the other hand you case for purely volunteer based management by “retired Mortgage brokers” runs contrary not only to current practise, but even basic management theory, would appear to be completely without foundation.<<

Nonsense. Retired mortgage brokers have experience of running a business with full P&L responsibility, in which they initiated marketing and sales activities, managed Personnel, Finance and Administration functions, and (most likely) have traded their book for a tidy annuity that would allow them to apply their skills to charitable work.

Perfect fit. Or do you also sneer at mortgage brokers as a profession?

Your adulation of job description over job performance is unfortunately an attitude that is well entrenched in Australian business, and is one of the reasons why we produce so few world-class CEOs. It's a style over substance thing, and one we need to move past quickly, if we are to punch our weight in the 21st century world economy, because it isn't going to be pretty.

Yeah, I'm aware of the vague and hyperbolic accusations leveled against Robert Mugabe; the vitriol from poncey Al Downer was the funniest and most chutzpah-laden of all. All very "uncool Britannia".

Indeed some of the murders and assassinations in Zimbabwe certainly involved variously corrupt members of ZANU-PF, infiltrators into ZANU-PF, as well as enough covert players quite outside of locally based organization. Although the ultimate agency for such murder and other violence remains unclear, the result was an increasingly more thorough British-led embargo against Zimbabwe's economy and population. Zimbabwe's ambassador to the UN, Boniface Chidyausiku, did identify cases of specially assigned MDC-T (Tsvangirai faction) infiltrators using ZANU-PF garb to launch attacks - some random, others targeting even some of those welfare recipients of the MDC's foreign-funded largesse. Chidyausiku described such operations with reference to the infamous, shadowy Selous Scouts anti-guerrilla force during the war of independence. Similar processes were at work to terrorize Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa.

So I recognize that black Africans indeed bear much responsibility for such criminal mayhem. I also want to know which agency should be regarded as most culpable. But the western English-speaking press's hype has been consistent only for its unconvincing quality, vagueness, and stridency in bald, exaggerated accusation.

But Mugabe's clearly a heroic resistance leader and patriot of substance i.e., strong moral fibre. So too Thabo Mbeki, who has done so much to help his fellow Africans despite extreme pressure and duress.

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your time with Empah. It won't be around much longer.

Pericles

Your comment of “Your adulation of job description over job performance” is actually a lie.

In my posts I have specifically indicated the need for high levels of competence which are individually based.

Secondly, the description you give is of a owner/ manager of a mortgage broking business, the requirements for which are not the same as a pure mortgage broker as per a simplistic job description below from WA.

“Mortgage Broker
Strong potential to be earning $120K plus within three years
For you to be considered for this exciting opportunity you should have the following:
• Sales Experience
• Sound presentation and communication skills
• Ability to communicate effectively face to face and over the phone
• Quick with numbers
Background in the finance or banking industry and or qualifications are desirable for you to be able to perform at your best but not essential”

Hardly senior management material.

I also have a friend who is qualified as an electrician, started his own business and now owns and managers a multi million dollar manufacturing business, but would not have the temerity to claim that this could be expected from all or most electricians.

Your retired business manager is probably capable of heading up a branch of one of these charity organisations.

I have no doubt that if there were sufficient suitable candidates prepared to manage these branches on a volunteer basis for reasonable periods (not just a 3-6 month sabbatical) that these organisations would jump at it, but I doubt they exist.

MO

The agents for the massacre (about 20 000) in the western provinces were clearly identified by Amnesty international (unless you consider them agents of imperialism) as the 5th brigade directly under the control of Mugabe. The “green bombers” or youth trained in gov facilities are not random criminals.

Whilst he was instrumental in the liberation of the country his crimes against humanity cannot be brushed under the carpet by apologists such as yourself. Your adulation of such a butcher is sickening.

I notice that you do not back this claim with a quote, Shadow Minister.

>>In my posts I have specifically indicated the need for high levels of competence which are individually based.<<

Because you have not.

And the reason you have not is because there is so little substance to the CEO function within a charity, claiming the need for "high levels of competence" would sound rather hollow. Of course, every single task in an organization requires "a high degree of competence", but only that which is appropriate to that task.

Having a highly paid CEO of a charity is like having a master of origami making paper planes. Sure, he'd do it well. Probably better than any normal paper plane maker. But why would you bother.

If you would care to put some meat into your argument, try using some specific metrics such as revenues, MER (since they are charities), FTE count etc. and explain exactly what it is that makes managing them so tough.

I think you would also find that, apart from the sheer lack of challenge or risk involved, most charities would fall into the SME category.

And yes, I had assumed that you would understand that when I described a "retired mortgage broker", the position was not that of the new recruit to the industry. But I am gradually learning that I should not assume too high a level of understanding, so will try to speak more slowly in future.

Thanks Shadow,

The Zimbabwe Sunday Times reported on 1 June: "Although the MDC has been claiming that its supporters have fallen victim to political violence, top party officials are allegedly recruiting young Zimbabweans in South Africa who are being deployed to cause terror in Zimbabwe". The report continued that some were recruited from South African universities, while others were Zimbabwe National Army deserters and ex-police. Of course, funding is a crucial link in such activity, and funding to MDC has been lavish.

These forces' modus operandi is to alert the press that an atrocity has taken place, at the same time they have their members dress in ZANU-PF garb before going out to commit an atrocity. The press is soon on the scene, hearing witnesses saying that the attack was carried out by ZANU-PF people. In other words, a variation of Selous Scouts methods from the old Rhodesia War.

I don't expect you to believe any of this against what has been fed through our own media (and NGOs like Amnesty), but you should consider such versions in the context of southern and central Africa's extreme geo-strategic importance in resources, precious metals and diamonds.

Remember too that Zimbabwe's leadership provoked much embargoist anger when it kept refusing to saddle itself with the type of enormous, conditional and unrepayable debt that outfits like the IMF kept prescribing for it.

Pericles

My case is simply that your following sweeping statements cannot be supported:

“there is so little substance to the CEO function within a charity” and

“I am absolutely certain that the task of running a charity, …., does not require "a depth of understanding…..

Your only contributions are your personal opinions.

These feeling of yours while carrying much weight in you own mind run contrary to the practices of every major charity, and which if true would mean that thousands of dedicated people in charities are wrong and you with not one iota of experience in the field are right.

In spite of my challenging you repeatedly to support your preposterous statements you appear to be incapable of giving even the smallest morsel of evidence to support this.

I ask again:

Back up your statement with even one valid example or even some of the “Specific metrics” you so cherish. (And the examples of which would be more applicable to financial institutions).

Maybe as a retired mortgage broker you would care to put your money where your mouth is and offer your services heading up a charity. I think they would find your experience insufficient.

Regards your lie, I did not provide a quote as I was space limited and I assumed you could read, as follows:

“In my work I can see the difference between someone with an in depth understanding of the issues and those that are merely competent.”

“The wrong person in the job leads to well intentioned but breath taking incompetence”

MO

The Zimbabwe Sunday times is a gov owned political mouth piece. If this is the only source of your information, I suggest you look up the word Gullible in the dictionary.

No one in Zimbabwe actually believes what is written, and the only reason its circulation has not dwindled to zero is that it has a classifieds for trading in second hand goods

You keep spitting out the sneering quips drenched in bitter sarcasm, Shadow. My sources cover people too - Zimbabwean, South African and from elsewhere in Africa. They're not at all gullible, ill-informed or uncritical of news; the Zimbabweans I know check for specific, reported information - they do not vet their sources, as you seem to, but rather they including even the most outlandish stuff reported on their country from here too. As a diverse group, the Africans I know are sick of their countries being kept down, in debt, and under the heels of puppet-traitors funded by imperialists. And these people are aware of the types of methods used by post-colonial imperialism ever since the murder of Patrice Lumumba.

More bluster, Shadow Minister. You're actually becoming quite good at it.

It does at least release you from the need to answer specific questions.

Just for the sake of consistency, let's recap a little, shall we.

My starting position was:

"Oxfam, at the last (2007) count, had six executives earning over $100,000... How do these people sleep at night, in the knowledge that their livelihood is entirely dependent on the continued suffering of others? There's an entire industry of spongers out there, dipping into your pocket to support their lifestyle, all the while dripping platitudes about supporting good works. It's obscene."

Your response:

>>As far as executive salaries go this is a pittance. I have tradesmen working for me that with a bit of over time earn more than that. Any person with that level of talent is worth far more, and is probably donating 80% of his value.<<

At no point have you bothered to justify this ridiculous claim, but now have the gall to suggest:

>>In spite of my challenging you repeatedly to support your preposterous statements you appear to be incapable of giving even the smallest morsel of evidence to support this.<<

Well, allow me to suggest, in all politeness, "after you"

You state the salary is a pittance. You offer a job description as proof, without any consideration of the complexity of the tasks on that list. And you have the blind cheek to complain:

>>Your only contributions are your personal opinions.<<

So, please, go ahead.

Explain to me, a mere "minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements" how six executives of a charity with revenue of $60m deserve $100k plus each.

That is SME territory, not BHP.

Once again, running a charity does not require anything more than run-of-the-mill business skills.

That is certainly my strongly-held opinion.

But I guess I've never been a consultant.

Pericles

All I have asked you to do is to substantiate your position. You have not because you cannot.

Oxfam average income over the last couple of years was about $700m (last financial statement) not $60m as you claim. (Strike one) not exactly SME territory.

The directors (employees factory manager level) in a large manufacturing organisation for which I used to work used to earn about $800k p.a. with bonuses, Area managers earned about $300k and the senior technicians earned > $100k (so the Oxfam execs are well below 20%. Strike 2)

Your statement
“There is nothing at all challenging, from a CEO's perspective, in managing an organization that does no R&D, no product design, no product development, no manufacturing, has no shareholders, no profit targets, and has a "sales" operation that consists of begging money from the general public”
Shows a total ignorance of the scale of operations involved in such an operation.

When I give some broad typical responsibilities required by the CEO, instead of trying to refute them (which you can’t) you irrelevantly complain of lack of detail. (strike 3).

I believe I have shown how six executives of an organisation of $700m turnover can easily justify remuneration of $100k.

The ball is now firmly in your court.

If you have anything more than hot air, I am listening.

MO

You state “My sources …….. do not vet their sources, as you seem to, but rather they including even the most outlandish stuff.”

Then please don’t publish it as fact as you will lose all credibility. And you will have no one but yourself to blame when your posts drawn scorn.

Strike how many, Shadow Minister?

>>Oxfam average income over the last couple of years was about $700m (last financial statement) not $60m as you claim. (Strike one) not exactly SME territory.<<

http://www.oxfam.org.au/about/annual_report/

This is the last published set of financials that I could find.

"Total revenue for the continuing operations of the Group decreased in 2007 by $8,646,724 to $63,387,071."

So, your crack management team oversaw a 12% decline in revenues and still managed to pay itself handsomely. I wonder if their remuneration increased from one year to the next, but I can't be ar5ed to find out for you.

>>The directors (employees factory manager level) in a large manufacturing organisation for which I used to work used to earn about $800k p.a. with bonuses,<<

Just as I thought. You are comparing a large manufacturing organization (of what revenue level, might I ask?) with a small charity.

Further, you fail to factor into the equation the relative complexity of a manufacturer over a charity.

>>I believe I have shown how six executives of an organisation of $700m turnover can easily justify remuneration of $100k.<<

Actually, I believe you have just shot yourself in the foot, but that's just the opinion of a "minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements".

Are you a consultant, by any chance?

Johnny come lately;

With your bickering are you talking about the same thing?

Oxfam
Total Income £290.7m down by 19.8m from previous year

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/reports/report_accounts06_7.pdf

Oxfam Australia $63m
With the discussion of CEO and Australia not mentioned I would assume global.

Pericles,

This is the 11th post in which you have simply re stated your position with no support.

As Dem pointed out, Oxfam is far greater than simply the local branch, and can by no means be called a small charity.

If you read the Oxfam report and see the vast range of operations, not only of revenue collection, but the mobilisation of thousands of people and moving of resources to where they are needed.

Even the local branch manages over 500 people permanently and many more for events. Managers not only control the people, but stocks, financial instruments, trading etc and the senior executive earns less than 130k p.a.

The factory I compared it with has a turnover of about $130m p.a. ,<200 employees, financials and marketing controlled by Head office, and you would have to go down at least 3 levels to find any lower level manager or shift boss earning less than 130k.

So to say that "There's an entire industry of spongers out there, dipping into your pocket to support their lifestyle, all the while dripping platitudes about supporting good works." Is not only fatuous, but shows a small minded ignorance of what the charities do, and what real world salaries are.

No, I am not a consultant per se. However, as a specialist I am called in to review and rework in a "consulting" like fashion, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

I take it that you are the retired mortgage broker.

“We believe that our programme work, spread across the world, gives Oxfam a greater understanding of the main causes of poverty and suffering, and hence we can achieve greater impact.” - Oxfam (GB),

Does that interpret as “we have no excuse for not sufficiently directing our efforts against the main cause of poverty and suffering” in the less-developed world where that mostly resides.

The history of misery since OXFAM established:
1 billion people existed in the less-developed world at the time of OXFAM’s commencement in 1942.
2.5 billion scratched out an existence in less-developed countries thirty two years later, 1994. In that year the UN Population and Development Conference in Cairo identified population pressure, due to women’s lack of women’s education and empowerment, as the basic cause of enduring human misery in the less-developed world.
4.8 billion currently occupy the less-developed world. It is now 2008, 14 years since the underlying driver of poverty and suffering has been publicly identified.

Strangely, those who have the responsibility for directing OXFAM’s projects continue to decline to sufficiently acknowledge the cause.

Oxfam’s fineprint does say that “Gender mainstreaming, or considering gender issues in every aspect of our work, is one of Oxfam’s corporate priorities.” - - “ In order to sustain our programme work on gender, we need to continue to build staff awareness and change attitudes on gender equality issues and have therefore been preparing an internal gender campaign which will be launched in 2007/08.”

Why be so circumspect about this? Maternal mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa is close to one in ten; in South Asia one in 20 (against one in 10,000 for more developed countries); and escalating. Programs to minimize such human suffering, and its fundamental cause - excess pregnancies – surely should be maximized. Why does OXFAM and other high-exposure NGOs in the aid business keep so quiet about it; about the need for more action from others also? Their abject silence in public pronouncements do seem to indicate that they enjoy their work more than the human gain which might result from it.

I guess all this dissembling must come naturally to you Shadow Minister.

But I see little point in continuing a discussion with someone who sees nothing wrong in charities-as-businesses.

To me, the idea that people can take any kind of salary out of collections made on street corners is repugnant. And the kind smugness that says "well, it's only what you would expect from a similar job in manufacturing" is the height of self-deception.

Your defence of the management competencies involved comes straight from the consultants' handbook. It reminds me of the Hay system that was so popular in the eighties (and today for all I know) where seniority was determined by the number of people working for you. The result was to provide a manager with an irresistible temptation to recruit as many people as possible, by inventing longer and longer job descriptions.

If you were inclined to examine your own argument - which from current evidence is unlikely - you will notice that it also uses the same self-fulfilling devices. If I can make the task sound sufficiently arduous, I can name my price. The part that you miss, every time, is that it is supposed to be a s0dding charity, not a secure, salaried gravy-train for middle management.

And as for this...

>>I take it that you are the retired mortgage broker<<

I can tell you that you are no closer than your first stab, which was...

>>minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements<<

Here's a suggestion. Bob Savage is the speaker at a lunch meeting of the AICD in a couple of weeks - maybe you'd like me to introduce you, and we can ask his opinion.

Pericles,

12th post with no supporting material.

The two simple points I was making was:

1) With an income of $700m world wide Oxfam can do a significant amount of good. To do this you need dedicated, competent and continuous management that is unlikely to be met solely by volunteers. Otherwise the money donated by hard working citizens will be largely wasted which is in no one's interest.

The point you miss is that it is meant to be a charity that makes a substantial difference, and not a local knitting circle.

2) The salaries of the Oxfam execs are well below market related salaries and if these guys were money grubbers as you suggest, they are in the wrong game.

I have given you ample examples for even the simplest mind to put two and two together.

You cannot make broad brush scurrilous comments against dedicated people and not expect some challenge.

Actually, Shadow Minister, I think colinsett put it more succinctly than I, albeit in a slightly different context.

>>how better is their activity than that of shore-line scavengers - collectors of flotsam from never-ending tragedies of human shipwreck<<

My underlying objection is to a bunch of people earning a more-than-decent wage from the permanent state of suffering endured by people far less fortunate than themselves.

The charity industry is the product of corporate one-track minds. Pay is set at industrial, rather than charitable levels. The dollar you put in the tin at the top of the escalator is destined for the pocket of the bloke next to you on the platform, waiting for his train to the leafy suburbs.

Leaving aside your "specialist... called in to review and rework in a "consulting" like fashion" hat for a moment, do you see absolutely nothing wrong with this picture?

>>With an income of $700m world wide Oxfam can do a significant amount of good<<

I'll ignore for a moment that you are still referring to global, rather than local operations, and ask you this. Would the $60 million they collect in Australia not be better off in the hands of organizations that do not have the massive overheads of the charity industry? Would the "management overheads" not be better used alleviating the misery that they make so much fuss about?

You mentioned earlier the aspect of "competition for funds".

Would it not be better if the money spent by each member of the charity industry in fighting each other were spent on the target of their assistance?

All that I have been trying to point out is that it is totally inappropriate for charity to be industrialized as it is. There is a limit to the value that an expensive professional can deliver. What currently exists is pure overkill, and massive duplication.

Perhaps your incredible experience would be better directed to determining how these industrial charities can be redesigned, to deliver better results than they currently are, with fewer overheads and more efficient processes, rather than blindly defending the status quo.

Pericles,

This is your 13th post without substantiation.

Your statement "Would the $60 million they collect in Australia not be better off in the hands of organizations that do not have the massive overheads of the charity industry?"

If you bothered to read the report you would see that their admin overheads are in the order of 6%. Most similar logistics based entities seldom manage less than 15%, and gov contractors are typically 20% or greater. A 0% admin would mean no one to plan, organise, schedule, recruit etc, and the organisation would simply cease to function.

If you have anything to substantiate your bleating of "pure overkill, and massive duplication" I would sure like to see it as they seem to have hidden it very well.

If the world was a perfect place a charity could solve all the worlds problems without expending a cent as everyone would work for free and no one would charge them anything. Until then you need to emerge into the real world from your la la land.

I am unimpressed by your bleatings about "no substantiation" Shadow Minister, since precisely the same label can be applied to your contributions. The fact that you apply a lower standard of proof to your own opinions cuts no ice, I'm afraid, especially as you have been guilty on a number of occasions of changing the rules.

But enough of that.

Let's have a look at your latest offering.

>>If you bothered to read the report you would see that their admin overheads are in the order of 6%.<<

Where would you count "cost of raising funds" and "cost of goods sold" in your forensic analysis of their P&L? After all, they reduce the amount that is available for distribution, n'est-ce pas?

How about we agree that anything that can be subtracted from the passage of money and value of goods be described as "management expenses"? Can we do that? Would that be reasonable?

OK, Now we can take another look at the numbers - but before we do, may I just point out that:

>>Most similar logistics based entities seldom manage less than 15%, and gov contractors are typically 20% or greater.<<

... are without "substantiation".

Just thought I'd mention it.

Back to the drawing board.

Of the organizations that I was referring to in my original observations, these are the figures:

Oxfam: Revenue $63.4m Disbursements $36.1m (57%) Management Costs $21.2m (33,4%)
World Vision: Revenue $356m Disbursements $313m (87.9%) Management Costs $54m (15%)
Amnesty International Australia: Revenue $18.9m Disbursements $12.4m (65.6%) Management Costs $6.5m (34.4%)
CARE Australia: Revenue $60.8m Disbursements $52.6m (86.5%) Management Costs $8.7m (14.3%)
PLAN Australia: Revenue $24.7m Disbursements $19.4m (78.5%) Management Costs $5.8m (23.4%)

(I've ignored Greenpeace bacuase I'm unsure how to classify their expenditures.)

Any comments? Observations?

>>A 0% admin would mean no one to plan, organise, schedule, recruit etc, and the organisation would simply cease to function.<<

Not necessarily. It is possible that volunteers might be happy to donate their time and expertise.

You assume that if you don't pay them, they can't be worth anything.

Would that also apply to Bill Gates?

Oxfam: Revenue $63.4m Disbursements $36.1m (57%) Management Costs $21.2m (33,4%)
World Vision: Revenue $356m Disbursements $313m (87.9%) Management Costs $54m (15%)
Amnesty International Australia: Revenue $18.9m Disbursements $12.4m (65.6%) Management Costs $6.5m (34.4%)
CARE Australia: Revenue $60.8m Disbursements $52.6m (86.5%) Management Costs $8.7m (14.3%)
PLAN Australia: Revenue $24.7m Disbursements $19.4m (78.5%) Management Costs $5.8m (23.4%)

The general trend in these figures is that the bigger the total disbursements, the more efficiency there is in getting them - at least nomonally - to their intended targets. No doubt this is due to the fact that organisations, no matter how big, have similar fixed costs (setting up an office, etc). So, the moral to the story is that it would be in the best interests of the aid beneficiaries that the smaller operations merge together and cut the overall proportion they spend on admin costs. But, the one thing to watch out for in this scenario is that some of the management will use the transition to push for bigger wages (on the basis of having a bigger operation to oversee) and will exacerbate the divide between the volunteer doers and the professional oversighters.

I can only see this weakening the whole operation as the volunteers will eventually get sick and tired of doing everything on the smell of an oily rag and external observers will see the NGO management as elitist opportunists of one form or another and will stop donating.

Fair points RobP.

The only additional observation I would make is that there is substantial room in these accounts for some creativity.

World Vision for example have assessed the value of "donated goods" both as a revenue item and disbursement item. This is perfectly acceptable in a trading environment - there is even a balance sheet item that records the "if liquidated" position of those donated goods - but it is a little cheeky for a charity to include them as revenue if the objective is not to realize the cash value, but pass on the goods to a needy recipient.

The notes to the P&L describe them as being "recorded at fair value, which is represented by either wholesale value or an independent valuation", and in doing so gives them an entirely commercial status. The result is an additional $100m of cash value, that is used to reduce the MER.

There are also some other convenient hidey-holes, such as "Project design, development and management", that are listed under "disbursements". I would have thought that any cost of doing business should appear as a management expense, since the benefit does not directly reach the recipient.

Using only these two elements of difference of opinion, the restated WV position would be:

World Vision: Revenue $259m Disbursements $208m (80.0%) Management Costs $59m (23%)

So while I agree with the overall point that in charities, as with many businesses, there are economies of scale, I would still argue that there is far too much business, and far too little charity, in evidence.

Sounds reasonable, Pericles.

As always, the devil is there in the detail. The headline figures of any organisation only tell one so much. The only way the full truth will come out is if there is a spotlight put on the entire company account and a full audit conducted. As you point out, certain headline figures can be used to hide inconvenient or controversial aspects of an organisation's business - like slush funds for non-core business activities. In my experience, the bigger the organisation, the bigger the slush fund.

Let's hope for everyone's sake that the full truth comes out.

Pericles,

Your interpretation of the figures shows either an ineptitude so deep that you should never be let near a cheque book, or a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.

If you include all the running costs of the organisation as administration (incl fundraising and operational costs), and neglect the surplus funds banked for future use then you get the figures you presented.

Your proposal that fundraising should require no advertising or organisation may work for your local community centre, but to apply it to a large organisation that has an impact on foreign communities globally where it is needed, is so ridiculous that I would not expect it of a grown man.

Rob P.

The accounts are audited, and as a public organisation you have access to them if you are really interested.

It's always a good sign when you resort to snide remarks, Shadow Minister, it clearly indicates you are uncomfortable with your own arguments.

As indeed you should be.

>>If you include all the running costs of the organisation as administration (incl fundraising and operational costs), and neglect the surplus funds banked for future use then you get the figures you presented.<<

Well of course I do, silly. The numbers came straight from the audited accounts of the businesses themselves. And I didn't describe them as "administration", that's your invention. I put them in a bucket called management expenses, in order to differentiate them from the money that actually finds its way to the needy.

It is a practice widely used in insurance, for example, an industry that has a number of similarities with a charity. Premiums (donations) are collected, claims (disbursements) come out of this pot, with the residue going to management expenses and the surplus over that into reserves. Traditionally, the "cut" in the middle is called (I hope you are following all this) management expense, and the efficiency of the organization as a whole measured on the Management Expense Ratio.

>>Your proposal that fundraising should require no advertising or organisation may work for your local community centre, but to apply it to a large organisation that has an impact on foreign communities globally where it is needed, is so ridiculous that I would not expect it of a grown man.<<

Again, the product of your imagination. Nobody is suggesting that a charity shouldn't advertise. Nor that an organization is somehow surplus to requirements.

But the numbers speak for themselves, there's a lot of fat clogging those charitable arteries. Take a look yourself, instead of sneering. The accounts are freely available - some harder to track down than others - but they're there.

>>Your interpretation of the figures shows either an ineptitude so deep that you should never be let near a cheque book, or a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.<<

If you're not careful, I'll start counting the "unsubstantiated claims" that you are so fond of.

Pericles

Your statement"It is a practice widely used in insurance, for example, an industry that has a number of similarities with a charity."

Well there in lies the problem. Your comparison is inappropriate.

The expenses in trading goods etc which are included are not at all similar. Your analysis would give Coles an "management expense of about 80%"

Fund raising and generating awareness of the plight of others you would consider "fat". Sitting by the phone would not generate either awareness or donations.

Next time try and compare like with like. You evidently have absolutely no concept of running a charity, and are simply fabricating an excuse not to donate.

Shadow Minister,

"The accounts are audited, and as a public organisation you have access to them if you are really interested."

I'm not that interested per se in the accounts of any one NGO. Only that propriety and fairness are followed. Like anyone else, I've seen things I've disliked, or seen honest people being gouged one way or another by others in a variety of forms. I just want to see thieves in all their guises being exposed and run out of town. I'm not making a particular judgement about NGOs but saying that to the extent thieving/misrepresentation/etc exists within these organisations, it should be excised.

The important thing in your comment above is that the accounts are audited by a reputable and independent third party and not just by the company itself or by an accounting firm that is on the payroll of the NGO in question. That way, it's more likely a more holistic view will be formed of the operation of the charity.

Is it my imagination, Shadow Minister, or are your protests getting fainter by the day?

>>Well there in lies the problem. Your comparison is inappropriate<<

Careful now. That's an unsubstantiated claim.

And I would be quite interested in your rationale, as I believe the parallels to be significant.

In order to stay competitive, an insurance company has to pay out as much in claims as it is able to do - otherwise it will be seen to have priced itself out of the market. Armies of actuaries work on the ratios, to make sure that the fine line between paying out too much and too little is not breached.

In between the input (premium income) and output (payment of claims) there are management expenses - sales, finance (including those actuaries), admin - that together form the key measure of their organizational efficiency.

For both insurance and charities the inputs and outputs are cash, with a proportion of "in kind" when it comes to the charities.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

And we can also quickly set aside this red herring:

>>Your analysis would give Coles an "management expense of about 80%"<<

Not at all. Coles have a very clear item in their P&L called "Cost of Goods Sold", which sits immediately beneath the Revenue line. (I hope I'm not going too fast for you. This bit is important). In most circumstances this is the amount they pay to their suppliers, and accounts for upwards of 75% of their revenues.

Now, at this point it may have occurred to you - hey, charities don't have COGS.

And you'd be right.

>>Fund raising and generating awareness of the plight of others you would consider "fat". Sitting by the phone would not generate either awareness or donations.<<

You do insist on making stuff up, don't you? Fund-raising is a key requirement, and I have not anywhere suggested otherwise..

>>You evidently have absolutely no concept of running a charity, and are simply fabricating an excuse not to donate<<

Couldn't resist one last snide remark, could you?

Sad.

Pericles

Your comment "Now, at this point it may have occurred to you - hey, charities don't have COGS."

Maybe you would care to read their financial statement OOPS There is such a line. Your detailed explanation has just proved my point. Your drivelings are getting more feeble.

The comparison between the insurance industry is purlle.

MER is used almost exlcusively in the financial industry of which insurance forms a part. And even within this industry different values are high and low.

For managed funds 1% would be normal, for the insurance industry 3-10% would be more appropriate.

Thus the managed funds people using your logic (similar industries) could point at the insurance business and say that they were a bunch of over paid leeches.

If you want to be taken seriously, wake up and realise that the whole world does not measure itself against the money market, and that some people do more than shuffle paper.

You carefully omit any substantiation, I notice Shadow Minister. Tut tut.

>>"charities don't have COGS." Maybe you would care to read their financial statement OOPS There is such a line<<

Here's one for you. The one that was top of my fat-cat list, World Vision.

http://www.worldvision.com.au/aboutus/annualreport/files/2007_Financial_Statements.pdf

Revenue: $356,474,735
Cost of Goods: nil

>>Thus the managed funds people using your logic (similar industries) could point at the insurance business and say that they were a bunch of over paid leeches<<

It would help me to understand a little better if you could describe the similarities between the managed funds industry and the insurance industry, in the same way that I drew the parallels between charities and insurance. Source and destination of funds is always a good place to start.

You will be allocated marks for ingenuity in your explanation, but there will be deductions for snide remarks.

Also for red herrings.

And how about having the courtesy to acknowledge your Coles furphy. You must admit, it was way outside off stump.

Pericles

You are being deliberately obtuse to try and create a smoke screen for the collapse of your argument.

Considering the minute detail with which you excised expenses from the annual report in the link YOU provided, you might have bothered to look at page 53 (summarised income statement) where you might see the following lines.

From sale of goods by Oxfam Australia Trading Pty Ltd 8,839
Cost of goods sold and services provided by subsidiaries 3,831

Further more as the source of income for insurance industry come from the sale of financial instruments (policies) with definable value to an established market, compared to the sale of "feeling good" with no discernable value.
The out flows being payment on policies vs feeding, training and educating people in poverty, I would say that the comparison between the insurance industry and the charities is as tenuous as your grip on reality.

The reference to coles was simply to illustrate how the MER was not valid for non financial institutions. As Oxfam has a trading component, finding the link should be as easy as finding your rs. Maybe I could lend you a flashlight.

Trying to divert the discussion now to world vision is an admission of defeat, especially considering your claims were against the execs of Oxfam. No red herrings either.

To sink your comparison here too. Refer to

Page 18 cash flow statement "receipts from donors and merchandising"
Page 19 section iv
etc
This is like taking sweets from a baby.

A insurance policy is a financial instrument that is crafted and valued by actuaries, as are shares, securitised mortgages etc, and are traded as such through the re insurance industry as such. Need to borrow the flash light again or are you going to ask me for a lengthy disertation on the insurance industry.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously, Shadow Minister

But not to worry. As you have kindly pointed out, I am minor clerk in a gov dept who is also a retired mortgage broker, alien to real world salaries and requirements, trite and purile [sic], guilty of simplistic drivelling, blinkered either by prejudice or ignorance, fond of inane pontification and preposterous statements as well as hot air, make bleating, broad brush scurrilous comments, and show either an ineptitude so deep that I should never be let near a cheque book, or a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.

>>Trying to divert the discussion now to world vision is an admission of defeat, especially considering your claims were against the execs of Oxfam.<<

Actually, if you would care to check back on this very thread, my major objections are against that corporate colossus, World Vision. The remaining NGOs - signatories to the original article - were added to underline the broad nature of these executive-friendly money machines.

It was you who picked out Oxfam from this bunch, and chose to make an example of them.

But that's ok.

Oxfam runs Oxfam shops. Hence COGS.

http://www.oxfamshop.org.au/aboutus

>>Any surplus we make goes towards our further development or the work of Oxfam Australia in alleviating the condition of communities living with poverty and injustice.<<

World Vision takes a different accounting view, and does not separately identify COGS that presumably arise from its sale of "indigenous artworks". This may be i) because these artworks are themselves donations or ii) that they choose to take the cost of turning these artworks into cash as a management expense.

None of which is relevant to the core discussion here, which is that corporate charities are executive gravy-trains.

I'm fairly certain that you are only arguing for the sake of it.

But if you are serious, start looking more closely the businesses who live off the misery of others.

Pericles,

Since your every attempt to supply supporting evidence that the large charities are simply gravy trains has either been erroneous or a distortion, and my actions were simply to catch you out and expose the errors in your position which I found offensive.

Now with your pants around your ankles you claim of the arguments that you made "None of which is relevant to the core discussion here"

I choose Oxfam because you specifically pointed out their execs as overpaid money grubbers.

The facts I have used to demolish your claims are from the very links you provided and selectively excised information.

This extends to World Vision where you state:

Revenue: $356,474,735
Cost of Goods: nil

Then try and back track when I point out that this is simply not singled out. You then claim that it is probably because it is all donated including the indigenous art.

Again assumptions without even the slightest bit of reading or research.

If you even had the slightest inkling of what they did, you would realise that one of the kingpins of their programs is to help create trade for the most disadvantaged, and one of the main ways is to provide a market for indigenous art, which the major charities are probably the major distributers. There is virtually no profit in this other than to provide the destitute with an income.

Your complete inability to support even one of your claims but to continue making them, indicates a religious or flat earth mentality where inconvenient truths are simply ignored.

I challenge you yet again to give solid support to any one of your ridiculous claims, if you do you might even get me to take you seriously.

I have shown that for Oxfam au at least that:
The exec salaries are significantly below what they could get any where else,
The organised charities have a comparitively low administration cost, and compared to industry have very little fat.
The running of the charities differ significantly from "insurance industries"

In Indonesia U can support a child with the works for $AU2 a day, inc "good education," the whole box and dice.

Many of my pensioner "friends" here run charities, for nothing. The reason, is pursuant to VISA status they can draw down their income stream from Australia thru the charity vehicle legitimately pursuant to Indo law and pay no additional tax, fees or otherwise. This is a benefit and priveledge of being allowed to care for the Indo needy.

Now, instead of paying some poppet, addicted to excess lifestyle and no longer game to rock the political boat for fear of being shown to be a hypocrite in the public domain, why not simply advertise and educate Australian pensioners to this mechanism, with appropriate orientation programs etc etc such that they may on mass, sell their crappy little $AU500,000+ sand box in Oz, by a wicked villa on the beach in Indo for $AU15,000 - $AU50,000, live like an aristocrat on $AU500 per week and spend their time looking after kids and hanging out in restaurants or whatever with their ex-pat mates discussing education techniques and other matters of state, WiFi LapTop in one hand, beer and MB in the other with a veritable army of $AU10 a day workers ready to snap to and jump thru hoops in an instant.

1 clown in Oz $AU500,000 p.a., OR for arguments sake, 1 orphan @ a rate of $AU1,000 a year equates to 500 kids p.a?

Wouldn't a quick ad campaign deposing to the web to tune pensioners in be a quick way to solve a lot of problems on the ground really fast?

U keep up the good work *sHADOw* as the more the likes of U seeks to substantiate bloated vested interests, the greater the chance that those filthy child abusers in the liberal party will never again come to power at a Federal level, until such time as they are "Born Again" HaHaHa and become "True Believers."

;-)

P.S.
Treat em mean, keep 'em lean.

I think you have finally managed to obscure the wood behind a fine array of trees, Shadow Minister, for which I heartily applaud you. A splendid career in politics awaits you.

>>you claim of the arguments that you made "None of which is relevant to the core discussion here"<<

You see, you even got that bit wrong - it is your arguments that are irrelevant to the discussion.

A simple point, I know, but an important one.

>>I choose Oxfam because you specifically pointed out their execs as overpaid money grubbers.<<

One example of a number, only after I had specifically named World Vision. You really have a thing about those Oxfam folks, don't you?

Anyhow, to the main course.

My image of corporate charities as homes for the lazy executive looking for a cushy billet stems from my belief that charities should direct their energies towards solving the problems that they identify as their targets - starvation, lack of work, that sort of stuff - rather than pay handsome wages to their management who face fewer than half the challenges of their counterparts in industry.

You happen to see things differently, which is fine. But you haven't come close to convincing me that I have the wrong impression, if that is why you began this conversation.

>>I challenge you yet again to give solid support to any one of your ridiculous claims, if you do you might even get me to take you seriously.<<

Whether or not you take me seriously is of utter indifference to me, Shadow Minister. In fact, given your tendency to prefer personal insult to reasoned argument, I hold your opinion of me to be completely irrelevant.

Have a nice life.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2008/06/nonprofits-in-t.html

Pericles,

You might have mentioned world vision generally, but only specifically mentioned Oxfam's execs. I also showed that your analysis of what world vision did was also incorrect.

While some UN based charities such as UNICEF have political appointees who are career beurocrats, you specifically attacked the NGOs who are to a large extent examples of the complete opposite of what you accuse them.

You then argue based on emotion and half truths and spit the dummy when confronted with reason.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r296/keeleyson/Tantrum.jpg

Your posts and reasoned arguments are strangers but, if you want to believe the world is flat please continue to do so. As for my nice life, I have it already.

You do seem to have a rather bloated opinion of your own arguments, Shadow Minister.

>>You might have mentioned world vision generally, but only specifically mentioned Oxfam's execs<<

Here's an uncut excerpt for you to digest, in the light of your statement above:

"World Vision is the worst offender. It's just a marketing organization, its constant vainglorious self-promotion necessary for the continued welfare of its overpaid management.
http://www.worldvision.com.au/aboutus/annualreport/
The others mentioned are also major salary-machines - Oxfam, at the last (2007) count, had six executives earning over $100,000.
CARE Australia is very coy about its remuneration at an individual level, but does confess to spending $934,912 in salaries for its senior executives.
Plan at least does not pay its Board members, but the National Executive Director takes home a $145k package.
How do these people sleep at night, in the knowledge that their livelihood is entirely dependent on the continued suffering of others?"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8089#126409

From this, you managed to arrive at the conclusion that I "only specifically mentioned Oxfam's execs"

Weird.

>>I also showed that your analysis of what world vision did was also incorrect.<<

You pointed out one, tiny, insignificant nit-picking difference of interpretation. That's all.

>>You then argue based on emotion and half truths and spit the dummy when confronted with reason.<<

As you are the serial personal-insult machine half of this relationship, Shadow Minister, I think you may misunderstand the term "spit the dummy" entirely.

>>Your posts and reasoned arguments are strangers<<

Unconvincing, given the evidence.

A last, desperate throw of the dice, in fact.

At least, one can hope it's the last.

Pericles

You state "You pointed out one, tiny, insignificant nit-picking difference of interpretation. That's all."

Here's one for you. The one that was top of my fat-cat list, World Vision.

Revenue: $356,474,735
Cost of Goods: nil

When I showed that the trade by world vision was substantial it showed that your entire premise that a charity was like an insurance company was incorrect.

Difference in interpretation was that one was able to read a financial report and one was not.

I am surprised that you can continue talking with nothing substantial to say.

No observations on the "only specifically mentioned Oxfam's execs" part, I notice Shadow Minister.

Probably slipped your mind.

>>When I showed that the trade by world vision was substantial <<

And when might that have been?

Perhaps you could direct us to the place where you showed the substantial amount of trade being undertaken by World Vision?

An amount that - if it had been material - would have been so identified in the accounts themselves, instead of a single reference to COGS being buried in the notes, with no value ascribed to them.

You're whistling in the wind, mon ami.

Tunelessly.