You lot seem to miss the point!
The rich live off the backs of the poor, and until that changes you can waffle on about any comment on this subject but I'm dammed sure you won't agree with a notion of equality that suits those we live off

RobP, I can understand why rich nations don't do more, as you correctly explain the reasons for this. But all I'm interested in doing is exacting change from the grassroots- amongst my friends and family and people I associate with.

I think your overall ideas are far too cynical and some of your premises for your overall idea break down at key points, such as the following:

"When the average person on the street gives his money to charity, as soon as it's out of his sight, he has no control over it. It really boils down to pot luck as to what happens to it."

Absolute rubbish. This is simply incorrect. Do research on charities- it will challenge your view on this- they are audited extensively by major audit firms to determine what percentage of their funds go to their projects. For example, the charity I support got a high rating on their audit, as 86% of the funds go to do the actual work, and just 14% is spent on administration.

"The problem with easily making a difference is that it's not making much difference at all. Putting it another way, it's only when people put some real effort in that differences start to be made .Let's face it, most of what people in the Western world do to help overseas nations is in the form of moral support. This is only picking the low-hanging fruit."

This shows complete ignorance for the example I gave which preceded the statement of mine that you quoted.

Do you really think that contributing $40 a week is not even making a real difference? Our currency goes a long way in poor nations, so by contributing a relatively small amount you CAN make a big difference. Suggesting anything else amounts to no more than a monumental cop out

neilium,

I don't miss your point at all. But have a look at what you're saying. It's complete idealism. OK, I accept that one day it will happen. But, the realist in me says how are you going to get from where we are now to a fairer and more balanced world with a minimum of bumps/disruption.

If you go too fast, the whole global system will turn into a mess and countries will be rewarded without working for it. That's as bad an outcome as any.

Anyway, think of the rich as being custodians of the assets on the planet (even if they don't see it that way). It will just be a matter of time before some of the poor start to improve their lot in life. Ask yourself how much chance the poor would have WITHOUT the rich being there at all acting as a role model. If it wasn't for the rich they would FOREVER be in poverty.

To Grim, who was commenting on my fears of losing the tooth. Throwing money overseas, they will not learn anything nor get their houses in order. Corruption. Civil disorder. They are also prodigious breeders and could learn a few things about contraception too. Perhaps also if they promoted condom use, the AIDS death toll could be reduced too, and therefor less orphans. However, as long as we have policies that say government funds not to be used for overseas family planning or condom/contraception distribution, I wonder really if people really care.

As for my tooth, you should not be wedging me against the poor in Africa. Maybe we shouldn't have given the pope's business $100M, maybe we should not give taxpayers funds to foreign automakers branches, property speculators, private schools, stockmarket speculators, tax/council rate/FBT exemptions to churches and church schools.

Would one of those big beneficiaries of government largesse which reckons its so deserving, step forward and help me out? A Church, church school, property speculator or foreign automaker? Huh, that'd be the day. Tell you what, I'd love it and have lots of gratitude to offer, but don't hold your breath people!

Trav,

“This is simply incorrect. Do research on charities- it will challenge your view on this- they are audited extensively by major audit firms to determine what percentage of their funds go to their projects. For example, the charity I support got a high rating on their audit, as 86% of the funds go to do the actual work, and just 14% is spent on administration.”

Sorry, but reading NGOs’ glossy brochures is too simplistic – I suggest you do some living in the real world. Even assuming the 14% figure is correct, how do you know that there aren’t lots of extra payoffs (out of the remaining 86%) all the way down the food chain? An NGO has no interest in chronicling the payolas even if it knew what they all were. As far as its people in the field are concerned, the inducements/bribes – both overt and hidden – they have to pay in foreign countries are just the cost of working there. Are you assuming that there’s no such thing as corruption in developing countries? I’m sure the total loss of the original donations, once they percolate through the system, is far more than 14%.

“Do you really think that contributing $40 a week is not even making a real difference? Our currency goes a long way in poor nations, so by contributing a relatively small amount you CAN make a big difference. Suggesting anything else amounts to no more than a monumental cop out.”

The sort of aid you’re advocating is small beer when looked at in the big picture. The things that developing countries need for their economic health are massive assistance by way of trade deals etc, which lead to real industries and economic opportunities. That can’t be done with $40 handouts as good and necessary as they are for the recipients. All such aid does is keep individuals alive and buy them time as well as provide them with the basics (an important short-term objective), but not help them to move forward or upward. In that sense, it hardly achieves a thing.

Neilium, I'm with you, bloke.
I'm currently the proud owner of a 'Virgin' credit card. It's currently being phased out to Westpac, but I'm assured the deal will remain the same.
For me, it is an absolutely free service. There are no fees whatsoever.
No monthly fee, no yearly fee, nothing. So long as you can pay off the full amount every month, it is an absolutely free service.
Does anyone truly believe virgin (or westpac) do this as a charitable gesture?
Have a quick guess, who subsidises the free service I enjoy.
The poorest nations on the planet, who need every penny they make just to feed their own people, actually have to pay rich countries, for loans taken out years ago -often by corrupt regimes. Regimes the lenders KNEW were corrupt.
Examinator, I apologise for being simple. The fact that the world produces more than enough calories to feed every single person on the planet, yet about half the total population suffers from malnutrition is clearly an equation far too complex for the likes of me.
Please, enlighten us on the complexities of Man's inhumanity to Man.