It seems to me the connection is more at the level of word play (ie farmers are getting paid for producing uneconomic products) rather than any actual consideration of the alternatives available for us to assist those in poorer countries.

As long as you acknowledge, Nick, that that is exactly what is happening with American corn farmers and Australian woodchippers. What’s good for the goose developed world..

As for natural disasters, it gets a lot of coverage on the media, and in developing countries I guess it can be a very effective form of aid. But in little old Oz, while I feel for people caught in one, I must say I expect my money can be better spent on poorer people. I’d certainly feel bad taking money from the Smith Family or the Red Cross or whatrever if I was in a natural disaster, unless it was saving my life.

Any chance of helping us out with the text of the NTY article – I ran into their paywall.

Thank you very much for pointing out Acumenfund.

I found the video on the home page – it should load into your browser if you click here – marvellous.

Like my friends E M Forster and A. Smith would say – ‘only connect’.

In a sense it improves their credentials as far as integrity goes. Unfortunately it also reduces my leverage when I give to them. There are lots of irrationalities here a la ‘behavioural economics’ I dare say – including in the brain of yours truly.

I like the idea of picking up a tax deduction whilst giving. I could defend it as rational – increasing my leverage etc as above. But I don’t think it is. I’m sure someone could design an experiment to show that I’d rather give away $100 and have it tax deductible (netting me $46.50 back in tax than give away $53.50 and not have it deductible.

Then again, it may be irrational for homo economicus but still have something going for it. Perhaps there’s some idea in it that giving is a social act and a resulting desire to draw others into it.

The kicker was that purpose trusts could not be used for political advocacy; and any political activity must be ‘incidental’ (to use the word beloved of equity lawyers) to the primary purpose of the trust, which had to be educational, for the relief of poverty, for education, religion and so on.

There are two eccentric exceptions to the rule: purpose trusts for the care of named animals and the upkeep of named tombs. That’s why sundry rich old people are able to devolve large sums of money (and not always their own, either) on the family pet.

I like the distinction drawn by the law of trusts: politics and charity are two different things, and I do not like charities that purport to be charities while they engage in politics. If Oxfam have forgone their charitable status without having litigation brought against them, then at least their organisation has the merit of honesty. Having charitable status stripped as a result of litigation is a singularly humiliating experience.

I’m just wondering whether Troppodillians see this as a positive or a negative for their credentials as serious providers of aid?? I’m still in two minds about it.

If you are interested in lending a hand through micro-credit, you might consider the Acumen Fund: http://www.acumenfund.org/ The NY Times ran an interesting article on them a while back: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30B1FFD3D5A0C708DDDA80994DE404482
You probably won’t be able to pick up a tax deduction but you can get your money back if you don’t think they achieve much.

I take your point. But if we’re talking strained analogies … well … *cues Peter Singer theme music*

With the greatest of respect (what I really mean is pardon me in advance for any untoward frankness) you are relying on a strained and unnecessary dichotomy.

Singer is not against trading with the poor. He would agree, I confidently expect (without being much of a fan of his) that trading openly with them is likely to do a lot more good than aid. But aid can help.

And certainly for people right at the bottom of the pile, one actually needs aid before trade – which is why micro-credit was such a success. If you have no surplus you might be able to trade at a pinch, but it’s very hard, and you certainly can’t invest. And if you try, your persecutors and exploiters will thieve and pressure you out of your surplus to prevent you from opening up new lines of trade with others). These persecutors and exploiters are not evil multinationals, but evil locals – landlords, aggregators, local traders and associated low lifes who know what you’re up to is not in their short term interests.

You know how Indiana Jones says “Nazis – I hate those guys”. Well Adam Smith felt the same way about those low lifes who try to corrupt the market to their own advantage.

My point is that Singer’s analogies do not take account of the economics of things. The best way to lift people out of poverty is to trade with them. Replacing trade with handouts of any magnitude does not. As a Territorian I got to see this simple principle at first hand.

Essentially Singer is using zero-sum thinking, which is faulty.

In Australia most all charities rely on Ausaid grants in one form or another, and the requirements for getting these (unless youre in AWB!) are very strict. .

This is true and not even the half of it. The government aid system has a lot to answer for, it both hamstrings ngos and encourages the worst (boomerang aid for example) in both Ngo’s and the private sector. If you’re interested in accountabiliy Nicholaa, it might be worthwhile looking into the accountability of the private firms which garner the large majority of Ausaid grants and then comparing that with the accountability requirements of NGO’s. Of course that’s just Australia and oxfam is after all a multinational.

I almost immediately forgot everything I learnt about the sytem, so (deliberately?) byzantine is it, but i think there is a research project at UNSW.

Other good things is donating unwanted eye glasses for overseas aid. Easy to do but has big impacts for recipients.

I know someone who is about to take over the Fred Hollows work in Australia – maybe they could use some professional skills of economists or legals or submission writers pro bono – now thats a donation that counts.

Me, besides helping my family livin refugees with study, software and music I occassionanly take them to concerts.

In the city I hate beggars but occassinally one catches my eye and his or her pitch convinces me to give time.. I make a deal. Here come into this macdonalds – I’ll buy a $5 meal for you. When you eat it I’ll give you $10 to go out and buy grog or horse or whatever you want with it, but first eat.