A fairly innocuous comment I made earlier today on Graham's excellent world cup fever post got me thinking.
I figure the thing stopping us from fixing world hunger (and clean water etc) is the same problem that our ridiculous govts had in Copenhagen: If no one else is doing it, then neither will I.
I find world hunger to be a crippling problem. And I figure, "'sure, I could give half of what I have away, but it will make such an insignificant difference (if you call many lives insignificant) that I suppose I won't:".
So here is my proposal. We start a pledge of some type. People sign up to say something like "If this many people pledge to give 5% of their personal assets away, then so will I".
Why won't this work? I know I'm not the first one to come up with it. But I can't figure out why it won't work. If you own a house, you remortgage 5% of what you've paid off, if you own a car, have a bank balance, whatever, you figure out 5% and you give it away. I'd do it... but I don't own much.
But then again, I think that heaps of people would... wouldn't they? Like... 20% of people that heard about this would agree to do it... Or is it not that many?
Why is this not a good idea? And if there's no good reason, then let's do it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It won't work.
ReplyDeleteNot because it is a bad idea, it isn't. But for two reasons.
First, the numbers start to get very scary. 5% doesn't sound too much. Until you add up all your assets. Anyone who own a house in one of our major cities (in Australia, and many other countries) has minimum assets of $250,000. In many suburbs an average house is worth close to, or more than, $1 million.
So 5% is at least $25,000 and could be as much as $100,000. Maybe I am cynical but I cannot see many people giving away that much in one hit.
The second reason is the difficulty of arranging a suitable organisation to do the dispersing of the funds. You either hand the money to an existing NGO or start another one yourself. In either case there are administrative costs which gives rise to the question, "How much of my $50,000 (or whatever the amount is) will actually get to the people on the ground who need the money?"
It would be nice if I was wrong, but I don't think I am.
Last night I heard a proposal from noted ethicist, Peter Singer. Normally I disagree with everything he says. However, he put forward the idea of, what he calls, a Robin Hood tax. Every bank or financial institution transaction is taxed at the rate of one twentieth of one percent. Half the money would go to alleviating poverty and the other half to climate change and other environmental projects.
This would raise enormous amounts of money.
So far this has gained little traction. But Singer suggests that some world leaders, including the President of France, are onside, as well as many leading economists.
But again, this faces the same second problem as your idea - who administers the money. And I can see in this case that it would not take long before some organisation like the World Bank or IMF stepped in and then it would be embroiled in all kinds of political machinations, as indeed would be the case if the United Nations was involved.
Without doubt, something should be done. And it shouldn't be past our best and brightest minds to come up with a solution. But I wonder if there is enough political and moral will to bring a lasting solution to fruition.
I think that the problems you would have are ones such as these: (although I don't condone them)
ReplyDelete1. People who are hungry have brought it upon themselves. If they just stopped having so many children there wouldn't be so many mouths to feed. Also, they shouldn't live in deserts where there is not enough food.
2. I have worked hard for the money that I have earnt. I already pay taxes and I need what I have left for my own family.
3. I don't think that there are really that many poor people in the world. And if there are I don't want to know about them or hear about them.
Take church giving for example:
Christians know that they should give money to the church. They are reminded of it regularly. Yet research that I have heard of suggests that regular church goers give, on average, only about 2% of their income away. Less than 10% of church goers give 10% or more.
So if less than 10% of God's people are willing to give even close to sacrificially then what hope do the rest of the world have? Interestingly, the rest of the US also gives away about 2% of their income as well, so the church goers are nothing special.
Also, there are so many things competing for your money that it is hard for world hunger to get a leg in because it is so distanced from us. Cancer research receives billions of dollars in funding each year because that's what kills our families. So when we see people we love suffer and die from cancer we are willing to give to the cancer council to alleviate that suffering for others. It is close to our hearts and it is personal. We will most likely never see the people dying from hunger and so it is too distant to really care about.
Also, money doesn't realy provide food, it's just the means to start up programs and operations to obtain it, so money is a few steps removed from the food production problem and people tend to think that it is either unsolveable or should be solved in other ways.
Our society is so caught up in individualism and looking after yourself that I think you are working against the grain when you ask people to diminish their own living standards to increase someone else's. I think it is what we should do, but I think it is exceedingly unpopular.
Also, I think that the Robin Hood tax is a very good idea.
ReplyDeleteI think that the problem with who administers it is also a huge problem. I definitely don't trust the World Bank or the IMF. I am also very sceptical of the United nations, but the World Food Program does do a lot of good.
I think that as Christians we should not ever let the business of looking after the poor be taken from our hands. I think that God has called us to do it and it is our responsibility to see it done. So I think it should be done by Christians.
Unfortunately the same problems apply of corruption, bias and the like.
However, I also think that we need to remember that as individuals we can have a massve impact on the world. If we choose to live simply, but earn as much as we can (ie live like a hippie, but earn a good wage), then we can each support tens of people. This must never be overlooked. Our spending power is phenomenal on a global scale.
Also, whilstthe problems are all but insurmountable at the oment, there are lots of things in place ready to go. Take Compassion for example. They have thousands of children that they are ready and equipped to bring into their sponsorship program, but just do not have the dollars to do so.
Money doesn't solve everything, but it can have a big impact.