I appreciate the original article's analysis if you've already decided that giving resources (money, work, whatever) to non-profits is a desirable and rational use of those resources. Maybe it is, but I'd love to see someone really tackle that issue.
I once heard Rush Limbaugh say something like "In 200 years, capitalism has saved more lives than thousands of years of charity." I generally dislike the man, but I found it hard to disagree with him there (actually I assume he was probably paraphrasing someone else).
It seems to me that the wealth created through market economies has massively improved living standards unlike anything else. The technological, medical, social, and education advances that contribute to improved health and welfare are greatly accelerated by competition and increased wealth.
Maybe there are areas where charity is more effective than markets, but I'd like to see someone make the argument. Even well-run and well-intentioned charities run the risk of creating dependency and inhibiting local markets.
Could it be that the best use of your time and money is to create as much wealth as possible and keep that wealth circulating through the market (investing and spending)? (And perhaps contributing to lobbying and advocacy efforts that work to spread open markets.)
If anyone knows of a good discussion of this question, please let me know.
This is the question I'd love to see answered.
I appreciate the original article's analysis if you've already decided that giving resources (money, work, whatever) to non-profits is a desirable and rational use of those resources. Maybe it is, but I'd love to see someone really tackle that issue.
I once heard Rush Limbaugh say something like "In 200 years, capitalism has saved more lives than thousands of years of charity." I generally dislike the man, but I found it hard to disagree with him there (actually I assume he was probably paraphrasing someone else).
It seems to me that the wealth created through market economies has massively improved living standards unlike anything else. The technological, medical, social, and education advances that contribute to improved health and welfare are greatly accelerated by competition and increased wealth.
Maybe there are areas where charity is more effective than markets, but I'd like to see someone make the argument. Even well-run and well-intentioned charities run the risk of creating dependency and inhibiting local markets.
Could it be that the best use of your time and money is to create as much wealth as possible and keep that wealth circulating through the market (investing and spending)? (And perhaps contributing to lobbying and advocacy efforts that work to spread open markets.)
If anyone knows of a good discussion of this question, please let me know.