6/25    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/charitable.giving.ap/index.html
        Americans are very generous.
        \- that is a really lousy article. it's a very fair criticism
           that comparisons of just things like foreign aid from the
           govt isnt fair to the US where there is larger private sector
           donating, it is equally true you have to consider the lower
           taxes here, and some other issues relating to tax policy ...
           if somebody donates a huge amount of money to avoid taxes,
           it needs to be thought of a little differently [read about the
           history of HHMI]. this is another case of an article where it's
           unclear the facts add up to the conclusion suggested [as the
           OP writes, "americans are very generous"]. what should have been
           the biggest piece of news in there is how much "charity" is
           sucked up by religious orgs.  certainly a lot of this goes to
           good ends like church run hospitals [10-20% of community
           hospitals in the US are Catholic church operations] but a lot
           relig donations are sort of parochial, so to speak. also the
           large fraction of the donations going elite educational and
           \_ Parta, seriously, I could care less about the homeless people
              who are causing my property to depreciate. However, I've
              donated hundreds of dollars to Classical 102.1 KDFC. Am
              I an elitist? Do you hate me?
              \- no, i just think there is a difference say volunteering at
                 your kids school and say doing a doctors without borders
                 kind of thing. obviously i am not saying volunteering at
                 your kids school is bad, but a different phenomena is
                 going on.
           medical establishments and elite cultural orgs isnt really
           consistent with the "giving to the poor" conception of
           charity. [and reglig+elite educ/medica/culture is something like
                \_ Au contraire, mon frere!  Going back well into early
                   Europe, pretty much *every* artist, 'doctor', 'scientist',
                   and other 'elite' was only able to produce or research
                   because they had some rich benefactor.  You think all that
                   art was produced on the government dole?  Or by selling to
                   'The People' in the market square?
                   \- no, i'm generally opposed to public funding of the arts.
                      btw you also need to acknowledge the govt had a role
                      via their decision to enforce IP. to get middle class
                      novelists for example, you need to have copyright
                      enforced.
           60-70% of the total, i believe]. at least some amount of this
           number is no doubt more of a testiment to the creativity of
           tax profressionals here rather than a reflection on inherent
           generosity. note that there have been some studies looking at
           attitudes changing toward in attitudes toward social welfare
           as there is more mixing of population groups, so the benefits
           are less likely to go toward "people like me", e.g. some
           europeans are beginning to reconsider the high level of the
           social safety net in the face of high levels of brown immigration.
           \_ Wow, partha, you are a real shithead.  The issue of 'optimal
              giving' (e.g., if I want to go good, and I am willing to think
              about it, where should my money go) is completely orthogonal
              to 'generosity.'  I wouldn't give money to most 'conventional
              charities' you probably wouldn't have a problem with, like
              the Red Cross because I think they are a very inefficient use
              of my money.  The vast majority of people have a 'generosity
              impulse', but they aren't really willing to think very hard about
              their money and true causes of problems in the world.  It's true
              that the results they achieve with their
              money aren't as good as they could be, but it sort of seems like
              you are calling into question the morality of their act, which is
              in very poor form.  I am curious if, parallel to you taking a dump
              on the possible motives of Americans who give you might also
              have a spirited defense of the rest of the world (which gives
              a lot less).  I was also most amused by the importance you
              place on historical conceptions of charity as 'alms for the
              poor.'  I wonder if you will have moral objections to
              intentionally improving outcomes by 'counterintuitive means' (or
              objections to calling such things 'charity.') -- ilyas
              objections to calling such things 'charity.')  Sometimes
              Franklin's view is more appropriate than Mother Theresa's.
                -- ilyas
              \_ I believe he already addressed the "citizens of other places
                 don't give as much" when he said their taxes are higher which
                 implies they give through their government so are morally
                 excused from giving personally.  Anyway, we know all rich
                 people are automatically evil oppressors so it doesn't matter
                 if they give to charity or not.  They must be doing it for
                 evil and selfish reasons.
                 \- if i had to summarize my main point:
                    donating $500m in paintings to a museum != donating
                    to "help people". lumping them together clouds the
                    statistics. as i said, the facts dont add up to the
                    conclusions. we can probably say things like "one reason
                    the higher educ institutions are so good here is there
                    sucess getting private donations". by no means would i
                    "dump" on america by saying "but that's only because
                    of lousy public funding it is necessary." although
                    things like tax policy has consequences [like what is the
                    per capita spending at saratoga high school vs. an east
                    sj high school etc].
                    BTW, i think "american generosity" gets the short shrift
                    by not considering the "uncaptured" returns from
                    medical research [antibiotics, vaccines etc], and
                    agricultural reasearch ["green revolution"], but to
                    think about this issue sophisticatedly, there are
                    offsetting negatives as well.
                    \_ Charity is ineffective because determining effects is
                       hard.  I wouldn't even go so far as to say donating
                       to a museum isn't 'helping' -- I just don't understand
                       what 'helps' well enough.  I do know a lot of african
                       charity is extremely counterproductive. -- ilyas
                       \_ Some software is counterproductive.  Therefore,
                          we should stop using software.
                          \_ Where did you get the idea that I am claiming
                             charity is a bad thing or should be stopped?
                             Did you even read my other post?  If there's a
                             normative undercurrent to what I am saying at all,
                             it's that what people should be concentrating on
                             isn't SPENDING but understanding effects, and
                             understanding how complex systems evolve.  In
                             some sense donating is easy, but your conscience
                             shouldn't rest just because you donated to
                             something recently. -- ilyas