Annette -- It's one reason I love leafing thru the Economist, at least every couple of issues or so: they're so full of horrifying facts from around the world that it's a stinging reminder of how lucky and well-off we are here. Puts life in a bit of perspective, and banishes a little of the usual self-pity and self-absorption.

Ricpic -- I think we are too, and I'll join you in avoiding Crooked Timber.

Michelle -- I'm like you: prone to give people the benefit of the doubt and then to say, oh what the hell, the charities got the money in any case. I think people can over-do the search for motives. Arguments in NYC, alas, often quickly turn into assault on each other's motives, as though what it's all really about is who has the highest and deepest ideals. 99% of the time, I just don't care. So shoot me: actions strike me as more important. As far as I'm concerned, people can spend the day lasciviously fantasizing about murder and screwing the poor so long as they behave well.

Ted -- What a good question, I'd love to know the answer. I'd tend to assume that the Economist and the authors of the study they were citing would have tried to factor that element into their conclusions. but you never know. I wish the piece were online so you could examine it. I'd love to know what you think of it. 'Way beyond my competentce, in any case.

Azad -- More good quetions! FWIW, and I'm on a slow connection so can't do the Googling right now, but ... I feel pretty sure I've read studies showing that the American rich donate a ton more to charity than the Euro-rich do. I'm pretty sure that the Euro-rich generally view donating to charity as something only fools do, come to think of it. We take it for granted that many of our colleges and hospitals, for instance, are going to get a lot of their funding from generous rich people; the Euros take it for granted that all that will be taken care of by the State. I think the gist of one of the pieces I read about this was that Euro and American spending on social services are essentially equal; it's just that in Euro-land it all comes from taxes, where in America a lot is chipped in voluntarily. Happy to be corrected of course: memory often fails these days...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on December 12, 2004 1:36 PM

Uttar Pradesh ::

Why don't I believe that stat?? the mothers don't talk to their daughters??
Nonsense the mothers probably tell their daughters "dont admit you know anything"

Posted by: e m butler on December 13, 2004 3:16 AM

I don't trust the reasoning behind the Zimbabwe statistic. The violent political situation and resulting economic disaster would be more than enough to drop the life expectancy numbers like a brick. I'm sure Aids is a factor, but I doubt that plays largest part.

Posted by: Karl on December 14, 2004 1:55 AM

Regarding charitable giving in the US:

The fact that the top 5% of families account for over 42% of charitable giving is not particularly generous when you also consider that they represent close to 60% of the wealth in the country...It seems rich people really ARE stingy.

Also, one major reason that the extremely wealthy spend more on 'charity' instead of heirs is because they like to put their names on things. Endowing a chair or fellowship at a major university is expensive...much less 'donating' a building or other major work. Please don't fool yourself into thinking that most of this money is feeding the poor or housing the homeless.

-Scrooge

Posted by: Patrick on December 14, 2004 12:28 PM

Patrick,
Rich (or poor, for that matter) have no obligation whatsoever to give anything away. Whatever charitable causes person favors, it goes out of his/her pocket into public use - be it University, museum, or a bench in the park where a homeless can seat and enjoy the afternoon. Don't you think putting at least a "thank you" plaque on that bench is just a matter of good manners?

Of course, if you're of socialist breed you'd like to expropriate 99% of people' wealth - but fortunately this country seems to be rejecting this direction.

Posted by: Tatyana on December 14, 2004 3:31 PM

I don't trust the reasoning behind the Zimbabwe statistic.

I do. There's been a similar catastrophic fall in life expectency in Botswana, which is rich (by African standards at least), and manages to be reasonably well governed, democratic, peaceful, and with an appalling rate of HIV infection.

Posted by: Jeffrey Boulier on December 19, 2004 4:56 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?