[standaman]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Kuci, hopefully you go into some field other than economics. Someone as short sighted as you would either fail brutally, or would do serious damage to our country if you got into any meaningful position...

Private charity does not have to be efficient. If you want to know what's inefficient, it's billionaires. But that's another story.

Point is, charity is just that, charity. Giving charity is not efficient, it generally serves emotional or moral purposes. That's how charity works... all of it. The company could have held on to its money and just given it to its directors instead... but they did something good for society instead. No, that is not how charity works. And the options aren't to give the money away whimsically and horde it all. Kuci wasn't making that contrast at all.

Most money for charity has a rigorous process for selecting who gets the money and requires recipients to demonstrate they are using the money wisely and for a purpose the foundation or company supports.

Money given to poorly thought out ideas, or scam artists, or money given in other inefficient, wasteful ways could be given more efficiently to produce more good for more people. What if the students at El Dorado were richer than most of the state. Is it wise to give scholarship money to the rich when there are plenty of poor students who need it more? What if the students at El Dorado really have no use for college, and as DanS said, will just get drunk for a few years and drop out. Is it wise to give scholarship money to these people instead of that hardworking A student from Harlem who just can't afford school?

Charity isn't just so the people giving away money can feel good for themselves and brag about it at parties. It exists to do real good in the world and help real people who need it. Just like everything else in life, helping people should be done as efficiently as possible.