There goes civilisation...

In terms of ethical fundraising, most of the charities I work for are stuck in that dilemma of where they source their income from.

One homelessness social enterprise adamantly doesn't take cash from donors (be they wealthy individuals, corporate sponsors, 'gambling' etc.) who don't follow their same notion of ethical investment (arms trade, exploitative labour, some chemicals stuff). On the obvious grounds that the money is profit from exploitation.

that's intriguingly complex as dilemmas go. It could be argued that they're being naive here. Idealogically they could easily adopt the position that they're turning bad money into good. In terms of association with companies they wish to distance themselves from idealogically it's a natural standpoint to adopt at first glance. But they're very simply missing out on opportunities. In its coldest form I think the point I'm trying to make is - do the beneficiaries of their efforts care where the money is coming from that is making their lives better? And isn't it more sophisticated to try to make bad money serve a good purpose?

What about the sector, hyped on fees pushing the mortgages?
Or what about the proportion of 2nd/3rd/4th/5th property owners taking the housing stock, pushing up the prices that help make these mortgages unaffordable?

You can't blame somebody for buying something if they have the money to do it! What about all the people who own the equivalent of 5 bikes in parts? Or all the girls who love shoes and handbags? Are we going to blame them for pushing up prices?

If the jobs were available, they wouldn't have been cut in the first place!

Ha, your resolve is as bad as mine! But that last sentence doesn't work.

And if they're skilled, there's lots of other jobs (maybe less after the shipping of the manufacturing industries into developing nations). There's loads of more markets to exploit - India and China for example. Or there's shelf stacking at the local super market.

They're suffering from the same market forces that created their wealth. But I guess you're already saying that.

basiclly we just need to slow down a bit.

You can't blame somebody for buying something if they have the money to do it! What about all the people who own the equivalent of 5 bikes in parts? Or all the girls who love shoes and handbags? Are we going to blame them for pushing up prices?

Yes you can, if they turn around and blame the less well off for not being able to purchase something that the behaviour of the wealthy has denied them.

Five houses, where families could live is a bit different to five bicycles, don't be so flippant.
Just because you can buy five houses doesn't mean it is moral to do so.

The company had over 10,000 employees in London alone, not counting the other 65,000 in NY, Frankfurt, HK, Tokyo, Singapore, Zurich, or Moscow. And they were committed to matching up to £3000 of each of the London employees, I don't know what the amount is for the other parts of the world, but I believe it's comparable. That's a bit of a commitment, isn't it?

I hate to sounded jaded and cynical but someone somewhere in the company did a presentation to the board to show why that specific amount would be the most cost-efficient in terms of tax relief. Sorry cg5154 but I suspect that's what happened.

that's intriguingly complex as dilemmas go. It could be argued that they're being naive here. Idealogically they could easily adopt the position that they're turning bad money into good. In terms of association with companies they wish to distance themselves from idealogically it's a natural standpoint to adopt at first glance. But they're very simply missing out on opportunities. In its coldest form I think the point I'm trying to make is - do the beneficiaries of their efforts care where the money is coming from that is making their lives better? And isn't it more sophisticated to try to make bad money serve a good purpose?

True, its all based on 'belief' isn't it. Lots of Faith based orgs won't take lottery funding as its contrary to their religious beliefs. Some will compromise on that, as its 'soft' gambling, but its still gambling.

In terms of end punter, it depends on the need and the situation they're in. If, at an acute point in their life they're offered the choice of selling some of themselves for a roof over their head, they won't care whether the donation has come from an exploitative profit or from some yoghurt weaving rainbow collective.

Further down the line when they're working or being supported to get work, they'll have the liberty of more choice, as their needs aren't as acute. But that choice is theirs, and at some points its rested in the hands of the Management Committee who decide to operate the charity.

Most charitable acts are about change. You can't engender that change if you perpetuate the very things you're trying to alter.

Its not all as black and white as that, and lots of the big figure heads in the sector have skeletons. Same as any other sector.

Ok... I assume that free markets and efficient economies are good things.

What economic system would you propose to achieve those things, aside from capitalism?

But that's the point, if the market were free, then government wouldn't bail out Northern Rock or anyone else and if they were efficient Lehmann's wouldn't have collapsed.

How about one that works better?

I hate to sounded jaded and cynical but someone somewhere in the company did a presentation to the board to show why that specific amount would be the most cost-efficient in terms of tax relief. Sorry cg5154 but I suspect that's what happened.

I'm sure you're right. But again... just because it's tax-efficient, doesn't mean it's worth any less to the people receiving it. The complaint here is that the banks aren't sharing the wealth, isn't it? Well, they are, and it's not peanuts either.

Again, like I said... banks are in the unfortunate position of "damned if you don't, damned if you do".

But can't you see that as simply a self perpetuating situation?

But that's the point, if the market were free, then government wouldn't bail out Northern Rock or anyone else and if they were efficient Lehmann's wouldn't have collapsed.

How about one that works better?

I eagerly await the news of a Nobel Prize from our own esteemed fruitbat for his work on coming up with a better economic system than what we have now.

Free markets and efficient economies, alas, exist only in theory. The system we have now is a weird mix of capitalism and socialism. We try to approximate the capitalist ideal as best as we can, while protecting the less privileged and less able.

Right. I'm hitting Ctrl-W and shutting this tab. And a pox on me and all my future descendants if I check this thread again today.

You've said that before...

I eagerly await the news of a Nobel Prize from our own esteemed fruitbat for his work on coming up with a better economic system than what we have now.

Free markets and efficient economies, alas, exist only in theory. The system we have now is a weird mix of capitalism and socialism. We try to approximate the capitalist ideal as best as we can, while protecting the less privileged and less able.

ha! its a mix of socialism is it? the only reason that the system we have at the moment looks after those less off (yeah right) is because otherwise there would be no one to sell to, no one to work and no ones money to gamble and play with.

[quote=cg5154;296101]I'm sure you're right. But again... just because it's tax-efficient, doesn't mean it's worth any less to the people receiving it. The complaint here is that the banks aren't sharing the wealth, isn't it? Well, they are, and it's not peanuts either.
quote]

I agree with the first bit in a day-to-day, let's-buy-a-Christmas-hamper-for-Mrs-Moggins kind of a way. But I don't think you see how it all works if you think the second bit is true. Tax reliefs can far supercede the "investment" in them, if I'm making myself clear, which I fear I'm not. Okay, crudely (an only illustratively) put: the bank gives 3 grand for every three grand; for that commitment it sees three and a half grand back in benefits.

This shit's deep....

The complaint here is that the banks aren't sharing the wealth.

It is not sharing when you claw it back in tax-breaks which impoverish the society in general.

Thatcher was right. You lot should be out on yer bike.

That was Tebbit.
:)

Thatcher was right. You lot should be out on yer bike.

that was tebit, not thatcher!

too late

I'll get my bike.

I am about to get mine too, home-time!

You can't blame somebody for buying something if they have the money to do it! What about all the people who own the equivalent of 5 bikes in parts? Or all the girls who love shoes and handbags? Are we going to blame them for pushing up prices?

the availability of easy credit is fundamentally the doing of those that lend, there is a certain proportion of so called 'liar loans' but often these are pushed by the brokers or at least the ability to pay not researched properly.

i haven't seen the 10%+ year on year price increases on bikes (dunno about handbags) whereas the 6x income mortgages as opposed to the historical norm of 3x and unsustainable rises in property prices are only possible if the banks allow it.
it's their fault. the banks created this mess and most likely the taxpayer will be financially ass raped.

Out of interest, not being sarcastic, how's it not sharing when you claw it back in tax breaks? If a company gives 3k to charidee then it pays less tax of just under 1k in the UK ... but it has still cost it 2k, no?

I took Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books on holiday, very interesting reading given current events.

he is a doom and boom bullshitter of the highest order, right 50% of the time.

Free markets and efficient economies, alas, exist only in theory. ...
We try to approximate the capitalist ideal as best as we can, while protecting the less privileged and less able.

If the system was protecting the less privileged then I'd have less of an issue with it.
Less able is possibly too subjective. Lack of education and opportunity are probably a huge cause of what is described as inability, thus it's essentially a 'prviledge' thing