Asymmetrical Information

Some blogger somewhere should build a central compilation of public and private assistance, by country. Among other things, it would be interesting to see what proportion of the American contribution is private. I bet it ends up being almost half.

I made a donation to Catholic Relief Services. I don't have a problem with the Red Cross, but in case someone does, CRS is another option.

http://www.kintera.org/htmlcontent.asp?cid=41794

Btw, the amount at Amazon keeps growing: currently $5,281,269.00

I couldn't help computing an average. I am so not a statistician, but it appears that the average donation is increasing in size and the donation period goes on, and the total gets larger. It seems interesting, but it might not be. :)

I really hope that the relief efforts can help that horrific situation. And I also hope that, for a MOMENT, those who constantly malign and attack international relief organizations can stop for a second, and realize that there are things far more important than political posturing.

--Cobra

Over $8 million and counting, 11:44 am est dec 31

The average donation has gone up from $57 to $77, according to a crude calculation.

11:25 am est 1/1/05: $10,786,723.28 / 135901 donations/ appx $79 per donation...wow...happy new year everybody

I bet it ends up being almost half.

The U.S. government contribution is $350 million and rising... the public will have to do a lot better than this so far if it wants to match that.

Just topped $11 million 1:47 est 1/1/05...

$11 million through Amazon alone..yeah, $350 million is a lot to match, but the "government's" $350 million did come from the same (taxpayin') people who are making donations through private groups.

the "government's" $350 million did come from the same (taxpayin') people who are making donations through private groups.

Don't be silly... it's getting piled on the debt, along with other government spending. The people who'll be paying off the $350 million are too young to have credit cards to make donations on Amazon.

Brit, is there a point lurking in your post? Your original post suggested the "public" was more stingy than the government. When Adam pointed out that the money comes from the same place, you suggest the government money comes from future taxpayers.

So, are you seeing a competition between who can be more generous: normal people using their own money, or the government using the money of people who don't yet have credit cards? This is not a race I want to encourage!

Sorry if I'm reading too much into what may be off-hand remarks.

Happy New Year, all.

Sure. I was responding to what Jack said, because he seemed to be seeing it as a competition.

On "Jane Galt"'s blog, it's almost unavoidable that someone will want to see this fundraising as a victory for libertarian values. I don't see that as a bad thing to claim, or out of order to discuss on this thread, but I disagree with the broader thought there. I worry about funds going to the sexiest victims and charities, and only for the short-term, with no follow-through. That's the pattern we've seen in the past.

If there is a competition here, so far, the private sector isn't coming close to meeting the catastrophic needs of the tsunami victims. Maybe it would if there were no government aid forthcoming--it's debatable. I think some problems are too big to be solved by ad hoc goodwill aid alone, and I think the government can play an important role in coordinating and assembling resources for big catastrophes without having to please donor vanity or manage lumpy cash flow.

That said, state aid has its own problems, which several people will probably point out on this thread right now in particularly dire terms. :)

I thought Adam's response was something of a non sequitur, and I thought the angle he was taking with reference to taxes was provocative in the service of nothing, so I followed those lines into a different argument which probably has no resolution here.

My point is that I think it's premature to see this episode as a failure of government or even a vindication of private initiative to handle massive, unthinkable international tragedies, and that perhaps it's worth sitting back and assessing how well state-managed resources extorted from taxpayers can succeed at addressing problems.

A disturbing reflection on the disaster from a self-described "Idiotarian Savant":

http://tinyurl.com/4g67g

http://smythesworld.blogspot.com/2004/12/theres-something-about-
120000-dead.html

I'd like to thank the UN dipweed who called Americans "stingy"...that crack was probably worth several million dollars in donations from p*ssed-off Americans...

Brittain33
From what I know, currently private donations are 3 to 1 compared to government's. If that is not a "win", I don't know what it is...

PontiusSocrates, have to admit that I almost stopped reading Smythesworld when I got to: "It reminds me of the controversial moment in Fahrenheit 9/11..."

the controversial moment???

Steve Smith's main point is that "the First Principle of human existence is not Freedom, Liberty, or Democracy, but to simply live." Which is why we should have left the Iraqis alone, apparently.

In the comments, he cites that India (a democracy) and Myanmar (a dictatorship) both failed to protect their citizens as evidence that the form of government is not of primary importance. He seems to miss the incentive problems here; a democratic government has incentives to protect the people (even to overprotect them), while a totalitarian government only needs to protect the ruling group.

Comments are Closed.