JapanForum.com

JapanForum.com (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/)
-   General Discussion (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/)
-   -   Give money to Haiti, not Japan. (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/36600-give-money-haiti-not-japan.html)

Ronin4hire 03-18-2011 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 857442)
Wrong on all counts, but I don't feel any need to waste any more time on this any longer.

:ywave: :ywave: :ywave:

fluffy0000 03-18-2011 05:34 AM

sorta not
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sangetsu (Post 857419)
The CEO of JP Morgan has just donated $7,000,000 to help Japan, and I am donating 10% of my income for the next year to the Red Cross in Japan. Hopefully more people will do the same.

No, dude. The CEO of JP Morgan* is not actually donating $7,000,000 except in your fantasy?

As reported by NYT, WSJ etc. media, CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase made the announcement JP Morgan Chase would commit $5 (USD) million.

This donation includes the following components:

•$1.1 million, which has been already* been pledged by JPMorgan Chase Japan.
•$1 million to match contributions to The American Red Cross and World Vision by the bank’s more than 220,000 employees, including more than 1,300 in Japan.

godwine 03-18-2011 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 857436)
Help Japan definitely. I would encourage people to do this. Not by giving money but by giving Japan the things it needs.

So I suppose we just rob someone for the things they need and send it to them?

Most of the "things" Japan need has a monetary value, food, blankets, medication... tell me one thing that is not associated with a monetary value.

Money doesn't go there and become cash in hand to the Japanese Government or its citizen. It is used to help fund whatever relief effort that is happening there now. I can volunteer to go there, but I will still need to fly there , I will need to a place to stay, to be fed. Even if I fund myself to do all that, the people there will have need that can only be satisfy with money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 857436)
Heck... give money to Japan if you want. It's misplaced charity in my opinion but I will never say the feeling which motivates people to give is bad.

The fact that we see people going in and helping already indicate that its not MISPLACED. If money goes to a charity organization, and they organization never show up to help, then its misplaced. Again, the effort itself, the material, all cost money...

Sangetsu 03-18-2011 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluffy0000 (Post 857452)
No, dude. The CEO of JP Morgan* is not actually donating $7,000,000 except in your fantasy?

As reported by NYT, WSJ etc. media, CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase made the announcement JP Morgan Chase would commit $5 (USD) million.

This donation includes the following components:

•$1.1 million, which has been already* been pledged by JPMorgan Chase Japan.
•$1 million to match contributions to The American Red Cross and World Vision by the bank’s more than 220,000 employees, including more than 1,300 in Japan.

Actually, I have a memo from the Tokyo office of JP Morgan showing the breakdown, as well as a letter from Jamie Dimon himself. Also included are a few notes on the effect of the nuclear reactor crisis, and a little economic data from the analyst's offices. Math was not my greatest subject, but the numbers I have add up to $7 million.

Columbine 03-18-2011 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 857426)
I am not against giving Japan the things it NEEDS. But money, in particular MY money, isn't one of them.

You keep saying this, but it makes zero sense. Japan needs water, blankets, food, fuel, child-care produces, medicine etc and you say you're fine with people donating those, anything in fact, except money.

I have plenty of all of that, but I have no logistical way of getting it to the people who need it in the disaster areas, and certainly no way to get it there quickly enough to be of real use. I live in a rural area; there's no collection point here. It would be ridiculous and impractical for me to pack a suit-case and go out there to help- I have no training, i'd just be a burden to the relief effort.

By donating to the Red Cross however, my money can leap in an instant to a place where EVERYTHING the people need can be purchased at source, in bulk, given to trained professionals to distribute and make a real difference TODAY. I have, in effect, donated baby milk and blankets, I just haven't had the chance to handle them personally. I've helped feed the private volunteer teams and keep them well equipped, so they can enter an area full of struggling survivors and yet not put more pressure on limited resources just by being there, and I've helped maintain producers nearer the area in an arguable tough economic patch- not every business can afford (even if they want to) to give everything away for free. And I've bought whatever was actually needed -most- at the time; not just whatever I guessed from a long list of items required. I may have bought a coffin, or a body bag. Or something else I could never get hold of myself like dialysis tubes or would never have otherwise thought of.

The government of any country can't donate to the Red Cross; almost all it's revenue comes from private donation, and the Red Cross by policy doesn't invoice for it's help- it would be unethical for it to bill Japan for aid when it has to date never been -paid- to help any country. That's the point of them; they help everyone, regardless of colour, creed, history or bank balance.

You may consider it wasted money, and wasted charity, but the money WILL make a difference and making relief efforts easier (even if they according to you are already well-funded and therefore easy in that respect) can hardly be a bad thing in my opinion, and for many people around the world, the only alternative is quite simply to do nothing.

That's no alternative at all.

fluffy0000 03-18-2011 04:36 PM

again sorta not
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Columbine (Post 857581)

The government of any country can't donate to the Red Cross; almost all it's revenue comes from private donation, and the Red Cross by policy doesn't invoice for it's help- it would be unethical for it to bill Japan for aid when it has to date never been -paid- to help any country. That's the point of them; they help everyone, regardless of colour, creed, history or bank balance.

Dude, the Red Cross gets government money and lots of it. Even in 2008' the US government poured $ 100 million into ARC. The Red Cross by it's legal definition is a 'instrument' of the government.

The Red Cross gets federal & state grants and the Red Cross can also purchase supplies from the military and use government facilities--military personnel can actually be assigned to duty with the Red Cross.

The leading administrators and officials of the ( ARC ) Red Cross are almost always drawn from the corporate boardroom or the military high command. Among the past chairs and presidents of the Red Cross are seven former generals or admirals and one ex-president.

As Richard Walden, of Operation USA, wrote in the Los Angeles Times,
In other and past disasters "FEMA and the affected states had reimbursed the Red Cross under pre-existing* contracts for emergency shelter and other disaster services.

Atredies 03-18-2011 05:15 PM

i never donated any of my money to new zealand and i am no longer a new zealand citizen for few years. i find it pointless to donate my money to an economic havoc.

i however donated money to japan and i never regret my decision. japan is under a huge debt waiting to explode and it is worth a donation.

this is called charity and this is love to the fellow friends.

Columbine 03-18-2011 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluffy0000 (Post 857590)
Dude, the Red Cross gets government money and lots of it. Even in 2008' the US government poured $ 100 million into ARC. The Red Cross by it's legal definition is a 'instrument' of the government.

Really? I did not know that was the case in America. British Red Cross isn't; it's recognized as one of the three Voluntary Aid Services, but it's not a government faculty in it's own right, and none of the current heads of management have any background in government or military.

fluffy0000 03-18-2011 06:01 PM

again sorta
 
The UK Red Cross, as with all IFRC member societies, operate first and foremost an Emergency Response service, which supports the statutory and governmental* Emergency services in times of crisis, in accordance with the duty of Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies to be auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments*.

Dude, check it out*

Serbiangirl 03-19-2011 01:40 AM

Hello Ronin,
Thank You very much for helping me decide to donate small amount of money i can afford to japanese people
all the best


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 PM.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6