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 03-14-2011 09:15 PM

Japan is the world's third richest country. I don't mean to sound heartless because I'm sorry for the tragedy. But my charity will be going elsewhere to people who needed it before the Earthquake (as it always does).

It's ironic giving charity to a country that is so rich and probably quite thouroughly insured.

It's like giving money to Charlie Sheen if his house blew up.

I've decided to delete the emotional appeal because the merits of my argument are purely rational, that and I'm sick of my comments being misinterpreted as being "heartless" or "sick"

kouichisan 03-14-2011 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856431)
Japan is the world's third richest country. I don't mean to sound heartless because I'm sorry for the tragedy. But my charity will be going elsewhere to people who needed it before the Earthquake (as it always does).

It's ironic giving charity to a country that is so rich and probably quite thouroughly insured.

It's like giving money to Charlie Sheen if his house blew up.

This thread is running concurrently with another website, a person said something similar to what you said. I understand what you mean.

Japan has massive debt, far more as a % of GDP than even us. They have no money. If their economy collapses it will affect us all. Donate through a charity and they'll redistribute that money where it's needed. You won't be giving money to Japan, you'll be giving money that will be used to help its people.

The government does not fund charities, they are funded by ordinary people like you and I. They need financing to do their job, that's a reality.

Yeah it would be better to physically go out there and help them out, but if you see the scale of destruction along the coast of the country and with nearly 10,000 people missing. There is only so much the government can do with it's own man power. This is where foreign help is needed, charities offer additional manpower needed to facilitate the number of people left homeless. Even if some may eventually find safety, there are many parts that are cut off. Aid agencies are able to deal with the humanitarian side (food, medical aid, and shelter) while the government carries out search and rescue. These first few days are critical for the survivors of the disaster.

Thanks.

On another note, WolfMom recommended the following website, it suggests very good ways that people can help.

Japan earthquake: How you can help - Time Out Tokyo

Credit to @WolfMom.

Ronin4hire 03-14-2011 10:04 PM

Wait... so we have to bail Japan out of it's debt because a disaster hit?

No thanks. Japan can borrow to finance it's relief effort. There really is no excuse for Japan to be recieving charity.

If the Japanese economy suffers for it then what are the consequences? It loses a place in the richest country rankings to become fourth behind Germany? The economy won't collapse because of this. It will take a hit sure but not collapse.

I'm sorry but that's not an emergency to me.

If you want to help people suffering, help people that actually need it urgently in Africa or other parts of Asia.

kouichisan 03-14-2011 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856437)
Wait... so we have to bail Japan out of it's debt because a disaster hit?

No thanks. Japan can borrow to finance it's relief effort. There really is no excuse for Japan to be recieving charity.

If the Japanese economy suffers for it then what are the consequences? It loses a place in the richest country rankings to become fourth behind Germany? The economy won't collapse because of this. It will take a hit sure but not collapse.

I'm sorry but that's not an emergency to me.

If you want to help people suffering, help people that actually need it urgently in Africa or other parts of Asia.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter about who the government is, or what country it is. It's humanitarian effort to help VICTIMS of natural disasters anywhere in the world. Charities don't operate often in countries like this because most of the time it isn't so serious and the government has the ability to resolve it themselves.

If it was a minor earthquake then I wouldn't bother encouraging people, but the fact is an entire city has been wiped out in a matter of minutes, and there are THOUSANDS of people missing. That is a 'disaster', if that isn't then what is?. It is about helping PEOPLE recover not giving to the government.

Yeah there are other countries that do deserve an equal amount of effort, nobody is saying people shouldnt give to them either. The Red Cross operates most of the time in those areas anyway, I even donated to the Red Cross operating in Libya myself at the same time I donated to Japan. I'm sure other people would do the same.

Everyone has the freedom to choose where their donation goes, those charity websites even give people the choice on what projects their money will go toward.

Don't turn a humanitarian discussion into a political one, thank you.

MMM 03-14-2011 10:28 PM

If you are not interested in helping the people who have lost their homes, families, businesses, literally everything, Ronin, then don't. But also please don't get in the way of those sharing information on how to help.

Thank you.

Ronin4hire 03-14-2011 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856439)
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter about who the government is, or what country it is. It's humanitarian effort to help VICTIMS of natural disasters anywhere in the world. Charities don't operate often in countries like this because most of the time it isn't so serious and the government has the ability to resolve it themselves.

If it was a minor earthquake then I wouldn't bother encouraging people, but the fact is an entire city has been wiped out in a matter of minutes, and there are THOUSANDS of people missing. That is a 'disaster', if that isn't then what is?. It is about helping PEOPLE recover not giving to the government.

Yeah there are other countries that do deserve an equal amount of effort, nobody is saying people shouldnt give to them either. The Red Cross operates most of the time in those areas anyway, I even donated to the Red Cross operating in Libya myself at the same time I donated to Japan. I'm sure other people would do the same.

Everyone has the freedom to choose where their donation goes, those charity websites even give people the choice on what projects their money will go toward.

Don't turn a humanitarian discussion into a political one, thank you.

But it IS a political one and it DOES matter which country the disaster was in as obviously different places have different resources available to them.

The Japanese government have the ability, the economy and the means to help their citizens out WITHOUT charity.

These people may have lost their homes but they live in a rich country which no doubt has the means to build new ones.

Ronin4hire 03-14-2011 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 856440)
If you are not interested in helping the people who have lost their homes, families, businesses, literally everything, Ronin, then don't. But also please don't get in the way of those sharing information on how to help.

Thank you.

I'm sorry that in your black and white world I come accross as heartless to you. If I felt that my help was needed in that part of the world then no doubt I would. By my help isn't.

They have everything they need in Japan to get through this. The only thing that perhaps Japan needs from other countries is more bodies on the ground regarding search and rescue and to contain the nuclear disaster, but in terms of monetary support, they don't need it.

kouichisan 03-14-2011 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856445)
But it IS a political one and it DOES matter which country the disaster was in as obviously different places have different resources available to them.

The Japanese government have the ability, the economy and the means to help their citizens out WITHOUT charity.

These people may have lost their homes but they live in a rich country which no doubt has the means to build new ones.

It's a developed country and they may get houses rebuilt for them, but how long will that be? houses aren't built in a month, the regeneration project will still take a while. Even if they are given temporary relocation, it won't be so quick before they do that. That leaves those survivors still in a bad position.

The government and charities would provide temporary places they can stay, like tents and provide food for them (until they can be relocated) of course that costs money for the charities. It takes time, these people affected in the coast were ordinary Fishermen, do you think all of them bought life insurance?. And you have said so yourself, what they need is manpower, these charities are well organised, and have the resources to provide temporary medical care until they can be transferred to hospitals. This saves lives.

The aid being provided by these charities will be short term. Even if there is money left over, that is better, they would be able to use that on other projects perhaps even in the areas you mentioned.

The charities would provide Temporary Short-Term assistance, and it does make a difference. Anyway if whichever country you are in was affected like this, you would want foreign help too. Especially if your government was struggling to deal with it.

Watch this
BBC News - Hunt for tsunami survivors continues

Ronin4hire 03-14-2011 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856449)
It's a developed country and they may get houses rebuilt for them, but how long will that be? houses aren't built in a month, the regeneration project will still take a while. Even if they are given temporary relocation, it won't be so quick before they do that. That leaves those survivors still in a bad position.

The government and charities would provide temporary places they can stay, like tents and provide food for them (until they can be relocated) of course that costs money for the charities. It takes time, these people affected in the coast were ordinary Fishermen, do you think all of them bought life insurance?. And you have said so yourself, what they need is manpower, these charities are well organised, and have the resources to provide temporary medical care until they can be transferred to hospitals. This saves lives.

The aid being provided by these charities will be short term. Even if there is money left over, that is better, they would be able to use that on other projects perhaps even in the areas you mentioned.

The charities would provide Temporary Short-Term assistance, and it does make a difference. Anyway if whichever country you are in was affected like this, you would want foreign help too. Especially if your government was struggling to deal with it.

That's great. But like I said.. the Japanese government are more than capable of footing the bill for assistance that is NOT given by other states.

I have no problem with the New Zealand government helping out the Japanese government (which is what has happened) but I do have a problem with me as a civilian, having to foot the bill to provide temp relief for a government which is more than capable of doing it.

Also.. I had a similar attitude towards the recent disaster in my own country. I volunteered at a shelter for displaced tourists that had fled to my city, but I wasn't going to donate my OWN money to relief agencies when the New Zealand government is more than capable of providing that relief.

kouichisan 03-14-2011 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856451)
That's great. But like I said.. the Japanese government are more than capable of footing the bill for assistance that is NOT given by other states.

I have no problem with the New Zealand government helping out the Japanese government (which is what has happened) but I do have a problem with me as a civilian, having to foot the bill to provide temp relief for a government which is more than capable of doing it.

If you were a doctor and saw a guy dying on the street, would you just leave him there because he has medical insurance, so he should wait 10 more mins for an Ambulance do it for him and possibly die? or would you go out of your own way immediately to help him anyway?. Even if it isn't costing you anything financially?.

It doesn't matter if they have 'capability' it is about who can get their first and save lives. The more people there are with the aid effort, the more people that are available to save lives. The Japanese government is there doing the job, yes, but it is a massive area they have to cover. We're not footing the bill, we are helping them do their job. They are doing humanitarian work and working alongside them.

Let's say we buy an iPod, we just spent £250 on a device that eventually we will throw away. But if we donate say even £2 to a charity, that goes toward HUMANITARIAN work, saving lives. Which of the two was the waste of money?

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856453)
If you were a doctor and saw a guy dying on the street, would you just leave him there because he has medical insurance, so he should wait 10 more mins for an Ambulance do it for him and possibly die? or would you go out of your own way immediately to help him anyway?. Even if it isn't costing you anything financially?.

It doesn't matter if they have 'capability' it is about who can get their first and save lives. The more people there are with the aid effort, the more people that are available to save lives. The Japanese government is there doing the job, yes, but it is a massive area they have to cover. We're not footing the bill, we are helping them do their job. They are doing humanitarian work and working alongside them.

Let's say we buy an iPod, we just spent £250 on a device that eventually we will throw away. But if we donate say even £2 to a charity, that goes toward HUMANITARIAN work, saving lives. Which of the two was the waste of money?

It doesn't work like that. You're asking for money not specific capabilities. Money which the world's 3rd largest economy can easily produce.

ajisai666 03-15-2011 12:13 AM

I personally don't care if I have money or not. To me it's just paper that I use to pay bills so if I have any leftover after the fact then I will gladly give it away. It's not always about being payed. Sometimes people like to help other people no matter the cost. Money isn't everything. Peoples lives are more important to me than money and I'm sure there are people out there that feel the same. I'm not greedy and this is such a tragedy that why wouldn't you want to help out your fellow man?

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajisai666 (Post 856464)
I personally don't care if I have money or not. To me it's just paper that I use to pay bills so if I have any leftover after the fact then I will gladly give it away. It's not always about being payed. Sometimes people like to help other people no matter the cost. Money isn't everything. Peoples lives are more important to me than money and I'm sure there are people out there that feel the same. I'm not greedy and this is such a tragedy that why wouldn't you want to help out your fellow man?

I would and I do.

I'm just saying giving money to the world's third largest economy (or any developed country) because they had an Earthquake is like giving money to Charlie Sheen because his house burnt down.

MMM 03-15-2011 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856465)
I would and I do.

I'm just saying giving money to the world's third largest economy (or any developed country) because they had an Earthquake is like giving money to Charlie Sheen because his house burnt down.

Who said anything about giving money to the Japanese government?

The money goes to the charity and relief organizations to put people, food, water, and medical supplies on the ground where it is needed.

The International Red Cross is the most reliable route to take if you want to donate.

kouichisan 03-15-2011 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856465)
I would and I do.

I'm just saying giving money to the world's third largest economy (or any developed country) because they had an Earthquake is like giving money to Charlie Sheen because his house burnt down.

These are not celebrities, they are ordinary people, it doesn't matter if it is developed or not. Even if people do not provide monetary donations, people can volunteer and still help out in other ways... that's the whole point of a charity. People have emotional attachments to this country for whatever reason, which makes them more willing to let go of their money to see it go toward a good purpose. Rather than blowing it on a night out or something.

If you don't feel as though it is worth it, then you don't need to, that's your choice and charity is optional for everyone. People won't judge you on that. But don't try to convince other people that their acts of kindness are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 856479)
Who said anything about giving money to the Japanese government?

The money goes to the charity and relief organizations to put people, food, water, and medical supplies on the ground where it is needed.

The International Red Cross is the most reliable route to take if you want to donate.

Well said.

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 12:50 AM

Sure, give to the red cross.

But even if you do, I would say not to earmark it for Japan specifically. Give it to a country that ACTUALLY needs it. Haiti is still recovering from it's Earthquake. Earmark it for Haiti. NOT Japan.

If I were the Red Cross I would be invoicing the government of Japan and New Zealand.

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856485)
These are not celebrities, they are ordinary people, it doesn't matter if it is developed or not. Even if people do not provide monetary donations, people can volunteer and still help out in other ways... that's the whole point of a charity. People have emotional attachments to this country for whatever reason, which makes them more willing to let go of their money to see it go toward a good purpose. Rather than blowing it on a night out or something.

I would say that if you can volunteer then do so.

But I would refrain from giving monetary support to citizens of a country whose government has more than enough.

kouichisan 03-15-2011 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856488)
I would say that if you can volunteer then do so.

But I would refrain from giving monetary support to citizens of a country whose government has more than enough.

Yes, If I could volunteer and go around the world and help people that would be amazing, but unfortunately thats not the case, and many people are in the same position. So we can support the organisations in different ways, by enabling other people who can go out and with the skills to do so.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856487)
Sure, give to the red cross.

But even if you do, I would say not to earmark it for Japan specifically. Give it to a country that ACTUALLY needs it. Haiti is still recovering from it's Earthquake. Earmark it for Haiti. NOT Japan.

If I were the Red Cross I would be invoicing the government of Japan and New Zealand.

I understand what you said here, and I agree with you a little. Just I don't think it is fair to say because they are developed, they don't deserve help from Charities.

Donations through the Red Cross or other organisations all have the option 'Where the need is greatest'. If people do it using this way, the money is allocated to the projects that takes up the most resources, in most cases these are the 3rd world countries (places affected by Natural Disasters, War and Famine).

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856489)
Yes, If I could volunteer and go around the world and help people that would be amazing, but unfortunately thats not the case, and many people are in the same position. So we can support the organisations in different ways, by enabling other people who can go out and with the skills to do so.

If we're talking about a country like Haiti, I would agree.

A country like Japan or New Zealand? Like I said... the Red Cross can invoice them. They have the money to pay for it.

Anjin 03-15-2011 01:03 AM

It doesn't matter if the country is wealthier than others, people are suffering. Your hard earned cash helps the relief effort when you donate to a charity such as the Red Cross. I donated money to the US and their rich.

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anjin (Post 856493)
It doesn't matter if the country is wealthier than others, people are suffering. Your hard earned cash helps the relief effort when you donate to a charity such as the Red Cross. I donated money to the US and their rich.

I'm saying it does matter obviously.

If the country is either a) developed or b) has a vibrant economy (China, India, Russia) then it doesn't deserve charitable assistance. It should pay for it on it's own.

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 01:22 AM

Give money to Haiti, not Japan.
 
I've decided to delete the emotional appeal because the merits of my argument are purely rational, that and I'm sick of my comments being misinterpreted as being "heartless" or "sick"

jurianbai 03-15-2011 02:03 AM

i am surely will donate to all my rich friends in Japan despite that troll with his agenda said. I encourage all individual to donate since helping Japan also mean helping yourself in macro economy.

this is japanforum and I am can't believe mr.moderator who usually very strick in no-human-risk topic, now become useless in preventing this troll spamming the thread with his campaign again and again.

MMM 03-15-2011 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jurianbai (Post 856514)
i am surely will donate to all my rich friends in Japan despite that troll with his agenda said. I encourage all individual to donate since helping Japan also mean helping yourself in macro economy.

this is japanforum and I am can't believe mr.moderator who usually very strick in no-human-risk topic, now become useless in preventing this troll spamming the thread with his campaign again and again.

He hasn't broken any rules. I moved all of his posts to the new thread he started.

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jurianbai (Post 856514)
i am surely will donate to all my rich friends in Japan despite that troll with his agenda said. I encourage all individual to donate since helping Japan also mean helping yourself in macro economy.

this is japanforum and I am can't believe mr.moderator who usually very strick in no-human-risk topic, now become useless in preventing this troll spamming the thread with his campaign again and again.

Helping Japan means helping yourself in a macro economy? Whoah.. you got a lot of explaining to do.

Please explain to me how this is so. [Moved here -MMM]

WingsToDiscovery 03-15-2011 03:21 AM

For some reason, I just feel that if I were to take OP's logic, it would be more beneficial in the long run to help Japan anyway because they hold more weight in the world. After all, neither country is important to you in either way, right? It's just a natural disaster, and shit happens, right? So by your logic, why should we waste resources on a third world country when we can help revive one of the most prominent first world countries?

OzukakiBurasuki 03-15-2011 03:49 AM

I'm starting to wonder if ronin ever took a course in macroeconomics. :/

It would be a lot more efficient to help a country such as Japan through donating to charity when they are able to pay back our charity in the future with future technologies than to a country such as Haiti that will only survive off the money until it is unable to any longer and plea us for more instead of working for its own. Our GDP would be pleased with Japan over Haiti any day.

Sangetsu 03-15-2011 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856431)
Japan is the world's third richest country. I don't mean to sound heartless because I'm sorry for the tragedy. But my charity will be going elsewhere to people who needed it before the Earthquake (as it always does).

It's ironic giving charity to a country that is so rich and probably quite thouroughly insured.

It's like giving money to Charlie Sheen if his house blew up.

-------------

FIRST POST REPOSTED:

As a citizen of this Earth I implore that you not waste your money on Japan or New Zealand.

Earthquakes and tsunami are horrible occurences and it is not without sympathy that I make this thread.

But there are far more needy parts of the world than these two and as a New Zealand citizen I believe that our government should not be seeking financial aid from NGO's as we are a developed country that can take care of the costs on our own.

I think the same for Japan. Japan is the third largest economy in the world. You shouldn't be paying the money that you work hard for, to support people that live in a country in which the financial problems they face can be overcome.

NGO's need to either invoice these state governments or stay out if they refuse to pay.

Of course I'm not against material assistance or the offer of expertise, so if you can help in Japan as an engineer or a rescue worker then more power to you. But when it comes to money, Japan and New Zealand are at the top of the world's pecking order being both developed states and they don't need it.

I would agree with you except for the fact that the lion's share of the aid being sent to Haiti never finds it's way to the poorer Haitian people, it ends up in the pockets of the corrupt "government" and it's friends. Take a look at Haiti today and see where the billions in aid so far collected have been spent. There are countless tents and new shacks, but no real repairs to infrastructure or small businesses.

Hurricane Katrina is a good example of overhead waste and political corruption, enough aid money was spent to buy each and every family displaced a $180,000 home and a new car to boot, but how much did families get? A few thousand dollars in spending money and a crappy $8000 trailer.

The UN is administering the aid mission to Haiti, and as usual is spending a great deal on overhead, but very little in substance elsewhere. Corruption is also rampant in the UN, and I should know, I have been on two missions with the UN in the past.

Japan has sent large amounts of money to aid Haiti, Thailand, Chile, and even New Zealand. My friends and I have scraped together nearly 1 million yen to donate, and I know that the aid organization will not automatically take 40% of that to put into their pockets, and I also know that it won't be spent on cleaning contracts to companies friendly to the local governments, I can trust that it will go to actually help those who need it.

This disaster will cause a reduction of about 10% to Japan's GDP this year, which affects the stock markets, currency markets, and commodity markets, which means that it affects every person living in every industrialized country, and this trickles down to an even stronger negative effect on developing countries.

Every dollar spent to help Japan will be of greater benefit to the world than every $100 sent to Haiti.

MMM 03-15-2011 04:27 AM

I was just watching an interview with the head of the American Red Cross, and they are able to get 91% of every dollar donated on the ground in Japan. This is very impressive considering some supposed "charitable organizations" get less than 10% of their donations actually to help people affected.

Sangetsu 03-15-2011 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856526)
Helping Japan means helping yourself in a macro economy? Whoah.. you got a lot of explaining to do.

Please explain to me how this is so. [Moved here -MMM]


It's utter common sense. Anyone with a 9th grade education could figure it out in 10 minutes.

What is Haiti's annual GDP? And how much of that is spent around the world? How much does Haiti spend each year in foreign aid? How many countries around the world have tens/hundreds of thousands of people employed selling Haitian products?

Now change the country to Japan and do the math.

Did you actually attend university? Even McDonald's "Hamburger University" teaches rudimentary economics. Simply put, I am calling you and this thread stupid, and the mods should delete it before it makes you look even more stupid than you already appear to be.

tipsygypsy 03-15-2011 04:41 AM

C H I L L O U T :)

kouichisan 03-15-2011 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856431)
Japan is the world's third richest country. I don't mean to sound heartless because I'm sorry for the tragedy. But my charity will be going elsewhere to people who needed it before the Earthquake (as it always does).

It's ironic giving charity to a country that is so rich and probably quite thouroughly insured.

It's like giving money to Charlie Sheen if his house blew up.

-------------

FIRST POST REPOSTED:

As a citizen of this Earth I implore that you not waste your money on Japan or New Zealand.

Earthquakes and tsunami are horrible occurences and it is not without sympathy that I make this thread.

But there are far more needy parts of the world than these two and as a New Zealand citizen I believe that our government should not be seeking financial aid from NGO's as we are a developed country that can take care of the costs on our own.

I think the same for Japan. Japan is the third largest economy in the world. You shouldn't be paying the money that you work hard for, to support people that live in a country in which the financial problems they face can be overcome.

NGO's need to either invoice these state governments or stay out if they refuse to pay.

Of course I'm not against material assistance or the offer of expertise, so if you can help in Japan as an engineer or a rescue worker then more power to you. But when it comes to money, Japan and New Zealand are at the top of the world's pecking order being both developed states and they don't need it.

Ronin4Hire I can see why you suggest that, but what's wrong with donating to both? LOL

What are you trying to achieve here exactly?.

Why not say to people, 'if you are going to donate to Japan, don't forget to also donate to Haiti, Libya, Bangladesh, Africa etc?' that would be better than saying 'don't donate to Japan'. At first I thought you had a good argument, but you know, this agenda of yours, it's getting a little silly now.

MMM 03-15-2011 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sangetsu (Post 856558)
I am calling you and this thread stupid, and the mods should delete it before it makes you look even more stupid than you already appear to be.

Even if I don't agree with Ronin's assertion, the thread is not breaking any rules.

GoNative 03-15-2011 05:03 AM

Well I have lived in Japan for nearly 8 years. I consider it my home and the Japanese my fellow countrymen. All my concerns are currently with the situation here, not those in faraway lands.

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856566)
Ronin4Hire I can see why you suggest that, but what's wrong with donating to both? LOL

What are you trying to achieve here exactly?.

Why not say to people, 'if you are going to donate to Japan, don't forget to also donate to Haiti, Libya, Bangladesh, Africa etc?' that would be better than saying 'don't donate to Japan'. At first I thought you had a good argument, but you know, this agenda of yours, it's getting a little silly now.

Japan doesn't need money. It's the 3rd richest country in the world and in a world with so many issues, people and places are almost competing for our attention. I mean you can't donate to everything. So why not prioritise?

I'm not giving them a cent.

I've already made it clear that if we can offer our help in another way then fine. But not my money.

As for macro economics. I know what it is morons. I just fail to see how it's a justification for recieving charity.

I mean how does that work? Give charity to those that have the most?

Ronin4hire 03-15-2011 05:07 AM

Anyway.. I get it.

Little Japanese babies are worth more than little black babies.

There's your f*cking macro-economics.

Whatever.

Sangetsu 03-15-2011 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856577)
Japan doesn't need money. It's the 3rd richest country in the world.

F*ck that. I'm not giving them a cent.

I've already made it clear that if we can offer our help in another way then fine. But not my money.

As for macro economics. I know what it is morons. I just fail to see how it's a justification for recieving charity.

I mean how does that work? Give charity to those that have the most?


Exactly how rich is Japan? Currently Japan is holding nearly $11 trillion dollars in debt. Japan is also the second largest holder of foreign debt in the world. Once it starts selling foreign treasury bills and foreign bonds to pay for reconstruction, the economies of the countries who issued these bonds are going to have problems as well, including your own country. When you have to start paying more for everything you buy then perhaps you will start to understand.

Governments sell bonds in order to raise money to pay for things like publics works projects and such, and this gives them the ability to pay back the amount of the bond over time, which also allows them more flexibility in funding things like education, healthcare, and pensions. When the world's third-largest economy and second-largest holder of these bonds decides to cash-out, this depletes the currency reserves of the country which issued the bonds, leaving less money in the economy. And if Japan is going to cash-out on it's foreign bonds, it certainly not going to be buying any new ones, which makes it hard for the countries who issue these bonds to fund their operations and obligations.

This means that everyone in the world has less money, and in the end, those most hurt are the little black babies, since the rest of the world has less money to spend for things like charity.

Sangetsu 03-15-2011 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856578)
Anyway.. I get it.

Little Japanese babies are worth more than little black babies.

There's your f*cking macro-economics.

Whatever.

If you want the God-honest truth, in an economic sense they are.

How much money have you personally donated to Haiti? I promise you it was less than what I have donated. Put-up or shut-up.

MMM 03-15-2011 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856577)
Give charity to those that have the most?

I think they are saying give to those that in turn give back the most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856578)
Anyway.. I get it.

Little Japanese babies are worth more than little black babies.

There's your f*cking macro-economics.

Whatever.

You are introducing the race card? Seriously, Ronin? You want to accuse everyone here dedicated to helping Japan as being racists?

Seriously?

kouichisan 03-15-2011 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856577)
Japan doesn't need money. It's the 3rd richest country in the world and in a world with so many issues, people and places are almost competing for our attention. I mean you can't donate to everything. So why not prioritise?

I'm not giving them a cent.

I've already made it clear that if we can offer our help in another way then fine. But not my money.

As for macro economics. I know what it is morons. I just fail to see how it's a justification for recieving charity.

I mean how does that work? Give charity to those that have the most?

Don't give it, who is making you? lol u r saying it is as if you are obligated to give it and someone has demanded u do... chillout haha.

You know your argument would be stronger if you said it like this...

"Haiti is less developed than Japan and has experienced a greater level of devastation compared to Japan. The government doesn't have insurance systems like the developed world and they cannot provide aid because the infra-structure is not good either. Between the two, Haiti has the greatest need.

So if you will be donating to Japan, consider Haiti and while you donate select 'Where the need is greatest'. This will give the Charity the opportunity to allocate their resources to where it is needed most in other projects in 3rd world countries also."


If you say it like that, it doesn't sound weird. But the way you are saying it, is as though it's something personal for you.... 'I'm not giving them a cent'. There's no need for that.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11 PM.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6