The Eagle Will Not Fly Without the Poor

[the_wildthing]

The poorest of the poor do not need jobs. They can't work. That is why they are called the poorest of the poor. The children. The sick. They need charity.

This is the call to action, hence charitable action is needed.

[oldblue]

if i wanted to spend my marketing dollars and get the maximum return, i'll launch an advertising campaign. or buy a PBA team, hehe.

chaka hindi maganda yung single mom

investing in a poor community can have a very good return. for example, boracay in the 70's. just like any other beach in the Phils. boracay was just a common beach. and look at it now. now I hear that a beach in Basilan is even more beautiful than Boracay.

all it takes is one or more companies to conduct an outreach/charity program in that war-torn region of our world and the rest can be history ...

that's how our "food chain" works. the rich/big business dont invent nor discover. they only take the credit and of course, invest. charity can be a vehicle for an investment for it is tapping on one of the most important resource ever known: people.

is it not uncommon their in the states that companies give grants to universities/scholars (students who cant fund their own education) and others of similar form of charity?

[uls]

Politicians invest in the poor. They "help" the poor and the poor vote for them. They get elected into office and make themselves rich. Good return on investment?

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

There wouldnt be a class of people called poorest of the poor if the economy is overflowing with investor capital.

Massive investment would create so many jobs that demand for manpower would be so great that it would outstrip supply. Employment rate would be close to zero. We would even be importing workers rather than exporting them.

The sick would be taken care of by family members with good, steady income, and benefits from private and govt insurance. Children will be taken care of by parents with good, steady income and will not have to roam the streets to beg. There would be very little need for charity and hand outs.

If there arent family members or parents to take care of the sick and the children, Government could. It would be able to afford it.

Massive private sector investments means more govt revenue. More taxes means govt has more money to spend to take care of its citizens. More govt revenue also mean better credit rating. Foreign banks would be glad to lend our govt money. Flush with cash, the govt can spend more on development and security. Making the country even more attractive to capital.

It all comes down to capital. We need capital.

[empy]

investing in a poor community can have a very good return. for example, boracay in the 70's. just like any other beach in the Phils. boracay was just a common beach. and look at it now. now I hear that a beach in Basilan is even more beautiful than Boracay.

all it takes is one or more companies to conduct an outreach/charity program in that war-torn region of our world and the rest can be history ...

i'm not familiar with Boracay and Basilan. was the story that an investor came in, beautified the beach, set up a resort and gave jobs to the community? ibang usapan na yan, and don't confuse that with charity. that's an investment, plain and simple. perhaps helping some poor folks was a very nice secondary benefit, but the investors are obviously there to set up a business.

that's how our "food chain" works. the rich/big business dont invent nor discover. they only take the credit and of course, invest. charity can be a vehicle for an investment for it is tapping on one of the most important resource ever known: people.

is it not uncommon their in the states that companies give grants to universities/scholars (students who cant fund their own education) and others of similar form of charity?

yes, they do. but they will only get a direct return if those students or scholars come to work for the company. that doesnt always happen, and they dont usually bond the scholar to work for them. if i wanted to invest in people and get the return myself, i would take my high-potential employees, send them to school, and promote them to management when they come back. again, much more direct benefit.

let me reiterate that i am not saying that charitable works do not benefit a company financially. YES, THEY DO - sometimes directly, but usually indirectly. i am only saying that financial gain cannot be the ONLY reason to give...because it just doesn't make sense economically.

[oldblue]

i'm not familiar with Boracay and Basilan. was the story that an investor came in, beautified the beach, set up a resort and gave jobs to the community? ibang usapan na yan, and don't confuse that with charity. that's an investment, plain and simple. perhaps helping some poor folks was a very nice secondary benefit, but the investors are obviously there to set up a business.

sa ngaun yan ang tingin natin lahat, investors came in and invested. after all nth generation na tayo ng Filipinos, who knows the truth behind that. what i'm just saying is if you give charity to a local isolated & poor community, then that community becomes productive in say 15 years or so.
productivity in a sense that it became an expert of halo-halo or chicken inasal or any other unique product, then charity becomes an investment. and like investments, it also takes years to have return (longterm/shortterm) and perhaps zero return (kung nagsara na yun company na nag-charity years ago).

let's take for example Camp Abubakar of the MILF, now it has been retaken by the govt. and charity/outreach from companies are pouring in that desolate place. who knows what will happen 10 years from now, maybe that area can become a nationwide supplier of vinta silk or whatever. the same thing with having outreach programs in the Mountain Province. it might be possible that that is the only push that those people need to discover another gold mine.

yan na kasi ang definition ko ng charity, maybe bec. I read it somewhere before about investments of big businesses. somehow a percentage of their profits are diversified to charity. and I believe that big businesses have been doing this for quite some time now. iba kasi view natin talaga sa charity, parang may religious context. and I understand naman na ganito talaga but try to put yourselves in businessmen's shoes. you'll see.

[the_wildthing]

There are long term solutions and there are short term solutions.

And we must be doing something for both.

There are some things that capital cannot do. Capital cannot buy blood. Capital cannot stop drought, famine, earthquakes, hurricanes...

[bad driver]

a good place to start is population control.

[empy]

huwaw, now we're being compared to politicians who supposedly give to charity for the sole purpose of getting elected :waah: aping-api na talaga ako :bwahaha:

the philippines today is sitting on about USD 66 BILLION in foreign debt. that's a helluva lot of capital, mostly allocated to improve the philippine economy. i wonder where all of it went? i guess the solution is to put more capital in the hands of the people who spent that first 66 billion so wisely...this is getting funnier and funnier.

the same people, btw, who passed the laws making the philippines one of the most restrictive economies for FDI.

i wonder how much of that 66 billion actually benefited the poor, and how much worse off the same people would be if not for others who have chosen to help through charity, which at least has a better chance of going to the people who really need help.

sa ngaun yan ang tingin natin lahat, investors came in and invested. after all nth generation na tayo ng Filipinos, who knows the truth behind that. what i'm just saying is if you give charity to a local isolated & poor community, then that community becomes productive in say 15 years or so.
productivity in a sense that it became an expert of halo-halo or chicken inasal or any other unique product, then charity becomes an investment. and like investments, it also takes years to have return (longterm/shortterm) and perhaps zero return (kung nagsara na yun company na nag-charity years ago).

......

yan na kasi ang definition ko ng charity, maybe bec. I read it somewhere before about investments of big businesses. somehow a percentage of their profits are diversified to charity. and I believe that big businesses have been doing this for quite some time now. iba kasi view natin talaga sa charity, parang may religious context. and I understand naman na ganito talaga but try to put yourselves in businessmen's shoes. you'll see.

ok dude, so i guess we are saying the same thing. yes, i agree that charity can be an investment. many times the donor does not directly benefit, but the community at large benefits, and who doesn't want that? : )

it's easy for me to put myself in a business' shoes, because as i mentioned before i am on a team of managers that run our company's charitable works and giving campaigns. we do have a budget set aside for grants and donations, but much of our contributions are employee driven (employees choose to donate their time to community works, and we also match any monetary donations from corporate funds)

[mazdamazda]

There wouldnt be a class of people called poorest of the poor if the economy is overflowing with investor capital.

It all comes down to capital. We need capital.

This is an oversimplification of things.

The USA has an unemployment rate of 5.5% (ours is around 10%).

The USA has a national debt of 8 trillion dollars (note to m54, the Philippine's debt is only around $60 billion).

[empy]

m2, duly noted. naduling ako sa dami ng zeros it is obviously not trillions :evillaugh