Charity not so sweet

Australian retail king Gerry Harvey may have a personal fortune of about $1.6 billion but the Harvey Norman founder thinks donating to charity is "just wasted".

Asked in a new book about the role he and Harvey Norman play in the community, Mr Harvey said giving money to people who "are not putting anything back into the community" is like "helping a whole heap of no-hopers to survive for no good reason".
He said he believed in helping "develop people to their potential" because "when they achieve [their potential] they will put a lot more back into the community".

"You could go out and give a million dollars to a charity tomorrow to help the homeless. You could argue that it is just wasted. They are not putting anything back into the community.

"It might be a callous way of putting it but what are they doing? You are helping a whole heap of no-hopers to survive for no good reason. They are just a drag on the whole community.

"So did that million you gave them help? It helped to keep them alive but did it help our society? No. Society might have been better off without them but we are supposed to look after the disadvantaged and so we do it. But it doesn't help the society."

Mr Harvey added: "That is not to say we don't give money away to charities because we have given plenty away over the years. At the end of the day, the more quality individuals you develop in the community, the better off the community should be."

Earlier this year, Harvey Norman donated beds to a charity, Bridge Back to Life, that helps homeless men find rental accommodation.

The comments are in a new book, Master CEOs, by the Sydney funds manager Matthew Kidman.

Clare Martin, the chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service, said: "I have really been impressed at corporate Australia and their real involvement in the wider community … and I always thought that Harvey Norman shared that as well.

"It does surprise me that Gerry Harvey, who's a very significant business figure, should not share the values of many other corporates."

In the interview, Mr. Harvey also said that despite his wealth, "I still have a fear about going broke. I always think about it."

Go Harvey Go!

Someone telling it like it should be at long last!

DK

There are so many charities out there that it has become impossible for the ordinary person to give to them all. You could choose to give a little to every one or a more substantial amount to just one or two. We have charities for sick children, blind people, for animals, for medical research, abused children, lifeboats, rescue services, missions, disabled people, victims of accident/crime, homeless people, for making wishes come true, for depression, disaster aid ... the list goes on and on. Do donations ever make any difference? I'm sure there are times when they do, but the recipient charities don't always let the public know about any real benefits, so we are often left wondering.

Gerry Harvey is a turd.

Chary Norman | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/chary_norman/)

I saw an article on a blog site a couple of months ago which, amongst other things, highlighted the fact that a Donkey charity/sanctuary in the UK had assets of tens of millions of pounds. Other animal-related charities are mentioned, each with quite substantial bank balances. So what good are these charities doing?

Providing retirement homes for donkeys perhaps.

For many people, homelessness (like homosexuality) is nothing but a fad. I knew a guy who worked at DeLoittes looking after High Net-Worth Clients and who is now homeless. His wife left him and eventually the stress of life saw him decide to give it all away and live on the streets. He knows he'll always get a feed and will eventually grow out of it.

Whether or not a million $$ is handed out, the homeless still live on because they don't need a million. What would they do with it?

Leave the homeless alone. Let them get it out of their systems and they'll get a home again when they're ready.

There is and always will be an element of society which needs the downtrodden so that they feel better about their own predicaments. Is that YOU?

Barkly1992
Gerry Harvey is a turd


But Gerry speaks highly of you.........

So he should ...... I support a number of charities willingly knowing full well that government can't do it all and the vast majority of people requiring assistance are there through no fault of their own.

:ok:

Yet I notice that Gerry Harvey has his hand out for the Government Stimulus payment by running ads saying buy now!

I agree with the previous poster. TURD

What a load of bullshit. This is what separates us, or at least some of us, from the animals.

I should take this advice & ask for the big sack of childrens toys I gave to the Cancer Research shop this afternoon back again?

I know many financially successful people & I've seen this attitude again & again. What's always overlooked is the sweat of the little people on low wages who made the millionaire possible. We're all connected.

Seems to have been another media beat-up with little regard for facts.
The latest from Gerry Harvey:
"I'm furious. I haven't suggested that homeless people shouldn't get anything. What I said was that I believed in helping people reach their potential,"
"I've done plenty of giving in my time. I've given heaps of money to bloody charity. This caused me a lot of pain. It's bullshit."
I'm not impressed with all those who jumped in without thinking and called him a turd. :=
What is the saying about not believing everything you read in a newspaper?

What!? ...And give up my seat on the outrage bus?:hmm:

I came to the conclusion long ago that virtually all charity was a total waste of time (and money). The charities are professional fund raising agencies. Many of the staff are highly remunerated, most receive nothing. They carry gigantic reserves. What's it all for? You will very often find that charity destroys local infrastructure in undeveloped regions- sending grain to hungry regions will destroy what local food industry there is and allow the local hoods to control things. It's all very well keeping hungry African mouths fed, but a generation later, they will double the number of mouths you are then obliged to feed! Example- since Live Aid in '86, the population of Ethiopia has doubled....and guess what- they're hungry again! Keep the population of the Ganges delta well fed, they will double the population living where Nature is trying to say 'don't live here- it floods!', and in a generation you will have double the problem. Nature is trying to say of Ethiopia: 'don't live here, it's horrible and arid and drought stricken!', but they do, and when you help them, they start breeding frantically. Having kept them alive, you then have to feed double the number while they carry an AK47!

Don't give to charity- you are treated as a mug! The Disasters Emergency Committee raised hundreds of millions for the Tsunami. It is still sitting on the majority of that money in deposit accounts rather than helping the people who have seen little help at all in the years since. Who is the mug?

Rainboe,
Have to agree. Africa is a basket case and will remain so until a caring Great Peoples Leader comes along - don't hold your breath (we don't even have one of those).
It has been said that African charity is poor westerners giving to rich Africans (think about it).

Giving to charity just makes people feel better of themselves. Do they check where and how the money is spent? No of course not. They just give the money.

Charity begins at home. We have provided billions to our banks. They have thanked us by increasing hugely the loan rates and fees to small businesses.

Instead of just giving money to charities maybe we should spend it on things manufactured by small businesses or which benefit our own economy.

We send millions to Africa and they only waste it on Mercedes cars, weapons and other things. Infact that is not a enough for many of them as they also steal from us by holding ships to ransom.

We send millions to Africa and they only waste it on Mercedes cars, weapons and other things.

Even by the standards of this forum, that is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.

You can't generalise on charities. Most do a deal of good. The best ones are the charities that get people out of trouble. Bad but well intentioned charities do good in the short term but simply store up trouble for the future. Africa has plenty of examples of that.

What gets me are the ads for charities. Give two quid a month and save a whatever, usually read out by some sad voiced individual. Designed to play on, mostly middle class guilt at having enough to eat and a nice place to live. The latest fad is the 'alternative Christmas present'. Send a goat to Africa or whatever.

I feel guilty watching them even though I usually don't have enough money to pay my own bills never mind pay someone else's. Come to think of it. I could do with some charity. Is there one for penurious pilots?

Well I don't feel guilty. They are largely in that position because of the incredible predisposition of African residents once they've had something to eat to start slaughtering the next tribe. They're all at it, from top to bottom of Africa! Or they will be in 10 years.

Robber Brown has decided that we (the UK taxpayer) must give to India £830 million pounds over the next 3 years 'for charity'. That means the UK taxpayer must give to India £830 million. Why so? India, a future powerhouse of the world, does not need charity! Is it to fund their new Astronaut Training Academy near Bangalore for their highly successful space program? They have a far better space program than the UK Government runs on my behalf! They have just landed a lunar probe on the surface of the moon from the Chandrayaan lunar orbiter. A wonderful achievement.....but why am I, the UK taxpayer, helping fund it, in the name of 'charity'? People should be able to make their own charity donations as they wish, but the trouble is, any excuse to spend OPM (other peoples' money), and Brown is there like a shot! He is in ecstasy at the moment, able to spend £700 billion of taxpayer money for them on bank rescues, all in 'our name'. Sure it's 'our name'- we're going to be paying for his largesse for a generation!

Yet I notice that Gerry Harvey has his hand out for the Government Stimulus payment by running ads saying buy now!

I agree with the previous poster. TURD


Alelluia.

Abused women's shelters, abused children's shelters.

Places that the hopeless and the abused (especially the young and defenceless) can feel welcome. What a waste.

I'll keep donating.

I buy some electronics cash though, never from gerry (he's heavily tied to the GE Financial deleveraging). Never now.

I'll look seriously at shorting his stock...loser.

Dark Knight, if you go bankrupt or have trouble financially, share it here. I have two bottles of Bollinger left following TC JNR1s grad. I'll crack and drink on reading on your ever needing help. Does the term pond life evoke a ban?

If any white (we are special because we are white types...one my best mates is from Durban ) South Africans hit troubles can you share?

I remember school in the late 70s in Perth with this big dark unit. Great cricketer. His dad was a white SAA 747 Capt but because he fell in love with a black woman (stunner!) he had to relocate them to Perth so they could live a normal life sans apartheid. Great guy, great bowler, great family.

Ignorant Parapunter? I suggest you ask someone like Bob Geldorf just how 'ignorant' that is. When he tried to get supplies into Africa he had to deal with corrupt authorities to pay to prevent the supply lorries being attacked by bandits. I think you will find much more 'ignorant' comments on jet blast! :=

For Parapunter and anyone else who thinks my comment was 'ignorant' may I suggest you watch the BBC Panorama programme 'Addicted to Aid'. The programme is still available on BBC iPlayer:

BBC iPlayer - Panorama: Addicted to Aid (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fm22y/Panorama_Addicted_to_Aid/)

It is a truly shocking programme showing how our aid to these countries is wasted. The money is embezzled by administrators or spent on personal 4x4 vehicles for members of staff. The British authorities do not monitor the distribution of the aid because they are fearful of being accused of interfering in black African affairs.

The investigative journalist found aid, which is meant to be free, being sold in the streets of Sierra Leone and the shop keepers said that they had been sold the items by government officials!

The conditions in the main, and only, hospital in Kampala, Uganda were frankly disgusting with most of the aid money being syphoned off before it could reach the ordinary people it is meant for.

I watched that on iPlayer and it is really quite shocking. Our government should make it their business to ensure that our aid money is spent properly.

Others on this thread should make themselves aware of what is going on. Before they call others 'ignorant' they should deal with their own ignorance. :=

Having lived and worked for years in the basket case that is sub-saharan Africa i must suport Flap 5's comments, they are not ignorant but very close to the truth. Once had to take a Ugandan chap who worked on the ramp for us, best worker i've ever seen, to the hospital shown in the panorama program. We walked in, i saw the awful state of it, and i took him out and put him in a private hospital down the rd. When he askd why, i told hin there was a good chance he would die in that place, and he just shruged. Most of the money sent down to that part of the world just comes back to banks in finance havens. D.A Moi of kenya favored Austrian banks instead of swiss after the swiss started sharing info with the authorities. Malawi was given a large sum of money by the EU, with the stipulation that it is spent on health and education. In less than a week Merc-benz came to the EU to check, as they had just recived an order for 40 brand new cars for the country! Its time African aid was cut off, if they cant stand on their own feet, then they should fall. Some places are doing better, Tanzania for example, which does recive aid, but spends it better than most. In 2004/5 40% of Kenyas budget, as anounced in the parliment (which is now the highest paid parliment in the world, and is voted up every year!) came from aid only. This was not money that NGO's were planing to spend, but money they expected to just be given to spend as they pleased! Lovely part of the world, if only all the aid companies would just leave it alone and try to break the cycle of 'give me, give me' mentality.

CORSAIR, for gods sake do NOT send a goat, they create desertification and prevents the nomadic tribes from raising cattle properly. These charities that try to tug at your heart strings and say 'send no money, just a goat' are some of the worse. The Turkana region has been reciving food aid since the 20's and the economy and environment up there are f:mad:ked. They recive so much grain they brew it, and keep the goats to sell for cash, and no one does anything, why should they, the wazungu (whites) will feed us if we ask.

No one in charge in the west will ever do anything about it because they are all afraid of the time old cry from black politicions in africa. RACIST'S. Bloody ridiculous, some of the most racist people i've ever met are normal black africans, and they are proud of it. Its called tribalisim.

I would say that the ordinary people are suffering terribly so money should be provided for them. But money should only be sent if the government or charities providing it monitor the spending of that money on worthwhile projects and ensure that the ordinary people to which it is intended receive all of the money sent.

That would require 'interference' in those countries, by definition. If such 'interference' was not allowed by the governments then aid should be withheld or provided by force directly to the ordinary people. If such force was opposed strongly then our government would have to decide whether to persevere or to withdraw the aid.

Certainly just sending money when there is so much corruption is not helping the ordinary people and is wasted.

One of the perennial problems with charity is that it can lead to making people dependent on that charity. Thus they will always be 'basket cases' if this is allowed to happen.

I choose to live in a 'Developing Nation' or as some would call it a 'Third World Country'. I am comfortably off and, after my priorities are taken care of, will do things like sponsor children through school or college, assist in setting up a microfinance scheme and set a legless ex soldier up in business making galvanised buckets so that he can support his family.

I have an ongoing project involving family owned land - supporting 21 workers and family at last count - where our aim is to increase their income to $4/day.

However, I will not give a penny to 'charity'. I am not convinced they spend the money wisely and, certainly overseas, have seen to many cases of crass idiocy in the kind of stuff that goes on.

I shall be retiring from full time paid employment in 2 yrs but have found out recently that an old school friend of mine has started an interesting organization. It is not a 'charity' in that it does not seek cash donations. It really wants a bit more than that! It's aim is to set up a mentoring organization in different countries that will mentor entrepreneurs trying to start small enterprises. This will be linked with microfinance.

It deserves to be successful. A good 'charity' should be an investment in the future.

A couple of pilot projects have started. Should anyone be interested in knowing more, feel free to PM me.

Flap 5, I have no beef with the argument that aid to Africa is riven with corruption. What I object to is a low rent sweeping generalisation that I note you are prone to offering. The plural of anecdote is not data.:=