Subject:
|
Re: Big bad greedy US capitalists exploiting the world
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:50:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
266 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > How did you do that? Directly? Too bad. You *missed* the point.
> >
> > The point is that you cost the Red Cross more (as a percentage of your
> > donation) if you donate directly than if you donate via Yahoo or Amazon or
> > MSN... every donation takes some finite amount of effort to collect and
> > track. It may be small, but it is there and it DOES eat into the amount of
> > money remaining.
>
> I think of it as costing *me* more - the Red Cross are happy for any amount.
Well no, actually, they are in fact *not* happy for "any amount".
If you physically mail them a penny, you're costing them *more* to process
it than it's worth to them. Not costing you more, costing *them* more.
Taking this example further, If you send used clothes to NY right now, (in a
box marked simply "Ground Zero, NY, USA", because the USPS has been
delivering many such boxes with only that marking to ground zero, yaay for
them!) you would be obstructing the relief effort by doing so. Used clothes
are of no use whatever.
This is why having intermediate collection and collation points for
donations is a good thing. Above and beyond any fees not charged for money
movement, it introduces economies of scale.
> But you're right - it essentially means I deprived them of a small donation
> from yahoo (or whoever carries the cost of collecting the donations).
Wrong, as I said above, it's way more than that. You distracted effort
(however small) that could have been more effectively used elsewhere.
Donating directly is inefficient.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
