Why the US is different (and better?)

michaels

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8936822.stm

Story about how Andre Agassi has set up a school in a deprived area that is looking to give children academic aspirations.

Look also at how Bill Gates has donated his fortune to fight disease in Africa and similar multi-billion charity donations and compare to this country where the 'chattering classes' look down on the Americans as boorish and unrefined.

The suggestion that communities should be able to set up and run their own schools are roundly criticised as unworkable. A criticism backed by entrenched interests in the local council education bureaucracies and teachers unions.

Further, how many of our extremely well paid football stars are giving back in this way - a few charity fund raising events may be but no full time long term commitment to helping the communities that they came from.

davetrousers

The title of your thread bears little relevance to the context.

I hardly see how the citing of the philanthropic works of 2 Americans (out of a population of 300 million) followed by a question about UK Football players is relevant.

Generali

There is a Long tradition of philanthropy in the UK too but the UK shifted to a model of state provision in the C20th.

The US has kept a model of private provision so many people feel the need to give as they haven't already would be my guess. That and a more religious society that also encourages charity.

Radiantsoul

The fact that a handful of billionaires donate time or money to charities does not really indicate that the USA is a better(or worse) society.

nearlynew

And the point of this thread is .......?

michaels

Sorry - it is meant to be about how in the US they say 'why not' rather than 'that will never work' and how those who are successful want to 'give back'

adouglasmhor

michaels wrote: »

Sorry - it is meant to be about how in the US they say 'why not' rather than 'that will never work' and how those who are successful want to 'give back'

Bill Gates gave next to bügger all to charity until he was talked into it to by his accountants a few years ago.


Individuals in the UK give up to 9.9 billion pounds a year. http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/research/giving

So what have you done yourself michaels to support charity, other than start an illiterate and ill researched thread?

spadoosh

Arent the u.k. the biggest donaters to most global appeals (includint the recent pakistan floods)?! we set stuff up like band aid etc. I think were quite giving really. and most of us dont have billions of pounds

michaels

In 2008 the US gave 300bn (about 193bn GBP) or about 2.8 times as much as a proportion of GDP or 3.25 times as much per head.

Edit: Meant to post this link: http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2009/docs/GivingReaches300billion_06102009.pdf ,for which I admit I did not check the details.

And snide remarks about motivation rather than appreciation is just the sort of thing I am talking about.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Bill Gates gave next to bügger all to charity until he was talked into it to by his accountants a few years ago.


Individuals in the UK give up to 9.9 billion pounds a year. http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/research/giving

So what have you done yourself michaels to support charity, other than start an illiterate and ill researched thread?

Wookster

The US better?

I take real issue with that. Its hardly the utopia its made out to be
- some 20% of the population don't have any health insurance what so ever
- highest prison population per capita (in the world)
- top quartile gun crime in the world
- they write the date the wrong way around

Not exactly the most proud accolades eh?

Economically, I would say the three reasons they do very well are
- A long history of encouraging immigration (and as a result attracting entrepreneurs) though this has changed enormously since 9/11
- The US$ is the prime reserve currency
- A culture where excellence is seen as something to aspire to

michaels

I agree - especially the date bit...

So would it be possible to emulate their 'it can be done' spirit and ambition whilst still maintaining our benefits culture or are they flip sides of the same coin?

Wookster wrote: »

The US better?

I take real issue with that. Its hardly the utopia its made out to be
- some 20% of the population don't have any health insurance what so ever
- highest prison population per capita (in the world)
- top quartile gun crime in the world
- they write the date the wrong way around

Not exactly the most proud accolades eh?

Economically, I would say the three reasons they do very well are
- A long history of encouraging immigration (and as a result attracting entrepreneurs) though this has changed enormously since 9/11
- The US$ is the prime reserve currency
- A culture where excellence is seen as something to aspire to