Church to Build 74 Middle-Class Housing Units in Laie

[Teancum]

On 7/17/2024 at 1:39 PM, smac97 said:

He does not admit that.  But basing humanitarian expenditures on an arbitrary percentage of the Church's income amounts to an "Just Throw Money At It!"-style of reasoning.  

Let's do a thought experiment:

1. Imagine a scenario where the Church adopts Roger's approach and allocates a fixed percentage of its income to humanitarian efforts. 

2. Let us further postulate that this amount is huge, amounting to many billions of dollars. 

3. Let us also postulate that the folks in the PBO would start out the fiscal year doing their best to "vet" partner organizations and projects in the ways it currently does ("based on the core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability").

4. At the end of the fiscal year, is there any chance that the vetted partners and projects will not have exhausted the amount allocated by the Church?

5. If the answer to #4 is yes, what happens then?  We already know: Having a fixed budget that must be used within a fiscal year is common in government agencies, educational institutions, and other organizations.  As the fiscal year-end approaches, departments rush to spend leftover funds, leading to unnecessary or suboptimal purchases.  In this context, though, because the cause (humanitarian relief) is noble, such unnecessary or suboptimal purchases would be excused, even justified and praised.  Worse, though, is they would be required.  Such unwise thinking is what I have been referencing as a "Just Throw Money At It!" approach.  The risks and likely consequences of this approach are dire: inefficiencies and waste on a grand scale, distorted incentives, malfeasance of stewardship of the Widow's Mite.

Respectfully, I disagree.  My assessment is that you cannot assert that the Church's humanitarian efforts should be calculated as "a percentage of income" and also say that the Church's efforts should be "thoroughly vetted and money wisely given."  One is, per Roger's reasoning, a requirement, the other one is either not a requirement at all, or else it runs a distant second to Roger's "fixed percentage" approach.

At the level on which the Church operates (that is, with billions of dollars available), donating a fixed percentage, amounting to many billions of dollars, year over year, ad infinitum, necessarily predominates over the latter.  The Church's "vetting" efforts would almost certainly become watered down and weakened because the measurement of the Church's decency as an institution is whether its humanitarian efforts hits a percentage of its income.

The Church's humanitarian efforts are, instead, guided by an alternative and superior approach.  Rather than using an arbitrary percentage of its income as a benchmark, the Church's humanitarian efforts are "based on the core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

One of these approaches must be the "driver."  It cannot be both. 

Respectfully, I do not think you have thought through the foregoing ramifications.  "Just Throw Money At It!" is near-certain outcome of basing humanitarian efforts on an arbitrary percentage of income rather than on results-oriented efforts. We have seen Roger's approach play out in California, as it bloviates about the many billions it has spent on homelessness, with little or no regard to more important principles (such as those which govern the Church's approach).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yea your just throw money at it mantra it simply a blatant lie. YES A BLATANT LIE. I do not argue that. @Analyticsdoes not. In fact he has outlined best practices and suggestions for the church incredibly well.  The church should hire him to help lead out their humanitarian aid expansion. @Calms advice to you is spot on. But instead of considering it, you keep doubling down and looking like an utter fool.