by Chris Horst | Nov 11, 2010 | Blog |
Now, in the red corner: Bill Gates & Warren Buffett, ranked the #2 & #3 wealthiest people in the world
In the blue corner: Carlos Slim (a Mexican business tycoon), #1 on that list
Earth’s three wealthiest people are in an intense philosophical boxing match right now about how to best help the world with their massive fortunes.
Earlier this year, Gates & Buffett created significant buzz when they announced their pledge to give away “the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.” Over 40 other billionaires have joined them. This pledge will result in billions of dollars funneling into charities across the globe. But, not all billionaires agree with their approach.
The most prominent of these billionaires is Carlos Slim, who made provocative comments in response to Gates and Buffet:
The only way to fight poverty is with employment. Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything. To give 50%, 40%, that does nothing.”
Slim’s comments have served to magnify the criticisms levied by many economists and academics in recent years: Entrepreneurship, not aid, is what truly solves problems and alleviates poverty. The accomplishments of charity, they argue–despite its very noble intentions–pale in comparison to the accomplishments of businesses in creating jobs, raising incomes and improving the lives of poor people around the world. In some cases, they argue, charity has actually done more harm than good in alleviating poverty.
It’s a very interesting debate. As someone who works in the “space between” entrepreneurship and charity, I have enjoyed following the conversation between these heavyweights. More personal opinions to come on this issue, but I’m curious: What are your thoughts?
(Carlos Slim, despite his comments, has given more to charity than just about anyone else in the world. His specific criticisms were toward the billionaire’s pledge to give more than 50% of their wealth to philanthropy.)
by Chris Horst | Oct 27, 2010 | Blog |
We are city folk. I’m not sure how or when it developed, but Alli and I love urban living. While we certainly are activists for the joys of the city, we aren’t exclusivists. We love small mountain communities, rolling farmland and the towns outside the city — the suburbs. For us, however, the city is home. And here’s why:
Density: Cities are packed with people. Houses are slammed against each other and apartments are stacked up high. Streets swarm with all stripes of humanity on bicycles, in cars, riding buses and boarding light rail (or, as true urbanists hope: Walking). This people potpourri creates an incredible amount of energy. Weekend days in the city are filled with street festivals, political picketers, farmers markets, sporting events…on top of the normal hustle and bustle.
(photo credit: Lancaster Living)
Culture: We like living in community with folks who look, think and act radically different than we do. It’s not a race issue as much as a variety issue. Our neighbor, Vicky, has lived in our flavorful neighborhood for 45 years. She’s a widowed, African-American great-grandmother who has lived through the civil rights era and has spent a life watching the streets where we now live. There is a Latino entrepreneur who peddles his tamale varieties while peddalling his bicycle through our neighborhood. It’s a joy to be surrounded by people and perspectives from different age brackets, cultures, faith backgrounds, and educational levels.
History: Our cities are like living memoirs, filled with stories, buildings, scars, and relics of our country’s past. We love the aging homes, ornate old church buildings, and the stories of our city’s yesteryear. The richness of these stories is woven through the tree-lined streets and historic neighborhoods–and the people who walk them.
Need: In 1900, 9% of our world’s population lived in cities. In 2000, that percentage exploded to 50%. Where there are lots of people; there are lots of challenges. Cities, and uniquely so in our country, are poor. We are drawn to live in tough neighborhoods because we feel called to do so.
City living is the hip thing to do these days. But, for the above reasons, I don’t think that we are living here (solely) because its cool. I just think it happens to be that many people share some of these same appreciations. But, either way, we love it.
by Chris Horst | Oct 20, 2010 | Blog |
“Moonshine or the Kids?” Nicholas Kristof, writer for the New York Times, stimulated much uneasiness with this question in his recent column on global poverty. He said:
“There’s an ugly secret of global poverty, one rarely acknowledged by aid groups or U.N. reports. It’s a blunt truth that is politically incorrect, heartbreaking, frustrating and ubiquitous: It’s that if the poorest families spent as much money educating their children as they do on wine, cigarettes and prostitutes, their children’s prospects would be transformed. Much suffering is caused not only by low incomes, but also by shortsighted private spending decisions by heads of households.”
Kristof went on to cite some clear data to highlight this disturbing “ugly secret.” At the same time I read this article, I heard a radio report about the rising prices of vodka in Russia. In the report, they interviewed an unemployed man who was frustrated by the rising prices. He said, “I just so desperately need to find a job so I can afford to buy more vodka.” The comment stuck with me. We work in Russia and I wondered if this man had ever attempted to start a business through HOPE to “grow his family’s income.”
It’s easy to romanticize the decision-making of poor people. Of course they’ll choose to send their kids to school over sending for a prostitute. Of course they’ll choose to feed their kids breakfast before feeding their alcohol addiction. But what makes us think that? What makes us wrongly assume that they don’t deal with the same brokenness that we do? This article and radio report made me uncomfortable as I contemplated whether HOPE’s work had ever helped poor Russians buy more vodka.
I’m more convinced than ever that helping people materially is not enough. Helping is enabling. My friend, Dr. Rob Gailey, articulated it more clearly. He said that “economic development is about increasing people’s choices.” If we help an alcoholic poor person – and there is no heart change – we will simply enable him to buy higher qualities and quantities of alcohol. Without heart change, as the BBC reported, helping families in India might actually be enabling them to perform sex-selection abortions, a problem which “prosperity is actually aggravating.”
In a sense, we could be enabling the oppressed to become the oppressors if we do not speak to more than business decisions. True change happens when we promote biblical values, boldly communicating the truth of the Gospel. Income growth is important, but it is only when hearts and minds are transformed that we will we see true change happen. When I hear stories like that of Mama Flores (video below), a salon owner who has trained and employed over 15 orphans through her business success, I am energized that our approach answers the unsettling questions which Kristof asks.
[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/8338439 w=500&h=300]
by Chris Horst | Sep 15, 2010 | Blog |
Three weeks ago I entered into a new stage in life. I joined the ranks of parenthood. My days and nights have been filled with things I have never experienced before: Diaper blow-outs, oft-interrupted nights of sleep, excessive amounts of laundry, pacifier strategies and car seat carrying workouts. We have entered into the glorious chaos of life as new parents.
What I have cherished most about welcoming Desmond into this world has been experiencing how God uniquely gifted Alli and I to provide for him. Seconds after he was born, Desmond began “rooting” – actively searching for his mother’s milk, which has been has sole sustenance thus far. He is fully dependant on us for his feeding, sleeping, clothing, protection, and diaper changes. It is our biblical mandate as parents to provide for his needs:
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith.” 1 Timothy 5:8
If we believe that to be true—that God created parents as providers—shouldn’t Christian charity affirm that principle? Conversely; Christian charity which undermines or supplants the role of parents is not aligned with God’s design. This does not apply, of course, to children whose parents are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children. These children – orphans in many regards (at least emotionally, if not physically) – are our responsibility as the Church. We are instructed to care for these children as if they were our own.
Our obligation, an area where we often take charitable missteps, is to the parents who are capable and willing to be providers. Frankly, it’s much smoother, quicker, and often more fulfilling, to provide direct assistance to children than it is to equip parents to provide…and I am the chief sinner! A few months ago I wrote about how I personally eroded the dignity of several parents via a Christmas gift giveaway. Likewise, I have been on missions trips and service projects where we have circumvented parental involvement because involving them was deemed too messy.
I can’t imagine what it would be like to watch as a complete stranger showed up every few hours to feed Desmond or change his diaper, despite our desire to do so ourselves. It would break my heart to feel as if I was incapable of providing for him. And yet, that is what the mother felt like when I showed up at her door with Christmas gifts for her kids while her children looked on.
It is not wrong to serve the needs of children. Alli and I have had overwhelming support even in our first month as parents from friends and family who have taken shifts watching him, provided meals for us and have held Desmond closely while we caught up on basic things like cleaning our apartment and showering. The way in which we have been served, however, has actually better equipped, rather than supplanted, us in our God-given role as providers. Our charity should do the same.
by Chris Horst | Sep 1, 2010 | Blog |
After having us wait as long as we possibly could, Desmond Matthew Horst arrived at 2:20 AM on August 21. He weighed 9 pounds 11 ounces and was 22 inches long.
To respect those of you who might, for whatever reason, not be fascinated with videos of Des with hiccups or pictures of every new development, we have started another blog – Smorgasbaby.wordpress.com. We look forward to seeing some of you there!
