It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan donates $100 mln in food aid, Rockefeller donates $100 mln to Harvard

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Here's two news stories.


Japan announces $100 mln in emergency food aid
www.alertnet.org...

TOKYO, April 25 (Reuters) - Japan announced on Friday that it would supply around $100 million worth of food aid overseas over the next three months to address the problem of surging world food prices.


Japan is a very humanitarian country. I believe it is the second most helpful in aid after the US. The US government just recently announced $200 million for food aid.

Now here's this story:

Harvard gets record $100 million gift from Rockefeller
news.yahoo.com...

BOSTON (Reuters) - Philanthropist David Rockefeller donated a record $100 million to Harvard University's undergraduate program, the largest gift by a Harvard alumnus in the history of the oldest and richest U.S. college.


The whole world is in a mess. In a time like this when the US and Japan are donating $300 million to help the UN an World Food Programme which needed around $500 million, this guy donates $100 million to Harvard.

Can we see where people's priorities lay? People are starving to death and rioting across the Third World. The Wallstreet Journal is advising people in the US to stock up on food. The stimulus checks are going out early. Gas is close to $4 a gallon. Oil is close to $120 a barrel. Stores are rationing rice in the US. Yet Harvard gets donated $100 million.


[edit on 25/4/08 by MikeboydUS]




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I don't think it matters to David Rockefeller where he donates his money. It's his mindset you have to look at to see why he is a philanthropist. The members of the Rockefeller family learn from a very young age that in order to receive more they have to give some of what they already have.

Check out the Rockefeller rules of becoming wealthy

# Work for all you get
# Give away the first 10%.
# Pay yourself the next 10%.
# Live on the rest.
# Account for every penny.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
OP how can you have the tenacity to judge how a man allots his money to charity? You show absolute naivety towards the underlying causes of misery in this world.

By donating a $100m to Harvard, Rockerfeller will fund research into all kinds of things- perhaps even into crop science and whatnot.

The ills of this world cannot be solved by throwing money at them. Simply giving money to "charities" dedicated to food aid is not the way.

The US used to give tonnes of food aid to India in the 60s and 70s. But India remained starving until they researched high yield crops etc.

Technology can cure the ills of the world, throwing money is only a short term fix.

If the $200m in US aid were going into research into high yield varieties, drought resistant crops etc I am sure that Africa could be turned from a desert to a breadbasket.


About $70 million will be used to expand Harvard's student travel and study abroad programs and $30 million will go to arts education, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school said in a statement on Friday.


While it doesnt appear that the money will directly help the world situation, the underlying benefits of student exchanges etc are invaluable. Not to mention the fact that some of the students will travel to Africa, see the plight and will be more likely to help when they graduate (to inevitably massive incomes).

Never criticize charity my friend, isn't it good enough that he is at least giving rather than hoarding?

[edit on 25-4-2008 by 44soulslayer]

[edit on 25-4-2008 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The presidential candidates have raised millions just to try to become President of the United States. They're all in it for them selfs. Japan gets my applause for their effort.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Brandy and cigars.
He was born obligated to donate to Harvard.
Be glad we still have Harvard. Soon they will be overseas.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Please explain why I show extreme naivety to the underlying causes of misery in the world. I would also like to hear what you think those causes are.

If you read the article it says what Harvard will use the money for. S70 million for student travel. Student Travel is not research. $30 million will go to arts and education. So some of that could possibly be used for research.

I am not suggesting people fix the planet by throwing money at it. We need money to finance fixes though. Fixes like research, technology and investment in infrastructure, etc.

What kind of prerequisite do I need to look at a person's decision and have an opinion on it? Especially something like this. We do still have freedom of speech dont we or do I need to show my "I am divine, royalty, or elite get out of jail free ID card"?

I'm sorry I dont have one of those cards yet.
I'm still working on my Law degree first.


[edit on 25/4/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I am glad he's giving at all- however, with the current crisis in this world, we should take care of immediate needs.
Japan did the correct thing.
I respect them.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The only possible way you could question his donation is if you were personally making a $100mn donation to food aid.

Like DG said, I was happy to see him giving at all. I dont know why some people would criticize ANY act of charity.

What next- you'll start saying that people should give to cancer research instead of their local church because its more "justified"?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Actually I could post a new thread about my thoughts on people donating money to Charismatic Churches like Benny Hinn and such. It really infuriates me.

Since were on the idea of just giving is good, I should set up a charity for myself. It would be an act of charity to give me money?
You could set up one too with that outlook on charity. How about people donating money to Black Panthers or Neo Nazis, maybe even Bin Laden.

What I'm saying is that nothing and I mean nothing is immune to skeptical criticism. It should forever remain that way as part of a free society. Unless of course we want authoritarian fascists or communists, no free opinion for us then.



[edit on 25/4/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
lol bit of a leap from Harvard to Bin Laden isnt it?

I mean any money given to an institution of good is a noble thing.

Unless you're suggesting Harvard is a force for evil in the world?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Have you guys forgotten that the Rockefeller fortune was created by forcing, bribing, buying out, and threatening competition to establish an oil monopoly?

This fortune was amassed by the activities of a cartel. No different than a drug cartel, if only a little more sneaky, a lot more powerful, and a lot more successful.

Returning part of what you have stolen does not make you a philanthropist. These are investments designed to foster and further conditions favorable to the continued economic rape of the masses.

And now, the Rockefeller family is allied with the progenitors of compound interest and fractional reserve banking (which does nothing but create our money from thin air, then charge interest on its use), by an institution permitted to exist via government bribes, threats, manipulation, coercion, murder, and deceit, and sometimes... outright brutal force.

The Rockefellers and their banker friends are just the most avaricious, thieving Malthusian frauds yet to wreak their parasitic havoc on humanity in all of history.

... And it's something they're proud of.




[edit on 25-4-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 



I dont really consider them good or evil. They are the wealthiest school in the nation. They don't need donations thats what I know. Even the article says they are the richest in the country. Donating money to Ivy League schools is like donating money to ExxonMobil or Citibank. That doesnt make them evil. It doesn't make people immune to criticism either.



[edit on 25/4/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

The whole world is in a mess. In a time like this when the US and Japan are donating $300 million to help the UN an World Food Programme which needed around $500 million, this guy donates $100 million to Harvard.

Can we see where people's priorities lay? People are starving to death and rioting across the Third World. The Wallstreet Journal is advising people in the US to stock up on food. The stimulus checks are going out early. Gas is close to $4 a gallon. Oil is close to $120 a barrel. Stores are rationing rice in the US. Yet Harvard gets donated $100 million.


[edit on 25/4/08 by MikeboydUS]



I don't see the problem. Japan donates $100 million for food which will last only temporarily, and Rockefeller donates $100 million to a great institution that will educate brilliant minds--some of which might just turn this crazy world of ours around.

If that's too generalizing, how about some science for ya? The dismal science: Economics. Take a course in economic growth and development then come back here next semester and see if your opinion changes. Don't have time for an econ course? I'll give you the cliff notes: It's been proven, time and time again, by multiple scientists, that the ONLY variable which has any lasting, long-term effect on sustaining economic growth is not the food supply, labor force, savings rate, investment rate.. it's EDUCATION. The level of education in a system, whether it's a state, nation or the earth as a whole, is what determines how successful that economy will be in the long run. And for this model, the welfare of the citizens can be included in 'how successful that economy will be'.

One might argue that this is all fine and dandy, but 'in the real world' we have starving people who need money for food. Guess what! We've always had starving people, and maybe we always will. Instead of shelling out money to provide food that might last weeks or months at best, why don't we invest money in education. Who knows, maybe that money might fund a new bioscience wing at a university where they discover a way to grow crops in an arid environment to feed starving people. Maybe that EDUCATED person will invent a brilliant irrigation system to grow more food. Maybe that new scientist will improve desalination processes to where even 3rd world nations can afford plenty of drinking water. Maybe that education money will hire more history professors so the leaders of tomorrow can learn from yesterday's mistakes.

I'm completely against the NWO and possible Rockefeller ties. I've read all about that family's past and think it's despicable. But I am failing to see anything wrong with donating such a substantial amount of money to the education system. I mean, jeez, I've donated about 10 hours of my time in the last year to the soup kitchen. Pathetic! Here this family, corrupt or not, donates $100 million to education. Think of all the good that will do! How many of us on this site, complaining about rich people donating money to the wrong place haven't even picked up litter on the side of the road? How many of you donate to Goodwill? How many of you volunteer at a retirement home or read to children weekday afternoons? Some of you do and that's awesome, but until you (anyone, not the OP in particular) start taking action yourself, stop sitting behind your computer and complaining. YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Anyways, back to the issue of food versus education: You remember the old say about teaching a man to fish, right?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I think I will take a course in economics and the sooner the better. Maybe I can make some more sense out of all of this. My finals are next week and the summer semester starts the first week of June.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Don't the Rockefellers want everyone to starve?

I kind of thought that was basically their whole purpose on this planet.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Like I said. They have the belief that in order to get more money, they have to give some of it away. Tithing. That's why they're philanthropists.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
But the quote you used does not imply the Rockefeller donated to technology research.

"About $70 million will be used to expand Harvard's student travel and study abroad programs and $30 million will go to arts education, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school said in a statement on Friday."

There are better investments than arts education. In my opinion the money was wasted and could have been used in something more useful, even if I agree that giving food is only a temporary help. Also,

"Maybe that education money will hire more history professors so the leaders of tomorrow can learn from yesterday's mistakes."

This concerns me, the world does not need that. Leaders commit the same mistakes even if they know history because events like wars are the result of human behavior. Rockefeller did not invest in food, nor scientific research or technology, so I don't see any benefit out of this. That dissapoints me from a family that must know how the world works and what it needs.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
What really concerns me is that it's anybody's business to whom he donates his money. Since you're so quick to cast judgement, let's see you judged. How much did you donate to world hunger last year?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Harvard has done some things in the past that have caused me to lose respect for it as an institution of higher learning.

Regardless, it is one of our premier universities and as a private institution, relies heavily on donations.

There is no reason to fault Rockefeller for donating money to Harvard.

I'd rather Harvard get his money than mine.

One more thing, you're comparing a nation to an individual.

If you check out what the US gives in Foreign Aid, I think you might have a different view of the situation.

US Foreign Aid

[edit on 2008/4/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Please take note of this.


President Bush urged Congress Thursday to approve $770 million to help alleviate dramatically escalating food prices that threaten widespread hunger and increasing social unrest around the world.

The new money comes on top of $200 million Bush ordered released two weeks ago for emergency food aid. It also is in addition to a pending $350 million request for emergengy [sic] food aid funds. Because the new funds are part of a 2009 budget, they wouldn't be available for distribution until the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, even if they are approved sooner.

Even so, Bush called it "just the beginning" of the U.S. effort to help. He said the United States would spend a total of $5 billion this year and next on food aid and related programs.

The United States is the world's largest provider of food aid, delivering more than $2.1 billion to 78 developing countries last year.

abcnews.go.com...


Please take the time to read the whole article. Many of us forget how much the US gives to the world without the expectation of recompense.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join