NY Times article: "...the French give almost nothing to charity..."

[nisosbar]

"...Over the next two years Mr. Nadeau produced, sometimes with Ms. Barlow's help, 23 reports, each 5,000 to 7,000 words long. He wrote about hiking in the Alps and visiting a mosque; about why the French give almost nothing to charity and how the country still lives in the shadow of World War II. The articles became a launching pad for their book, which is published by Sourcebooks, in Naperville, Ill..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/books/14FREN.html?8hpib
(requires registration)

So then, why DON'T the French give nearly anything to charity? :confused:

[mascaroni]

I'm sure this question raised in the NY Times had nothing to do with the cheese eating surrender monkeys' lack of support for the second Gulf War.
Then again... I'm English - we're a thousand years ahead of you when it comes to hating the French.

C'est la vie.
Innit.

[Fang]

Originally posted by mascaroni
I'm sure this question raised in the NY Times had nothing to do with the cheese eating surrender monkeys' lack of support for the second Gulf War.
Um, you mean the same New York Times that was against the war?

[manhattan]

Well, my first guess is that it's because France has among the highest taxation rates in the industrialized world (cite (http://www.forbes.com/home/global/2003/0526/030chart.html)). There are two effects to this. One, it reduces discretionary income available for charitable giving. Two, the proceeds of these taxes are used to provide a cradle-to-grave welfare state, extend extensive subsidies to the arts and otherwise fund with state dollars things which might be provided by voluntary charity in other countries, reducing the need for voluntary contributions.

OK, three effects. It may also increase resentment of having income forcibly given to what in other places are charitable endeavors, reducing the desire further to fund them.

[manhattan]

I forgot to mention: I have no idea whatsoever if that's Nadeau's explanation -- it's simply my WAG at it.

[mascaroni]

Originally posted by Fang
Um, you mean the same New York Times that was against the war?
Being against the war and against the French is not mutually exclusive.

I'm sure some people who were against the war opposed it for moral reasons (obviously turning a blind eye to the torture and murder of Saddam's regime).
The French were a major supplier of arms to Saddam's Iraq (along with Russia and Germany - ring any bells?).

I don't make a habit of reading the NYT, but was the whole paper against the war?
Sounds like Pravda in the sixties.

[mascaroni]

... and don't get me started on 'almost nothing' and 'nearly anything'...

[manhattan]

mascaroni, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible -- you did not read the article and therefore possess far too much ignorance to argue the point you are trying to make, much less to hijack another thread to it.

[mascaroni]

Originally posted by manhattan
mascaroni, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible -- you did not read the article and therefore possess far too much ignorance to argue the point you are trying to make, much less to hijack another thread to it.
My first reply was flippant and with a degree of irony...
as I'm sure your 'possess far too much ignorance' was...

[manhattan]

No, it was not. It was factually correct. You have not read the article and are ignorant of its contents.

[mascaroni]

I'm presuming you're responding to my second line...
'possess far too much ignorance'.
Own too much lack of knowledge?
Will the repo man come for my brain?

[Better avoid GQ for a while...]

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by manhattan
Well, my first guess is that it's because France has among the highest taxation rates in the industrialized world (cite (http://www.forbes.com/home/global/2003/0526/030chart.html)).


Beat me.


There are two effects to this. One, it reduces discretionary income available for charitable giving. Two, the proceeds of these taxes are used to provide a cradle-to-grave welfare state, extend extensive subsidies to the arts and otherwise fund with state dollars things which might be provided by voluntary charity in other countries, reducing the need for voluntary contributions.

OK, three effects. It may also increase resentment of having income forcibly given to what in other places are charitable endeavors, reducing the desire further to fund them.

Having had fairly extensive contact with the French, I can say that in my opinion French attachment to the concept of social solidarity fairly outweighs anti-tax feeling. Third item is a minor factor. I have seen the first two items cited in other discussions as major factors.

In general, W European charitable giving is lower than the US, I believe across the board. Differently structured institutions.

[Fang]

Originally posted by mascaroni
Being against the war and against the French is not mutually exclusive.
Well, I'm both, so yeah, I'm aware. But your initial comment implied that the Times would insult the French for being against the war -- which is totally ridiculous if the Times itself was against the war!

I don't make a habit of reading the NYT
Maybe you should. It'll probably be a lot better now that that schmuck Raines is gone.
, but was the whole paper against the war?
Sounds like Pravda in the sixties.
Um, you are aware of the concept of an editorial board, no? The Times as a paper can take a position on an issue, and it identifies that position through unsigned editorials. It does not mean that everybody who works at the paper believes that, but an institution can be said to have an official perspective on something even if not every member of that institution agrees. Every paper does this, not just the Times. You do read some newspapers, right?

[MEBuckner]

Now, I'm sure if we really tried we could all manage to find a thread somewhere if we want to talk about the war, no?

[Shalmanese]

What about the fact that the US, as a percentage of GDP, gives far less to charities than most developed countries and a huge proportion of such "aid" is given to Isreal for primarily military expenditure.

[Little Nemo]

We're off on an adventure. We started in a thread about French charity, then we zoomed off to the Iraq war, now we're suddenly in the midst of aid to Israel. Where will we be hijacked next? The 2000 Election? Roe v Wade? Clay v Rueben?

[Neurotik]

Do you have a cite? I think you are confusing private charities with foreign aid.

[sailor]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
In general, W European charitable giving is lower than the US, I believe across the board. Differently structured institutions. We would have to define "give less to charity" because it seems to me Europeans have given themselves astronomically high taxes to pay for social services much more comprehensive than the US has. If that is not "giving to charity" I don't know what is. It would be like saying the man who buys a few magazines at the stand reads more than the man who buys fewer magazines at the stand but subscribes to many more which he gets at home. I would say the man who makes the commitment to contribute through his taxes is more committed than the man who leaves it to his own discretion.

[Collounsbury]

Well, you're right, that was poorly phrased. Private charitable giving versus institutionalized giving via public taxation is what I was thinking of contrasting.

Different institutions, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, and perhaps relative integration with cultural attitudes.

[E-Sabbath]

Originally posted by sailor
I would say the man who makes the commitment to contribute through his taxes is more committed than the man who leaves it to his own discretion.

Only in the sense that the pig is more committed to your eggs and bacon than the chicken is. I would say that the person who voluntarially donates is more likely to be committed to the cause he or she donates to than someone who pays for government initiatives.

[mascaroni]

Originally posted by Fang
Well, I'm both, so yeah, I'm aware. But your initial comment implied that the Times would insult the French for being against the war -- which is totally ridiculous if the Times itself was against the war!


Maybe you should. It'll probably be a lot better now that that schmuck Raines is gone.

Um, you are aware of the concept of an editorial board, no? The Times as a paper can take a position on an issue, and it identifies that position through unsigned editorials. It does not mean that everybody who works at the paper believes that, but an institution can be said to have an official perspective on something even if not every member of that institution agrees. Every paper does this, not just the Times. You do read some newspapers, right?
OK...
I Probably misconstrued the OP. It took just one line from an article, with no context.
I assumed it was a 'let's have a go at the French' post (which I believe has been popular over the pond recently...)
It seems like it was an honest query...
In which case I apologise.

FYI... I read loads of newspapers...
One day I might try reading a proper book.

[Milum]

So then, why DON'T the French give nearly anything to charity?

Ever wonder why the french love Jerry Lewis?

Ever wonder why that oddball friend of yours persists in his oddball behavior even to the detriment of the well being of his self or of the betterment his family?

Well sometimes a person or a culture will assume an exaggerated sense of self-importance when they realize that the world at large has regulated their tired worn attitudes of life to a minor role within the ever evolving march of human events.

The ineptness and social errors of Jerry Lewis is but the subconscious realization of this unhappy state of the french condition today.

And within this story lies the sad sad truth as to why the wasted poor french people give very very little to a larger world that is everyday passing them by.

[andros]

Well, that was a steaming load of horseshit. But a nicely-phrased one.

Can anyone provide some actual numbers in re actual charity figures for the French? Preferably in relation to other Euro nations and N. America?

[Mops]

Second-hand cite:this page (http://www.sozialmarketing.de/zahlenallgemein.htm) from a German site on fundraisin says: under the heading Spendenanteil am individuellen Einkommen im internationalen Vergleich

[donations as percentage of individual's income]: USA: 0.57 %, Germany: 0.18 %, France: 0.13%

Source given: Lester Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier: The Emerging Sector. An overview. Baltimore, 1994.

In the context of the site this seems to refer to fundraising in general rather than for charitable purposes. Fundraising in the US seems to be somewhat broader in scope than in Europe, e.g. universities hardly get any donations in Germany - this is thought to be the state's job.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Milum
The ineptness and social errors of Jerry Lewis is but the subconscious realization of this unhappy state of the french condition today.


Someone from Alabama is speaking to the state of France?

And within this story lies the sad sad truth as to why the wasted poor french people give very very little to a larger world that is everyday passing them by.

The logic escapes me, never mind the utter lack of facticity.

[TwistofFate]

If "Le Jerry Lewis" arguement is the best you can come up with to knock France, Milum, I suggest you get yourself down to a library.

Start in the childrens section and work up.

[yojimbo]

How many more times must this link be posted?

Do the French really love Jerry Lewis? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a991001.html)

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Milum
The ineptness and social errors of Jerry Lewis is but the subconscious realization of this unhappy state of the french condition today. What does the popularity of the ghastly Benny Hill in the US represent, then?

[yojimbo]

They like slapping the bald fellow ;)

DYSWIDT

[Futile Gesture]

I have spoken on this before, but now I must introduce The FG Law.

The FG Law states:

As a thread about the French in the SDMB approaches the end of the first page, the probability of a mention of Jerry Lewis approaches one.

The reasons for this law are not fully understood, but it appears to be something to do with Americans finding the French's interest in the performer even more fascinating than the aforesaid interest. Thus:

Jerry Lewis = X.

French interest in X = Y.

American Interest in Y = Z.

FG Law suggests that: Z > Y.

Current investigations revolve around the even crazier possibility that Z > A (where A = American Interest in Jerry Lewis). More research is required.

[Milum]

Can anyone provide some actual numbers in re actual charity figures for the French? Preferably in relation to other Euro nations and N. America? ~ asked andros from Dejagore, Tennessee.

Well I guess andros, one can at least try, but the chance is taken that you will find it but yet another "steaming load of bullshit." Oh well.

Question #1 (from Canada / Ca magazine)

1. Of Canada, Britain, France, Spain and the United States, which has the largest percentage of people who give to charity?

I was surprised when I looked at the research. I was expecting to see the U.S. because of all that's been written about that country's predisposition to sharing. The total dollars given may make the US seem like the most generous country, but when it comes to the percentage of the population willing to share it's good fortune, Spain wins hands down with 71 percent.

Next comes Britain with 65 percent, followed closely by Canada with 62 percent, the USA with 55 percent and France with 27 percent.
________________________________________

Someone from Alabama is speaking to the state of France? said Collounsbury who is on the front line.

Now now Collounbury, do I detect a hint of nuance? Go ahead, be a man, spit it out, why are you denigrating the the people of great state of Alabama?

The logic escapes me, never mind the utter lack of facticity. Collounsbury again.

Ha ha ha, collounsbury, you said "facticity" when you shoulda said "facts". "Facticity" is not a word, and even if it is, it shouldn't be.

Now as for "logic excaping you" it might help if you realize that when responding to a generalized question about a staticially determined characteristic of a large population of people like the French there are no "facts" as such to document an answer. Most cultures don't keep a close tally on their shortcomings. Instead you count on the people that you are communication with to have a modicum of general knowledge of the subject, like for example...

France is no longer grand and the French people are no longer glorious. They are a effete group of language snobs and shopkeepers that look inwards for their social security and look backwards at a time when their countrymen were among the greatest on Earth.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Milum
France is no longer grand and the French people are no longer glorious. They are a effete group of language snobs and shopkeepers that look inwards for their social security and look backwards at a time when their countrymen were among the greatest on Earth. I don't do this very often, but :rolleyes:.

I fail to see how this fights ignorance. Sure, the statistics are very interesting, but the *ahem* "spin" with which you coloured your interpretation thereof does nothing more than inflame.

France didn't support the war. Big deal. Get over it, already.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Milum
[b]Question #1 (from Canada / Ca magazine)

1. Of Canada, Britain, France, Spain and the United States, which has the largest percentage of people who give to charity?

I was surprised when I looked at the research. I was expecting to see the U.S. because of all that's been written about that country's predisposition to sharing. The total dollars given may make the US seem like the most generous country, but when it comes to the percentage of the population willing to share it's good fortune, Spain wins hands down with 71 percent.

Next comes Britain with 65 percent, followed closely by Canada with 62 percent, the USA with 55 percent and France with 27 percent.


We've already rather covered this cultural difference, so the point is what?


Someone from Alabama is speaking to the state of France? said Collounsbury who is on the front line.

Now now Collounbury, do I detect a hint of nuance? Go ahead, be a man, spit it out, why are you denigrating the the people of great state of Alabama?


The word great and Alabama do not ordinarily go together when one reflects on economics, education or culture. Having had the deep misfortune of visiting the backwards place, it is easy to see why.


The logic escapes me, never mind the utter lack of facticity. Collounsbury again.

Ha ha ha, collounsbury, you said "facticity" when you shoulda said "facts". "Facticity" is not a word, and even if it is, it shouldn't be.


No, factuality would have been the more standard word. Facticity, however, amused me at the time.


Now as for "logic excaping you" it might help if you realize that when responding to a generalized question about a staticially determined characteristic of a large population of people like the French there are no "facts" as such to document an answer. Most cultures don't keep a close tally on their shortcomings. Instead you count on the people that you are communication with to have a modicum of general knowledge of the subject, like for example...


I'm afraid your long paragraph here hasn't much sene to it. I believe you may have meant 'statistically' determined, although that's not really sensible. The last sentence is a non-sequitur.


France is no longer grand and the French people are no longer glorious.


This coming from someone in Alabama.

Well, when Alabama turns into a major tourist destination like Paris or indeed all of France, then we can start talking.

They are a effete group of language snobs and shopkeepers that look inwards for their social security and look backwards at a time when their countrymen were among the greatest on Earth.

So speaks the empty posturing of immature jingoism.

[andros]

Lessee . . .

Firstly, of course, I said "horseshit," not "bullshit." A subtle and perhaps unimportant distinction, but it pays to keep our facts straight.

Secondly, in response to the general question I asked regarding charity figures (and my thanks to tschild, by the way--that was very helpful), you responded:

Question #1 (from Canada / Ca magazine)

1. Of Canada, Britain, France, Spain and the United States, which has the largest percentage of people who give to charity?

I was surprised when I looked at the research. I was expecting to see the U.S. because of all that's been written about that country's predisposition to sharing. The total dollars given may make the US seem like the most generous country, but when it comes to the percentage of the population willing to share it's good fortune, Spain wins hands down with 71 percent.

Next comes Britain with 65 percent, followed closely by Canada with 62 percent, the USA with 55 percent and France with 27 percent.

I don't know what "Canada / Ca magazine" means, nor who wrote the article (?), nor what his methods were. That's not to mention that the phrase "willing to share it's (sic) good fortune" is essentially meaningless. Do these figures represent the percentage of the population who give any discretionary income to any recipient, or only to registered charities? Does it include churches? Panhandlers? Museums?

I trust you follow me. If you could perhaps provide a full citation of the magazine article in question, we might have a more solid footing upon which to start.

Thirdly, if you can't keep your hatred of another nation under control, maybe you should lie down for a nice nap or something. Spewing blinkered, emotion-driven, irrational ignorance doesn't help your argument any. You want to argue that the French eat babies and molest llamas, fine. But at least make the effort to do so in a rational manner, huh?

Fourthly . . . "Tennesee?" Where in great gibbering fuck did that come from?