Wow...Murphy Oil to pay college tuition for all El Dorado HS grads

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
What if the students at El Dorado were richer than most of the state. Is it wise to give scholarship money to the rich when there are plenty of poor students who need it more? What if the students at El Dorado really have no use for college, and as DanS said, will just get drunk for a few years and drop out. Is it wise to give scholarship money to these people instead of that hardworking A student from Harlem who just can't afford school?

El Dorado is more stable than Camden, Hampton, Pine Bluff, Monticello, but you saw the statistics in the article. They need the help as much as anyone.

Besides, more than just a charitable gift, this is in a way an investment in the city.

It's better than them keeping the money...

It's likely close to financially even given tax breaks...

In essense this money is being taken from customers and/or workers as an unnecessarly high cost and/or low wages, while the corporation takes all the credit for the good deed.

Even I believe companies have the right to make a profit. There's no scandal or corruption at Murphy, they pay good wages to employees and sell oil at the market price. INSTEAD of hoarding profits and adding millions to the bank accounts of people who are already millionaires, they are putting money right back into the community. None of us can't say we would do something like this if we had that kind of dough.

6/10. I bit, but I've learned no position is so extreme that someone doesn't believe it.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


El Dorado is more stable than Camden, Hampton, Pine Bluff, Monticello, but you saw the statistics in the article. They need the help as much as anyone.

Besides, more than just a charitable gift, this is in a way an investment in the city.

I'm not knocking the gift necessarily. I'm just knocking Snoopy for knocking Kuci for knocking the gift. Got it? Good.

[SlowwHand]

You're a knocker man, aren't you ?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Even I believe companies have the right to make a profit. There's no scandal or corruption at Murphy, they pay good wages to employees and sell oil at the market price. INSTEAD of hoarding profits and adding millions to the bank accounts of people who are already millionaires, they are putting money right back into the community.

I'm not disputing whether or not they have a right to profit. It is patently obvious that in our economic system that it is perfectly acceptable. They could keep the money and I wouldn't dispute their right to it. But I could still view them however I want... I would always say that a profit is made by overcharging/undercompensating those consuming or producing the goods/service. I think the consumers/workers share the blame with the corporations in making the faulty value assessments as well.

It's how our economy works, but doesn't have to be how I think it should work.

But that is beside the point. I expressed my views of the "charitable" nature of the donation in the negative, not in regards to the actual profits. I don't have to admire a company (or person) who has more money than they need, for giving a portion of that away. I do think the act is a good one, but the company itself is virtually unchanged in my eyes. Especially when it is likely the publicity is worth quite a lot on it's own, and that they will get tax breaks that will compensate them for the expense. Not to mention their statements that it's an investment in the community which supports them. If they lowered prices or increased wages to get the same sort of publicity/benefits, I'd take the same stance as well.

I hold the position that it's good to give the money, poor to look for glory from it. Call that "extreme" if you want...

None of us can't say we would do something like this if we had that kind of dough.

Did you mean to include the double negative? If so I still disagree.

Otherwise, I'm sure there are many here who give far more on a percentage basis, with less financial benefit received in return, and respresenting a much greater financial burden as to their quality of life. Perhaps massive amounts of money would change that (either way), perhaps not.

6/10. I bit, but I've learned no position is so extreme that someone doesn't believe it.

It must be hard being lead around all your life by anyone who wants to manipulate you. You admit to following after what you assume are trolls... and you seem to fall hook, line, and sinker for these publicity stunts as well.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
No, that is not how charity works. And the options aren't to give the money away whimsically and horde it all. Kuci wasn't making that contrast at all.

Most money for charity has a rigorous process for selecting who gets the money and requires recipients to demonstrate they are using the money wisely and for a purpose the foundation or company supports.

Money given to poorly thought out ideas, or scam artists, or money given in other inefficient, wasteful ways could be given more efficiently to produce more good for more people. What if the students at El Dorado were richer than most of the state. Is it wise to give scholarship money to the rich when there are plenty of poor students who need it more? What if the students at El Dorado really have no use for college, and as DanS said, will just get drunk for a few years and drop out. Is it wise to give scholarship money to these people instead of that hardworking A student from Harlem who just can't afford school?

Charity isn't just so the people giving away money can feel good for themselves and brag about it at parties. It exists to do real good in the world and help real people who need it. Just like everything else in life, helping people should be done as efficiently as possible.

The next time you give away $50m, feel free to be as rigorous in your selection process as you like.

[Dinner]

Amen, brother.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Inefficient charity isn't much better economically than inefficient government spending.

There is one huge difference. Inefficient government spending increases the national debt or at least redirects funds from less useful spending. As a citizen I want to stop that in order to see my tax dollars more wisely spent. Now, in our free market capitalist system, if a man wants to give away his money to others he should be free to do so as he wishes. After all he is spending his own money and not the public's money. I can think of many worse things then paying for the college education of children.

[Kuciwalker]

There is one huge difference. Inefficient government spending increases the national debt or at least redirects funds from less useful spending.

Inefficient charity redirects resources to useless tasks that could have been devoted towards useful ones. At the extreme end inefficient charity isn't much more useful than buying a multi-million dollar vanity plate.

[LordShiva]

Inefficient charity doesn't involve taking other peoples' money by force.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

There is one huge difference. Inefficient government spending increases the national debt or at least redirects funds from less useful spending.

Inefficient charity redirects resources to useless tasks that could have been devoted towards useful ones. At the extreme end inefficient charity isn't much more useful than buying a multi-million dollar vanity plate.

That might be true. However, it is his money to do with as he pleases. They are not public funds. If he wants to blow it all on crack whores and cocaine then that's his choice. He did decide to give it away in order to educate students however and that is great.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Inefficient charity doesn't involve taking other peoples' money by force.

Which is why it's marginally better than inefficient government.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oerdin
That might be true. However, it is his money to do with as he pleases.[QUOTE]

Did I ever say he couldn't do it?

They are not public funds. If he wants to blow it all on crack whores and cocaine then that's his choice. He did decide to give it away in order to educate students however and that is great.

No, it's not great. It's silly. And I'm not going to congratulate him on a useless excersize of "charity."

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which is why it's marginally better than inefficient government.

I'd say that makes it quite a bit better.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Captain of the debate team, right?

Spec.

[Kuciwalker]

You got it