I am super irritated by this kind of comments on my social media.
You can not compare the two things.
There are already social services in France that help the poor, and there are long-term economic problems with the country: it is not easy to find a job, the salaries are too low for the cost of living, the tax system is not fair ( One still wonders when the “trickle down” will come….. And there are the gilets jaunes that are already fighting.
Why are Pinault or Arnault so excited to donate for Notre Dame, but not against poverty?
I have never put a foot in Notre Dame.I have seen it from a afar. But it has always been somewhere in me, through books, songs, paintings or movies. It is part of my culture, in a way I had never realised before I saw Notre Dame burning. For Pinault and Arnault, and others, it is a part of what made them, their identity. And let us not forget that by being the greatest donor for the reconstruction of Notre Dame, their name in the history of France will continue to exist.
Their heirs will be able to say: “Our family has saved Notre Dame”.
And that is something that for billionaires, I can imagine, counts more than the homeless.
Yes, you could donate money to fight poverty.But actually it won’t help anything. As long as the social system and the labour market remain so in France, poverty will remain the same regardless of what you donate.
Yes, you could donate money against deforestation on the other side of the world.But do you also know what is going to happen to this money? Corruption, international politics and laws…. You cannot be sure that it will be used properly.
In the end, I am tired of having to feel guilty because of all the people on social media who think they are so good and so righteous and that they possess the ultimate and unique truth about how it should or should not be, in an ideal world of well-thinking mense n that are better than the rest.
Let Notre Dame be rebuilt, let people make a donation for it, because it touches them in their hearts to see this monument on fire.It’s no shame to feel sad about Notre Dame. It is not a shame to want the weather to be “normal”. There is no shame in donating what you want to donate to whoever you want to donate.
Economically, this is better than giving away money in the form of benefits.With such a large restoration project you strengthen the economy. It creates jobs at all levels: Architects, secretaries, masons, carpenters, stonemasons, restorers, guards and much more. What’s more, people get a sense of pride. That is also important.
The money released was probably fixed.It was in shares and bonds or was on savings accounts. By making it free, the question will be applied shortly. This stimulates the economy and creates jobs. The money earned is spent again and that also contributes to stimulating the economy. It is small what you saw after the war in the Netherlands. The reconstruction caused over 20 years of solid economic growth. Unemployment collapsed to almost zero.
Ultimately, you can fight poverty better by letting the economy flourish, rather than by supporting the people who are out of play.Very cynically, you are involved in subsidising arm. That takes away the incentive to get back to work, or to follow a course.
Spending money on poverty or fighting hunger sounds noble, but is a way of combating symptoms.There are underlying causes of poverty and hunger, and as long as they are not eliminated, poverty and hunger remain a problem.
To keep it in the terms of Notre-Dame: We extinguish fires while the ground cause has not been taken away.We Recover Notre-Dame de Paris and tomorrow the Sacr茅-C艙ur enters flames.
I think a lot of people know very well that there is a difference between dealing with incidents caused by structural problems, prevention and recovery.And therefore consciously or less consciously put aside money for a current and concrete recovery action, and not do so for incidents that come from structural problems. And if you have any doubts about prevention, no money is given.
Of course, the question is: is this the right priority? a good question.
If the government were to spend hundreds of millions on the recovery I would say: No.The Government has other tasks. But money from private donations: Apparently this is important enough to set aside your own money for the recovery. That is a clear choice.
In the background, a number of people will play a role in the recital “I hope to get back later in a different way”, but that also applies to many people who make financial donations to religious institutions: Quid Pro Quo.
What also plays a major role in the donations is the symbolic value of Notre-Dame de Paris, which is one of the most emblematic and oldest buildings in Paris. There are remnants of construction works that lead back to Roman times, and the first parts were built in the 12th century.Notre-Dame was always there and has a rich history associated with Jean d’Arc and the 16th century English royal house.
The life span of an arm (or rich) person falls into nothing at the life of Notre-Dame.
What is much more interesting: Suppose the recovery is going to cost much less, what happens to the rest of the money?
In any case, what I found stupid is that Macron said, “We are going to make him more beautiful than ever.”He should have said, “We are going to make him exactly as he was” I think, I can hardly imagine a change being seen as an improvement. And as for the money, there are such stupid things where much more money is invested in (wars for example) that the repair of cultural heritage of mine does not have to be seen as a waste of money. If the world had fed the Cold War without weapons (they didn’t do anything with all those gigantic hydrogen bombs), we could have had a lot less world problems.
The answer to this question is not to be answered with an exact scientific formula.And raises even more questions.
Why do those rich stinkers immediately give away millions to restore Notre dame?Not really because they are so committed to culture and history. It brings them attention in the media and still a nice tax cut on top of it. Not unlike the benefactors in the US.
Why not spend those fortunes on combating poverty or hunger?We’re already doing that, but it doesn’t help a single atom. Following the earthquake in Haiti, international donors gave 1.25 billion euros (according to the UN) and aid for reconstruction amounting to 1.56 billion. Has Haiti become a tourist paradise like neighbouring Dominican Republic? No, and then we are not talking about the misconduct of some ‘ rescuers ‘.
Can we blame the French for nurturing their historical treasures, investing in their tourism industry, giving work to specialists from craftsmen to engineers?No, chapeau.
Has Notre Dame witnessed at least unblissful times from the history of the Catholic Church?Yes. But quite coincidentally, I discovered an article from the Israeli newspaper Ha Boker. During the Second World War, the vaults of Notre Dame offered a shelter for 8000 Jewish children.
Dozens of French churches were fired in recent times.Let’s hope that Notre Dame has been the last and that she rises as a phoenix from the Ashes.
The restoration of Notre Dame is a precisely defined goal.Of course there will be some stick to the bow on the way to the recovery. But combating poverty or hunger is a very vague goal. If there is a 90 euro cent on the road of every 100 euro, this does not have to be surprising. The Dutch author Linda Polman has written a book about this: the Crisis caravan. The fact that so much money is released for the restoration of Notre Dame is not stranger to the fact that for some painting, tens of millions of dollars are sometimes counted down.
I find the kind of questions of ‘ we would not spend money what we spend on X better to Y ‘ always a little tricky questions.Not because I feel uncomfortable, but because I feel that the author of such a question is not honest. In any case, not against itself.
Could I have spent the money, what I spent doing with my son or with my relationship-or with both-eating out could not have been better devoted to feeding homeless people?That is very strong, to whom you ask. The homeless would totally agree with you, the owner of the restaurant somewhat less.
The undertone of these kinds of questions is often ‘ I tell you what you are allowed to do with your money ‘.And that is a big mistake.
Very practically speaking: people are willing to spend money on the drama of that moment.When ‘ The Glass House ‘ was still up to date, we all won millions for charities. If a flood/storm/earthquake or desert fire rages anywhere in the world, then the disaster funds are overwhelmed with donations.
To mention other examples:
For example, We do not bring millions together to restore all those roofs of all those churches, where the roof is almost collapsing.When the roof suddenly fires off, it suddenly has news value and we are ready with the good gifts.
Most of us walk past the homeless in our own city, but we are very happy to see a documentary about homeless young people in Romania.
Although we like to believe otherwise, we as humans are very impulsive with spending our money.This is also one of the reasons why so little is being done on structural problems.That has no news value. We want to get a ‘ donation impulse ‘ via the television or the Internet.
Comfort you. Soon there will be an earthquake or a flood somewhere.And then you will see that we are all too willing to help our fellow human beings too.
Why don’t you ask this question wider?Then you come to the heart of the matter.
We Stop tax money (and in many cases donations) in all sorts of cultural matters; Museums, art education, patrimony management, sports, nature conservation (this list is very long)… Would all that money not be better spent on development aid, poverty or hunger?
Or if we are purely talking about voluntary donations, why don’t we set a priority there?Say ‘ come up against cancer ‘; Its noble objectives cannot be equating with hunger and other problems worldwide?
Are all investments that do not go to poverty/hunger than always subordinate?
Maybe, but I wonder which society you are still holding.
Depends on how you look at it… But the average man who is not too much corrupted by the cultural conditioning looks at it purely human.Not in terms of jobs or status or tax deduction which are actually consequences of the principle and not principles in itself. So man who thinks a little humanistic who finds the big quick donations obviously degoutant. Apologies for the word choice, but the notion of ‘ unheard ‘ shot too short. Those people live and work in a capitalist system where inequality is the norm. But everyone realises that there are real values and norms that, irrespective of the political and cultural realities, are floating high above any other value. As a human being, you make choices every day that are based on your own values and norms. Some call this philosophical matter, but it is not, it is a tangible concept and a real act that can be taken. If we come to the sudden sea of resources that the ‘ rich of the earth ‘ wanted to put down so diligently, preferably with a name and a rose, then you can only decide that it is simply was. It is totally not a matter of whether the poor are willing or able to be helped. That is a useless sidetrack in ethics. The point is that, like when people are witnesses of a crime, few people do the right thing. The human, the valuable. That which makes us legitimises man. And it is quite right that people ask themselves whether the big gifts are so pure and whether that money could not be spent elsewhere. That last BVB. To our current system in which young people and elderly zgz. Financial security, but every day of life steps, once to influence. A mass of money as now was coughed up for a lot of stones with a lot of history (what it is essentially but here to person is exalted OWV the notion of human pride or pride of a nation). People seek meaning and it is in their nature to be critical and to improve the climate (until they are burdened by the cultural conditioning). And buildings (status) above humans or animals are going to prefer. As if that is the logical step or logical reasoning. The goal does not sanctify the resources altogether and fortunately there are those who raise their voices. It’s about what you do and why, not what you can’t do with it to change immoral behavior, because it’s a monument. Bullfights are also tradition in Spain, but let us especially ask the ethical question whether this is correct instead of legal. Someone who is annoyed by this critical spirit who shows people in the sudden flow of money, who fights with them. Why would one annoy himself to another’s opinion? Everyone has a right to go into dialogue. But it would be very nice to live in a society where one can admit that there are more important things to invest in. Valuable and humane vs pride and status (Ego). We are taught to think productively, but man is made to reason at a deeper level. And humanism will ever transcend that, for one is clearly to be a slave to the inequality and its power and abuse of power. Rebuilding something is not a bad thing, but when it happens in this way. It could be different, it could have been a process but that energy disappears because it quickly pumps a mass of money and the large, already wealthy companies get even more work. It therefore does not create jobs, it stimulates the already existing inequality.