Random AsidesReligion

Sell the Vatican, Save the World

This is an example of why I love Sarah Silverman… she’s always saving the world… yes, always.

Did you know? The Vatican is suffering a budget deficit even though they raised over $100 million last year. It’s hard out there for a Pope… and a little harder out there for kids starving death.

(Hat tip to the always amazing Joe Albeitz.)

Elyse

Elyse MoFo Anders is the bad ass behind forming the Women Thinking, inc and the superhero who launched the Hug Me! I'm Vaccinated campaign as well as podcaster emeritus, writer, slacktivist extraordinaire, cancer survivor and sometimes runs marathons for charity. You probably think she's awesome so you follow her on twitter.

Related Articles

18 Comments

  1. I’m curious as to what the Vatican actually spends it’s money on. (The article mentions museums and Vatican buildings – I guess they must remodel a lot?) Whatever it is, it’s hard to believe any God would prefer that to saving kids from starvation.

  2. If I owned a city sized palace I would sell it and feed the starving, not to help the starving, but to guarantee that every meal for the rest of my life would be comped, I’d get “all the pussy”tm and I’d never be expected to do anything else for anybody ever again.

    I could also have like a billion kids to guarantee bio-compatible organs, and never pay a dime for them. “Oh, she wants child support? Yeah I just fed the world last year, soo I’m tapped” WIN!

    You know, committing the greatest act of charity in the history of the human race, would be the greatest scam EVER

  3. I get that this is comedy, but the economics nerd in me is bursting to rebut this video, and lets face it its stronger than I am.

    The trouble with the 3rd World isn’t lack of funding. If it was we’d have fixed it decades ago. The problem is that their governance structures and institutional culture are so screwed up that they can’t produce enough with their (often quite good) resource endowments.

    Giving them money won’t help, if for no other reason that the poorest countries are caught in a Malthusian Trap. If they get richer, they have more babies and all you end up with is more hungry mouths.

    Unfortunately there are no known solutions to this problem. :(

    The only thing I’ve heard of that might work is simply letting those poor people emigrate to rich countries. Then they get the benefit of our governance structures and can produce wealth on their own.

  4. @James K:

    “Unfortunately there are no known solutions to this problem. :(”

    Bah. There is nothing that cannot be fixed by invasion and nation-building. I vote we work our way around Africa counter-clockwise, starting with *rolls dice* Ghana. It gets rid of our poor, and remakes the world safe for imperially-imposed democracy.

  5. @Mark Hall, I think they already tried that about 150-200 years ago. Except I don’t think they went counter-clockwise then, but started more randomly from the edges, and worked their way towards the center as they explored more of the continent.

    But as @James K pointed out, the main problem is population control, not money. Although, as usual, the population problem tends to sort itself out the hard way (war, famine, aids, …) if no conscious effort is put into controlling it the right way (contraception).

  6. exarch:

    Population control does little good, those subsistence farmers need lots of kids to work the land and look after them when they’re too old to work. To them children are practically the only investment they can make. Small wonder that they have so many children.

    Fertility is strongly negatively correlated with wealth and education. Economic growth causes stable populations, not the other way around.

  7. @exarch: That’s the problem, Exarch. They didn’t have a system. They just went around, willy-nilly oppressing people. What they really needed to do, ya see, is have a system.

    Like the rhythm method, only with more blood. Well… usually.

  8. As someone who has been looking at how much she gives/should give to the needier, but still bought a kick ass 46″ TV, I have to say, I identify with Sarah (ok…hers is 48″…whatever). I’m so hypocritical. I’ll feel way less bad about myself if another hypocrite sells their hypocritical stuff and gives it to the poor. Then I get to keep my TV : )

  9. I live in a country where a sizable portion of my paycheck is aready used to fund the government, which includes funds for unemployment and wellfare. I don’t feel like I should give yet some more to somebody with a paper cup sitting somewhere strategically placed so as many people as possible pass by them and hopefully will throw some change in that cup.

    Third world nations are another thing. I can support initiatives that want to build hospitals and schools there, or send medical staff to help and train locals, essentially anything that aims to improve infrastructure. Just sending money is indeed pointless. But those initiatives do cost money, so if we could build 100 hospitals with the money raised from selling the Vatican, that probably makes it 100 times more useful than the Vatican currently is …

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close