Seeing Red re (Product) Red on Thoughts Chasing Thoughts is a good read on the recent program to provide AIDS relief in Africa. And it correctly identifies some misgivings about the effort to commercialize charity and whether or not it is efficient or transparently honest. You need to read that article before this one for some things to make sense. It’s a pleasant read, and I like the contrarian point of view expressed because it adds perspective to a new charitable fad.

I’m not persuaded that AIDS relief is the most import issue for Africa’s needy. I’m not convinced more money for medicine is THE issue for AIDS relief. Doctors, nurses, infrastructure, refrigeration, etc. might be more limiting than the drugs themselves. But what the Buddhist hell, increasing the funding for this probably won’t hurt either, particularly if it’s added money rather than money carved from somewhere else.

In contrast to the Michael Medved article, I am not much alarmed about people paying more for “red” products, or that companies might make more profit on “red” products. People who will lay out $198 for “red” jeans probably would have already given to a charitable cause if they had really been so inclined. If this sort of thing is what finally motivates them to give, then so be it. If this boffo approach pries some charity from the rich for the benefit of the poor, then I’m not sure what I should be upset about.

Nor am I concerned that companies might make a bigger profit on “red” stuff than normal stuff. So be it. First of all, it’s not commodity stuff that is important to body, life, or limb. Second, if I were an investor in one of these companies, I’m not sure I’d want them to do anything else. In a publicly owned company, the directors are hired to generate profits, not to do good in the world and not to give earnings to charities that they think might be worthy. If directors want to give a bit so they will be perceived as a “good” company and thus sell more, then that’s still within their fiduciary responsibility. If selling “red” stuff makes more money, then that’s well within the charter of what they’ve been hired to do. If the people buying “red” stuff believe it is within the corporate nature to forgo profit, then they do indeed need to read Michael Medved’s article; it might help, but I doubt it. Michael’s main peeve seems to be that he is overpaying for things anyway.

I do like transparency in charitable activities. I do evaluate the ones I donate to. But churches are the most egregiously closed charitable organizations in the world, and no one climbs the walls about that. So I’m not sure why we should tremble at the thought that corporations would not be totally transparent just because they sell something rather than just starkly asking for cash. The lack of transparency, among other things, does mean that I won’t be buying “red.” But this lack of transparency is sooo obvious that its hard to see anything duplicitous about the arrangement.

Hopefully the effort will generate a bit of money that may possibly save a few lives. The effort will ease some money from the pockets of the affluent and at least part of it will probably do some good. But I doubt the effort will last long. It is an episodic event, not a change in culture. Greed will not spawn generosity. Eventually this will prove itself to be as fickle as “pet rocks” and Cabbage Patch dolls. It will either die with the bang of a scandal or the whimper of ennui.

Unlike the reference article, I’m not too concerned about keeping charity pure. I don’t know the purity of charity from Buffett, Gates, or Soros. It many simply be the law of diminishing marginal utility at work. (Can 2 billion buy that much more happiness than 1 billion?) In that context, doing good for others may simply be more rewarding than having even more money. Whatever their reasons, they serve as public examples that greed isn’t endless, and that doing good is ultimately more satisfying than accumulating endless piles of money. And some actual good will come from their effort.

Covert Bailey was asked which exercise was the best one to do. His answer was, “The one you will actually do.” That principle applies here. For people that are too lazy to search out other places to give, or want to feel good about buying something they want anyhow, or are naive enough to believe that they are truly churning the milk of human kindness for the poor primitive Africans when they buy “red”, my answer is “Buy ‘red’. Buy ‘red’ and buy often. It’s the best YOU can probably do.” For the others, I’d say, “Find some other way.”