辩论：应该裸捐吗？我是反方一辩，该怎么办？？？要英文的。真的很急，希望大家能帮帮我，谢谢！！
2个回答
展开全部
我不容易啊，全手写的，多给点分。从经济，金融，商业运作等多方面进行了阐述。
为你列了三点论点，可做陈述用，有数据，有例证，有论述。
并且保证英语的地道，华丽和准确！望采纳！
Against:
1. An all-out donation is not suitable for sustainability of charity funds.
In nowadays capitalist society, investment is no longer an unfamiliar word. An all-out donation deprives the charity fund's capability to regenerate the funds through investment. The famous Rockefeller Foundation has an endowment over 3 billion US dollars. The Foundation only liquidizes a small portion around 5-10% of the total endowment every year for charity purpose and puts the rest of money into further investment. The rates are calculated by a bunch of talented investors and fund managers to keep the endowment not decreasing. This strategy has been proved to be a huge success that the Rockefeller Foundation lasts for over a hundred years! And the accumulated charity donation has exceeded tens of billions! Though an annual grant of 137 million dollars is outmatched with a billion dollar all-out donation, the total grant is much larger than the ephemoral effect of an all-out donation.
2. An all-out donation does not answer the needs of donees.
Most of the philanthropic projects aim to resolve the problem of poverty, hunger, environment degradation, education, globalization, health problems and so on, and they involve long terms of construction plans or recruitment project. Schools cannot be built in one day, teachers cannot be recruited in one month and polluted environment cannot be recovered in one year. Almost all the projects demand a constant cash flow to support the construction or restoration processes. If a large amount of money is instantly spent, the fund has nothing left to replenish the cash flow and thus dies out. As a matter of fact, certain charity funds which focus on an incident, a crisis or a disaster, do require large amounts of money in a short period of time. Yet over 80% of the normal charity projects require constant management and care-taking.
3. An all-out donation is not effective in economic sense.
In Macroeconomics, the Solow-Swan Fundamental Equation tells us that any amount of aid capital not large enough to escape from a Poverty Trap will eventually be leveled off. Obviously no donation is large enough to help a macroeconomy escape a poverty trap, which may involve trillions of dollars. Therefore, if we truly care about the long-run growth of the donee, we should not only focus on the capital side. Growth is never a one-time thing, but a gradual and steady process, accompanied by a change in technology, demography and even living styles. Therefore an all-out donation isn't really solving the problem, but might have generated more problems such as embezzelment, and further exasperate the sitation.
为你列了三点论点，可做陈述用，有数据，有例证，有论述。
并且保证英语的地道，华丽和准确！望采纳！
Against:
1. An all-out donation is not suitable for sustainability of charity funds.
In nowadays capitalist society, investment is no longer an unfamiliar word. An all-out donation deprives the charity fund's capability to regenerate the funds through investment. The famous Rockefeller Foundation has an endowment over 3 billion US dollars. The Foundation only liquidizes a small portion around 5-10% of the total endowment every year for charity purpose and puts the rest of money into further investment. The rates are calculated by a bunch of talented investors and fund managers to keep the endowment not decreasing. This strategy has been proved to be a huge success that the Rockefeller Foundation lasts for over a hundred years! And the accumulated charity donation has exceeded tens of billions! Though an annual grant of 137 million dollars is outmatched with a billion dollar all-out donation, the total grant is much larger than the ephemoral effect of an all-out donation.
2. An all-out donation does not answer the needs of donees.
Most of the philanthropic projects aim to resolve the problem of poverty, hunger, environment degradation, education, globalization, health problems and so on, and they involve long terms of construction plans or recruitment project. Schools cannot be built in one day, teachers cannot be recruited in one month and polluted environment cannot be recovered in one year. Almost all the projects demand a constant cash flow to support the construction or restoration processes. If a large amount of money is instantly spent, the fund has nothing left to replenish the cash flow and thus dies out. As a matter of fact, certain charity funds which focus on an incident, a crisis or a disaster, do require large amounts of money in a short period of time. Yet over 80% of the normal charity projects require constant management and care-taking.
3. An all-out donation is not effective in economic sense.
In Macroeconomics, the Solow-Swan Fundamental Equation tells us that any amount of aid capital not large enough to escape from a Poverty Trap will eventually be leveled off. Obviously no donation is large enough to help a macroeconomy escape a poverty trap, which may involve trillions of dollars. Therefore, if we truly care about the long-run growth of the donee, we should not only focus on the capital side. Growth is never a one-time thing, but a gradual and steady process, accompanied by a change in technology, demography and even living styles. Therefore an all-out donation isn't really solving the problem, but might have generated more problems such as embezzelment, and further exasperate the sitation.
本回答由提问者推荐
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
