So this is why chaang noi got banned. People were planning to get his goat.
One could argue that they censured Goat's throat.
Topic: Let's Discuss "Give a Goat" (Read 1250 times)
One could argue that they censured Goat's throat.
So this is why chaang noi got banned. People were planning to get his goat.
LOL. I've been waiting for a comment about Chaang Noi in the goat discussions^^
So this is why chaang noi got banned. People were planning to get his goat.
heifer international do not supply the goats.. their partners do
guess who the partners are.
OXFAM
heifer make profits.. oops that word should not be used when they call themselves non-profit.. so lets use the phrase, huge managerial labour costs.
so get rid of the middleman and put the cash through OXFAM send 2 goats to the needy instead of just 1
guess who the partners are.
OXFAM
heifer make profits.. oops that word should not be used when they call themselves non-profit.. so lets use the phrase, huge managerial labour costs.
so get rid of the middleman and put the cash through OXFAM send 2 goats to the needy instead of just 1
This thread will have nothing to do with the fine efforts put forward by CoinLab, Heifer Internatinal, OXFAM, or any other entity that currently utilizes a 'Give a Goat' program.
Together, let's explore if there's a better way to accomplish the same feat but on the local level incorporating Bitcoin. I'll present a brief outline, whereupon the pros and cons of such an endeavor will be discussed.
From what I've read, the 'Give a Goat' program is available on all six continents, not just to a handful of African nations one may expect. And, for the most part, small villages and remote rural areas are the norm as to the location of the recipients whom receive the goats. Thus, it's safe to assume that the main suppliers of the goats are also local, for it wouldn't make sense to truck in the goats from afar.
The goat suppliers are definitely a for-profit entity, receiving prevailing compensation for their goats paid via the charitable entities, possibly at the lowest possible price point.
Enter Bitcoin. What if a charitable organization worked in concert only with the goat supplier? Surely the price of a goat is well cheaper than $50 USD in the most famish regions, possibly in the 20-30 dollar range. If that's the case, by having in place some form of accountability, the goat supplier will receive full price (prevailing) for his/her goats plus 10%-15% iff they accept Bitcoin. The onus will be put on the goat supplier as to how they'll be able to accept bitcoins, as well as how they convert it to fiat or use it locally for commerce. At the very least, a local agent working as a liaison between the charitable organization and the actual goal supplier may be in order, but what's paramount is that the goat supplier receive prevailing compensation.
By eliminating a few layers, I envision this to be least costly, more efficient and, moreover, a way to better a local economy where such improvements are needed.
I look forward to reading the pros and cons of such an endeavor.
~Bruno K~
Jump to: