Charity bro

First off the bat, I'm no hater of folks who find theirselves in undesireable situations per sé. I've ran a successful charity campaign on this very platform in my day, but have come to regret it now that I'm older and wiser. I've linked everything relevant down below, go and see for yourself. Secondly, before voting either way in my poll, please read the post, or at least the tl;dr tidbit at the bottom. Now, to make my case:

Guys, I've come to the conclusion in my ponderings, that charity might not be all its chalked up to be. It may even be cringe. I mean on the surface, sure, it does seem like giving money, food and other resources and infrastructure to the needy is a laudable and admirable thing. And indeed it is, at least in the short term. The immediate effect that such actions have is positive, absolutely, but what my post is concerned about here are the detrementally negative long term effects of such actions.
First we must consider what charity is thought to be, and why people deem it necessary to the point of using public funds to similar ends. Charity can commonly be defined as the voluntary donation of one's own resources for the benefit of those in need. Seems rational, but the conditions of those helped never seem to improve beyond the immediate. To understand why this is, I think it's fundemental to first understand what it means to be needy. Personally I can think of a few scenarios where the conditions of an individual or a group would attract charity, namely different forms of crises like large scale conflicts and natural disaster, and economic factors like poverty and lack of economic freedom. In this post I want to focus in more on the economic factors, namely poverty, because I think those are the circumstances where we most often see the systematic structures that prevent wealth creation take place. Now we've arrived at a crucial point; what is poverty? Simply put, it's the condition in which one doesn't have the economic means to support his own or his household's basic wellbeing. This is the point where i'll cut off the definiton rabbithole, as I deem this level sufficient to understand the point I'm going to make.
So, again, to give a starving man a loaf of bread is an admirable act of charity, obviously. The problem is not individual acts of kindness, but large scale systematisation of charity targeted at a population. Wealth, the cure to poverty (yes, I will just impose that's the case), doesn't come from handouts, but must instead be supported by a societal mechanism, the economy. In an economy where supply of the most basic needs is solved by the charitable actions of outsider agents, the target populus of this "help" will not and cannot develop ways of solving these problems on their own. Imagine a town in which all housing, food and basic needs is provided to the townfolk automatically, like magic, some garden of eden type ****. What would be the point in such a town for anyone to put their own resources and effort to producing anything the magical provider already provides? It's not like they can find a benefit from it by helping others or themselves to these scarce resources as that need is already fulfilled. And if they can't find solutions to the basic problems in an economy there's really no way they can build a more complex economy to solve other needs, especially those outside their domain. By what signal would this populus even find ways to do do genuine exchange with the outside world? They produce nothing of their own the outside would find beneficial, and giving them money to do foreign exchange wouldn't change a thing since they still can't make their own money without exports rendering the whole system unsupportable and completely dependant on handouts.
I recon a much more effective way of doing charity to an economically suffering populus would be to purchase goods from them at a slightly inflated price. In such a way they are capable of deciding which activities build their economies in ways that generate revenue independantly of handouts. One efficient form of said "bonus pay", if you will, is private investment. Companies building factories and other forms of production in such countries would supply them with jobs that benefit both the domestic workers and the foreign investors and consumers. Sure, it may seem immoral to "export jobs" to countries suffering from poverty, taking production jobs from their countries of origin and giving them to foreigners, but I wager everybody is better off arranging things this way in the long run. The other perspective in which this may seem immoral is that the companies in this arrangement are "taking advantage" of cheap labor, but as I've established before, the poverty ridden populus is much better off developing a functioning economy than importing on a well meaning foreigner's dime. The effects of such an arrangement aren't immediate and therefore don't fulfill the charity giver's need to feel like they're helping.
"But what if we just funded charities that fund and help build infrastructure to help the impoverished nations to develop their economies?" Yeah, again, on the surface this seems like a great idea, but it runs into some issues. Imagine yourself as the head of such a project for some charity organisation. You're tasked with figuring out whether to build a well to bring water to a village, or to build infrastructure that brings them electricity. What steps do you take to figure out which solution wastes fewer of the well meaning charitable peoples generously donated, but limited resources? You must perform a cost-benefit-calculation of some sort, but without a functioning economy in the area, you can't determine which need is more urgent to these villagers. Not only that, but you can't even begin to calculate the cost of building either of the projects, since you lack relevant information about the resources, such as scarcity and if they're needed more acutely elsewhere. To factor in whether to build the well of electric lines, you need to take into account each individual's preferences and needs on which is more important, which materials are more or less abundant, which form of labour is more acutely needed elsewhere, and a million other factors. This type of calculation isn't hard for the charity planner to perform, but simply impossible. However, if the villagers were acting within a functioning market, the decision would be easy. Just pick the cheaper option. Built into the price of each option in total is factored in all of the relevant information about the resources needed, their scarcity, their demand, their profitability. It only makes sense, the resources will go toward the ends in which they produce the greatest amount of wealth, because thats where someone is willing to pay the most for them.
The bottom line here is that charity done outside a special event like a conflict or natural disaster is only a form of institutionalised helplessness, that we'd all be better off without. Or at least it should be carried out in drastically different ways than just lazy and gay handouts.

TL;DR: The effects of charitable action on impoverished populations are counterproductive in unexpected ways, though seemingly successful at first glance. The immediate effects are obvious and positive, give money to someone who needs it and they will buy what they need. But then what? They are in no better of a position, the can has just been kicked down the road. A true solution to the issue requires systems that create wealth and wellbeing within the population that requires charitable action, and that is impossible to do via central planning (big charities) due to lack of a free economy in the target population to guide resources to their most productive ends. Not to mention a too high of a level in infrastructure is impossible to keep up for an undeveloped economy, eventually leading up to them returning to square one. Money should flow into economies from abroad through exports, not handouts. Handouts have an overall negative long term effect.

There are a million and one other points about this that I had in my head but for the life of me I can't remember them right now, I might respond to this thread and expand on my thoughts on the issue, but that's all for now. I'd like to hear what you think about all this, please leave a response and vote on my little poll! Maybe I'll be active here again idk

a little post scriptum: lol i just remembered a couple topics regarding this, namely taxpayer funded foreign aid, tariffs, "but we extracted their resources", and a few other ones too, but i cant be bothered to add them to this rn, maybe later idk
ps2:also sorry this is mega ramble-y i didnt formulate this at all i just wrote
ps3: oh wow i had no filter 9 years ago my apologies if you find me potty-mouthing on the internet through these links hahaha

Links to my epic charity campaign from years past:
The iconic track charity bro by noob: https://www.freeriderhd.com/t/261407-charity-bro
Evidence of my overwhelming generosity:

 

woah really eye-opening perspective there. do you want the poor to starve you *******?