I generally wouldn’t post something so smugly self-serving as this mock Starbucks ad, but I want to point out that there’s a lot of money we spend that could be used to send to starving children. But that presumes that charity and welfare can solve extremely difficult political and social problems.

If your metric is merely how many children you could save by not doing something as a first world citizen, there’s no point being one in the first place. How many children could you have fed for a week by not buying that black Gap tank top? Or the camera you used to film the mock ad? Or the Evian you calmly sipped between takes? Or your skull full of Bed Head?

I’m a huge fan of internationalism. I always have to restrain a frown when one of our readers’ emails complains about tech support in India. Not because I disagree that it can be terrible for the consumer, but because I ultimately think it’s worth it to raise people out of squalor and misery, and I really don’t think that’s likely to happen without the investment of established countries and corporations. Likewise, I’m a huge opponent to this sort of hyper-charity mindset, where we shouldn’t enjoy our lives because others can’t enjoy theirs. Send enough business their way and the third-world peasant will be able to.

Thanks to David for the link! I mean, I think the message sucks. But thanks!

Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.