[dash2]

> you don't even need to worry too much about getting scammed, as long as the scammer legitimately lives and spends in a poorer community.

Then you will have made a criminal in that community richer, which is unlikely to make that community a safer, happier or more self-reliant place.

[mr_luc]

I think that's too simplistic, which is why I used a vague term like 'scammer'.

Giving money to, say, a powerful criminal mob would be bad.

But giving money to someone who is simply dishonest or exaggerating when seeking donations from people looking to give locally? Not such a problem.

Moving money from people in the richest country to people in the poorest country is probably good, if that money gets spent (instead of hoarded) via normal economic activity -- paying people in a community in that poor country -- I'd say, regardless of the morals of the person through which it moved. Relatively small amounts of money can be turned into durable wealth in a poorer country; for instance, it can be the difference between a young family buying/building a house or not.