``Despite the difficulties, the response to the crisis was immediate and heartwarming. Government, in particular the National Disaster Coordinating Council, immediately mobilized its rescue teams. Citizens’ groups, media organizations, civil society, universities, church organizations, and private business—organized through text messages and social media websites like Facebook and Twitter—responded by organizing their own volunteer teams to rescue trapped victims or bring food, water, clothes, medicine, and blankets. Help from the international community also poured in." (bold emphasis mine)
So have the entrepreneurs been "greedy" as earlier depicted by media and politicians? The answer is clearly no.
Remember it is in the vested interest of the private sector to be charitable.
This is not only due to self esteem or social purposes but for sustaining the economic environment.
Think of it, if retail store ABC's customer base have been blighted by the recent mass flooding, where a massive dislocation- population loss through death or permanent relocation to other places- would translate to an economic loss for the store, then, it would be in the interest of owners of store ABC to "charitably" or voluntarily provide assistance of various kind to the neighborhood in order to prevent such dislocation from worsening, or as a consequence from indifference, risks economic losses.
Hence, such acts of charity is of mutual benefit.
Moreover, charity is the province of the marketplace. That's because markets produce and provides the goods and services required by society to operate on. Whereas government essentially don't produce goods or services but generates revenues by picking on somebody else's pocket.
As Murray Rothbard wrote, ``it is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity, which can only be an unbought, voluntary act of grace."
Hence acts of government to redistribute reflects on politics and not of charity.