
Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well - aarghh
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal
======
wahsd
Those who have for centuries fooled the rest of humanity into believing that
their unearned, illegitimate, and unwarranted elevated status is justified
know the findings of this painfully obvious fact to be true. Which is why they
pull out all and every stop to prevent the majority from realizing it by
vilifying anyone and anything that could spread that realization.

~~~
kbutler
I assume you're including yourself in that - I bet you're in the top 1/10 of
1% of income globally:
[http://www.globalrichlist.com/](http://www.globalrichlist.com/)

I am far from asserting that we have a fully equitable system, of either
opportunity or outcome, but remember that inequality is an unavoidable result
of private property and freedom of choice. (For example, give everyone
$100,000 and freedom to spend or save as they will, and check back in ten
years.) If there can be any voluntary spending for the benefit of your
children, then inequality will persist and be magnified across generations.

~~~
wahsd
Thank you for that link. Quite interesting. That being said though it is not a
fair recrimination or charge. The problem is one of relative terms. Of course
there should and will always be disparate income and wealth based on choices
and circumstance. The problem arises in the immeasurably disparate and
unbalanced nature of wealth and income distribution.

You have to keep in mind that even when talking about wealth and income
distribution in the USA we are only just talking about the most obvious of
disparities, the pile of snow on the tip of the iceberg. We don't talk about
the value of soft disparity in things like opportunity, privilege, access, and
corruption.

Your last sentence is the the one at the crux of the next step in human social
and economic development. I pose that it is the linchpin keeping shackles on
the vast majority of humanity.

------
frank_boyd
As a matter of fact, society has _not a single valid_ reason to allow
concentration of excessive wealth on some kind of restricted group or "elite"
(as, by the way, also promoted erroneously by the idea of the "American
Dream"). Here are a few facts to explain that this concept is not sane at all:

\- Excessive wealth is usually hoarded (in bank accounts), not used: But if
you want the economy to work the most (creating jobs, etc.), you need to make
money circulate as much as possible (which is not what rich people usually
do).

\- Excessive wealth ends up being used for corruption (famous example: the
Koch brothers), simply because _it can_. You can not get rid of corruption
without getting rid of excessive wealth concentration.

\- Excessive wealth could "morally"/"ethically" only be justified by the
existence of "really free will" (a concept which we can never reasonably take
as a basis, given the fact that this concept is of religious nature, not
rational thinking): Free will -> free decision -> merit of the better decision
-> excessive wealth. As noted, this is how society excuses the existence of
excessively rich people, and it's completely flawed and wrong.

\- Excessive wealth will always has the tendency to become even more
excessive: it gives its holder an "unfair" advantage.

\- A part of excessive wealth will always be used to protect the "unfair
advantage", thus eliminating equality even more.

~~~
ekianjo
> \- Excessive wealth is usually hoarded (in bank accounts), not used: But if
> you want the economy to work the most (creating jobs, etc.), you need to
> make money circulate as much as possible (which is not what rich people
> usually do).

Another economical fallacy. When you put money in the bank, it's not standing
there doing nothing. Savings are invested, loaned, used to create additional
value. That's why banks want your money. If not, it would be a simple cost for
them with no value to have it there, and they would charge you to keep your
money instead of rewarding you for it.

> Excessive wealth will always has the tendency to become even more excessive:
> it gives its holder an "unfair" advantage.

Nature is unfair. We don't have the same genes. We don't share the same risks
for illness or reproduction. We are not all top athletes. Stop the egalitarian
bullshit. The only thing society should do is ensure everyone has the same
rights in regard to the Law no matter how rich, how poor, how different you
may be. Anything beyond is just a call for arms-race to make everyone the same
in every aspect (and incidentally, to render everyone poor by default).

~~~
georgemcbay
Nature may be unfair, but it is way more fair than modern wealth distribution.

The richest 300 people in the world have more money combined than the poorest
3 billion people. You don't see deviances like that in genetics.

Also, if you believe all Americans (also applies to all other nationalities)
have the same rights in regard to the law, well I don't even know how to
respond to that, because believing that would make you incredibly, desperately
naive.

~~~
joelrunyon
> You don't see deviances like that in genetics.

You don't? You don't think Lebron James is better than about a billion people
at the game of basketball?

This is the 80/20 rule niched down about 10x.

~~~
nikatwork
To use your metaphor, one player is given 300 free shots while everyone else
only has one. And if you don't sink enough baskets, you starve. Also don't
call in sick for a game, nobody cares.

I don't understand why HN is so strongly anti- corporate and govt monopoly and
yet so massively pro-personal monopoly.

~~~
sv_underbelley
There is usually a libertarian vein in anyone who thinks they possess a lever
that can move the world. It's not necessarily a bad nor good thing.

Like all communities, we attract self-same thinkers.

------
irollboozers
It's also pretty interesting to look at the other side of this: the person
giving away the money.

Michael Norton and a group of researchers
([http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-012.pdf](http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-012.pdf))
at HBS have found that giving away money increases happiness, and that happier
people give away more money. This logic is awesome.

------
exit
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)

~~~
mseebach
Read the article. It is about a single, one-time, no-strings-attached payment,
requiring a business plan to qualify (Although there is no follow up on the
plan). It is not an ongoing payment.

"Recipients spent a third of the money learning a trade (such as metalworking
or tailoring) and much of the rest on tools and stock."

------
linux_devil
Can't agree more. Myself and few friends are part of an "AAD" initiative where
we visit deprived and apart from donating money for basic amenities, we take
care of school fees and other things. We make sure to visit and actually
engage with people other than third party donations. I am sure there are
others who do the same.

------
Gustomaximus
Would this reduce administration cost also? We always hear of charities where
20 cents on the dollar actually makes it to the people. If this can reduce
admin cost by not having to make, control or follow up on conditions it could
really help more money get to where it is needed.

~~~
rjtavares
Yes, that's one of the main advantages. Also an advantage is that no money is
lost dealing with the corruption that is so rampant in many underdeveloped
countries.

There's a great Planet Money/This American Life episode about this topic:

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/16/212645252/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/16/212645252/episode-480-the-
charity-that-just-gives-people-money)

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/503/i...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/503/i-was-just-trying-to-help)

------
lazylizard
in singapore you can see the effects of all that economic growth besides the
billion dollar gardens and F1 races and casinos...in residential areas many
old folks collect empty cans and cardboard for a living. despite laws that
compel offspring to financially support parents. you don't see beggars on the
street, nor homeless people. and unemployment is super low. its..fairly
interesting.

------
PauloManrique
It works when there a private companies giving the money. When it's the
government, like here in Brazil, it turns into vote buying, they start to
scare the poor saying if the other party wins the elections, they will stop
giving money and shit.

------
known
To really alleviate global poverty, every
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world)
nation Currency should be pegged to
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec)
Oil for 4 years due to
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma)

------
tgandrews
Not to be a downer but an academic study found this to have limited effect. I
heard about it on freakonomics so can't vouch for how biased it was. Just an
interesting point against the economist article.
[http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-
cas...](http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cash-really-
change-your-life-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/)

~~~
DanBC
The Economist article talks about someone in Kenya being given $1000USD.
That's about 84800KSH.

Minimum wage for Kenya varies, but 4855KSH ($57USD) per month is what a
general laborer gets.[1]

That person is getting very roughly 17 months income. That's very different to
"winning the lottery".

But perhaps this man is one of the 50% of Kenyans living below the poverty
line.[2] ($2USD per day) So, if he gets $1.25USD per day a $1000USD lump sum
would be a bit more than 2 years income.

Microfinance is not the wonder that people once thought it was[3], but giving
money to people directly seems to work quite well.

[1] [http://www.wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-
wage/kenya](http://www.wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-wage/kenya)

[http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/kenya](http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/kenya)

[2]
[http://c2050922.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/images/172...](http://c2050922.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/images/172/original/Kenya%20Statistics.pdf?1286826616)

[3] [http://www.irinnews.org/report/95067/development-
microfinanc...](http://www.irinnews.org/report/95067/development-microfinance-
possibilities-and-limitations)

------
pratyushag
New Incentives is an organization that only gives money through CCTs and has
seen exceptional results!! newincentives.org.

------
aaron695
TL;DR Giving money directly without conditions isn't the best way to donate
funds.

------
goggles99
Here is a wild concept, mandate that people take care of people. Use the
government only to enforce this. The government is full of corruption and
waste, they are innefective in matters that require an actual soul (such as
people who have made mistakes, people who have no reason to care, impoverished
people, prisoners ETC.)...

What if you could take the percentage of taxes that you spend every year and
choose whom to help with it. Of course those who were receiving it would have
to fulfill certain requirements, but wow what a concept. How about deducting
some amount from that mandatory contribution of the person were to volunteer
in the community?

We would have charities all over the place competing for this money,
competition would produce far better results than the abysmal record of the
state/federal social services. Many people may even give the money as cash to
some people - personally. Have government oversight review and publish how
well any charitable organization is doing at helping people become self
reliant financially and socially (this will separate the wheat from the
chaff).

People may actually become caring and have empathy for these people that they
are helping. When people help others, they become happier people. Many people
may even donate more money on top of the required amount and volunteer or
switch careers to one that helps those in need.

Imaging that. That is something that no government could ever accomplish.

The government really de-humanizes people. It takes our money and does some
things to help people. We never see this happen directly. The government keeps
the bums and beggars out of sight so we never even see them. The government
jails drug attics and other impoverished criminals so we never see them
either.

All we ever see from the media is bad news. We never see lives being turned
around from welfare or other social services.

My money says that once people start taking care of each other, their humanity
will grow 1000% ala the Grinch.

~~~
pron
But "the government" _is_ people. Society said, "let people take care of
people", and government is the answer to _how_ to do that. The government is
"full of corruption and waste" because people are.

We constantly try to find ways to organize society (and government as a
crucial part of society) in ways that minimize corruption and waste, or
mitigate their effects.

> That is something that no government could ever accomplish.

What you're suggesting _is simply a new form of government_. It might be
great; it could perhaps work. But it's certainly not something to suggest
offhand. Our current form(s) of government is a result of centuries (and
millennia) of gradual, and sometimes revolutionary, progress. I wouldn't just
throw it out the window. But hey, if you want to start a revolution, by all
means – go for it. It's been a while since we've had a good revolution in the
West. And if you're American, then it would be doubly great because we haven't
seen any political revolutions in America since its founding (though if you're
American you probably won't, because Americans like complaining about their
government and alienating themselves from it, but they tend to do very little
to improve it; at the end of the day, they're just too docile).

~~~
fab13n
> But "the government" _is_ people.

The way matter _is_ subatomic particles. The same thing at very different
scales exhibit very different properties, and although technically true, it's
misleading to consider governments as sets of people. They lack some essential
features exhibited by individuals and small groups, features which we aptly
call _humanity_.

The parent's proposal is to delegate stuff which require humanity to much
smaller groups, which operate at scales where humanity still exists. It's a
good idea, albeit not a new one: decentralization. It's very difficult to
execute properly. Moreover, humanity isn't only composed of positive
qualities: poorly executed decentralization easily turns into tribal
clientelism.

~~~
ctdonath
Poorly executed centralization easily turns into communism, which fails
spectacularly on anything but tribal scales.

Decentralization sure has its problems, but tends to beat the alternatives. Of
course, where you end up in each system and how you benefit/suffer there may
influence whether you agree.

~~~
fab13n
I certainly wasn't advising against decentralizing. Only warning against
thinking of it as an easily implemented no-brainer, a la "just decentralize
everything, and everything is going to start working smoothly, like magic".
Naive libertarianism hasn't proved to be more effective than naive Communism,
and most people including myself believe it isn't.

~~~
ctdonath
Wasn't intending to contradict you; sorry if it came off that way.

------
Unnatural_Log
"most of the payments went to mothers"

Because that's what we need: to incentivize reproduction.

Because we don't have enough people destroying the planet as fast as they
possibly can with their arrogant, self-indulgent, human-centric, bullshit
belief systems.

I'll say it once more: you are not the special darlings of a doting white god,
you arrogant assholes, you are just another animal in a chaotic universe.

This planet was not put here for you to do whatever you want with it, and you
are going to discover that shortly if you don't smarten up and realize the
obscene waste and destruction you are perpetrating.

You are, collectively, so fucking stupid that you cannot even grok the simple
concept, "don't shit where you eat". Fuckers.

~~~
adwf
Your apparent misanthropy aside, every study I've ever heard of links
increased wealth, health and prosperity with declining birth rates.

By improving the lot of these women, you decrease their need to have large
numbers of children (to work for them), you increase their education (so they
understand why large numbers of children are unnecessary) and you also put
power into the hands of the women rather than the men (so that they have a
choice).

