GiveDirectly Planning to Give $30M in Basic Income to East Africa

Post by crdoconnor » Sat, May 07, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #159

skunkworks wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are poor people supposed to find innovative solutions to their problems and elect governments that create sustainable wealth while they're steeped in desperate poverty? I believe that education is the tip of the spear, but are there any examples where a poor majority has pulled itself up by its bootstraps?

Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Post by crdoconnor » Sat, May 07, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #65

seizethecheese wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how the parent comment is describing mercantilist development. My understanding is that mercantilist development implies that the subservient state is developed as an income source for the dominant state. Although traditional development may not be effective, it surely isn't meant to extract resources.

"Dumping" is a mercantilist theory; other schools of economics view the same phenomenon as a gift or subsidy (for the recipient). Bastiat wrote a famous criticism of proponents of "anti-dumping".[1] [1] http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

Post by devishard » Sat, May 07, 2016, 3:27 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #166

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your government is already vestigial, I'm sorry to say. Giving aid is the worst thing possible if its given to the state. But giving it to the citizens is perhaps better, because they can directly improve their lives by investing in their children, in better tools, and in things like cattle that can directly generate sustainable income. Free money won't destroy your society. It's how that free money comes into your s…

It's unclear what the effects of a basic income would be in an undeveloped country. For example, if a poorer country raised minimum wage too much it could destroy the economy whereas the same raise in a more developed country will have better short term effects. This could end up being unethical economic experimentation.

Post by ptaipale » Sat, May 07, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #206

ptaipale wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lot more free than it was until late 1970's and China has got tremendously richer as a consequence. Nor is South Korea a model of freedom; it was authoritarian, it was and still is protectionist. But it did integrate to world economy. Compare it to North Korea, which started off as equally poor, and which has real, concrete, deadly famines in recent memory. Same applies to R.O.C. Taiwan; autocratic, even corru…

All of those countries enacted protectionist trade policies. Singapore/HK tended not to target specific industries but they suppressed the value of their currencies by loading up on US treasuries (their small size made this easy). In all of those cases those countries were given tacit approval by the US to enact protectionist trading policies and yet maintain their access to US markets.

Post by maaku » Sat, May 07, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #194

home_boi wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What, people are going to stop wanting luxuries? Yes, check out /r/financialindependence There's thousands of people living frugally to retire early with ~1-2 million which is basically UBI over a lifetime

Wanting to be financially independent doesn't necessarily mean you want to completely stop working. It just means you want to choose how you spend your time.