Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 142 posts

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#71

Post by shubb »

pron wrote: post #58
goggles99 wrote: post #38

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…

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 accom…

Government being responsible for social security is a pretty new idea. The charity driven system he describes was the main way of doing things through the 1900s.

Churches, professions (benevolent funds), and clubs (as in masons) looked first after their own, and their children, when they fell on hard times. That was what they were for. That was why they were so vital in society.

You remember in Oliver Twist, where child orphans not lucky enough to descend for a professional are put to work as pseudo slaves in a workhouse? You remember when they escape to work as thieves and probably prostitutes for an older gangmaster? Not in your production of the show?

Anyway, that's what a small state, and charity driven welfare looked like.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#72

Post by robryan »

Crake wrote: post #40
robryan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments exist to give everyone a basic set required services. I think even the biggest free market/ small government advocate would agree that access to clean drinking water is one of those services.

But access to college and health care isn't??

Well, that depends on the government. All the way from the very basic necessities to keep citizens alive to a guaranteed minimum income and full health, education and other services.

I don't think that there is any right level for all countries.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#73

Post by pron »

logn wrote: post #70
pron wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accom…

> 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). Some notable events in American history: https:/…

I didn't say "no notable events". I said no political revolutions (although the civil war almost counts).

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#74

Post by fab13n »

pron wrote: post #58
goggles99 wrote: post #38

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…

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 accom…

> 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.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#75

Post by boomlinde »

ekianjo wrote: post #33
boomlinde wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nature is unfair. [...] 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. Since you are so readily dismissing egalitarianism on the basis of being unnatural, I'm sure you have a great natural explanation for things like property rights and law. For all I care, you can have libertarian or egalitarian ideals, but make n…

I'm not just dismissive of Egalitarinism only because it's unnatural, but also because it goes against the individual's freedom in the end. There will be always be a point if you follow that line of thought where the power in place will crush your individual interests just for the sake of making your condition the same as everyone else (even on the basis of good intentions...). That, in itself, is against Human natur…

On the other hand, one might argue that egalitarianism is more respectful of individuals by systematically making sure that every individual has their basic needs provided for independent of a vast amount of possibly impairing conditions that might be totally out of their control.

You have to realize that while libertarianism might offer more choice to an already economically privileged person, it comes at an expense. When capital controls the most basic needs, your ability to choose what to eat today might come at the cost of someone else's choice of whether or not to eat at all.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#76

Post by josephlord »

ekianjo wrote: post #5
frank_boyd wrote: post #2

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…

> - 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 y…

> 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.

This really isn't true especially at the moment. There is plenty of money at the moment looking for investment opportunities at the moment. Interest rates are near zero (suggesting that is the return expected by banks). Even when this is not the case unless there are 100% reserve requirements on banks the banking system is not limited to lend only the the savings that they receive but can create their own money and it literally costs them nothing to lend money. The just create an asset and a matching liability and you have your loan.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#77

Post by ekianjo »

vidarh wrote: post #63
ekianjo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you sure you aren't talking about present day America I'm just talking about the world I know. I don't live in America. I can't say whether it's better or worse.

Most of Europe at least is doing far better than the US on most of these metrics, through socialized systems.

Most of Europe is on the verge of bankruptcy as well. That shows how sustainable that is.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#78

Post by JonSkeptic »

goggles99 wrote: post #38

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…

I'm not sure that mandatory required charity is anything more than asking for trouble. People should give, people should help, but they should do it willingly. If you force them to do it, they will resent both the charity and you. That is a scenario that offers short term benefits at best.

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#79

Post by [deleted] »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #11
frank_boyd wrote: post #2

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…

pg once pointed out there may be far fewer startups in a society that does not allow concentration of excessive wealth. That's at least one single valid reason. http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html "People start startups in the hope of becoming much richer than they were before. And if your society tries to prevent anyone from being much richer than anyone else, it will also prevent one person from being much richer…

[deleted]

Re: Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well

#80

Post by _delirium »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #11
frank_boyd wrote: post #2

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…

pg once pointed out there may be far fewer startups in a society that does not allow concentration of excessive wealth. That's at least one single valid reason. http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html "People start startups in the hope of becoming much richer than they were before. And if your society tries to prevent anyone from being much richer than anyone else, it will also prevent one person from being much richer…

Is that really why people start startups? I'd hypothesize that most interesting startups were started for more fundamental reasons than just to get much wealthier than other people. Many startup founders are passionate enough about what they're doing that they'd do it even their returns were less than what they would otherwise make (e.g. compared to a Google or Facebook salary).

In any case, startups are more constrained by opportunity than desire. Many people have both the ability and desire to bootstrap a startup, but have to work a regular job because they have to provide for their kids, and can't afford the risk. In more equal societies, these people have an easier time quitting their jobs and starting a company.

Post reply on HN