Cash to the poor: Giving money directly works surprisingly well • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by emiliobumachar » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 8:39 PM UTC

subsystem wrote: post #64

emiliobumachar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be a much better argument without the strawman of absolute equality.

From the same reference:

"This argument applies proportionately. It's not just that if you eliminate economic inequality, you get no startups. To the extent you reduce economic inequality, you decrease the number of startups."

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

#122

Post by subsystem » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 10:26 PM UTC

emiliobumachar wrote: post #121

subsystem wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a much better argument without the strawman of absolute equality.

From the same reference: "This argument applies proportionately. It's not just that if you eliminate economic inequality, you get no startups. To the extent you reduce economic inequality, you decrease the number of startups."

But that is not the argument he makes leading up to the quote. It may seem like semantics, but mixing absolute and relative inequality makes an increase in equality seem unfavorable.

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

#123

Post by Crake » Mon, Oct 28, 2013, 10:33 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #77

vidarh wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, Germany is doing really awful these days. /s

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

#124

Post by ctdonath » Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 1:55 AM UTC

consonants wrote: post #119

ctdonath wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charities existed, in robust force, for a long time before the government stepped in and confiscated so much money from people they didn't have much left to care for others as they saw fit. We had charities all over the place competing for this money, and did produce far better results than the abysmal record of the state/federal social services, until the government stepped in and made it terribly difficult to provi…

Gubbamint is keeping the hungry from these bushels of bread not fit for human consumption, why can't they see the harm they're doing? Isn't bad food better than nothing? >realizing that something done poorly is better than nothing and requiring something better leads to nothing Oh my god you actually typed it. Or we can adequately fund our social programs so that they are held to a certain standard and don't depend o…

Socialism works great until you run out if other people's money. ...which we have; the pipeline just hasn't emptied out yet.

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

#125

Post by JeffL » Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 4:29 AM UTC

nhaehnle wrote: post #41

ekianjo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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…

As to the relationship between savings and investment, and the role of banks in there, ask yourself the following question: Suppose that Alice decides that, from this month on, she will start putting aside 10% of her monthly income into a long-term savings account. Will this decision cause the bank to make more loans? By default, the answer seems to be no. After all, banks lend out money when creditworthy borrowers s…

If a bank gains extra money in the vault, won't it lower the interest rate it's offering on loans to try to attract a credit worthy borrower so the money isn't just sitting there?

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

#126

Post by goggles99 » Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 7:56 AM UTC

JonSkeptic wrote: post #78

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.

>'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.

Every study on the subject has consistently found that giving creates a sense of happiness and fulfillment. These feelings more often than not encourage the givers to give more, to encourage others to give and to also give their time and efforts (not just money) to help others. It increases their humanity.

Why would people giving to someone of their choice (the receivers are of course qualified recipients) and seeing the good it does that person VS the government taking the money out of your pocket, wasting half of it and spending the other half on programs that under perform cause more trouble?

I may very well be wrong here, but I don't think someone with your opinion has ever given directly to a needy person...

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

#127

Post by goggles99 » Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 7:59 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #89

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…

Mandatory charity is by definition not charity. It's a form of forced labor. Charity: n. the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.

>Mandatory charity is by definition not charity. It's a form of forced labor.

Please have a better argument than semantics and proper English usage. Everyone knows what I am talking about.

Also, if this is forced labor, so if mandatory tax filing, mandatory Obamacare ETC.

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

#128

Post by goggles99 » Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 8:11 AM UTC

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…

>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.

Where on earth did you get "new form of government" and "revolution" from? I am merely suggesting that social services be reformed heavily. This is certainly something that could be evaluated on a small scale (state level perhaps). I do realize that while the concept is simple, the implementation would be far more complex.

Everyone here keeps coming up with all these wild reasons of why this is a bad idea. Funny thing is, almost all their reasons (such as corruption, fraud, ETC.) already exist in the system today. I am not saying that there would not be any regulations, oversight, ETC. I am also not saying that there wold never be abuses. All I am saying is that the government is certainly not the best at getting this type of job done and tax money going to the poor and people not even seeing it happen is dehumanizing us.

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

#129

Post by goggles99 » Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 8:18 AM UTC

fab13n wrote: post #74

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…

> 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 humanit…

Excellent reply. My take on this is. People who spend other people's money by the truckload are rarely going to spend it in the wisest possible and responsible way. The other points are these... With government spending the money, a small percentage of people are distributing this money that was collected from the general populous and the feeling of giving someones money away to others is not the same as if it were your own money (especially when it is going to poor results programs)

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

#130

Post by goggles99 » Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 8:33 AM UTC

mrbgty wrote: post #104

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…

"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." The government is one answer for how to do that. Society and government are not the same.

People spending their own money are almost always less wasteful and more careful where that money goes.

Almost everyone wants to help needy people. Most are just too busy, don't want to see that part of society, or don't know how to get involved.

If someone that you knew said that you could pay $1000 less in taxes next year if you looked through a list of families that needed help and wrote a check to them for $1000, how many people do yo think would refuse?

Do you think that they would spend more than 30 seconds randomly looking through the list for the person they will be helping?

The government largely only cares about that family in terms of employment and re-election. They are nothing but a number in a database somewhere. Most people don't even know the level of suffering some people right here in the good ol USA go through on a daily basis. The more money that one has, the more insulated from that reality they are. This will provide a window at least.

This illustration does not exactly follow the original concept, but hopefully you get the idea of an individual vs govt.