201–210 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus the fact that there’s bias in the first place - citizens in a country where they know social programs will care for their needy would not need to donate.
Right. You can vote for a government that will tax you and then fix misfortunes and injustices. It's probably a lot more effective and efficient than writing a check to a megachurch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. This is pretty normal in some poor communities and that cash is commonly diverted to various vices. Some malnutrition is a consequence of this. Adding friction to the conversion of welfare benefits to cash is a feature. You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper…
> The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. I think “widespread secondary markets” is carrying a lot of implications… yes, people do sell food stamps for cash, and yes it technically happens over a large area (the US) but it’s far from a significant problem within the population that uses food stamps. Most estima…
Spoiler: The plan is .. add massive regulation, but only to the US, don't affect other countries developing it in any way other than "setting a good standard that'll hopefully influence them". Seems like an airtight plan.
That's called the carrot The beauty of the United States' global hegemony is that it also has lots of sticks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. This is pretty normal in some poor communities and that cash is commonly diverted to various vices. Some malnutrition is a consequence of this. Adding friction to the conversion of welfare benefits to cash is a feature. You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper…
> The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. I think “widespread secondary markets” is carrying a lot of implications… yes, people do sell food stamps for cash, and yes it technically happens over a large area (the US) but it’s far from a significant problem within the population that uses food stamps. Most estima…
I’ve lived in serious poverty in many parts of the US, more than most people imagine exists. I’m not hypothesizing, I have first-hand knowledge. The evidence is so overwhelming that I shouldn’t have to play that card. It is disappointing the extent to which people will deny this reality for ideological reasons against all evidence.
Poverty is a mixed bag but the policies there, as with everywhere else, are defined by the worst cases. A significant subset of people in poverty cannot be trusted with their own welfare. That is a fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A baseline of housing - for example, a Japanese style capsule or ultra-tiny home, that you can lock and store your belongings safely - costs close nothing. Of course, nobody would want the hobo-hotel in their neighborhood, but it has nothing to with scarcity. > the limited availability of land zoned for housing. A limited area of land is zoned for housing because those with the power to expand it are already housed.…
It's a limited area of desirable land zoned for housing. You could build all the tiny homes in the world in bum frick nowhere, but the unhoused would rather be homeless in a big city for various reasons. I probably would too.
Demis, there's a reason its not called Artificial General Cognition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible. Is that a fact? Do you have references to back it?
The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. This is pretty normal in some poor communities and that cash is commonly diverted to various vices. Some malnutrition is a consequence of this. Adding friction to the conversion of welfare benefits to cash is a feature. You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper…
Sure on a large enough cohort, there will always be all kinds of behaviours. This is true, as you have observed yourself, regardless of whether the benefit is paid in cash or food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it not sufficient? Americans give more to charity than citizens of any other developed country. The arguments that all food aid should be routed through government bureaucracies are entirely unconvincing. I'd rather donate to organizations like Second Harvest than pay higher taxes. https://www.shfb.org/
Does this account for the portion of taxes that go to the type of efforts that donations do? If not, is it really giving more? OR is it giving less and feeling better about it?
On the other hand, Americans receive less for the government, and spend more on caring for themselves (health care) than Europeans receive from the government.
To sort that you, you'd have to figure out how cost-efficient the two models are, for services provided.