3 ms·
Obviously the extreme lack of money, also known as "poverty", can be solved with money. Assuming that you don't throw the money at "something" but at "somebody"
by Matumio 11y ago
Obviously the extreme lack of money, also known as "poverty", can be solved with money. Assuming that you don't throw the money at "something" but at "somebody", this "somebody" will by definition not be poor any more.
- fiatjaf 11y agoIf the criteria for "poverty" is "to not be able to get at least x quantity of money per month", to "solve" this you'll need at least to provide that x quantity of money every month. But your definition of "solution" will still be crazy if you do that.
- vidarh 11y agoThe point was to make it clear why it is obviously possible to solve poverty by throwing money at it. Now you have a worst case cost. Then the question is how much cheaper can you make it. E.g. how much investment and in what would it take before the network effects and increased trade will ensure there are enough jobs to lift those who can work out of poverty, and provide enough tax revenues for governments in question to care for those who can't work.
- Matumio 11y agoEvidence actually shows that direct cash transfers to the poor can be quite effective and lasting. Have a look at the research done by givedirectly, or this one: https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39 https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...