3 ms·

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 per

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 society that is disruptive. If the money comes in top down it distorts the economy. But if its given from the bottom, then perhaps things can get better. Its not an experiment that has been tried before.

chrischen 10y ago
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.
- StephenCanis 10y ago
  That's a bad example since raising minimum wage increases the cost of doing business. Artificially changing the cost of business inputs causes problems in the economy - not the fact that people are earning more money. Giving people money allows them to buy livestock, supplies for their children or food and shelter. This will help to improve their quality of life and spur the local economy. I'm hard pressed to see how this could be considered unethical.
- azernik 10y ago
  I think more scary is the macroeconomic effects of a large amount of cash on currencies and prices. $30m is a relatively small amount (compared to a total GDP of e.g. more than $50b for Kenya), but of concentrated in poor areas could have unintended effects.
- devishard 10y ago
  > It's unclear what the effects of a basic income would be in an undeveloped country. This is true, but given the evidence we do have (GiveDirectly's previous programs and previous basic income programs in developed countries) I see no reason to believe the effects will be anything but positive.

chrischen 10y ago

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.

StephenCanis 10y ago
That's a bad example since raising minimum wage increases the cost of doing business. Artificially changing the cost of business inputs causes problems in the economy - not the fact that people are earning more money. Giving people money allows them to buy livestock, supplies for their children or food and shelter. This will help to improve their quality of life and spur the local economy. I'm hard pressed to see how this could be considered unethical.
azernik 10y ago
I think more scary is the macroeconomic effects of a large amount of cash on currencies and prices. $30m is a relatively small amount (compared to a total GDP of e.g. more than $50b for Kenya), but of concentrated in poor areas could have unintended effects.
devishard 10y ago
> It's unclear what the effects of a basic income would be in an undeveloped country. This is true, but given the evidence we do have (GiveDirectly's previous programs and previous basic income programs in developed countries) I see no reason to believe the effects will be anything but positive.