3 ms·

> I don't buy the argument that deworming doesn't really help people because they weren't offered the choice of buying the equivalent value of cigarettes instea

by imagist 10y ago

> I don't buy the argument that deworming doesn't really help people because they weren't offered the choice of buying the equivalent value of cigarettes instead. Do you understand how condescending it is to think that you know so much better than people what they need that you think they'll buy cigarettes I'd you give them money? Putting aside the fact that this isn't what people given money do in studies, your viewpoint is an extraordinarily arrogant one.

notahacker 10y ago
Do you understand how extraordinarily arrogant your white knighting is when I've already pointed out elsewhere in the thread that (i) the prevalence of smoking amongst poor males in most developing countries unambiguously is high irrespective of donations and even given a reason why low-cost tobacco might appear preferable in a tobacco/nutrition tradeoff and (ii) acknowledged that GiveDirectly-sized donations (as opposed to the one-pack-of- twenty-Rockets cost of a deworming tablet in the tradeoff comparison I actually made) tend to be invested in useful capital goods but explained why studies associated with donations likely systematically underreport tobacco consumption and other vices relative to studies not associated with donations anyway. And even edited my original post to explicitly state that I wasn't arguing that GiveDirectly was a bad idea. I think it's probably more condescending, and certainly more harmful, to assume that extreme poverty bestows upon the global poor some mystical ability to make optimal spending decisions that for some reason doesn't apply to comparatively wealthy people in developed countries entitled to access heavily-funded collective healthcare and social insurance systems.
- imagist 10y ago
  > I think it's probably more condescending, and certainly more harmful, to assume that extreme poverty bestows upon the global poor some mystical ability to make optimal spending decisions that for some reason doesn't apply to comparatively wealthy people in developed countries entitled to access heavily-funded collective healthcare and social insurance systems. That's not what I said. Fundamentally, I'm saying that personal choice in itself is a value, a value which is being overlooked by most aid programs. Low income males spend a disproportionate amount of their money on cigarettes, but that is different from a statement that low income people will spend aid money on cigarettes.

by imagist 10y ago

notahacker 10y ago

Do you understand how extraordinarily arrogant your white knighting is when I've already pointed out elsewhere in the thread that (i) the prevalence of smoking amongst poor males in most developing countries unambiguously is high irrespective of donations and even given a reason why low-cost tobacco might appear preferable in a tobacco/nutrition tradeoff and (ii) acknowledged that GiveDirectly-sized donations (as opposed to the one-pack-of- twenty-Rockets cost of a deworming tablet in the tradeoff comparison I actually made) tend to be invested in useful capital goods but explained why studies associated with donations likely systematically underreport tobacco consumption and other vices relative to studies not associated with donations anyway. And even edited my original post to explicitly state that I wasn't arguing that GiveDirectly was a bad idea. I think it's probably more condescending, and certainly more harmful, to assume that extreme poverty bestows upon the global poor some mystical ability to make optimal spending decisions that for some reason doesn't apply to comparatively wealthy people in developed countries entitled to access heavily-funded collective healthcare and social insurance systems.

imagist 10y ago
> I think it's probably more condescending, and certainly more harmful, to assume that extreme poverty bestows upon the global poor some mystical ability to make optimal spending decisions that for some reason doesn't apply to comparatively wealthy people in developed countries entitled to access heavily-funded collective healthcare and social insurance systems. That's not what I said. Fundamentally, I'm saying that personal choice in itself is a value, a value which is being overlooked by most aid programs. Low income males spend a disproportionate amount of their money on cigarettes, but that is different from a statement that low income people will spend aid money on cigarettes.