4 ms·

It's interesting how this runs counter to the two dominant political ideologies in the US. Liberals believe that the poor are too dumb and helpless to figure o

It's interesting how this runs counter to the two dominant political ideologies in the US. Liberals believe that the poor are too dumb and helpless to figure out what they want, so the government should do it, both domestically and in foreign aid. Conservatives believe that the poor are poor because they are unintelligent and lack good values (or they are acting rationally in response to liberal welfare programs), and domestic and foreign programs should be eliminated in favor of religious missions. What programs like this are finding is the the poor are intelligent and well-motivated, and they just need an opportunity to get out of the hole they are stuck in. Let me add that, from what I understand, foreign aid programs can be very helpful in areas like public health.

marmot777 10y ago
This program doesn't have an ideology I don't think nor does it make assumptions about people. Give people money and some will work on top of it to live higher, some will write a novel, some will devote themselves to building software. And yes some will sit around taking bong hits and eating Cheetos. It does not matter to me as none of these is likely to hurt others. Where someone is using this money to hurt others we have laws as imperfect as they are. Humans will always be imperfect and society will always be imperfect as an understatement.
nostrademons 10y ago
I think it's important to realize that there are many causes of poverty, ranging from political to cultural to infrastructure to capital. What programs like GiveDirectly and the Grameen Bank's operations in Bangladesh are finding is that when the limiting factor is lack of money, giving people money helps, a lot. There are other places in the world where the limiting factor is that if you give people money, some warlord will come in with guns and take it away. There are other places where if you give money, the local villagers will drink it away. There are still other places where you can give money and people will use it productively to grow more crops, and then the crops will rot in the fields because the transportation infrastructure to transport them to where they're needed doesn't exist. In places like Kenya or Bangladesh where there is relatively peace, a relatively industrious culture, and the know-how to profitably invest capital, giving money helps. In other places - DRC for example, or rural Peru - the money just gets redistributed to people who will use it to keep the locals down.
PeterStuer 10y ago
Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies. That ideology also strongly believes in personal responsibility, you are the master of your own outcomes. While there is a realization that yes, the system is rigged in favor of rent seeking and exponential accumulation, there is also the believe that at least some of the wealth is shared through 'trickle down' employment schemes. It is important to realize this 'sharing' is not a deliberate goal, but more like the man in the story hiring a day-laborer to help with his fishing, an accidental byproduct of accelerating rent-seeking wealth accumulation. The fishing aid is not hired for charity, but because the potential of the fishing net in maximizing return is higher even after deducting wages. He also has no concept of sustainability. His motive is immediate profit maximization, so he can go on hiring boats and fisherman until the lake is all fished up. By that time he'll be 'rich', probably living far away or at least long have crossed the threshold where is further wealth accumulation does not depend on any specific lake or industry. It is those hired fishing aids that will feel the brunt of this natural disaster, not the owner. Back to the US. What happens if trickle down stops because machines are better/cheaper/faster? What do you 'do' with 'people'? Let them starve in horrible circumstances while you hide behind big fences guarded by a ruthless G4S private army? Or do you somehow continue to trickle down? But on what basis? 'Meaningless' labor, just because you can't stand 'laziness'? Or do you provide the 'basics', like food, shelter, medicine, regardless of their inherently meaningless chore completion rate? I guess what it realy boils down to in the end is the question of what we believe 'being human' is all about.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies. I suppose that from 1992 until (but not including) 2016, looking from the outside only at major party Presidential nominees, it would be easy to miss the substantial dissent from the neoliberal consensus in the US (even within both major parties, and even in the segment of those parties in government.) OTOH, since we elected an authoritarian populist whose economic approach blends mercantilist protectionism with corporatism, the idea that the only economic philosophy with any currency in US politics is neoliberalism isn't even something that relatively disengaged foreign observers can be excused.for.buying into.

marmot777 10y ago

This program doesn't have an ideology I don't think nor does it make assumptions about people. Give people money and some will work on top of it to live higher, some will write a novel, some will devote themselves to building software. And yes some will sit around taking bong hits and eating Cheetos. It does not matter to me as none of these is likely to hurt others. Where someone is using this money to hurt others we have laws as imperfect as they are. Humans will always be imperfect and society will always be imperfect as an understatement.

nostrademons 10y ago

I think it's important to realize that there are many causes of poverty, ranging from political to cultural to infrastructure to capital. What programs like GiveDirectly and the Grameen Bank's operations in Bangladesh are finding is that when the limiting factor is lack of money, giving people money helps, a lot. There are other places in the world where the limiting factor is that if you give people money, some warlord will come in with guns and take it away. There are other places where if you give money, the local villagers will drink it away. There are still other places where you can give money and people will use it productively to grow more crops, and then the crops will rot in the fields because the transportation infrastructure to transport them to where they're needed doesn't exist. In places like Kenya or Bangladesh where there is relatively peace, a relatively industrious culture, and the know-how to profitably invest capital, giving money helps. In other places - DRC for example, or rural Peru - the money just gets redistributed to people who will use it to keep the locals down.

PeterStuer 10y ago

Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies. That ideology also strongly believes in personal responsibility, you are the master of your own outcomes. While there is a realization that yes, the system is rigged in favor of rent seeking and exponential accumulation, there is also the believe that at least some of the wealth is shared through 'trickle down' employment schemes. It is important to realize this 'sharing' is not a deliberate goal, but more like the man in the story hiring a day-laborer to help with his fishing, an accidental byproduct of accelerating rent-seeking wealth accumulation. The fishing aid is not hired for charity, but because the potential of the fishing net in maximizing return is higher even after deducting wages. He also has no concept of sustainability. His motive is immediate profit maximization, so he can go on hiring boats and fisherman until the lake is all fished up. By that time he'll be 'rich', probably living far away or at least long have crossed the threshold where is further wealth accumulation does not depend on any specific lake or industry. It is those hired fishing aids that will feel the brunt of this natural disaster, not the owner. Back to the US. What happens if trickle down stops because machines are better/cheaper/faster? What do you 'do' with 'people'? Let them starve in horrible circumstances while you hide behind big fences guarded by a ruthless G4S private army? Or do you somehow continue to trickle down? But on what basis? 'Meaningless' labor, just because you can't stand 'laziness'? Or do you provide the 'basics', like food, shelter, medicine, regardless of their inherently meaningless chore completion rate? I guess what it realy boils down to in the end is the question of what we believe 'being human' is all about.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Non-amaricans often think that the US has just one dominant political ideology. Sure, it comes in two flavors, red and blue, but both are neo-liberal capitalist market ideologies. I suppose that from 1992 until (but not including) 2016, looking from the outside only at major party Presidential nominees, it would be easy to miss the substantial dissent from the neoliberal consensus in the US (even within both major parties, and even in the segment of those parties in government.) OTOH, since we elected an authoritarian populist whose economic approach blends mercantilist protectionism with corporatism, the idea that the only economic philosophy with any currency in US politics is neoliberalism isn't even something that relatively disengaged foreign observers can be excused.for.buying into.