> I don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives. Of course it does. The important question is wha

> I don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives. Of course it does. The important question is what is the long-term impact. For some people, a one-time donation can stop a downward spiral (pay the worst debts, and make sure you will not needlessly make new ones in the future; pay the medical bills) or even start an upward curve (buy a car, find a better paying new job that requires commute by car). For other people, a one-time donation simply means some luxury for the following few days/weeks/months until they run out of money. Sometimes it even results in more debt, if they cannot sufficiently quickly revert their habits the moment the money is gone. With the first group, I think the society will likely get its investment back. The problem is how to distinguish between them. Because the current attempts mostly select for people who are good at navigating the bureaucratic maze (which the first group is often actually worse at, because their situation is novel for them).