4 ms·

I don't know about this. Didn't the aid from the '50/'60's work like this? How will you prevent an entire generation from growing up and expecting to receive mo

I don't know about this. Didn't the aid from the '50/'60's work like this? How will you prevent an entire generation from growing up and expecting to receive money for nothing? Where is the pride in that? What kind of bahavior are you cultivating? I always assumed people were better of with a fishing pole than just fish, but maybe I'm wrong... Love to hear the opinions here.

digitalengineer 14y ago
Thanks for the reply's. Food for thought. Another side of 'aid' is the EU providing aid while at the same time dumping milk, butter, etc in Africa and forcing locals out of a living because of all the cheap Euopean products. Everyday goods such as bread, milk, sugar and chicken are all more expensive because of the payments made to British and European farmers. At the same time, dumping of subsidised produce in African countries is forcing local producers out of business. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidie...
- vidarh 14y ago
  Agree - agricultural subsidies are a massive problem. They're unfortunately also almost politically untouchable.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  Fully agree. Another dark side of such issues is that when the production goes over the quotas, then the food is just dumped instead of being given to poorer countries. I know this can also affect the local farmers, but it just seems bad to throw food away when there is so much hunger in the world.
jkn 14y ago
I don't think this is about giving poor people a regular income, more like a one-time cash transfer. The idea is that money is a good "fishing pole".
- vidarh 14y ago
  There's been at least one experiment that involved giving an income for an extended period of time as well, unfortunately I can't remember where I read about it. Their results were at least in the short term similar: Some "abuse" (to the extent you can call it that when the money were given with no strings), but also a number of people who leveraged their "free income" into building businesses.
  - jkn 14y ago
    Maybe you're thinking of one of the experiments implementing the basic income guarantee idea [1]. The Wikipedia page mentions successful but limited experiments in Canada and India among others. It's also an interesting approach, but I think more as a way to redefine the meaning of work in developed countries. The burden of having to make a living becomes the freedom of contributing what you want and enjoy doing (or getting a high salary for doing what you don't enjoy, as you choose), a great philosophical shift... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
    - vidarh 14y ago
      It was actually the experiement in Omitara, Namibia mentioned on the wikipedia page you linked (thanks) I remembered.
- j-g-faustus 14y ago
  Agreed. If we buy the principle that individuals generally make better decisions for themselves than governments or committees can do for them, there's no reason why it should be different for the poor. In the "fishing pole" analogy: You may give them a fishing pole in the best "central planning" fashion, but they may have little use for a fishing pole because there's practically no fish in the region. By giving them money, you trust them to decide for themselves whether a fishing pole would be more useful than say a plow. I think there is a point where people stop trying to be self-sufficient and start relying on handouts. It would be interesting to know what triggers it. But the assumption that some external provider of aid always knows which kind of aid is better is probably a fallacy.
div 14y ago
The article mentions people living on less than 65 cents a day. When given money, the stats seem to indicate that these people invest that money in both short term (food !) commodities and long term (land, livestock, housing) assets. Basically, giving money directly is allowing these people to go out and buy some fish for right now, and a fishing pole for tomorrow. An added benefit is that this is a very lean way to organize aid, since there is no need for dozens of committees and meetings and other organisational overhead to determine the most efficient way to spend. You just let the receivers decide for themselves. Sure there will be some abuse and some people that go even further off the rails due to drug abuse or bad investments, but most of these people are just as capable as you and me to plan their live, they just need that little boost to get back ON the rails in the first place. A somewhat similar model is used by Kiva, except that they give the money as a loan, and it's expected to be paid back. Maybe that approach is a bit more in line with your opinion. http://www.kiva.org/ http://www.kiva.org/
RobinL 14y ago
Your assumption though is that they will spend the money on the 'fish' rather than the 'fishing rod'. Is there any evidence for this? And if they did buy the fish, are we sure that really was worse than the rod?
- digitalengineer 14y ago
  I suppose not. But my thinking was the help will end at soem point and then the fish will stop unless they've bought a rod and took the time and effort to 'learn to fish' so to speak.

digitalengineer 14y ago

Thanks for the reply's. Food for thought. Another side of 'aid' is the EU providing aid while at the same time dumping milk, butter, etc in Africa and forcing locals out of a living because of all the cheap Euopean products. Everyday goods such as bread, milk, sugar and chicken are all more expensive because of the payments made to British and European farmers. At the same time, dumping of subsidised produce in African countries is forcing local producers out of business. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidie...

vidarh 14y ago
Agree - agricultural subsidies are a massive problem. They're unfortunately also almost politically untouchable.
pjmlp 14y ago
Fully agree. Another dark side of such issues is that when the production goes over the quotas, then the food is just dumped instead of being given to poorer countries. I know this can also affect the local farmers, but it just seems bad to throw food away when there is so much hunger in the world.

jkn 14y ago

I don't think this is about giving poor people a regular income, more like a one-time cash transfer. The idea is that money is a good "fishing pole".

vidarh 14y ago
There's been at least one experiment that involved giving an income for an extended period of time as well, unfortunately I can't remember where I read about it. Their results were at least in the short term similar: Some "abuse" (to the extent you can call it that when the money were given with no strings), but also a number of people who leveraged their "free income" into building businesses.
- jkn 14y ago
  Maybe you're thinking of one of the experiments implementing the basic income guarantee idea [1]. The Wikipedia page mentions successful but limited experiments in Canada and India among others. It's also an interesting approach, but I think more as a way to redefine the meaning of work in developed countries. The burden of having to make a living becomes the freedom of contributing what you want and enjoy doing (or getting a high salary for doing what you don't enjoy, as you choose), a great philosophical shift... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
  - vidarh 14y ago
    It was actually the experiement in Omitara, Namibia mentioned on the wikipedia page you linked (thanks) I remembered.
j-g-faustus 14y ago
Agreed. If we buy the principle that individuals generally make better decisions for themselves than governments or committees can do for them, there's no reason why it should be different for the poor. In the "fishing pole" analogy: You may give them a fishing pole in the best "central planning" fashion, but they may have little use for a fishing pole because there's practically no fish in the region. By giving them money, you trust them to decide for themselves whether a fishing pole would be more useful than say a plow. I think there is a point where people stop trying to be self-sufficient and start relying on handouts. It would be interesting to know what triggers it. But the assumption that some external provider of aid always knows which kind of aid is better is probably a fallacy.

div 14y ago

The article mentions people living on less than 65 cents a day. When given money, the stats seem to indicate that these people invest that money in both short term (food !) commodities and long term (land, livestock, housing) assets. Basically, giving money directly is allowing these people to go out and buy some fish for right now, and a fishing pole for tomorrow. An added benefit is that this is a very lean way to organize aid, since there is no need for dozens of committees and meetings and other organisational overhead to determine the most efficient way to spend. You just let the receivers decide for themselves. Sure there will be some abuse and some people that go even further off the rails due to drug abuse or bad investments, but most of these people are just as capable as you and me to plan their live, they just need that little boost to get back ON the rails in the first place. A somewhat similar model is used by Kiva, except that they give the money as a loan, and it's expected to be paid back. Maybe that approach is a bit more in line with your opinion. http://www.kiva.org/ http://www.kiva.org/

RobinL 14y ago

Your assumption though is that they will spend the money on the 'fish' rather than the 'fishing rod'. Is there any evidence for this? And if they did buy the fish, are we sure that really was worse than the rod?

digitalengineer 14y ago
I suppose not. But my thinking was the help will end at soem point and then the fish will stop unless they've bought a rod and took the time and effort to 'learn to fish' so to speak.