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

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/