There are a lot of poor people, and a lot of them aren't distinguishable in terms of initial skills, and self-investing in learning new things is harder and ris

There are a lot of poor people, and a lot of them aren't distinguishable in terms of initial skills, and self-investing in learning new things is harder and riskier than self-investing in local farming when there aren't too many farmers. Only so many people can invest in land and livestock and farming and know-how before you reach local saturation, only so many people can invest in fishing equipment and know-how before they overfish the local areas, only so many people can invest in starting a business and that know-how and hire other poor people to do something that builds the economy, and so on. Once the low-hanging fruit of personal investment is taken, what then? Or as the economy improves slightly and the average person can more easily afford more vices, will they spiral down in that direction? Or is there a good argument that the low-hanging fruit won't disappear? Or will it not matter because through this type of aid the people will gain the skills necessary to compete in a global market, and that in a decade or two the average person can have a lifestyle approaching the average, say, Eastern European, without direct subsidization? I expect the 130 page report someone linked here addresses my concerns, and I'll add it to my reading queue, but it's not immediately obvious to me that this alone is a sustainable strategy in the sense that eventually no one will need a direct no-strings-attached cash transfer to survive. I think it will just create a dependency that will be perpetually (and increasingly in terms of dollar amount) funded by the richest individuals, corporations, and governments. Maybe that's not such a bad outcome if it's not too expensive relative to the total wealth of these funders and if many people's lifespans generally improve and contain more fun in them.