|
Helping the Poor
From a poster in another thread:
[ QUOTE ] [$600 billion could have] fed and educated the worlds poor for 7 years... that's fkn heartbreaking [/ QUOTE ] There are some good minds on this forum so I'd like to pose an open ended question: Is it +EV in the long run to feed and give substantial aid to the world's poor? I'll give my thoughts later. |
Re: Helping the Poor
+EV for who? What does "substantial aid" entail?
I think allowing people to create some life for themselves that has some semblance of possibility, freedom and human dignity is worth quite a lot. |
Re: Helping the Poor
Shipping food to Africa is probably not +EV ("for the world") in the long run. Building irrigration (haha I don't have real world experience, only from civilzation) should be +EV though. As well as providing other means for starving people to create their own food.
|
Re: Helping the Poor
The 600b referred to in the op is the money that has been spent on the Iraq war.. So, 600b dollars worth of murder could have ended starvation around the world at least for a time.
As for your question, I definitely think it is +ev to end human suffering as best we can. I don't think giving money to corrupt worldwide regimes is the way to solving the problem of extreme poverty but if we could hold the spoonful of food that touches the mouth of a starving child then we should of course do that. |
Re: Helping the Poor
No. We should just tear down all the barriers to them improving their own situation. No more subsidies, no more import limits and quotas, no more dumping of surpluses, and the biggie; no more immigration controls! Essentially no more western mercantilist crap would go a long way to helping.
|
Re: Helping the Poor
The US government is there to preserve the power of the opulent minority as dictated by the constitution. In this sense it is +ev for government to act liberally in order to contain the public; redistribute wealth etc... but with very calculated limits as to sustain inequality and a passive subordinate populace without (purposefully) approaching anything near a breakdown of the class system or egalitarianism.
So its a tough question. In order to NOT help the poor, you have to, to a calculated degree, help them(!) |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
Is it +EV in the long run to feed and give substantial aid to the world's poor? [/ QUOTE ] Assuming you mean +EV from the point of view of the poor you are trying to help, it depends on how it's done. Do you just ship in millions of tons of food and hand it out for free, wiping out local agriculture and making them forever dependent on future charity? No, not +EV. Do you ship in millions of dollars to a corrupt government so that they can buy more AK-47s to oppress their people with? No, not +EV. Charity can certainly be +EV for those in need. But like any business, it has to be subject to market pressure to keep it lean, productive, and efficient. |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
No. We should just tear down all the barriers to them improving their own situation. No more subsidies, no more import limits and quotas, no more dumping of surpluses, and the biggie; no more immigration controls! Essentially no more western mercantilist crap would go a long way to helping. [/ QUOTE ] Besides possibly improving economic efficiency, would this really benefit people? |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No. We should just tear down all the barriers to them improving their own situation. No more subsidies, no more import limits and quotas, no more dumping of surpluses, and the biggie; no more immigration controls! Essentially no more western mercantilist crap would go a long way to helping. [/ QUOTE ] Besides possibly improving economic efficiency, would this really benefit people? [/ QUOTE ] No, but economic efficiency = benefit to people |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
No. We should just tear down all the barriers to them improving their own situation. No more subsidies, no more import limits and quotas, no more dumping of surpluses, and the biggie; no more immigration controls! Essentially no more western mercantilist crap would go a long way to helping. [/ QUOTE ] I'm surprised that you are so sure of yourself here. While I agree in general with your sentiment (that restrictions can often be expected to do more "bad" than "good") I think that there is a potential for wealth redistribution to create a "net" gain. If you don't think socialists have the required social calculus tools to work out the optimal solution, you also can't conclude that the optimal solution is yours. |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No. We should just tear down all the barriers to them improving their own situation. No more subsidies, no more import limits and quotas, no more dumping of surpluses, and the biggie; no more immigration controls! Essentially no more western mercantilist crap would go a long way to helping. [/ QUOTE ] I'm surprised that you are so sure of yourself here. While I agree in general with your sentiment (that restrictions can often be expected to do more "bad" than "good") I think that there is a potential for wealth redistribution to create a "net" gain. If you don't think socialists have the required social calculus tools to work out the optimal solution, you also can't conclude that the optimal solution is yours. [/ QUOTE ] He doesn't think his solution is the best, he thinks the free market's solution is. FWIW (which isn't much) I agree. |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No. We should just tear down all the barriers to them improving their own situation. No more subsidies, no more import limits and quotas, no more dumping of surpluses, and the biggie; no more immigration controls! Essentially no more western mercantilist crap would go a long way to helping. [/ QUOTE ] I'm surprised that you are so sure of yourself here. While I agree in general with your sentiment (that restrictions can often be expected to do more "bad" than "good") I think that there is a potential for wealth redistribution to create a "net" gain. If you don't think socialists have the required social calculus tools to work out the optimal solution, you also can't conclude that the optimal solution is yours. [/ QUOTE ] He doesn't think his solution is the best, he thinks the free market's solution is. FWIW (which isn't much) I agree. [/ QUOTE ] His solution is a free market, which I have no problem with. But I have doubts when people claim that a free market will result in a "better" society because this argument is subject to the same pitfall as every other system, namely that you can't determine "better" rigorously. Bear in mind that we're talking about whether or not giving money to the poor will create a net gain (the benefit of their new opportunity vs. the cost of someone else's lost opportunity). I find the argument "no one knows so let's not force anything on anyone" easier to swallow than the argument "the disincentives created by welfare will cost too much". |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
From a poster in another thread: [ QUOTE ] [$600 billion could have] fed and educated the worlds poor for 7 years... that's fkn heartbreaking [/ QUOTE ] There are some good minds on this forum so I'd like to pose an open ended question: Is it +EV in the long run to feed and give substantial aid to the world's poor? I'll give my thoughts later. [/ QUOTE ] The "V" in EV is for value. Inasmuch as "value" in this context is a vague and very subjective concept, I will say absolutely yes. But that of course is based on my own personal set of values. |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
His solution is a free market, which I have no problem with. But I have doubts when people claim that a free market will result in a "better" society because this argument is subject to the same pitfall as every other system, namely that you can't determine "better" rigorously. [/ QUOTE ] The free market is the only option that lets the poor choose the definition of better for themselves. |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] His solution is a free market, which I have no problem with. But I have doubts when people claim that a free market will result in a "better" society because this argument is subject to the same pitfall as every other system, namely that you can't determine "better" rigorously. [/ QUOTE ] The free market is the only option that lets the poor choose the definition of better for themselves. [/ QUOTE ] QFT! I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know what would make the lives of the poor of the world better. I give to charity mostly because it makes me feel better about myself and somewhat in the hope that it makes others feel better according to their own personal standards. |
Re: Helping the Poor
|
Re: Helping the Poor
|
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] His solution is a free market, which I have no problem with. But I have doubts when people claim that a free market will result in a "better" society because this argument is subject to the same pitfall as every other system, namely that you can't determine "better" rigorously. [/ QUOTE ] The free market is the only option that lets the poor choose the definition of better for themselves. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, that's great. But it doesn't allow one to (without a leap of faith) conclude that there isn't some sort of "net gain" to redistribution of wealth. To remind you what I was responding to: "We should just tear down all the barriers to them improving their own situation. No more subsidies, no more import limits and quotas, no more dumping of surpluses, and the biggie; no more immigration controls! Essentially no more western mercantilist crap would go a long way to helping." Sure, removing these artificial incentives and disincentives could result in a "net gain". But it is not necessarily so, and I don't believe anyone has the ability to forecast outcomes well enough to make such rigid conclusions, whether they be free market capitalists or socialists. The inability to calculate social value cuts both ways. You can't accuse socialists of being unable to derive the optimal social solution and then turn around and say "by the way, free markets will provide a better solution". None of this is to suggest that we shouldn't conclude that free markets make more sense. But neither can we appeal to the notion that there exists an optimal solution and free markets will "sort" the wealth towards this optimal solution. |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] His solution is a free market, which I have no problem with. But I have doubts when people claim that a free market will result in a "better" society because this argument is subject to the same pitfall as every other system, namely that you can't determine "better" rigorously. [/ QUOTE ] The free market is the only option that lets the poor choose the definition of better for themselves. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, that's great. But it doesn't allow one to (without a leap of faith) conclude that there isn't some sort of "net gain" to redistribution of wealth. To remind you what I was responding to: "We should just tear down all the barriers to them improving their own situation. No more subsidies, no more import limits and quotas, no more dumping of surpluses, and the biggie; no more immigration controls! Essentially no more western mercantilist crap would go a long way to helping." Sure, removing these artificial incentives and disincentives could result in a "net gain". But it is not necessarily so, and I don't believe anyone has the ability to forecast outcomes well enough to make such rigid conclusions, whether they be free market capitalists or socialists. The inability to calculate social value cuts both ways. You can't accuse socialists of being unable to derive the optimal social solution and then turn around and say "by the way, free markets will provide a better solution". None of this is to suggest that we shouldn't conclude that free markets make more sense. But neither can we appeal to the notion that there exists an optimal solution and free markets will "sort" the wealth towards this optimal solution. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. If I'd realised my statement would be under such scrutiny I'd have caveatted it a great deal more. 1. It can be logically shown that free trade increases the utility of both parties. It can be empirically shown that the freer the trade the wealthier the general (non-elite) populace. Wealth is a reasonable but not great proxy for utility. Therefore we can reasonably conclude that "the poor" are more likely to do better under a free market system than one of mercantilism by their own standards of better. 2. It can logically be shown that subsidising behavior increases it's likelihood. Handouts to poor people is subsidising poverty. So we can assume logically that handouts will increase poverty. Empirically giving money to a person clearly increases their personal wealth in the short term but there is evidence that a welfare trap exists and that such handouts are strongly correlated with increasing levels of poverty (though proving a causal link is more difficult). Therefore we can conclude (though with less strength to our conclusion) that ceteris paribus handouts to poor people will not result in them doing better even by their own standards of better. |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. If I'd realised my statement would be under such scrutiny I'd have caveatted it a great deal more. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I mean, I don't even disagree with you. I just think that if a socialist made an equivalently sloppy statement on this board he would get swarmed, so what goes around comes around. |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Agreed. If I'd realised my statement would be under such scrutiny I'd have caveatted it a great deal more. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I mean, I don't even disagree with you. I just think that if a socialist made an equivalently sloppy statement on this board he would get swarmed, so what goes around comes around. [/ QUOTE ] Hey I'm more than happy for people to pick me up when I stumble if it's in a constructive manner, thanks for watching my back. Did my explanatory post make more sense? |
Re: Helping the Poor
Yes it's +EV. Inefficient use of resources due to diminishing returns otherwise. (Obviously the distribution has to be competently handled, though.)
tomdemaine's solution would do a better job of fixing this particular problem. Since it's not gonna happen, however, we should be giving alms one way or another. |
Re: Helping the Poor
Who's going to post that it's more valuable to have people starving than it is to provide people with adequate nutrition? It's a loaded question and it doesn't address who actually provides the aid. The implication is the U.S. only provides the aid since there is a reference to the U.S. spending on the Iraq war. Also as you imply, it doesn't ask how to best maximize the value of the money being spent. It's a dumb question.
|
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
Who's going to post that it's more valuable to have people starving than it is to provide people with adequate nutrition? It's a loaded question and it doesn't address who actually provides the aid. The implication is the U.S. only provides the aid since there is a reference to the U.S. spending on the Iraq war. Also as you imply, it doesn't ask how to best maximize the value of the money being spent. It's a dumb question. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.obrienmedical.com/sitebui...uestioning.jpg |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Who's going to post that it's more valuable to have people starving than it is to provide people with adequate nutrition? It's a loaded question and it doesn't address who actually provides the aid. The implication is the U.S. only provides the aid since there is a reference to the U.S. spending on the Iraq war. Also as you imply, it doesn't ask how to best maximize the value of the money being spent. It's a dumb question. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.obrienmedical.com/sitebui...uestioning.jpg [/ QUOTE ] A+ |
Re: Helping the Poor
[ QUOTE ]
The US government is there to preserve the power of the opulent minority as dictated by the constitution. In this sense it is +ev for government to act liberally in order to contain the public; redistribute wealth etc... but with very calculated limits as to sustain inequality and a passive subordinate populace without (purposefully) approaching anything near a breakdown of the class system or egalitarianism. So its a tough question. In order to NOT help the poor, you have to, to a calculated degree, help them(!) [/ QUOTE ] what made you say this? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.