Helping the Poor

Phil153 · #1 11-13-2007, 06:54 AM

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.

xorbie · #2 11-13-2007, 07:04 AM

+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.

wtfsvi · #3 11-13-2007, 07:08 AM

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.

DontRaiseMeBro · #4 11-13-2007, 07:17 AM

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.

tomdemaine · #5 11-13-2007, 07:57 AM

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.

zasterguava · #6 11-13-2007, 08:39 AM

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(!)

Borodog · #7 11-13-2007, 08:53 AM

[ 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.

xorbie · #8 11-13-2007, 10:29 AM

[ 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?

ojc02 · #9 11-13-2007, 10:48 AM

[ 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

mosdef · #10 11-13-2007, 11:14 AM

[ 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.