If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   What happens when you give money with no strings attached to the poor? Do they: A) spend it on hookers and blow; B) burn it to keep warm; or C) start up businesses and buy food for their children?   (npr.org) divider line 282
    More: Obvious, developing world, poor people, return on investments  
•       •       •

10502 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 9:13 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



282 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-25 09:15:00 AM
Gotta have money to make money.  More at 11.
 
2013-10-25 09:17:03 AM
When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.
 
2013-10-25 09:17:11 AM
Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.
 
2013-10-25 09:17:55 AM
Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.
 
2013-10-25 09:18:25 AM
It's almost like poor people immediately spend their money in local economies while rich cocksuckers, they probably all in the Hamptons braggin' about what they make.

fark you and your Hampton house
I fark your Hampton spouse
Came on her Hampton blouse
and in her Hampton mouth
 
2013-10-25 09:19:56 AM
Half Price Books did a massive clearance sale event and bragged about "And we'll donate the rest to Feed The Children" leaving me to ask "Children eat books? Or are they going to transport the books to impoverished regions and hand them out thus making it impossible for a small book dealer to grow up in the area since they have to compete with free".

It tends to be a problem when we toss out piles of food. We flooded the Haitian market with free rice, impoverishing local rice farmers. Want to hand out food? Buy local first.
 
2013-10-25 09:20:41 AM
Well it happened this time, surely it will happen any time this is tried any where in the world.
 
2013-10-25 09:21:46 AM
No, they'll use my tax dollars to get steak and Lobsters and lottery tickets.

/amirite?
 
2013-10-25 09:21:58 AM
That's Socialism.
 
2013-10-25 09:22:27 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.


Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.
 
2013-10-25 09:22:41 AM
So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).
 
2013-10-25 09:22:53 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.


Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....
 
2013-10-25 09:23:04 AM
Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....
 
2013-10-25 09:23:09 AM
Let's conduct an experiment. I'm poor. Gimme some money
 
2013-10-25 09:23:38 AM
Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.
 
2013-10-25 09:23:50 AM
D) Flat screen plasma refrigerators.
 
2013-10-25 09:24:41 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....


I smell merger...
 
2013-10-25 09:24:41 AM

THE GREAT NAME: So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).


now we know Sen. Cruz' Fark handle.
 
2013-10-25 09:26:15 AM

tricycleracer: HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....

I smell merger...


I would not be surprised anymore... Apple will probably claim they own the rights to the word "Apple" and then naturally all apple farmers and Applebees are therefore automagically owned by them now.
 
2013-10-25 09:26:17 AM

vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.


It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.
 
2013-10-25 09:28:18 AM
Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.
 
2013-10-25 09:29:39 AM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.


And to be fair, option A still is a net positive for the economy.  Drug dealers and hookers buy lots of shiat.  Well maybe blow is a lesser example because it's nearly impossible to find a source that isn't cartel backed but it usually touches enough hands that most of the cut you're paying for goes to local dealers.
 
2013-10-25 09:29:47 AM
Odd.. if you give money to enterprising people who just happen to be poor, they do something with it.

If A = enterprising people and some Poor B are A, then give money to B ?
 
2013-10-25 09:30:54 AM
Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.
 
2013-10-25 09:31:00 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: automagically


imageshack.us
 
2013-10-25 09:32:34 AM
Seems to be some ambiguity in some of the claims.  It also doesn't seem to have stated whether alcohol and gambling increased, just that they spent at least some money on "good" things.  Presumably by self-reporting.   Also, I'd like to see the selection process.

There is this growing realization that being poor is really stressful

Quick, someone tell Ric Romero about this shocking revelation.
 
2013-10-25 09:32:41 AM
So one 1 in 1,000,000 justifies free handouts?
 
2013-10-25 09:34:15 AM

beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.


Yeah, screw the poor, because of this one guy who knew some other people who told a story that he's now telling on the internet that's totally believable.
 
2013-10-25 09:34:30 AM

dwrash: So one 1 in 1,000,000 justifies free handouts?


Where did you get these numbers?
 
2013-10-25 09:34:30 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: That's Socialism.


Yes, people voluntarily giving their own money to a charity is socialism.
 
2013-10-25 09:34:40 AM
Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "
 
2013-10-25 09:34:55 AM
My cousin is/was always poor and in trouble with financial/money issues.  He was just completely senseless with money.

When he did get money, he would blow it.  Due to his low income, he gets a decent tax refund each year.  Does he save it for a rainy day?  Use it to pay off debt?  Nope - buys the latest gaming console or iGadget.

Going to his house at Christmas, you'd think he was wealthy with the gifts he bought his family/kids.  He bought a $700 PS3 package a couple of years ago.  Then he had to pawn it for $180 two months later because he couldn't pay his bills.  Dumb and dumber.

He wonders why no one in the family will give him money when he asks for help.
 
2013-10-25 09:36:01 AM
But, but, communism!
 
2013-10-25 09:36:19 AM

nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "


Yes and the very next paragraph:

"Paul Niehaus, one of Give Directly's founders, does think cash can have long-lasting effects. He points to a similar study in Uganda where the government gave people money and people's incomes went up - and stayed up, even years later. People had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes. "
 
2013-10-25 09:36:28 AM
d) buy 1000 vuvuzelas
 
2013-10-25 09:36:55 AM

nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run. "


/FTFY
 
2013-10-25 09:37:39 AM

sigdiamond2000: HindiDiscoMonster: automagically

[imageshack.us image 320x240]


well, that's nothing new... I never got the approval of the cool kids.
 
2013-10-25 09:38:03 AM

mayIFark: Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-10-25 09:38:06 AM

the_rhino: No, they'll use my tax dollars to get steak and Lobsters and lottery tickets.

/amirite?


Yes

http://www.ebtcardbalance.com/ebt-store-s-s-lobster-ltd-massachusett s- st124
 
2013-10-25 09:38:31 AM
Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.
 
2013-10-25 09:39:26 AM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.


And skrimps is skrimps.
 
2013-10-25 09:39:51 AM

Nutsac_Jim: mayIFark: Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 300x168]


Is that a new meme? I have no clue what it means.
 
2013-10-25 09:40:54 AM

brobdiggy: Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.


So you're taking the moral high ground and suggesting we should stop feeding the poor, is that your angle?
 
2013-10-25 09:41:30 AM

mayIFark: Nutsac_Jim: mayIFark: Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 300x168]

Is that a new meme? I have no clue what it means.


Yes, Man.
 
2013-10-25 09:41:50 AM

odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.


Cool selectivity story bro. In UK not so long ago the government found out we were handing out about a billion per year in housing benefit for people to have spare bedrooms they didn't need. This was keeping people who did need those properties on waiting lists. The government reduced the housing benefits of claiments who refused to move, saving UKP800M, and put back UKP150M into a specialist fund to help out the few who would be really inconvenienced.

In response, UK's BBC (left wing state broadcaster) adopted the term "bedroom tax" in a bid to fool the viewing public into thinking this was some new tax on bedrooms in general. Furthermore, and this is the relevent point, they spent $$$ of compulsory license fee money on a research firm to scour the country looking for people who lost out. Eventually, after a FOUR MONTH search, they found a couple and stuck them on prime-time news with no balance to speak of.

This is the same BBC (and indeed the same actual news programme) that conspired to conceal repeated acts of child sexual exploitation because it was done by "one of their own", and which in order to divert people's attention started randomly accusing right-wing politicians of pedophilia knowing that they would be able to pay off the lawsuits using cash forcibly taken from the public. Oh, and its then-director-general became "buddies" with Al Gore, and promptly stiched up a policy conferance so that it would henceforth treat climate change as undisputed fact. It then refused to honour FOI requests about the conferance until it was finally discovered that it had been packed out with Greenpeace activists and the like. But, if you're an incompetant and incorrigably Marxist senior BBC manager, you can cock up as much as you want, and you'll still get a multi-million payoff from all the other incompetant Marxist hypocrite wankers in the upper ranks of the BBC. Money taken, ironically, from a highly regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest. Utter. Cock. Suckers.
 
2013-10-25 09:42:04 AM
Maybe this whole time we've mailing rice and grain to Africa, we should have been mailing hundred dollar bills instead. Hmm
 
2013-10-25 09:42:11 AM
The study was conducted by the person who co-founded the charity.  I'm guessing these results are just a tad bit skewed.

That's not to say that providing resources to those ambitious enough to do something with them is a bad idea. Personally, if someone hands me an additional $20,000, my first move isn't going to be to start a home business. I'll probably pay off some bills and upgrade some things around the house, but I'd also get a kick ass new computer.
 
2013-10-25 09:43:10 AM

Carn: Yes and the very next paragraph:

"Paul Niehaus, one of Give Directly's founders, does think cash can have long-lasting effects. He points to a similar study in Uganda where the government gave people money and people's incomes went up - and stayed up, even years later. People had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes. "


It's probably a bit easier to start a small business where it is largely unregulated and not taxed to hell.
 
2013-10-25 09:43:12 AM

beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.


yeah some folks are poor because of bad decisions and some are poor because of no fault of their own just like some people are rich because of good decisions and some are rich because of no work on their own. The Left really loves to put all rich in one "i got mine so fark you" bucket and the Right loves to put all poor in one "taker class" bucket. If you look at the level of hatred by the middle class there's not a lot of difference between the poor and the rich.
 
2013-10-25 09:43:22 AM
Also, as some people have pointed out, the article discusses giving aid to people in African countries, not welfare-poor in the US.

Two things to note:
1. Giving $1,000 to a welfare-poor person in the US and giving $1,000 to an abject-poverty man in Uganda are two completely different things.  Money will go a lot further in Uganda.  Note that I am NOT advocating that we give MORE money to American poor because of this.

2. If you do give a random poor person in the US some money, there is a VERY high probability that the money will be blown and they'll still be poor next year.  Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true.
 
Displayed 50 of 282 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report