Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

A lot of numbers in this article, but how much would it cost us to solve poverty? And for different values of the poverty line?

View on HN

you solve property by having governments that respect citizen's property rights, having good rule of law, and a sound money policy usually with freedom of exchange. government managed economies tend to only benefit those in power or already well off.

in other words, you create an environment where entrepreneurs can successfully operate as people tend to strive more when they see their efforts pay off and those pay offs are not subject to the whims of others

Obviously, yes, this is the preferred long-term solution. This doesn't buy anything for the people suffering at this very instant. Also, if you are struggling to survive, how are you going to even think about getting education?

Give a man a fish, he becomes dependant on your fish. Yes, teaching him to fish takes longer, but it's better.

> how are you going to even think about getting education? You start with an education on how to survive better. You don't need to start with an advanced education.

You can teach people how to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, but some of them have no boots, so it's not entirely fair.

life's not fair ... but expecting someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots is cruel and denies the advantage that "you" (the teacher) most likely started with a pair of boots, at least.

the whole teach-a-man-to-fish thing is a nice saying that really helps with things outside of the jurisdiction of macroeconomics. at its core, it makes more sense to me to interpret it from the one lending aid than the one being aided. in other words, it's advice given to the teacher to seek systematic justice and fairness and not simply engage in simple, punctiliar acts of mercy. however, neither of these should exist in a vacuum. act with mercy and work toward justice. the hard part about this is that there needs to be more of an emphasis on understanding and contextualizing justice within any given culture. "fishing" in guyana may look very different than "fishing" in guinea which may look very different than "fishing" in the philippines.

Unless he starves while you are teaching him because you didn't give him the fish. Or he's so famished that he can't realisitically pay enough attention to learn.

Many people are already dependant in "the fish", whether or not you give it to them.

"I live in drought ridden land locked Africa. Stop teaching me to fish; there are no fish here."

Unless of course that man is competing against heavily subsidized large scale fishing companies from industrialized countries, that export to his own country and can undercut his prices.

Free trade and free markets are truly amazing, aren't they?

If it's "heavily subsidized" then it's not free trade and free markets...

(unless you were going for sarcasm there)

this is both a long term and short term solution. The issue is that far too many of the poor are in countries with little or no respect of private property rights. These people stay poor because they and their property is not protected.

nothing you give them will mean anything when someone else can simply take it because of their position of power. we see this everyday, aid goes to the powerful except for a few select media staged events.

all comes back to the rule of law, not the rule of man.

That's one half of it.

The other half is making sure that people can bargain from a position of power rather than getting stuck in a spiral of exploitative transactions.

how do you do that? Which people get to be in a position of power? Who decides?

It's easy, from a conceptual standpoint: Make sure everyone has enough to eat, a place to live, and access to healthcare etc. Basically, make sure no one is in a position where they have to bargain away something of value in exchange for their life or to avoid pain.

A 'position of power' in this case means not bargaining to avoid death or pain. ALL people should be in such a position; no need to pick and choose.

That is also how you decide -- just ask 'Will lack of this cause someone physical pain or death?' If the answer is 'yes' society should do its best to provide it to those who are not in a position to get it for themselves.

The goal is to make sure when people engage in a transaction that everyone walks away with more value than they brought to the table. That's the magic of the market. But when people either need to strike a bargain or pay a dreadful price -- well, that's why muggings don't lead to market efficiency, isn't it?

Picking a nit, but:

That isn't from a 'position of power'. That's avoiding transactions where the other party has a position of power. Two countries wishing to operate from a position of power may engage in a cold war or the like.

Not to say a social safety net to ensure life never hangs in the balance wouldn't prevent some unfair transactions from occurring...

To help you answer that literally: according to Simon Mann who did it successfully twice and failed once [1], a successful mercenary invasion and peace-keeping effort in a country like Sierra Leone cost around 1 million GBP in the mid-1990s.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Cry-Havoc-Simon-Mann/dp/1743142307

With some creativity, reducing poverty can be a profitable enterprise.

http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/may/21/technology-empowers...

Cost us? Are you crazy? You mean you want to take a lot of money and throw at something and you imagine it will solve anything?

Obviously the extreme lack of money, also known as "poverty", can be solved with money. Assuming that you don't throw the money at "something" but at "somebody", this "somebody" will by definition not be poor any more.

If the criteria for "poverty" is "to not be able to get at least x quantity of money per month", to "solve" this you'll need at least to provide that x quantity of money every month.

But your definition of "solution" will still be crazy if you do that.

The point was to make it clear why it is obviously possible to solve poverty by throwing money at it. Now you have a worst case cost. Then the question is how much cheaper can you make it.

E.g. how much investment and in what would it take before the network effects and increased trade will ensure there are enough jobs to lift those who can work out of poverty, and provide enough tax revenues for governments in question to care for those who can't work.

Evidence actually shows that direct cash transfers to the poor can be quite effective and lasting. Have a look at the research done by givedirectly, or this one: https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...

Responsibly throwing money at problems is exactly how you solve them. There are a lot of factors that we know of that contribute to continued poverty and cause suffering for those subject to it. This would include, among other things:

1. Universal education (free for anyone interested) 2. Universal healthcare (also free) 3. Improved housing 4. Reliable, clean utilities

Sure, this stuff might be expensive, but the long term benefit of having more healthy, educated people around significantly outweighs the cost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com