Hacker News Reader

I upvoted your comment not because I agree with it, but because yours is an important voice to be participating in the discussion, and I'm glad you're here. And actually, I do agree with everything you say about how NGO money distorts the economy. But Basic Income is different, and I urge you to try to understand those differences.

Traditional NGO/charity consists of giving money/stuff/services to the poor. The problem with this is that if you are a poor person who depends on that money/stuff/services, and you manage to find a job to get yourself out of poverty, then the money/stuff/services you've been depending on will no longer be available to you.

This is a problem, because those NGOs are much more stable then your marginal getting-out-of-poverty job. So the person in poverty is faced with a choice: do you trade the certainty of the NGO hand-outs for the hard work and the increased uncertainty that comes with a paying job? The rational decision, in this case, is to stay poor and continue to rely on hand-outs. This is how people get into the "business of being poor". They're not being stupid. They're making a rational choice based on the fact that they've been given a reason not to work.

But Basic Income is different, as I say -- because it is unconditional. It should never be withdrawn. If you are poor, you get the basic income. If you get a job, you still get the basic income. So there is no downside whatsoever to getting a job. This is a profound difference from traditional NGO hand-outs.

In every place where an unconditional Basic Income has been experimented with, it has resulted in an (often quite significant) net increase in economic productivity. That is very different from traditional NGO hand-outs. So please don't think that they're the same thing. I'd urge you to research the subject more deeply.

My take: If institution of a basic income is not accompanied by development efforts within a population to create meaningful opportunities to work, it's not really doing what the population really needs. I don't see a difference between charity and basic income in an environment where extensive economic development is really what is needed. If I don't have an opportunity to work even if I want to work, what difference does it make what the money that is given to me is called?

It's simple: a lot of the actual needed "work" in impoverished communities is informal. These communities are quite good at self-organising -- but barter can only get you so far. What cash grants give you is better liquidity for conducting mutually-beneficial exchanges of goods and services locally -- as well as the means of acquiring external resources for facilitating those transactions. In this context, most low-level jobs are self-creating.

Higher-level jobs require a more educated populace -- but it's been shown that when a Basic Income is given, people will naturally seek out greater education -- either travelling to find it remotely, or paying for education services locally. The jobs can't be "brought in" before the populace has the education to fulfil them.

One thing which Basic Income doesn't address, however, is infrastructure creation (or at least infrastructure which can't be sensibly paid for by end-user fees). So there's definitely still a need to address that, Basic Income or no. But for various reasons that should really be done by the government, rather than an NGO.

I'm Burundian in East Africa and there is a saying in my country that "free things make you stupid". NGO had been giving almost free loans to households ( $50 to $100) and some have been addicted to free stuffs and now that most NGOs have left the country, that's when we find out our true poverty : poverty starts in the head. We were stupid.

But naturally, The Pareto principle [1] made that 20% of clever households acquired business minded practices and they're economically independent now. But the rest is still begging and waiting the return of NGOs.

[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Your government is already vestigial, I'm sorry to say.

Giving aid is the worst thing possible if its given to the state. But giving it to the citizens is perhaps better, because they can directly improve their lives by investing in their children, in better tools, and in things like cattle that can directly generate sustainable income.

Free money won't destroy your society. It's how that free money comes into your society that is disruptive. If the money comes in top down it distorts the economy. But if its given from the bottom, then perhaps things can get better. Its not an experiment that has been tried before.

It's unclear what the effects of a basic income would be in an undeveloped country.

For example, if a poorer country raised minimum wage too much it could destroy the economy whereas the same raise in a more developed country will have better short term effects.

This could end up being unethical economic experimentation.

That's a bad example since raising minimum wage increases the cost of doing business. Artificially changing the cost of business inputs causes problems in the economy - not the fact that people are earning more money.

Giving people money allows them to buy livestock, supplies for their children or food and shelter. This will help to improve their quality of life and spur the local economy. I'm hard pressed to see how this could be considered unethical.

I think more scary is the macroeconomic effects of a large amount of cash on currencies and prices. $30m is a relatively small amount (compared to a total GDP of e.g. more than $50b for Kenya), but of concentrated in poor areas could have unintended effects.

> It's unclear what the effects of a basic income would be in an undeveloped country.

This is true, but given the evidence we do have (GiveDirectly's previous programs and previous basic income programs in developed countries) I see no reason to believe the effects will be anything but positive.

Wouldn't a basic income reduce the dependency on NGOs? If the situation in Kenya is similar to what humanitarian aid workers tell me about Haiti it's basically people joining NGO programs to make a livelihood but not planning on using learned skills or connections made to make a living independently when the project ends but rather looking for the next program.

This is a sincere question, I'm fully aware that a lot of NGOs intend to do good but do more harm :(

You and @skunkworks both raise interesting points. I'll have to think through this some more... I have more experience with code than economic policies; but here's a first go:

I have a problem with neither paying taxes, nor helping raise up the underprivileged. However, I believe that the former should facilitate the latter, rather than feeding some official's offshore account.

I think that if external funding were withdrawn, then we'd see a lot more done to fairly distribute government revenue and our government would be motivated to increase that revenue by improving our balance of trade.

I'm a little biased towards capitalism... so I believe in equal and opposite reactions. The developed world deserves to eat what it's worked for too. Maybe we need a little negative pressure to see that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-DgV2vixSo

How are poor people supposed to find innovative solutions to their problems and elect governments that create sustainable wealth while they're steeped in desperate poverty? I believe that education is the tip of the spear, but are there any examples where a poor majority has pulled itself up by its bootstraps?

Most of the western world?

(So all Kenya needs to do is create a colonial empire and exploit other countries ?)

The United States seemed prosperous enough even in its early days. Even though it had to pay taxes and such to Britain.

I guess the best argument along those lines you could make is that the US depended on imported slaves.

Also: took land and resources from native Americans and developed and exported them.

The western world was already the most advanced and richest part of the world before they started colonizing, which indeed made them even richer. Note that the people they conquered whether it were the Incas or else were also empire with colonial ambitions, except they were way less advanced.

You've got the causality wrong. Europeans exploited other peoples because European societies were more advanced. They did not become advanced because they exploited.

Seems like the arena has changed, though. Several hundred years ago nations/societies could operate independently. Now they're in the global web of trade. Regions that were historically very prosperous (what's now northern Syria, for example) are floundering now.

There are clearly ways to exploit globalization to become prosperous - e.g. the asian tigers. But it's not clear to me that historical examples are as useful. There's no way to know but I suspect the American colonies would not have prospered in the current economic regime.

Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Ironically, at independence Kenya was at par with these countries. Though I cannot confirm the veracity of this, I have also on many occasions heard that some of these countries did borrow planning materials from Kenya - for their civil service.

And if you look at what has significance here: it's about free trade and predictable government. Not really freedom or democracy.

People's Republic of China has followed. India, not quite.

There's nothing free about Chinese trade.

It's a lot more free than it was until late 1970's and China has got tremendously richer as a consequence.

Nor is South Korea a model of freedom; it was authoritarian, it was and still is protectionist. But it did integrate to world economy. Compare it to North Korea, which started off as equally poor, and which has real, concrete, deadly famines in recent memory.

Same applies to R.O.C. Taiwan; autocratic, even corrupt, but reached out to world market (and as a consequence forced the mainland China to follow).

Singapore and Hong Kong: very free trade all the time, and way ahead of others in the region.

All of those countries enacted protectionist trade policies. Singapore/HK tended not to target specific industries but they suppressed the value of their currencies by loading up on US treasuries (their small size made this easy).

In all of those cases those countries were given tacit approval by the US to enact protectionist trading policies and yet maintain their access to US markets.

Protectionism and freedom are not absolute. Yes, those countries as well as the United States also engages in lots of protectionist policies.

However, the mentioned countries integrated more to world trade then most other countries in their region, and as a result they are now among the most developed.

Compare South Korea and North Korea, compare Taiwan R.O.C. to P.R.China prior to impacts of Deng's policy change, compare China and India.

Economies with strategically located container shipping ports developed via protectionist trade policies.

These economies were 'allowed' to develop into rich industrial economies was because America provided privileged access to the US domestic markets in spite of their protectionist policies.

They allowed that because they saw the value of having these countries developed into 'westernized' bulwarks against the USSR's sphere of influence.

They could all easily have remained poor under different circumstances.

Loads of examples, as a result of international trade

Not to dismiss your experience as a resident of a country that's received significant aid, but there's substantial evidence that cash transfers work, which GiveDirectly has compiled[0], including the following benefits:

—Adults more likely to work, even five years later.

—Children are healthier and get more education.

—Adults do not spend the extra money on things like alcohol or tobacco.

—Adults make significantly more when surveyed years after receiving the cash grant.

GiveWell, which has spent a lot of effort evaluating GiveDirectly, does have some lingering concerns [1] that programs like GiveDirectly's might worsen inflation or hurt people who don't receive a grant and live nearby. Research on these questions isn't conclusive, but suggests some minor, short-term effects. I suspect broadening programs to more recipients will mitigate the latter problem.

[0]: https://givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers

[1]: http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas...

Update: Fixed formatting and added to final paragraph.

>The majority of voters don't pay taxes and rely on aid for everything from farm inputs to school fees.

I am a Kenyan too and this is not true. Everyone pays taxes. Though a poor jobless Kenyan should not be paying income taxes, the same group of people still pay VAT for everything else they purchase, bar a few exceptional goods and services.

Curious what you think about more independent schemes like microfinance or loans for education. Have you noticed any difference between that and outright aid?

Yeah, those schemes tend to work a little better. If the recipients of mircro-financing are subject to the risks associated with taking credit, they tend to invest it better. For instance, the mobile micro-loans given by Safaricom (http://www.safaricom.co.ke/personal/m-pesa/do-more-with-m-pe...) are actually given by a bank and defaulters are black-listed for loans as little as Ksh. 500 (~ 5 USD).

These schemes create opportunities whilst reminding people that poor decision-making has consequences. The only reason that this works is because these schemes are run by banks rather than non-profits. Perhaps there's a little room for more regulation around the margins these institutions should make off of these loans... but at the same time they're opening up credit lines to people who would have never had them.

>they have no idea that the government is supposed to be supporting them.

>elect governments that will create sustainable wealth.

Some people would say that individuals create wealth, and the governments are systems that exist because of the existing levels of wealth in a society. If you want a "generous" government, then you first need a "prosperous" society. Which governments are you thinking of that create sustainable wealth? I'm curious to get a Kenyan perspective on private property rights (i.e. do you think that is a crucial step for creating a "wealthy" society).

Individuals don't build highway systems, rail networks, school systems, transparent and fair courts or the myriad of other things which make countries wealthy.

Africa doesn't need the American cult of the individual to develop. It needs (among other things) America to stop covertly supporting the illegal and corrupt transfers of wealth to tax havens.

This is the inverse of what NGOs do. Put money in the hands of consumers and let them drive local markets to produce what they actually want and need.

It is actually an NGO doing this, and its not the only NGO that fits something closer to that description than its inverse.

Here's a hypothetical question: Imagine GiveDirectly performed a rigorous randomised control trial where they found that the people who received the grant had significantly higher income after 2, 5 and 8 years compared to the control group.

Would that be enough to change your mind that they are "giving people livelihoods they can't sustain"?

Assuming they spend the money, why doesn't it help the businesses who sell things to them?

Shh, don't bust the bubble of people living in Silicon Valley who think they can solve the world's problems. It is absolutely ridiculous but they will never figure it out. People need to work, this is a nice project in East Africa: http://workingvillages.org/