Hacker News Reader

Comment by imwillofficial | Hacker News Reader

This is absolutely indicative of government prowess in running social safety nets. That money would be spent 100x better in a church charity or something similar.

View on HN

As a non-local, I am inclined to interpret this as most likely the effect of massive rent-seekers protected by institutions which are not accountable in practice. Bad government, bad regulations, and bad laws are usually at the core. But it's certainly not a public sector problem alone.

For a possibly off-key analogy, it seems much like the issues with the US healthcare system. The money just gets sucked into a thousand little diversions that have little to nothing to do with actually providing healthcare. But legally, there has to be an environmental impact assessment on replacing that window. And management must have their training updated twice a year at a conference. And there's legal compliance training. And I haven't even touched intellectual property. Or the fact that many of these are for-profit interests, that benefit financially if they get latched into the system permanently like that.

Even without a profit incentive, I think this can happen. We see this same problem in some private charities. Even if they have the best intentions, they are so entangled by yellow tape, the status quo, box-checking, and "that's just how things are done" that it strangles them. It seems to be a particular peril for "awareness" charities which can end up existing almost solely to advertise their existence in order to raise funds for more advertising, endlessly. It's for a good cause! And I'm sure this kind of dynamic happens even in the church.

There is an incentive for churches to remove government safety nets so that desperate people have to turn to churches for charity.

This gives churches the chance to try to convert people they otherwise wouldn’t. I think this is bad because it is manipulative and discourages some people from getting help.

We need government safety nets so that they can be applied fairly to all people, and so that everyone is comfortable claiming them if they qualify.

All the church charities that I’ve ever seen have given for the sake of giving. It’s a good look for their cause for sure, but this used to be handled far more efficiently than it is now. Perhaps the modern system is a form of money laundering. People can’t be THAT wasteful, right?

and what kind of incentives does paying 61K a tent create?

> That money would be spent 100x better in a church charity or something similar.

Or in the case of an evangelical mega-church to help pay for the tax free mansions and private jets, essentially charging the taxpayers twice.

And still be cheaper, how do they do it?!

Because they wouldn’t do anything, they would just kee the money. During Hurricane Harvey 30,000 people in the vicinity of the billion dollar evangelical mega church iwnes by Joel Olstein were left homeless.

Olstein closed the doors of his church and went on vacation. He got a massive government bailout afterwards.

He also received a massive bailout during the pandemic and stull isnt helping the homeless.

Religion generally does nothing but takes credit. Even mother theresa built a billion dollar “medical” empire while letting patients die of gangrene after breaking bones.

Religious based hospitals area cornerstone of the medical establishment. Religion has been the second most powerful force in the advancement of the quality of life of humans. Only medical science itself can take more credit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com