Like straight out of a Mitchell and Webb sketch.
I bet there will be people on this site as well who don't understand why you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash. Although cash is what humans crave, it's got purchasing power.
I bet there will be people on this site as well who don't understand why you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash. Although cash is what humans crave, it's got purchasing power.
There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them?
Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion.
[1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32779/w327...
Not directly, but it can solve some of the barriers people in challenging situations have.
e.g. someone has skills but can't pass interviews because they look like a hobo...there a bit of money for a haircut may help.
So I don't think we should drop the entire just because its not a comprehensive & complete solution
Funnily enough the GP comment made me think of this sketch instead (an absolute masterpiece of microeconomic theory).
See also the classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal