A friend said to me: "I was in Chicago for a quant conference (with Bitcoin PhD's, unbelievable. for $3000/head.) and saw large numbers of desperate urban homeless. In one case a young man was bypassed by people in expensive clothing on their way to expensive drinks, who then looked at their phones while he was staggering, helpless. (I think the drinks signs were like $30/drink.) That kind of stuff is more pervasive than I remember in the US."

No one is claiming this ubiquitous phenomenon is not tragic. The argument is about who, if anyone, should pay. Let's say you are 5 stdev smarter than him, and perhaps we agree you should pay for him. I am not so smart, but my simple father taught me to fight. If you want me to pay we will fight over it.

That is the argument. Against nature.

anonymous replies:

I would disagree with the question "who should pay". It's not a lack of people paying or amount paid. Lack of money is not causing these problems to grow. It is where the money is going before it gets to those needing a hand. The government has ever incentive to keep those receiving money dependent on them and without any tough love for those that refuse to meet them the best they are capable of to receive aid.

We are so afraid of someone falling in the cracks that we make it ok to make terrible choices without any real consequences for so long until many are hopeless. We have made the cracks huge by building these costly safety nets on the edges.

The last mile problem of charity can only be solved by those nearest the situation not those pandering to voters. 





Speak your mind


Resources & Links