How to Eradicate Global Extreme Poverty

[@RationalAnimations]

If you'd like to help speed up the eradication of global extreme poverty, consider donating to our campaign for GiveDirectly on the top-right of this page. Our goal with the fundraiser is to reach 100,000 USD by the end of this year. Together, we can do it! GiveDirectly is a charity that allows donors to send money directly to people in poverty with no strings attached. They are the foremost experts on cash transfers, and they helped us write this video. Ending global extreme poverty may seem like a tall order, but with cash transfers we can go very far. The total amount needed would be just a small fraction of what is currently spent on international aid. If donations through KZbin aren't yet available in your country, you can also donate at this link: donate.givedirectly.org/

[@pyeitme508]

Wow

[@PhilfreezeCH]

I just received 1000$ for payed overtime work, guess I will have to tax myself.

[@matousverner6428]

"Sorry, you can't donate in this country or region yet. " thanks youtube. Is there a direct link? In video notes there is only newsletter...

[@drandren9093]

Poverty will always exist, we live in a corrupt society. Why are average everyday citizens of whichever country you live in expected to fix the issues cause by upper classes. I enjoy your videos but a charity for this is just irrational. Good luck though.

[@RationalAnimations]

@@matousverner6428 Thanks for pointing this out; you can also donate at this link: donate.givedirectly.org/

[@anonperson3972]

A couple of extra points. As well as corruption taking away money. Giving aid in the form of free food undermines local food shops and farmers, causing them to close, bringing even more people into poverty. Whilst if they get money they could invest in actually buying food (whether locally or imported) and invest in their farms and gardens to grow and raise more food for themselves :)

[@100percentSNAFU]

Sounds nice in theory, but you are making this statement under the assumption that these people would do with the money what you would do with the money. You can't assume this. A poor, and likely uneducated person is not going to invest anything, and in fact they may actually squander the aid money because they don't know any better. Yes, this sounds very harsh, but we can't look at this through the eyes of an educated, financially stable Westerner. You almost have to look at it from the same angle you look at handing a couple bucks to a homeless person...are they going to actually buy food with it, or booze or drugs? Not to be harsh on you either because your heart is in the right place, but the world is a rough place and people like us tend to look at it through rose colored glasses sometimes. I would also fear that in many situations any deserving people that would receive aid would in turn quickly because robbed of it by corrupt governments or gangs depending on where they reside. A more top down approach is what is necessary, but the problem is who is going to do that. Unless the areas these people live in are improved from the top down, they will unfortunately continue to be impoverished.

[@rendomstranger8698]

@@100percentSNAFU Another day, another person who bought into anti-homeless propaganda pushed out by billionaires. Most people who end up in poverty did not end up in that position because of poor life choices or because they don't know how to spent their money in a way that is useful. They ended up in poverty because other people took everything they had and are making sure that they have no way to get out of poverty. The real problem is that 1 time donations aren't going to do much to lift people out of poverty. It is going to be spent on buying basic needs and paying off debt. It is only when people have a stable income that they can start planning ahead. The result of this is that direct donations are mostly useless, although still a necessity. Instead, communities should be polled on what aid is most needed. That polling should decide on what the money is spent. Whether that is food, water, medical supplies or education differs from community to community. As for your proposed top down solution, that is the absolute worst option available. The top down approach is what is preventing people from getting the aid they need. The highest starting level should be that of the local businesses in the form of interest free loans. Which already exists in the form of Kiva, one of the few charities I actually trust to bring structural change. Any level higher than that and the money is just going to disappear in the pockets of people who already have their needs met.

[@BlackElf94]

​@@100percentSNAFUdid you watch the video? There is conclusive evidence that Unconditional Cash Transfers deliver greater benefits than almost any other aid program. In fact, desperate poverty with no guaranteed income leads to the exact irresponsible financial behaviors that you seem so concerned with. Visibly homeless people in western countries are a very small and specific class, while entire regions of the world have a majority of people in desperate poverty, so for those people it's certainly not an issue of personal responsibility when 90% of a country are in extreme poverty

[@constantinethecataphract5949]

​@@BlackElf94i would like to see the evidence or the studies that reached that conclusion. Alot of youtubers use either cherry picked data to promote bias results or the studies themselves were biased and were done with the researchers already having a conclusion in their minds and them creating the study as a way of just justifying it.

[@lawrencerutherford4260]

@@100percentSNAFU whilst I don't know about food there has been substantial evidence of clothing donations flooding areas of poverty and drowning out local craftsmen and causing an economic decline in the area as local craftsmen went out of business, after all why buy something you can get for free. I expect this also has an effect on local farming since they are just getting the final product delivered and no longer supporting the farmers.

[@Exquailibur]

The thing to note as well is that getting more people above the poverty line will help everyone in the long run, how many geniuses and innovators have had their potential wasted due to being too poor? More people being able to actively solve problems will mean more problems get solved, for this reason solving this problem is a higher priority for both ethical and logical reasons. Problems tend to be easiest solved when there are logical and ethical reasons to solve them because there is little chance anyone will be against it. Ending extreme poverty is possible, there is more than enough resources to go around after all.

[@audreydoyle5268]

You are exactly right. Poverty is an ethical issue through and through. From capitalism creating the two basic classes of exploiters and exploited, to corrupt governments, poverty at every level within the global economy is resultant from unethical policies. You are right about the geniuses left behind, from before women's suffrage and Malala's plight, and the children forced to work long hours instead of receiving an education. The problem also extends to the quality of that education, regardless of the subjective poverty line within wealither countries. I'm from Australia, more specifically the "fat" poor class. And while I was lucky enough to experience upward social mobility in my teen years to lower middle class, my parents still held on to their selfish, poor practices, such as smoking weed. They chose drugs and junk food over their potential prodigy. They chose faux luxury and adult pacifiers over their child receiving math tutoring and extracurricular activities like piano lessons or gymnastics. I understand these things are privileges, however, in considering how the economy can be uplifted past poverty, we also need to consider the next step: how will the education of those once missed geniuses be improved so they do not suffer the selfishness of their parents, lack of resources which would supplement their learning and/or mitigating their twice exceptional disadvantage? Universal basic income, universal healthcare, universal education, and universal environmental care. Every human, no one left behind.

[@slickzMdzn]

I've thought about this too. Given that in 1900 there were 2 billion people and now we're 8, how much more likely is it that the next Einstein, Davinci, Tesla etc. is already born? But considering that not all of these people have the same quality of life, you have to wonder what kind or how much potential we have lost. Sadly our western wealth largely comes from exploiting these poor nations where it's now more of an survival based lifestyle than really living (in Germany there's the saying: Leben oder Überleben?)

[@Prororo]

@@audreydoyle5268your parents are not alone Unfortunately, there are billions of people that are similar to your parents or even worse off even though we have more than enough resources for everybody

[@constantinethecataphract5949]

Average IQ of those countries is below 80. There aren't any innovators there trust me. Giving them money will just result in their population exploding even more and then suddenly having more poor souls living in poverty. The real problem is that they are incapable of creating a functioning civilization.

[@constantinethecataphract5949]

​@@audreydoyle5268you can give the child as many tutors and have them participate in as many extracurricular activities as you want. If they are brick headed and overall crap they will still fail. Always check on whom you are investing in if you want a return.

[@junyxz92]

Compelling video and arguments. $100 donated. Hope you reach the goal.

[@ashley1299]

I gave $20 even though I'm at risk of homelessness and facing housing insecurity, even if I fall into it, my life won't be in nearly as much danger as anyone who lives in Extreme Poverty. This is a good cause to donate to because it's highly tractable and direct cash transfers have been shown by organizations such as GiveWell to be among the most effective. If you see this and know you have any money to spare at all, please donate, if we help them blow past their goal it will be a small but important win for the movement.

[@callaolacra-yu6wf]

You are a disgrace, Robert Miles. "Let's send them a few pennies instead of ending the conditions that keep them under the oppression of the wars we foment and finance, the genocides we perpetrate, the coups we plan, to continue plundering their resources and exploiting their families and children in inhumane work regimes, pennies that allow them to stay alive just above starvation but below what even a slave from feudal times was guaranteed!" "EXCELLENT IDEA!!", said Robert Miles, "REPLENISH MY ACCOUNT AND LET'S MAKE ANOTHER VIDEO FOR THE GENOCIDAL ELITES WHO JUSTIFY THEIR PSYCHOPATHY WITH FANTASIES OF THE FUTURE!"

[@koyint]

here is a bright idea. they shouldnt ask for more money but instead try to convert other charity organization to do what they are doing(as shown in the video, we already raise trillions of dollor already which is more than enough to do this project) but instead they are asking for more money(as a skeptic, cant help but wonder if any of the 'charity' is spending the money 'correctly' or corrupt-ly. (no mean to downplay your kind hearted support. )

[@ericsilva6787]

@@koyint Except other charities have specific problems they target that wouldn't immediately be solved with money or growth. Let's say, Doctors without borders: They take care of vulnerable communities medical needs, what if we take their money away and give it to those communities? Well, some of those people might start studying medicine, yes, but that takes at least 6 - 8 years to study, so the people's medical needs would be uncovered for a lot of time. They also report and inform on human rights violations that other sources won't, and that's political, so money replacing that with money help. Ok, cut Doctors without borders out, what about UNICEF? Oh, they are caring for vulnerable children's education, and often also intervenining with the violence they suffer. That's another problem money won't just solve, because it requires responsible parenthood, which is a cultural thing that doesn't just rapidly change. Let's cut them out. What about the Red Cross? Well that's like Doctors without borders but only in war zones... in which economic intervention won't do that much good. What use is money if you're getting bombarded? Ok, cut that out too. What about all the organizations planting trees? Sure, let's stop planting trees and give people money. That will surely help the climate crisis. Not to mention that some of these organizations also intervene in developed countries which also have vulnerable communities. So, no, it's not that simple. Money will surely help, but it won't solve everything.

[@STG113]

​@@koyintwho is raising trillions of dollars? What? You you mean taxes, please read Modern Monetary Theory. Those taxes are deleted money.

[@smitchered]

This is probably the first truly effective, or at any rate first EA-aligned KZbin charity, that I've seen. Thank you for that.

[@theweapi]

What does the acronym EA stand for in this context?

[@Rolaran]

@@theweapi Effective Altruism. Basically the idea of choosing which charitable causes to financially support based primarily on which ones will be able to do the most good with the money given.

[@spectreone]

@@theweapi Pay 2.99 dollars to unlock the acronym definition🗿

[@Zlyde007]

what does Electronic Arts have to do with this

[@erikanderson1402]

“Effective altruism” isn’t that effective. It is just a capitalist nonsense. Capitalism REQUIRES poverty to function. If this program abolishes poverty, capitalism will just create more. Also, the World Bank definition of “extreme poverty” is laughable

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Thank you for pointing out how solvable extreme poverty is. There isn’t an excuse for not solving it

[@lanata64]

Reminds me of John Green's speech at the UN about tuberculosis, where he said "today [...] death from tuberculosis is caused by human choice..." I think that idea is true ―that we are well within our to help those in need. It is, rather than by inability, by choice that we live in a world where people are in poverty, and it is possible for us to choose to create a world where people are not in poverty.

[@lanata64]

​@@Nykandros thanks, devil.

[@ginbarato1178]

​ @Nykandros it is a matter of perception. Since you asked and with the defects you present I don't have any reason to believe you are dishonest in your questions I will: No, I do not see myself as strong. I could deceieve myself as you to think I would last a week disarmed in a country in war where they can off you just because they want your infant daugther eyes for organ harvesting. I am very privileged, I was born poor in a poor third world country (not in war, never seen war luckly) and I have made a way up until today where I have an income thats dozens of times my whole inner family income. I also had parents with deep christian values against robbery and dishonesty, even if they constanly used violence to transfer it I understand their context. One rich family in particular sent me their used clothing and toys as a kid for YEARS, and the most important gift I have received from them as a child around 9 or 10 was a computer,me and others maybe 8 or 9 were the only kids around kilometers with an old windows computer in their house. Today I am a fullstack software developer with plenty of experience and I can even stop working today and live fully. I know some of the kids around my city fates, I can assure you not one of the guys who had no help had a happy ending. Most dead, some offed durring a robbery being the perpetrator and in other cases the victim. And the one's thar are not dead remain poor until today. =========== What do I want to tell you is that you are wrong, strentgh is a matter of perception. I believe the problem is that I give way more value to the word strength and I also see it as a degree. One thing is not hot neither cold, is hotter than or colder than, they are just concepts.@@Nykandros Maybe you perceive as strong someone who doesnt lie.. with a full belly. Or maybe you perceieve as strong someone who can deadlift... without broken ribs. ###### I dont know whats happening, I receieve previews of comments on this but I can not see them. I am not sure if they were deleted, being deleted by author, by youtube, I am bugged or I am blackboxed.

[@ginbarato1178]

Oh you deleted the second comment, nvm lol #### Edit: Annnnnd I have been black boxed. For future readers: I can not read your comment, only your preview. I have been blackboxed after sharing some info on this organization in this video being EXTREMELY corrupt. Is not fake news, look it up and spread it before they steal some more.

[@ImieNazwiskoOK]

@Nykandros Would be interesting if you yourself got into problems

[@PhilfreezeCH]

Its so funny to me that for problems like homelessness and extreme poverty the simplest answer a child would come up with is actually way more efficient than what we are currently doing. Homeless people need homes so give them homes, poor people need money so give them money and it actually works!

[@milkcultleader2706]

Thats what were already doing but clearly it isnt as effective as we would like Its more complicated then what a child would suggest

[@nemamiah7832]

Then you ask the child, where do homes come from, who builds them, where, who decides who lives where, who rehabilitates the homeless and how, how do you prevent ghetto formation and suddenly said child knows fuck-all how to solve the issue

[@celestialowl8865]

​​@@milkcultleader2706The efficacy of this plan is inversely proportional to the frequency of corruption within the space. Unfortunately, while this plan is reasonable, corruption is very common and plenty of world powers have vested interest in continued poverty.

[@TomFranklinX]

Giving homes to homeless sounds simple until you try it in the real world. For starters where do you build the homeless shelters? In the city where there are jobs and services or in remote areas where no one wants to live? Housing prices in cities are enormously expensive. It's much cheaper to build in remote areas but then you'll find that the homeless people would rather live homeless in the cities than go where the shelters are.

[@person8064]

​@@nemamiah7832 still better than most people's "let's build single family homes and car-centric cities, also fuck homeless people"

[@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj]

There is also the concept of "the velocity of money. An economy runs on the number of transactions per dollar, rather than the amount of money overall. A dollar held by a billionaire might have a single transaction of buying a security where it might be "parked" for decades. The same dollar given to someone in the lowest economic bracket might be spent immediately to someone who will also spend it immediately. That dollar might now be part of multiple transactions per day, which builds that economy.

[@Ania-cg5rx]

Oh that’s interesting, makes sense

[@voidsenight9927]

The fact that it's so simple & relatively cheap considering the goal we're trying to reach I'm genuinely baffled that we've not done this sooner, I truly hope that these types of charities become more popular

[@krofgninut5984]

Its because its not. Societies are the way they are for reasons, and charity is especially tricky because its very difficult to give in a way that actually gets results.

[@JKozlovable]

The video is oversimplifying the issue. A good part of why charity tends to be so ineffective is due to corruption and local governments, and this video downplays this factor. In an ideal world, yeah, that's the amount it would take to end extreme poverty. But in our world, rogue local governments will do whatever it takes to get a slice of that sweet sweet aid money, in order to live like kings while the target population gets merely breadcrumbs. Digital money transfer does sound pretty good on paper. But I still remain sceptical that it will work as well as it sounds on paper. Corrupt local governments likely won't stand by idly as fat sacks of money skirt around them.

[@the_expidition427]

@@JKozlovable Idealism and reality don't mix

[@Calvinfromcalvinandhobbes]

@@the_expidition427 people in power don't let Idealism and reality mix

[@andrewmichaelschaefferXIV]

​@@JKozlovableyeah, just inflate the money supply and debase your currency. People with high time preferences will always have relative poverty compared to those around them with low time preferences. Austrian Economics, Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[@AndersMJustesen]

Thank you so much for this video! I worked with microfinance in Uganda back in 2016. Having dealt with poverty eradication, and having seen both pros and cons of approaching poverty through lending as a means, I am fairly sure that direct transfers of cash can easily be way more beneficial. Especially if emphasis is on unconditional. Global poverty is a scourge that all societies should be concerned about, and with something like unconditional cash transfers being a fairly new and proven concept, it has finally been made easy to engage with and act upon.

[@luongmaihunggia]

"Philanthropy is commendable but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary" - Martin Luther King Jr.

[@pernalongaoburgues194]

Perfeito.

[@crowlsyong]

Thanks for writing your comment @luongmaihunggia

[@HunterHogan]

"I don't need to do anything because I have a quotation from Dr. Good Brownman that suggests my philanthropy would hurt the victims." - Guru Ba Ad-fayf

[@michae1simm]

Absolutely, however if we were able to fix the structural injustices I think there would still be philanthropists wanting to spend money to accomplish extra stuff.

[@shway1]

@@HunterHogan He's not saying the philanthropy would hurt the victims, he's saying the poverty is maintained by an unjust economic system.

[@Relikvien]

I saw first hand development, pass time activities and banking aid being given out and lifting up poor areas of Guayaquil. It went really well up untill narco cartels and violence took over the city. Now the city is on the brink of ruin, so security and actual decent politics is a huge factor too.

[@StyleshStorm]

I've never clicked on a video so fast since i discovered KZbin in the late 2000s. As a late 90s baby/kid that got priced out of Hawaii with some family on October 21st, 2021 because of this economic housing market situation we almost ended up in poverty if the state of Texas didn't open it's arms to us as former paradise refugees.

[@NorroTaku]

As a european citizen I got a direct cash transfer not an uncondiciontal one but really close that shit really helped me break the cycle

[@alfredo1valenzuela]

OMG Hope you managed to buy your third yacht alright.

[@jonharrison3114]

@@alfredo1valenzuela?

[@jonharrison3114]

@@alfredo1valenzuelajust sounds like you are jealous 😂

[@redandblackpill]

​@@alfredo1valenzuela shuu😂

[@themanwhocouldnotsleep6065]

People would be surprised that there are lots of people suffering from lack of sufficient income in developed countries (like countries in Europe)

[@TheNoobRapter]

"I have a plan, all we need is money"- Dutch Van Der Linde

[@Window_ig]

"If you can't solve something with money, it means you don't have enough money" -Tank Fish, 2020

[@wincentivan2684]

Everything can be solved in Tahiti

[@krunalraghavani4500]

We need Monnney

[@MawlitiaARTEEST]

As someone who served in many of these impoverished areas and watched humanitarian efforts in person, I can say that the lion's share of the blame regarding this issue rests on the corrupt governments in these regions who actively steal any money given, or directly block aide and infrastructure development in these regions. It's nice to get the warmfuzzies from donating, but these issues aren't going to be solved by just spending them out of existence.

[@Xsomono]

Are you sure about that? I imagine a big problem with any developmental aid from foreign countries is that they have to go through official channels/have to work with the local governments, which probably makes it easy to steal from that aid. It seems plausible to me that this decentralized approach ensures more money staying with the people in need. Also, as explained in the video I imagine direct cash transfers can likely become a foundation on which a more productive self sustaining local economy can develop, which could have strong long term benefits. Ultimately the best medicine against extreme poverty is a thieving economy in these poor countries. The governments of these countries play a large role in the development of such economies since they make the rules, but more economic activity at a low level can also become a catalyst to boost economic development. The cash transfers can foster this low level economic activity.

[@DeusExRequiem]

It's hard for people living in extreme poverty to oppose such a government, and it's easy for said government to turn the people against outsiders who interfere with their government. Spending the issues away might take a long while to work, but so long as they go directly to the people and aren't first handled by their corrupt government, the people have an opportunity to figure out what they need to do to fix things later, once survival isn't so hard.

[@RandomAmbles]

Unfortunately I see your point. If the cell phones can be stolen through violence, they might be. It makes me wonder about using iris-unlocked fund transfers, which is something I believe Sam Altman is interested in. But that would cost more money. I think the ultimate deciding factor is whether it actually works. And so far it seems to.

[@ekki1993]

And how many of those governments came to be because of colonialism and external influences funding military coups? If those governments are the problem then it's about time the international community starts focusing on punishing them instead of making extreme blockades exclusively on left-leaning governments. Not giving money to people in extreme poverty won't help either, and it's better than funding violent revolutions. They can and will find a solution the way every other part of the world could, they just need their governments to stop getting money from corporations profitting off of their most poor.

[@oasntet]

There are regions where government corruption is a barrier, and there are regions where it is less of one. We should cure poverty where it is possible, and, I dunno, support regime change in regions where it isn't? The western world has staged coups for far, far worse reasons before.

[@NorroTaku]

we dont have a money problem we have a distribution problem

[@putyograsseson]

top 1% holds 50% of the world’s worth :))

[@terdragontra8900]

money is literally a way to distribute resources without a central micromanager, those two things are literally the same thing

[@kezia8027]

@@terdragontra8900 this is like saying cars and petrol are the same thing. Money is a "resource" and distribution of basic human needs is a system. They cannot both be the same. You can USE a resource WITHIN a system, but a system in and of itself is not the resource, and the resource in and of itself is not the system. Ignoring the fact that money is literally made up and doesn't actually exist beyond the value we assign it.

[@thesenamesaretaken]

​@@kezia8027surely money represents the products or services said money can be exhanged for? It isn't just arbitrary numbers, if anythint I'd have thought in any financial system where money was just arbitrary numbers its value would decrease asymptomatically to zero so all those quadrillionaires would still be poor.

[@terdragontra8900]

@@kezia8027 i disagree with the wording and not your position

[@user-nu8in3ey8c]

It seems like a more logical approach to eliminate extreme poverty than giving money to their governments, which often misuse or steal aid money. It must also be pointed out that being poor is rather expensive. It is very hard to pull one's self up from zero. Things must be bought at worse prices, worse rates, and there is less opportunity. From a productivity standpoint capital goods such as tools, power tools, tractors, and equipment make each worker more productive. A farmer without a shovel will get half the work done of one that has a shovel, yet he will consume the same food(or actually more) than the farmer that has a shovel. A farmer with a small affordable tractor can get many times the work done for about the same amount of food and effort. Less resources mean that labor and effort is wasted. Thus such a program can probably increase economic efficiency quite quickly. The Soviet Economy: Early on in the Soviet Union there were massive investments in infrastructure and capital goods(goods used to make other goods). During this early part of the 5 year plans the Soviet economy saw sizable growth, however after this early phase their socialized economy was more of a hindrance rather than a benefit, likely due to the inefficiencies of central planning and obvious human rights issues. The Washing Machine: One economist suggested that the washing machine had more of an effect on the economy than the internet because it freed up hours of domestic labor which could be spent pursuing employment and education. Capital goods and tools which increase labor efficiency can provide massive benefits to an economy overall. Economics Explained discussed this idea in more detail. Direct Cash Transfers to Address Global Poverty: Most people in extreme poverty will buy tools to reduce their labor costs, or better housing(cement floors are safer and healthier than dirt floors), or correct dietary issues which can result in death or illness if not address. All of these things will improve their situation, which should increase each person's capacity to contribute to their economy. Capital goods, labor saving tools, and heavy industry are game changers in developing economies.

[@zeehero7280]

Lol its the same thing, any country with a government able to take money away from citizens will simply confiscate it immediately. as long as those corrupt leaders have power.

[@hexagon2185]

How can we be sure the governments will actually use the money to stop poverty and not just for warfare?

[@pedromoura1446]

@@hexagon2185 because the money is not given to the governments but to the people directly.

[@Nykandros]

Your productivity statements assume that said individual has the skill necessary to be productive; said farmer will only produce more with a shovel if he actually had the skills to be productive in the first place. If he didn't, then you're just handing shovels to idiots & wasting resources which would be better utilized by more capable individuals.

[@pedromoura1446]

@@Nykandros so what you're saying is... 1- people cant learn how to use simple tools. 2-we can afford rich individuals to inherit as much money and resources as a country and yet resources are so severely limited we can't afford to give poor people money which they might use to buy tools (they can also use it to but knowledge for instance) or improve their lives?

[@unktheunk1428]

Official development assistance being only 0.2% of global GDP really puts things in perspective....

[@khaoskeyglitchy2028]

Donated $20, figured I wouldn’t need it for anything in a year, if I can help around 17 people every year then $20 will definitely be worth it.

[@Houshalter]

I gave $20. Not a lot, but I've never donated to a charity before. I started watching this video with the expectation of leaving a comment about how dumb it was.

[@Smile200-z4y]

Considering most donations are like $5 thats quite a lot. Thank you!

[@callaolacra-yu6wf]

You are a disgrace, Robert Miles. "Let's send them a few pennies instead of ending the conditions that keep them under the oppression of the wars we foment and finance, the genocides we perpetrate, the coups we plan, to continue plundering their resources and exploiting their families and children in inhumane work regimes, pennies that allow them to stay alive just above starvation but below what even a slave from feudal times was guaranteed!" "EXCELLENT IDEA!!", said Robert Miles, "REPLENISH MY ACCOUNT AND LET'S MAKE ANOTHER VIDEO FOR THE GENOCIDAL ELITES WHO JUSTIFY THEIR PSYCHOPATHY WITH FANTASIES OF THE FUTURE!"

[@koyint]

here is a bright idea. they shouldnt ask for more money but instead try to convert other charity organization to do what they are doing(as shown in the video, we already raise trillions of dollor already which is more than enough to do this project) but instead they are asking for more money(as a skeptic, cant help but wonder if any of the 'charity' is spending the money 'correctly' or corrupt-ly.

[@koyint]

no mean to downplay your kind hearted support thou

[@Manas-co8wl]

Thank you for your first step. I’m not much better than you, but it’s nice to hear for once ending global poverty is not that far off and that we can do something about it.

[@narmowolf4201]

It's insane to me that at minimum wage I make more in an hour than many people in poverty do in a week. Life may not be easy but at least I have food and a roof over my head, and basic health insurance (not to mention internet and a cell phone and all the other things i generally take for granted). Thank you for sharing this, thank you to everyone who puts the time and effort into actually helping people without prioritizing lining their own pockets, and thank you to everyone kind enough to donate ❤

[@hailmammonmoments7568]

Your minimum wage covers your cost of living with room for savings? Someone in poverty might do your job for just the cost of food.

[@GalliadII]

you forget Purchase power parity.

[@GeorgeSanger]

A tiny animation point that I love is the 'kick back' from the receipt being printed at 1:44

[@Earl.Gravy0]

Thank you! It was fun to animate :D

[@wiredvibe1678]

Most charity is not actually charity. Thanks for alerting me to a charitable organization that i can be happy to support.

[@bluebark146]

I wasnt expecting this to be so good. I want to mention your animation quality has increased substantially

[@borekminer]

raising more money to give out to bring all people with the ocasional accident of putting one not in extreme poverty will still be a good thing since those who will most likely get the excess money are most likely near extreme poverty or medium poverty which would still be a positive effect and would already start work on the next step of ending other types of poverty

[@kapkirwok8284]

This actually works! Needs to be known by millions, no, billions, of people. Spread the message

[@joevahle2321]

Direct aid is absolutely viable. But we need to be careful about our motivations, make sure we don't do it as saviors but as good neighbors. Remember for all the World Bank's talk of ending poverty, its their enforced policies that contribute to some of the worst of it.

[@yudirsamakhlouf2955]

I think the best proposal I’ve seen is a resource-based economy, or an economy without money or bartering

[@ambinintsoahasina]

I actually live in the West. But grew in one of the poorest countries in the world. After my family won the battle against poverty, we decided, with an organization to help people who were struggling... I was involved in it for 12 years, but maybe we were not strategic enough in the "targeting" part. People were so down with addiction that ay money we gave them was just feeding their addiction and all. And some other major problems emerged. After some time, I decided to walk away... If this works, I really wanna get involved and I want to understand the system for targeting... I wanna know what I missed because it was very frustrating.

[@TaLeng2023]

That's why I think there should be some minimum conditions. Like, if someone clearly has an addiction, either they just don't qualify or they are put on a rehab program first before receiving any aid.

[@ambinintsoahasina]

The infuriating part is that even with people without addiction, they were literally like "If you give us money, it's ours, we spend it as we like" and when the free money kicked in, they spend it for ANYTHING but productive things as shown in the video. So the "give money to spend unconditionally", I don't know how they did to make it work" From my experience in the field, it barely works for few people @@TaLeng2023 I really want it to work though

[@himerosTheGod]

It's heartwarming to know that even when we live in a time where climate change is ravaging our planet and wars are being broadcast on all new outlets, That a group of incredible thinkers can come up with a credible solution to solving one of the world's biggest challenges. Homelessness and extreme poverty are problems we could eradicate in our lifetime if we simply had the political will.

[@lacintag5482]

Problem defined as lack of money can be solved by giving people money. Incredible.

[@themachine5647]

This channel needs and deserves so, so many more people to know about it.

[@Moss_knight00]

I feel like everyone need to watch this video. Thank you, for real

[@Corvus-Xoriat]

man single handedly giving us the information and motivation to become the main character

[@gwynm8506]

The international poverty line, and any metric based on income in currency, is very misleading. This is because many people live in communities where currency is rarely used. My mother taught in a remote community in Pakistan, and although the people there hardly earned any currency (they had no use for it) their standard of living was healthy. We should be concerned about applying our westernised material metrics of quality of lives to cultures with different values. Edit: grammar

[@givedirectly]

The international poverty line is actually based on consumption rather than how much $$ is earned/spent. It's designed this way to capture the reality you've laid out here: many people grow their own food, barter, etc.

[@supernukey419]

Hot dang, you actually got GD itself to comment

[@ShinSheel]

​​@@givedirectly don't believe it's possible If you account the mere fact people in extreme poverty typically have housing and some food at all it'd be way above said $1 per day or whatever it is now

[@jumpingturtle8830]

@@ShinSheel You're probably thinking in terms of what sort of house your country allows people to live in, and what sort of food is legal to sell. A very low quality dwelling and very low quality food are possible with less than $1 per day.

[@snakycarnival9119]

Thanks for putting a little guy in Hawaii in the beginning of the video. I noticed it and I appreciated it.

[@Tangi_ENT]

Thanks for helping make the world a better place.

[@cefcephatus]

I was a little hesitated at first, but 800 THB is roughly 10 people in extreme poverty. That is nothing compared to it's benefit. Hope we can reach the end goal sooner than we expect.

[@GahallsTheOneAndOnly]

It’s crazy that there are people in the world that make more money in a month than all the people In extreme poverty need for a year exist.

[@MoempfLP]

You've made a calculation error.

[@chazdomingo475]

There are people that make more in a month than people in extreme poverty will receive in several lifetimes. A person in extreme poverty will receive less than $50k over their life.

[@QuantumR4ge]

is it? if you can produce $100 worth of goods in a year and i can produce $100,000 worth of goods in a year, is it that surprising? modern industry makes individuals very efficient.

[@ntombimuchuchuti913]

This is a well-defined and well researched model. A multifaceted principle of getting aid directly to those who need it and closes all cracks along the continuum of giving

[@stargost2338]

Sad fact: $300,000,000,000 is equivalent to roughly 20% of the 2022 United States military budget.

[@goldenbananas1389]

right. we spend far to much on the military.

[@amugusq7567]

Sure, lets lower it to the point where russia and china will rule the world and show us what a true totalitarian state means.

[@theepicpotato4997]

@@goldenbananas1389If you think the military spending is too much, take a look at the US healthcare budget. Yet, it’s absolute garbage. I can agree that both are spent very inefficiently. The military spends money on stuff that doesn’t need to be bought. However, not having the budget for the military when it needs something in a dire circumstance is worse than spending too much on it. As for healthcare, we spend way too much on it when right now it hardly helps the general population. Yet people think spending just a little bit more by cutting the military budget will do anything. The problem isn’t the amount we spend. The true problem is how inefficiently the government uses money because it’s not really theirs to be spending. They use our money from taxes so they don’t feel bad using it willy-nilly.

[@FakhrurrazieJaffar]

I love being rational, I love rational people, therefore I love this channel ❤

[@ninjakiwigames5418]

Very well done video (as always!). I'm going to go donate now. Let's reach this goal of 100k quickly!

[@ionic7777]

I love how much more expression the doggos have, its hard not to stare at them the whole time!

[@Nethershaw]

I've contributed here -- I believe it's still worth it -- but I want to point something out. There is a certain fallacy at play. It is the same fallacy we've been sold with regard to, e.g., recycling: that it falls upon individual responsibility, at scales much smaller than have historically been economically efficient to aggregate, to solve the problem for which the corporations _deferring responsibility to us_ are ultimately the causal factor. A very modest combination of a minority of them could easily furnish the goal described here many times over. It is right and good to bypass them, yes. So long as the difference can be made in the recipients' lives, part of the systemic problem -- economy of scale -- can be dismissed or satisfied; however, the part that cannot is that we who would consider giving are the subjects of a system that incentivises withholding of capital by design, even when that capital's liquidation would result in improved outcomes for that capital's original holder and its community. This is anomalous risk aversion, and it is behavior characteristic of possession of large amounts of capital. While we can be effective as individuals giving directly on some scale, and while the consequences of those gifts cannot be understated, the global distribution of funds applied as described in this video will not be shifted unless we collectively lobby, substantially and effectively, for the rich to be eaten -- for their incentive to withhold to become a liability.

[@CerisuHakka]

What sort of made this idea click for me was thinking about cash transfers to individuals as an investment into a country's economy as a whole. Once people are able to spend more money on goods and services, businesses increase production capacity to meet demand, hire more people whose standard of living is improved as a result, and so on in a self-perpetuating cycle of human development. One thing that concerns me though is the lack of proper financial/technological infrastructure in the countries that need this kind of aid the most. Millions across the world are still unbanked or have no access to the internet, and the act of transferring value to them without the full cooperation of local governments on a massive scale would be a logistical nightmare introducing inefficiency that calls into question the effectiveness of the endeavor in the first place without first introducing the means through which people below the extreme poverty line can be meaningful participants in the global economy to begin with.

[@WhoAmIHmmm]

who made your pfp?

[@tHaTsWhAtI.mSaYiNg]

Great video. First time I have been convinced to donate through KZbin. The problem isn't the money, but our mindsets, so hopefully this video can help change that. Hope you reach the goal.

[@badaraaa]

Rational animations doing unrational amounts of good to the world with his educating videos

[@DevinDTV]

Giving cash directly to individuals is more corruption resistant than, say, an infrastructure project, for obvious reasons.

[@oscargonzalez3599]

Video: Explain a simple and well done plan and solution for world poverty Humanity: Fail miserable so far.

[@bahamut810]

I don’t recall hearing this in the video, but what about scarcity? You can send people money all day long, but if there is not product to meet the demand you are just going to create a situation where the prices of things (like food) skyrocket.

[@matthewkhoriaty9700]

They talk about inflation at 11:46

[@optionboom]

If people have more money they can afford more imports and build infrastructure

[@Prororo]

Then don’t use supply and demand before ultimately eliminating money

[@ashmarten2884]

I’m a few months late, but the majority of the time scarcity isn’t an issue because injecting money into an economy will allow workers to be more productive because they can afford more advanced machinery.

[@QuantumR4ge]

@@ashmarten2884 That isn't how that works, if they have no skills for it then it makes no difference. according to you we could teleport modern industry in 1740 and just have 15 workers work it with little oversight. since it takes no skill or effort apparently.

[@projectfear22]

Universal Basic Income for life. 4 hour work week + 2 free days for mental health.

[@Plystire]

I'm skeptical. Governments don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to good intentions. They're much better at bad intentions, or making good intentions somehow lead to hell..

[@Daria_Makarova]

Сначала бомбят, а потом просят деньги "на домики для бездомных".

[@Dreamheart101]

Do we pave the road anyway and try to change its purpose and direction of travel? Or do we avoid paving the road entirely?

[@JKozlovable]

Addressing the problem of corruption diminishing the amount of aid that a population receives is absolutely paramount for such an initiative to work. Corruption is a way larger problem in most poor countries than this video makes it out to be. Tons of poor countries remain poor in good part due to them having exploitative and extractive institutions in power that make it extremely difficult for their people to catch a single breath above water, in a figure of speech. Making the money reach the people directly through digital means does sounds good indeed, since it cuts out corrupt local governments from the chain of transfers. As long as only actors, that can be held accountable, participate in the chain of transfers, then this could actually be viable. If you introduce unaccountable actors into the transfer process (such as corrupt local governments), this will forever remain a pipe dream. Corrupt local governments are unaccountable actors because they are rogue entities that hold all the power at the local level. Therefore, if they act badly with aid money, you won't be able to do anything about it.

[@stevenorrington473]

I think these basic needs of food, water, healthcare, and education should be basic rights provided to everyone at no cost. These are human rights that should not rely on Charity.

[@logans3365]

Absolutely correct, we have the resources, and it isn’t even free, humans have built and sacrificed for ages to get us to this point, they wouldn’t want us to suffer as they did, the same way we shouldn’t want our kids to suffer as we have.

[@globin3477]

Unfortunately, a lot of people, particularly those in government, disagree with you. These people are the biggest obstacle in solving not just poverty, but also climate change, human rights, and numerous other problems world wide.

[@logans3365]

@@globin3477 those in government only agree with their corporate sponsors, it’s the corporations who are our true enemy

[@ShieldSniper]

Nothing that relies on others people work can be a human right.

[@logans3365]

@@ShieldSniper we all work, some people are good at some things and other people are good at other things, by structuring society in a way that puts people doing the things they excel at we optimize our advancement as a species, but what you seek to be suggesting is that only farmers and hunters have the right to food, which is not correct.

[@moesaeed2806]

My brother in God!!!!!!!!! Any thing about you screams quality and high production,why do I see just 200k ,You're videos are worthy of millions of views Well,I can't change youtube algorithm by my self,l guess I can only shove your channel and videos into the face of every guy I know,I hope this helps you channel grow ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@mihaleben6051]

Fun fact: inflation ONLY happens if everyone has a lot of money. But if rich people stay rich and non rich people have a average amount of money, inflation does not happen.

[@michaelsbeverly]

Inflation is caused by oversupply, i.e. printing more and more money. Doesn't so much matter who gets the money (although an uberrich person literally burning trillions in cash would cause deflation) but rather, that the overall money supply is going up over time as governments print more and more money (fiat currency) simply because they can, not based on any underlying value (like in the US when there was a gold standard, as an example).

[@mihaleben6051]

@@michaelsbeverly oh. We are screwed then.

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@mihaleben6051 same as it ever was...... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[@mihaleben6051]

@@michaelsbeverly yup. I got it.

[@mek101whatif7]

​@@michaelsbeverlyIt doesn't a gov prints 2 times the money in circulation, but shoves it away in a bunker, there is no inflation. Same thing with rich people, who don't increase consumption by much when they gain above a certain amount of money

[@lostgleammedia]

Systemic change on a global scale is needed to provide for everyone, as a foundation to build wealth from, once everyone is provided for

[@smitchered]

I'll find a way to do this. I will. I'm afraid I can't donate much at the moment for your specific charity here, but a few years down the road, I think I can help eliminate global poverty in a big way. Thanks!

[@swisscheesy]

That one extra subscriber today is gonna see what you're coming up with. Interesting what late-night comment browsing makes you bump into.

[@jameslincs]

It’s not lack of money, it’s lack of wealth (not the same thing) Any community that becomes more productive, has to also become more prosperous. It’s basic economics. Giving any community more cash will not affect their wealth, except by making it worse if the cash comes with strings, as it often does.

[@emilesteyn9483]

Politicians are getting hard-ons for the idea of how they can corrupt such systems.

[@chazdomingo475]

Well that's why the idea is to go around them as much as possible.

[@yurungkepsel7079]

Power rules the world. Power corrupts people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[@ВячеславВячеславыч-с7с]

weakness corrupts

[@Maddin1313]

What's ridiculous is that China receives foreign aid. China has a space program. If you can afford a space program, you don't need foreign aid, you need to change your priorities.

[@huh21376]

Uganda will have to be excluded then too

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

First off, China is credited for by far the largest poverty reduction in human history. So no, their priorities are perfectly fine. Secondly, space programs consume far fewer resources than you think (NASA is NOT representative of a typical space program) and produce far more value even for the poor than you think. A lot of satellites are used for agriculture for instance. Thirdly, foreign aid is typically not about countries asking for it, except in cases of sudden disasters. India (which also has a space program btw), for instance, has told the UK (which keeps whining about it) that it doesn't need their aid for decades. They still send it, to their own charities. Foreign aid is typically more about domestic politics as well as foreign policy than the recipients begging. Israel is one of the largest recipients of foreign aid in the world, for example, despite being a rich country. If you think China needs no aid, what of Israel? Fourthly, foreign aid is a far smaller contribution than most rich country citizens think. Both as part of developing country budgets (it's only significant in near-failed states, not China or India), and as part of the donor countries budgets i.e. it's a pittance. The vast majority of charity in the world is actually private, as the video also mentions briefly, and a big chunk of that is religious.

[@futmed3680]

I didnt know that china receives aid but still your argument is wrong India has a very advanced space program, they even send the robot (English isn't my first language, sorry) to the moon But still there's people living in extreme poverty there, do this mean that they should stop their space program?? I don't think so My country is a african country, very poor, but the state is giving money to researchers in our public university, the research they are making won't bring money, at least not now. Should they stop?? No Poverty doesn't exist because we don't have money, the government isn't giving/investing enough money in the countries Poverty is not a bug, its just how our world works Aid, donations, etc are very important things, they help people and save life's, but unfortunately it won't end poverty Poverty will end the day we change the way our world works Sorry for the bad English

[@Maddin1313]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn China reduced poverty by redefining poverty, lowering the bar. Most of their population is dirt poor, especially the rural regions.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@Maddin1313 You can keep crowing that all you want, the World Bank doesn't agree with you. "China has lifted nearly 800 million people out of poverty, accounting for more than 75 percent of global poverty reduction" - the World Bank. I'm gonna take their word for it over some rando on the web. Even business recognizes it - low level manufacturing is shifting out of China BECAUSE wages in China are now higher thereby making it no longer low cost.

[@Wol333]

An important reminder, the only aid you can trust, is the one you give yourself. Personally donate to those in need directly, not through rich people who don't actually care.

[@bulhakov]

What amazes me, is my most libertarian and right wing friends in the "I know better than the government what to spend my money on" camp, are the strongest opponents of direct monetary aid, as it "promotes dependance" and "they will just spend it on guns, drugs and alcohol".

[@toku_oku]

As a libertarian I think giving money to people in extreme poverty is one of the best things we can do. Direct monetary aid could result in dependency when you take it away after certain income level like in Germany, there is an incentive not to work. Clearly not the case with double digits monthly income. Much better than to force poor people work for the first world countries for pennies imo.

[@flydrop8822]

You are probably strawmanning the arguments made. What (serious) libertarians generally argue is that, if there is a government giving money directly to a group of people monthly with the condition being that they should be poor, they lose incentives to keep trying to improve their lives, because they must continue being poor to continue receiving the support. If that support is just slightly above what they need to literally not die of starvation, they may use the surplus to buy the leisure things you mention like alcohol and drugs (never heard anyone saying they would spend it on guns), because actually investing money is risky and can potentially cut off your support if you start actually earning more by working. This, plus the fact that most of the time the government isn't actually spending their investments in these people but instead just printing more money, which actually makes everyone else poorer, including the people who would otherwise attempt to work to get out of poverty (thus, people that could actually get out of poverty are instead dragged down to become dependent on these welfare programs). This doesn't mean donations are bad. When you donate, you are not putting more money in the economy like the government does by printing, so inflation doesn't increase. Most likely you also have more stakes in this, because unlike the government, you aren't giving out money just to get more votes and for other political reasons, but because you genuinely want them to get better lives: This means you have much stronger incentives to actually check out on them and attempt to get them out of bad habits. Meanwhile, they also have stronger incentives to actually try to get out of poverty, because they know the aid isn't infinite and that they have to plan out how they will invest it in their future. This isn't to say direct aid is perfect, but compared to government aid it is a lot more effective and it also doesn't scare off international investment in the local economy, since it doesn't require heavier taxation. I suggest you check out mutualist societies that used to exist in the USA, they are a good example of what libertarians would be mostly alright with.

[@XOPOIIIO]

What amazes me, that "China got out of extreme poverty to the world factory using only investors money and Africa stuck in middle ages forever, using only charitable money." is the concept too complex to comprehend by people who prefer to live in leftist echo-chamber instead of actually analyzing facts. You don't need to read the entire Thomas Sowell bibliography to understand the basics of how the world works. Just a few simple facts and examples is enough to understand that your intuition was wrong all along. But you can't do even that, it's too uncomfortable for you to just face facts.

[@XOPOIIIO]

@@toku_oku A number of countries from South East Asia developed their economies to the second and first world level by making poor people to work for the first world. Name one country who got at the same level using your monetary aids?

[@ginbarato1178]

aaaaand turns out organization steals a lot of money per year and its a well known scam on Congo, like libertarians usually suggest (not right wing here)

[@olivergilpin]

Been supporting this charity since I heard of it some months ago. Great cause

[@davefromreality]

This was an interesting video to watch and I will say you do bring up some good points on how we could in theory end extreme poverty. Now do not get me wrong I think sending money directly to people who need it will do wonders to decrease the amount of people in extreme poverty. I just have my doubts that we would be able to totally eliminate it. As there are many variables that can lead to people being in these horrible situations. Such as regional conflicts or famines making it hard for people to find life essentials let alone afford it. Donating to GiveDirectly is a great way to reduce the amount of people in extreme poverty, however we need to address all the variables causing poverty to ever truly eliminate it. Saying that I really did like how informative this video was and I cannot wait to see more videos from this channel.

[@mr_clean575]

Loved this video! I also think it's important to show just how much we have been helping reduce global poverty over the last 30 years or so. We can be hopeful knowing there's a lot of good that has been done.

[@m_29]

Good to know there is an idea of what to do! Can't wait untill it gets better!

[@FaustRoland]

Ok, let's do this. Leroooooy Jenkins!

[@rainetv4748]

It is a price that is needed it is a price that must be we will benefit and reap what we sow

[@RyanMiller-ej8ri]

Its all about infrastructure, you cant improve quality of life without the transport and electrical/ water infrastructure to support it. A cash transfer is not going to work if they cant get the goods to the isolated village in the first place.

[@matthollingsworth7327]

It's insane and sad that we're spending trillions each year to end poverty, yet we still have so much. From what I understand, though, things are getting better.

[@Xsomono]

It's crazy to see how easily we could get rid over poverty if we did this. Poverty only seems like an unsolvable problem because individuals can do so very little to change it. When tens of millions of people decide to work together to solve poverty it's easy. It's a collective action problem. All that humanity needs to solve poverty is the will to do it, so lets go do it.

[@brulez123]

This really doesn't make sense to me though, if it's a money problem alone why can't the local government just print more money and distribute it to citizens?

[@Ziorac]

@@brulez123Because that money wouldn't be backed by anything and it'd just lead to value loss of that currency. Look at pre-WWII Germany. The money given by people/countries would be backed and thus maintain value.

[@Xsomono]

​@@brulez123 As far as my economic education goes, that would cause inflation, while cash transfers would not. If a government prints money then the quantity of the currency is increased. With cash transfers the quantity of the currency stays the same, it's just shifted between countries. I imagine cash transfers likely also cause small local inflation because people have higher purchasing power but that isn't the same as the inflation you'd get from printing money. Globally the supply of dollar would not change so the demand for dollar on the global financial market would stay similar and hence the value would stay similar. After all the transferred dollars would be spent anyways and it doesn't matter a lot where on earth it is spent. Let's assume for a moment there are 1000 dollars in existence. One of them is owned by a US citizen. Whether they spend the dollar themselves at home or transfer it to a person in Africa so that they can spend it there doesn't change the value of that dollar. But if the US citizen makes a copy of the dollar and gives it to a person in Africa then the quantity of dollars has slightly increased, so the value has slightly decreased.

[@Zlyde007]

@@brulez123 how old are you and why do you not understand basic economy?

[@brulez123]

@@Ziorac The video asserts that the money stimulates the local economy and promotes trade which implies the country is operating in a deflationary state.

[@ILovePancakes24]

The US could single handedly fund this given its going 1 trillion more into debt every three months. It'd be another crowning achievement.

[@QuantumR4ge]

If you are stupid enough to think that what modern countries spend on their welfare budget (for one nation) is sufficient to eradicate multiple global problems then thats on you

[@snaptrap5558]

They're not suffering because they "don't have enough money". They're suffering because their societies do not optimize the available resources and utilize them effectively in a way that optimizes good for the society as a whole.

[@mek101whatif7]

Profit motive be like:

[@Pheonix1328]

I'm pretty sure it was Kurzgesagt that made a video about how making sure as many people are doing well (not in poverty or better) is within your selfish best interest. Just imagine if the next Einstein no longer has to worry about getting food everyday and could focus on learning and improving their community, just as an example.

[@alexanderyu9120]

Warning: The comment section may contain controversial or political topics and therefore may not be suitable for all audiences. Scroll at your own risk.

[@PJ183]

A side of bait and trolls too down here, to be clear.

[@JD-jl4yy]

It's rare af to have a blind playthrough. Let him cook and play how he wants!

[@chazdomingo475]

This is a good cause and such transfers are a decent solution, but the calculation of "extreme poverty" as some arbitrary dollar amount is asinine. What does a dollar buy in these areas vs. say NYC. It's a lot more. And it only makes any remote sense as long as the $ is the global reserve currency. If that changes the entire idea just completely dissolves. We need a better measurement. Adjusted income accounting for costs of the three basics, housing, water and food, would be better.

[@immortal_shrooms6757]

We also need to provide a way to make sure they can still support themselves by helping improve their local economic and social status

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

Every time I've ever seen this idea be brought up in America people's reactions run the gamut from claims that it's sanctimonious to socialism is bad. I really hope this idea catches on, especially in America.

[@FranBunnyFFXII]

Unfortunately the USA is pedaling backwards in most areas and the culture there across the spectrum except for the most progressive are adopting an understanding of these forward thinking ideas. This is why im trying to leave the USA and find better pasture for leftist and urbanist ideas elsewhere. USA can spend all the way and be the worlds police, I want nothing more to do with them.

[@zeehero7280]

I hope not, its retarded and naieve. Giving people money may help, and it may be part of a larger solution but by itself it solves nothing long term.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

Giving money voluntarily is not socialism, and no one is making this claim. Funnily enough, Christians and people on the right donate more of their income to charity than leftists do

[@diadetediotedio6918]

I don't know how willingly giving people money would be socialism.

[@FranBunnyFFXII]

@@diadetediotedio6918 who said its socialism?

[@JoelleThomas-xl4fx]

To help these countries fight poverty, we have to help them to produce their own food and help them to develop their hospitals. They have to become independent and produce really a lot of food. Maybe import food as well. They should export goods as well. As the saying goes " give a fishing rod to a poor person and he will have food forever"

[@belthesheep3550]

The fact that private charity already pays significantly more than would be "necessary" to eliminate poverty should clue people in to the real problem here. The amount of money you have isn't the issue - it's the local availability of goods and resources. If people don't work to produce what they consume they will never end poverty, and giving them money is not going to necessarily help in that regard. Want to help the poor? Hire them. Start a business which produces stuff the poor need. They'll pull themselves out of poverty in the best way possible - through self improvement - in a sustainable way that is actually beneficial to humanity as a whole. Biggest problem with doing that really is socialist governments preventing development by imposing overbearing regulation, expropriating business assets and cultures weary of those who want to change the status quo, even if it'd be best in the long term.

[@yufeng1707]

This should be the job of their government and politicians. It shouldn't be the job of the common worker to look after the impoverished in other countries.

[@logans3365]

It should be the responsibility of everyone to aid everyone. what makes these people any different then your neighbors? Imaginary human concepts? It has always been the responsibility of the strong to defend the weak, right now we could do that by overthrowing our corporate slavers which would help both us and them

[@optionboom]

It should be, and it’s a good idea to encourage your government to do more of this kind of charity, but in the meantime it’s good to try to do something.

[@efremkGTFO]

Every country, every state will be lobbied against this due this not having immediate profits for largest businesses. Crushing corporate elites is first step to do anything economically, not only ending extreme poverty. They are the main reason why we don't have anything really solved, they have too much power. They not interested.

[@mobiletaskforceepsilon1172]

The bourgeois never has the interests of the lower classes, the global proletariat and peasants developing class consciousness is necessary to end poverty.

[@diadetediotedio6918]

@@mobiletaskforceepsilon1172 Please show me your logical derivation of necessity for this.

[@NikitOS-vv4ks]

Я очень сомневаюсь, что странам, а тем более бизнесам, есть какое-то дело до Африки. Это как бы не чёрные дыры, которые просто засасывают деньги. Экономика так не работает.

[@efremkGTFO]

@@NikitOS-vv4ks Так я об этом и говорю, Корпоративный интерес, который еще и выраженый через государство ибо они заодно, никогда не будут вливать бабло в бедные регионы второго и третьего мира, ибо это не дает краткосрочной прибыли, рыночный капитализм не та экономика где есть смысл вообще делать инвестиции долгосрочного плана, без процентов и ясной прибыли. Да она так не работает. Потому что работает на интерес владельцев капитала а не тех кто является физическим движком экономики. Наемное работающее большинство не имеет политического веса больше чем владельцы капитала. Поэтому мы ничем не можем помочь бедным, кроме прямого действия.

[@NikitOS-vv4ks]

@@efremkGTFO я имел в виду, что они не против того, чтобы мы все скинулись по какой-то сумме на помощь Африке, им нет такой большой разницы, чтобы лоббировать против, тем более в **каждой** стране и государстве.

[@crescentmoon256]

poverty will never end because majority of people don't want it to end

[@sirnikkel6746]

How did the richest countries on Earth became rich in the first place? Wouldn't be better if, along the monetary aid, we teach the poor population how the USA, Japan or European population managed to reach the level they are now?

[@naterardin8053]

The rich countries are rich primarily because of the systematic exploitation of the people in impoverished nations. Colonization, slavery, sweatshops-we frak their land and steal their water just to bottle it in plastic and sell it back to them. The global network of capitalism is upheld by the exploration of the global south.

[@logans3365]

@@naterardin8053answer your question perfectly, the only way to make money under capitalism is to take it from someone else.

[@harrybudgeiv349]

That doesn't even make sense. What exactly are you asking for? Industrialization and information technology?

[@mek101whatif7]

By industralization and colonialism?

[@sirnikkel6746]

@@harrybudgeiv349 Yes

[@timotheeoliveau3568]

Thanks for existing.

[@Kyleology]

Good luck with that.

[@KozelPraiseGOELRO]

We could solve this problem a century ago. It is not new. But the complexity behind the why hasn't happened, is larger than you think.

[@rafaelflores448]

Simply giving money to poor people doesn't solve the problem. Money by itself does not have intrinsic value, it only serves as a means of exchange to buy goods and services. If you increase the amount of money in an economy but the amount of goods and services stays the same, you have inflation. Lets say for example you give 1 million dollars to a group of farmers, those farmers are going to use that money to buy things like capital and labour(factors of production) and due to the higher demand their prices are going to increase and other people who use those same factors of productions and didnt receive that money are going to see their profit mangins diminishing and start producing less, causing a miss alocation of resources. this is known as the cantillon effect When your trying to do economic policy you can't just look at the imidiate effects of that policy, you also have to look at the cost of opportunity in the counterfactual economy or else you are going to fall in the broken window fallacy

[@adrianliung8374]

This was already addressed in the video. There was barely any inflation at all, hardly noticeable even.

[@QuantumR4ge]

@@adrianliung8374 It wasnt addressed at all, these are complex questions that take piles of economics papers to even begin to predict and analyse you think inflationary effects were summed up and solved in a KZbin video do you? fucking people on the internet man.

[@DarioStracci]

Did a little donation just now, feels good doing something that could actually work

[@melchiel4413]

I've actually had an idea to end global poverty without needing to spend much money at all. A privately held CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) operating as a collective boycott to force employers to give benefits and unions to their workers, take care of the elderly, kids, the sick and disabled, and payments to basic survival level for the poorest in every society without over-taxing everyone or even taxing the rich higher than others. All you would have to do is inflate the currency by 2-3% every year and you could make those payments to the vulnerable previously mentioned. I call it a Consumer's Alliance. I've worked it out as much as a hobbyist can and it will work. (I need to own it is what I'm getting at, any movement on this from a non-profit mindset is likely to result in mass famine around the world).

[@SangoProductions213]

Nice idea. You should take it public. Lol.

[@QuantumR4ge]

why would i hold this currency? this is just a currency to sell, it would have no value at all. fiat has value because governments demand it in taxes and its whats used to solve civil disputes, as far as i can see your idea is only valuable to obtain resources, you wouldn't sell anything for this, why would you? You sell for usd, gbp etc now because you have to pay your taxes in that currency, a British issued currency wont have taxation power in the middle of africa, and if we could tax those places then most of these governments would already be doing so.

[@Hir655]

The important thing is to develop SMEs in these places, millions of SMEs, from bakeries to stores and including the basic textile industry with footwear or steel.

[@colonelcorn9500]

Wouldn’t this just cause inflation?

[@garettmcafee707]

I hope we can globally communcate, and get alot of stuff done. Foward we go, to the future.

[@ekki1993]

Absolutely dystopian vibes of having to justify direct help to people under extreme poverty by monitoring whether or not it can make profits down the line. They are already impoverished by corporations and governments aiming to make huge profits, you won't convince them by promising profits in the long term.

[@diadetediotedio6918]

They are impoverished because of wars and mass murderings, you are shifting things ideologically here. Most of the famine in the world is localizated in war zones and very unstable economies with dictatorships.

[@ekki1993]

@@diadetediotedio6918 They are massively unstable because of colonialism. You know, that meme about "what if Europe colonised Europe" and drawing countries with straight lines has direct consequences like wars. Corporations and governments prey on those instabilities for profits, google Plan Condor or Banana Republic if you doubt this can happen. It is incredibly profitable to just mess up a country if you get the dictator on your side (for obvious reasons), so thinking it's an unrelated problem that "shifts the discussion" shows you don't fully understand the problem.

[@diadetediotedio6918]

​@@ekki1993 Really, this is not true, not entirely at least. I'm not saying that corporations and colonialism had nothing to do with the wars in these places; they certainly did, but this is far, far, extremely far from being the whole truth. Wars are extremely common in these places; Africa itself, which was one of the most colonized places in the world, was steeped in wars and bloodshed (to the extent that a significant portion of slaves sold to brazil in the 19th century, for example, came from prisoners of internal wars between the tribes themselves). Similarly, there are various groups (including groups with socialist biases as well) that were responsible for civil wars and the destruction of peace in these places, and there are also dictatorships that are related to external economic interests like you stated. Trying to reduce things to one spectrum while ignoring all the instability that had to exist for all this process to be possible in the first place is ideology, and it is effectively not understanding the problem. As for the notion that it's 'profitable' to mess with an entire country, this is neither guaranteed nor predetermined; it may be the case in some instances and may not be in others. There's no guarantee of profit when you're destabilizing an entire society, and this can end up backfiring on you in the end. Lastly, just to complement this, the only way for these processes to be profitable for corporations is if they have the support of the state (this ties into what I mentioned earlier about the possible insecurities of the process), and if you carefully analyze it, you will see that in all cases there was a very significant involvement of the same.

[@AkaiAzul]

I'm late, but donated. Good luck to those who received aid!