"In challenging decades of poverty research, Karelis draws on some economic data and some sociological research. But, more than that, he makes his case as a philosopher, arguing by analogy and induction."
This, for me, is the biggest problem with the article.
Perhaps induction and deduction? In any case, this is the basis behind economics as I understand it; taking data and then reasoning from there to more generalized models. Then those models can be used in future studies as a means to both reconcile the data, and to improve upon the models. There are several schools of thought, each with their own models, and each arguing that the other models are wrong due to particular reasons. This is not much unlike philosophy, except it deals with money instead of ethics and motivations.
The article does have a little empirical data (towards the end):
>In the early 1970s, a large-scale study gave poor people in four cities a so-called "negative income tax," a no-strings-attached payment based on how little money they made. The conclusion: the aid tended to discourage work.
we need to stop all aid to third world countries. not only is the vast majority of the money absorbed by corruption and armed conflict, even the money that gets through doesn't help.
of course, this fails to account for the fact that we want those countries in armed conflict and hanging on our every welfare check because it means we can take their resources for way below market value. can you imagine how expensive things would be if the african nations were organized enough to have business infrastructure?
Comments
"In challenging decades of poverty research, Karelis draws on some economic data and some sociological research. But, more than that, he makes his case as a philosopher, arguing by analogy and induction."
This, for me, is the biggest problem with the article.
Perhaps induction and deduction? In any case, this is the basis behind economics as I understand it; taking data and then reasoning from there to more generalized models. Then those models can be used in future studies as a means to both reconcile the data, and to improve upon the models. There are several schools of thought, each with their own models, and each arguing that the other models are wrong due to particular reasons. This is not much unlike philosophy, except it deals with money instead of ethics and motivations.
I agree, it would be nice with some empirical data instead of just opinion (not that most other opinions are better supported).
The article does have a little empirical data (towards the end):
>In the early 1970s, a large-scale study gave poor people in four cities a so-called "negative income tax," a no-strings-attached payment based on how little money they made. The conclusion: the aid tended to discourage work.
when you subsidize something you get more of it.
we need to stop all aid to third world countries. not only is the vast majority of the money absorbed by corruption and armed conflict, even the money that gets through doesn't help.
of course, this fails to account for the fact that we want those countries in armed conflict and hanging on our every welfare check because it means we can take their resources for way below market value. can you imagine how expensive things would be if the african nations were organized enough to have business infrastructure?
Cheaper?