It's been brought to my attention that it's really confusing if I write under my real name in some places and under my nickname (Quico) in others. So, to avoid confusion, I've decided to re-brand my byline here as "Francisco Toro".
Just so we're all clear, I'm still me (if that makes sense.)
For a gentle introduction, read the Beginner's Guide to the Chávez Era.
To get the most out of comments, take a minute to create a free account.
Do Your Own Election Forecasts:
Download the 26S Forecasting Tool
Descarga la Plataforma de Estimación para las Legislativas del 26S en español aquí.
26S Victory Map
View Larger Map
Pixar
loroferoz loroferoz Juan Cristobal
Francisco Toro JesusRZ JesusRZ Roy Juan Cristobal JesusRZ JesusRZ dcisfun Pelao Manrique cahin Roberto N dcisfun 
The Devil's Poop: Miguel Octavio's comprehensive Venezuelan news blog
Daniel's Blog: The view from Ruritania
Kepler's Blog: Venezuela, meet Europe. Europe, Venezuela.
Global Voices Online: Worldwide blog roundup: Venezuela page.
OilWars: Once chavista, now wobbly lefty blog.
21st Century Socialism: Calvin Tucker's cybershrine to chavismo and the Soviet model.
Blogs de El Nacional: Featuring Hernán Lugo Galicia's PSUV gossip blog Política de Ñapa.
Panfleto Negro: Literary mass blog, open to all comers.
Los Cuadernos Azul y Marrón: Vicente Ulive-Schnell's cantankerous rambling.
Radar de los Barrios: Chuo Torrealba's innovative innitiative on Caracas's shantytowns.
Ana Julia Jatar's Blog: Wonkish stuff
Webarticulista Collective opposition opinion blog
Sin el chivo y sin el mecate: the students come of age
Capuchino: Father Jesus Garcia's unique perspective from Kavanayén, Edo. Bolívar
La Silla Vacía: The view from the sister republic
VenEconomy: Venezuela's leading bilingual business magazine, and Quico's former employer.
El Universal in English: Not very well translated news from EUD.
Google News: Top Venezuela stories.
The Latin American Herald Tribune: Successor to the venerable old, now defunct, Daily Journal.
Miami Herald: Venezuela Page.
Financial Times: Americas Page
Human Rights Watch: Venezuela Page
Amnesty International: Venezuela Page
Francisco Rodríguez @ Wesleyan: Top resource for economic research into the impact of the Chávez era
Organization of American States: Venezuela Page
Venezuela Information Office: Our tax-bolivars at work - government-run pro-Chávez blog aimed at the US
Venezuelanalysis.com: Most sophisticated pro-Chávez site.
Noticias 24: The granddaddy of Venezuelan news aggregators, plus insane bulletin boards.
Twitter #Venezuela: Micro-blogging site's Venezuela stream.
TalCual: Newspaper edited by the legendary Teodoro Petkoff. Subscription required and worth it
El Universal: "Serious" Caracas daily, strongly opposition minded.
El Nacional: The other "serious" Caracas daily, strongly opposition minded
Globovision: Opposition run 24 hour news station. Text news free, Windows Media Video by subscription.
Union Radio Noticas: News portal and streaming audio.
GoogleNews Venezuela: Venezuela GoogleNews portal in Spanish.
Ultimas Noticias: Tabloid edited by Eleazar Díaz Rangel. Chávez-friendly. Subscription.
Descifrado: Opposition financial gossip site. Some items free, others by subscription.
El Chigüire Bipolar: Closest thing Venezuela has to The Onion. Very silly. And hysterical.
Notiven: News digest + links to dozens of Venezuelan newspapers.
ODH Grupo Consultor: News monitoring and economic analysis.
Urru.org: Massive oppo archive
E-lecciones: Fascinating selection of polling power points, international observer reports, and other election related stuff
Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias State news agency: all chavista propaganda all the time
Aporrea.org: Website of the Asamblea Popular Revolucionaria. Militant pro-Chávez site, occasionally critical of the government
VTV - Canal Ocho: State TV. Hardcore propaganda. Live WindowsMedia work only sometimes
Panorama: Maracaibo newspaper, privately owned but aggressively pro-Chávez
teleSUR: Hemispheric arm of the chavista propaganda machine
Viejas Fotos Actuales: Fun archive of historical pictures, films and audio recordings
Provea: One of Venezuela's two most respected human rights' NGOs
Cofavic: The other one of Venezuela's two most respected human rights' NGOs
Human Rights Watch: Venezuela Page
Central Bank of Venezuela: Good starting point for economic and monetary data.
Finance Ministry: data.
El Librito Azul: Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - 1999
Frontline's genius 2008 documentary on the Chávez era. (Versión en español aquí.)
To get in touch with us directly:
Quico: franciscotoro at fastmail dot fm
Juan Cristobal: nageljuan at gmail dot com
A documentary shot in 2002 and 2003, contrasting the experiences of two Venezuelan farms taken over in the name of the revolution.
Venezuela - Spanish with English Subtitles. Produced by Francisco Toro, Directed by Megan Folsom.
His name is not Inigo Montoya
You did not kill his father. No need to prepare to die.
(For Kepler and the other pop-culture-impaired people around here, that was a reference to the movie "The Princess Bride".)
Anyway, it's not hard to guess when you were born (late 70's, early 80's) if your family gave you the nickname "Quico" instead of the obligatory "Paco".
I knew a guy with the last name Gamez. We called him "Paca". Works with people named Gala too.
It's all in branding
Are you sure you don't wanna go with "D.J. Pimp Daddy"?
;-)
What's in a name
'Cisco Kid would be cool too.....
I agree
Agreed. But we were not confused by "Quico"
New readers
Sure, CC readers - you lovable, loyal bunch - weren't confused by it. But folks coming from The New Republic for the first time had no way to know I was me...
JOOG, a new reader of CC
I am a new reader from The New Republic. Your article in TNR was presented as authored by Francisco Toro. So, why should I be confused?
I am, however, confused on another matter. I registered with CC today and apparently I did every right because I received an E-mail with an assigned password. However, when I log-in, I don't appear to be a registered reader. I say this because according to your FAQ I should see the two questions at the end of each comment and they are not there. What am I doing wrong?
Hoping to be a useful contributor the dialog. From what I've seen so far I'm sure that I'm going to enjoy participating.
JOOG
Hi JOOG - be sure you're actually logged in when you comment
HI JOOG,
Welcome!
Listen, that's an odd bug you're reporting. Just make sure you're actually logged in when you're commenting. If you see a login and password box on the upper right hand corner, you're not currently logged in. If you can see your username under the Join The Fray box, then you *are*.
Cisco Kid was a friend of mine
(Cue 70's-style background music...) Fun song!
I'm confused.
When has your blog been about *not* confusing people? ;)
--
To Torres: Off Topic
My apologies for the off topic.
Torres, I just read an interesting article by Drake Bennett that reminded me of you (well, I think it's you, but my memory is not the best.) Check it out if you have not done so already. You may already know all this stuff, but I found it intriguing and made me think more of what you proposed several times in this forum. Frankly, it made me rethink some of my own objections to your idea.
Some excerpts of Drake Bennett’s article:
“There are all sorts of things very poor people living in poor countries don’t have … But the central thing they lack is money. That is what makes them, by definition, poor.”
“In the last decade, however, the governments of the nations where most of the world’s poorest actually live have begun to turn to an idea that seems radical in its simplicity: Solve poverty and spur development by simply giving out money. … Typically the money — disbursed through banks, post offices, state lottery offices, and even, in rural Africa, ranging armored cars with ATMs on them — goes directly to the poor, rather than being spent on particular projects by government or international aid officials. The regular infusions of cash augment the paltry budgets of poor households, alleviating the pinch of deprivation, but proponents also see them as a long-term path out of poverty, and even a catalyst for economic growth. Research has credited cash transfers with improving the health and education of poor children, and there is also evidence that cash transfers nurture microenterprises, improve crop yields, and allow the poor to begin to save and invest. On a broader scale, some development experts argue that giving the poor more money to spend expands consumption and markets, and can boost local and national economies. Cash transfers don’t just lift people out of poverty, in other words, they lift entire countries as well. In the process, they may render superfluous large swaths of today’s aid industry.”
“Economists and other development experts are beginning to examine just how the world’s poorest people actually spend their money. What they’re finding is that, because the stakes are so high, the very poor are often quite financially savvy. For the staunchest supporters of cash transfers, it’s more evidence that just giving the poor money is, dollar for dollar, among the best uses for aid.”
“One of the most prominent proponents of direct cash transfers as a poverty-fighting measure was none other than Milton Friedman, father of the neoclassical Chicago school of economics”
“The success of these programs has shown development economists something they didn’t necessarily expect: that very poor people are, by and large, careful shepherds of money, and giving them more of it is not a recipe for indolence, debauchery, and waste”
To read the whole article:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/18/free_money/
Viva Torres!
I'm impressed.
So the solution to poverty...
... is to give them money????
Who would have thought so?
Tears of joy...
Thanks for the article link. It contains wonderful information and explanations. There are many names and references sprinkled throughout the article that will keep me busy for days checking them out. A veritable goldmine for cash distribution proponents.
Thanks, again.
--
to torres
Ridiculous Torres.
First you define poverty as a lack of money, then you say adding money eliminates people being defined as poor.That's like making drugs legal therefore eliminating the crime in their use...
just use definitions to make something easy to deal with??
We can also eliminate poverty by eliminating money, no?
This shows me that you have no conscious idea of how most poor people live and why most are in the conditions they are in.This is exactly the problem most poor folks have:
they do not know why there are in the pickle they are in, or they would not be in it.
Not all but most people are poor because they do not know how to handle money.
When I Lived in Catia the majority had at least 4 times the money we made and yet we moved out to Colinas de Bello Monte.Why? Because we chose to spend our little salaries in a way that reflected our values.
People are mostly poor because of their priorities and habits.
For example In Belarus most spend the little money they have on alcohol.
More money = more drunkenness.
Firepigette
to Firepigette
I'm taken aback by your reaction, so I'll try treading lightly.
1) not so ridiculous if so many people all over the world are reaching the same conclusions from different angles and most importantly, from consistent results: that cash distribution seems to work better than alternatives.
2) I didn't define poverty. 1USD/day is how most international organizations define critical poverty; 2USD/day non critical poverty. I, instead, adopted the Venezuelan definition of poverty, which is the amount of money per day per person necessary to be able to eat a minimally nutritional local diet for critical poverty; double that for non critical poverty (it turns out that they are close to 1 and 2 USD/day).
3) if these are the definitions of it, then having the money to meet the criteria *does* take people out of *these* definitions of poverty. Clearly, if you have a different definition, then not necessarily. As to making drug possesion and use legal, you are correct, it would eliminate the crimes related to drug possession and allowed uses. If you are referring to eliminating drug problems, not drug crimes, then that's a different definition.
4) I don't think they made the definition of poverty to make it easy to deal with. The definitions I mention above have been around a long time and I don't think anyone thinks it's been easy all these decades.
5) you cannot eliminate poverty by eliminating money, as per these definitions.
6) I can't see how any of this shows what I consciously know or not about how most poor people live, nor why they are in their conditions. I disagree that they would not be poor if they knew why they were poor. I also disagree that most poor are poor because they do not know how to handle money. These statements of yours seem to point to your not having read the article, which specifically emphasizes the repeated and consistent results that in all related trials the poor are demonstrating a much more savvy use of money than expected.
7) Perhaps your Catia experiences have led you to reach a non statistically sound conclusion regarding all poor, I don't know. I do know of many cash distribution tests that have failed but I attribute the failures to their not having distributed frequently enough or unconditionally enough. I firmly believe that those two factors are crucial in helping to prevent the money/drunkenness correlation, and the results described in the article seem support my belief.
Finally, I'd like to add my own two points:
A) within the context of Venezuela, the above discussion becomes moot when you consider that all the oil money is theirs to begin with. It's not for you or me to decide how to best spend it. It's theirs. And being adults, they, regardless of your values, have the right to decide how to spend their own money, so long as it's legal.
B) again within the Venezuela context, any use of oil money, including education or any other poverty alleviation investment you may wish to concoct, is regressive. This is because any use of oil money is tantamount to a tax of equal amount to each Venezuelan, rich and poor alike. A university built with oil money is built with an equal share of money from the poorest Venezuelan as from the richest Venezuelan. How ironic to be investing in such a regressive way in name of the poor!
Offer them their cash, and win an election to boot!
--
TORRES
1. "not so ridiculous if so many people all over the world are reaching the same conclusions "
It is illogical and lacking in reality to assume that if many people think something then it must be true.
2."I didn't define poverty." You ARE defining poverty in terms of money.I define it in terms of well being.Boiling everything down to dollars and cents is in my opinion a poor way of analyzing complex situations
3."If you are referring to eliminating drug problems"
to me eliminating drug problems is more important than the crimes.Criminals just switch venues
4.) "Perhaps your Catia experiences have led you to reach a non statistically sound conclusion regarding all poor"
I never said anything about ALL the poor, and my Catia experience( and many other experiences as well) gave me empirical evidence which I hold above statistics any day of the week.Here in the US most people I know are too sophisticated to not know that in the case of political ideas statistics are highly manipulated.Nothing beats understanding than actual experience.Any belief otherwise has a logical extension of dangerous implications.Think it through.
5."when you consider that all the oil money is theirs to begin with."
a government should use the resources in an honest way that benefits the infrastructure used by all.To widdle away a fortune in separate groups of small amounts is a poor use of large sums of money.A proper use of money by the government can bring prosperity to all if corruption is lessened.
6."I don't think they made the definition of poverty to make it easy to deal with. The definitions I mention above have been around a long time"
Precisely our problem.This type of conservative thinking needs to be overcome in order to to resolve the issue of poverty that up til now as not been resolved in many places.
I know from experience that most poor people can benefit from more money only to the extent that they have the willpower, values, and common sense to use money wisely.In most cases this is not true.
Also would like to say that it is common knowledge what what is free and not earned is not truly valued.People become dependent on authority and parental figures and forget who is responsible for their lives.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST VOTE MANIPULATION THERE IS
A GOVERNMENT BASED ON HANDOUTS IS PRECISELY CHAVEZ'S METHOD TO GAIN VOTES AND KEEP THE POPULATION DEPENDENT
firepigette
firepigette
1. I didn't say true, just not ridiculous. And I'm not talking about random people, I'm talking about very well educated people the world over, from different educational systems. If you think ridiculous conclusions can happen this way, then I'm not sure you can continue to make great claims about education being any kind of solution.
2. Again, I did not come up with the definition of poverty. I am simply working with the established definition, which happens to be in terms of money. If you wish for the established definition to be changed to be about well-being, I may even support it after I take a look at your definition, but until it is changed, I will work with the current definition. I agree that "Boiling everything down to dollars and cents is ... a poor way of analyzing complex situations" which is why I don't do that. But given that the definition of poverty in the article is about money, the solution to it would necessarily be about money. The difference between you and me here seems to be that I'm willing to work with the definitions of others and you're not. Consider, however, that in most situations money makes things better, whether you're poor or not. So, even with a definition of well-being, 1USD/day would certainly make the poor people better off.
3. Here you seem to want to ignore the differences between different words. Ask a judge whether he would sentence someone who has a drug problem but has committed no drug crime. The answer would be a resounding no. If it's not illegal, then it's not a crime. You don't have to like it, but you really should acknowledge it. Switzerland is attempting a different angle on solving drug crimes and it started by redefining drug problems as health issues, so drugs are distributed to addicts by health institutions. The drug crimes have gone down, but the drug problems have increased. Personally, I think preventing people from hurting others comes first, so, though not an overall solution, I do see it is an improvement.
4. Statistics can be used to fool people, only because of its complexity or counter-intuitiveness, but not because of inherent flaws in its mathematical basis. Your stating that you hold empirical evidence above statistics any day of the week speaks more about you than about statistics. I would be forced again to question any claims regarding the importance of education as a social problem solver, if you're bashing the education of statistics. I agree that experience leads to better personal understanding, but not that it beats the generalizing power of statistics. That is the use for statistics. That is why statistics exists. Put simply, it is a way of mathematically describing bigger sets of numbers. Statistics is the summarizing of the exeriences of many. For example, you may have luck at a roulette table and conclude that it is possible to beat the house at roulette, but when you add up the experiences of thousands, the only conclusion --the statistical conclusion-- is that you cannot beat the house without cheating.
5. In Venezuela, the oil belongs to the people. The government is selling it for us, then keeping the money for its spending. Imagine a bank unilaterally deciding to invest direct salary deposits as it honestly deems most beneficial for its customers. You would probably want to leave that bank, regardless of how well or badly they did the investing for you, just because they have no right to do so. It's your money, but you never spend a penny of it because the bank decides. So, no, the Venezuelan government should not be spending our money. It should only be spending money from taxation (i.e., the money citizens pitch in progressively for social spending), not from grafting the money from our natural resources.
As to the "widdling away" into small amounts being a poor use of money, it seems again that you did not read the article in which they point out that results of trials seem to indicate that the contrary may be the rule: giving poor people cash may very well be the way to get the most bang for the buck in short and long term. Cash distribution seems to lift not just people but whole nations out of poverty, in part through personal opportunity, in part through market stimulation. Read the article.
Please explain how there could possibly be less corruption if the money is handled by government than if it is distributed directly to each citizen.
6. "This type of conservative thinking needs to be overcome in order to to resolve the issue of poverty that up til now as not been resolved in many places." This is exactly what gave birth to the cash distribution trials. They resulted from frustration from failed attempt after failed attempt of investment proposals. And the results have been surprisingly positive, which is why many like you have been reconsidering their stances. The people who are trying these cash distribution tests are having very different experiences from the ones you seem to have had. I don't question your experience, I question your not considering other people's experiences on an equal basis. These early and limited experiments seem to support the idea that poor people are benefitting much more from cash than most people, like you, predicted. In fact, more than with any other attempted alternative.
"I know from experience that most poor people can benefit from more money only to the extent that they have the willpower, values, and common sense to use money wisely." You speak so highly of experience. If you are truly behind experience as a teaching tool, how about letting them learn from experience how to handle money. Read the article again; it seems the do have more willpower, values, and common sense to use money wisely than for which people give them credit.
Careful the slippery slope of being willing to keep people hungry until they lear certain values; some may start calling it indoctrination...
7. You sidestepped a huge point. I'm bringing it back: government spending of oil money is regressive. No matter what it spends it on, the poorest person would have pitched in the same share as the richest person. How do you justify that out of a 1.5 billion dollar investment, the poorest Venezuelan would have given up 50USD of his oil money while the richest Venezuelan would have given up the same, 50USD of his oil money? Do you need me to point out the percentage that those 50USD represent of the total income of the poor versus the rich? It is *highly* regressive.
8. "THIS IS THE BIGGEST VOTE MANIPULATION THERE IS" Waking up the citizenship to their rightful ownership of oil money is not manipulation. It is what an *honest* political party would do.
9. "A GOVERNMENT BASED ON HANDOUTS IS PRECISELY CHAVEZ'S METHOD TO GAIN VOTES AND KEEP THE POPULATION DEPENDENT" Cash distribution of oil money is not a handout. It is a citizen right. The oil belongs to each citizen. By law. By the way, chavez would not touch an idea like this with a ten foot pole because it makes the population *independent*, not dependent. It seems that it is you who wishes people to depend on your wiser(?) ways of spending their money.
So, let's be honest, legal, and efficient: give them their money, and win an election to boot.
--
to torres a question
What in ther dickens does this mean?
" It seems that it is you who wishes people to depend on your wiser(?) ways of spending their money."
firepigette
in ther dickens
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I meant it as a contrast to my position which is to empower the people with economic independence, handing over their cash to them, for their use. You pointed to that as breeding dependence, so I am replying that it's your proposal that breeds dependence, a system which spends their money for them until they show that they would spend the money the way you think is a wiser way, that is, based on your discipline, values and thinking. I put a question mark next to the word "wiser" because it is debatable whether your way is the wiser.
--
Torres,
Anything is
Torres,
Anything is debatable, and ALL we have are our opinions.Nobody can claim absolute truth.You think your way is wiser, and I think my way is wiser.
To me, the fundamental difference between our ways of thinking lies in where we see power as more properly placed.
I believe that each person benefits from assuming the most responsibility for themselves they can without relying on government.And I see the responsibility of government to make a safe, organized and just society for each to live in.
Venezuela has a very unjust society.There are simply no values for creating that.
I believe in the power of education, both formal and cultural to handle problems.The problem that many educated Venezuelans has is not a lack of intelligence but cultural blind spots, and I think that is true with ALL COUNTRIES.
I do not believe that the money that each individual has is the key to obtain the individual well being and happiness that is possible for each.
I think the problem will be resolved when more people realize the specific cultural errors and begin to think in a new way.
I can say the same for Europe and the US as well...whose problems are of a different nature.
re: anything is
"You think your way is wiser, and I think my way is wiser." Not quite. I don't think my way of spending is wiser, which is why I don't try to impose my way on those who would spend differently (e.g., alcohol). You don't even seem to stand the idea that people would spend their money in Caracas based on their egos, rather than being "better off" elsewhere.
"each person benefits from assuming the most responsibility for themselves they can without relying on government" But you won't give them their money to handle it as responsibly as they can, without relying on government. You seem to think that oil money given out to all citizens is tantamount to people depending on government. It's the contrary. By distributing the cash, it's the government that would become dependent on the citizens. It's you who is proposing that people depend on the government until the government gets its act together. You want to know why I don't see that happening? It's because the government is made of people. You cannot expect the government to become financially savvy without people becoming savvy first. And the only way to achieve that starts by giving them what's theirs so that they can do the most for themselves. Like the article mentions: people can't pick themselves up by their bootstraps without boots; cash distribution is boots.
"I believe in the power of education" You seem to say that, but not act always accordingly. You bash statistics, you don't trust the experiences of others, you don't want adults in society to be trusted with mere dollars a day so they can learn from experience, you want to limit the way free human beings get to use their things, you disrespect the conclusions of other very educated people from various parts of the world just because our conclusions differ from your personal experience conclusions, and you avoid educating yourself with new topics that may endanger your previous paradigms (e.g., regressive spending of oil money).
"I do not believe that the money that each individual has is the key to obtain the individual well being and happiness that is possible for each." I would challenge you to obtain the individual well being and happiness levels without including sufficient income to meet minimal nutritional requirements, and without the individual being dependent on government programs.
"specific cultural errors and begin to think in a new way" Face it, you don't like Venezuelans as we are; you want to change us into new people. I on the other hand am looking for a system that may just work with Venezuelans exactly as we are. Cash distribution would get rid of the petro-state system, which would take the oil money out of the few running the government and putting it in the hands of the rightful owners, the citizens. No one falling through cracks, highly efficient and easy to police, market reactivation on Turbo, zero poverty (as per the UN and the Venezuelan definitions), etc..
Please, at least answer this: how do you justify the regressiveness of government oil spending?
--
"more money = more drunkenness"
Firepiggette, that quote packs a wallop.
If someone has enough money to spend it all on booze, they may be incorrigible alcoholics, but are they poor?
JC,
In Belarus most people
JC,
In Belarus most people have a problem with some form of alcoholism and if you know how that is- alcoholics tend to use any extra on their habit.
My main point is that in most but not all cases money is used unwisely by people who are poor.This is the main cause of poverty.It is not the amount of money that makes too much difference in most cases , but rather its use.
Funny, Firepigette, this reminds me: USA South
Today I was listening to a BBC programme, Americana. They interviewed a writer from the South who was commenting on the tendency by some people to say they, in the South but not what they called "white trash", were more polite and more this and that than other US Americans. He said the prejudice came from their background: they believed that because their ancestors were rich slave owners who had time to think of manners, they developed those "good manners".
He said they were a very racist bunch with a serious class complex.
causes of poverty
"My main point is that in most but not all cases money is used unwisely by people who are poor."
So you would keep the money even from those who would spend it wisely to prevent getting it to those who would spend it unwisely, even if the money is theirs to begin with?
Am I to understand that your position implies that the poor people in Venezuela will remain poor until Venezuela gets a government that spends the oil money honestly and wisely?!
--
Offensive
I usually disagree with you and just consider it part of the kind of debate we try to have on this forum that is so difficult to have anywhere in Venezuela.
But when you singlehandedly brand all poor as people who:
- Do not know how to handle money
- Don’t know they have a problem and hence don’t try to get out of it
- Don’t share your values, assuming yours as better
- Have bad priorities and habits
I just have to say that if you ever lived in Catia the experience did not make you any humbler. Your comments are just offensive.
Once I heard a Peruvian saying that all the monos in the barrios were just good for nothing, I told her the same I will tell you: people like you that despise poor people and think you have better values than them are also responsible for having Chavez, who told those people they could have revenge on those who for years had ignored them and looked down on them.
Shame on you.
To Moraima and Kepler
Moraima,
Well you are not honest then because I never said anything about ALL poor people.
I find you quite offensive in the way you misrepresent what I say.
And secondly 1+ 1 = 2.When you do not know how to handle money whether you make a lot or not, you are poor.When your values do not allow you to improve your life, your are poor.It is simple minded to think that dollars and cents trump values.
Also you didn't seem to catch my idea that I think poverty is about education and values, not about dollars and cents.
Kepler,
Time is what you have on your hands,and WAY TOO MUCH
Damn Now I Can see
“There are all sorts of things very poor people living in poor countries don’t have … But the central thing they lack is money. That is what makes them, by definition, poor.”
It's like man... well, you know... if they had more money, they'd be umm... like um... less poor.
Damn... this is from Onion right?
\
Counterintuitive
You can trust people with money. And a penny is better than absolutely nothing.
Of course, having a penny will still make you poor. But having a penny and being able to save it and make it grow makes a difference.
It is vital to ensure that the poor people will have a chance to keep, save and use their money.
It's still a waste, giving money that will lose half its value in 24 months. Either the State keeps a budget or it keeps out of Central Banking.
It's still a waste if a racketeer, uniformed and chartered, or freelance and outlaw, gets the money.
There were lots of poor people and penniless inmigrants in Venezuela in the 50s. It was a generalized phenomenon to see them buying apartments and cars in the 60s, getting university educations, and being well-off by the 70s.
That had largely stopped by the 80s. Enter CAP and Luis Herrera.
loroferoz
A penny is only better than nothing if you have the knowledge of how to use it.
I lived in the barrios of Catia( in one bad neighborhood near los 4 vientos...more or less in the vicinity of upper Catia)
There were some astute people who knew how to manage money despite limited funds, and they lived pretty well despite being WHAT SOME CALL" poor"..but there were so many others who made a lot compare to us but lived poorly because they threw their money away on expensive shoes, parties, alcohol and shirts.
'Poverty' has many causes, only one of which is lack of money.Usually it is lack of common sense education and responsible values.
Poverty of ideas always trumps pennies.
Tell that to the critically poor
"Poverty of ideas always trumps pennies"
Always?!
--
money money money
torres, the critically poor need assistance obviously but any honest observer will tell you that most people are not critical.Most people in Venezuela spend their money on crap
firepigette
the tercer mundo syndrome
there is an amazing lack of maturity in how money is handled...it comes too easily in Venezuela for people to appreciate priorities
Re: money money money
"Most people in Venezuela spend their money on crap"
One person's crap is another person's treasure...
--
Torres,
TRUE.One person's
Torres,
TRUE.One person's crap is anther's treasure...but that does not eliminate poverty and well being.
When a person spends all his extra money on parties, clothes and alcohol he has no right to be called poor, even if the end result is his living in a dangerous barrio, sending his kids to crap schools, and not eating well.Many poor people in Caracas would be much better off in the country side and much less poor but choose to live in the Capital for ego reasons.
We all have choices.An people will always make them.I have no beef with that.My beef comes when we feel that giving people with uneducated choices, more money to use in way that instead of benefiting ALL, just gives them more money to flounder on their own personal whims.
If a country cannot have an honest enough government to create an infrastructure beneficial to ALL with the money it has, then we should ask the question :
why not?
and we should see how to go about attaining this goal.
firepigette
re: TRUE.One person's
"...but that does not eliminate poverty..." Money eliminates poverty, by definition.
"anther's treasure... well being." It seems to me that crap/treasure improves well-being. The empowerment to freely buy crap (or treasure) improves well-being. The stress relief from not knowing if you'll have enough to eat the next day, etc. improves well-being...
"...he has no right to be called poor..." Regardless of lifestyle, he has a right to be called poor if his income is below the poverty line income, again, by definition.
"Many poor people in Caracas would be much better off in the country side and much less poor but choose to live in the Capital for ego reasons." Better off? According to whom? If their ego is important enough to them, then I think their well-being is higher in Caracas. Paraphrasing from the movie St. Elmo's Fire: "It was *my* bread, *my* peanut butter. It was the best damn sandwich I've ever had."
"We all have choices...I have no beef with that." I sometimes get the impression that you do.
"...just gives them more money to flounder..." Don't look at it as floundering. Consider that their spending gets to the hands of a goods or service provider, who in turn buys goods and services. This keeps the market active and providing more and better of the consumer preferred goods and services, which provides even more opportunities for those who don't "flounder" their money. It's not money lost, no matter how it is spent, and it *is* benefitting ALL.
"...honest enough government...why not?" We could ponder that, starting with things like "human nature" or "local culture" or "oil curse", but I'd rather we at least get people above the poverty line while we do.
"how to go about attaining this goal." My premise is that cash distribution would get rid of the petro-state model, which would lead to an honest enough government that would create infrastructure beneficial to ALL with the money it has. That is why it is the "how" that I propose. Oh, that, and it would beat chavez at an election.
But I'm going to bring back what you keep avoiding: the regressiveness of oil money spending. Stop avoiding it. How do you justify it?
--
torres again for you
Torres,
I don't have the time to respond to everything at once.
I throw this one to you:you say:
"The stress relief from not knowing if you'll have enough to eat the next day, etc. improves well-being..."
The point I make is that many people do not spend their money wisely and live in permanent stress, yet refuse to discipline themselves and prioritize. One of the benefits from therapy is that people can learn how to manage to their lives in order to achieve a better quality life style.Money obviously is not the answer to most people's difficulties precisely because people do not see that it is attitude, skill, or understanding that makes the most difference.Stress over money as well can improve when people know how to allocate funds in a way that creates stability.
When I lived in Catia we earned 3,000 bs a month .My husband had a high up job in the government but did not steal.The front neighbor earned 20.000 bs a month as a taxi driver.The taxi driver lived a life of debauchery, throwing his money away on silly things like a child would do, and lived a sorry life indeed.He often came to us for loans, just imagine!!!We spent our money on stability and a savings account and eventually moved out, and started a business.
Last I heard he still lived a miserable existence.That is fine with me.It is his right to do so, but I do not want the countrie's resources being squandered by sending him more money to continue his miserable existence.
Nobody has a " RIGHT" to oil money.That is your arbitrary opinion Torres.The State has an obligation to use the money for ALL....BUT THAT DOES NOT have to mean giving a miserable pittance to each person.
re: torres again for you
"Nobody has a " RIGHT" to oil money." I thought Venezuelans did, that the oil money belonged to all Venezuelans. My bad.
"That is your arbitrary opinion Torres." I could have sworn it was in the constitution. My bad.
"The State has an obligation to use the money for ALL..." Which money? the oil money, or taxation money, or all money? If it's all money, then I was wrong to think it didn't include oil money. My bad.
"...BUT THAT DOES NOT have to mean giving a miserable pittance to each person." I only thought it did because it's a logical deduction based on my previous misconceptions. My bad.
Sorry to waste your time with arguments based on such erroneous information.
Still, cash distribution, as per the article, seems to be the most efficient method of alleviating the poor's situation both in short and long term, so I'm happy to continue to support such a system for Venezuela.
--
--
Poverty is not the issue
Charles Handey is a British Economist who writes about the economic effects of "Globalization."
In one of his books he describes a poor community where people were poor but subsisted comfortably for generations. For example, every household had a vegetable garden.
Then some company built a factory in that community and the people had jobs and money to spend. However, some years later the factory was shut down. The people lost their jobs, and their subsistence skills were forgotten. For example, their gardens were over-grown with weeds and they forgot how to garden. They were in big trouble!
Oil money given to the poor can have that same effect, especially when the oil money runs out!
re: Poverty is not the issue
Suppose I accept your premise that oil money given to the poor can have the same effect as building factories to create jobs. Am I to conclude we should do neither, or that we should do both, combine them with something else? And why is this not about having enough income to eat, that is, poverty?
Remember that this whole exchange is about an article pointing out that the most recent cash distribution experiments are producing better results than any alternative, in lifting people out of poverty, as well as their nations. I bring this up as a reply because, even if cash distribution would not guarantee a happy ending, it seems it may be our best current option.
Going back to your example, please consider that when people were growing their gardens, cash distribution would have helped them do that better. When they were working at the factory jobs, cash distribution would have helped them then, too. And when they were out of a job and without gardening knowledge, cash distribution would have helped them then too.
Money helps, regardless of circumstance. We should distribute it. It seems to be our best bet in developing communities so that they can withstand any eventuality, especially in a globalized economy.
--
My radical proposal...
I accept the logic of strait-forward cash transfers as a solution to poverty. I especially like the elimination (or reduction) of the intermediate bureaucracy. We are getting to where the world can afford such a concept, and the social and political costs of having a never-ending underclass need to weighed against the cost of such programs.
HOWEVER...
I would propose that if such programs become institutionalized, we consider some manner of limiting the power of such sectors of the population from voting themselves ever more largesse from the public treasury. I have proposed, in the past, various systems of suffrage in which the vote of each individual is weighted by how much tax that individual pays into the system. Under such a system, persons receiving more cash from the system than is paid into it would not have any share of the vote. This would mean that such persons would remain dependents of the system, without any say in it, or by bettering their financial condition, enter the middle classes and earn their share of the vote.
re: My radical proposal...
Weighing vote to income seems to lead to the same problem we're trying to deal with today: limiting the power of certain sectors from voting themelves ever more largesse of power.
Aside from that, conceptually you are calling into question the premise of equality under the constitution and the law of every citizen.
--
I said it was "radical"
Torres,
Yes, I am calling into question the premise of equality of all citizens. I am proposing to reinvent the political system as more of a meritocracy.
The statement that "All men are equal." is patently false. It is a utopian ideal that has never had any basis in reality. The original concept was "All men are equal in the eyes of the law.", which is as it should be. Though, arguably, we have never achieved this, since the rich can inevitably afford better lawyers (Note: The O.J. Simpson case).
In practice, I do not propose this method of distributing political power exclusively. We could:
1) Have one house of the Congress elected in this manner, and the other popularly.
2) We could have half of the total vote value determined in this manner, and other half by traditional means.
3) We could award additional portions of voting power for having served in the military or other defined public service having thus demonstrated their loyalty and commitment to the system.
What I am trying to do is make the system more like a meritocracy in which we weigh the opinions of the citizens who have demonstrated that they are more capable and more likely to make sound choices more than we weigh those of people who contribute little and are inclined to continue living on handouts.
Consider that we do not allow children to vote. Why not? Well, because they are dependent and immature. As adults we reserve certain rights and privileges that we do not give to children. But, the standard definition of adult is 18+ years old. We all know that this definition is arbitrary. I know plenty of 12 year-olds that I would trust to vote better than some adults I know.
If I were to propose that teenagers from 13 - 17 years of age be granted a 1/2 vote, this would not be considered completely insane (it is NOT a good idea, but it would at least be considered on its merits). In its essence, my proposal is no more radical than that.
I am proposing that certain aspects of the vote and the franchise be EARNED. I am open to all manner of different methods, but I want the vote to MEAN more than it does at present.
My goal in this proposal is to create a more stable political system that contains more negative feedback and acts more quickly to dampen radical swings to the extremes of the political spectrum.
The political system is not as important as how citizens vote
You can have the best political system and the public can vote a tyrant into power to abolish the system.
The best way to improve a society is by educating future generations who then can elect good leaders. It's a lot easier to educate children then to educate ignorant adults!
re: I said it was "radical"
"meritocracy." Using money as a measure for merit is inherently flawed.
"All men are equal." By some definitions true. In fact, in taoism, all forms of life and all lifeforms are afforded a form of equality.
"the rich can inevitably afford better lawyers" as it should be in a capitalistic society. The part about equality under the eyes of the law is more about how it gets applied at sentencing, not about the services one can afford to aid in presenting a case.
Perhaps selling one's votes could be made legal. Oh, wait, it is. Oh, wait, politicians already buy votes. What were we talking about? :) I've been proposing for some time to have each government official elected as they are today, but give each voter the option to override his share of the government official's vote, anytime he casts one, by the exact percentage that the voter represents of the population that the government official represents. You may want to compare and contrast this to your proposals.
"demonstrated that they are more capable and more likely to make sound choices" Neither money, nor years of service seem to me to make good predictors of capability nor sound choicemaking.
"people who contribute little and are inclined to continue living on handouts" People contribute by their mere existence. Living on handouts is a valid way of living. I'll add that in democracy, every person has equal right to representation. Any form of discrimination, against the handicapped, be it by nature or nurture, be it physically, emotionally or spiritually, would be a step back in humankind's development. Consider two seeds from a single flower. One landing in a garden, the other in a crack. One cared for with weekly watering and protection from the weather and pests, the other gasping daily for life. Is either one less of a flower?
I meet many persons clinging to the paradigm that everyone must earn their own living. I challenge that paradigm. I believe technology clearly points to a future in which an ever diminishing minority will produce sufficient amounts for the whole. This implies that the possibility of finding goods and services to provide for a living is diminishing, and it's happening at accelerated rates over time. If you don't believe the accelerated rate part, consider that over 80% of all living scientists and engineers who ever lived are still alive today. Conclusion we must get used to the idea that there will be an ever increasing number of people that must simply live off of what is provided for them by others. It won't be enough to "accept" this reality, we've got to come up with a system that embraces it.
"my proposal is no more radical than that." Actually, it is, for various reasons, one being that you acknowledge that age is some kind of indicator of accumulation of learning and mental capability, therefore age is not as far-fetched as using money or years of service as a basis for weighing those with sound choicemaking capability. Another has to do with the age at which legally adults cease to be held legally responsible for their children, so it would also not be as far-fetched to weigh people's votes by the number of children for which they are legally responsible.
"I am proposing that certain aspects of the vote and the franchise be EARNED." Why? A vote is simply an expression of a multiple choice opinion. You wish to give some people's opinion more weight than others, and that weighting may be a result of social biases, not only self-perpetuating themselves, but, worse, amplifying themselves to the point of radicality. Your position is one you'd never hold if your opinions were the ones being considered of lesser value.
"...I want the vote to MEAN more..." Meaning is subjective. There is a slippery slope to this that leads right back to chavez.
"create a more stable political system that contains more negative feedback and acts more quickly to dampen radical swings to the extremes of the political spectrum." The way I've come to propose addressing those goals include the direct voting option mentioned above, but also what I call paired choice voting. This involves having people vote not just for their favorite candidate out of a group, but for their favorite out of each possible pair of choices. The reason for this is mainly threefold.
1) In a normal distribution population, the probability of having a radical candidate is much lower than the probability of more mainstream candidates. This implies that the probability that the mainstream votes will be divided is much higher than that of the radical votes. The current system provides a bias in favor of radicals. They will tend to get greater power than they truly represent.
2) In all related studies, results consistently show that human beings are better at making complex choices in series of paired comparisons rather than in single multi-choice comparisons. This would imply that their votes would more truly reflect their desires if performed in pairwise fashion.
3) Pairwise voting would add a new dimension to voting which may very well be the weighting you are looking for. Take three candidates, A, B, C. If A and B were mainstream and C a radical, C might win with the current system just from the division of A and B. By having people vote for their preference in A,B, B,C and A,C, you would find that all the mainstream votes would have C coming in last, whereas for the radicals their vote would be split by having sometimes A preferred over B and sometimes B over A. When the tallies are made, the count is not just votes obtained but weighted by ranking, so the radical bias in the system is all but eliminated.
--
On cash handouts
Interesting. I live in Australia and a similar program takes place up north where there is a large population of Indigenous people. However, since the inception of the program sales of confectionary and soft drinks have skyrocketed leaving regulators scrambling for measures to prevent this from happening. The problem is once you start trying to regulate what people spend the money on things get messy and the police state starts showing its fangs as it were.
One thing that economic theory usually relies on is in the inherent capacity of people to act and spend resources rationally. That is until they don't and the question is what should you do after the you realize the money is being spent irrationally? as it inevitably will be in some (not all) cases.
Depending on the incidence of this phenomenon cash hand-out policies should have an answer to that question unless dollar for dollar even with some wastage it still produces better results than until-now traditional ways to invest aid money. But what if the money is used on drugs? (as it is in many cases here)
My point is, I guess, no cash hand-out plan should be implemented without traditional aid investment along side it to care for those who misuse their available resources.
Re: on cash handouts
"...what should you do after the you realize the money is being spent irrationally?" Well, doesn't that depend on the person answering? I mean, as far as the spender is concerned, he's being rational enough. The moment one person thinks his rationale is superior to another's one has to begin questioning the very foundations of freedom and demomcracy and equality, etc. (think what people against women's suffrage might think about women's capability to be rational).
--Frankly, if it's a legal purchase, it's conceptually a rational one. So, nothing should be done about the distribution regardless of the spending.
--Treating poor people that buy candy differently than rich people that buy candy is discriminatory.
--In Venezuela's case, cash distribution from oil would not be a hand-out or a welfare program or a poverty alleviation scheme, it would be the rightful distribution of monies to its citizens.
--In Venezuela's case, because the oil money belongs to its citizens equally, any spending of it is regressive. Distribution of would be progressive, since poor people would be receiving a greater percentage of their total income than the rich, while spending of it would be regressive since poor people would be pitching in a much greater percentage of their income than the rich.
--Health, education, and market problems should be dealt with through the health, education and legal systems, not by withholding people's rightful monies. Keeping people poor out of fear that they may mispend their money is wrong. Keeping them poor even if they mispend their money is also wrong.
"dollar for dollar even with some wastage it still produces better results than until-now traditional ways to invest aid money" That is specifically addressed in the article, and it seems that cash distribution is turning out to be the best bang for the buck.
"But what if the money is used on drugs?" Same as you would with rich persons, which I don't think includes administering their money for them.
"no cash hand-out plan should be implemented without traditional aid investment along side it to care for those who misuse their available resources" A proposed alternative, in Venezuela's case, is to distribute daily, unconditionally, guaranteed for life, all monies from the sale/concession of all national riches to all Venezuelans equally. That should take care, for life, of those who misuse their available resources. That should render any traditional aid investment redundant. And that is no hand-out; it is Venezuelan citizens' right.
--
Interesting in a sort of black and white way
Torres,
Thanks for you reply, this debate is most interesting and I confess I do not know the answers to many of the questions which arise from it. Firstly, please consider that I do find the idea to have it's merit but I am usually weary of silver bullets when it comes to development.
"The moment one person thinks his rationale is superior to another's one has to begin questioning the very foundations of freedom and demomcracy and equality, etc." You are preaching to the coir, remember what I said about Police States showing their fangs. My point is that you and I are not in charge of setting policy (though admittedly Venezuela would benefit from having you in a decision making position) and that politicians have constituencies to whom they should respond to (and an opposition that will question their policy choices) so there will inevitably be pressure for programs to deliver certain outcomes. Also, note that I used the term "rational" in an economic context or in a "game theory" context if you will. By "irrational" then I meant decisions that do not help a subject reach the result of a particular policy. The aim here is to curb poverty, improve school attendance figures etc. In this context "rational" choices would be those that help you move away from poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy etc. I apologize if this was not clear.
Treating poor people who buy candy with resources made available to them to curb nutritional, mortality and educational gaps (in the Australian context) different than rich people who use surplus resources for the same purpose may be discriminatory in your view but it's a misuse of resources from a more pragmatic perspective.
Oil resources may be rightfully the property of all Venezuelans but it's also the governments largest source of money. If you give it all away you need to increase taxation to keep the government apparatus running and along side it health, education, justice, social security etc. (though a good trimming would not hurt Venezuela's bureaucracy) and I would assume that you would not tax the poor at the same rate of the rich (or the comparatively poor in this scenario). Here is where I don't see how the scheme is that different from redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor (since the first would carry a larger burden than the latter) thus enabling the argument of efficient use of resources again.
An alternative is don't give it all away, keep enough to fund your health, justice and education system and any other system that you deem necessary and give the rest away. I can't put my finger on what would would be wrong with this except that I think it would make for a stagnant society not very prone to innovate or create industries that would secure it's status quo beyond the day it runs out of oil.
Look, the idea has its merits, above all that it seems to work. I just think it's a major bet that cannot be taken without understanding all it's implications. Thus, I find its implementation without keeping an eye out to maintain some sort of balance troublesome since it could, "could" blow up in your face eventually.
I look forward to your thoughts!
Re: Interesting in a sort of black and white way
"usually weary of silver bullets" Me too, but in this case I see it the following way. Imagine we were in a parallel universe in which Venezuela was distributing all the cash from oil equally and daily to all its citizens. Whether you imagine that parallel Venezuela as Hell or as Utopia is irrelelvant, just imagine that that's on what its economy is based. Now imagine yourself in that Venezuela suggesting that the government should keep for its own use, without the do or say of any citizen, some or all of the money from the oil, maybe even promising to use 100% of it for "rational" purposes. Do you see that yours would be the silver bullet of which we should all be weary, suggesting people give up the *rights* to their money rather than just their money through taxation?
"you and I are not in charge of setting policy" I like to believe that my tiny activities here and there will in some way reach those who are in charge of setting policy. :)
"...so there will inevitably be pressure [on politicians] for programs to deliver certain outcomes." Yes, but regardless of the amount of pressure, there are policies that politicians should not have the authority to create. Preventing someone from speaking/publishing out of fear that they'll say something "irrational", jailing someone for fear that they'll do something "irrational", or keeping someone from receiving money that's theirs for fear that they'll spend it on something "irrational", are all such policies.
"In this context "rational" choices would be those that help you move away from poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy etc." That is specifically addressed in the article, and it seems that cash distribution is accomplishing all those rational objectives better than expected and better than alternatives. I've been theorizing that that would be so for a long time, the article is pointing to all sorts of results that lend support to the theory.
"...with resources made available to them to curb nutritional, mortality and educational gaps...a misuse of resources..." Note that I'm not suggesting spending money on candy from taxation --and taxation is the only government resource I see as valid. I agree that if a policy is not meeting its goals it should be reworked. But, oil money, at least in Venezuela, should simply not be considered an available resource for the government. It is cash that belongs to the people, not the government. By definition, legal uses of this cash by the citizens cannot be considered "misuse".
"...it's also the governments largest source of money." Graft.
"If you give it all away you need to increase taxation..." Firstly, it's not "giving it away"; it's giving it to its rightful owners. Besides it doesn't disappear; it enters the market at the bottom instead of entering the market at the top. The government should not need to raise taxes because, not only would it be able to save on many now redundant poverty alleviation programs, it would still be receiving the money back in taxes as the cash flows right back to the taxpayers. But, sure, if needed, taxation increase should be the way to go, not graft.
"I would assume that you would not tax the poor at the same rate of the rich" :) Actually I have another proposal for that, taxation via Seigniorage, but that discussion usually gets people's heads in a spin, and is not relevant here.
"Here is where I don't see how the scheme is that different from redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor..." The difference is simply the starting point of the wealth. If the wealth starts at the government, why does the government really need its citizens? That's the Petro-State. Read Quico's post on that ( http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2007/07/torres-in-bethlehem.html ) or read his summary ( http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2007/07/torres-for-dummies.html ). I suggest the wealth start at the people, then the government really needs its citizens and policy must truly respond to constituencies. Currently, the government is empowered; I support empowering the people.
"An alternative is don't give it all away, keep enough to fund your health, justice and education system and any other system..." Graft and Rights still come to mind, but since I've mentioned those before I'll focus on regressiveness. No matter what you fund with oil money, it would be a regressive spending, simply because that funding is made up of equal shares from each citizen. That is regressive. Remember you were mentioning about not taxing the poor the same percentage as the rich? Spending with oil money is tantamount to taxing the poor MORE than the rich. It's regressive. It's a no-no. It's regressive, regressive, regressive. Oh, and it's graft and the government has no right.
"I think it would make for a stagnant society..." Wow. 10 billion USD per year injected into the consumer market through cash distribution, and you think the society would become stagnant?! I think you need to rethink that vision.
"I just think it's a major bet that cannot be taken without understanding all it's implications." That is what controlling governments have said about women's suffrage, freeing slaves, freeing speech...
--
How about this principal.... it's quite simple!
Give a man a fish and you give him a meal.
Give a man a fishing pole and tackle and teach him to fish, and you give him a life-time of meals.
re: How about this principal.... it's quite simple!
It's so simple it fails. Because it doesn't say what to do while you get the man a pole, tackle, lessons, and practice, then hope he has luck. Do you let him go hungry until he succeeds? It doesn't say what to do if the provider of poles is skimming a percentage, or the tackle guy is giving kickbacks to be allowed to deliver lower quality tackle, or if the teacher just rubber stamps graduation certificates for the job he hates, or if the lack to practice has no fish in it because of dumping, or if the man simply is a terrible fisherman.
Take your analogy further and ask yourself, why not teach them how to make tackle, and poles, too. Then they can trade them for fish, and not have to fish themselves. Oh, wait, that would be the start of a barter system. Which after it evolves would be based on a currency instead of products. So giving them a pole and tackle turns out to be as good as cash? But cash is not ok? Go figure.
And that's the key. Not everyone is a farmer, or cattle herder, or a sheep herder, or a fisherman, or whatever. Teaching how to fish is not the one size fits all solution. Giving a fish isn't either. Some people don't like fish, or can't eat fish, or simply are rebels and want to be different. Distributing cash so that each person may weigh his personal abilities, tastes and priorities and decide how much to spend on meals, versus training and equipment is a personalized solution. Those that do it well, can optimize their money long term. Those that don't will at least always have enough for the next meal. Regardless, the money they spend goes to providers of either meals or training or equipement, who can then hire others and others and others. You create a market driven by the consumers based on custom preferences, not a market driven by uninvested politicians that simply decided on fish on a one size fits all sense of superior wisdom.
So, no, the fish story falls short. Over and over and over.
--