Latin America’s cash transfer programs are a more effective weapon against poverty and social inequality than economic growth alone, according to a study by two local economists. Read full article
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
OH DEAR! Argie “economists” getting all confused about what they are supposed to be doing.Sep 16th, 2013 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
““Cash transfer plans are very useful instruments as part of an overall strategy for reducing poverty and inequality,” Gasparini said. “They are relatively easy to implement, administer and monitor, and they have a direct impact on the beneficiaries’ quality of life.””
In other words, we take money off people who have got it and give the those who don’t have it. But this little gem is an exercise in talking bollocks:
““The region cannot depend solely on economic growth, even if there is full employment, because social protection is also needed,” the study says.” WHY?
Either (in FULL employment) the pay is insufficient to cover the costs of living:
OR there are some lazy bastards who DO NOT WANT TO WORK.
The Brits are used to this crap under New Labour who paid “family credits” in an uncontrolled way. Even some people with a family income equivalent to USD 80,000 got some money from the state that they never had to pay back!
BUT, this argie concept doesn’t work! Not if you look at Mexico:
““The basic weakness is the concept that the problem of poverty is due to a lack of skills, and that the main focus must be on funding capacity building,” said Clara Jusidman, honorary president of Incide Social, an NGO in Mexico.”
In other words, we have provided more jobs but there are still MORE people in poverty. There is a blindingly obvious reason for this. Why would they work when you give them money NOT TO!
But all is not lost!
“Gasparini said, however, that support for the programmes “does not negate the fact they may have undesirable features, such as slowing down the rate of formalisation of the economy, or effects on the supply of labour, which need more serious work.”
A statement of the bleeding obvious! These so called “economists” must have gone to the same school as TMBOA, they have the same idiocy at work. That’s the argie “model” concept for you.
Make it voluntary-the cash transfers on both sides, have brilliant people incentivize success in everyone's life. MANY of the most great institutions in the U.S. have benefitted from gifts- Stanford, Central Park, etc. I am glad some of the support in LatAm is raising people, not just institutions up.Sep 16th, 2013 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
2 AyayaySep 17th, 2013 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You are missing the point here.
They are giving the money to the poor because the system cannot be arsed to provide them with an education and jobs.
Gifting money to universities is an INVESTMENT in the future of young people and the world in general. Totally and diametrically opposite to each other.