Poverty isn’t a lack of character; it’s a lack of cash | Rutger Bregman

Poverty isn’t a lack of character; it’s a lack of cash | Rutger Bregman


I’d like to start with a simple question: Why do the poor make
so many poor decisions? I know it’s a harsh question, but take a look at the data. The poor borrow more, save less, smoke more, exercise less, drink more and eat less healthfully. Why? Well, the standard explanation was once summed up by the British
Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. And she called poverty
“a personality defect.” (Laughter) A lack of character, basically. Now, I’m sure not many of you
would be so blunt. But the idea that there’s something
wrong with the poor themselves is not restricted to Mrs. Thatcher. Some of you may believe that the poor
should be held responsible for their own mistakes. And others may argue that we should
help them to make better decisions. But the underlying assumption is the same: there’s something wrong with them. If we could just change them, if we could just teach them
how to live their lives, if they would only listen. And to be honest, this was what I thought for a long time. It was only a few years ago
that I discovered that everything I thought I knew
about poverty was wrong. It all started when I accidentally
stumbled upon a paper by a few American psychologists. They had traveled 8,000 miles,
all the way to India, for a fascinating study. And it was an experiment
with sugarcane farmers. You should know that these farmers
collect about 60 percent of their annual income all at once, right after the harvest. This means that they’re relatively
poor one part of the year and rich the other. The researchers asked them to do
an IQ test before and after the harvest. What they subsequently discovered
completely blew my mind. The farmers scored much worse
on the test before the harvest. The effects of living
in poverty, it turns out, correspond to losing 14 points of IQ. Now, to give you an idea, that’s comparable
to losing a night’s sleep or the effects of alcoholism. A few months later,
I heard that Eldar Shafir, a professor at Princeton University
and one of the authors of this study, was coming over to Holland, where I live. So we met up in Amsterdam to talk about his revolutionary
new theory of poverty. And I can sum it up in just two words: scarcity mentality. It turns out that people
behave differently when they perceive a thing to be scarce. And what that thing is
doesn’t much matter — whether it’s not enough time,
money or food. You all know this feeling, when you’ve got too much to do, or when you’ve put off breaking for lunch and your blood sugar takes a dive. This narrows your focus
to your immediate lack — to the sandwich you’ve got to have now, the meeting that’s starting
in five minutes or the bills that have
to be paid tomorrow. So the long-term perspective
goes out the window. You could compare it to a new computer that’s running 10 heavy programs at once. It gets slower and slower, making errors. Eventually, it freezes — not because it’s a bad computer, but because it has too much to do at once. The poor have the same problem. They’re not making dumb decisions
because they are dumb, but because they’re living in a context in which anyone would make dumb decisions. So suddenly I understood why so many of our anti-poverty
programs don’t work. Investments in education, for example,
are often completely ineffective. Poverty is not a lack of knowledge. A recent analysis of 201 studies on the effectiveness
of money-management training came to the conclusion
that it has almost no effect at all. Now, don’t get me wrong — this is not to say the poor
don’t learn anything — they can come out wiser for sure. But it’s not enough. Or as Professor Shafir told me, “It’s like teaching someone to swim and then throwing them in a stormy sea.” I still remember sitting there, perplexed. And it struck me that we could have figured
this all out decades ago. I mean, these psychologists didn’t need
any complicated brain scans; they only had to measure the farmer’s IQ, and IQ tests were invented
more than 100 years ago. Actually, I realized I had read about
the psychology of poverty before. George Orwell, one of the greatest
writers who ever lived, experienced poverty
firsthand in the 1920s. “The essence of poverty,”
he wrote back then, is that it “annihilates the future.” And he marveled at, quote, “How people take it for granted
they have the right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls
below a certain level.” Now, those words are every bit
as resonant today. The big question is, of course: What can be done? Modern economists have
a few solutions up their sleeves. We could help the poor
with their paperwork or send them a text message
to remind them to pay their bills. This type of solution is hugely popular
with modern politicians, mostly because, well, they cost next to nothing. These solutions are, I think,
a symbol of this era in which we so often treat the symptoms, but ignore the underlying cause. So I wonder: Why don’t we just change the context
in which the poor live? Or, going back to our computer analogy: Why keep tinkering around
with the software when we can easily solve the problem
by installing some extra memory instead? At that point, Professor Shafir
responded with a blank look. And after a few seconds, he said, “Oh, I get it. You mean you want to just hand out
more money to the poor to eradicate poverty. Uh, sure, that’d be great. But I’m afraid that brand
of left-wing politics you’ve got in Amsterdam — it doesn’t exist in the States.” But is this really
an old-fashioned, leftist idea? I remembered reading about an old plan — something that has been proposed
by some of history’s leading thinkers. The philosopher Thomas More
first hinted at it in his book, “Utopia,” more than 500 years ago. And its proponents have spanned
the spectrum from the left to the right, from the civil rights campaigner,
Martin Luther King, to the economist Milton Friedman. And it’s an incredibly simple idea: basic income guarantee. What it is? Well, that’s easy. It’s a monthly grant, enough to pay
for your basic needs: food, shelter, education. It’s completely unconditional, so no one’s going to tell you
what you have to do for it, and no one’s going to tell you
what you have to do with it. The basic income
is not a favor, but a right. There’s absolutely no stigma attached. So as I learned about the true
nature of poverty, I couldn’t stop wondering: Is this the idea
we’ve all been waiting for? Could it really be that simple? And in the three years that followed, I read everything I could find
about basic income. I researched the dozens of experiments that have been conducted
all over the globe, and it didn’t take long before I stumbled
upon a story of a town that had done it —
had actually eradicated poverty. But then … nearly everyone forgot about it. This story starts in Dauphin, Canada. In 1974, everybody in this small town
was guaranteed a basic income, ensuring that no one fell
below the poverty line. At the start of the experiment, an army of researchers
descended on the town. For four years, all went well. But then a new government
was voted into power, and the new Canadian cabinet saw
little point to the expensive experiment. So when it became clear there was
no money left to analyze the results, the researchers decided to pack
their files away in some 2,000 boxes. Twenty-five years went by, and then Evelyn Forget,
a Canadian professor, found the records. For three years, she subjected the data
to all manner of statistical analysis, and no matter what she tried, the results were the same every time: the experiment had been
a resounding success. Evelyn Forget discovered that the people in Dauphin
had not only become richer but also smarter and healthier. The school performance of kids
improved substantially. The hospitalization rate decreased
by as much as 8.5 percent. Domestic violence incidents were down, as were mental health complaints. And people didn’t quit their jobs. The only ones who worked a little less
were new mothers and students — who stayed in school longer. Similar results have since been found in countless other experiments
around the globe, from the US to India. So … here’s what I’ve learned. When it comes to poverty, we, the rich, should stop
pretending we know best. We should stop sending shoes
and teddy bears to the poor, to people we have never met. And we should get rid of the vast
industry of paternalistic bureaucrats when we could simply
hand over their salaries to the poor they’re supposed to help. (Applause) Because, I mean, the great
thing about money is that people can use it
to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed
experts think they need. Just imagine how many brilliant scientists
and entrepreneurs and writers, like George Orwell, are now withering away in scarcity. Imagine how much energy
and talent we would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all. I believe that a basic income would work
like venture capital for the people. And we can’t afford not to do it, because poverty is hugely expensive. Just look at the cost of child poverty
in the US, for example. It’s estimated at 500 billion
dollars each year, in terms of higher health care
spending, higher dropout rates, and more crime. Now, this is an incredible waste
of human potential. But let’s talk about
the elephant in the room. How could we ever afford
a basic income guarantee? Well, it’s actually a lot cheaper
than you may think. What they did in Dauphin is finance it
with a negative income tax. This means that your income is topped up as soon as you fall
below the poverty line. And in that scenario, according to our economists’
best estimates, for a net cost of 175 billion — a quarter of US military spending,
one percent of GDP — you could lift all impoverished Americans
above the poverty line. You could actually eradicate poverty. Now, that should be our goal. (Applause) The time for small thoughts
and little nudges is past. I really believe that the time has come
for radical new ideas, and basic income is so much more
than just another policy. It is also a complete rethink
of what work actually is. And in that sense, it will not only free the poor, but also the rest of us. Nowadays, millions of people feel that their jobs have little
meaning or significance. A recent poll among 230,000 employees in 142 countries found that only 13 percent of workers
actually like their job. And another poll found that as much
as 37 percent of British workers have a job that they think
doesn’t even need to exist. It’s like Brad Pitt says in “Fight Club,” “Too often we’re working jobs we hate
so we can buy shit we don’t need.” (Laughter) Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m not talking about the teachers
and the garbagemen and the care workers here. If they stopped working, we’d be in trouble. I’m talking about all those well-paid
professionals with excellent résumés who earn their money doing … strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings while brainstorming the value
add-on of disruptive co-creation in the network society. (Laughter) (Applause) Or something like that. Just imagine again how much
talent we’re wasting, simply because we tell our kids
they’ll have to “earn a living.” Or think of what a math whiz working
at Facebook lamented a few years ago: “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how
to make people click ads.” I’m a historian. And if history teaches us anything, it is that things could be different. There is nothing inevitable about the way we structured our society
and economy right now. Ideas can and do change the world. And I think that especially
in the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that we cannot stick to the status quo — that we need new ideas. I know that many of you
may feel pessimistic about a future of rising inequality, xenophobia and climate change. But it’s not enough
to know what we’re against. We also need to be for something. Martin Luther King didn’t say,
“I have a nightmare.” (Laughter) He had a dream. (Applause) So … here’s my dream: I believe in a future where the value of your work
is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread and the amount of meaning you give. I believe in a future where the point of education is not
to prepare you for another useless job but for a life well-lived. I believe in a future where an existence
without poverty is not a privilege but a right we all deserve. So here we are. Here we are. We’ve got the research,
we’ve got the evidence and we’ve got the means. Now, more than 500 years after Thomas More
first wrote about a basic income, and 100 years after George Orwell
discovered the true nature of poverty, we all need to change our worldview, because poverty
is not a lack of character. Poverty is a lack of cash. Thank you. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Poverty isn’t a lack of character; it’s a lack of cash | Rutger Bregman

  1. So you're telling me that just because you pay someone's rent, to an apartment he doesn't have, that he's gonna stop shooting heroin? you don't think she'll use that money to get meth instead? will they stop stealing? will the little teens in the ghetto stop gang violence? hardly. will the cost of everything else go up? you bet… especially in America.. where the bottom line is king, and businesses won't hesitate to grab their portion of everyone's newfound basic income.

  2. The poor should be educated to have self respect for themselves. That humans are not categorised into, wealthy, middle class or working class poor. Human beings have many talents, different personalities, different strengths. Modern education teaches, career, money, peer group competition. Humans incarnated not to be a work horse, for other people to get rich quick, while laws are passed, to only pay basic wages, live in compact houses, buy consumer goods, a never ending list. All of these themes, lose their appeal, as one ages. Self improvement, in the art of being a honest, loving, sharing, caring being, for themselves and everyone else. With positive, self respect, life will unfold naturally. ….. With a little help from environment, fresh air, healthy lifestyle, regular sleep patterns, with loving kindness. ….instead of greed, me, mine, my ideas are best…..at the expense of others. Ego disguise in material….and higher mental levels…which can be sheer anhilation to great number of people. See a future of a positive, loving, caring society.

  3. Feeding the poor (while important to those who need) will not solve the underlying problem. At the end of the day, they are still poor. It is like being cast adrift, thirsty and hungry. Waiting for help you finally see a helicopter, but instead of removing from your predicament; the helicopter just drops off food, water and leaves you behind.

  4. "Well… we all have to make sacrifices" The mentality that the globalist pigs have used to justify taking working Americans down to the level working slaves all over the world. It's where the globalists are getting the money to throw at red china to ensure that working folks pay the price to drag the red chinese slaves up and out of poverty without taking from the wealthy. Screw globalism. It sucks.

  5. Growing sugar is not the best example since consuming sugar is addictive, make everyone sick and diseased and crashes the brains of those who consume it Rich or Poor). IQ is not a measure of intelligence. Intelligence is measured by a person able to understand what is needed to ensure their genes and those of their community survive indefinitely. Intelligent people don't do drugs and especially sugar and other things called foods that are junk and damaging to their body. The poor need education but come to think of it the rich need education. 80% of the whole planets arable land has had most of the trees cut down and is used for farming animals. Huge numbers of herbivores are destroying the ecology of the planet. 3 trillion trees have been cut down in the past 10,000 years and there is a serious deficit of oxygen. A marker for this deficit is frogs which are dying all over the planet. We have all of our oxygen locked up in CO2 just waiting to be released by trees. If there were enough intelligent people they would be protesting on the streets but where are they?

  6. 'Simbol of this era: treat the symptoms but ignore the underlying cause' SO WELL SAID and so unfortunatelly it is an aspect of every part of our society especially the western society.

  7. This idea of just giving money to the poor has been around for many decades now. It is called the dole. Some families have subsisted on it for generations. I do take his point in one sense. Telling the poor to buck up, start working, quit smoking/drinking/gambling etc is all well and good but they do those things because of habits formed since childhood. It is like a motivated super rich type telling an ordinary person to become a go-getter type. It`s not easy to change life long habits.

  8. Most people are stuck in a job because they have to pay the bills, make a living to put food on the table for their family, and themselves.
    It's not easy to escape poverty when you have responsibilities to fulfill. You can't just ditch on your family who depends on your paycheck. Plus, the wage has not increased with the same proportion as inflation. Everything is getting expensive, but wages are mostly stagnant.
    If you are young, have no debt, and can move around the country for any opportunity, then you are a lucky person, because most people don't have that type of opportunity.
    If we have a universal basic income that keeps people out of poverty, and allows people in poverty more free time to pursue other career options so they can find one that they like and has a great return on income, then most of the poverty would vanish.
    But of course, that's never going to happen because the entire system is corrupt, and everyone only cares about him or herself.

  9. Making the government the source is the first problem with this view.

    It is better to be able to build your life without the oversight of the government, which earns the right to invade every aspect of living when they provide tax dollars to anyone.

    Income is related to a lot of different areas of life…we see the battles for helping people to help themselves in our daily politics… education, wages, housing, jobs, training, addiction, etc…
    — Businesses could pay fair wages to those at the bottom of a company's workforce… without being forced by the government to do minimum wage, minimum benefits, etc.
    — Decent affordable housing is another poverty issue… what about ownership for the poor… stabilitythat will allow families to improve their lives, friendships, find mentors, grow, and discover a long-term environment… most poverty leads to transience.
    — GOALS (and the lack of them), believing you can do something, supportive people around you… these things matter, too.

    I have been attached to the government longer than I wanted to be… it is NOT the way to go for any improvement.

  10. As soon as A.I. takes 90% of all the jobs over then humans will require the basic income that “they” supply us. (They being artificial intelligent life), I give it about 30 years sometime after WWIII ends!

  11. I hope that you all remember how Trump said, that he would never hire a poor person, and all his government
    smiled and clapped. He didn't even realize that saying that he crossed out the so-called American dream. Now I read a new theory about poor people stating that all of them are mentally sick persons, we have countless funds collecting money for "help", but the number of poor somehow increases…. as well as the number of millionaires which grows exponentially!

  12. One other thing… Politicians accept money from companies that want cheap labor, laws are passed and wages set… business owners reap higher incomes and it is a vicious circle of uneducated people being manipulated into poverty by corrupt people who intentionally withhold educational resources. It's not rocket science…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pWEzkbnDE

  13. Worked with poor folks and it is more than just not having cash. It's outlook and expectation and family and intellectual diversity. Ask what they or their child will be doing in 5 years and get a blank stare. I daresay a third were utterly uneducable – unable to retain or translate knowledge and all had little knowledge of the real world. We read a list (4th grade) for recognition.

    The Vatican, career, Apollo, profit, empty calories, sushi, Morocco, Empire State Building, D-day, annual, broil, license, etc. None registered over 50%. Another list with street names of drugs, common law enforcement terms, rappers and jocks had a 90% recognition. A tutor asked, "Where do we even begin?" Kids reported no books in the home, absent (or no) parent(a), no direction or purpose. I was amazed they are doing so well! By the sixth grade kids start hiding their intelligence for fear of ridicule. Teachers told me that congratulations must be done in private. Different cultures have different attitudes and emphasize different things – that could be the biggest impediment to stopping poverty )other than simply giving folks a check).

  14. The ritch are dependent of poverty without workers they wont stay ritch and some jobs need to be done . so the ritch wil do everything in there power whit help of the government to keep poverty because they also need poverty . so it wil never be eraticated nice dream MR Bergman .

  15. So who decides who is fit to receive their ubi? The vaccine manufacturers? The military / industrial complex? The never corrupt governments? How is this going to go?

  16. This is basically a communist manifesto. It happens sometimes that poor people gain some money. Typically, they waste it quickly on addictions, and silly spending. Poor people are not poor because they do not have money, but because they are not able to manage it rationally. It is better to offer someone a soup kitchen, than to give him money for his next drug dose.

  17. Damn I lost brain cells listening to this, what he is talking about is socialism and over 100 mil. people died because of it in country's like SSSR and Mao's China. Money doesn't work like that. And poverty comes from poor thinking, if you strip self made billionaire of everything he will climb back up because in his mind he is not poor. If you give all your money to people who have poor mindset you will destroy your economy.

  18. Always socialism. How intellectually lazy. This has been tried forever.
    I’ve been homeless. So what. Work. There will always be poor.

  19. The abstract concept of money is a privatized enterprise that excludes the vast majority of people on this planet. It's a social control mechanism used to hide an existing paradise on earth. It creates sheer misery for the majority.

    Our acceptance of the BOGUS scarcity based monetary system is the reason people are suffering so unnecessarily. The sole purpose of the obsolete notion of money and politics is to control the minds and actions of people, to socialize them like sheep, and to convince them into fighting to the death for fairy-tale belief systems, conflicts are socially engineered and people are in a constant battles against scripted dialectical's that are manufactured to keep people in a state of constant fear and conflict. Conflicts that always work against their own interests in order to keep the self-proclaimed rich divided from the enforced poor.

    We don't need money at all, what we need is a free energy technocracy. A system of experts who'd fully apply existing free energy resources and technologies for the great benefit to ALL in harmonious accord with natures laws.

    We just need to utilize infinitely regenerating energy resources and the technologies without any form of political/financial make believe interference elements getting in the way of our current know how to distribute abundances required to sustain ALL of our lives from the cradle to the grave..

  20. Just another socialist minded dildo.

    Grow up people.
    The poor don’t need handouts (guaranteed income) they need education, and action their part.

    You give handouts, you create people that are lazy, and complain endlessly that we aren’t giving enough.

    If you don’t believe me, visit the communities we are revitalizing for the black communities.

  21. Mike Tellinger, had mathematicians see the money come back to the people. They worked 3 hrs a wk, all were millionaires on his set up. There is a serious scam to people going on for war. People are sick of all. Propaganda and certain money master's do the killings.

  22. I suppose all you people who are singing the praises of this "great" socialist plan have no problem giving your hard earned tax dollars to this government run program. The problem is the government has shown they are incapable of successfully implementing any such national assistance. Look at Social Security.

  23. Simple truth here is the world is a jungle and human beings, mostly are animals who feed on one another. Avarice, power, selfishness. These are powerful instincts that drive people, and make them feel less empathetic toward others. It’s a me against the world mentality that sets people on the course to building great wealth. The end justifies the means. Utopia is nothing but a fantasy. Never going to work in this world. Human beings are just too greedy.

  24. Triggered? by asking a socialist that hates capitalism how many jobs he has created? Triggered?

    Nope, just a fair question. Only those that have never actually created jobs, businesses, payrolls etc. critique the best system in the world. When you sit in an academic seat your entire life, you have no clue how the real world works, and what kind of effort and ingenuity it takes to actually create the commerce that keeps society going. All academics do is look at the outcomes of the few, and say they don't deserve what they have earned. And they overlook the millions that have a good life from the efforts of a few. And they discuss and highlight only the top efforts of the few and the bottom results of a few, without ever discussing personal choice or effort. Behind every result is a cause. Socialists and academics only look at results of effort and hide lack of effort to make a skewed conclusion. Triggered? No. just pointing out the truth that lacks in the bias of the socialist academic

  25. Too many people in conservative circles really believe all the stories like Reagan's "welfare Queen". Also the old line that the super rich are "job creators" and therefore we should bow down to them.

  26. This UPI version of Bregman is overly simplistic and naive. He is deliberately misquoting Milton Friedman here; Friedman simply preferred a modest, minimal, and limited negative income tax AS PREFERABLE AND LESS EXPENSIVE to the expensive and corrupt bureaucracy of welfare spending that the USA currently has. Friedman never said any form of UPI would solve all of poverty and was concerned about negative incentives in the welfare trap (Reference PBS documentary series and book "Free to Choose"). Personal responsibility and personal risk taking is essential with modest incentive capital to personally overcoming poverty. If you were to give money with no conditions (just like Bergman implies here) to those who are routinely foolish with money and responsibility, you will still have poverty in society as money alone has proven to make poverty worse laden in corruption. This has been proven with analyzing the aggregate average lives of lottery winners who soon lose all winnings back to poverty all the way to people hopelessly addicted to drugs winding up in a future in poverty from foolish unrestricted spending on drugs as a first priority. These and many other examples are solid reasons that UPI alone with no restrictions on personal spending of entitlements would never "eradicate poverty once and for all".

  27. How is the UBI different from welfare. They said the exact same thing about welfare back in the 60s. Same product just change the name. And one experiment in some tiny town in canada is hardly coclusive proof.

  28. I dont believe in this leftist ideology. Many would continue making poor decisions and spend the money on meaningless things because they simply dont have the capacity to manage well money. Look at those who won the lottery and spend to loose everything again.

  29. I love the IQ results…is it not possible that stress is the culprit and not cash? Poverty is a lack of doing right actions not getting a bad education. So it worked in Dauphin but not in Helsinki? A single data point isn't science what about the aggregate results of all of the "countless" experiments? ?? How about a link to the "countless" experiments and your analysis? I'm open just show me the data!

  30. It would be correct if it did not require, extorting money
    from one group, through taxation, and redistributing it
    to the poor. The principle, two wrongs don't make a
    right. Getting something for nothing is evil.

    The correct solution is … *taxation* as voluntary. That
    way, you are not being taxed out of existence. This is
    the principled approach which maximizes the growth
    and prosperity of society.

    And it does not require study, upon study, upon study.
    Not if you think in principles. For man thinks and acts
    on principle. This is the principle upon which a man
    expands or contracts his sphere of thought and action.
    Asking at every turn, what is or is not possible to him.
    With compulsory taxation in place, he is behind and
    yet he has not even begun.

    *Not a universal basic income but universal voluntary taxation!!*
    This also leaves people of goodwill to help each other out.
    Compulsion and coercion is evil in principle … taxation.
    Taxation is the implicit use of force in human relations.

  31. Omg! I love you. If one day government of the USA decides to pay fair wages to its people and start truly caring for therm it will be a miracle.

  32. There r many countries couldn't even manage their own country well from every aspect, how u expect them to care about the poverty line. This is only viable for certain countries, but not all. This is far too behind to achieve around the globe.

  33. Something wrong with the poor? But the poor are Humans just like the rich. However there are overwhelmingly more poor than rich, so maybe there is simply something wrong with the rich…or better still with the system the rich so well protect!

  34. This system which we have inherited based on survival and competition has become redundant and absurd, and obviously doesn't work. It has turned money into a commodity where only money can insure security and freedom, instead of a tool as it should be, accessible to all and where security and freedom are to be guaranteed by the state. There is no longer a reason to live in a survival and competitive paradigm, today there are enough of us to guarantee the necessary work which cannot be done by machines. There is also enough for everybody. I read somewhere that in 2016 the world food production was enough to feed 16 billion people. The excess went to waste and not to the poor; of course!

  35. If these millionaires paid a living wage people wouldn't be in poverty it's not they can't afford to pay their workers a living wage it's the greed

  36. Slavery, privatizing gains/socializing losses, and the two-tier justice system are the main influences for the name I chose.
    What is a Valve?

  37. This is interesting, but what about people that win the Lottery? They go from being poor to having more than enough money and (because of their lack of financial education) they spend it carelessly.

  38. This is not a personal opinion, I'm just interested in asking you folks here on youtube for your opinion on my question: Is poverty not a lack of character or cash, but a lack of circumstances?. Any thoughts would be really welcome guys.

  39. People blame poor people for being poor, like they blame fat people for being fat. There is more to it than that, though, of course.

  40. 'Poverty is not a lack of character, it's a lack of cash'. Sums it up pretty good and the rich knows it. That's why they keep us in poverty. Poverty is man made so they can control us easier.

  41. As soon as they came up with Social Security and helped people retire a good many good paying jobs came open at a lower wage than the people who had been there 20 years. The economy was helped all the way around. Now that women are in the workplace more they are starting to die as fast as the men. We need to remove the cap on Social Security payments going into the system, we need to clamp down on the fraud or people who have and cashing checks for people who have already died, how many need to increase social security to encourage people to retire. Social Security should increase by $200 month. He must realize that some of these older women are raising their grandchildren or babysitting or supplementing a home income

  42. How can the experiment in Dauphin be so costly that the government shuts it down and then later the speaker says it doesn't cost that much to eradicate poverty? And Milton Friedman only advocated the UBI as a middle step on the way to full eradication of the welfare state. Lastly cash doesn't just appear from nowhere. Wealth must be produced and those who produce it own it. Forcibly taking it from those who produced it is theft. If you can get people to voluntarily contribute to this experiment that is fine but forcing people to fund it is immoral.

  43. Why we have to arrive to the point in which a basic support has to be given to some people? The first answer that appears from my experience is the lack of finding a work. The second is why? The answer is because many governments are tied to control people in order to remain in power. So this type of governments are specialists in generating more poor people. Third. When a government has no capacity to keep in place and generate new jobs there is less purchase power thus the economy slows. Fourth. If you live in a high inflation economy, with a negative budget, this is the perfect storm for everybody and particularly for poor people the most affected. So I would add the following: Governments have to work in creating business conditions, that will derive in job positions that will generate consumption, that will generate new investments, better tax collection. If nothing of this happen, probably many of the people living in countries like the one I am describing will tend to be all poor. And there will be no budget able to afford money for everybody. In fact, money will never be enough since high inflation rate will remain destroying human and general economic value. So coming back to this speech, in general all good ideas need of a very adequate environment to be considered is putting them in place would be necessary. People need to feel they are valuable and if each month the received a payment without doing anything in my opinion is not a good solution. In fact it is a risk. But please, this is only my opinion.

  44. Did he account for psychological way we perceive poverty? If we raise all people from objective (material) poverty then relatively to that the perception of poverty threshold rises as well. As the result many will feel poor (thus -14 IQ) disregard they might have a food, shelter, car, iphone, belly…

    I just realized yesterday that there are few beggars in my country. And most of them are obese. There are starving people considered poor In many countries, in my country it is usually the fat ones. How different is our relative perception of poverty… I don't sometimes feel rich yet I objectively am.

    We should work on our perception of poverty first then the rest otherwise no matter how much you rise from the bottom you can remain poor.

  45. All good and well – novel idea, and it will work for some, but not all. In Zimbabwe and SA they gave people land and money to start farming businesses for example. It did not work in most cases. Mostly people squandered the money and their chances and new income. Most of that land is lying bare and unproductive, with people more poor and hungry than ever. Same with child grants in SA. They just have more and more children to get the grants- while neglecting and abusing those children in the worst ways. It's never as simple as handing out money.

  46. "poverty isn't a lack of character" proceeds to present a ton of evidence that IT IS a lack of character. Is he trolling or just pushing an agenda with these illogical conclusions?
    A person with character is unaffected by the scarcity mentality because he has self-worth and that cannot be measured in currency. "The poor" on the other hand measure themselves in materialistic units, even those of them who have a lot of money.
    It's a state of mind not a lack of paper.

  47. Interesting enough, there is now a Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang is running on the idea of giving $1000 to every US adult, including the homeless.  I think this will help eliminate the poverty in U.S. and reduce human sufferings and unleash the human potential.

  48. The World We Live In Keeps You Poor But No one Dares To Talk About That Man Made Creation Does Not Have Power Over Man Unless You Allow It To…Money Means Nothing A Persons Heart And Feelings Are Real But We Have No Time For That I Would Sit With A Poor Man Over A Rich Man Any Day Enough Wealth in This World To Feed And Home Us All But The Rich Would Rather Live Very Wealthy When They Have The Means To Save Life But Would Rather Allow People to Die From Hunger Making Your Soul Corrupt And Evil Some Of Us Care About People Others Just Care About Money You Can Not Love Both!

  49. Poverty is neither a lack of character nor a lack of cash, it's a lack of productivity. If you don't produce anything, you don't HAVE anything to consume. If you get charity/welfare, as soon as you run out, you're right back in poverty. Productivity is the only cure for poverty!

  50. Seems like junk science. IQ doesn't change like this – radically based on the timing of revenue and also its idiotic to suggest they are "poor all year". No, they are not! Its like saying people would be stupid all month except right after payday. Using revenue timing as a correlate for IQ is not just dumb, its positively idiotic. Farmers are "poor all year" except for harvest, is the daftest thing I have ever heard anyone claim. Ever hear of SAVING your money? You don't spend an entire year's worth of income right after you get it. Nobody does that. If you earn a year of income all at once (and many people only get income once a year, not just farmers), then you make that last all year long, you don't go out and fucking blow it the second you got it…you put in the bank, like a normal person. And it is not even true anyway. I doubt this guy even met any farmers. Farmers do NOT only receive income just at harvest. Farmers receive income periodically throughout the year as they are paid for multiple things besides just harvest, which btw isn't a single day…its a season , usually more than one! They are paid for silage, for land leases, for Farm Bureau subsidies (do you think the government pays these out all at once – no, its monthly or quarterly, the same way that all business contracts are paid!), and for futures contracts as they mature. People have been farming a long time, they have cracked the nut on how to not just make a living, but to prosper as a farmer, a LONG time ago. This idiot makes it sound like farmers are these rubes who only grow one crop (and some do), and get one payment one day of the year, and live in dire poverty the other 364 days. The entire claim is bogus and stupid. Its simply a distortion of reality.

    Teachers don't get paid in the summer, so are they stupid when school starts? Are retirees stupid? How about authors, they only get paid when they publish something. (not really true, but many or most, especially those not EMPLOYED as professional writers, go a long time between major payments. For novelists this might be years…). So are they stupid virtually all of the time? Amazing how these idiots manage to write all them books and such.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *