Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What a ridiculous assertion. So the implicit claim is that 60 billion (per year?) is all it takes to end extreme poverty. Does anyone actually think increasing aid by that amount would actually have that effect? Is it really as simple as writing a cheque?


They have a report, linked from the article, with references. Care to pick specific facts to argue about?


It's something like 150x what Oxfam raise each year so I suspect it seems a lot more significant to them.


You could spend 50 times that and not reach the claimed outcome.

Helping someone perpetually exist is not the same as teaching them how to thrive.

Not to mention the biggest problem the poorest on earth have, is not a lack of money, but a lack of right to their own lives and property (via protection by a functional judicial & police system). The poorest on earth have in common a near complete lack of basic freedoms. Rivers of money won't save them from that, it's a fairy tale in the sense that the money would never reach them and or stay with them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: