Oh hey, also the same thing with environmental issues

  • davidagain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Seriously? You went from giving some homeless people enough money to get accommodation and food to a global inflation crisis?

    I mean ,that’s some really absurd fear mongering right there.

    You’ve got to be a Republican if you can swallow or invent nonsense like that. No, global inflation crises are caused by corporate reactions to war and stock market scares, not by charity projects.

    Who the f*** ever heard of the global RedCross inflation crisis of 1987?! There wasn’t one!
    The World Food Programme guacamole price hike of 2014?! There wasn’t one!
    The International Rescue Committee credit crunch of 2018? There wasn’t one!
    The The World Health Organization cancer treatment rising expense scandal of 2023? There wasn’t one!

    Why didn’t these things happen?

    Because giving people in dire straights enough to get them back on their feet IS NOT a cause of any kind of inflation. Stop making out that your crazy catastrophe theories are even slightly plausible,

    Charitable crisis solving is safe. It’s unequivocally good for the economy. Keeping people on the streets and hence out of work is bad for the economy. Alleviating abject poverty is unequivocally GOOD.

    • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I give up. You’re not reading what I’m saying. I’m actually pretty far left, further left than it seems you or most of the people here are considering how they object to the idea that people should receive whatever assistance they need, not just have money thrown in their face and told to fuck off.

      • davidagain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        I didn’t object to any of the extra help. That’s a straw man. I just have to keep reminding you that giving people in abject poverty substantial chunks of no-strings unconditional cash has a large and growing body of evidence showing that it’s more effective and cheaper than leading with non-cash interventions, which are slow, have limited long term benefits and high drop-out rates. You do them too, later, but you lead with cash. Actual cash. You know, to fix the lack of cash issue that’s causing most of the rest of the problems.

        • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          That’s literally what I’ve been saying this entire fucking time you dingus.

          Edit:

          I’m not convinced that just cash will solve homelessness or poverty. It may help, but it seems like a “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” kinda situation. Give people the fish so they can eat, but if you want them to actually be independent, then you gotta make sure they have the tools they need to do so.

          Key sentence in bold and italics. From my first comment in this thread.

          • davidagain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            Not quite, it isn’t, not in overall message, and if you read what I said, you’ll see that I didn’t object to any additional help, I just insist on substantial cash first and reject most firmly your absurd histrionics about inflation.

            • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 days ago

              Not quite, it isn’t, not in overall message

              Listen, I may have been horrible at phrasing what I’m saying, but that’s legitimately what I’ve been trying to argue. The difference I guess is that I’m anticipating the possible negative outcomes and saying they should be resolved simultaneously instead of just saying “throw money at them”.

              you’ll see that I didn’t object to any additional help, I just insist on substantial cash first

              Okay, sooooo… Again, apparently I was bad at explaining myself, but that’s basically what I was trying to say, just that instead of cash now, resolve issues later, I think that you should resolve the possible issues at the same time.

              reject most firmly your absurd histrionics about inflation.

              Why is it hard to believe that rich people will happily destroy the world if it means they get an extra dollar or two? They’re already doing it. Recent history has firmly established that rich people are consistently among the worst human beings that humanity has to offer. They would unironically feed a baby into a blender if that meant their company ran 0.1% more efficiently. That’s why I’m convinced they’ll just fuck people over again. You have to either remove them from the equation as well, or at the very least, quarantine them so their obscene wealth and influence can’t hurt anyone in the real world.

              And we can make it quick bby. It doesn’t have to take long~.