Guess What Happened When Liberia Tested a Pilot Program of Cash Transfers to the Extreme Poor

[kpete]

"Try to imagine an income guarantee of that size, in essence guaranteeing you your share of the country's total productivity; basically the same share we used to have but lost when productivity decoupled from wages decades ago."

Guess What Happened When Liberia Tested a Pilot Program of Cash Transfers to the Extreme Poor in Bomi
Surprise. People make good decisions for themselves, their children and others.

Further evidence of the potential of basic income



So what was observed in Bomi? Did the poor spend all their money on alcohol? Did they gamble it away? Did businesses fail? Did school attendance decrease? Did overall health decline? Did cats begin living with dogs?

The study found compelling evidence that the SCT program improved the food security, health, education and economic conditions of participating households. Cash transfer program households reported improved food intake and larger food stores that lasted longer. When faced with illnesses they were more likely than in previous years to seek healthcare for all members of the family, especially children. School attendance improved and 66% of children had improved school marks. Participating households also generally reported improved economic statuses. Indeed, two-thirds of the heads of program households reported satisfaction with their quality of life, compared to just 20% of a comparison population. The study also found evidence of multiplier effects that enable the benefits of the SCT program to reach beyond the immediate beneficiaries to the community at large.

WOW!!!

The clear majority of program households (65%) reported an improved economic situation over the past year... Because 93% of the transfer money was spent within Bomi County, the impact of the program was felt beyond the immediate beneficiaries. Business owners reported that they were coming to rely on SCT recipients as important customers. Seventy-five per cent of business owners noticed positive impacts on their businesses. They attributed 20-50% of their growth to the SCT program. A number of program households reported even more direct forms of spill-over effects – 19% shared money and 48% shared food. Interviews also found that program households directly supported their neighbors in times of serious healthcare needs. Those that started businesses were also able to contribute to the broader local economy by offering new and improved goods and services.

MORE WOW:
https://www.the-newshub.com/science/guess-what-happened-when-liberia-tested-a-pilot-program-of-cash-transfers-to-the-extreme-poor-in-bomi
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/02/1375056/-Mo-Money-Mo-Money-Mo-Money-Another-blow-to-Reagan-s-racist-Welfare-Queen

[riderinthestorm]

1. Big Big BIG K&R!!! Excellent and thanks for sharing nt

[Snarkoleptic]

2. Mincome (minimum income) was tried successfully in Canada, until conservatives buried it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html

But the Conservative government that took power provincially in 1977 – and federally in 1979 – had no interest in implementing the project more widely. Researchers were told to pack up the project’s records into 1,800 boxes and place them in storage.

A final report was never released.

[truebluegreen]

3. They weren't the first:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026020800 A town in Manitoba experimented with this in the 1970s, with similar results...until an incoming conservative government halted the experiment and deep-sixed the report/findings.

[Yavin4]

4. We did this exact same thing in the "golden years" of the 1950s.

We had better unionization and political parties that really worked on behalf of working Americans. What killed it was racism, pure and simple. Once those benefits had to be shared with African Americans, working class Whites started to vote against their economic interests, and Republicans have been playing on this resentment for decades now.

Why don't we have a single payer health insurance system? Because all the Republicans would have to do is scream: "illegals will get free healthcare" or "lazy Blacks in the inner-cities will take advantage", and working class Whites will vote against it.

[upaloopa]

5. Union movement was not killed by union members

voting against their best interests. It was killed by business closing union shops and moving to non union cities and countries.

[Yavin4]

6. Two words for you: Reagan Democrats

PATCO endorsed Reagan in the 1980 election.

[upaloopa]

7. People became Reagan Democrats because

of opposition to the anti war movement and opposition to policies of the war on poverty that did not seem to be having the desired effect. Also because of the terrible inflation and economy and the Iran hostage crisis and the perception that Dems ( President Carter) were weak in the face of these problems. Also the giving of the Panama Canal to Panama. The effect hurt working class Dems but you have the cart before the horse.
I was there.

[Yavin4]

10. So was I.

And race was as much, if not more of a factor, than the ones that you listed.

[upaloopa]

12. Yes race as being apposed to the Civil Rights movement

I agree with that. I left it off my list. My mistake.

[Enthusiast]

44. I was there too. The media constantly worked to steer public opinion against President Carter.

The media created many of the Reagan Democrats through the skillful use of misinformation. They have only become more accomplished at misinformation as the years have passed.

[upaloopa]

57. No argument from me on that point

[JDPriestly]

14. Thank you. And then they claim to be Christian.

[F4lconF16]

22. They are Christian.

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

You don't get to decide who is, and who isn't.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

Also:

With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups, but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "religion of peace." Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association.

snip

It's a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and "What's mine is mine" mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.

Going to call this out every time I see it.

[DFW]

40. Be prepared to do a lot of calling out

There is that old saying:

Being inside a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than being inside a garage makes you a car.

You can call yourself anything you want, of course.

Many people subscribe to Gandhi's observation: " 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[Dont call me Shirley]

49. Well said, DFW!

[F4lconF16]

55. I quite like that quote.

But you'll notice that they are still considered Christians. And I will continue to do so, thanks.

[DFW]

59. Well, a minor nuance there

They are considered Christians by whom? THEY may label, even consider themselves Christians. I reserve my right to think of people who so drastically deviate from the teachings of their supposed spiritual guide as something else entirely. I'm sure the Symbionese Liberation Army considered themselves freedom fighters. Does that mean they "are still considered freedom fighters?"

There was once a Congressional hearing where Harlan Sanders, the emblematic "Colonel" of Kentucky Fried Chicken, was asked flat out if he was ever really a colonel. After all, he called himself a colonel. KFC always called him the colonel, and their advertising is worldwide. Sanders, of course, had never been a colonel. Instead of admitting it, he shot back to the Congressman, "well, sir, your title says 'honorable.' Are you?" Touché. They both called themselves something they obviously weren't. I hold that the same goes for most in America who call themselves "Christians." As a southerner, I run into such people every time I'm back home in the States (Dallas, in my case). Gandhi had them pegged most accurately.

[jwirr]

16. At the age of 73 I think I agree with you. One thing though the welfare we had in the 50s did not

come close to income security. By the time McGovern was running it was well known that there were families living in shacks and starving.

[ND-Dem]

41. yes, i was gonna say; everybody's known it forever. but for some reason, it always gets

shut down.

more equality works better for everyone.

[Enthusiast]

45. They always claim, "There is someone somewhere getting something they don't deserve."

And they often mean racial minorities.

[silverweb]

47. Sometimes it's just selfishness.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Someone I used to know very well said, "I don't want anyone else to get anything without having to work as hard for it as I did."

This from a middle-class woman whose '70s stay-at-home mom got a job to put her through college so she wouldn't have to work while she was an undergrad - and whose husband supported her through her master's degree.

Unfortunately, it's not an uncommon attitude among people who have no idea at all what it really means to be poor.

[sabrina 1]

8. I'm sure our 'leaders' are aware of this, what happens when people have enough money to live on.

And I'm sure they also know what happens when a small % of the population obsessed with getting as much money as they can for themselves and then hoarding it.

I hope more countries do this.

Including this one.

What a different world it would be if only we stop the greedy from hoarding money for themselves.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

9. School statistics are most remarkable

I'm assuming those aren't "self-reported" statistics like the rest of them.

If those statistics are from the schools, they are remarkable, indeed.

[byronius]

11. Well, sure, if you're talking an advanced nation like Liberia it might work. Not here, though.

He said with utterly biting sarcasm.

Of course it works. And of course none of the conservative fantasy bugaboos come to life.

I want to go to there.

[Curmudgeoness]

13. This is what we have been saying for years.

And there has been proof of this many times in history. Money in the hands of those who have the least will go directly back into the economy, and that is good for everyone.

[Mopar151]

15. So the poor will spend the money on beer! they cry...

So - that money goes to the grocer, who pays wages, utilities, and the beer distributor. The beer distributor pays warehousmen, and drivers, utilities, rent, and the brewer. The brewer pays more employees, utilities, equipment builders, and farmers. ALL of these people pay taxes, morgrtages, utilities, eats, etc.
If the money goes to the rich - it sits in a bank, where it pays minimal taxes, and does not recirculate through the economy. Or it goes offshore, and nobody gets nuttin'!

[Curmudgeoness]

17. Precisely.

And, as is evidenced in the OP, beer money is not what is usually goes for. Ah, the stereotypes that the rich have of the poor!

[bvar22]

21. UNless they spend it at WalMart (or other BIG Boxes).

Then that cash leaves town immediately for the pockets of the owners and invesors
with zero community multiplier effect.

[Curmudgeoness]

23. That is partly right.

I agree that shopping at big box stores means that money will not got back into the local economy at the same rate that it does when you shop at a local business, however, they do employ locals, so more business would mean more employees, and that would help a little. Those employees will also have money to spend, as well as paying local taxes.

But yes, it is not ideal. I do wish that people would stop shopping at these stores, but I also understand the need of low income people to find the lowest prices.

[bvar22]

24. They employ people..

...who used to work for higher wages, job security, and benefits at locally owned businesses.
Plus, they were treated like people.

WalMart coming to town is a net LOSS in wages as they drive the local merchants and their employees out of business.


Ask anyone who has lived in small town America for the last 20 years,
or simply go for a drive in the country and drive down any Main St.
IT is ALL gone.

The ONLY viable businesses on Main Street are beauty parlors and "Antique" (junk) stores
and many closed store fronts.
Sad, really.
These businesses used to raise families..... before WalMart.

[Curmudgeoness]

29. I don't have to drive far.

There is a WalMart Super Store here now, along with a Lowe's and a Home Depot. And there are plenty of family owned stores that have closed. I know all about it.

However, I don't think that most of those family owned retail stores paid higher than minimum wage in the best of times, nor did they have benefits, at least not around here. But they were valuable in training people to run a business because they spent the time with them. My meat market was opened by a couple of guys who worked for a neighborhood grocery store and learned the business from the owner. That will never happen with WalMart.

[ND-Dem]

43. but if folks had more money and didn't have to pinch every penny, they might spend more at

places other than walmart.

however, few stores are local anymore; in that sense, money is always leaving the local area.

[Dont call me Shirley]

50. And to put icing on big box's cake, in many communities they get to KEEP the sales taxes they

collect. So basically we are paying sales tax directly to corporations.

[Curmudgeoness]

54. Huh?

I have never heard of this. What's the deal on this? I have heard of property taxes being abated (which is bad enough and should be outlawed), but at least here, I have not seen where they keep sales taxes.

[jwirr]

18. The Rs are always yelling small government. Social Security costs less to run than welfare. I am

betting that a program like this would be much cheaper to run and much more effective. And in the long run it would guarantee the rich would feel much safer than they do with their money in the Caiman islands. Plus as we spend our guaranteed income it would trickle back up to them.

But they are too interested in seeing how much they can pile up to care about any of us.

[blackspade]

19. Our poor people are different from their poor people.....

This is great data.
It underscores how we could choose to have a basic income that is paid by the government if only we could cut the spending on our war and 'security' profiteers....

[hifiguy]

20. Kick. This should be widely seen and read!

[woo me with science]

25. K&R Guaranteed living income time.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/rethinking-the-idea-of-a-basic-income-for-all/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/wheeler-minimum-income/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/17/guaranteed_basic_income_the_real_alternative_to_the_minimum_wage.html

[abelenkpe]

26. K&R

[Politicalboi]

27. Richard Nixon was going to give us a guaranteed income

That would have been ideal. If minimum wage had gone up like it should have throughout the years, the government could have had a guaranteed income of $12,000 a year or work at a job for $20.00 bucks an hour. Most people would choose to work.

[Scuba]

28. Kickety kick kick.

[BobTheSubgenius]

30. If it worked that well...

...clearly, it has to be ignored by anyone and everyone with the power to do anything about it while they hope everyone else forgets.

[Cha]

31. Thank you, kpete

[marble falls]

32. All the money ends up in the hands of the wealthy, anyways. Why not cycle it through the hands of...

the poor first?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. That's why we should have bailed out the homeowners.

[DeSwiss]

33. K&R

- It's been done before and it worked extremely well then too.

It's what I've been saying. Capitalism is CANCER.

[allan01]

34. would love to see some rw heads explode

brill on the libirians part and a follow up too !

[betterdemsonly]

35. What a nice story.

Hopefully this becomes a model all over particularly as the robots replace the service jobs the globalists told us to depend on.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. So money for the basics helps the basic economy,.....basically.

[mountain grammy]

38. Anyone who's ever been poor knows you spend every dime you have..

just to survive. If you don't quite make it, you sell something or worse, get a payday loan. The car breaks, the kids are sick, it takes nothing to upset the financial balance. Give poor people money, they will spend it because they are always behind. Local businesses get more business, hire more people, maybe even the poor people could make a little extra and get ahead.

Even that right wing shit for brains Nixon realized this with the earned income credit. An absolute windfall in the dead of winter. Give the poor a big tax credit and they go shopping! New tires for the car, fix the car, coats for the kids, dentist appointments, catch up on all the bills, etc, etc. No vacations, no home remodels, just basic, mundane needs that a windfall pays for.

The working poor contribute more to the economy than any fat cat Rmoney or any of the little Rmoneys, or any of the rest of the 1% running around the world spouting their free market and trickle down lies.

[villager]

39. It's actually the 1%ers who can't be trusted with money. They usually spend it on war.

n/t

[ND-Dem]

46. or crap. i was just reading about some plutocrat who spent millions on his mansion, all

custom built with gold plated faucets and such -- and then decided he didn't want it, so he never lived in it and is now trying to sell it. but of course it was built to his personal taste, so it may be slow on the market.

[Enthusiast]

42. This cannot be true! Only the rich can be trusted with money!

[Quantess]

48. Recommended and kicked, but...

I would like to see a more credible and reliable source write an article about this. Not that I doubt the story at all, but the source site is kind of frivolous.

[leveymg]

51. What about all those McDonald's franchisers? They might have to raise wages, too. End of the world

as we know it . . .

[Sunlei]

52. I think all Americans should get a check from Corps, similar to Alaska. And Corps/Gov

be paying for our healthcare.

[Thespian2]

53. K & R

People do amazing things when they have the money to do them.

[NM_Birder]

56. If the US would stop the practice of,..

wiping the worlds ass and changing it's diapers as a form of policy, god only knows what every citizen could have.

[Capt. Obvious]

58. I was expecting to read

that all of the makers left Liberia to start their own country in a valley.

[woo me with science]

60. kick