The same people who understand that it's a Bad Thing if they mess up the economy so the banks can't lend any money and nobody is investing in anything, and then merry go round stops... will scoff and dissemble when encountered by this kind of study.
But this kind of "jump start" is less expensive, and probably more grounded in "sound economic reasoning" than your average bail out.
@futurebird Similar success was seen by cities like Medicine Hat which simply provided free housing for the homeless population.
While it's definitely still difficult to address the underlying issues that lead to homelessness and poverty, actually solving homelessness and poverty themselves isn't that hard for a rich nation like Canada to achieve.
@futurebird@mekkaokereke
This is what happens when you base spending policy on logic and economics and not Christian capitalism, and it doesn’t even include the human benefit.
Home the homeless
Legalise drugs with addiction support
Legalise prostitution as generally it’s women who need help getting out of it and they are charged as the criminals.
Liberalise, decriminalise and also therefore you won’t need to pay for policing.
Just because I don’t need a home, drugs or a prostitute doesn’t mean we have to be a dick about it.
We need to talk more, care more and do more and loose a shit ton of judgement.
Remove poverty, remove people trafficking and remove sexual exploitation.
@futurebird wait for them to discover that giving people money and purpose is also a proven effective way to free them from addiction (including gambling) and they'll 🤯
@futurebird but if I give the poors money and it solves their problems, I can’t judge them anymore, and that’s what I rilly rilly riiiiiiilly value, dontcha see?
@futurebird That reminds me some years back I was reading one of Johnathan Kozol's books on education, and he made that point too. Solution to school problems? Pump money into them. (It works for the rich folks' schools for one). Naturally, that is the one solution no one wants to implement because....(insert political bullshit/RWNJ/libertarian asshole reason here).
@futurebird Finland operates a similar scheme nationally. After a year or so most previously homeless have moved on, found work and their own accommodation. Not all, some have intractable health issues, addictions and personality disorders but by getting the less challenging people out of the system there's more money to treat those who need serious interventions.
@futurebird agreed! And in addition to that, every dollar spent on the poor tends to result in immediate economic activity that benefits the economy as a whole. Because poor people do not hoard unneeded wealth like rich people.
@futurebird If we just give money to people who need it instead of private institutions who want to profit from it then... how do we justify the economic model we've been using to steal value from humanity for over a century?
@futurebird Local news the other night showed a council scheme to pay heating bills for elderly people, with the benefit of reduced burden/cost on the NHS. Extraordinary that we can't extrapolate from that that giving cash to all poor and needy people would also massively improve wellness and reduce NHS costs. Instead society would rather people get sick and use the NHS as a (very expensive) sticky plaster
Add comment