LMNO (and anyone else who understands this shit)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Unfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.

I can agree with large chunks of that, but I have to counter this with "Zimbabwe". Not alone in creating cash to try and raise living standards but the end result was less than pleasant. Brazil managed to deal with the same kind of problem with the introduction of the Real(?) and had a good degree of success.

There's another potential issue with where exactly the neediest people are located. A line of thinking could end up with "So if they lived over there, shit will be better for them". Which again, in Africa has had unfortunate consequences.

While the above may sound a little shitty, I'd rather cover as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Last thing that anyone really wants is a system that fucks up in the exact same ways.

Economics 1.0 is fucking over Zimbabwe. A result of Artificial Scarcity is not an argument against Post-Scarcity Economics.
Many other problems can be prevented by not singling out the poor. I think this can only work if everyone social stratum gets it.

It needs to become as much a Right as breathing.

My thinking, right now is that cash doesn't trickle down, it flows up. Pump it in at the bottom and everyone will end up better off. The priority is humanitarian - elevate the lowest out of poverty but, in doing so should elevate everyone's standard of living. So we will still be better off than the third world by roughly the same factor. The only difference is now the third world have food, water, housing and maybe one or two luxury items.

Next we decide do we want to stop there or do we want to see it through to it's logical conclusion and keep making the ones at the bottom better off, given that we are all made better off as a direct result? I'm assuming the bottom tier of humanity will end up developing their own socio-economic thing, once all their time isn't taken up with the business of starving to death. I could be wrong but, if I'm not, then some sort of equilibrium may be achievable where the whole world is split into comfortably well off and filthy rich.

It occurs to me that maybe we've been looking at the economy backwards all along, if we're to use the flowing of water as a model for the movement of money. It isn't a pyramid, with the wealthy elite at the top and the workers at the bottom, and the money running downhill. It's a funnel. The narrow point may be the top of the social hierarchy, but I find the model is far more intuitive the other way around.

I mean, maybe that's what we should call this. Funnel economics. It still trickles down, but from the wide end.

I love this imagery. It completely turns the typical imagery (of the rich being at the "top", and all the metaphorical association that entails) on its head.

[Reginald Ret]

The not dead poor people will be offered paid employment. In order to service a couple of million new orders, production apparatus needs to scale up, ie. hire more labour.

The money we give to the totally fucked will end up flowing through the pockets of the partially fucked anyway.

Well yeah, but they won't see it that way.

The not dead poor people will be offered paid employment. In order to service a couple of million new orders, production apparatus needs to scale up, ie. hire more labour.

The money we give to the totally fucked will end up flowing through the pockets of the partially fucked anyway.

That serves as an incentive to exaggerate your fuckedness, it also adds a layer of beaurocracy to determine who deserves to be paid and who doesn't. 

Paying everyone is simpler and likely to receive broader support. 

Both good points.

I love love love the funnel economics image!

[Telarus]

That image went through my head as well.

[Reginald Ret]

Funnel economics posters and other assorted tomfoolery could be the next PD project.
Flyers, animated gifs, memebomb stickers, pictures of cute animals with misinformation on them, infographics, etc. etc.

[Telarus]

https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1743557_10151975274645669_1880895014_n.png
(Because Facebook photos tend not to render for me, in case anyone needs a link.)

"Give money to low income people and it stays in the local economy. Give money to the rich and it goes to the Cayman Islands..."
-Wisconsin State Senator Fred Risser

[Placid Dingo]

Wouldn't the cheap shit just cost more, and everything the cost of everything else scales up from there?

I'm not sure on how well regarded he is these days, but I believe that Adam Smith would  say that the cost of everything rises, but the cost of essentials (Bread and milk etc) stays the same.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of essentials went down over time. We are constantly optimising our production of any goods or services and that includes food chain among everything else we'd consider essential. We can produce and distribute more food, less expensively over time. Less farmers and cheaper more efficient machinery required to provide everything we need to eat.

[trix]

As far as the ease of feeding the world, especially since Soylent Green was mentioned, I thought you might find this interesting:
soylent.me (add the http://)

(Note, it is not made of people)

I first heard of this via crowd-sourcing (kickstarter-ish websites), and if I wasn't so broke I actually spend LESS than $255 per month on food, this is what I would be living off of.  The biggest downside to something like this going to the poor, especially in the Third World, is that it requires clean water.

[Junkenstein]

I recall this coming up a while ago in the prototype stages. I didn't consider it as a starvation cure but that certainly seems a viable option. As much as "provide a form of nutrition to the malnourished" goes anyway.

I've no idea what a reasonable $ figure/head is on aid in any given country dependent on aid. Between corruption/grift and the water problems it's certainly a potential help to the problem but there's the usual clusterfuck of shit to deal with first.

[trix]

I recall this coming up a while ago in the prototype stages. I didn't consider it as a starvation cure but that certainly seems a viable option. As much as "provide a form of nutrition to the malnourished" goes anyway.

I've no idea what a reasonable $ figure/head is on aid in any given country dependent on aid. Between corruption/grift and the water problems it's certainly a potential help to the problem but there's the usual clusterfuck of shit to deal with first.

Indeed.  I know Soylent is $255 per month per person with a subscription, if you plan to live 100% entirely off of it.
I'm not sure how feasible that price point is for feeding the poor, but it would definitely cut down on prison costs while increasing prisoner health.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As far as the ease of feeding the world, especially since Soylent Green was mentioned, I thought you might find this interesting:
soylent.me (add the http://)

(Note, it is not made of people)

I first heard of this via crowd-sourcing (kickstarter-ish websites), and if I wasn't so broke I actually spend LESS than $255 per month on food, this is what I would be living off of.  The biggest downside to something like this going to the poor, especially in the Third World, is that it requires clean water.

There are some threads about Soylent kicking around here.

Here are a few thoughts about Soylent, summarized from the previous conversations:

1. It is not a new concept. http://www.soyinfocenter.com/HSS/meals_for_millions.php
2. It is made from highly-processed food, and is highly wasteful.
3. For the above reason, it is far, far more expensive than equivalent nutrition derived from staple foods such as rice, beans, and collards.
4. It's basically a glorified protein shake.
5. For the most part, people other than weird autistic engineers have zero interest in subsisting entirely on bland processed gruel, to the degree that in many places it is considered inhumane treatment to give prisoners such a diet.

[trix]

Ah, I hadn't seen the threads and yeah all of that makes sense.  I would say more than weird autistic engineers could have interest in consisting mostly (though I'd never suggest never eating again) off of something like Soylent.  I have lived in households where getting everybody fed that day was enough of a challenge that I believe Soylent would have been gladly accepted by us.  Maybe not in place of eating regular food entirely, but probably enough so to be reasonably considered "living off of" Soylent.

My take is very subjective though, and I agree your final point could very well be true, generally.

[Pæs]

Was the challenge in getting everyone fed primarily financial or did it have a large "I don't have time to assemble a nutritious meal" because if the available time is less of a factor, Nigel's point about equivalent nutrition being gained from rice, beans and collards may make that a preferable option?

[trix]

Was the challenge in getting everyone fed primarily financial or did it have a large "I don't have time to assemble a nutritious meal" because if the available time is less of a factor, Nigel's point about equivalent nutrition being gained from rice, beans and collards may make that a preferable option?

Primarily financial, and of course you are correct.  Here in real life present time rice beans and other options are much cheaper and more useful in that sort of situation.  I was for some reason comparing free Soylent to having to buy food, and yeah i suppose that's pretty obviously going to weigh in the favor of anything free.

Thinking about this further, I guess I'm probably just one of the weirdos that would pay $255 a month if I had it, to replace most of the food I eat and ensure I have all the nutrition I need.  I find myself becoming more and more afraid of my own mortality as I get older, and wanting to maximize my time here.  This seems a much simpler solution than the crazy lists I was making when trying to learn what to eat and what to avoid for maximum nutrition and minimum get-sick-and-die.

[Pæs]

I'll admit I haven't looked into it too much. I would be interested in how it compares to the health benefits of a varied diet which I recall being raised in another thread as for whatever reason being better for people than any 'ideal superfood'.