Not such a strange idea! See how GiveDirectly works, and how they measure impact [1].

[1] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directlyhttps:...

I definitely agree with this, there seem to be an aversion to giving people money directly. I guess this comes from a sense of knowing better, most people feel they know how to better look after people rather than letting others define and satisfy their own needs. Most refugees would find a decent, personal, use for money.

They are refugees, but like the rest of us have needs we can't always fathom.

I think one big reason to avoid giving out money is to try to avoid fraud. There are a number of people who are not refugees who would certainly find ways to get at the cash if it were being given out. So the refugees may all be great, honest folks but you have to think about other ways programs can be subverted by people who aren't honest.

True, but you also have to avoid spending more money preventing fraud than would actually have been lost to fraud. This is a huge problem in, for example, welfare/public support programs, e.g. Reagan's fear of imaginary "welfare queens".

That happens anyway. The Hillary Foundation and the American Red Cross have come under fire for doing just that.

Sad but true, I wish people weren't so shit :(

UNHCR already give cash directly to registered refugees:

"For the individual refugee, it also empowers them by giving them the choice over how to meet their most immediate needs. Freed from having to queue or travel to receive one-size-fits-all aid, people can buy their own food, fuel, clothes, medicine or pay the rent based on their personal priorities. In this way, refugees contribute directly to local economies and foster positive relations with host communities."

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/briefing/2016/12/5853b3ed4/unhc...

It's almost like if you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling.

Thank you for saying almost, which acknowledges that this isn't always the case.

Well yeah but I wouldn't say the rate that occurs is so awfully different from when people earn money. And both activities stimulate the economy so...

Plus I'm more addressing the ingrained idea (in the USA at least) that poor people are all addicts, druggies, alcoholics, unemployable, or terrible with money. Many addicts run the course of their addiction while holding down a job (otherwise they can't feed said addiction). At the same time, the fastest route to the streets in the US is medical costs, either by way of some kind of accident or acquiring a chronic disease or condition, or hell, even breaking a leg and not being able to work for a month.

Most people, and I'd say a large majority of them, if just given money not in the form of EBT stamps or some other patronizing ass "here, we'll help you out, but here's a catalog of rules you need to follow because you're obviously incompetent" method would lead to more people getting out of poverty.

The state of discourse in society on this topic is "not great", for the reasons you correctly point out, but what is not appreciated is the impact saying feel good things that are not true has on the thinking of those in opposing camps.

"If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling." is not a true statement, and I assert that saying things like this can result in people on the "other side" of the political spectrum forming the opinion that you and your side is intellectually dishonest, because in fact, it is.

Feel free to say this is "irrelevant", but meanwhile politics in the West continues to become more and more polarized.

> "If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling." is not a true statement, and I assert that saying things like this can result in people on the "other side" of the political spectrum forming the opinion that you and your side is intellectually dishonest, because in fact, it is.

I really don't believe that's a fact. There have been numerous experiments over the decades about implementing basic income, with varying degrees of success, which is the closest current thing to replacing the American social welfare systems with "just giving people money." Their results are mixed, and likely will remain so as they are extremely desperate from one another to such a degree that you can't really form a consensus.

> I really don't believe that's a fact. There have been numerous experiments over the decades about implementing basic income, with varying degrees of success....

The issue here though is the implication, and even with some people the genuine belief, that it is true always. On average you are correct, yes, but if you consider that averages are not spread evenly, there are subsets (US states would be only one example) where the reality is very much different than the national average reflects. So, when you say "if the government does <x>, <y> WILL happen", and people KNOW that to be false (because they have seen past attempts fail), this is at least in part where part of the rift between political camps begins to form, or contributes to the overall problem. Furthermore, these "minor" differences of opinion can then be exploited by opportunistic politicians to have far more impact than they would otherwise.

A not terribly great illustration of this imho can be seen above - downvotes of this idea with no rebuttal illustrating it's wrongness. In the majority of the IRL & internet discussions I've been involved in, a rebuttal is never provided because "the left" considers this discussion to be over. They are correct, full stop. They do not need to address opinions different than their own, because they are wrong. To my mind, this is a very dangerous mentality, and leads to the very political climate we are seeing today.

Politics always has been and always will be a battle of ideas. Abandoning logic and resorting to force, mob rule, and covering ones eyes and ears does not lead to a successful outcome.

I believe that was a sarcastic addition to a sentence considered obviously true. Also seen in phrases like "it's almost like refugees are people!"

My point probably wasn't clear but is easier to make now....one of these sentences is always true, the other is not always true (but people like to pretend it is):

"Refugees are people."

"If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling."

Depends where you are talking about. In some countries, phone credit is used as a (primary) currency and trading platform.

It is really hard to give money directly.

often, those in need will refuse money, because they are too proud to take it.

on the other hand, many organisations will happily take money on behalf of those in need, but you have no way to see how much actually ends up with the intended recipients.

if you pay someones phone bill, you know you are helping someone...

Why not let them issue their own mobile crypto currency to help each other?

And not just refugees but villages. Helping the unbanked.

The unbanked use this amazing new innovation called cash.

I almost upvoted this, but then I realized, with dawning horror, that you might actually be serious.

Actually... https://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/blockchain-against-hun...

Aha!

Maybe now you'll upvote me.

And they could use it to order meal kits to be delivered by drones /s

I thought the same and this video [1] changed my mind. It demonstrates that smartphones and internet connectivity are essential tools to navigate international borders, remain in touch with family, access legal aid, find camps, food, shelter etc.

[1] https://youtu.be/m1BLsySgsHM