Investment is an asset, but donations are just gone. Hence, you can put a lot more investments into specifically develping market funds than you can donations. 50% of disposable income into funds may well be both less painful and more effective than, say, 10% into donations.
I would say that a $5 loan towards a local super market has much more impact on local homelessness than a $1 direct handout, since that money is going to be spent in the local economy anyways.
It seems to me that poor people spend their money, rich people save them.
Technically, saving is investment, but it can be an investment on the opposite side of the planet, while spending is typically near. And the point is to make the money bubble from one poor person to another, not to end up somewhere in Silicon Valley after two or three jumps.
Also, from the point of “what if a dictator takes the money”, taxing the supermarkets is probably easier than taxing the poor.
Investment is an asset, but donations are just gone. Hence, you can put a lot more investments into specifically develping market funds than you can donations. 50% of disposable income into funds may well be both less painful and more effective than, say, 10% into donations.
I would say that a $5 loan towards a local super market has much more impact on local homelessness than a $1 direct handout, since that money is going to be spent in the local economy anyways.
It seems to me that poor people spend their money, rich people save them.
Technically, saving is investment, but it can be an investment on the opposite side of the planet, while spending is typically near. And the point is to make the money bubble from one poor person to another, not to end up somewhere in Silicon Valley after two or three jumps.
Also, from the point of “what if a dictator takes the money”, taxing the supermarkets is probably easier than taxing the poor.
That said, ¿Por qué no los dos?