Comment by trompetenaccoun

This is not an argument, and you have provided no evidence for your claims.

There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them?

Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion.

[1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32779/w327...

[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01252-z

>you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash

Not directly, but it can solve some of the barriers people in challenging situations have.

e.g. someone has skills but can't pass interviews because they look like a hobo...there a bit of money for a haircut may help.

So I don't think we should drop the entire just because its not a comprehensive & complete solution

For anyone looking for the Mitchell and Webb reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE

Charities like GiveDirectly empirically disagree. At least in some situations, giving money directly seems to be effective. Poor people are poor, not stupid.