http://thecorrespondent.com/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39

Quote;

London, May 2009. A small experiment involving thirteen homeless men takes off. They are street veterans. Some of them have been sleeping on the cold tiles of The Square Mile, the financial center of Europe, for more than forty years. Their presence is far from cheap. Police, legal services, healthcare: the thirteen cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Every year.

That spring, a local charity takes a radical decision. The street veterans are to become the beneficiaries of an innovative social experiment. No more food stamps, food kitchen dinners or sporadic shelter stays for them. The men will get a drastic bailout, financed by taxpayers. They’ll each receive 3,000 pounds, cash, with no strings attached. The men are free to decide what to spend it on; counseling services are completely optional. No requirements, no hard questions. The only question they have to answer is:

What do you think is good for you?

A year after the experiment had started, eleven out of thirteen had a roof above their heads. They accepted accommodation, enrolled in education, learnt how to cook, got treatment for drug use, visited their families and made plans for the future. ‘I loved the cold weather,’ one of them remembers. ‘Now I hate it.’ After decades of authorities’ fruitless pushing, pulling, fines and persecution, eleven notorious vagrants finally moved off the streets.

Costs? 50,000 pounds a year, including the wages of the aid workers. In addition to giving eleven individuals another shot at life, the project had saved money by a factor of at least 7. Even The Economist concluded:

‘The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them.’

End quote

SteeleRedux, great story and I'm sure it happened the way it was described. What it doesn't say is the terms of reference or the schedule of assessment. We don't have any standards or parameters to gauge the results from or about. When I see these types of surveys, well any survey actually, I am reminded of a time when the surveys were tilted towards the desired results thereby ensuring the outcome of the result before hand. Now I'm not saying this is what went on here, but, to a skeptic, like myself, I must look at the data and the terms of reference to fully appreciate the findings or end result. Never-the-less, I was pleased to see the result.

SR,

To explode some of your false facts:

1 The kibbutz while socialist in nature was not the bedrock of modern Israel and at its peak employed about 80 000 people or less than 4% of the population.

2 The USA has roughly 3x the growth rate of any Scandinavian country and a lower unemployment rate.

3 The last country that was "democratic socialist" was Venusuala which was an unmitigated disaster, and all socialism in 3rd world countries was simply an excuse to loot.

4 An experiment with 13 hand-picked homeless men is not representative of even what will happen with homeless men generally. The most effective treatment so far is to quarantine drug addicts' welfare payments.

Steele, good result. I can say from my experience the majority of the poor are not poor because of bad money management. For example most aged pensioners with a very limited income, are very good at managing their finances. Most likely they have a pre-pension history of good money management. The people who have a problem, are the mentally ill, those on drugs and/or alcohol, those with a gambling problem, those with substantial debt. There is a poverty trap, where people live hand to mouth, week in, week out, and can't break out of the cycle. Maybe for some a boost from a cash handout is all they need. Interesting.

di Natale is proof that obscurity, mediocrity and sheer silliness is no barrier to being elected to the senate.

And I'll Trump (a bit of a pun there) your Di Natale with the fruit loop from the fish shop, the Lovely Pauline, and the ace in the hole, Corny Banana.