I am not against taxation as a means of income redistribution in principal. My comment below is about how to balance large-scale central intervention vs more localized efforts.
Comment:
Isn't another interpretation of the result that "Giving to One Partner" means some elements of charity should be organized by local communities for causes they regard as worthy. The "Giving to One Partner" result is very similar to the "Vote Redistribution" result and would suggest that the former is as effective a method as the latter and critically would eliminate wasteful governmental costs (but would clearly incur duplication of costs across many small communities). However, it has the added benefit of people seeing the results of their charity at a local level and maybe, over time, would outperform Vote Redistribution - or perhaps not.....
Too often I think governments try to solve micro problems with a macro solution - but that's just a feeling - it's not data.
Is there any data to support the notion that local community initiatives are as efficient or more efficient (cost, result, and satisfaction levels) than large government at solving some local problems, possibly because people can see the effects of their charity?
Ultimately we need both governments and communities, but what is the optimal balance between the two, and what are the implications for (a) devolution and (b) globalization vs localization?
Is it your view that giving money to the poor alleviates poverty so that the true measure of success is how much money gets redistributed? I don’t think the facts are on your side except in the very short term.
My point is more general. I know that giving to the poor does not alleviate poverty in the long run. My point is more that redistribution of income is more acceptable to most people and more effective (not necessarily more efficient) than leaving it up to the individual to find it in the heart to give voluntarily for different causes.
Preface to my comment:
I am not against taxation as a means of income redistribution in principal. My comment below is about how to balance large-scale central intervention vs more localized efforts.
Comment:
Isn't another interpretation of the result that "Giving to One Partner" means some elements of charity should be organized by local communities for causes they regard as worthy. The "Giving to One Partner" result is very similar to the "Vote Redistribution" result and would suggest that the former is as effective a method as the latter and critically would eliminate wasteful governmental costs (but would clearly incur duplication of costs across many small communities). However, it has the added benefit of people seeing the results of their charity at a local level and maybe, over time, would outperform Vote Redistribution - or perhaps not.....
Too often I think governments try to solve micro problems with a macro solution - but that's just a feeling - it's not data.
Is there any data to support the notion that local community initiatives are as efficient or more efficient (cost, result, and satisfaction levels) than large government at solving some local problems, possibly because people can see the effects of their charity?
Ultimately we need both governments and communities, but what is the optimal balance between the two, and what are the implications for (a) devolution and (b) globalization vs localization?
Is it your view that giving money to the poor alleviates poverty so that the true measure of success is how much money gets redistributed? I don’t think the facts are on your side except in the very short term.
My point is more general. I know that giving to the poor does not alleviate poverty in the long run. My point is more that redistribution of income is more acceptable to most people and more effective (not necessarily more efficient) than leaving it up to the individual to find it in the heart to give voluntarily for different causes.