I imagine that getting better food options to millions of people and enabling tens of thousands to start businesses does impact the poorer half of mankind positively.
We've seen for decades that the typical Western approach of throwing money at the elites of a poor country really doesn't help improve life for the impoverished; it's when we create opportunities for them that their lives become measurably better.
Contra the racists, there's no inherent reason for an African, Indian or Chinese peasant to be worse off than a German. They're not genetically inferior: they just had the bad luck to be born in a developing country. But if we can give those countries the same uptick in prosperity that Europe had from about 1812 to 1914, then approximately a billion people will be raised from poverty to something approximating a decent standard of living.
>"I imagine that getting better food options to millions of people and enabling tens of thousands to start businesses does impact the poorer half of mankind positively."
Better food options? Is there a better food option than something locally grown with sustainable agriculture?
How exactly does VC-funded motorcycle and car taxis burning fossil fuels "impact poorer half of mankind positively"?
>"We've seen for decades that the typical Western approach of throwing money at the elites of a poor country really doesn't help improve life for the impoverished;"
Which has given rise to alternatives in the form of NGOs, PVOs and micro-finance initiatives. Do you really believe that some VC firms on Sand Hill Road is going to help lift the world out of poverty?
It will be extremely difficult to replicate European prosperity without replicating the colonial system that made it possible and is largely responsible for the state of the developing world today.
If true, just as well. Given we're already so far beyond the living planet's carrying capacity (nearly every ecosystem is already in rapid decline) replicating European 'prosperity' (actually future-theft) would be cataclysmic. Extend-and-pretend 'economics' (ie. 18thC superstition) just pushes all the decisions out to a future that never arrives.
Yes you can, by pricing according to their needs and not according to your costs.
It's easy to forget that poor people are still people -- they have base needs like the rest of us: they need food, drink, clothes and of course shelter regardless of their financial situation. Some are currently able to meet those basic needs by holding multiple jobs, taking out loans or putting up with someone else (relative, friend) that is economically well-off. Regardless of how they do it, these basic needs translate into economic activities for whoever is able to fulfil them at a price they can afford.
Of course to break even, your business model needs to factor in the fact that it will take longer than the average to see any return on invested capital.
https://gems.org/ might disagree with that statement. It's a project that I have high hopes for. And they even make a good argument why they have decided to go the blockchain route, while others in the space have by and large failed to make their case.
We've seen for decades that the typical Western approach of throwing money at the elites of a poor country really doesn't help improve life for the impoverished; it's when we create opportunities for them that their lives become measurably better.
Contra the racists, there's no inherent reason for an African, Indian or Chinese peasant to be worse off than a German. They're not genetically inferior: they just had the bad luck to be born in a developing country. But if we can give those countries the same uptick in prosperity that Europe had from about 1812 to 1914, then approximately a billion people will be raised from poverty to something approximating a decent standard of living.
That'd be amazingly impactful.