[AnthonyMouse]

> while the proponents of the second approach say that it's a false dichotomy, giving money to a poor family without access to healthcare or education is likely to increase the gap between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, etc. So the current cycle we're trying to break, will become more vicious

Which is a silly argument, because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them.

Indeed, it gives them less opportunity because it deoptimizes what they can use the money for. If you need education, there are merit-based scholarships. There are creative solutions like your father taking a job as a janitor at a university where the children of full-time staff pay no tuition. Or getting a two year degree at a community college which gets you a lower middle class job instead of minimum wage which gets you enough money to pay for a bachelor's degree over a few years in night school. And then you can take the government money as money, save it up and use it to start your own business.

But if the money has to be used for school, then you use it for school, any ingenious alternative method of paying for school is for naught, and you graduate still poor and have to take the first job offer you receive in the rat race because as soon as you get kicked out of the dorms you immediately need first and last month's rent plus the security deposit.

[atmosx]

> Which is a silly argument, because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them.

Nothing about BI is silly, BI could make or break our future. All assumptions should be double-tested and nothing should be taken lightly.

> [...] because anyone who needs those things and is given the equivalent money can use it to buy them.

Cancer treatment for example in Europe is mostly mostly free. In Cuba is totally free. In India can be cheap. In US is very expensive.

> Indeed, it gives them less opportunity because it deoptimizes what they can use the money for. If you need education, there are merit-based scholarships.

Scholarships are for the 1% of the population. I am not sure we should take them into account. Plus scholarships are based on scores. A kid growing up in a troubled family has much smaller chance of getting one compared to his peers.

> There are creative solutions like your father taking a job as a janitor at a university where the children of full-time staff pay no tuition.

I'm not sure we're on the same page here, what problem do you think that BI is trying to solve???

[AnthonyMouse]

> Cancer treatment for example in Europe is mostly mostly free. In Cuba is totally free. In India can be cheap. In US is very expensive.

Healthcare is a debate unto itself, but the short version is that all else equal a given amount in cash to buy health treatment/insurance should be no worse than the same cost in tax dollars worth of government health coverage, and better because it gives the individual the choice between how high of a deductible they want vs. how much of the premiums they get to keep in their pocket etc.

> Scholarships are for the 1% of the population. I am not sure we should take them into account. Plus scholarships are based on scores. A kid growing up in a troubled family has much smaller chance of getting one compared to his peers.

Every individual thing is for 1% of the population. The point is there are a hundred different things. One person gets a scholarship, another needs food money more than housing money because their aunt lives near the school, another has a brother in the same major and can share books etc.

> I'm not sure we're on the same page here, what problem do you think that BI is trying to solve???

Among other things, it's trying to solve the problem that the only way to get ahead with low resources is to make efficient use of what you have, but assistance that is required to be spent in bureaucratically-specified ways is a de facto prohibition on that.