So once we realize that we can’t permanently eliminate poverty, of whatever type, what then? Abandon all hope? Certainly not. Rather than fatalism, I meant to encourage vigilance.

Since no particular scheme is free of flaws, we need to simply make up our minds to assist those who will inevitably need help. It’s like justice. A just society is not somehow automatically free of injustice, but rather continually seeks to remedy the injustices that arise.

Sometimes this does mean tweaking the system. Micro-enterprise loans, for example, can help to reform unjust economic systems, so powerfully that they may have a permanent impact that makes everyone’s life better, removing the systematic injustice of predatory loan practices.

I think the essential difference between hatching hopeless schemes and compassionate problem solving (besides the political spin of the terminology) is the intent. Is it an attempt to eliminate the poor so that we don’t have to think or care about them any more, obsessing on their mere presence as the fly in our otherwise perfect ointment? Or does a given plan merely represent the best we can do “this time”?