Solutions to World-Wide Poverty?

[Go_Oilers_Go]

There is a vast difference between the rich in society and the poor in society. This same concept can also be applied to the world's countries. North America and Europe (primarily Western) are far richer than any other countries/continents. My proposition is to have a greater balance of wealth. For instance, let's say that the rich countries have a GNP of 9, while the poor countries only have a GNP of 2. These richer countries could donate far more money to these poorer countries. So let's say that after donations the rich countries have a GNP of 6, while the poor countries have a GNP of 5. Although this would somewhat compromise the standard of living in Western society, it would exponentially increase the standard of living in the Third World (assuming that the money is kept away from corrupt governments). I, personally, believe that this is a feasible prospect. However, the biggest impediment to this course of action is the generosity of Western society. We have become so used to living a life of luxury and excess that we might reluctantly give it up for a lifestyle that should still be more than adequate.

[foilman8805]

This is called communism. And it certainly is not a solution to world-wide poverty.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Originally Posted by foilman8805

This is called communism. And it certainly is not a solution to world-wide poverty.

I'm not saying "take away our rights/no private ownership". I'm just saying that if we were more generous with our funds we could help those out who really need it.

[foilman8805]

I don't know if you're trying to target the United States, but there is no country in the world that gives out more financial aid and donations (supplies, food, etc) than we do already.

This is not to say that I am against raising the standard of living world-wide. It does need to come up. It's a fact.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

I wasn't targeting the States in particular, this was aimed at all of the wealthy countries in the world. Those primarily being Canada, the US, and Western Europe. I'm just saying that I think that there's more we can be doing for these countries. The States should be very proud to say that they're the #1 country for foreign aid.

[dore]

Stop giving the impoverished people hand-outs and they'll either a) learn to become self-sufficient or b) starve and maybe stop reproducing. It's certainly not a humanitarian solution but it's a solution.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by foilman8805

This is called communism. And it certainly is not a solution to world-wide poverty.

I'm not saying "take away our rights/no private ownership".

That's not what communism is or how communism works. Just so you know.

As for your thread's topic, dore has the right of it. If we were any other speices, we'd be letting the sick, the poor and the very old just die off instead of wasting all kinds of resources trying to keep them alive to no real benefit to the species.

This silly idea that the laws of nature shouldn't apply to us anymore is the cause of most of the problems facing the world. Frankly we could stand to lose a billion or so people.

Statistically, the first thing people do who did not have sufficient resources to live, when they are given sufficient resources is reproduce, and make a new generation who now don't have sufficient resources and the problem doesn't actually ever get any better.

[ballaw hare]

Kill everything. No life no poverty.

[Quigly]

But I like life.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

You guys are essentially suggesting Social Darwinism? I personally don't believe in that because man's capacity for sympathy/empathy is contradictory to that. Sure, there will be jerks out there that say we can just let the poor die, but that's a pretty blunt point of view to say the least.

[dore]

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go

You guys are essentially suggesting Social Darwinism?

Pretty much, yes.

I personally don't believe in that because man's capacity for sympathy/empathy is contradictory to that. Sure, there will be jerks out there that say we can just let the poor die, but that's a pretty blunt point of view to say the least.

It may be blunt, but there is nothing wrong with bluntness. Does someone who has no means to acquire food for himself contribute anything to society? It's highly unlikely, because someone who contributes to society in some way most likely does so in some form of work, which gives him money, which gives him the means to feed himself. When we support people who have no means of supporting themselves, we are using resources to help those who can't give anything back to those who support them.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

But perhaps if we dedicated more to these poor people they could potentially start to reciprocate. I don't think we give them enough as it is for them to be self sufficient. I personally think that if we gave them more then we could eventually get more out of them.

[25thhour]

Just like Dore said I think that those countries should learn to become self-sufficient because if countries like to U.S and Canada are giving them money all the time they will be completely dependent on other people to fight their battles.

We could also teach them to become more self-sufficient by showing them how to grow crops, trade, etc. But that runs into another problem; The costs of doing that would be really high and they might forget all about what we have taught them.

[darkness1477]

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go

I wasn't targeting the States in particular, this was aimed at all of the wealthy countries in the world. Those primarily being Canada, the US, and Western Europe. I'm just saying that I think that there's more we can be doing for these countries. The States should be very proud to say that they're the #1 country for foreign aid.

what about japan? they have alot of money.

anyway the solution is easy. tell poor people 2 stop having babies. noi more babies less mouths 2 feed and more food 4 everyone

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

That's not what communism is or how communism works. Just so you know.

Yes it is. If you consider private ownership to be a right. Some people think it's the only true right.

As for your thread's topic, dore has the right of it. If we were any other speices, we'd be letting the sick, the poor and the very old just die off instead of wasting all kinds of resources trying to keep them alive to no real benefit to the species.

False. Altruism exists in many species. Part of the reason for this is because not all disabilities are genetic, so the imperative for reproduction in terms of overall population still exists, and is not exclusive to disabled, sick, or injured creatures.

This silly idea that the laws of nature shouldn't apply to us anymore is the cause of most of the problems facing the world. Frankly we could stand to lose a billion or so people.

There's effectively no such thing as overpopulation.

Statistically, the first thing people do who did not have sufficient resources to live, when they are given sufficient resources is reproduce, and make a new generation who now don't have sufficient resources and the problem doesn't actually ever get any better.

When we find people who don't have sufficient resources to live, it typically doesn't have anything to do with them. Human beings have been agrarian for a long time; not in terms relative to our overall ancestry, but long enough for us to know it works, anyways. Subsistence farming works fine. Yes, it encourages reproduction, because it's labor intensive. It's sustainable though, except when other problems kick into the equation. Most of these problems stem from economic intervention.

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go

You guys are essentially suggesting Social Darwinism? I personally don't believe in that because man's capacity for sympathy/empathy is contradictory to that.

This is very astute. In fact, many of the individuals traditionally labeled as "social darwinists" have this exact perspective. There's a really good article about it here: http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Myth.pdf

Originally Posted by dore

Does someone who has no means to acquire food for himself contribute anything to society? It's highly unlikely, because someone who contributes to society in some way most likely does so in some form of work, which gives him money, which gives him the means to feed himself. When we support people who have no means of supporting themselves, we are using resources to help those who can't give anything back to those who support them.

Not all reciprocation is material. People expend ridiculous amounts of material wealth and physical energy on their pets, just because they feel their pets love them in return. I happen to think that's stupid, but it's not illegitimate.



This topic is silly, everything in it would be resolved by a quick look at elementary economics. That, and the realization that Malthus is dead and buried.

Guys, read that thing I linked to. Read Malthus's essay on population. Read Free to Choose by Milton Friedman and Power and Market by Murray Rothbard, not so much because they pertain directly to this discussion but because they'll give you a clue. Then come back to me if you need anything clarified, or if you need additional information.

[aquaaa]

communism is definitely not the way to help ease the worldwide poverty, in fact it causes a harmful domination over the poor ( ie. government vs. individuals ).

it also bothers me when poverty is led from the human nature of being lazy and then people sulk about how poor they are. BLAH but then that's just strictly looking at the individual not as a whole.

[clarinet89]

Personally, I think that we should try to fix our problems here before we go fixing other countries' problems, especially with the way that our economy is going. I do agree that we should try to help other countries when we can, but now just doesn't seem to be the right time to do it.

Also, I'm not sure how giving out money would be beneficial to those who truely need it. How can we be sure that the money is going to the impoverished people, instead of the few wealthy people?

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go

There is a vast difference between the rich in society and the poor in society. This same concept can also be applied to the world's countries. North America and Europe (primarily Western) are far richer than any other countries/continents. My proposition is to have a greater balance of wealth. For instance, let's say that the rich countries have a GNP of 9, while the poor countries only have a GNP of 2. These richer countries could donate far more money to these poorer countries. So let's say that after donations the rich countries have a GNP of 6, while the poor countries have a GNP of 5. Although this would somewhat compromise the standard of living in Western society, it would exponentially increase the standard of living in the Third World (assuming that the money is kept away from corrupt governments). I, personally, believe that this is a feasible prospect. However, the biggest impediment to this course of action is the generosity of Western society. We have become so used to living a life of luxury and excess that we might reluctantly give it up for a lifestyle that should still be more than adequate.

This wouldn't work. It would take away the incentive for rich countries to make 9 GNP, and make the poor countries work less to make their 2 GNP, thus creating an overall less net GNP for everyone everywhere. If you feel guilty for being born into an affluent lifestyle than you should do something about it, but you shouldn't force it onto everyone.

Also, you should be happy to know that as the world globalizes trade that the unemployment rate world-wide goes down, economies become symbiotic to the interests of each other and the number of conflicts goes down, and things become cheaper. So humans are, in a way, solving their own problems by doing whats best for themselves, and quite rapidly at that.

The only major things a country needs to move forward are a stable government, a stable currency, and infrastructure. The rich countries really do try to help out the poorer countries with sustainable infrastructure projects, and regional unions try to help support stable government, but it's a slow game of progress in a lot of cases.

You don't want to give everyone in the world a fish for a day, you want to teach them to fish. Such that you don't want to just give them money to alleviate their problems, you want to give them a job, but we need to bring them to the point that they can get a job first, and that requires improvements in their government.

[Cavernio]

What clarinet said, and more. I know the topic of this conversation is specifcally about getting rid of 'world' poverty instead of individual poverty, or something weird like that, but real poverty really has little to do with throwing money at governments of countries, and 'fighting' it should be done at a much smaller level.
Furthermore, GNP and even poverty is not a measurement of happiness or fulfillment, which is IMO vastly more important than wealth.
If you want to get rid of poverty, you need to make it so that rich people can't control the market, which only happens when there's no-one rich, which happens when there's no one poor. But since people try to become rich, there will be poor, unless the distribution of wealth is controlled by, say, governments. Your suggestion basically says that this will happen, except you're trying to do it at a more 'macro' level than what would need to be done. If we make all countries equally rich, there will still be people inside those countries who are poor. Now, maybe you want that, but if you do, I have no idea why, and that certainly isn't the impression I get.

aquua: You can work your ass off at minimum wage, or work your ass off raising kids, or work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop and still be poor. That person is not lazy. In particular, some people don't really have much of a choice, especially in poorer countries, to find better work. Their poverty have little if nothing to do with the individual. As for people who are 'lazy', most don't work hard at things because there are problems that stop them, whether they are physical, emotional or mental. Some of these problems are fixable, and some aren't.

dore: What kilroy said. Money doesn't come close to measuring all value.

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

If you want to get rid of poverty, you need to make it so that rich people can't control the market, which only happens when there's no-one rich, which happens when there's no one poor. But since people try to become rich, there will be poor, unless the distribution of wealth is controlled by, say, governments. Your suggestion basically says that this will happen, except you're trying to do it at a more 'macro' level than what would need to be done. If we make all countries equally rich, there will still be people inside those countries who are poor. Now, maybe you want that, but if you do, I have no idea why, and that certainly isn't the impression I get.

Okay, I hate to bring in a pet subject here, but unfortunately this is based on a pet subject of mine, and something that is a central focus in my daily life, so here it goes.

1.) Rich people controlling the market does not create poverty. This is historically, and probably even empirically, wrong. Poverty can be created by inadequate management, an unstable social group or individual incapable of supporting a successful social structure, lack of ability to create something worth value to others, and prohibitive barriers to entry into a market. All of these things are theoretically solvable. Group solutions targeted at areas dense in poverty are more productive than solutions targeted at specific individuals who are in poverty.

2.) Having the government redistribute wealth does not solve poverty, it satiates it. In wealth distribution schemes it has been traditionally shown that the greater wealth redistribution is, the higher the poverty line goes, while also taking away incentives to move up the economic food chain. If someone is rich it is because what they do brings an immense amount of value to others, otherwise they wouldn't be rich. It is true that some people get rich by cheating others, but this is the special case, not the standard.

3.) Charity does not solve poverty unless it is targeted succinctly at causes rather than symptoms. A symptom of poverty is hunger. By giving people food you target a symptom rather than a cause. Causes of poverty are lack of jobs, lack of growth, and low upward mobility. Solving these issues requires improved infrastructure, improved education, and a socioeconomic structure which aims to operate best when the group it is designed for acts in their best interests. But we cannot solve issues of poverty where we implement solutions like these and the people under these solutions do not utilize them. The biggest problem in eliminating poverty in the world is usually infrastructure, and a close second is education. In cases where there is little infrastructure and little education it is impossible to move forward without them. These are not resource-limited areas, but they are severely impeded by a culture which rejects them in one way or another.

4.) Communism doesn't work, and socialism isn't about solving poverty. Socialism is about boosting up the middle class. If it was about solving poverty then it would reduce international trade barriers, because this is the biggest roadblock in eliminating poverty. But it doesn't. Do not confuse the so-called "goals" of socialism with the actual results of socialism. Socialism favors trade barriers as an effective solution to boost up the current middle class in the short-term while sapping the long-term prospects for an industry. Part of the problems of these barriers are that they make goods more expensive, and they lower the net purchasing power parity for the overall country. To help combat this issue, socialism redistributes wealth in order to help keep the amount of purchasing power the average middle and lower class family has the same. Socialism also favors lots of government programs that take away the need for private sector solutions. The idea is that if something is free for everyone through the government we all benefit, but in Europe it is more often than not true that a particular program is targeted towards a small group of individuals rather than targeted at everyone, and the solution they have for everyone that non-socialist countries don't have (health-care) are usually not as good as those non-socialist countries. The goal here is what is called by socialists the idea of "people over profits," but what it does is lowers efficiency and keeps productivity more stagnant, thus lowering growth. Growth is the solution to poverty, make no doubt about it, but this isn't about solving poverty.