Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are people who are in serious financial positions then meant to give and if yes,who to -the Catholic Church or to Charities?
Isn’t this in a way imprudent because if those people can’t even help their own situations how are they meant to help others?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
They do already grow the peanuts … not that they COULD grow the peanuts … they already do.

I never used the word “ignorant”.

Nothing to do with poverty.

I said “cultural refusal”.

[I need to dig out my 40-year old report to reread what I wrote about their export crops.]

I mentioned this issue to my family and they all remembered from 40 years ago, that people were actually starving to death … IN THE MIDST of fields full of peanut plants. The people refused to eat the stuff and when I advocated for it, they reacted as though I was trying to poison them.

The local bureaucracy harvested the peanuts and pressed them for the oil which they exported.

Eventually the bureaucracy shut down and many years later commercial growers resumed growing and producing … but not until recently did the French begin advocating for “peanut butter” [paste] for use as a food. It has taken a MAJOR campaign by the French to get the local people to eat peanut butter.

[I remember AMAZING mango orchards. And how French restaurants served peanut-based meals, but the local people would not eat the stuff.]
 
Last edited:
Patents can prevent someone else from restricting sales.

In other words, if you own a patent you have the right to give the product away and to allow others to give the product away.
 
In which way does cultural refusal differ from ignorance?
Ie:they believe that peanuts are unhealthy?
 
Last edited:
If there is an accepted body of knowledge and you refuse to accept it, then that is ignorance.

In this case the body of knowledge in Africa does not exist, thus cultural refusal.

[There are places where rice bugs are a delicacy. To me they look like giant cockroaches.]


click here google youtube rice bugs


click here google youtube eating bugs

[One day I felt something land on me. I twisted around and it was a foot-long grasshopper.]


click here google youtube grasshopper https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeUUVJv4joU

Here is an interesting food hunt:

click here google youtube hunt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBVbDKQeX1s&t=9s
 
Last edited:
Rozellelily said:
I’m definitely not suggesting that people should donate to Australia/s (!),I was just using that as an example that if people can sometimes find the cost of living unmanageable even in the “first world”,to imagine then the realities of people in third world countries.
Click to expand...
You seem to be waffling on your ‘suggestion’ since down below you do indicate wealthy countries should subsidize slightly less wealthy countries that are capable but remiss in their responsibilities.
The Plumpy Nut product is distributed in countries like Kenya and Uganda.Would you not consider those countries relatively unstable?
Click to expand...
I’m not commenting on a specific product, a poor man’s power bar.
Even in countries that are stable such as India or Bulgaria there can be lack of jobs due to corruption,Government money mismanagement,and lack of industry creation.
The only thing the poor citizens can really do is protest and try to change the government,but until then they are stuck in poverty.
Click to expand...
If the crux of the problem is poor governance, then their ‘better’ neighbors should focus on improving their governance, not fulfilling their basic responsibilities. This is what the Church teaches with Subsidiarity, and for good reason. Trying to supplant local governance except in times of crisis will only fail.
Charity is good on an individual level but it doesn’t solve the problem on a wide scale level,so isn’t it better if wealthier countries tried to create industry and infrastructure in those poorer countries to provide jobs for them?

To me it seems like a win win solution because jobs are created and also the wealthier country benefits from the sales.
Click to expand...
You are asking that we run their economies for them?
The colonial era ended quite some time ago, I seriously doubt locals will accept it again, even if the dictator is benevolent
For example China is investing in the Pacific and African countries.
Clearly this is self serving motivation,but regardless,doesn’t it boost those poorer countries economies too?
Click to expand...
China is INVESTING in infrastructure projects that make sense, the west has been doing this for ages. China is a new entrant who builds plants and infrastructure for less, nothing special about it. China is not replacing their governance, or feeding the poor.
 
I can’t click on those-I hate bugs and reptiles😬.
Maybe there could be education programs put into place to educate them about peanuts?
 
Does that mean that other manufacturing companies could give the product away to poor countries or would they still be prevented from doing so or have to go through costly court process?
 
Theo520 said:
You seem to be waffling on your ‘suggestion’ since down below you do indicate wealthy countries should subsidize slightly less wealthy countries that are capable but remiss in their responsibilities.
Click to expand...
I’m not referring to slightly less wealthy countries but poor countries.
By definition of poor I don’t necessarily mean starving to death but living without job opportunities such as in India.

“Theo520 said:
You are asking that we run their economies for them?
Click to expand...
Not so much for them,but in partnership with their government.

China is not directly feeding the poor and while it’s not their intended motive,isn’t that the outcome anyway (through jobs so that people can afford better quality food)?

For example,I have seen on the news that the US has a lot of issues with Mexican illegal immigrants who are fleeing to America due to economic hardship and seeking employment as job prospects are poor in Mexico.
Wouldn’t it be a good solution for US government to give Us businesses money to set up manufacturing bases in Mexico and employ the Mexican workers there and that way it would reduce the influx of illegal immigrant?
Of course,that’s just one part of the puzzle as corruption (and violence) in Mexico itself also needs to be addressed at the same time.
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Because there’s too many people in this world who would rather be equally destitute than unequally wealthy. Very sad.
 
Yup. They’d rather be equal in slavery than unequal in a state of liberty as well. The green eyed monster rules many in this world.
 
Rozellelily said:
Not so much for them,but in partnership with their government.

China is not directly feeding the poor and while it’s not their intended motive,isn’t that the outcome anyway (through jobs so that people can afford better quality food)?

For example,I have seen on the news that the US has a lot of issues with Mexican illegal immigrants who are fleeing to America due to economic hardship and seeking employment as job prospects are poor in Mexico.
Wouldn’t it be a good solution for US government to give Us businesses money to set up manufacturing bases in Mexico and employ the Mexican workers there and that way it would reduce the influx of illegal immigrant?
Of course,that’s just one part of the puzzle as corruption (and violence) in Mexico itself also needs to be addressed at the same time.
Click to expand...
You are asking for use to be benign dictators, to be in charge but with a local agreeable face that does what we want.

It doesn’t work, and nobody agrees on what is benign.

We are also challenged with employing many of our own citizens, people who should be our priority over other countries.
 
Last edited:
I did a little search on the Fahour story. Apparently, under his watch, the profit of the company jumped from $16M to $131M within a couple years. Now, I’m not a businessman, but I suspect that a 700%+ profit growth over two years is fairly exceptional. I think the onus of proof is on the argument that he didn’t deserve his $4.8M salary and $1.2M bonus.

 
Last edited:
Canvas said:
There is really no point in arguing, because we are looking at it through two different lenses. You are an employer, and you look at business that way, from the top down. I am an employee, and I see what happens from the bottom up.
Click to expand...
Good old fashioned and lazy relativism that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top