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.
Any country, rich or poor, is first and foremost responsible for the well-being of its own people.
 
Every system has poor people and rich people. In socialism eventually everyone is poor. And then what? No social mobility. No hope. Continued uniformity which then lead to one religion or none.
 
The developing world is dehumanized when the developed world goes in to saving them. The developing world just doesn’t want another nation to sweep in, strip the nation of its national resources and then change its lifestyle and then maybe leave them to self govern again.
 
To whom much is given, much is expected. Do you want to be responsible as to whether hundreds of families can afford healthcare, send their kids to colleges care for their aging parents, retire, feed themselves, afford the homes in the area your business is in where they are expected to work?
 
Depends, is it water I can safely swim in? I’m not much of a swimmer so good chance of me trying to rescue that person personally would probably result in both of us drowning. I have a child on the way to consider, so no, I don’t think I’d jump in myself. I’d call for help and try to get some kind of flotation device for them to hold on to until help arrived.
 
Yes but foreign can be a relatively modest contribution which can be a substantial impact? For example, to put up a hypothetical (as a possibility), 1% of GNI may be a lot of money but in the grand scheme of things it is relatively small amount but does so much.

If you look at it, foreign aid (which may have its issues) is very cost effective in saving lives. If we gave USAID half as much priority as the DOD then think of the monumental impact we can make.

I understand spending hundreds of billions may be out of the question but surely we can play a part?

P.S: Pardon for the virtue signaling, I understand we have a deficit to deal with but hopefully, something can be worked out.
 
Last edited:
If you don’t mind me asking, would you consider publicly funded safety nets to be socialism?
 
My brother does a lot business in China and he says the horror stories of people working in slave like conditions have been overblown.

There is a rising middle class in China which is good I think. Also a lot of the best and brightest who left to study abroad are coming back and starting their own businesses and generating employment.

I think the days where China is a sweatshop for the world may be ending.

Also the rising health threat in Asia, is not malnutrition but over nutrition aka obesity. Both India and China have reported rising rates in obesity along with its attendant health problems.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

Subsidiarity is also a Catholic principle.
 
Last edited:
If we want to decrease military spending we should step down from the role of world policeman.
 
I like the idea of subsidiarity, from what I understand, it has a caveat in that higher level authorities or spheres have responsibilities to help those who lack the capacity to support themselves.
 
Kris34 said:
Every system has poor people and rich people. In socialism eventually everyone is poor. And then what? No social mobility. No hope. Continued uniformity which then lead to one religion or none.
Click to expand...
I like to defend “socialism” whenever I can because most objections to it are ideological rather than rational.

If you’re an American, your society is steeped in “socialism” whether you know it or not.

But as far as poverty in socialized countries, the USSR had a faster growing economy than the US for most of the 1950s. It took a global recession and deliberate collusion by Americans and Iranians to make it “fail on it’s own”. *insert epic eye-roll

As far as sustainability, more socialized countries experience less population growth and less consumption. For long term human sustainability, they’re unambiguously superior since the resources of this planet are finite and they chew through them much slower.

My old boss was from Romania and remembered the Communist days. People didn’t get what-they-want-when-they-wanted-it, but there were no homeless either. Maybe it was different in other places.

She also recalls the trains being on time and well kept - unlike the graffiti covered and often unreliable trains in Bucharest today.
I’m sure you have some horror story about how bad socialism was for some people. I have plenty of horror stories about how bad capitalism is for people today.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Wrong 😂😂😂 like hilariously wrong.
Click to expand...
Hello Poster “JanSobkeskilll.” I think you may be overlooking the phenomena where those at the top complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profis. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effcts of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
 
Kris34 said:
No we are not required to build the infrastruction in other countries. What rich countries had done in the past is invade and occupy and exploit countries.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t that though because their motives were not pure and were self serving?
Do wealthier countries have a responsibility to help the poorer ones with a pure motive and without exploitation or trying to “own” the country?

Regarding low wages,what about in the instances though where there is not enough work to go around due to lack of infrastructure and lack of successful businesses?
This is what the article from India seems to be suggesting-that for every job there,there are hundreds competing for it.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know about having to “entice” somebody to help, if you have to do that, he may not be the best candidate for a good NGO. For your local everyday business, ok, but an NGO?

I say this because I am a permanent volunteer in one of the bigger NGOs, and our very top dog, the head honcho, is also a volunteer. His “enticement” was to do good….and there he is, running the show for free.

Edit: I just remembered that I also help out monetarily a very small NGO that works in Africa, handled by a woman. Yep, you got it, she also does it for free. (and to make matters worse, this woman does not even believe in God - yes, shocked the socks out of me - she believes in the “goodness of people”). Don’t share her beliefs, but there she is, doing good for free.
 
Last edited:
I’ll bet that while your work is good and appreciated, it’s nowhere near the scale of what the Red Cross, or St. Jude does, and their CEO’s are compensated accordingly with their work.

Priests don’t work free, why should a CEO?
 
Sorry….but I AM talking about the Red Cross. Our bosses here are all volunteers.
 
The title of the thread is “Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?”

It is slighlty off topic , but I would say that the Church is most definitely responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty .

Some words from the Early Church Fathers - - - - - - - - -

You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.
Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.

The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry man; the coat hanging in your closet belongs to the man who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the man who has no shoes; the money which you put into the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help but fail to help.
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D

Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs.

The rich are in possession of the goods of the poor, even if they have acquired them honestly or inherited them legally.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD

How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping?
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top