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.
Have I ever once said for individual Christians not to help the poor? No. This discussion has been about countries and nations. The government shouldn’t be in the charity business. It should be in the business of creating an economy that enables people to work and better themselves and not be an unnecessary hindrance to growth.
 
Apparently it’s better to just let people wallow in poverty as long as we throw them a meal every now and then :man_shrugging:t2:
 
I thought you were a monarchist. Or am I confusing you with another poster?
There’s a very strong tradition of Christian princes, or at least their female consorts, giving alms to the poor, providing them with food on feast days, etc. How is that not a primitive form of government handouts?
I apologize if I was a bit harsh in regards to rejecting a key tenant of the Gospel.
 
I wouldn’t mind seeing a monarchy but right now we’re discussing the world as it is, not as it ought to be.
 
No, because there will always be widows, orphans, and disabled people. We can and should lift people out of poverty, but there will always be new ones as a result of illness and injury, which robs them of their capacity to work or their breadwinner. Insurance mitigates this risk, but there will always be things which overwhelm insurance.
 
KMC said:
40.png
twf:
It’s funny how ultra-conservatives find so many ways to explain away Matthew 25 and half the gospel. Christians directly GIVING to the poor, the tradition of almskeeping, is probably the command Christ emphasized more than anything else. And he made it pretty clear that eternal damnation awaits those who ignore this command.
Click to expand...
Judge much? Reading the hearts of “ultra-conservatives” and judging their souls is in your job description?

Can you show me which “ultra conservatives” here are trying to “explain away Matthew 25” and half the gospel? That’s a pretty strong accusation, so I’m sure you would not bear false witness and would back up your claim with facts.

Most of the posters that conservatives (like me) disagree with have no real understanding of business or economics. One poster told me they don’t have any need to learn about economic theory and implied it wasn’t important at all…that mindset is why some people are unnecessarily poor! (consider people poor people who buy things on a ‘rent to own’ basis and end up paying way more for a product because they don’t understand how interest rates work). Others I disagree with seem to ignore the impact of poor governmental leadership on the poor. (consider Zimbabwe or Venezuela as prime example).

The conservatives I know first look for ways to get people out of the cycle of poverty, by trying to create an environment for economic (job) growth. Realizing that the government is the most inefficient way to deliver help to those in need is also important.

Looking for sustainable ways to help the poor does not go against Mt 25. Trying to make charity dollars go farther does not go against Mt 25. Wanting to find ways to get people out of the cycle of poverty does not go against Mt 25. Being realistic about poor leadership and corruption and its impact on the poor does not go against Mt 25.
Click to expand...
To be fair, most of the conservative posters here have a faulty knowledge of economics as well.
 
And the Holodomor devastated Ukraine. Though Ukraine produced abundant food, the collectivization policy of the Soviet Union forced them to export more than they could afford, leaving them only half what they required to feed their population. Then, the Soviets forbade them under pain of death from gleaning the collective farms after the harvest had been collected and counted. And if the farmers starve, who shall grow next year’s crop?
 
Not really. Hilarious is mild and forum friendly. If he were being a stickler for accuracy in place of charity, he would have used a much harsher word.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
To be fair, most of the conservative posters here have a faulty knowledge of economics as well.
Click to expand...
I’ll be the first to admit I have much to learn…which is why I enjoy reading the charitable debates, which does help me refine my positions and understanding on certain topics. However, I would consider knowledge of economics on a scale from “minimal” on one side to “Quite a bit” on the other. There seems to be quite a few on the “minimal” side who post here…
 
kgmlg said:
Do you go in guns blazing to take out the corrupt? You would be just putting yourself in the same basket as these evil people.
Click to expand...
How so? I agreed with your post, more or less, up to this point. Do you not believe in the legitimate use of force in certain circumstances? This sounds a little too much like Trudeau’s If-we-kill-them-our-enemies-win.
 
KMC said:
40.png
stinkcat_14:
To be fair, most of the conservative posters here have a faulty knowledge of economics as well.
Click to expand...
I’ll be the first to admit I have much to learn…which is why I enjoy reading the charitable debates, which does help me refine my positions and understanding on certain topics. However, I would consider knowledge of economics on a scale from “minimal” on one side to “Quite a bit” on the other. There seems to be quite a few on the “minimal” side who post here…
Click to expand...
I agree that there are quite a few on the minimal side, probably an equal number of conservatives and liberals with a minimal knowledge of economics.
 
I’m waiting to see these examples too. I think that it’s been shown again and again that the effects of even complete confiscation of “high profits” would lead to an almost infinitesimal one-time gain for people on the bottom employment rung. Whereas the incentive to run a profitable and efficient business has the effect of providing substantial wage (in real terms) increases over time.
 
DENNYINMI said:
Health care should not be evaluated on it’s research alone or it’s ability to do good, nor should we deny the greatest vaccinations and preventative “miracles” were from migrants…hahah…But it should be evaluated by how many people actually have the ability to access it.
Click to expand...
Meh, I suppose. Even better would be metric by which we evaluate the overall health of a country, not just how well/how much we direct to dealing with unhealthy people. In a country with perfect health, the healthcare spending would be zero.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
We’re the leading nation for healthcare research and we spend more money on education than any other country
Click to expand...
You’re not implying that amount the US spends in itself is a positive factor are you? That would imply that the more inefficient it is, the better.
 
kgmlg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok, fair enough. But this ideal candidate willing to work for free won’t always be present. As long as the value a CEO provides is greater than whatever his compensation is, then I see nothing wrong with CEO of charities making relatively large salaries.

Also, just because someone is “enticed” by doing good, doesn’t necessarily mean that he is the most competent and qualified at doing so. It may be that someone else would be significantly better, or more motivated, even consider a compensation package which is much larger. Not saying that this is the case in your example, of course.
 
DENNYINMI said:
Instead of the wealth trickling down from the goblet to the rest of us…The glass at the top gets magically bigger.
Click to expand...
As would the stem and base of the whine glass to prevent the whole glass from becoming unstable. Haha, I like that analogy, although probably not for the reason it was intended.
 
Last edited:
Basically, Christ emphasized charity, which can take many forms. I don’t Christ was against using prudence to evaluate the secondary effects of our giving.
 
Hello KMC,

My post was what bordering on what you might call “trolling.” It’s a quote from Adam Smith. I posted it after the other gentleman called a very similar idea “hilarious” and seemed to enjoy suggesting others need to brush up on their economics. He (?) also posted a graphic allegedly illustrating world wide IQ distributions paired with worldwide income distributions. Had he taken even two minutes to investigate the claims he uncritically accepts he would have noticed that the iq graphic was not part of the sourced economic report and seems to come from a click baity website unconnected with any actual scholarship on IQ. That would have been pretty obvious to most people, since the graphic suggests people in several African countries have lower average IQs than people with major genetic intellectual disabilities. Despite all this, said poster and others, rather than being embarrassed by their own gullibility and failure to know that some allegedly “liberal” viewpoints have been taken seriously by “capitalists” since economics started as a discipline, continue to congratulate one another’s insightfulness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top