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.
I think Francis is a great leader and the Catholic views on charity are laudable. Truly.

But the wants are infinite and the means are finite. And then we have to make sure we’re not throwing pearls before swine when we give our cash.

Any “answer” that fails to consider those facts is purely “religious” in a condescending way. It’s non-real.
 
sewnolivette said:
A Chinese proverb came to mind after reading that: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Click to expand...
Chinese proverbs and advise from a former KGB guy might be good enough for some, but I’ll settle for the Gospels, thank you very much.
 
India has been in the midst of a large tech boom and if the VISA lottery is done away with, more people who would normally come to America to work in silicone valley will stay put, bringing more wealth. Also, there are no stats on what percentage of those people in impoverished nations are actually doing okay – they are eating enough to be nourished, have access to clean water, adequate shelter and are working or provided for by family vs assessing whether they are living by American standards. Or maybe they are subsitance farmers and they trade with neighbors and they are adequately cared for.

India is run by a caste system and it was explained by people are more limited by that system than they are because there are no jobs or wealth. I forget all the details of the story - whether it was a business owner or a benefector who put someone of a low caste through school and helped them get a tech job by using a last name of a “higher” caste. They received excellent work reviews, all though some people were shocked/unhappy that this was done.

In other words, there are other countries that have situations where throwing money at people will not help change anything. India’s deeply rooted caste system that acts as a glass ceiling, despots in Africa holding back relief supplies or food sent from other nations to their people, etc. And throwing money at poorly managed companies that do not allow entrepreneurship for example, doesn’t help anyone.
 
You can pretty much ignore that poster. They don’t say anything of any substance, just useless platitudes.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
When you compare these two maps, the first being a measure of wealth and the second being average IQ, it’s hard not to see a correlation between the 2. People with better reasoning skills make better economic choices.
Click to expand...
Correlation doesn’t mean causation but even when correlation indicates causation, one has to figure out the direction of causation.
IQ is also influenced by nutrition and education opportunities. If a person’s country is affected by war, corruption and foreign exploitation, then that person’s negative environment will not allow that person to be able to maximize his or hers intellectual capabilities. And so on. It can become a vicious cycle.
 
Last edited:
That was part of what I was getting at, I agree with you entirely.
 
In Europe, for example, there is an EU project.
I think that EU unified the people of different countries through the provision of opportunities for enrichment.
 
Rozellelily said:
I came across this article that states that many Indians are competing for very limited jobs and due to this situation they are " resorting" to working for scamming companies.
Click to expand...
That is a poor decision.
Rozellelily said:
automation will decrease jobs even further,
Click to expand...
Usually works the other way around. Automation requires more highly trained workforce and reduces the cost of goods sold so that demand increases.
Rozellelily said:
do wealthy countries bear some responsibility for not investing enough in infrastructure and industry/job creation in third world countries
Click to expand...
Certainly wealthy people have an obligation to help the poor. I think when countries try to do charity it gets convoluted. You were saying jobs were leaving your country for a poorer country. Well I guess the company is helping them.
Rozellelily said:
There’s often too big a gap between the pay of CEOs/executives vs the “labourers” of that company.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is true but often it is not. If a CEO can grow the company insuring the jobs of the workers and benefiting who put up the money to create those jobs, pay the guy as much as it takes so he does not look for another Job.
 
Last edited:
@Rozellelily , you ask whether wealthy countries are in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

The social teaching of the Church would indicate that they should .

The Fathers at the Second Council of the Vatican taught ; " God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner. Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others. On the other hand, the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods. If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others. Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,” and really to share and employ their earthly goods, according to the ability of each, especially by supporting individuals or peoples with the aid by which they may be able to help and develop themselves…"
 
The holy father spoke of first world waste. For instance to order a meal in a restaurant and leave food on the plate. Which I just did the other day. My not overcoming food for waste could contribute to another’s inability to have enough food.

There is no sin in having much. The sin is wasting away what others could have had. The Bible suggest the first 10% to give to God which can mean church, poor, etc… if people did that what a world!
 
Rob2 said:
@Rozellelily , you ask whether wealthy countries are in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

The social teaching of the Church would indicate that they should .

The Fathers at the Second Council of the Vatican taught ; " God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner. Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others. On the other hand, the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods. If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others. Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,” and really to share and employ their earthly goods, according to the ability of each, especially by supporting individuals or peoples with the aid by which they may be able to help and develop themselves…"
Click to expand...
So what if the only way to lift a poor country out of poverty requires forcibly removing their current leaders from power?
 
If you are addressing my post, Pope Francis isn’t regurgitating laudable charitable niceties, he’s addressing Catholic Social teaching that is older than the both of us. It addresses the rights and duties of capitol and labor…The point being the Catholic church saw the problems over a century ago and it remains viable in practice to this day.
 
Which means if you are not a Trump sheep, it will make no sense to you.
 
Is it a kindness to cripple a man?

What if I told you that giving to someone something he has not earned is actually crippling him? Why? Because more often than not the person who is continually given things without being taught how to get those things for themselves becomes completely reliant on the gift.

I’m with other who say things like trade is a better aid. They provide something of worth and we repay with something of value.

I also believe things like helping farming communities in poor regions so that they do the work and reap the rewards … is good.

I don’t think it’s ever good to cripple someone by teaching them to hold their hand out instead of putting their hand to use.

That said, I sometimes think each country should take care of itself before worrying about looking outside to others. But for me it’s hard to see things on a worldwide scale. I like simplefying and bringing things back down to the individual people. I should take care of my neighbor and my community by helping widows, helping the sick but also by encouraging the able-bodied to do for themselves wherever possible.

I dunno. Gonna settle in to read everyone else’s responses now. Who knows, maybe I’ll change my mind before I’m done. Haha.
 
“But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized.

That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”

Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
And there is no one in this country who can’t go to a hospital when they need too. They just might not be able to afford it, and there will always be people who can’t afford something others can. That’s life.
Click to expand...
And if someone can’t afford care, they might die. So, if you saw someone drowning, would you say, “Not everyone can swim, that’s life” or would you try to save them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top