Extreme poverty needs to be eradicated from the face of the planet!

[Jozefo]

Is

Woe to those who enact unjust statutes
and who write oppressive decrees,
Depriving the needy of judgment
and robbing my people’s poor of their rights,
Making widows their plunder,
and orphans their prey!
What will you do on the day of punishment,
when ruin comes from afar?
To whom will you flee for help?
Where will you leave your wealth,
Lest it sink beneath the captive
or fall beneath the slain?
For all this, his wrath is not turned back,
his hand is still outstretched!

Peace

Thank you for posting this. The message still rings true all these thousands of years later.

 

[St_Francis]

Are you advocating the possibility of starvation as an incentive to get people back to work?

I used the word starvation as a metaphor, most people with an I-Won’t attitude decide to change their ways long before getting to *actual *starvation.

And as there aren’t enough jobs for everyone, would you simply view the difference between the number of jobs available and the number of unemployed people as an unfortunate, but necessary, ‘natural wastage’, as this surplus population starves to death?

Notice that I was referring to those who refuse to work. They are different from those who cannot find work, even those who are discouraged from looking because of the lack of jobs. So my comments had as their subject “people who *refuse *to work.”

 

[Brendan_64]

I used the word starvation as a metaphor, most people with an I-Won’t attitude decide to change their ways long before getting to *actual *starvation.

Notice that I was referring to those who refuse to work. They are different from those who cannot find work, even those who are discouraged from looking because of the lack of jobs. So my comments had as their subject “people who *refuse *to work.”

So how do you then deal with the surplus of people for whom there are no jobs. How can someone refuse something that is not available to them?

Your whole position seems to be under-pinned by a notion that if people really want to work then they will find a job. How can you find something if it sin’t there?

And as there are more people than there are jobs available, there will always be unemployed people. Do we support these people or do we make them suffer even more hardship in an effort to incentivise them to find something that, for most of them, doesn’t exist?

If we lived in an economic situation where there were actually jobs for all, then your position might have some merit. But, sadly, we do not live in such times.

 

[St_Francis]

And yet extreme poverty flourishes worldwide! Where’s the lack of incentive to work when there simply are no jobs?

There is a difference between those who refuse to work, those who can’t work, and those who simply cannot find work. I was referring to the first group. That would be why I referred to “those who refuse to work,” as opposed to the poor or unemployed or on welfare, because I was talking about the small subset of “people who refuse to work.”

What I’m talking about in my original post is getting most people off welfare, where their work efforts becomes a boon for society.

What you were talking about in your first post appeared to the rest of us sounded like getting people jobs and subsidizing tthe rest. That’s pretty much what we have in the US right now.

Perhaps we need to create new, decent-paying jobs? This is where government incentives should be going. There’s no reason whatsoever why decent-paying jobs should not flourish for those in poverty-stricken areas.

Are you talking abou the world now or just the US? Because “we” can’t just go around creating jobs all over the world out of thin air, you know.

How do jobs get created? What can “we” do to create jobs in the US? What has caused the dearth of jobs and new hires so that our unemployment rates are so high?

Again, what I’m talking about in my original post is getting most people off welfare, where their work efforts becomes a boon for society.

Except for the most radical of anarchist-libertarians and the like, I think we can all agree that assuring lots of jobs for people and helping those who can’t work or find jobs is a laudable ideal situation. But 1. you were talking about solving a world-wide problem, using totally inadequate means, many of which involved a lot of government intervention as the foundation; and 2. offering no real-life practical ways of achieving this dream.

Still again, what I’m talking about in my original post is getting most people off welfare, where their work efforts becomes a boon for society.

Again, this is a dream, a fantasy, not by any means a goal.

So, what’s your plan for dealing with extreme poverty worldwide? Do you have a plan, or are you saying that we should simply look the other way and let innocent people suffer and literally rot away?

I mentioned my plan on the first page of this thread.

What would be much better would be if all the world became Catholic! God set up a perfect system for us already If everyone were Catholic, those in need would be cared for without the need for government intervention. Instead voluntary institutions would be set up, neighbors would help their neighbors, goods would flow from one to another in the most appropriate ways!

So I think the best way to accomplish what you suggest is for each Catholic to pray a lot, including for conversions and for the good of the world, and for each Catholic to do their best in the area of evangelization, while relying on prayer.

I think this would work more quickly, and set up a better system in the end.

It is true that we see the majority of the world is not Catholic, but consider this: Catholics are about 1 in 6 people. Think about that! If each Catholic prayed, fasted, and sacrificed for the conversion of a mere 5 people, the whole world would be converted!

 

[dshix]

Sorry all for being so behind on posts.

We never repay debt. That is against public policy. Rather we discharge liabilities. So when someone’s liabilities are discharged, the debt is retired. The credit no longer exists. It’s gone. It goes to a purgatory, waiting for the day when all the debts can be settled. Until then, for the money system to work, it requires new debtors.

Oh! I know exactly what you are saying. Sorry, I was just slightly puzzled by how you said it in post 138.

Nonetheless, when a debt is repaid, that paper money STILL REMAINS in the money flow. If I pay a housing agency a $1 million debt for my house, that money didn’t disappear; the housing company owns it, and they are free to spend it as they see fit. Each dollar *represents *a certain amount of real-world value (often measured in gold or silver) but is not that value itself.

Money in the economy remains in the economy, unless the government intentionally starts incinerating it to decrease the flow.

What our government is doing now, that is, printing more and more money (to the tune of hundreds of billions a year) will not help it, but bloat it, because it is simply diluting the value of the paper money already existent.

 

[St_Francis]

So how do you then deal with the surplus of people for whom there are no jobs. How can someone refuse something that is not available to them?

Your whole position seems to be under-pinned by a notion that if people really want to work then they will find a job. How can you find something if it sin’t there?

And as there are more people than there are jobs available, there will always be unemployed people. Do we support these people or do we make them suffer even more hardship in an effort to incentivise them to find something that, for most of them, doesn’t exist?

If we lived in an economic situation where there were actually jobs for all, then your position might have some merit. But, sadly, we do not live in such times.

I was addressing the issue of those who refuse to work, not those who have no work. Hopefully my other responses on this will clarify your other responses and questions

 

[Brendan_64]

I was addressing the issue of those who refuse to work, not those who have no work. Hopefully my other responses on this will clarify your other responses and questions

And how do you define someone who refuses to work? Someone who is in work and refuses to do his job? Or someone who is out of work and has been offered a job, but refuses to take it? Do you know of people who that has happened to?

Or do you mean someone who you assume, by making a judgement on their life-style, is guilty of refusing to work?

It is a myth that there are loads of people like that, deliberately sponging off the state. Even if there were, it would make no difference to the public purse anyway, because all jobs will be filled by someone who is unemployed so you will still have the same numbers of unemployed regardless of which of the unemployed filled those positions.

It’s a myth peddled by politicians who wish to give working taxpayers, who are suffering economically, someone to kick and blame as it takes some of the heat away from politicians and their friends in the banking sector.

 

[Jozefo]

Sorry all for being so behind on posts.

Oh! I know exactly what you are saying. Sorry, I was just slightly puzzled by how you said it in post 138.

Nonetheless, when a debt is repaid, that paper money STILL REMAINS in the money flow. If I pay a housing agency a $1 million debt for my house, that money didn’t disappear; the housing company owns it, and they are free to spend it as they see fit. Each dollar *represents *a certain amount of real-world value (often measured in gold or silver) but is not that value itself.

Money in the economy remains in the economy, unless the government intentionally starts incinerating it to decrease the flow.

What our government is doing now, that is, printing more and more money (to the tune of hundreds of billions a year) will not help it, but bloat it, because it is simply diluting the value of the paper money already existent.

Yes, the paper currency remains, while your liability was discharged. But my point was, with banking credit, since the liability was discharged the debt is deemed to be repaid, (although not actually repaid) so the working money supply shrinks. A new loan needs to be made in order for new crerdit to come into circulation to replace the credit that had been retired.

The end result is, the national debt never shrinks, and cannot help but inexorably grow. This $17 trillion or so debt will continue to rise, no matter what. As it is now, tax revenues are collected and applied mostly to interest payments on the principal, while the principal remains untouched. Even worse, we received US credit when we received income. We were never paid. The debt is still owed. Now we signed off on it when we cashed our checks, and assumed the liability, but the US is the ultimate guarantor of all debt.

Adding insult to injury, the Fed Reserve counts our acceptance of the liability as an asset, and uses it in the fractional reserve lending system. It is authorized to lend up to 9 times the amount it has on deposit. Now it is prohibited from lending its deposits by law, but uses those deposits as a basis for making new loans. People borrow for houses, cars, or whatever, and new money is pumped into the system, and the US debt continues to grow.

 

[St_Francis]

And how do you define someone who refuses to work? Someone who is in work and refuses to do his job? Or someone who is out of work and has been offered a job, but refuses to take it? Do you know of people who that has happened to?

Or do you mean someone who you assume, by making a judgement on their life-style, is guilty of refusing to work?

It is a myth that there are loads of people like that, deliberately sponging off the state. Even if there were, it would make no difference to the public purse anyway, because all jobs will be filled by someone who is unemployed so you will still have the same numbers of unemployed regardless of which of the unemployed filled those positions.

It’s a myth peddled by politicians who wish to give working taxpayers, who are suffering economically, someone to kick and blame as it takes some of the heat away from politicians and their friends in the banking sector.

If you had read the entire thread, you would have seen that there was some discussion of those who refuse to work. And you would have seen that I am not unsympatheticc to the plight of the poor, altho my attitude is clearer in the thread I started here.

My main problem with Mr Socks’ ideas is that they are simply liberal fantasies, they are not goals, they are not solutions.

 

[Brendan_64]

If you had read the entire thread, you would have seen that there was some discussion of those who refuse to work.

And how do you define those who “refuse to work”? At what point would this definition kick in and the person have benefits denied?

It’s all very well talking about people who “refuse to work”, but if you have no means of categorising someone as such, in order to reduce their benefits, then this definition is pointless.

 

[Gricken]

There is no system that will eradicate poverty from the world.

 

[Robert_Sock]

There is no system that will eradicate poverty from the world.

But there is such a thing as restructuring values so that greed is eradicated and LOVE reigns supreme. The world will simply fail to sustain itself unless this becomes a reality.

 

[Gricken]

But there is such a thing as restructuring values so that greed is eradicated and LOVE reigns supreme. The world will simply fail to sustain itself unless this becomes a reality.

And how do you plan to eradicate greed?

 

[Abundant]

What would it take for EVERYBODY to live comfortably?.

We used to have this. It was called Eden. Then we messed it all up…

Until Jesus comes back to fix it for us, I’m afraid that poverty, sickness and inequality will continue to exist. It is the nature of living in a fallen world.

 

[meltzerboy]

We used to have this. It was called Eden. Then we messed it all up…

Until Jesus comes back to fix it for us, I’m afraid that poverty, sickness and inequality will continue to exist. It is the nature of living in a fallen world.

But it is still our human responsibility to make every effort to try to alleviate, if not eradicate, poverty, sickness, and inequality.

 

[Gricken]

But it is still our human responsibility to make every effort to try to alleviate, if not eradicate, poverty, sickness, and inequality.

Of course we should make every effort too. But that does not mean people are apathetic for not working for/ believing in a system that they do not think will work.

 

[Abundant]

But it is still our human responsibility to make every effort to try to alleviate, if not eradicate, poverty, sickness, and inequality.

Agreed. We as believers have that obligation. We as The Church and Body of Christ have that obligation.

BUT…does the government have that obligation and does the government have the right/authority to impose that upon us and those who are not believers? (This is a rhetorical question. I know that I certainly do not know the answer.)

Healthcare is a perfect example. Most Christians would believe that all human beings have the right to health care on principal. However, what constitutes healthcare has become a really hot topic. Catholics believe that birth control does not constitute health care and as such should not be mandated. Secondly, though many Christians believe that all people have a right to health care, this changes really quickly when people begin talking about undocumented immigrants receiving medical treatment or giving birth in American hospitals.

Food stamps are another example. In theory, we all want everyone to have food. In practice, people get really upset when people whom they deem unworthy (undocumented immigrants, single mothers with multiple children from multiple fathers, ex convicts, etc.) receive free food and assistance from the government while they struggle to pay their own electricity.

In a Utopian world, everyone would do their share. Everyone would contribute to the greater good and everyone would receive in return their fair amount. The problem with this is that MAN IS NEVER SATISFIED because only God can satisfy us. There would always be corruption, greed, theft, oppression by some one or some faction. One person grows into two, which grows into three, which grows into oppressive governments and institutions.

That is sin, and we cannot cure it.

We can however: provide aid to the needy, tithe to our Churches or social organizations, be a voice for the oppressed, stand up for life and peace abroad, etc.

 

[Robert_Sock]

And how do you plan to eradicate greed?

A restructuring of values, via the media.

 

[Gricken]

A restructuring of values, via the media.

So you plan to manipulate the media until nobody is greedy?

 

[Robert_Sock]

We used to have this. It was called Eden. Then we messed it all up…

Until Jesus comes back to fix it for us, I’m afraid that poverty, sickness and inequality will continue to exist. It is the nature of living in a fallen world.

If sickness will continue to exist, does that mean we should eliminate all medical research? Or, should we keep on trying. We made great strides in medicine over the years, why not with poverty and inequality?