Inequality 'key to poverty fight'

[Matt25]

shockerfan:

Wow. Three whole posts and you still give corrupt governments a free pass and dodge my question (and other people’s questions / comments) again.

Sigh. Let me try again. In the figures from Christian Aid which none of you have challenged it is said

Between 1970 and 2000, for every dollar sub-Saharan Africa received from rich countries in aid and debt relief, it lost 14 in unfair trade, debt servicing and bad investment policies.

OK so its pretty much part of the job description of someone who presides over the net transfer of wealth from their citizens (very poor) to Western shareholders ( very rich) that they be corrupt. That is why Western Governments and Corporations help them get into power and then prop them up. If they tried to transfer wealth back the other way then guess what. People like some on this forum call them communists and urge that they be assasinated or have their country invaded.

As Dom Helder Camara once said: “When I give food to the hungry they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor are hungry they call me a communist.” And the Servant of God Archbishop Oscar Romero said

The existence of poverty as a lack of what is necessary
is an indictment.
Those who say the bishop, the church, and the priests
have caused the bad state of the country
want to paper over the reality.
Those who have created the evil
are those who have made possible
the hideous social injustice our people live in.
Thus, the poor have shown the church the true way to go.
A church that does not join the poor,
in order to speak out from the side of the poor
against the injustices committed against them,
is not the true church of Jesus Christ.

 

[FightingFat]

Matt25:

By “all this” do you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I’ve wanted to chip in here, even if it is to offer my support, but Matt, you are more eloquently and more justly Christian than I could hope to echo. Kudos to you my friend, we truly share the same faith!

:yup:

 

[thestickman]

Not learning why the poor are hungry ensures they will always be in need and never be self-sufficient.

I’m all for feeding the poor anywhere at anytime. With that, I’m 100% against feeding them without also teaching them how to be self-sufficent. No reason why you can’t do both. Else you are just maintaining poverty rather than addressing it. I am also 100% against giving more aid to governments like Mugabe’s butcherous crew in the name of feeding the poor cuz the poor don’t get the food nor are they allowed to own their own land on which they could be taught how to grow their own food.

I’m also 100% against the concept of “wealth transfers” while being 100% for persons being free to create their own wealth. Teaching folks how to feed themselves and providing them the tools to do so is not a transfer of wealth. It’s providing them with an opportunity to grow their own food from which they can also create their own wealth if they choose to do so.

The only inequality which needs to be removed in order to reduce poverty is the lack of freedom the people in these poor nations suffer via their totalitarian governments. Anything else perpetuates the same poverty so many want to use to justify wealth transfers or income redistribution schemes which are designed to inhibit freedom and wealth creation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Between 1970 and 2000, for every dollar sub-Saharan Africa received from rich countries in aid and debt relief, it lost 14 in unfair trade, debt servicing and bad investment policies.

Okay – so we were woong to lend money and give aid to these countries while they were ruled by brutal, corrupt dictators – who stole the money, left the country saddled with the debt and used some of what they stole to rivet the chains more tightly on their people.

And we would be even more wrong to lend more money and give more aid to these countries while they are still ruled by brutal, corrupt dictators.

 

[Matt25]

vern humphrey:

And we would be even more wrong to lend more money and give more aid to these countries while they are still ruled by brutal, corrupt dictators.

In his last message for the World Day of Peace January 2005 the Saintly John Paul II made these remarks. Of course he was less cynical than you Vern. I hope I can become more like him.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20041216_xxxviii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

1. The principle of the universal destination of goods can also make possible a more effective approach to* the challenge of poverty*, particularly when we consider the extreme poverty in which millions of people are still living. The international community, at the beginning of the new millennium, set the priority of halving their number by the year 2015. The Church supports and encourages this commitment and invites all who believe in Christ to show, practically and in every sector, a preferential love for the poor.
   
   The tragedy of poverty remains closely linked to the issue of the foreign debt of poor countries. Despite significant progress in this area, the problem has not yet been adequately resolved. Fifteen years ago I called public attention to the fact that the foreign debt of poor countries “is closely related to a series of other problems such as foreign investment, the proper functioning of the major international organizations, the price of raw materials and so forth”. Recent moves in favour of debt reduction, centred mainly on the needs of the poor, have certainly improved the quality of economic growth. Yet, because of a number of factors, this growth is still quantitatively insufficient, especially in relation to the millennium goals. Poor countries remain trapped in a vicious circle: low income and weak growth limit savings and, in turn, weak investments and an inefficient use of savings do not favour growth.
   
   9**. As Pope Paul VI stated and as I myself have reaffirmed, the only really effective means of enabling States to deal with the grave problem of poverty is to provide them with the necessary resources through* foreign financial aid*** — public and private — granted under reasonable conditions, within the framework of international commercial relations regulated with fairness. What is urgently needed is a* moral and economic mobilization, one which respects agreements already made in favour of poor countries, and is at the same time prepared to review those agreements which have proved excessively burdensome for some countries. In this regard, new impulse should be given to Public Aid for Development*, and new forms of financing for development should be explored, whatever the difficulties entailed Some governments are already looking carefully at promising mechanisms for this; these significant initiatives should be carried out in a spirit of authentic sharing, with respect for the* principle of subsidiarity*. The management of financial resources destined to the development of poor countries should also entail scrupulous adherence, on the part of both donors and recipients, to sound administrative practices. The Church encourages and contributes to these efforts. One need only mention the significant contribution made by the many Catholic agencies dedicated to aid and development.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I’ve wanted to chip in here, even if it is to offer my support, but Stickman and Vern, you are more eloquently and more justly Christians than I could hope to echo. Kudos to you my friends, we truly share the same faith!

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. As Pope Paul VI stated and as I myself have reaffirmed, the only really effective means of enabling States to deal with the grave problem of poverty is to provide them with the necessary resources through* foreign financial aid* — public and private — granted under reasonable conditions, within the framework of international commercial relations regulated with fairness.

The problem is, there are no “reasonable conditions” under which you can give money to a brutal, corrupt dictator.

Where people are in chains, we often find those chains were bought with foreign aid money – given to brutal, corrupt dictators.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

The problem is, there are no “reasonable conditions” under which you can give money to a brutal, corrupt dictator.

Where people are in chains, we often find those chains were bought with foreign aid money – given to brutal, corrupt dictators.

The assumption, Vern, is that people care about corrupt dictators. In much of the sturm and drang about giving to the poor is noblesse oblige: a very ornate, decorative method of keeping the poor in place, which is out of the way of the moneyed and on the margins of society.

The other assumption is, of course, that those presuming to indulge in the sturm and drang actually belong to the class of people to whom noblesse oblige belongs. In the US these two assumptions have no meaning; there is the American Dream which belongs to everyone. Elsewhere, well…

 

[KathleenElsie]

vern humphrey:

Okay – so we were woong to lend money and give aid to these countries while they were ruled by brutal, corrupt dictators – who stole the money, left the country saddled with the debt and used some of what they stole to rivet the chains more tightly on their people.

And we would be even more wrong to lend more money and give more aid to these countries while they are still ruled by brutal, corrupt dictators.

Sounds alot like the FOOD for OIL situation. No food and lots of corruption. :bigyikes:

 

[KathleenElsie]

Matt25:

In his last message for the World Day of Peace January 2005 the Saintly John Paul II made these remarks. Of course he was less cynical than you Vern. I hope I can become more like him.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20041216_xxxviii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

The whole thing should be read and not just parts. JPII was a very wise man and his writings need to be taken as whole and not in bits and pieces.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

The assumption, Vern, is that people care about corrupt dictators. In much of the sturm and drang about giving to the poor is noblesse oblige: a very ornate, decorative method of keeping the poor in place, which is out of the way of the moneyed and on the margins of society.

The other assumption is, of course, that those presuming to indulge in the sturm and drang actually belong to the class of people to whom noblesse oblige belongs. In the US these two assumptions have no meaning; there is the American Dream which belongs to everyone. Elsewhere, well…

I’ll reply to both Ani and KathleenElsie since your remarks are closely related.

I propose we follow what I call Moral Pragmatism, which I define by saying, “If you are morally impelled to do something, you are morally impelled to choose a course of action that is likely to work.”

When we give money to “poor nations” that are ruled by brutal, corrupt dictators, we are following a different strategy, which some call the “feel good approach” – because the poor don’t benefit, no matter how much we give. The money goes to the brutal, corrupt dictators and their henchmen. It makes them stronger, and consequently leaves the oppressed poor in worse condition than when we started.

If we are going to HELP poor nations, we must first refrain from strengthening the brutal, corrupt dictators. That’s the least we can do – remember the Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm.”

I think we must move beyond doing no harm and have a strategy to depose the brutal, corrupt dictators, and create conditions where the poor have a chance of actually benefiting from the billions we pour into the Third World.

Then we must recognize that our aim is to make the poor nations self-supporting. We have to concentrate on democracy (which lets the best rise to the top, where their abilities can benefit their countries) and education.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

KathleenElsie:

The whole thing should be read and not just parts. JPII was a very wise man and his writings need to be taken as whole and not in bits and pieces.

Oh yes. I gather that some readers might be looking for a kind of rule book in JPII’s writings. His writings are transformative, however, not legalistic. As such they draw out skill in reading, perception, dialogue.

In JPII’s writings, he is the teacher. Those who read are the students.

Now there are folks who presume to be teachers and attempt to wield JPII’s writings as a kind of certificate to bolster their claim to teach. This is a doomed strategy.

The ruse is easily unveiled.

 

[KathleenElsie]

vern humphrey:

I’ll reply to both Ani and KathleenElsie since your remarks are closely related.

I propose we follow what I call Moral Pragmatism, which I define by saying, “If you are morally impelled to do something, you are morally impelled to choose a course of action that is likely to work.”

When we give money to “poor nations” that are ruled by brutal, corrupt dictators, we are following a different strategy, which some call the “feel good approach” – because the poor don’t benefit, no matter how much we give. The money goes to the brutal, corrupt dictators and their henchmen. It makes them stronger, and consequently leaves the oppressed poor in worse condition than when we started.

If we are going to HELP poor nations, we must first refrain from strengthening the brutal, corrupt dictators. That’s the least we can do – remember the Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm.”

I think we must move beyond doing no harm and have a strategy to depose the brutal, corrupt dictators, and create conditions where the poor have a chance of actually benefiting from the billions we pour into the Third World.

Then we must recognize that our aim is to make the poor nations self-supporting. We have to concentrate on democracy (which lets the best rise to the top, where their abilities can benefit their countries) and education.

**I believe we can agree with each other on this. I firmly believe that we should not support evil as a way to achieve good.
IMHO food and clothing and not money or loans is the best way to go at this time. I just am not wise enough to figure how to get the items sent to those that need them.

An example of what I did just in my family. When my son was still smoking and he needed us to help him out. We would not send money to him. We send the items he needed or the funds directly the apartment owner so he got what he needed and did not spend money on what we felt was a waste of our help. We wanted to help not enable poor behavior.
**

 

[vern_humphrey]

I believe we can agree with each other on this. I firmly believe that we should not support evil as a way to achieve good.
IMHO food and clothing and not money or loans is the best way to go at this time. I just am not wise enough to figure how to get the items sent to those that need them.

An example of what I did just in my family. When my son was still smoking and he needed us to help him out. We would not send money to him. We send the items he needed or the funds directly the apartment owner so he got what he needed and did not spend money on what we felt was a waste of our help. We wanted to help not enable poor behavior.

I am perhaps fortunate in that we have a Nigerian priest as our assistant pastor (we are a missionary church, and have no resident priests – the pastor of our church lives in a different town and he and the assistant take turns to say mass for us.)

Talking to Father Okorojukwu is interesting – he and his family lived through genocide in Nigeria’s civil war, and are all deeply committed Catholics (his brother was just ordained.)

He is a truly gentle man, almost saintly, but his perspective on how to help the poor in the Third World is very hard-nosed – we cannot support dictators and we must work to put an end to dictators and corruption before we can help in any meaningful way.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

KathleenElsie:

IMHO food and clothing and not money or loans is the best way to go at this time. I just am not wise enough to figure how to get the items sent to those that need them.

I do believe that in first little while the evacuees are truly in shock. Therefore I have no problem with giving them food, clothing, and assistance in finding homes.

In the long term, however, I believe God has opened a window of opportunity for those previously poor to grab the brass ring. I am therefore extremely interested in Frank Stronach’s community economic development project. He is currently scouting real estate in Louisiana where he will hook up trailer homes.

I gather he is providing access to schools, job retraining, job opportunities. Yes, this seems worthwhile to me. Simply enabling people to go from the pan to the fire, from one welfare housing project to another: this does not honour the dignity of the human spirit.

Stronach has challenged all business magnates to follow suit. Thoughts?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

I do believe that in first little while the evacuees are truly in shock. Therefore I have no problem with giving them food, clothing, and assistance in finding homes.

In the long term, however, I believe God has opened a window of opportunity for those previously poor to grab the brass ring. I am therefore extremely interested in Frank Stronach’s community economic development project. He is currently scouting real estate in Louisiana where he will hook up trailer homes.

I gather he is providing access to schools, job retraining, job opportunities. Yes, this seems worthwhile to me. Simply enabling people to go from the pan to the fire, from one welfare housing project to another: this does not honour the dignity of the human spirit.

Stronach has challenged all business magnates to follow suit. Thoughts?

One of the potential advantages to this approach is that there is some control over the environment. Too many programs simply pour money into the same old welfare neighborhoods without changing anything about them – and fail.

A fresh start – new neighborhood, with schools and job training opportunities may well yield results.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Ani Ibi:

I do believe that in first little while the evacuees are truly in shock. Therefore I have no problem with giving them food, clothing, and assistance in finding homes.

In the long term, however, I believe God has opened a window of opportunity for those previously poor to grab the brass ring. I am therefore extremely interested in Frank Stronach’s community economic development project. He is currently scouting real estate in Louisiana where he will hook up trailer homes.

I gather he is providing access to schools, job retraining, job opportunities. Yes, this seems worthwhile to me. Simply enabling people to go from the pan to the fire, from one welfare housing project to another: this does not honour the dignity of the human spirit.

Stronach has challenged all business magnates to follow suit. Thoughts?

I like the idea of self help.:yup:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

One of the potential advantages to this approach is that there is some control over the environment. Too many programs simply pour money into the same old welfare neighborhoods without changing anything about them – and fail.

A fresh start – new neighborhood, with schools and job training opportunities may well yield results.

Yes, and the numbers are key. Stronach is working with 250 - 400 startup people and aiming at a maximum of 2000 people.

Once you start cramming tens of thousands of people into a small space (like happened at the Superdome) then you get people falling through the cracks and the cracks getting bigger and bigger until the whole place goes to hek in a handbasket.

I think if other business magnates take Stronach up on his challenge, I will be really happy.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Warning

Cut out the personal attacks or I will close the thread.