G
gracepoole
Guest
Then we agree! I’m no opponent to reality and I enthusiastically believe we can and should act.I would say I’m not allowing paralysis to set it but rather reality.
Plus I never said we shouldn’t take action.
What are the media’s moral obligations in making society aware of extreme poverty in the world?
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I recall reading that if every asset in the U.S. was turned into cash (assuming buyers, which would not be a good assumption) and redistributed around the world, it would amount to about $1,000 per person.
In many places, that would be a fortune, for now. But it would fairly soon be gone if simply consumed, and the source of much of the world’s goods and services and demand therefor (the U.S.) would no longer be there and 300 million more people (population of the U.S.) would be in dire poverty and unable to produce anything.
So, when it comes to world poverty, obviously this country can do some things, but not all things. The real answer, it seems to me, is enabling people in the poverty-stricken places to generate their own income and wealth. But it is certainly the case that’s prevented by those in power in many of those places, as well as by disease, ignorance, and warfare.
In many places, that would be a fortune, for now. But it would fairly soon be gone if simply consumed, and the source of much of the world’s goods and services and demand therefor (the U.S.) would no longer be there and 300 million more people (population of the U.S.) would be in dire poverty and unable to produce anything.
So, when it comes to world poverty, obviously this country can do some things, but not all things. The real answer, it seems to me, is enabling people in the poverty-stricken places to generate their own income and wealth. But it is certainly the case that’s prevented by those in power in many of those places, as well as by disease, ignorance, and warfare.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Don’t fall off your chair, but I actually agree with what you’re saying here. Charity is simply not enough, but the creation of jobs and the HS education of children is sorely needed to eliminate severe poverty.
B
Brendan
Guest
The question becomes, how?
Given the example I had about the work I do in Tanzania, how would you go about creating high paying jobs with rural subsistence farmers.
How does one define ‘high paying’? The pay that one gets working at a McDonalds would be a small fortune in an area where the average yearly family income is in the $500 range.
I suppose that if we move factories, and their associated jobs, from 1st world nations to third world nations, that would provide jobs. Is that what you are advocating?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I did fall off my chair when I realized you and I agreed about something. But I did get back up eventually.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Yes, corporations need to take the lead and build new jobs (not take jobs away from the West). Urban renewal projects also need to be implemented, which would take some subsidizing, but it would eventually pay dividends with a stronger economy once people are up and working. Mandatory HS education for children would also need to be implemented. We don’t need high paying jobs, but decent paying jobs that would enable children to go to school. Poverty would still exist, but extreme poverty would be eliminated.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think if it was possible and profitable to move factories to places like Tanzania, companies would have already done it, or are in the process of doing it. Manufacturers don’t like being expropriated or shot up. They require utilities and transportation. They don’t like bureaucratic interference and corruption that requires bribes at every turn. There are probably very good reasons why some places get outsourced jobs and others don’t.
Strangely, (and I am no economist) it seems most societies that have ultimately industrialized first had an agricultural system that would produce surpluses that could be invested in other things. There are definite exceptions to that like Singapore. But when it comes to indigenous development, I really don’t know how a society goes from subsistence to capital accretion that will allow for industrialization.
It may be if land is so cut up and subdivided that nobody can do anything more with it than barely feed himself, and has no other opportunities to live, the “agricultural surplus” game is already up, and something else has to happen.
It might “have to” be fairly painful, though not painful relatively speaking. My understanding is that industrial workers in China and India make pitiful wages. Yet, they come from the countryside in droves to take the jobs because it’s so much worse in the countryside. And certainly in China, the savings rate even among poorly paid workers is extremely high. Whether that eventually translates into a society where capital is cheap and labor dear, is something I don’t know. But the Chinese are evidently betting on it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Maybe. But it may be noted that some of the most unstable places on earth have highly educated populaces, at least relatively speaking. When you educate people but provide them with no opportunities, they tend to go revolutionary or terrorist or both.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
“Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” If it once worked for America, and made our nation strong and powerful, it can work again; and it can work in third-world countries.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Mmmmmmmmm. Actions speak louder than words. How many people are trying to sneak into Haiti nowadays? Opportunity draws immigrants. Immigrants don’t create opportunity.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
The opportunities would need to be there. Those living in the lower-class would have the opportunity to join the middle-class, and unproductive middle-class would drift down to the lower-class. But direct competition would need to be minimized, so as not to cause unnecessary conflicts. Self-help, as well as upper education, could be a computer away. People could be conditioned to appreciate what they have. Religion could flourish; true freedom would be spiritual.
T
Tradosaurus_Rex
Guest
T
tabycat
Guest
Urban renewal was tried in the US back in the 1960’s and the 1970’s, and it worked SO well here that large cities in the US are really booming.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
And if there are no opportunities for either class, then what?
One of the things that really do seem to be problematic in much of the “third world”, or even the “second” is that capital is often poorly employed or not employed much at all. I’m sure there are varied reasons for that. In Argentina, for example, I understand that people who get some money immediately send it overseas to avoid hyperinflation or potential confiscation. Reinvestment in-country, then, suffers. In the West Bank, very significant funds of the PA are invested in the U.S.
There has to be some perception of security and stability to prevent capital flight. Undoubtedly, capital flight also contributes to insecurity and instability. A vicious circle.
While it’s on a very different scale, my belief, and that of many others, is that current perceptions of instability in the U.S. are not causing capital flight (though there is definitely some), but rather causing “capital reticence”; unwillingness to invest. Any broker will tell you there are untold sums “sitting it out”. And I don’t know how many billions have been backwatered into gold, but that is a totally unproductive investment from the economy’s standpoint. This is not Argentina, but it’s not a good situation and surely does contribute to unemployment and therefore increased (relative) poverty.
Education is certainly helpful to an economy, but capital is also necessary if that education is to be put to productive use. The free flow of capital in-country and the avoidance of expatriation minimally requires security and a reasonable degree of stability.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
If a plan is developed and properly implemented, it must have opportunity, unless the system is purely communistic.If communistic, then a different plan and set of safeguards must come into play.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Huh? When did communism EVER cause anything but poverty?
A plan? Doesn’t that depend on where one is talking about? In some places like the U.S, the planners themselves are the problem because they’re erratic and threatening.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
By the CIA estimates, China has a lower percentage of persons living in poverty than the US. indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=69
The chart does not have figures for extreme poverty, but I’ll bet the rates in China are way below that of the US.
I personally have great faith in urban planning. This could be done multi-nationally, through the UN.
S
St_Francis
Guest
What on earth do these statistics mean? Most of the 15.3% of the poor in the US are eligible for government aid. Wikipedia writes: “In 2011 extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, was double 1996 levels at 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children.[9]” So the poverty statistics on poverty seem to not count government aid, which often lifts people out of the state of poverty.
Now in China, poverty seems much different “The World Bank uses a poverty line based on household real consumption (including consumption of own-produced crops and other goods), set at $1 per day measured at Purchasing Power Parity. In most low-income countries this amount is sufficient to guarantee each person about 1000 calories of nutrition per day, plus other basic necessities.”
However, it seems that China sets the poverty rate a little higher, at $1.25/day and the rate is 13%. Do the Chinese living on $1.25/day or less get 1000 calories/day to eat? Do they get government aid?
J
Jozefo
Guest
Without labor, there is no capital. The value in money comes from people. The only reason why poverty exists is because some people don’t have enough money, or the money that they have is worthless.
The real question ought to be: how can we ensure that people have enough money to buy the things they need? The answer is to let people issue their own money. I know that sounds completely foreign to people, and probably doesn’t make sense at all. But as it is, everyone on the planet (save for a handful of people who hold the money issuing power) relies on governments and/or central banks to issue enough money for people to use.
The problem with that is, often money is issued without any real value to back it. Simply printing or creating money does nothing to put it into the hands of people who need it. And if they do manage to get some money, it is from projects that don’t generate value. The bank bailouts show this clearly.
Think about the bank bailouts for a moment. The banks needed money, so they got the US to *borrow money from banks, * in order to lend it back to them! And later on, the banks discharged that liability (of course they did), leaving Treasury flush with cash. But what good is it? It just sits there, and is nothing more than ledger entries. No value was created, because no labor was involved. It was all a fictional transaction, made for political purposes, and nothing else.
The real question ought to be: how can we ensure that people have enough money to buy the things they need? The answer is to let people issue their own money. I know that sounds completely foreign to people, and probably doesn’t make sense at all. But as it is, everyone on the planet (save for a handful of people who hold the money issuing power) relies on governments and/or central banks to issue enough money for people to use.
The problem with that is, often money is issued without any real value to back it. Simply printing or creating money does nothing to put it into the hands of people who need it. And if they do manage to get some money, it is from projects that don’t generate value. The bank bailouts show this clearly.
Think about the bank bailouts for a moment. The banks needed money, so they got the US to *borrow money from banks, * in order to lend it back to them! And later on, the banks discharged that liability (of course they did), leaving Treasury flush with cash. But what good is it? It just sits there, and is nothing more than ledger entries. No value was created, because no labor was involved. It was all a fictional transaction, made for political purposes, and nothing else.
G
gracepoole
Guest
There are more difficult aspects of this problem and then there are those that are manageable. Using the example I provided earlier of conflict minerals in the DRC, the Congo sits on some of most incredibly rich reserves of some of the most sought after minerals in the world. Most of these mines are currently controlled by militias that use rape, murder, and torture to keep mine workers and locals in line while the militias reap all of the monetary rewards. A far higher demand for conflict-free minerals pushes the Congolese government to implement conflict-free legislation, in cooperation with the international community’s buyers, and the workers themselves can benefit from the tremendous amounts of money harvested via mining. This is doable. And there have been positive movements that bear this out.
Or consider agricultural communities – providing a family with a goat via Heifer International, for instance, gives that family income that then can be used for housing, education, etc. It’s a long-term, sustainable solution that goes beyond throwing money at the problem.
Or consider agricultural communities – providing a family with a goat via Heifer International, for instance, gives that family income that then can be used for housing, education, etc. It’s a long-term, sustainable solution that goes beyond throwing money at the problem.
- Status