What is your plan to reduce global poverty?

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: OCguy

It isnt our job to reduce "global poverty" OP.

poor people can't buy big macs and drink coke while surfing facebook on dell laptops running MS software.

tbh, I wonder how many jobs China is stealing from 3rd world countries with its currency shenanigans.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The fact that Craig is typing on a computer from the comfort of his home right now rather than helping build irrigation for African farmers means he isn't really interested in doing anything. He's all talk, he wants other people to do the actual work.

tangent:
a leading activist at UT while i was there was also an op-ed columnist in the student paper. he once wrote a column decrying volunteerism as taking away from the real game of activism. after all, why change the world yourself when you can petition government to do it for you?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I've always thought this was a singularly genius idea:

http://www.kiva.org/

I've read about some of the successes of the micro-loan program. It's an interesting idea, but far to capitalist for hardcore "liberals" to embrace.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The fact that Craig is typing on a computer from the comfort of his home right now rather than helping build irrigation for African farmers means he isn't really interested in doing anything. He's all talk, he wants other people to do the actual work.

And pay for it.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: BoberFett
The fact that Craig is typing on a computer from the comfort of his home right now rather than helping build irrigation for African farmers means he isn't really interested in doing anything. He's all talk, he wants other people to do the actual work.

And pay for it.

like I mentioned earlier, it's not like there's no blowback benefit to it.

poor, war-torn countries can't buy our goods and services.

 

[Ausm]

Send Rush limbaugh over there. That should be enough to feed any country in a state of poverty for a while

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I've always thought this was a singularly genius idea:

http://www.kiva.org/

I've read about some of the successes of the micro-loan program. It's an interesting idea, but far to capitalist for hardcore "liberals" to embrace.

Don't be ridiculous. Micro loans are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Nothing is more progressive than Micro loans. How many times do I have to say it. Nobody values what the get for nothing. Micro loans are psychotherapy, baby steps to self respect, anti self hate medicine, genius philanthropy.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: xj0hnxDefine poverty.

Poverty is an economic state of affairs where people have difficulty providing themselves with basic human needs -- food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, safety from violence, and the means necessary to be able to continue to provide those things (such as having a job that provides health benefits or maintaining a vehicle needed to drive to work or to search for work).

The average living conditions in say Iraq, are worse than ANY poor neighborhood I have seen in America, and living conditions in some African tribes are worse still. If you were to compare a poor American to a poor african, the American would look like Bill Gates.

I agree with you that those people are poor. However, that doesn't mean that Americans cannot be poor as well. A great many Americans fall under the definition of poverty that I provided, which seems rather reasonable. We have millions of people without health care in this country, we have homeless people, and we have people who are having difficulty maintaining shelter for themselves as well as maintaining vehicles (a very necessary tool for being able to commute to a job). There are also people who can only afford to live in drug and crime-infested neighborhoods.

Regardless, we shouldn't be content with Americans having a low standard of living regardless of what life is like in other countries. We shouldn't lower our standards of what is acceptable to us to the norms of other nations if that means trivializing the problem of poverty in America. If you, personally, are concerned about the quality of life in other countries then you are free to send them all of your own possessions and money if you want to help them, but please don't advocate economic polices that work against the rational selfish economic interests of all Americans.

The problem with comparing poverty is that poverty is relative to the countries wealth, not a standard across the board.

I think that an objective definition of poverty can be worked out, such as the one I proposed above. Given that definition it's possible for 99% of the people in a nation to be impoverished regardless of where individuals stand relative to one another, and likewise, it's possible for 99% of the people to not be impoverished. If you base your definition on what people need to survive and to be healthy and to be able to maintain that condition, it can be objective.

What Zephyrprime said is dead on, "give a man a fish and he eats for a day. teach him to fish and he can feed himself for life".

Why would anyone oppose a principle like that? I don't, but I'm not convinced that we should feel obligated to teach others to fish either when they should be able to figure it out for themselves.

You have to look at the root cause of the problem, so in Africa what is the problem? Illiteracy? Conditions not good for growing food? Disease? Lack of...anything? HOw is giving them food going to help? Yea they're fed today, what about tomorrow, next week, next year? What Ronstang said is correct, you either change their way of life, and they move to somewhere they can grow food, or produce something to export, or they die, you can only bandage a wound for so long, why do you think conditions haven't improved? BEcause nothing has changed.

I agree. I don't know exactly how you would go about transforming these societies, but I do think that they need dramatic population reduction to reduce the scarcity and costs of resources needed to improve their economic condition.

 

[bfdd]

What's funny about Craigs posts is he acts like America and Americans don't do anything to "help" global poverty, by which he means giving out money. Yet we donate more as a people and a government than the rest of the world combined in efforts to "fix" problems.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Abolish all forms of socialism.

Like the public schools, fire departments, and the public roads?

What will you do if the owner of the roads refuses to provide you service because you looked at him funny or he doesn't like your race or your religion? What if all of the employers in your locale demanded that everyone become a devout Christian (or Muslim or whatever) and demanded that they attend church every Sunday or lose their jobs?

What would you do if the business owners decided to import 200 million impoverished people to perform work in the U.S. for third world slave wages and then laid off all of their American employees, telling them that they can have their jobs back if they will agree to work for third world slave wages, with the business owners pocketing a much larger percentage of the value a worker contributes to the act of wealth production?

Real capitalism wouldn't result in freedom, but rather just different and more insidious forms of oppression and dictatorship.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Abolish all forms of socialism.

Like the public schools, fire departments, and the public roads?

What will you do if the owner of the roads refuses to provide you service because you looked at him funny or he doesn't like your race or your religion? What if all of the employers in your locale demanded that everyone become a devout Christian (or Muslim or whatever) and demanded that they attend church every Sunday or lose their jobs?

What would you do if the business owners decided to import 200 million impoverished people to perform work in the U.S. for third world slave wages and then laid off all of their American employees, telling them that they can have their jobs back if they will agree to work for third world slave wages, with the business owners pocketing a much larger percentage of the value a worker contributes to the act of wealth production?

Real capitalism wouldn't result in freedom, but rather just different and more insidious forms of oppression and dictatorship.

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Abolish all forms of socialism.

Why would you want to abolish police, firefighters, and the army? We kinda need those things.

those aren't the means of production

Retarded people are retarded.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Abolish all forms of socialism.

Why would you want to abolish police, firefighters, and the army? We kinda need those things.

those aren't the means of production

What exactly is production? Why isn't putting out fires--producing a fire-free society--"production"? It is work and it has value. Might the police and the military also be said to provide physical safety? What about education--the production of educated children and adults--is that a form of production?

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
snip...

I agree. I don't know exactly how you would go about transforming these societies, but I do think that they need dramatic population reduction to reduce the scarcity and costs of resources needed to improve their economic condition.

ahhh... the ultimate solution: just kill all the poor people...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JS80

Retarded people are retarded.

Who's the real retard? The guy who can make good arguments or the guy who can't address those arguments and resorts to calling the other guy a retard?

 

[Fern]

What is your plan to reduce global poverty?

IMO, 'charity' begins at home. We have a 'true' unemployed rate at about 20%. Our government is bankrupt. Our states are in serious financial problems. We have no end in sight to our economic and financial problems. We're gonna run out of money trying to keep extending unemployment and medicaid to our ever growing population of unemployed.

Is this really the time to start focusing on a project that send more of our dwindling supply of money abroad to others? I don't think so. At some point even the most liberal among us needs to acknowledge that the 'bank account' is empty.

"Timing is everything".

Fern

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
snip...

I agree. I don't know exactly how you would go about transforming these societies, but I do think that they need dramatic population reduction to reduce the scarcity and costs of resources needed to improve their economic condition.

ahhh... the ultimate solution: just kill all the poor people...

I never said "kill all the poor people", rather, what I said is, let's strongly encourage if not indirectly force them to use birth control (so that they don't reproduce in an unsustainable manner). Do you recognize a distinction between killing and adult and preventing the conception of an embryo?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

What exactly is production? Why isn't putting out fires--producing a fire-free society--"production"? It is work and it has value. Might the police and the military also be said to provide physical safety? What about education--the production of educated children and adults--is that a form of production?

outside of Amused i haven't seen anyone advocating getting rid of the the fire and police department (not to mention there's a free-rider problem if the services aren't tax-provisioned). government provision of those services was never considered a hallmark of socialism and the only reason anyone brings it up is because it's a ridiculously extreme argument. just like your other post:

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Like the public schools, fire departments, and the public roads?

What will you do if the owner of the roads refuses to provide you service because you looked at him funny or he doesn't like your race or your religion? What if all of the employers in your locale demanded that everyone become a devout Christian (or Muslim or whatever) and demanded that they attend church every Sunday or lose their jobs?

then they would make less money and wouldn't be able to cover their economic costs.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: JS80

Retarded people are retarded.

Who's the real retard? The guy who can make good arguments or the guy who can't address those arguments and resorts to calling the other guy a retard?

You, because you can't comprehend a simple definition.

so·cial·ism
/'so????l?z?m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence
See web results for socialism
See images of socialism
?noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: FernWe have a 'true' unemployed rate at about 20%. Our government is bankrupt. Our states are in serious financial problems. We have no end in sight to our economic and financial problems. We're gonna run out of money trying to keep extending unemployment and medicaid to our ever growing population of unemployed.

I too have been wondering about how federal and state governments are going to be able to continue to extend unemployment benefits (as well as health care for the indigent) to ever increasing numbers of people who need it. I also wonder what would happen if they stopped providing all of that completely. Could it result in widespread social strife and riots?

 

[lupi]

Why try to reduce it; why should we be forcing our culture onto anothers.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

What exactly is production? Why isn't putting out fires--producing a fire-free society--"production"? It is work and it has value. Might the police and the military also be said to provide physical safety? What about education--the production of educated children and adults--is that a form of production?

outside of Amused i haven't seen anyone advocating getting rid of the the fire and police department (not to mention there's a free-rider problem if the services aren't tax-provisioned). government provision of those services was never considered a hallmark of socialism and the only reason anyone brings it up is because it's a ridiculously extreme argument.

Where do those things--fire protection, police, military, courts, education--come from? Even the funding of a military requires the government's threatening to initiate physical force against people (pay the taxes or else). You could argue that police, military, and courts are the only legitimate functions of government and that they are necessary to protect individual rights. However, government-provided fire fighting and education are indeed socialist and not something Ayn Rand ever advocated. (Under real capitalism you would contract with a private fire department.)

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Like the public schools, fire departments, and the public roads?

What will you do if the owner of the roads refuses to provide you service because you looked at him funny or he doesn't like your race or your religion? What if all of the employers in your locale demanded that everyone become a devout Christian (or Muslim or whatever) and demanded that they attend church every Sunday or lose their jobs?

then they would make less money and wouldn't be able to cover their economic costs.[/quote]

Why would the road owner earn noticeably less money from the loss of your traffic on his road? I agree that perhaps it would be irrational of him, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't behave irrationally under capitalism even if it does cost them some money. There's more to getting value from your property than merely selling its services to make money, such as using it to shun your enemies.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: JS80

Retarded people are retarded.

Who's the real retard? The guy who can make good arguments or the guy who can't address those arguments and resorts to calling the other guy a retard?

You, because you can't comprehend a simple definition.

so·cial·ism
/'so????l?z?m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence
See web results for socialism
See images of socialism
?noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

So in your view having the government own and operate the police, military, courts, firefighters, and education system is not socialism? Why won't you address my very real hypotheticals about the awful things that can happen under capitalism?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Of course, you know what my prediction is: The United States will become an overpopulated, impoverished third world country.

I tend to agree. Our resources are being spread thinner across an ever growing population. To each we give less. For each we have less to give.

Appears to be the basis of poverty.

The core component of my solution to the problem of global poverty is -- population growth reduction -- a one child per family policy.

I've heard China abandoned its policy. It brings to bear tremendous hardships to have an aging population with fewer young workers.

Some people here in the United States scream bloody murder when the idea of stopping immigration is brought up. It seems we don't want to live without growth, yet we cannot live with it... forever.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
snip...

I agree. I don't know exactly how you would go about transforming these societies, but I do think that they need dramatic population reduction to reduce the scarcity and costs of resources needed to improve their economic condition.

ahhh... the ultimate solution: just kill all the poor people...

I never said "kill all the poor people", rather, what I said is, let's strongly encourage if not indirectly force them to use birth control (so that they don't reproduce in an unsustainable manner). Do you recognize a distinction between killing and adult and preventing the conception of an embryo?

do you get to choose who gets to have kids and how many? and how do you 'indirectly force'? deny those who don't do as you say food?

i understand exactly what you are suggesting... it's not an original concept...

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: JS80

Retarded people are retarded.

Who's the real retard? The guy who can make good arguments or the guy who can't address those arguments and resorts to calling the other guy a retard?

You, because you can't comprehend a simple definition.

so·cial·ism
/'so????l?z?m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence
See web results for socialism
See images of socialism
?noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

So in your view having the government own and operate the police, military, courts, firefighters, and education system is not socialism? Why won't you address my very real hypotheticals about the awful things that can happen under capitalism?

State such hypotheticals and I will address them.