What is your plan to reduce global poverty?

[Craig234]

Perhaps the most important issue for humanity, we all but never see any construvtive discussion about it here.

So, let's see who has any good plan.

You can use whatever you want - tough anti-illegal immigrant enforcement, war, new political setups, you pick - but show it will be good for the people of the world.

Sadly, the real point of this thread is to show how bankrupt our political culture is on this issue - how we can bicker over every little bit of garbage, hundreds of posts about two acticvists who entrap a couple of people into helping with with advice on prostitution, somecrazy thing a pundits said, but all we get is 'it's not our problem' on global poverty.

Anyone who just says 'it's not our problem' and isn't concerned with looking for what can be done is IMO amoral at best, and not much of a member of the human race.

Has our culture degraded to that point, that there is no concer as the richest country in the world for the rest of the human race?

I know private charity provided a helpful couple drops in the bucket; if you want to push that, show how it can be increased by orders of magnitude.

Leading anti-poverty people talk about 1% from the advanced nations as making a huge difference. I don't see a problem with that approach.

So, let's see, who has a plan? Only plans are invited, not excuses why to ignore it, not arguments about what our current small foreign aid efforts do.

The last new big thing we did was the Peace Corps - helpful, if modest.

Some say we're on the verge of people becoming more expensive than what they contribute and that this will lead to policies letting many lose their lives to disease, etc.

Other - better IMO - tools include land reform, birth control, and encouragement of the development of local industries.

 

[cubeless]

the last big thing we did was buy tons of shit from the asian countries which lifted more people out of poverty than any other program...

your description of poverty is what matters here... are subsistence level tribespeople in countries impoverished? are they all supposed to have tv's and cellphones and ac to not be impoverished? mri's for all?

so if you destroy the traditional way of life and get africa to the point of pre-industrial, agrarian united states is this good? is feeding themselves reliably sufficient?

 

[Ronstang]

The liberal do gooder bleeding hearts just need to let the world find it's natural equilibrium. If people are too lazy to feed themselves then nature solves the problem. If they live in an area where there is no food or water and are too lazy to move then nature solves the problem. I know it is hard for you to believe but this is the best solution and results in a sustainable population level of people who will take care of themselves. Since this option does not involve any more of my tax money I know it is unacceptable for you though.

 

[StageLeft]

No idea.

I think over time technology will find its way even into the poorest communities. I presume it already is in things like building approaches or water so that even the most destitute can have a better semblance of life. In other countries where the problem is not as severe that the entire country is destitute but that those at the top are dictatorially thieving from those below them (like Zimbabwe), the solution could only be physical removal/assassination of the dictator, but then probably another would step in.

Some countries are so used to sucking it's hard to fix them, like Afghanistan.

 

[CPA]

Start with their governments.

 

[StageLeft]

I know it is hard for you to believe but this is the best solution and results in a sustainable population level of people who will take care of themselves.

Surely that is not the best solution for those involved. I bet you wouldn't think it was the best solution if you were on the receiving end of this nature effect.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
The liberal do gooder bleeding hearts just need to let the world find it's natural equilibrium. If people are too lazy to feed themselves then nature solves the problem. If they live in an area where there is no food or water and are too lazy to move then nature solves the problem. I know it is hard for you to believe but this is the best solution and results in a sustainable population level of people who will take care of themselves. Since this option does not involve any more of my tax money I know it is unacceptable for you though.

Learn to read.

So, let's see, who has a plan? Only plans are invited, not excuses why to ignore it...

 

[zephyrprime]

Poverty in the developing world has greatly decreased in the last 50 years.

The number #1 thing the US does to help poor countries is to buy stuff from them. Charity programs like the Peace Corps are too small to have any significant effect. They are only drops of water in the ocean. On the other hand, the trade deficit is like a biblical flood of money to developing countries which has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

I don't know why people who care about developing countries are so focused on ineffective charity. The old proverb "give a man a fish and he eats for a day. teach him to fish and he can feed himself for life" is completely true.

I don't particularly approve of the reverse mechantilist way that current outsourcing is performed in. The monetarist banks and their hangers on receive most of the benefits and regular people in the US find their standard of living curtailed despite increased GDP growth. Plus, our trading partners maintain protectionist policies which make a joke of "free trade" which I also do not approve of.

Eventually, China will become too expensive of a producer to outsource too. Then the focus of outsourcing will move to another area (probably India). And China will itself start outsourcing to cheaper countries. Outsourcing actually increases the more rich countries there are. After India, the world will have run out of large countries to outsource too so the focus will probably move to smaller countries. Outsourcing will become more diverse and irregular.

It's only by having an export driven economy that it is possible to develop a country in only a few decades. If a country were to rely on organic growth to develop, it will take centuries to develop because that is the natural rate organic growth. When the western nations industrialized, it took about 2 centuries to complete. I believe that a current second world country like Vietnam were also to attempt to industrialize in isolation, it would take in the ballpark of ~2 centuries to complete.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
The liberal do gooder bleeding hearts just need to let the world find it's natural equilibrium. If people are too lazy to feed themselves then nature solves the problem. If they live in an area where there is no food or water and are too lazy to move then nature solves the problem. I know it is hard for you to believe but this is the best solution and results in a sustainable population level of people who will take care of themselves. Since this option does not involve any more of my tax money I know it is unacceptable for you though.

The problem with advocates of social Darwinism, given that personal economic situations are subject to change, is that when they find themselves selected for extinction, they invariably appeal to the humanitarian sentiments of the very people they scorned when times were good.

 

[CoachB]

I think I understand what Ronstang and cubeless are getting at. IF you create a system or society where EVERYONE has the same level of accomodation, most of us won't like it.

Try this mental exercise.....what would your life/family be like if you had to adopt two impoverished families and have all three groups arrive at the same standard of living.
This is, in effect, what would need to occur across the board to cure "global poverty". I doubt you would be willing to go along with such a scheme.

This would also mean that no matter how intelligent, hardworking, or lucky you might be, you are only allowed to have as much as the next guy....otherwise he would be considered "impoverished".

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: CPA
Start with their governments.

/Thread.

 

[StageLeft]

Charity programs like the Peace Corps are too small to have any significant effect.

They have a significant effect. Perhaps not as significant, but that's because they rely on altruism and not simple economics. All of us have been the recipients of charity if we use a practical definition which includes simply receiving something from somebody who does not expect anything back for it.

 

[Deeko]

I don't really care about global poverty, its not my problem. I guess that makes me amoral and not much of a member of the human race. Not like I care what you think, either.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Anyone who just says 'it's not our problem' and isn't concerned with looking for what can be done is IMO amoral at best, and not much of a member of the human race.

perched pretty high up there on that horse aren't you?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
Anyone who just says 'it's not our problem' and isn't concerned with looking for what can be done is IMO amoral at best, and not much of a member of the human race.

perched pretty high up there aren't you?

It only seems that way from your low lying perspective.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: cubeless
the last big thing we did was buy tons of shit from the asian countries which lifted more people out of poverty than any other program...

...While putting many Americans into poverty...

 

[Jaskalas]

Throw the people of the third world into factories so they can make things for us? I think we've already been doing that for a while now... is it working?

If we simply give them food and water, they'll survive and grow healthy. Then they'll have tons of children and create more demand for food and water. At some point the demand reaches far beyond your capacity to help them. At this point an even greater number will starve to death than would have generations earlier.

By creating a population boom, you?re actually killing many more people who never would have been born otherwise. Food and water alone is not enough.

Can we really lift people out of poverty if our population continues to grow?

Certainly the population of rich nations has grown, and they remain very rich comparatively. So there is a lesson to learn and a roadmap to follow. Then I begin to wonder. Maybe the existence of these rich nations, including ourselves, is a temporary fluke. Perhaps we?ve grown rich through exploits that cannot be sustained. Perhaps our wealth is shrinking already.

Can we even save ourselves from increasing poverty?

Maybe our own road map is one that was unique to our place and time in history. Perhaps that method is lost to us and to others who would follow us? Maybe the idea that we have the power to stave off poverty elsewhere is a vain attempt to distract us from the growing poverty here.

If you wish to fight global poverty, perhaps you need to look closer to home and ask how to avoid poverty here. Then, if successful, we can export our method.

 

[bobcpg]

Well I guess I'll just keep paying my taxes, see the US give more than ALL other countries as Foreign AID.

 

[Infohawk]

The west should be paying for family planning over there. Not much else we can do about it except trade with these poor countries.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: zephyrprimeIt's only by having an export driven economy that it is possible to develop a country in only a few decades. If a country were to rely on organic growth to develop, it will take centuries to develop because that is the natural rate organic growth. When the western nations industrialized, it took about 2 centuries to complete. I believe that a current second world country like Vietnam were also to attempt to industrialize in isolation, it would take in the ballpark of ~2 centuries to complete.

What happens to those countries when the nation that is supporting them--the United States--suffers an economic collapse and becomes a third world country itself, unable to continue purchasing products from them and unable to pay off its loan debts?

I get the sense that foreign outsourcing doesn't actually result in much overall increased wealth production but rather just a shift in where the value of the wealth produced goes with a larger percentage of it going into the pockets of wealthy business owners. In essence, foreign outsourcing (and foreign work visas and mass immigration) don't actually increase the amount of wealth production in the world all that much, but rather export first world prosperity to the third world and import third world poverty to the first world one lost middle class job at at time.

"Organic" economic growth might be slower, but at least it's real growth that isn't built on a hollow foundation. Also, it probably wouldn't take a determined country 200 years to modernize; they don't need to reinvent the wheel and to rediscover all of our innovations.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Certainly the population of rich nations has grown, and they remain very rich comparatively. So there is a lesson to learn and a roadmap to follow. Then I begin to wonder. Maybe the existence of these rich nations, including ourselves, is a temporary fluke. Perhaps we?ve grown rich through exploits that cannot be sustained. Perhaps our wealth is shrinking already.

For you to have, others must do without, perhaps that is the only roadmap here.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JaskalasCertainly the population of rich nations has grown, and they remain very rich comparatively. So there is a lesson to learn and a roadmap to follow. Then I begin to wonder. Maybe the existence of these rich nations, including ourselves, is a temporary fluke. Perhaps we?ve grown rich through exploits that cannot be sustained. Perhaps our wealth is shrinking already.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but based on my readings I'm under the impression that the U.S. had attained or would have attained ZPG--zero population growth--back in 1972. However, our population exploded because of mass immigration.

The core component of my solution to the problem of global poverty is -- population growth reduction -- a one child per family policy. Much of the world's problems with poverty is a Malthusian problem of limited resources--arable land, wood, water, oil, etc. We need to come up with some sort of a system where birth control can be placed into the water and people need a shot or a pill to counteract it in order to become pregnant. Obviously there are other problems that need to be addressed such as corrupt governments and dictatorships, but putting a lid on population growth and actually having population reduction would go a long way towards solving the problems.

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

 

[Atreus21]

I've always thought this was a singularly genius idea:

http://www.kiva.org/

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Deeko
I don't really care about global poverty, its not my problem. I guess that makes me amoral and not much of a member of the human race. Not like I care what you think, either.

Nobody trots out their ass for public view that doesn't care. Nobody takes a shit in public who isn't seeking attention. Look at me you asshole, I don't care and I'm so hurt that people don't care about me that I want you to know I don't care about you.

DO YOU FUCKING HEAR ME, I DON'T CARE

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: cubeless
the last big thing we did was buy tons of shit from the asian countries which lifted more people out of poverty than any other program...

...While putting many Americans into poverty...

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