Is it possible to eliminate poverty?

[Merkinball]

Is it possible to eliminate poverty? In all likelihood, no.

Is it possible to eliminate extreme poverty, where you have starving kids infected with malaria with no clean water or proper sanitation living in a shack exposed to the elements without electricity? Sure we can. We're just not trying. Or can't be bothered to try.

Yes we are, we are trying! The UN is in Darfur spending a billion dollars on hotel reservations and office space. They are providing tarps to the people there too. A little is better than nothing right? You got a better solution? If not, then shut up. Because a little is better than nothing.

 

[RedRalph]

Nowadays? It's amazing what people will tell themselves in order to...

It took you less than ten minutes to walk into that one. Good job.

Care to explain how we are headed in that direction nowadays?

 

[Merkinball]

Care to explain how we are headed in that direction nowadays?

I think you need to first exlain how the direction has changed.

 

[RedRalph]

I think you need to first exlain how the direction has changed.

Ehhh.... no. you are the one trying to ridicule my claim by implication, if you are so sure its wrong then go ahead and explain why it is. If you cant, then just admit it

 

[Merkinball]

Ehhh.... no. you are the one trying to ridicule my claim by implication, if you are so sure its wrong then go ahead and explain why it is. If you cant, then just admit it

Implication? You can try your best to hide behind your wording, but everybody and their brother who knows how you operate on this board understands what you are saying there. You are saying that things have changed for the worse over some set length of time in regards to poverty. It prbobably would coincide with Blair and Bush. If you try and explain it away any other way, you will be kidding yourself and this entire community would know it. Nowadays? What exactly is that? Why on earth would you say such things when absolutely positively nothing has really changed when it comes to actually spearheading poverty. And the best part is that you chronically bemoan the mechanisms in the world which actually have a substantive impact in eliminating poverty.

 

[RedRalph]

I'd love to see some examples of your accusation in the last sentance Merkinball...

Actually wehat I was saying is a lot more simple than that, and it has been like this for a long time before Bush and Blair. what I'm saying is that in general humanity is not heading toward eliminating human poverty at the moment. I dont see it happening unless the attitude of governments (not just the ones in NATO either) changes, and until technology becomes able to elminate things like crop failures, famie etc. I think it will happen one day, and I dont think that the fact it hasnt happened yet can be blamed on any one US President, UK PM etc...

so I'm afraid you did make a false assumption Merkinball. Better luck next time

 

[Merkinball]

LOL At the moment you don't see it? Like I said before, what has changed? And you seriously want me to dig up excerpts of you bashing capitalism? Gimme a break man. False assumptions? Sorry boss. Everybody and their brother on this board can you read you like a book.

 

[RedRalph]

sorry, you are ascribing ideas to me that just arent there. I odnt think humanity has ever been geared towards eliminating poverty, so I'm not saying anyhting has changed. thats why I know it isnt the fault of any one politician, thats just the way things have been up until this point. Capitalism isnt going to eliminate it, neither did feudalism, and you know what, neither did the attempts at building socialism in the 20th century. so you can keep imagining that my views on this are an anti-capitalist rant but they arent, so while you supposedly can read my like a book in actual fact its time for ou to get your eyes tested because you have totally misread me

 

[El_Machinae]

The Rosling presentation shows how many regions are actually trending out of poverty: we're more worried about ecological sustainability there, because if their ecologies crash then they're screwed.

Parts of Africa are really the places where the "improvement trend" isn't being seen. I think that part of the reason is just that the hurdles are so overwhelming that it would take an actual concerted effort to change anything (unlike many other places, where the feedback mechanisms seemed to be more robust).

 

[ArneHD]

Yes we are, we are trying! The UN is in Darfur spending a billion dollars on hotel reservations and office space. They are providing tarps to the people there too. A little is better than nothing right? You got a better solution? If not, then shut up. Because a little is better than nothing.

The current budget of the entire UN (according to wikipeida) stands on 4,19 billion dollars. It is difficult to help a continent of about 925 million people on 4,19 billion.

 

[Merkinball]

And the best part is that you chronically bemoan the mechanisms in the world which actually have a substantive impact in eliminating poverty. - Me

I'd love to see some examples of your accusation - RRW

To easy man...

Capitalism isnt going to eliminate it

Thanks for playing.

 

[dutchfire]

Possible, yes.

Is it going to happen any time soon? No

 

[RedRalph]

To easy man...



Thanks for playing.

so you think it is? How is capitalism trying to eliminate poverty and by all means please tell me how successful it has been until now?

 

[Merkinball]

so you think it is? How is capitalism trying to eliminate poverty and by all means please tell me how successful it has been until now?

Here is capitalism at work.





Singapore



Your precious socialism at work here? Nope, here's your precious socialism working hard at solving poverty.



As yu trace the steps of impovershed places, and those that have escaped it, there mysteriously happens to be a common theme.

 

[RedRalph]

Well done Merkinball. Similtaenously managed to not address what I was saying at all (instead posted photos), also managed to ignore the fact that there are huge amounts of poverty in almost every capitalist society. You know I could post a picure of Stalinist architecture and claim that that proves that socialism was eliminating poverty in the 50s, but unlike you I'm not enough of an imbeciele to think that a big building = no poverty. anyway, youre "hey everyone look how sensationally right-wing I am, isnt it sooo controversial" act is boring me (and quite a few others), so I'm going to leave it there.

 

[Merkinball]

Well done Merkinball. Similtaenously managed to not address what I was saying at all (instead posted photos), also managed to ignore the fact that there are huge amounts of poverty in almost every capitalist society. - RRW

Oh yeah? There are huge amounts of people in the US and Singapore living on less than two dollars a day? Huge amounts huh? Why not compare extreme poverty rates of Ethiopia and South Africa. What is different? Look at Chile vs. Bolovia. What a strange coincidence. How about Russia and America? What about Vietnam vs. Indonesia? And why is Vietnam suddenly growing? Why is Taiwan so far ahead of the mainland? Hmmmm. North Korea vs. South Korea. United Arab Emirates versus Yemen or Egypt. Funny, strange, bizarre trends I guess. We are not talking about simple poverty. We are not talking about kids growing up in the hood. We are specifically talking about pure, abject poverty. Capitalism and business has pulled billions out of abject poverty in Asia. Business is solving poverty in Asia. They have transformed their economies and freed them in order to attract foreign investment. This is how poverty gets solved. Not by your fanciful redistribution schemes and valorous United Nations.

You know I could post a picure of Stalinist architecture and claim that that proves that socialism was eliminating poverty in the 50s, but unlike you I'm not enough of an imbeciele to think that a big building = no poverty. - RedRalphWiggum

LOL. Come on dude. The face of big, oppressive government is Africa. Africa remains behind the rest of the world because of bad governments, totally unfree economies, and instability. And 9 times out of 10 that instability exists thanks to leftists here. I cannot believe that you are making the jump that business and capitalism in America, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, is not effectively wiping out, or wiped out, complete abject poverty in those places. There is no WAY that you would compare Sana'a to Dubai or Abu Dubai. You cannot possibly be stretching the notion of abject poverty into these places.

anyway, youre "hey everyone look how sensationally right-wing I am, isnt it sooo controversial" act is boring me (and quite a few others), so I'm going to leave it there. - RRW

Send me a PM when you start a thread that doesnt bash Bush, America, or capitalism.

 

[Elta]

What's with all of the dumb remarks on killing people in poverty

If we are talking about relative poverty ( as defined by the U.S. census bureau )
Then it looks something like this

Persons in Family Unit 48 Contiguous States and D.C.
1 $10,400
2 $14,000
3 $17,600
4 $21,200
5 $24,800
6 $28,400
7 $32,000
8 $35,600

Can we eliminate this kind of poverty?
Lets assume (since it is the plurality) that each household has 4 people 2 of which are working. And lets say that they are working 40 hours a week every week of the year.
That leaves us with a little over 5 dollars an hour needed for them in total take home pay to keep them out of poverty. With the minimum wage being 7 dollars soon and the fact that people making that much nearly always get more than their fair share in taxes back. Then yes we can eliminate poverty simply with everyone having a minimum wage job.

Likely, no. I don't want to get into a regulation discussion and thread jack. I will say this though. Even if we did *kill all of the very poor people we would still have poverty. High health care cost forcing people into poverty, lack of jobs, in ability to keep a job in some people,when people do get jobs they don't get hours yada yada yada. With a economy like ours there will always be poor people, though we could do a lot as a people to lower these numbers.


*Which I would find despicable of course, I am just using that to prove a point.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are also 'trickle down' methods of reducing poverty (which someone mentioned up thread). It works and the reduction of poverty is certainly a side effect, but it's not the most efficient way of going about it. Especially when people are dying. Yes, supporting high-priced tourism in various subSaharan countries will have some trickle-down benefit, but it really just isn't enough.

Some of the really high-impact solutions are reducing diseases and getting infrastructure built. Diseases really kick the crap out of an economy, especially if the working class is susceptible (e.g., HIV, malaria, leprosy, etc.) and reducing those diseases allow people to work instead of recovering (or watching their kids, etc.).

The added benefit of reducing diseases is that you're not hamstringing an economy while intervening. Getting rid of polio via foreign doctors didn't hamstring the 'homegrown medicine' industries. Not like importing excess food and clothing can hamstring local industries.

 

[mrt144]

If you mean "eliminate extreme poverty", then gods yes, it can be eliminated. If you mean "eliminate the fact that some people are poorer than others", then no.

A LOT of people complain about how we can't just "throw money at the problem", but the truth is that we're throwing very little money at the problem. By goodness, it could stand to have much more thrown at it. And that means wise, but generous, donations to charities. And there are many, many charities (and charitable concepts) to choose from. By all means, pick your favourite theory. But at least do something.

Actually just throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve the problem of poverty because such means would just be a transfer of wealth from one party to another. people suffering from poverty are still going to be underproductive.

 

[El_Machinae]

We're talking very different types of poverty. Of course someone's going to be 'unproductive' when they can't read, they have two kids dying of malaria, and they need to chop tree roots out of the ground for firewood. People will complain "hey, throwing money at the problem won't help", but fer-gods-sake if you get those kids some medicine and get the parents some tools, they're going to be a damn site more productive. People CAN move from impoverished to self-sufficient, but not if they have NOTHING.

There's a level of poverty so severe that the people literally have NO sustainable assets. People can complain about the efficiency of various programs (if they want), but right now there are nearly NO programs.