Is it possible to eliminate poverty?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not at all. I dont blame people who are poor due to no fault of their own...

However, most of these people dont remain poor long as they are determined to improve their status above being poor....

But you need to accept the fact that not all poor people are that way because of no fault of their own.....some are that way precisely by their own choice....

If you choose to remain ignorant and refuse to accept the fact that yes, some people do actually choose to live in poverty then we cant have a valid conversation.

Get back to me when you are willing to accept the truth...

I've never not said that

Of course many people are poor by their own fault. However, not all poor people are poor by their own doing, and its unfair to attribute the blame of some to all.

 

[WillJ]

I see your point, but I think the numbers go to show that huge amounts of aid are not going into Africa. Especially compared to certain thing. The nex Farm bill, for example, equals about 61 billlion dollars per year. That's triple the amount of aid going into Africa. And it's far more wasteful.

Right, it does show that huge amounts aren't going to Africa in total, but what it hides is that some specific parts have received quite substantial sums, and not always for the better.

We already know the solution (sustainable economic development)

And how do you achieve that? Now that, we don't know the solution to. Unfortunately, the most important field of economics (growth/development economics) is also by far the most mysterious.

The problem is being solved all by itself in a large part of humanity (notably India and China). The only problematic patch is Africa and rogue states like NK and Myanmar where it is more of a problem of politics first and then poverty.

Yes, India and China are doing quite well. So the question is, can African countries replicate their strategies, when they lack some of the social capital that the two countries were blessed with even before their current runs of economic development? Maybe, maybe not. And if not, what should they do?

The problem is well understood and there are no global interests intimately tied with not solving the problem.

The problem is sure as hell not well understood (if by problem you mean solution). And there are indeed global interests tied with not solving the problem. Farmers in the U.S. and Europe are a well-publicized example. And some argue the World Bank and IMF, which pressure countries into removing policies that go against free trade and prop up infant industries; these policies are (according to some economists, although not to others) crucial for the poor countries' development but against the interest of rich countries' businessmen, which the World Bank and IMF have to cater to (note that China and India largely ignored these organizations' demands). (I'm not quite sure how I personally feel about this infant industry argument, though.) Also, the World Bank's different divisions are generally funded based on how many loans are "needed," giving them an incentive to over-loan, until the IMF bails the country out; not a great incentive structure (some even go so far as to say that the World Bank has a direct interest in poverty so that their jobs are secure, although maybe that's a bit too crazy). Nor are incentives aligned well when third world governments are given aid proportional with economic desperation, giving the leaders an incentive to squander any aid given so that they can ask for more later --- rather, aid should counter-intuitively be given inversely proportional to economic desperation (with the exception of already rich countries, of course), similar to how the EITC program works in the U.S. But luckily those latter two incentive misalignments are starting to be corrected by the World Bank, if I'm not mistaken.

If you put it that way...

But the core of the book is not about funding these agencies - but to spur sustainable economic development.

Right, and he says the poor countries are caught in a poverty trap, which they will never escape without considerable quantities of foreign aid. According to him, funding those agencies is the core of the solution.

But the actual Millenium Development Goals are worthy causes. We can all argue about the implementation details (and of course there are issues with all of that).

The MDGs are extraordinarily worthy causes. But the question is not just petty little implementation details, it's whether or not a fully conscious, top-down approach is really what is needed or not (if the approach turns out to be successful, it’d certainly be the first time economic development was non-organic).

But as El Mac said lets at least do something about it. This is one of those case where doing something (almost anything) is better than just sitting on our hands.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are specific aid programs that deserve more funding (like El Mac, I'm especially fond of health aid, especially since if there's anything that differentiates Africa's problems from the rest of the world's, it's the extent of disease, which countries like India and especially China never had to deal with), and overall we should probably be giving quite a bit more aid.

But "let's at least do SOMETHING about it" is a terrible attitude to have.

We did "something" for poor Americans (mostly African Americans) by giving them public housing, which has created the destructive ghetto culture of dependency and anti-intellectualism. We did "something" for Africa a few decades ago when the development fad was to fund education, which did nothing but create brain drain, removing what little social capital those countries were able to acquire (Nigeria was the most severe case of this, if I remember correctly). We did "something" for Latin America and Africa by giving them a bunch of development loans that were completely wasted, threw the countries into debt that siphoned off their public resources to pay interest until they couldn't handle it anymore and had to be given debt relief. Pressuring charity into being efficient isn't a petty distraction and being extremely cautious with our involvement in developing countries isn't "unfair," despite what El Mac says, no matter how little aid we're giving. Without such pressure, when aid is given in a short-sighted manner, it is often WORSE, yes, WORSE, than sitting on your hands doing nothing (which, by the way, is precisely what we did with regard to China and India, as well as every other country that is currently developed).

 

[illram]

One of the things I remember from the book "Collapse" was that if you were to magically bring everyone in China up to the standard of living of Western countries, it would put some ridiculously gigantic burden on the world's natural resources, i.e. it would be completely impossible.

Granted, getting someone out of extreme poverty is on an order of magnitude less than living at the level of the average American, but it would seem that doing so would still be quite a strain on the world's resources and might be just as impossible as the above scenario. I'd love this unscientific personal hypothesis of mine to be proven wrong, however.

edit: and IIRC correctly in the book they were assuming we in the west continued our high standard of living, IOW if the third world was somehow bumped up to a higher standard it would also require people such as ourselves to lessen our strain on the world, which also seems kind of unrealistic unfortunately.

(Yeah that book was kind of depressing.)

 

[MobBoss]

is it a social problem when people live the way that they want to even if it would considered poverty?

Many people would say positively yes to that question.

 

[MobBoss]

I've never not said that

And I never blamed all poor people for being poor either. Yet, you directly alledged that I did...

Of course many people are poor by their own fault. However, not all poor people are poor by their own doing, and its unfair to attribute the blame of some to all.

Its also unrealistic to think you can somehow 'cure' poverty, when there are people who actively seek it as a lifestyle....

 

[mrt144]

Many people would say positively yes to that question.

To which you and I say; If a hobo wants to live as a hobo why should we give them money not to be a hobo (especially if they arent consuming tax dollars while being a hobo). Let Box Car Charlie ride the rails!

The only point of difference I think you and I have is how many people that are considered impoverished are there by choice. I think most people aren't there by an active lifestyle choice, rather I think most people are there because of continual poor decision making, continual lack of support from positive peer sources, and continual lack of developing of skills to escape poverty. The continual living condition of poverty is not necessarily indicative of wanting the lifestyle. I'd say only a portion of folks are impoverished by choice and they aren't the ones we need to include in poverty statistics. no hobos in my stats!

 

[scy12]

And I never blamed all poor people for being poor either. Yet, you directly alledged that I did...



Its also unrealistic to think you can somehow 'cure' poverty, when there are people who actively seek it as a lifestyle....

And it is also unrealistic to think you can cure disease when we will die anyway.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And I never blamed all poor people for being poor either. Yet, you directly alledged that I did...

After reading your posts again, I jumped the gun and thought you were on Skadistic's team. I'm sorry.

Its also unrealistic to think you can somehow 'cure' poverty, when there are people who actively seek it as a lifestyle....

Actively seek it, or do nothing to avert it? The latter I can agree with, but I've never heard of the former.

Unless you mean ascetics.

 

[scy12]

We did "something" for poor Americans (mostly African Americans) by giving them public housing, which has created the destructive ghetto culture of dependency and anti-intellectualism. We did "something" for Africa a few decades ago when the development fad was to fund education, which did nothing but create brain drain, removing what little social capital those countries were able to acquire (Nigeria was the most severe case of this, if I remember correctly). We did "something" for Latin America and Africa by giving them a bunch of development loans that were completely wasted, threw the countries into debt that siphoned off their public resources to pay interest until they couldn't handle it anymore and had to be given debt relief. Pressuring charity into being efficient isn't a petty distraction and being extremely cautious with our involvement in developing countries isn't "unfair," despite what El Mac says, no matter how little aid we're giving. Without such pressure, when aid is given in a short-sighted manner, it is often WORSE, yes, WORSE, than sitting on your hands doing nothing (which, by the way, is precisely what we did with regard to China and India, as well as every other country that is currently developed).

While you are correct in general you must understand that sitting on our hands and doing something is quite impossible right now due to the fact that there are several not charitable organizations which is in their interest to interfere. What you wish is correct but it is not practical or realistic to expect it to happen.

 

[El_Machinae]

I appreciate WillJ's critique. WillJ, are there any 'currently popular' interventions being touted which you think are bad ideas? (in that, they'll do more harm than good)

 

[lutzj]

Unless you want to kill all "mentally challenged" people in the world or otherwise remove genetic traits that cause mental ******ation from our species, then I don't think it's possible. There will always be people who can't provide for their most basic needs and will depend on others to survive.

Exactly. People need to stop assuming that everyone else could do fine with more money; I'm not surprised that 1 in 6 people can't.

 

[lutzj]

Unless you want to kill all "mentally challenged" people in the world or otherwise remove genetic traits that cause mental ******ation from our species, then I don't think it's possible. There will always be people who can't provide for their most basic needs and will depend on others to survive.

Exactly. People need to stop assuming that everyone else could do fine with more money; I'm not surprised that 1 in 6 people can't meet their own needs.

 

[sonorakitch]

Again, just some random summary, but the source is the 1998 UN Human Development Report.

http://www.countdown.org/end_articles/fam_kofi_annans_astonishing_facts.htm

Cheezy,

I looked everywhere on the net to find your source for this. I think you have it wrong. It should be like this:

The richest 225 people have a greater combined wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion.

I think that makes much more sense...

~Chris

 

[WillJ]

While you are correct in general you must understand that sitting on our hands and doing something is quite impossible right now due to the fact that there are several not charitable organizations which is in their interest to interfere. What you wish is correct but it is not practical or realistic to expect it to happen.

Indeed. But I'm willing to bet most of the aid industry isn't nefarious and is willing to step back if they are convinced they should.

I appreciate WillJ's critique. WillJ, are there any 'currently popular' interventions being touted which you think are bad ideas? (in that, they'll do more harm than good)

Well, it seems like the huge fad today is microfinance, which as far as I know is far from bad (although hardly the main solution, since a country can't develop just through small industry) --- although, that's of course not even "aid" anyway.

But in general, when there's a problem with aid, I don't think it's usually seen at the micro-level. Building clinics, supplying fertilizer, digging wells, giving vaccinations --- obviously interventions like these are always good, not bad, in and of themselves. Problems with aid are usually at the institutional level. When all sorts of charities (many of their efforts redundant) are scrambling to help out a country like Uganda, Uganda has to set up a bureaucracy to deal with this, which drains resources that might be better spent elsewhere (and this is usually far from trivial). When aid is given to central governments, it gives the central governments a counter-incentive against home-grown economic growth.

I can only think of two exceptions to that rule, where problems with aid can be seen at the micro-level, but I already mentioned them (but there might be others): programs that concentrate needy people into externally-funded housing (this is bad for rather obvious reasons), and programs that invest in human capital without corresponding investment in physical capital (if the country isn't every bit as attractive of a place to work in as it is to learn in, educated people will just leave, and the country will have wasted crucial resources and will have even fewer, not more, talented people than before). I'm not 100% sure how popular these interventions are anymore, though. There also in theory might be micro-level problems with certain health interventions, since in some cases prolonging a person's life just makes them more likely to spread disease, but I'm not sure if that's ever been a serious problem in practice.

 

[El_Machinae]

I agree that microfinance is certainly a current trend. I've seen critiques that it's not a complete solution (since it doesn't seem to encourage the hiring of employees, if I recall). I'd call it aid, though, since I don't think the odds of getting repaid are pretty high.

I'm really swayed by the disease arguments, and I'm currently trying to find a good malaria charity. I've never considered the bureaucratic bloat required to deal with incoming aid, that's pretty interesting.

Here's a talk by the author of The bottom billion who goes into how some governments succeed and some fail during a commodity boom. I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of people more familiar with Africa.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/270
Paul Collier: 4 ways to improve the lives of the "bottom billion"