Ending World Poverty

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I know this might have been covered here before, but I think it's still a matter of importance. Thought I'd share it with those who don't know about it yet.

This video stream www.bbc.co.uk... features Jeffrey Sachs.. there is a little bit of info about him below.

"Professor Jeffrey Sachs is a world renowned economist involved in the United Nations Millennium Project. In 1993 he was cited in The New York Times Magazine as "probably the most important economist in the world". He writes very passionately about global poverty and in his new book he argues that the West can make a real difference in alleviating global poverty. How realistic are his proposals?"




posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   
The military budgets alone that the major powers spend to build super high tech masterpieces of engineering .... which they then take outside and blow up...... things haven't changed much since I was ten. I used to do the same thing then....
build a model airplane, then I would play WWII and smash it... great fun it was. Card houses too. Dominoes.... even Pinata's are a variation on the them.... make it then break it. I hope I don't sound too judgemental when I say grow up to the entire human race for the crime of letting 25 000 kids a day starve to death when the $$$ spent on those glorified Xmas toys could buy food for life for all, and clothes, and housing too, I'd wager. It is totally realistic to say we could end world poverty. Of course we could. Just like I could go over to the cliffs nearby and jump off them... to my death. How hard would that be? It is just a decision. It could happen tomorrow. I won't be jumping off any cliffs though, no matter how easy it would be. No harder than jumping in the pool at the rec center. No more energy required, no more $$ needed. But I won't be doing it cuz I really don't want to.
And those 25 000 kids that we have sentenced to die of starvation tomorrow.....they will die. Cuz that is what we want. Grotesque? yes. But is it true? Yes. The new stealth fighter was the opportunity cost of their little lives. We had a choice, and we chose. Someday, maybe their lives will have more meaning than a really cool looking killing machine.....

yeah right. Oh well, I recall a saying........comes round goes round.......and you watch.....I say that is the way it works..... for real.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Millions of people, if we're lucky, are gonna have to go..... if I am right. But most people say I am just one of those wacky doom and gloomers, so I might be wrong.
The majority thinks I am......they can't be wrong can they?
Either way, whether we turn it around by choice, or it is a decision that is out of our hands at some point. (my personal view), one way or another, the tides will turn. Its just nature.

There, I hope my typing has now solved the world hunger issue.

www.thehungersite.com

just in case it hasn't..........free food online, check it.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mickmeaney
the West can make a real difference in alleviating global
poverty. How realistic are his proposals?"


Couldn't get the video stream. Were his proposals just like
everyone else's?? Make middle class American tax payers
take care of the world's poverty?? I pay enough taxes and
I don't want to be forced to pay more for someone in Africa
or Asia to get free abortions or whatever .... I'm not going
to sacrifice national security by cutting our defense budget
and leave us wide open to the radical islamists all in the
name of funding UN sterilization programs in third world
countries.

Like I said .. I couldn't get the video, but if his proposals
were like everyone elses' ..



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I believe that the dillemma of parting middle-class americans with their money, comes down to the problem of excessive nationalism. "I live in a great country, we are the best in the world, and we have the best army in the world. Sure, out nation owes #loads to the international banks, but who's gonna collect? HA!" this kind of american nationalism (aka. 'patriotism'), stirs up alot of foreigners into hatred of the american people, and rightly so. The western idea of working harder to earn more money, means that those who care about how much money they have, appear to believe that those who have little money, only do so because they choose not to work as much. American arrogance when it comes to the plight of others (especially in the post-war era of self-earned assets, and selfish consumerism), has grown exponentially in the past few decades. Occasionally, the need to engage in charitable acts (and boost one's ego) will arise, in which case the middle class will happily part with a few dollars, because it makes THEM feel good.
If the western nations were still in the 'dark ages' of the pre-enlightenment era (ie. back when the church dictated everything), they would be parting with their money as the church deemed fit, as part of their 'duty' to society. Nowadays, people part with money when it suits them. Westerners don't like paying taxes if it won't give them any immediately visible results, the notion of 'no taxation without representation' has strengthened this.
I believe that there seems to be a feeling of 'If i choose to give five bucks to some bum on the street, will he buy grog with it, or use it for drugs, or for food, or hookers, or what?' among the middle class.

(I am tired of responding to this now, as I have mental block... I'll add more later, if I can be bothered.)



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Why cant Africa feed themselves?

Why cant people in the Middle East learn how to filter and produce their own drinking water. There are smart enough Arabs to figure this out.

Why cant they harness the power of electricity on their own?

Farming and basic necessities have been around for a long time. At least the know how. Even the ancient civilizations farmed and built things.

Poverty isnt a problem in the United States. The United States shouldnt have the responsibility of holding everyones hand so they can feed themselves.

If African kids are starving, blame their parents. Blame their country's government. Dont offer them aid for their ill doings. It might be a tragedy, but if you arent willing to kill off the parents or the people who are responsible for the starvings, dont waste your time or money. You are just feeding into their irresponsibility.

Im sick of seeing all these starving people in the Middle East or Africa. Have they ever heard of Greenhouse's? Water filtration? Irrrigation? Solar power?

With all their oil or resources, im sure they could of traded by now enough good's to provide for whatever they lack.

So whatever. I think war would be better to kill the adults in these countries. And hopefully save the children.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Obfuscate
Why cant Africa feed themselves?

Warfare. Pure and simple. You can't farm your little plot if there are guerillas blowing things up and riding shooting animals and people and if warlords are trying to take over your land. If your area doesn't have war, then it's hard to feed the six or seven million refugees from your neighboring country where there IS war.

And then there's the encroaching Sahara and climate change, but that's another issue altogether.


Why cant people in the Middle East learn how to filter and produce their own drinking water. There are smart enough Arabs to figure this out.

And they have. But you'll notice that DELIVERING the water is another challenge, particularly if it goes to areas where there is warfare, rebellion, or insurgents.


Poverty isnt a problem in the United States.

Erm... you haven't been keeping up with the latest US statistics? 12.5% of our population is living in poverty and the ones at most risk are single women (white women, in fact) who are heads of households (with kids)
money.cnn.com...


If African kids are starving, blame their parents.

Perhaps you aren't aware of how many are orphaned by AIDs and other problems? In some countries, nearly 1/3 of the population has been orphaned by war and disease. Kids who are 8 years old really don't know much about farming or hunting. Many of them are further victimized by warlords who take them (boys and girls) to be concubines for their armies or as warriors for their armies. That saves them from starvation but at a terrible price.



Im sick of seeing all these starving people in the Middle East or Africa. Have they ever heard of Greenhouse's? Water filtration? Irrrigation? Solar power?

With all their oil or resources, im sure they could of traded by now enough good's to provide for whatever they lack.

So whatever. I think war would be better to kill the adults in these countries. And hopefully save the children.



I hope someday that you get to work with an international aid relief organization and get to see the situation first hand. I think you might change a whole lot of attitudes and you might have a different idea about what is and what isn't possible.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Africa has allowed itself to fall victim to corrupt socialist governments.
Look at Rhodesia, a country that was the bread basket of the continent. Now, it can't feed itself. A shame and a pity.

Also, as Byrd said, how can a continent eat when it is too busy with slaughter?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Sachs ideas are unrealistic. Throwing money at the problem has failed thus far. there are two major reasons Africa is a third world nightmare. One is corrupt govornments. The other is lack of education.

Africa is full of fertile plains, and is rich with natural resources. They have the overall resources to develop into first rate industrialized nations. The problem is one of people.

For starters, many of their govornments are either unstable or corrupt. This si why throwing money and food aid to the continent has been a failure, as the systems that are suppsoed to distribute or help the people often are corrupt and use the resources for other purposes. This corruption can also be seen in the constant warring going on, where one corrupt system tries to seize power from another. Anothert aspect of this corruption is that govornments accept bribes and pay offs from certain western coorperations, especially in the diamond trade, and allow them to come in, employ people at substandard wages in unsafe working conditions.

The second major problem is education. Im not talking about just literacy rates, either. Im talking about higher education. In order to build a functioning society capable of utilizing their resources to the fullest with strong, healthy infrastructures, Africa needs highly educated people. They need engineers, doctors, scientists, ect, to help develop these institutions. So far, there is very little access to basic education, let alone higher education, and the few highly educated people that they manage to produce often move to western nations where opportunities are better and the standard of living is higher. This is what people refer to as the "Brain Drain", where the brightest, best educated citizens are lured out of the country by better standards of living and pay in richer countries.

Poverty in Africa is not such a simple task as Sachs thinks it is, and it requires many different approachs. The first step is agressively wiping out corruption and civil war and unrest, making African nations stable building grounds for future improvements. Next major step is education, for in order to build and sustain working, free, fair societies, you need educated people who can make informed choices. Basic schools must be built, as well as universities. And to help them start, wealth western nations, instead of just throwing money at the problem, should instead throw people who can help build a good educational system, as well as help start with things like engineering projects, or to teach more productive farming and agricultural techniques as opposed to just slash and burn.

All this will take many steps tho, and fraankly, this si the type of thing the UN could get involved in to salvage their credibility and make themselves relevant again. This wouldn't involve taxing the hell out of averge citizens in western countries, if the resources and people were properly and efficently allocated, right now we have more than enough resources to help Africa get on its own two feet.

But ti takes work, effort time, and change. the first step must be political and social change there, because until corrupt govornments, factions, warlords, ect are removed from the equation, there really isnt much else you can do.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Africa has allowed itself to fall victim to corrupt socialist governments.



Nope TC.. Colonialism used to be the culprit and now it's capitalism, the IMF and the World Bank... Wealthy foreigners try to exploit the country for as much profit as possible. This is continously going on in those and other countries, including Aruba. I've experienced it first hand. They think they're above the local law and they treat locals like #. The highest positions in those companies go mainly to foreigners (from industrialized nations).

The answer to the question of why there is still poverty is still simple and still the same: Corporate Greed

Here is some more info.

www.monthlyreview.org...

www.corpwatch.org...



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I disagree, Bandit. Rich foreigners would not be able to go in and exploit African nations if corrupt govornments and systems did not allow it. It is because corrupt govornments accept bribes from, for example, European diamond moguls, that foreign diamond companies are able to go in, mine diamonds for dirt cheap, often at great cost to the miners themselves. Plus, the constant warring between various factions and groups of people create constant turmoil and chaos that makes self development impossible. it is hard to build your nation when there you are in constant danger of getting killed by rebels or the current army.

TC is right, tho, but not fully. Corrupt socialist govornments are just as responsible for many of Africa's ills as corrupt capitalist ones. Mugabe's regime of terror and bloodshed is a fine example.

If the govornments of the nations of Africa were to actually care about their citizens more than money or power, the exploitation would halt pretty quickly. They could make, for example, any foreign gold or diamond mining firm enforce proper safety measures when mining for diamonds, as well as pay them much fairer wages than what people are being paid right now.

I myself do not like diamonds, nor do I wear them, because I cannot enjoy the pretty sparkle of the rock knowing that some poor guy trying to feed his family for peanut wages more than likely died trying to retrieve that rock from the ground. But few people see it that way, so while a boycott of diamonds and gold is unlikely.

My desire for Africa is not to give them a net of fish, but instead, to teach the continent how to fish. With proper management and resource allocation, Africa has more than enough natural treasures to sustain prosperous healthy economies. But many barriers to this dream need to be removed and dealt with, and in some cases, it might require a bit of blood, sweat, and tears.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I disagree, Bandit. Rich foreigners would not be able to go in and exploit African nations if corrupt govornments and systems did not allow it.


Of course, you are also right. It's also from the corrupt governments who accept those bribes. There is no sympathy or compassion in either parties. The worse part is that even though the average person probably knows about the corrupt governments. The chance that he or she knows about what the corporations are doing there is slim to none.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
All Jeffery Sachs want's us to do is uphold our already made obligations. We are supposed to be putting .7 % of our GNP towards aid, the average today is around .4%. How much is it to ask to increase it by .3 measily points? The USA is ahead yet spends only around half as much as they said they would originally, infact only a handfull of countries are above the .7% mark and they are all in Europe. I'm reading the book right now, will most likely chime in when I've finished it.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf there are two major reasons Africa is a third world nightmare. One is corrupt govornments. The other is lack of education.


I must disagree. The only real reason is number 1, African governments. In the most recent ex-nation to blow it's government to hell, Somalia, conditions there are now vastly better than they have ever been before for the average person, and better than most other African states - this only 15 years after a violent and destructive civil war. Anarchy has proven itself a better protector of property rights than a national government was, which is the key to prosperity.

People will educate themselves when they see hope for their future wealth, i.e., when their property rights are secure. They will store up capital to invest in more productive practices when they believe they will benefit from doing so rather than simply having it stolen, or taxed or inflated away.

It's foolish to take a long term perspective when everything you own is constantly at risk; abject poverty is the result. If we really want to help these people, we should drop weapons/ammo across the country side so the masses can defend themselves against warlords and socialist states.

BTW, the vast majority of the "poor" in the US are on average 30+ pounds overweight, have two TVs, air conditioning, and some access to medical care. They are better off than most royalty of the past. None of these innovations would have been achieved without secure property rights, i.e. capitalism.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
There is nothing we can do except wait until the people we are trying to help get out of poverty, help themselves. I've seen it first hand and its just a waist of money. We give millions upon millions to poor countries and sure enough nothing happens except that the elected gov. pockets the money, and the people stay poor. Its just a waist if you ask me. Thats why we should change the way we go about helping countries, instead of giving them money we send a team of experts over there to teach their farmers how to farm and their business people how to do things in the most productive way and to send people of all different types of specialties to help them do things in a more productive way and teach them how to capitalize on their businesses, instead of just throwing money at them.

Like they say give a man a fish you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to fish and you feed him for the rest of his life.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Debt relief is all they really need, look what happened to Poland when Jeffery Sachs got the world to forgive her debts, Poland is now one of the fastest growing countries in the world, that .7 % of the GNP can be used for that alone. Remember the best security is to have all your neighbors prosperous and democratic, you should read the book instead of passing judgement. Being greeding and forcing 3rd world countries to pay thier debt(which they can never hope to fully repay) is just gonna create another Osama eventually...



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I'm having some problems with my comp/internet connection, so I couldn't get the video up. I'm posting mainly based on what I've read in here as well as my own ideas...

I understand that we have obligations we've made that we need to uphold. I've never heard of exact percentages of GNP that are supposed to go to foreign aid, but if we only need another .3% then that shouldn't be too hard to come by.

Aside from our current obligations, what ever happened to make us the world's savior? Why are we the ones that have to help everyone out? I know that sounds insensitive; I think something does need to be done, but don't we have enough problems of our own? We've got plenty of our own Americans homeless and starving. We have plenty people still unemployed, we have orphaned children of our own without a place to live, and we have a pretty significant crime problem of our own. Why can't we worry about ourselves for a while and let the rest of the world worry about their own problems?

Like I said, I know we have standing obligations that we need to attend to. We've shirked a lot in the past; its arguable that 9/11 might not have happened if we had kept up our end of our bargains in the past (of course, it's also arguable that 9/11 had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or anything like that, but I'm going with the "common" belief.) But shouldn't we worry about handling our own stuff before we take on anyone else's problems? Why not worry about ending poverty in America before we end it somewhere else?



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
BRAVO demosthenes, well said.

North Korea is a perfect example of how we, the US, sent experts there to help them get their agriculture running again, as part of one of those extortion deals no less, and what did they do...they squandered it. They didn't make use of any of the skills and basically destroyed the tools they were given to do the job efficiently. And now what, oh they're back to starving again. So strange for a potential nuclear power, hmmm...

You can never ever help those who won't help themselves. In some of these countries where hunger is a big problem, what happens? Its a common problem in the US with the homeless and poor, what happens when people become malnourished for long periods of time? For a lot of them, they become mentally ill. Now think of countries where large portions of the populations are starving and grew up staving or were born starving. Do you understand the magnitude of the problem? People of sound minds can make sound choices. Even if you get them fed, you will have to hold their hands for a long time to come till the heart of the problem rights itself which is the soundness of their minds. None of these so-called feed the poor programs are equipped or committed enough to properly deal with the problem.

If you teach them to fish and farm for themselves, and come back in a years time, and they're right back to starving again and not doing for themselves, then you have a bigger problem, and what do you do with it besides pour people's money down the drain?



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Blame the victim......... I am so sick of that refrain. And, wait till they help themselves? That is like pushing a nonswimmer into deep water, then saying you'll wait till they learn to swim before you save them. And it will lead to the same end.
imho, the harmful effects of our decades of exploitation, manipulation, and discrimination are the source of their woes. So, it is up to us to try to make up for our crimes. We will never be able to. But we should do our best to at least show we have a conscience. Of course, we would actually have to have a conscience.............
See ya on the other side.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
This should definately be done. If not for simple humanitarian reasons, then for all the benefits it will have for our own well being and security in the future. Poverty breeds all types of problems everything from hunger to unwanted population growth to terrorism. We have the means. It's time humanity grew up and took care of each other for once.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

I must disagree. The only real reason is number 1, African governments. In the most recent ex-nation to blow it's government to hell, Somalia, conditions there are now vastly better than they have ever been before for the average person, and better than most other African states - this only 15 years after a violent and destructive civil war. Anarchy has proven itself a better protector of property rights than a national government was, which is the key to prosperity.

People will educate themselves when they see hope for their future wealth, i.e., when their property rights are secure. They will store up capital to invest in more productive practices when they believe they will benefit from doing so rather than simply having it stolen, or taxed or inflated away.

It's foolish to take a long term perspective when everything you own is constantly at risk; abject poverty is the result. If we really want to help these people, we should drop weapons/ammo across the country side so the masses can defend themselves against warlords and socialist states.

BTW, the vast majority of the "poor" in the US are on average 30+ pounds overweight, have two TVs, air conditioning, and some access to medical care. They are better off than most royalty of the past. None of these innovations would have been achieved without secure property rights, i.e. capitalism.



I disagree there. People don't educate themselves when there is hope for the future. Hope comes from education. When you recieve education, you also recieve hope. When you are taught that you have power, and can become whatever you desire with hard work, it motivates you to improve your lot in life, it motivates you change bad situations. When you get educated, you get more hopeful, because you learn that anything is possible. Your horizons are broader, and you begin to respect yourself as a soverign individual with rights and responsibility.

And youre wrong about property rights and capitalism. The reason the poor in this country have more than poor people in other countries is because we are richer, and many products are cheaper because they are made in third world countries or developing nations where labor and materials are cheaper. Plus over time, through alot of hard work, we were able to improve our standard of living. This was possible not by capitalism alone, but by capitalism balanced with sane govornment intervention to protect not property rights, but human rights. If we had pure, unregulated capitalism, we would also have slave labor, child labor, unsafe worker conditions, we would be working 14 hours a day for next to nothing with no overtime, no vacation, no medical benefits. Capitalism is a very good and healthy system, when it is balanced by strong moral govornments who balance the opportunity to make money with the rights of people. We see unrestricted capitalism in third world countries where people have no workers rights who are exploited by rich cooperations. Capitalism only works when those who have capital and resources are legally required to treat their labor pools with human dignity.

What Africa needs is such a system. They need free enterprise with human and workers rights. It is because no such govornment laws exist that capitalist foreign national companies can go in and send diamond miners deep in the earth, in dangerous, unhealthy conditions with little to n protection, for less than living wages, and have them literally work themselves into a grave.

And, even in this country, capitalism does not protect property rights, as we see where Real Estate Developers are permitted to force people to sell their land or homes so they can use it to develop real estate projects. Capitalism doesn't protect those property right, if anything, this unregulated aspect of it destroys thier rights in favor of rich developers. In this case, what will preserve property rights are laws that protect people from being forced to sell or give up land for private non essential devlopment.

Free Enterprise is a wonderful thing, but only if balanced with certain limits to protect individuals, limits that must be imposed by ethical, democratic govornments, but realistic govornments.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join