Can poverty be eradicated? (3 Viewers)

[TacoTerrorist]

There are always going to be rich and poor. Rich countries got rich primarily by manipulation and exploitation. We certainly have the means to ease the suffering of those in the third world, but the common people who inhabit the west don't have the motivation, and the rich don't have the will.

 

[HNAKXR]

in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people The Grapes of Wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

 

[d3vilz]

i think we can, but i doubt it will ever happen.

 

[moll.]

There are always going to be rich and poor. Rich countries got rich primarily by manipulation and exploitation. We certainly have the means to ease the suffering of those in the third world, but the common people who inhabit the west don't have the motivation, and the rich don't have the will.

No sane person would ever try to eliminate all forms of income inequality. The task instead is to reduce it to an acceptable level and to try and eliminate inequality of opportunity. I mean, it's not exactly fair that the GDP per capita in the West is well over $40,000 whilst there are some countries in Africa with GDP per capita of only $400. There are just as many intelligent people per capita in Africa as there are in any other country, but the problem is that they are not given a fair chance at education and showing their skills.
You can tell i believe in intellectual eugenics, can't you?

 

[impervious182]

I would first ask myself two questions:

How is poverty defined?

Then, is this benchmark achievable?

 

[moll.]

I would first ask myself two questions:

How is poverty defined?

Then, is this benchmark achievable?

I'm curious, what answers did you come to?

 

[impervious182]

I'm curious, what answers did you come to?

Would ask myself. At the moment I'm more concerned about the HSC than futily trying to eradicate poverty.

There's no need for sarcasm.

 

[moll.]

Would ask myself. At the moment I'm more concerned about the HSC than futily trying to eradicate poverty.

There's no need for sarcasm.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I like to hear people's opinion and then discuss how they came to such a conclusion. I'm a bit nerdy like that...
Tell after you finish HSC, yes?

 

[Darnie]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I like to hear people's opinion and then discuss how they came to such a conclusion. I'm a bit nerdy like that...
Tell after you finish HSC, yes?

OK moll. how about this:
poverty defined:
someone or couple who does not have the ability or resources to financially support themselves and family (if applicable)

benchmark:
When someone or couple can financially support themselves and family (if applicable) with suitable jobs, housing, food, education

 

[tau281290]

I am being an optimist here, I highly doubt it.

 

[moll.]

OK moll. how about this:
poverty defined:
someone or couple who does not have the ability or resources to financially support themselves and family (if applicable)

benchmark:
When someone or couple can financially support themselves and family (if applicable) with suitable jobs, housing, food, education

Well no, that kind of poverty will never be able to be eradicated, unless we live in a socialist welfare state, of which i'm not a big fan. But even the poorest in Australia have the very basic requirements given to them. Education is virtually free, and they can apply for a disadvantaged funding from the gov't to help with this, whilst public healthcare is subsidised by the government. Also, it's far easier for a homeless person in Australia to survive than in, say, Sudan. They're not likely to starve here, because there are people (eg the Salvos, Red Cross etc) to help them and feed them.
But my take upon this thread is that it's talking about absolute poverty, which is traditionally defined as living on less than a dollar a day and not having access to basic services such as healthcare, education and food. By definition then, virtually no-one in teh Western world is in absolute poverty.

 

[Darnie]

Well no, that kind of poverty will never be able to be eradicated, unless we live in a socialist welfare state, of which i'm not a big fan. But even the poorest in Australia have the very basic requirements given to them. Education is virtually free, and they can apply for a disadvantaged funding from the gov't to help with this, whilst public healthcare is subsidised by the government. Also, it's far easier for a homeless person in Australia to survive than in, say, Sudan. They're not likely to starve here, because there are people (eg the Salvos, Red Cross etc) to help them and feed them.
But my take upon this thread is that it's talking about absolute poverty, which is traditionally defined as living on less than a dollar a day and not having access to basic services such as healthcare, education and food. By definition then, virtually no-one in teh Western world is in absolute poverty.

thats kinda true, but i meant that someone who has moved out of poverty no longer requires the assistance of those charity organisations. i didnt mean to sound like i was talking about absolute poverty, rather poverty as a situation where you need other charitys/funds/people to support your living expenses.

 

[moll.]

thats kinda true, but i meant that someone who has moved out of poverty no longer requires the assistance of those charity organisations. i didnt mean to sound like i was talking about absolute poverty, rather poverty as a situation where you need other charities/funds/people to support your living expenses.

Well then yeah, poverty cannot be eradicated, but it can be brought under control. We'll never be able to just get rid of these charities, because unless we live in a socialist state, there will always be people who fall through the cracks of society. But the numbers in Australia who do rely on these charities for their wellbeing would be tiny. I'm guessing, but probably less than 3% of the population.
Compare that to many countries in Africa, Asia and South America, for whom the percentage would often be over 50%, if not much higher.

 

[dodgyv]

回复: Can poverty be eradicated?

I dn't kno y no1 has already stated the obvious solution: kill all the abos,

tbh that would be a great way 2 free up lots of govenemtn money tbh imho

 

[dodgyv]

回复: Can poverty be eradicated?

Edit: and japs and koreans

 

[Darnie]

Well then yeah, poverty cannot be eradicated, but it can be brought under control. We'll never be able to just get rid of these charities, because unless we live in a socialist state, there will always be people who fall through the cracks of society. But the numbers in Australia who do rely on these charities for their wellbeing would be tiny. I'm guessing, but probably less than 3% of the population.
Compare that to many countries in Africa, Asia and South America, for whom the percentage would often be over 50%, if not much higher.

so how would we bring down the percentage in countries like that? does alot of it rely on their government?
probably a lot of education and stuff to do you think?

 

[moll.]

so how would we bring down the percentage in countries like that? does alot of it rely on their government?
probably a lot of education and stuff to do you think?

Well weening them off their reliance upon charity would require large amounts of capital and labour investment. I'm talking primarily here about education, both primary, secondary and tertiary. If you have well-trained teachers, doctors, engineers, and even knowledgeable farmers then your country can become self-sufficient. Also of importance is medical care, construction and the establishment of manufacturing, rather than the economy relying on just agricultrue. But all of these would come with better education and training.
Unfortunately though, you can't have any of these things without a stable society and political atmosphere, which necessitates the creation of a uncorrupt, accountable and democratic gov't, and an objective and fair judiaciary system. Without these, it's not worth investing, because the investments will just be stolen by the gov't or other people.
Of course, this couldn't happen overnight and without large increases in the amount of foreign aid being given at the moment. But it'd be worth it, because in a matter of years those economies would be fully functioning consumers of goods and services from the West, as well as providing them with low-cost labour, reducing inflation and increasing wealth and standards of living across the globe.

 

[Darnie]

Well weening them off their reliance upon charity would require large amounts of capital and labour investment. I'm talking primarily here about education, both primary, secondary and tertiary. If you have well-trained teachers, doctors, engineers, and even knowledgeable farmers then your country can become self-sufficient. Also of importance is medical care, construction and the establishment of manufacturing, rather than the economy relying on just agricultrue. But all of these would come with better education and training.
Unfortunately though, you can't have any of these things without a stable society and political atmosphere, which necessitates the creation of a uncorrupt, accountable and democratic gov't, and an objective and fair judiaciary system. Without these, it's not worth investing, because the investments will just be stolen by the gov't or other people.
Of course, this couldn't happen overnight and without large increases in the amount of foreign aid being given at the moment. But it'd be worth it, because in a matter of years those economies would be fully functioning consumers of goods and services from the West, as well as providing them with low-cost labour, reducing inflation and increasing wealth and standards of living across the globe.

at the current financial status, would we be able to give enough money to put this plan ahead though? and you cant really just walk into a country and force them to become a democracy either. you think if we went around trying to bring all countries into democracy, china and russia would have something to say about that?

 

[moll.]

at the current financial status, would we be able to give enough money to put this plan ahead though? and you cant really just walk into a country and force them to become a democracy either. you think if we went around trying to bring all countries into democracy, china and russia would have something to say about that?

There are many estimations for the amount needed available, but most of them never go over 1% of GDP, per year. That'd be about US$130 billion from the United States alone, and a comparable amount from the EU. And that's each year. This would more than cover any expenses.
And the cost? say you earn $10,000 a year. You really gonna miss $100 of that? And considering the global economic benefits that would come with this, it'd be well and truly worth it.
China and Russia would keep their mouths shut, because no country openly argues with the ideology of democracy and doesn't face international backlash and condemnation. Besides, Russia is technically counted as a democracy these days. Although try telling that to Putin.
You encourage democracy and a lack of corruption by purposely avoiding those countries with out it. Also, by the UN gently encouraging and persuading the gov'ts to reform their systems before aid will arrive if there are any major problems. A gov't is only as powerful as the people it controls. And all gov'ts want more power, even teh democractic ones. Authoritarian gov'ts just want it more.

 

[Darnie]

There are many estimations for the amount needed available, but most of them never go over 1% of GDP, per year. That'd be about US$130 billion from the United States alone, and a comparable amount from the EU. And that's each year. This would more than cover any expenses.
And the cost? say you earn $10,000 a year. You really gonna miss $100 of that? And considering the global economic benefits that would come with this, it'd be well and truly worth it.
China and Russia would keep their mouths shut, because no country openly argues with the ideology of democracy and doesn't face international backlash and condemnation. Besides, Russia is technically counted as a democracy these days. Although try telling that to Putin.
You encourage democracy and a lack of corruption by purposely avoiding those countries with out it. Also, by the UN gently encouraging and persuading the gov'ts to reform their systems before aid will arrive if there are any major problems. A gov't is only as powerful as the people it controls. And all gov'ts want more power, even teh democractic ones. Authoritarian gov'ts just want it more.

oh ok i didnt realise the cost was so little really.
But china and russia are almost a superpower now aren't they? they must have some power in that sort of stuff. I can see how it would be easier to conform african countries and such with little education, but countries closer to china and russia, i dont see how they will conform too easily