Can poverty be eradicated? (1 Viewer)

[Rings]

Apparently, if we take all the money the US spends on military every year, we could rid the world of poverty...twice.

 

[Trefoil]

Um, Lentern, that's true, sure, if you define 'eradicating poverty' as removing ALL poverty COMPLETELY.

It's a much easy (and more realistic) problem to solve if you define it as 'minimising it to an Australian level of poverty', though.

Once again it's a matter of the absolute vs. the relative. Do we say the absolute is impossible and not try at all, or do we aim for the optimal situation which minimises it and is actually achievable (within or close to our current socioeconomic framework)?

 

[Lentern]

:evilwhip:

Apparently, if we take all the money the US spends on military every year, we could rid the world of poverty...twice.

But they wouldn't, they'd just lower taxes.

 

[DownInFlames]

Rubbish, I'm not a full blown socialist infact I'm a fan of Lord Keynes but poverty is a fundamental part of capitalism, it's a managed flaw, contained if you will to a tolerable level but it will never be gone so long as capitalism exists. Capitalism is cynical government, Socialism is folly idealistic government, only the lattercan have a chance of actually eradicating poverty. That does not mean however that in practice the former won't keep poverty at a lower level.

We live in a democracy. It still takes the people of the country to see that the changes we want are made. Without that the government can do whatever they want.

It's up to every individual person what they do. It's too easy to blame everything on society when really we individually don't care enough to make any change on a larger scale. There are people who do genuinely try to make a difference, but not enough.

 

[DownInFlames]

Apparently, if we take all the money the US spends on military every year, we could rid the world of poverty...twice.

At the expense of millions of people in the US who are now out of a job.

 

[Lentern]

Um, Lentern, that's true, sure, if you define 'eradicating poverty' as removing ALL poverty COMPLETELY.

It's a much easy (and more realistic) problem to solve if you define it as 'minimising it to an Australian level of poverty', though.

Once again it's a matter of the absolute vs. the relative. Do we say the absolute is impossible and not try at all, or do we aim for the optimal situation which minimises it and is actually achievable (within or close to our current socioeconomic framework)?

Oh I don't dissagree and had the thread said "can we curtail poverty" I would say by golly I'm yet to hear a good reason why not. But that is not eradication and yeah I'm guilty of owning a folly t-shirt that seems to think it's actually possible to make poverty history.

 

[Lentern]

We live in a democracy. It still takes the people of the country to see that the changes we want are made. Without that the government can do whatever they want.

It's up to every individual person what they do. It's too easy to blame everything on society when really we individually don't care enough to make any change on a larger scale. There are people who do genuinely try to make a difference, but not enough.

What does democracy have to do with economics? I am sorry but the capitalism which nuts like Andrew Bolt defend with gusto relies fundamentally on the fortunate reaping the benefits of the lesser fortunate and the day that is not the case is the day you call it socialist.

 

[Trefoil]

What does democracy have to do with economics? I am sorry but the capitalism which nuts like Andrew Bolt defend with gusto relies fundamentally on the fortunate reaping the benefits of the lesser fortunate and the day that is not the case is the day you call it socialist.

Democracy has everything to do with economics. Democracy is a discrete analogue of the notion that markets correct themselves. Democracies correct themselves too, and since economic policy depends on political policy, that's profoundly important. Without democracy, you can't move (or it's very hard) towards a more socially responsible form of economics/capitalism.

Anyway, I'm preaching to the converted. Sorry.

 

[slickstar_01]

tell that to the chinese hun.

 

[DownInFlames]

What does democracy have to do with economics? I am sorry but the capitalism which nuts like Andrew Bolt defend with gusto relies fundamentally on the fortunate reaping the benefits of the lesser fortunate and the day that is not the case is the day you call it socialist.

re democracy bit: it's up to us to chose what our government does. not the othr way around.

I agree with you that things can only start looking up when the rich stop taking advantage of the poor. I just don't think that we can know that changing capitalism to socialism works in reality, or that by saying "we are no longer a capitalist society" we are really going to change anything. People are still going to try to cheat the system and want to acquire more wealth for themselves. If people try to tell them they can't do that anymore, how many do you honestly think will listen?
IMO the only way the desired changes can be made is by a widespread change in people's attitudes, and no amount of "this is the way it is because of society at large" is going to encourage individual people to change. instead you get "what difference can I make when I'm the only one?"


Maybe I'm biased against socialism because of bad experiences with the local socialist party in the past. It just seems like thinly disguised communism to me, which, I think we all know, works well on paper but not in practise.

 

[Trefoil]

tell that to the chinese hun.

I wouldn't call China socially responsible.

Anyway, they are drifting towards democracy, if ever so slowly. It's basically unavoidable as they embrace capitalism.

 

[DownInFlames]

I wouldn't call China socially responsible.

Anyway, they are drifting towards democracy, if ever so slowly. It's basically unavoidable as they embrace capitalism.

lol also drifting towards obesity, if ever so slowly, just like every other well-off nation in the world.

 

[Trefoil]

Maybe I'm biased against socialism because of bad experiences with the local socialist party in the past. It just seems like thinly disguised communism to me, which, I think we all know, works well on paper but not in practise.

Communism is a subset of socialism. Socialism isn't communism.

We have a lot of socialists structures in most Western countries. They're very important for keeping the gears of society churning smoothly.

The question is whether we can (or should or need to) implement more such structures.

In America's case, the answer is a fairly clear yes (and that will happen in the next 4 to 8 years). In Australia's case - maybe not (I mean we already have a well regulated banking system, universal healthcare, and universal welfare - I'm not convinced there's much more that would benefit from increased government regulation).

 

[chicky_pie]

I think we can get rid of poverty, but the root of the problem is; lack of Education. I mean seriously, have you ever seen a smart person living in poverty? NO.

 

[Lentern]

re democracy bit: it's up to us to chose what our government does. not the othr way around.

I agree with you that things can only start looking up when the rich stop taking advantage of the poor. I just don't think that we can know that changing capitalism to socialism works in reality, or that by saying "we are no longer a capitalist society" we are really going to change anything. People are still going to try to cheat the system and want to acquire more wealth for themselves. If people try to tell them they can't do that anymore, how many do you honestly think will listen?
IMO the only way the desired changes can be made is by a widespread change in people's attitudes, and no amount of "this is the way it is because of society at large" is going to encourage individual people to change. instead you get "what difference can I make when I'm the only one?"


Maybe I'm biased against socialism because of bad experiences with the local socialist party in the past. It just seems like thinly disguised communism to me, which, I think we all know, works well on paper but not in practise.

First of all I don't know who thinks communism works on paper. It means power is taken through revolution, government then gets handed to an oligarchy or on an occasion a dictator, communism is not just an economic theory, it is a philosophy of government. Socialism is simply an economic theory.

Now if a government was democratically chosen on the premise that the government was going to distribute wealth more evenly to eliminate poverty, then you would call the government a socialist democracy. Even if the government was not doing it but the people took the initiative upon themselves it would still be socialism just a rather informal one.

Democracy has everything to do with economics. Democracy is a discrete analogue of the notion that markets correct themselves. Democracies correct themselves too, and since economic policy depends on political policy, that's profoundly important. Without democracy, you can't move (or it's very hard) towards a more socially responsible form of economics/capitalism.

Anyway, I'm preaching to the converted. Sorry.

No sorry I don't agree with that, as I kind of just said it would be a mistake to confuse economic theory with philosophy of government. Democracy means that the government should reflect the will of the people. By the same token an autocracy doesn't mean the government, or the autocrat will assume all the countries wealth and distribute as he wants, just that he is empowered to. How an incubment government decides to manage an economy is a separate issue to how they come to/retain government.

 

[staticsiscool]

Why would we want to remove poverty? Imagine if they had food instead of sticks? Their breeding is already out of control, even after we developed aids to try to slow their population growth. Now all our manufactured wars and genocides aren't even working. Poverty is our only hope.

 

[whoisurdaddy]

Poverty can be corrected with an interest free money system.

 

[Trefoil]

No sorry I don't agree with that, as I kind of just said it would be a mistake to confuse economic theory with philosophy of government. Democracy means that the government should reflect the will of the people. By the same token an autocracy doesn't mean the government, or the autocrat will assume all the countries wealth and distribute as he wants, just that he is empowered to. How an incubment government decides to manage an economy is a separate issue to how they come to/retain government.

Look, you're being a tool if you're not willing to recognise that the political process relates intimately to the economy.

 

[katie tully]

Poverty can be corrected with an interest free money system.

free money defeats the purpose of me having money and you not having money

 

[shakky15]

Why would we want to remove poverty? Imagine if they had food instead of sticks? Their breeding is already out of control, even after we developed aids to try to slow their population growth. Now all our manufactured wars and genocides aren't even working. Poverty is our only hope.

i had to lol a bit at this post.. but despite what appears to be sarcasm, i see some truth here (i dont agree with the whole post though). Poverty is definately NOT out only hope... africa doesnt really produce any cheap labour or anything... in fact id argue that all the aid going into africa is just capital outflow, with high income economies bearing the brunt of it, and that outflow isnt being replaced. in other words, foreign aid to africa is like money down the drain - just supplying rice etc to communities is not going to remove the problem of poverty - which i think is investment. Central europe was in pretty bad shape after the collapse of communism but look at them now (not perfect but quickly progressing). Why? because western europe invested in those economies, producing jobs and industries and making the country a bit more self-sufficient. The only thing we do for africa is feed the hungry... thats not solving the problem

but yes with the above quote - i always wonder why these africans continue to have kids. Why would you bring a child (they often have like 10 children) into such an environment.. you cant support/feed yourself so havng these kids is just making it worse.. limiting population growth would help ease the problem in the future i think.