poverty? can we actually end it? do we have enough resources world wide?

Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 08:57 pm
I'm talking about poverty in the sense that people should be able to get healthcare, housing that is in a livable condition, food, electricity, access to internet, etc, as these are what is seen as "necessities".
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 1,189 • Replies: 10
No top replies

Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 03:16 am
The most pressing problems are sufficient food and access to reliably clean drinking water. Certainly there are enough resources for everyone to get enough to eat, and to assure that there is clean drinking water for everyone. There are also sufficient resources to assure housing (adequate housing at least), minimal health care and retirement security. Personally, i don't know that governments even want universal internet access, let alone considering it a necessity. The problem we run into is the modern feudal system which is called capitalism. Them rich boys want to keep getting richer and richer, far, far beyond their ability to spend what they've got. They have bought governments lock, stock and barrel, and they don't want anyone to crash their party.
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 06:03 am
this is what makes me so angry. we have the resources but we waste it. theres so much food waste that is unnecessary.
captialism is a horrible system, there needs to be a cap on how wealthy you can get.

i hate that the corporations try to look responsible by donating off the backs of their customers, who are often 1 or 2 pay checks from being homelesd themselves. No one needs a billion dollars in their account. no one needs a friggen personal jet. all these celebrities who "raise" awareness are just as bad. they often dont contribute their own wealth.

i also think we should end all charities and consolidate it into one big one that aims to provide food,basic education, clean water,shelter, and medical service world wide. forget all these foundations for x. we need one specifically for the worst problems in society and it should be government run. but run responsibly.

its things like thus that make me not want to live in a world like this, where you cant change it.
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 06:32 am
I don't like the idea of one person, or a small group of people. controlling much of the worlds food or water resources. This person would have an incredible amount of power, deciding who of billions of people lived or died.
cicerone imposter
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 10:32 pm
Poverty is an interesting subject, because many countries that we think has high poverty rates have low ones, and the countries we think has low poverty rates has high ones.

China 2011 13.4%
Costa Rica 2010 24.2%
Denmark 2011 13.4%
France 2004 6.2%
Germany 2010 15.5%
Ireland 2009 5.5%
Israel 2007 23.6%
Japan 2007 16%
South Korea 2006 15%
Mexico 2013 48%
Russia 2010 13.1%
Spain 2005 19.8%
Taiwan 1.16% 2010
UK 2006 14%

As long as the governments of countries provides the necessary social services under capitalism, the majority of their citizens should do relatively well compared to the world population. Everything is relative.

Governments influence their economy much more than most people realize.

Even in the United States, the states have different guidelines for what is considered poverty. And even within states, counties have different guidelines for poverty.

Poverty can never be ended, because there is no way to redistribute resources equally amongst its citizens to prevent poverty. Even Denmark, the happiest country in the world, is having problems with their social programs. They are beginning to cut back on benefits, because the revenues and resources are not able to keep up with the cost of providing all the benefits they now enjoy. Their 13.4% poverty rate will continue to increase in the future.

0 Replies
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 04:54 am
There is no collective will to end poverty, as I see it. Or, none, where it counts.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 08:59 pm
in a captialistic society, i can see how there might not be an end to relative poverty, but what about absolute poverty. i.e the bare essentials. proper living conditions, food, fresh water, medical care?

for example, everyone gets x amount of dollars for food or something.
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 09:01 pm
well, as it stands, I found out we do have enough food. well, enough food is wasted that can feed the world several times over. so there is no need for people to be dying from starvation/malnutrition.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2014 09:16 pm
It's my belief that the government should make sure every citizen should have food and shelter - especially the children.

Many of the social services that should be provided by the government are being offered by churches and other nonprofits.

I've noticed that since the Great Recession, more middle class families are turning to food banks to feed their families. That's also true of Silicon Valley where the average wages are one of the highest in the country. It's been proven that hungry kids cannot concentrate on their studies, and they are the future of this country.

I wish our government would spend more on the living necessities for our citizens over war machines and wars - and even over the monetary gifts of foreign aid.

The United States is notorious for having its fingers in many pies. One of the ways Uncle Sam tries to coerce other states to get in line with his preferred policies is by doling out foreign aid -- lots of it.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) states that its function is to provide "economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States." While the effectiveness of foreign aid remains up for debate, the United States recently has continued to pump around $50 billion in aid to other countries each year.

In terms of the absolute value of aid given, the United States is the world's top donor by far. So where is all that money going?
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2014 09:28 am
@cicerone imposter,
the wars are act like a stimulus to the economy, which provide jobs. I think the real issue is corporations and individuals being able to hold large amounts of cash at the expense of others. for example, some heads of hedge funds make billions a year, and its not because the fund does well, its because they siphon off cash in the form of mers from the money put in by investors. no individual should ever need more than 100 mil, and that cash should be used to create pay equity.
cicerone imposter
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2014 11:54 am
That's the problem; wars kill. Providing an adequate wage for all workers will make citizens more self-sufficient without the need for governments to make sure all have the necessary health care, shelter and food. It also helps the government treasury to spend on the necessary infrastructure and safety of its citizens.

0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » poverty? can we actually end it? do we have enough resources world wide?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 03:31:54