How should global poverty be tackled? (if at all)

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/12/6/1354789306454/Nasa-Earth-at-night-008.jpg

How should global poverty be tackled? (if at all)

In terms of global poverty (ignoring the concept of relative poverty) many attempts since the late 1700s have been tried at solving the problems of the worlds poor, mainly on the African and Asian continents. The first attempt was under the European countries global Empires - mainly the British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Portugese and Spanish who established worldwide Empires which gave much sway to the Roman Catholic Church and national churches on missionary missions - resulting in the first modern hospitals and schools in Africa.

The second method was during the post-imperial age, from 1945 onwards when the Empires were dismantled and keynesian economics were the dominant school of thought; the idea that western government and national governments themselves should engage in large building and infrastructure projects (such as dams, motorways, ports) which would lead to economic growth. This approach many believe, including myself, resulted in failure as many of the governments misspent funds (corruption and badly allocated funding) which was to be expected in non-Anglo countries.

The third approach, and a much more recent approach is simple - that the models the Asian Tigers (Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong) and mainland China have followed since the 1970s is rabid free marketism.. opening up domestic economies to investment while the governments of those countries focus primarily on political stability, anti-corruption drives and relatively low state spending and regulation. Proponents of this idea argue that this method has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, whilst others say this approach has led to the mass acceptance of sweatshops in the far-East as acceptable.

So what do you think? do you favour foreign aid? direct reconstruction as in Empire form (or post-2003 US reconstruction of Iraq) or do you favour the more recent free market approach that the likes of India and China have taken?


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.

[Grig]

It's funny, because in my view countries should invest more on projects locally- local companies, not governments. One such cause for poverty and this is a pretty well know fact, is that these poorer governments want to make a quick buck, and thus bring in these huge multinationals who often exploit the people and landscape for their own profit and leave, with the people benefiting very little. This process does not help.

Empire, as much as you know I have said fascinated me, yet is the thing of the past and will not happen (unless you count conquest for oil by the Americans in Iraq as an imperial conquest). In the world today, I think the much more realistic option is to do something that China has done, which is your third option here. You note that, this led to "mass acceptance of sweatshops in the far-East as acceptable". Well yes, you can't have it perfectly can you, I see no harm in opening sweat shops, as long as there is no child labour and a minimum wage set. Now, interestingly, is step two for China. They are moving away from a solely manufacturing economy and are increasingly becoming consumers as well. But people, needed the money in the first place in order to consume, thus I'd view it as kind of a natural cycle.

Edit: To add to the above point, Hong Kong used to be the biggest manufacturer of toys and also produced a lot of textile, and now that people had more consuming power, the mantle has been passed on to another country where cheap labour is the norm.

[Yawn]

not enough food to go around and i would rather they starve than me

[Ardemax]

not enough food to go around and i would rather they starve than me

There is actually a surplus of food. It's just incorrectly distributed. And of course you would, because you are the centre of everything :rolleyes:.

[Oleh]

I know this may sound one sided and selfish but.

We should retract all aid from Africa and similar areas. The area isn't a sustainable living environment. IN MY OPINION.

[FlyingJesus]

Global poverty can't be solved, for anything to work properly there will always need to be a "slave" and "master" type relationship between countries, and the corporations that essentially own these countries won't allow for that to ever change.

[Explorator]

In my very biased and one sided opinion:

The world has already been decided. Rich countries are rich and poor countries are poor. And too be honest, it's probably going to be stuck like that. I understand their is some exceptions, aka Brazil and the Middle east who are becoming rich now, but generally, we can't solve world poverty or hunger.

We cannot solve poverty really because of the amount of people in those countries. In India and China combined, their is 2.5 billion people. That'a about 1/3rd of the world. And i'm sure 80% of people living in those countries are poor. My reason being is, It's too expensive. It would bankrupt a lot of countries and it would also cause a lot of inflation in those countries.

Also, world hunger cannot really be solved.

My reasoning is because their is 900,000,000 people in Africa and about 60% of Africa has such bad land its impossible to grow food on. I do remember seeing some adverts saying "Their is enough food for everyone, but people are still starving". It's upsetting knowing that people are starving, but we couldn't really do much about it. To feed the whole of Africa, it would be a rather daunting task. First of all, the transport. A lot of the food now is grown and produced in the Americas. It would cost a lot of money to distribute food over the Atlantic to people in Africa, and in the long term, this would have no chance of working.

Sorry.

Basically if you don't want to read all of that, here's a summary:

It would cost too much money for us to get all of the food and help there. Most of Africa is a wasteland and the dry landlocked countries wouldn't be able to grow food too well.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The world has already been decided. Rich countries are rich and poor countries are poor. And too be honest, it's probably going to be stuck like that. I understand their is some exceptions, aka Brazil and the Middle east who are becoming rich now, but generally, we can't solve world poverty or hunger.

I'd disagree in that and agree more with Tom in that the balance can shift, and i'd also disagree with the notion that with the free market there must be a master and slave position - aka that somebody must benefit at somebody elses expense. I think with the free market it is possible for both trading partners, whether individuals or countries, to benefit - just simply that one will always be wealthier than the other.

[AgnesIO]

not enough food to go around and i would rather they starve than me

Typical uneducated, idiotic and small minded view from subo!


I know this may sound one sided and selfish but.

We should retract all aid from Africa and similar areas. The area isn't a sustainable living environment. IN MY OPINION.

"And similar areas"..? So on the basis you don't feel that the (entire? :S) continent is not a sustainable living environment you think people should just be left to what? Die?

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/derejeb/derejeb1211/derejeb121100030/16163892-beautiful-landscapes-of-south-africa-with-lush-green-vegetation-beautiful-mountains-and-clear-blue-s.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Kalahari_E02_00.jpg/250px-Kalahari_E02_00.jpg
http://www.farmafrica.org/images/news/Postcard/2013/mar/pest-control-552-main.jpg
http://forests.org/shared/alerts/img/congobasin.jpg

Now, obviously the images in the spoiler have huge variations, so the idea that one cannot live sustainably in Africa is completely uneducated. Also, stating "IN MY OPINION" as if to try and fend of any response is a little odd in a DEBATE, particularly when the opinion is presented as a fact that is incorrect.


Global poverty can't be solved, for anything to work properly there will always need to be a "slave" and "master" type relationship between countries, and the corporations that essentially own these countries won't allow for that to ever change.

Definitely a believer in Andre Franks Dependency theory then :L I think you are spot on that a slave master relationship does have a huge role, and I have said myself many times that ultimately having poor underpaid people benefits everyone in more developed states (including me) hugely. However, I do think that people can be comfortably pulled out of poverty (certainly above the line) and companies can still make huge profits. This has been shown in the food industry (Green and Blacks being a prime example), although whether the majority of companies are simply boasting about the fair trade stuff for their CSR report, or whether they are genuinely ethical is a totally different matter.


In my very biased and one sided opinion:

The world has already been decided. Rich countries are rich and poor countries are poor. And too be honest, it's probably going to be stuck like that. I understand their is some exceptions, aka Brazil and the Middle east who are becoming rich now, but generally, we can't solve world poverty or hunger.

We cannot solve poverty really because of the amount of people in those countries. In India and China combined, their is 2.5 billion people. That'a about 1/3rd of the world. And i'm sure 80% of people living in those countries are poor. My reason being is, It's too expensive. It would bankrupt a lot of countries and it would also cause a lot of inflation in those countries.

Also, world hunger cannot really be solved.

My reasoning is because their is 900,000,000 people in Africa and about 60% of Africa has such bad land its impossible to grow food on. I do remember seeing some adverts saying "Their is enough food for everyone, but people are still starving". It's upsetting knowing that people are starving, but we couldn't really do much about it. To feed the whole of Africa, it would be a rather daunting task. First of all, the transport. A lot of the food now is grown and produced in the Americas. It would cost a lot of money to distribute food over the Atlantic to people in Africa, and in the long term, this would have no chance of working.

Sorry.

Basically if you don't want to read all of that, here's a summary:

It would cost too much money for us to get all of the food and help there. Most of Africa is a wasteland and the dry landlocked countries wouldn't be able to grow food too well.

Well you've referred brilliantly to one of the BRICS (Brazil), which straight away minimises the idea that countries cannot grow in their own style industrial revolutions. Perhaps the biggest example of that is China, with a hugely population of 1.2Bn. You are certainly right about China, and it has benefitted hugely from cheap labour - but at the same time, there is an ever growing middle class - which IS down to its industrial revolution.

We manage to get bananas, computers, water and all sorts from other countries.. it doesn't bankrupt us? :P I am impressed that you have some genuine figures though (unlike an earlier poster who happily told us the entire continent is unsustainable blah blah blah haha).

----

I will post my own views in the morning, pretty shattered after work already!

EDIT: Sorry Grig, I'll reply to you in the morning too as I am knackered and realised I hadn't replied in the first place!

[Oleh]

Yawn... I said "in my opinion" to detract from schmucks asking for evidence to back up my entitled opinion. MMK

Edited by Dilusionate (Forum Moderator): Please stay on topic, thanks!

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah that isn't really how debates work though. Or like, life

Edited by Dilusionate (Forum Moderator): Please stay on topic, thanks!

[AgnesIO]

Yawn... I said "in my opinion" to detract from schmucks asking for evidence to back up my entitled opinion. MMK

I don't think one understands the concept of debates... or a forum. I think you are in the wrong place you "schmuck", so err yeah, I guess I would rather be foolish than unaware of what a debate is!

The fact I am still awake hurts, I want to write more on the issue but my brain isn't capable of giving reasoned responses to a real issue.

Edited by Dilusionate (Forum Moderator): Please stay on topic, thanks!

[Oleh]

I don't think one understands the concept of debates... or a forum. I think you are in the wrong place you "schmuck", so err yeah, I guess I would rather be foolish than unaware of what a debate is!

The fact I am still awake hurts, I want to write more on the issue but my brain isn't capable of giving reasoned responses to a real issue.

I don't think you understand that I'm only saying it's my opinion in relation to it barely being factual, not that it's not open for debate.

I wonder why I come to this forum anymore...

Edited by Dilusionate (Forum Moderator): Please stay on topic, thanks!

[FlyingJesus]

If part of all of a so-called opinion can be proven to be factually false, it's not an opinion it's just being wrong. If you STILL hold to it knowing that, you're wilfully ignorant which is a great tragedy considering what our brains are capable of

Edited by Dilusionate (Forum Moderator): Please stay on topic, thanks!

[AgnesIO]

I don't think you understand that I'm only saying it's my opinion in relation to it barely being factual, not that it's not open for debate.

I wonder why I come to this forum anymore...



Yawn... I said "in my opinion" to detract from schmucks asking for evidence to back up my entitled opinion. MMK

You clearly suggest there that it is not up for debate... also, nobody asked you for evidence to back it up - I merely pointed out your "opinion" was factually incorrect, which doesn't surprise me.

Oh, and so do I :)

Edited by Dilusionate (Forum Moderator): Please stay on topic, thanks!

[Oleh]

You clearly suggest there that it is not up for debate... also, nobody asked you for evidence to back it up - I merely pointed out your "opinion" was factually incorrect, which doesn't surprise me.

Oh, and so do I :)

http://i.imgur.com/uK6AAEx.gif

Edited by Dilusionate (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly, thanks!

[AgnesIO]

http://i.imgur.com/uK6AAEx.gif

In which case, my dear, I'd suggest not taking part in a debate in future. Since clearly, you lack the knowledge not just of the topic, but the entire concept of debates altogether.

Edited by Dilusionate (Forum Moderator): Please stay on topic, thanks!

[Aiden]

take over africa lol and make it part of an empire or something lol

[AgnesIO]

take over africa lol and make it part of an empire or something lol

Wait, wait I have a feeling this happened before. I think it's coming to me.. hmm, not quite there yet...

Ah yeah here it is;

http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/images/colonialism1914.jpg

[AgnesIO]

Totally forgot to respond to this with my own views on tackling global poverty.

Firstly, I would agree with people who say we shouldn't just send absurd payment to corrupt governments overseas. However, I don't necessarily think foreign aid should merely be stopped - as when used correctly it can be a wonderful thing. I think the first thing is that grassroots development is generally a more successful approach from top-down development, as it is likely that it will be more sustainable in the long term.

Vaccinations are perhaps my key focus in fighting global poverty. People don't seem to understand the reasoning behind people have five, six, seven or even more children in many "third world" (sorry, can't say that anymore) countries. The sole reason, is that they accept at least some of their children will almost certainly die - and they therefore have more. Unfortunately, if this does not happen you end up with a very large family, and one that you cannot support. However, if vaccinations were paid for AND didn't get sold by corrupt officials, families would eventually not need to have more children, as they would be able to anticipate their children surviving. The evil pharmaceutical companies do not help - malaria, for example, COULD be solved - it was eradicated from the developed world years ago, but the money to pay for everything did not exist in Africa and Asia - leaving the disease to kill millions more people.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Totally forgot to respond to this with my own views on tackling global poverty.

Firstly, I would agree with people who say we shouldn't just send absurd payment to corrupt governments overseas. However, I don't necessarily think foreign aid should merely be stopped - as when used correctly it can be a wonderful thing. I think the first thing is that grassroots development is generally a more successful approach from top-down development, as it is likely that it will be more sustainable in the long term.

Vaccinations are perhaps my key focus in fighting global poverty. People don't seem to understand the reasoning behind people have five, six, seven or even more children in many "third world" (sorry, can't say that anymore) countries. The sole reason, is that they accept at least some of their children will almost certainly die - and they therefore have more. Unfortunately, if this does not happen you end up with a very large family, and one that you cannot support. However, if vaccinations were paid for AND didn't get sold by corrupt officials, families would eventually not need to have more children, as they would be able to anticipate their children surviving. The evil pharmaceutical companies do not help - malaria, for example, COULD be solved - it was eradicated from the developed world years ago, but the money to pay for everything did not exist in Africa and Asia - leaving the disease to kill millions more people.

If you feel people in the third world should be vaccinated then I suggest you donate to charities that perform that kind of work rather than arguing for the state to force everybody else to pay for it when they might think of it as a fruitless gesture/not worth it (not suggest I think either, just saying).

Anyone can make a moral argumet for state aid, but i'd argue against it in all cases on the basis that it's forcing people to donate.

[AgnesIO]

If you feel people in the third world should be vaccinated then I suggest you donate to charities that perform that kind of work rather than arguing for the state to force everybody else to pay for it when they might think of it as a fruitless gesture/not worth it (not suggest I think either, just saying).

Anyone can make a moral argumet for state aid, but i'd argue against it in all cases on the basis that it's forcing people to donate.

All government spending is technically forcing people to spend money on things whether they want to or not - that is not unique to foreign aid.

[dbgtz]

Didn't Bill Gates get a thousand or so children some vaccines and they were crippled for life afterwards?

http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

47,500...

[AgnesIO]

Didn't Bill Gates get a thousand or so children some vaccines and they were crippled for life afterwards?

http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

47,500...

Let's look at far bigger numbers. 3,000,000 people are saved annually due to vaccines (WHO). Yet another 1,400,000 children under FIVE die annually from completely preventable diseases (as in diseases that have vaccines to save them).

Unfortunately, I am more knowledgeable in a disease that could be eradicated, but sadly isn't; malaria. During World War II, malaria killed MORE people in Italy than bombs; yet how many die in Italy from malaria annually now? Put money towards a vaccine, and you could potentially save 3,300,000,000 people from a fatal disease.

Apologies I cannot talk more about polio specifically, as it is not an area I have studied (although I will definitely look into this more). The only thing I can say is that if every child in India was to be vaccinated (which I believe would benefit 170,000,000 children in the country), you could be sure that it will never affect someone again. Obviously, I am not suggesting that is worth paralysing 47,500 children - but I certainly wouldn't give vaccines a bad name because of this case. I've had more vaccines than I can count, and I'm still walking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

All government spending is technically forcing people to spend money on things whether they want to or not - that is not unique to foreign aid.

Indeed, and that's why we need a lot less of it even in this country - let alone paying for the rest of the world.

African states wanted independence, now they have it - let them get on with it. They aren't short of minerals and rich resources so let them be independent for once and find a way out of it themselves without crippling the Britain, who they largely (and wrongly) blame for their mis-management anyway.

Keep our old and fragile here warm rather than sending money off to a country where unprotected sex and having twelve+ children is the norm. I'm all for helping these countries - sure - but provided it's not done via the heavily in debt British state using the money of the struggling British taxpayer.

There's an excellent quote on foreign aid/aid in geneeral I have heard before but I can't remember at the moment, but it basically says that rather than forcing other people to pay for your pet causes so you feel morally better when you go to bed at night, that if you really meant it and really cared you'd simply donate yourself or go over to these places and help.