Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- lives on less than two dollars a day.

The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world's countries) is less than the wealth of the world's three richest people combined.

Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.


My question is twofold:

1) How important is it that we in the west work toward alleviating the worst of poverty in the world?

2) If you agree that it is important that we address the issue of global poverty – how should we best go about it?

While I tend to question the accuracy of your facts (got any sources?), I will of course give my opinion on this...



I agree that it is important to work toward alleviateing the worst of the poverty in the world. Nobody (reasonable) wants anyone else to be poor.

Should it be a priority? I don't think so. The problems we (the western world) have would definitely be more important to me than a bunch of poor folks. After all, no western world, nobody to help the poor folks. Simple cause and effect.



The private sector should do it.

For folks in the US, our Constitution is the law of the land. Nowhere does it provide for financial assistance for foreign nations, especially when we are currently not upholding a good portion of the Constitution (the "common defense" part).

Any foreign aid we give has been the result of a spend-happy Congress ($20,000 a second, right?).

I strongly oppose any of my tax dollars leaving our shores. I pay into the American tax system, and expect my dollars to be spent in America.

Our private sector donates more than enough. I don't need the government taking money out of my Forum Fund so that starving kids in <pick a poor nation> can be given a fish.

I am a heartless conservative, I guess!

Mike

Source




How fortunte for you that you happened to be born in a rich Western country

I think that reducing global poverty is important, and I think that there are a number of levels on which it should be dealt with.

1. I think the private sector should play a large role in this, particularly private charity organizations.

2. I think that Western consumers need to receive some education regarding the manner in which their product choices effect people in third world countries, both positive and negative effects. This should be sponsored by the private sector, and ideally, it will also encourage companies to act ethically while educating the public.

3. I do support some government aid programs, but I think that they need to be reworked. It is too easy for the money to get absorbed by poor governments. IMO, it should be worked in a manner that holds the countries that are receiving aid accountable for every dollar that is spent. In addition to that, the money should be used to help build infrastructure (ie. helping the countries to help themselves). They should have to develop a concise plan for how the money should be spent, and it should be submitted for approval. Once the money is disbursed, we should be able to go in periodically and inspect the progress. If no progress is being made, than we should pull our funds.

These are just rough ideas that obviously need to be refined.

Edited to fix my grammatical errors.

I don't think any of your opinions would be considered heartless if America operated in a global vacuum but it does not. The U.S. along with the rest of the Western World has a tremendous direct and indirect effect on the poorer nations. Africa has been brutally exploited for it's resources (in terms of people, local labour, material resources) for centuries and it is foolish to say that America has to look after itself first since America would not exist in it's current state without the exploitation of the third world. Yes a country has to look after it's own first and foremost, but one has to question the wisdom 150 billion dollars on a defense system which A) doesn't work properly and doesn't really serve a purpose when people around the world are starving by the thousands.Even a staunch conservative would have a tough time defending a policy of promising to help starving people and then not paying up.

The US and foreign aid

Heck, I don't consider them heartless now. When I was young, my parents reinforced the idea that life is not fair. Guess what? It still holds true today.

Yes, Brunie, I was lucky to have been born in a wealthy country. Does that make me responsible for people in other countries? Nope.

I was always taught that if I don't like a situation, I was the only one who could change it. Maybe someone should forward these words of wisdom on to the poor nations.

Ultimatejoe, I'll ignore your comment regarding whether or not our defense systems work, as that is off topic and you know it. Maybe you should make these statements in a thread that provides a place for debate of these issues.



That's a piece of cake to defend: we never should have promised anything to anyone in the first place. I know the Constitution like the back of my hand, and I'm still have a hard time finding anything that speaks of America's responsibility to poor nations. I must be missing it.

Mike

I tend to agree with Mike for the most part, but I do feel that Charitble Organizations are the best way to affect poverty. I do not agree that the gov't should be using our tax dollars and deciding which foreign country to send the money to. For instance, I have a problem with G.W.'s promise of 15 billion dollars to fund AIDS research in Africa for several reasons. 1) More than likely the money will be siphoned off by gov't officials like it is in so many other countries. If we donated any money it should be given directly to organizations like the Red Cross or similar entities which directly assist the people. 2) The spread of AIDS in Africa can be dealt with with education and informing people how lifestyle choices (i.e. unprotected, promiscuous sex) contributes to the problem, and just sending 15 billion dollars to those countries does not insure this will happen. 3) Many of these countries gladly accept our $$$ and then turn right around and claim that it is not enough or bad mouth us, calling us racist (e.g.) Nelson Mandela. I do not agree that I should somehow feel guilty for being born into the U.S., and therefore should be obligated to help poor people in other countries. Just because I worked hard and earn a good living does not mean the gov't should take 40% of what I earn and send it to another country. America is the richest country in the world, and we also contribute more money to charitable causes each year than many countries' GDP, and that is what matters. American's give this money freely and of their own choosing, because they want to. Many of the countries that are poor are that way because of civil wars or corrupt governments and the like, are we to feel responsible for those as well?

There is nothing in the Constitution about helping poorer nations. Then again there is nothing in the Constitution about Imperialism and Manifest destiny. I must admit I am at a loss for words in responding to your post however as you used the pretense of my being "off-topic" to completely ignore the thrust of my argument. I will restate:

The U.S. along with the rest of the Western World has a tremendous direct and indirect effect on the poorer nations. Africa has been brutally exploited for it's resources (in terms of people, local labour, material resources) for centuries and it is foolish to say that America has to look after itself first since America would not exist in it's current state without the exploitation of the third world.

Ultimatejoe, how about instead of rebutting me, you actually answer Brunie's questions:



It is obvious you think it is important, now how about your suggestions on how we should best go about fixing this problem?

Mike

The "exploitation" of Africa brought more good than harm to today's Africans. It is actually independance that has caused so many problems.

Hugo that is extremely debatable. Many of the problems of modern Africa trace their origins to imperialism. Colonial boundaries and imported nationalism have been the source of most of the civil wars since independence. Attempting to replace colonial rule with democracy in countries without an educated middle class was probably a mistake.
But the destruction of the traditional ruling class and political structure with the replacement of tribal nationalism hasn't done the continent much good.

This does not mean that their have been many progressive solutions since the end of colonial rule, but what good did you see coming out of imperial rule of Africa? Did it solve problems that were in Africa before the Europeans developed the ability to motor up rivers and survive malaria?

Did we bring the tools of modern progress when we brought the tools of empire?

I was actually thinking about Structural Adjustment Programs and the continued exploitation of labour in the third world actually.Ok, fair enough. How important is it? How important is it to help your neighbour? If you see someone lying on the street in a pool of their own blood do you call 911 and shut your blinds, or do you go outside and try to help? I think it's a tragedy that we as a culture (speaking for the developed world) let millions of people die every year and we simply say "they should work harder." If your arm is cut off with a machete as a four-year old because of where you live, I don't think a work ethic is a guarantee for sucess. Do I think I should donate every penny I have to charity? No, because it's not necessary. By simply caring and doing what I can I can make a difference; and I honestly feel that if people just chipped in some time, thought and effort a wonderful transformation could take place.

So how to make a difference? For starters I think we should move away from depending on government sponsored foreign aid. I think that government has to provide the stop-gap but I would like to see people donating their own time and money through non-profit organizations. But that's not the best part to eradicating poverty. The easiest way? Just stop and think for a bit. When you buy coffee at Starbucks, or when you buy the newest Nike shoes, or a diamond. ASK where they were made. If enough people new that entire wars were fought over the diamonds they were wearing perhaps the companies that have involved themselves in these brutal conflicts would stop and the flow of bloody diamonds will end. Then counties like Sierra Leone can stabilize and develop. You can demand that governments move away from a Free-Trade of the Americas that guarantees the rights of Transnational Corporations. You can pressure your elected officials to withdraw Western support for the World Bank which has imposed strict Structural Adjustment policies which have decimated the economies of numerous Central and South American, African and Asian nations. Hey, howabout debt cancellation? Debts from countries like Bolivia make up a negligible portion of income for Western Nations, but that money can make a difference in the smaller economies of poor countries. These actions are all relatively easy to pursue, do not infringe on anyone's sovereignty, and CAN make a difference.

Interesting comment – who exactly would you direct your little homily to – the people of these countries or the governments?



A point well made – the West is wealthy off the backs of the poor nations. The colonisation of many countries in Africa was simply about the resources available once the resources were gone – we upped sticks and left. As for the turmoil we created – it still has far reaching implications today.



Spot on - it was a huge mistake and so far we in the west have done little to correct that mistake. As you rightly pointed out - education is the key. In most African countries education is not free or mandatory and most families are unable to afford the cost of educating their children.

And what good are they going to do? Do you really think that the poorest quarter of the world's population live in such poverty because they are too stupid or lazy to 'help themselves'? As soon as they realise the error of their ways will money and food start falling from the sky upon them like Mana from heaven?

I don't think so. In fact, I don't think your 'words of wisdom' will make a damn of difference to a subsistence level coffee farmer scraping a living on a dollar a day - except, perhaps, to cause him offence.



Are you able to seperate what the constitution says from your own personal viewpoints and morality. Or are you an American automaton, programmed with the Constitution and with no ability to deviate from that programming?

The original question was if the western world should do something to reduce global poverty, and if so, what should be done. You do realize that you are posting somewhere where the majority of the posters are Americans, and, as a result, you will be getting a mostly American point of view, right?

I've given my answer. I don't think that our government should have anything to do with it. I've given perfectly good reasons. First, our private sector gives more than enough money to private organizations, not to mention the fact that they are much more efficient. Second, our Constitution does not require it.

Instead of arguing my reasons, the focus shifts to my ability to separate the law of the land, the Constitution, from my own viewpoints and morality. Well, I ask a similar question. Are you able to recognize that government exists to first and foremost serve its own citizens? I see the need for government to provide for its citizens. I also see the need for citizens to contribute to the reduction of world poverty as they see fit.

Regarding being an "American automoton, programmed with the Constitution and with no ability to deviate from that programming", I would ask you, "Are you just a European automaton, programmed with socialism with no ability to deviate from that programming"?

Now, see how non-productive that is? It does not further the debate. Can we get to some issues, or is this going to be another "we don't like America" thread?

Mike

Um, care to explain how the private sector is more efficient than the public? As I understand it single-payer health-care is tremendously cost-efficient in comparison to private insurance. But that's a bit off topic. I'd still like to see a single piece of evidence suggesting that a private company is more efficient for dispensing foreign aid.The constitution doesn't require a lot of things. The constitution exists to define the role of government in relationship to the nation; it does not provide for policy suggestions or carry value judgements. The constitution doesn't exclude foreign aid either. If this conversation is to be productive, howabout you offer some insight to my suggestions?

1) We collectively, as in a government effort? Highly important that we don't, because government is only suited in my view for a very, very limited role, that of conducting relations with foreign countries, maintaining domestic order and adjudicating disputes. It is because only government can do those things which must be done for civilization to exist that I tolerate it at all. Try to use government for much more than that and Bad Things happen, most notably creeping tyranny as bureaucracies inexorably grow ad infinitum due to internal dynamics, not external need. We individually is a different matter, and I consider it a very worthy charitable cause.

2) As I see it the problem is not that the world's economic pie is unfairly divided, and needs to be distributed more equitably. I don't see it that way at all. What I see is societies that have been successful in wealth creation to varying degrees and societies that have utterly failed at it. (And note: when I use the word "society" I'm always conscious that it represents an abstraction only, never a concrete entity. We do not exist collectively, only as individuals. I never, ever use "society" as a synonym for government and if you catch me doing that please slap me.) I'm not "blaming" them for failing at it: what would be the sense of blaming an abstraction? I"m diagnosing the problem.

The causes of a wealthy society are not mysterious, they're very well-known, though of course many are in denial. Stable rule of law with corruption well under control, reliably enforced property rights, low taxes and the freedom to trade without excessive interference from the State or lawless elements are the most essential preconditions. For that to happen you need to have at least a somewhat educated populace with sound moral values (according to whose culture is irrelevant; what matters is they aren't dysfunctional with respect to honesty, hard work and wealth creation).

What has to be done to really help those countries long term is to create those conditions in them. That's a big job, too big to possibly do as a nation except by conquering them one by one and assimilating them. I don't suppose that's what you had in mind?

A "softer" approach would be like that of the Peace Corps, to go and help individuals, families, and villages one-on-one, or more accurately help them to help themselves. Don't just feed them, but teach them how to grow enough food to feed themselves without outside help. Don't just teach them or heal them, but teach their next generation of native teachers and doctors.

That's one effective approach but it isn't all that's necessary to establish viable wealth creation conditions. You have to have a suitable government also, and I don't know to do that except by winning over the populace to the ideals of capitalism so that they'll replace their corrupt despots that prevent progress. Or we could intervene either directly or covertly, but again I'm guessing that's not what you had in mind.

One thing that's been tried and has proven not only ineffective but counterproductive is government-to-government aid, at least when the government is corrupt, as I believe it is in all of the poorest nations (if I'm forgetting an exception please remind me). Then whatever help is given goes to buying weapons to invade their neighbors or to repress their own people, to bribes to buy political support, or in the Swiss bank accounts of the leaders.

No specific sources for the above, but in general (in response to Question 2 that is) based on the ideas of Peter T. Bauer (Hungarian-born English development economist) and Hernando de Soto (Peruvian development economist). I highly recommend the works of both scholars. Agree or disagree, an understanding of both is essential for anyone studying development economics.

Unfortunately, those "words of wisdom" are simply not true. Trivial case: why are we in Iraq? Can't the Iraqi people just overthrow Saddam by themselves? Well, apparently not. If you're locked in a steel cage, and somebody else has the key, it's clearly not true that you're the only one who can change your situation. Counterexamples to your "wisdom" are legion.

This is not to say that there's no value in self-reliance. I'm one of the most self-reliant people I know, having pulled myself up from poverty to wealth and with a work role where I'm the guy who gets to fix all the problems nobody else can. All I'm saying is that self-reliance isn't ALWAYS enough. Sometimes people really do need help, and helping them benefits the helper in the long run, and "not my problem" is simply not a satisfactory answer.

Absolutely, but I don't think anybody was claiming that G2G aid was the only, or even the best, kind.

(Yes, I know I just responded twice in a row. I was responding to, and quoting from, two separate and very different posts. Combining the responses into one post seems even more artificial and hard to follow than leaving them separate.)

You're forgetting a key element; natural resources. For wealth to be generated trade must exist, and the basis of all trade is resources. You can't have a service oriented economy until a solid industrial base exists. All of the "wealthy" societies in existence today have long established industries and trade based economies so that they are no longer dependent on their own natural resources. Countries that don't have the benefit of their own natural resources to exploit are left to exploit other resources; labour being the primary sector.

Ultimatejoe,

I didn't forget natural resources, I left them out on purpose for a couple of reasons. Some of the very poorest nations have excellent natural resources, so obviously that isn't their particular problem. And as well, some very rich nations are weak in natural resources. What did Hong Kong ever have besides a good location for trade (which I guess you could consider a kind of natural resource) and the positive factors I cited? Of course there are countries in the Middle East which have not much positive going for them but enormous amounts of oil, but they'll be SOL if they don't come up with something else before it runs out... or the demand dries up.

Anyway, certainly we need to take natural resources into account when discussing how to improve the situations of particular countries. Don't see how we can do it when discussing the world as a whole though, so I just listed the unversals. Other things being equal, a nation richly blessed with natural resources is a much better place to start if you have a choice. If you don't, you gotta work with what you got, and I don't think there's any question that even a barren wasteland will do better with my positive factors in place than with their opposites.

The problem is moving beyond natural resources, as you said. You're just ignoring the fact that without internal industries that is extremely difficult to do in the current socio-economic client. Many countries that are poor now have actually seen a dramatic fall-off in their economies in the last 20 years as a result of Structural Adjustment programs which saw states such as Bolivia move towards a doomed market economy.

Bolivia, CIA World Fact Book, 2002

Hmm, doesn't sound doomed to me. Sounds like they've been making progress but with some setbacks. They don't seem particularly short of natural resources and they have some industry, but they have a severe crime and corruption problem in the form of cocaine cartels. Also sounds like the World Bank and IMF have them over a barrel on debt. I'm not a fan of either organization, nor of their "structural adjustment" programs which tend to leave developing nations in an economic straitjacket. Looks what's called for here is forgiveness of debt to get them out from under the IMF's thumb, a big crime crackdown, and if we aren't going to legalize cocaine (not anytime soon, huh?) than we should give them some government-to-government aid to fight the drug lords, and even military help for that if they need it. After that more free market reforms (not the IMF-dictated kind) should be successful and they shouldn't have trouble attracting foreign investment, and then we're on the road to a success story.

That fact book entry is about all I know about Bolivia so of course the above is subject to revision on further information. Looks like I just contradicted myself by saying government-to-government aid is called for which I'm normally against. Not only that, but I'm for fighting the Drug War in Bolivia which I'm totally against domestically. Ok, so I'm a hypocrite but hey, I'm trying to figure out what works for Bolivia, not to be philosophically consistent, and it looks to me like rooting out the Bolivian drug lords is both essential for further devekopment and beyond native resources. I guess embracing the drug trade instead of fighting it could be a lucrative option, but one with no future because they'd just be asking for a confrontation with the U.S. -- not something they'd be wise to risk.

Btw, I don't think the U.S. should give them any economic advice other than referring them to Hernando de Soto's Peruvian think tank, which can give them all they need and not subject them to criticism for following a U.S. plan, which probably wouldn't be as good as de Soto's anyway.

Don't forget Iraq Space Ghost!

They had an incredible economy and a very rich nation until Saddam got into power in 1979. Then it went straight to hell from there.