NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just put by name behind a global call for
the leaders of the world's richest nations -
the G8 - to take action to end poverty. They
have the power to do it and only need the will,
and by joining this call you can also help
convince them.

Simply add your details at:
http://www.whiteband.org/Actions/g8/en/takeaction
It takes less than a minute.

Nelson Mandela said early this year that
'Sometimes it falls upon a generation to
be great. You can be that great generation.
Let your greatness blossom. Of course the
task will not be easy. But not to do this
would be a crime against humanity, against
which I ask all humanity now to rise up.'

Act now:
http://www.whiteband.org/Actions/g8/en/takeaction

Putting your name on a list will not end poverty.
I've just put by name behind a global call for
the leaders of the world's richest nations -
the G8 - to take action to end poverty. They
have the power to do it and only need the will,...No. They do not have the power. All the money in the world will not elimnate poverty. In fact, welfare payouts subsize poverty. In the case of international aid - they subsize tyranny. If you really want to help, raise an army to kill these thugs. I'll donate to that.

What action though?

My premise would be that capitalism is the root cause of poverty, being a system requiring "winners" and "losers" (i.e. "rich" and "poor") to function.

Since the G8 nations are card-carrying capitalists excuse my scepticism.

Putting your name on a list will not end poverty.
No. They do not have the power. All the money in the world will not elimnate poverty. In fact, welfare payouts subsize poverty. In the case of international aid - they subsize tyranny. If you really want to help, raise an army to kill these thugs. I'll donate to that.

Stupid commie.

What action though?

My premise would be that capitalism is the root cause of poverty, being a system requiring "winners" and "losers" (i.e. "rich" and "poor") to function.

Since the G8 nations are card-carrying capitalists excuse my scepticism.

Stupid super-commie.

No. They do not have the power. All the money in the world will not elimnate poverty. In fact, welfare payouts subsize poverty. In the case of international aid - they subsize tyranny. If you really want to help, raise an army to kill these thugs. I'll donate to that.

I think that most of the recent anti-poverty casmpaigns have been focusing on not giving aid since it did not have the intended impact on the origional Live Aid.

What we need is to stop our leaders being in bed with the TNCs or a change and stop blocking access to our markets.

No. They do not have the power. All the money in the world will not elimnate poverty. In fact, welfare payouts subsize poverty. In the case of international aid - they subsize tyranny. If you really want to help, raise an army to kill these thugs. I'll donate to that.

I certinatly wouldn't mind toppling some evil regimes in Africa, but only if we don't set up our TNCs in those countries. Let them run their own economies without sucking them dry and they will prosper.

Stupid commie.

Capitalism doesn't seem to be doing much to help Africa, or even poorer parts of the Western world.


btw: this shouldn't turn into a capitalism v. marxism debate. Perhaps a productive "how can we end poverty" debate would be more constructive? :D

Stupid super-commie.

Are your other 132 posts as well reasoned?

What action though?

My premise would be that capitalism is the root cause of poverty, being a system requiring "winners" and "losers" (i.e. "rich" and "poor") to function.That's an interesting fallacy. A capitalist economy is not a casino and requires neither winners nor losers. There are two factors that cause people to "lose". The first uncertainty. The further into the future you plan for the more likely you are to be wrong. The other is force. The existance of capitalism is not such a factor. If you disagree, I'd love to see why.

Stupid super-commie.

:rolleyes: mature political thinker :rolleyes:

I think that most of the recent anti-poverty casmpaigns have been focusing on not giving aid since it did not have the intended impact on the origional Live Aid.What I've been hearing most is 'debt-relief'. Debt relief is a sticky issue for me because I don't want my governments lending those governments money to begin with. Neither group of taxpayers deserve the burden. Does that make sense?
I've also been hearing that we need to increase aid. I've not heard any of the Live-8 people or thier supporters say that aid should be stopped.

What we need is to stop our leaders being in bed with the TNCs or a change and stop blocking access to our markets.
I don't know what a TNC is or what access blocking you're referring to.


I certinatly wouldn't mind toppling some evil regimes in Africa, but only if we don't set up our TNCs in those countries. Let them run their own economies without sucking them dry and they will prosper.If TNC means what I think it means, I agree. Understand that I actually support non-government foreign freedom fighters, although I wouldn't go myself.

/Do you mean TIC?

Just a thought, if the More economincally develodped countries (MEDCs) were not here,

The LEDCs (Less....) would be no longer poor,

Poverty only exsists while the is someone more wealthy, and this will always happen.

Poverty is always going to be there whether we cancel debts, increase trade, decrease subsidies in MEDCs, improve infrastracture in LEDCs.

ANother thought - if MEDCs were not here, the LEDCs would strive to become more developed - like Europe in the Industrial Revolution. However they have no drive for this, as they are trying to compete against already developed countries. So they ask for money and help to increase to our level....

Surely the simple solution is to cut all ties with the LEDCs - lock down on trading etc etc, and force the LEDCs to trade with each other and as a result make each other stronger. For example - at present most countries in Africa trade with Europe (and within the country); but few trade with each other. Yes they are racked with history and war - but no more so than Europe.

As someone who specialises in development economics, I can give only two viable ways right now:

a) Subsidies and trade barriers set up by rich nations must be abandoned immediately. They kill and hurt more people than all dictatorships put together. Check the numbers.

b) Don't give aid to governments, but actually spend it directly on infrastructure and training of people in the third world. The majority of the Governments there have no other purpose other than to enrich those in power (usually through shady means). So a third party must step in and create a base for an economy to exist on. Everything else (education, democracy and freedom, savings, investment...) will follow.

As someone who specialises in development economics, I can give only two viable ways right now:

a) Subsidies and trade barriers set up by rich nations must be abandoned immediately. They kill and hurt more people than all dictatorships put together. Check the numbers.

b) Don't give aid to governments, but actually spend it directly on infrastructure and training of people in the third world. The majority of the Governments there have no other purpose other than to enrich those in power (usually through shady means). So a third party must step in and create a base for an economy to exist on. Everything else (education, democracy and freedom, savings, investment...) will follow.

DITTO! But add in some unfavourable conditions of politics, everything screws up. We hate politics, but we can't do without it....sigh...

Poverty's been around forever. A bunch of rich nations writing off debt will not change anything significant. What about debt owned to international banks? Are they willing to write it off too?

Someone please explain to me.... why so many people here that think that by throwing money at a problem will automatically solve it?

EDIT: Has anyone else noticed the end poverty now add at the top of the page?

Someone please explain to me.... why so many people here that think that by throwing money at a problem will solve it?
Depends on how good your aim is...

Depends on how good your aim is...

hur.. hur.. hur..

Why do you feel the need to be facetious?

hur.. hur.. hur..

Why do you feel the need to be facetious?
What I mean is, you have to spend it in the right place. Just handing out money to anyone isn't helping...we've seen that.
But money makes the world go round, and someone needs to pay to built up a social infrastructure in the 3rd world - and it's clearly not going to be the people that live there, those are busy trying not to starve or die of AIDS.
I thought you were asking other people and had read my previous post...
It was meant to be funny... :(
*goes away with hurt feelings and cries*

What action though?

My premise would be that capitalism is the root cause of poverty, being a system requiring "winners" and "losers" (i.e. "rich" and "poor") to function.

Since the G8 nations are card-carrying capitalists excuse my scepticism.

The reason there is inequality of wealth is because of the inequality of the distribution of capitalism around the world. World inequality decreased after India and China's free-market reforms. Considering that capitalism has brought the fastest increase in the standard of living of humanity ever seen you might want to be a bit more grateful

Capitalism doesn't seem to be doing much to help Africa, or even poorer parts of the Western world.


btw: this shouldn't turn into a capitalism v. marxism debate. Perhaps a productive "how can we end poverty" debate would be more constructive? :D
well how we can end poverty is by deciding which is best. If we think Marxism is best then moost of Africa would probably die. But Karl had good intentions.

PS (marxism led to the direct murder of 3,000 people every day since the first Marxist government)

The main problem of Africa is actually that private property isn't protected so businesses don't know whether their assets will be seized on the will of the government. Marxism abolishes private property

ok, check this (http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk/index.html) out. A really muddle-headed fellow this one. It's good fun reading. :) there's a section on G8 as well, i'm not nicking this thread.

There are simple solutions for everything, unfortuanately, they only work to perfection in my dreams.

To all those who are sceptical about this initiative, I say: What have you got to lose? What have the 24000 people who die from hunger every day, the 100 million children who are denied the chance to go to school every day, the 1.1 billion people who have to drink polluted water every day, and the 8,200 people who die due to HIV/AIDS every day got to lose?

Putting your name on a list will not end poverty.
No. They do not have the power. All the money in the world will not elimnate poverty. In fact, welfare payouts subsize poverty. In the case of international aid - they subsize tyranny. If you really want to help, raise an army to kill these thugs. I'll donate to that.
They DO have the power. And who is talking about welfare payouts here? This is about supporting development projects on a long-term basis. This is about attacking the causes of poverty. This is about keeping the promise the world made 5 years ago.

BTW, if it was not possible to eliminate poverty (as you suggest), would the Heads of State and Government of 189 countries have approved and proclaimed the Millenium Goals?

Stupid commie.
Stupid cappie

They DO have the power. And who is talking about welfare payouts here? This is about supporting development projects on a long-term basis. This is about attacking the causes of poverty. This is about keeping the promise the world made 5 years ago.

BTW, if it was not possible to eliminate poverty (as you suggest), would the Heads of State and Government of 189 countries have approved and proclaimed the Millenium Goals?

You really are quite naive aren't you?

To all those who are sceptical about this initiative, I say: What have you got to lose? What have the 24000 people who die from hunger every day, the 100 million children who are denied the chance to go to school every day, the 1.1 billion people who have to drink polluted water every day, and the 8,200 people who die due to HIV/AIDS every day got to lose?

Aid (At least unregulated and undirected aid) will lead to those numbers growing ever higher. That is what they have to lose.

Im not to sure if a plan like this would be sucsessful, but if we look at the whole problem of africa as a whole its a problem that seems to have no end. But would it ease the severity of the situation of each country that was contributing to the "Aid to Africa" plan insted of dumping money onto what ever first needy group of people that came along, but insted the giving nation was designated one african country to give to. This way it would be more focused onto one area and one nations needs. Although there is the problem of having more needing countries then giving countries it i dident say the plan would be flawless, but could anyone see something like this being a start to a plan?

well how we can end poverty is by deciding which is best. If we think Marxism is best then moost of Africa would probably die. But Karl had good intentions.

PS (marxism led to the direct murder of 3,000 people every day since the first Marxist government)

No. Russia was Communist. And so is/was China, Not Marxist, very different thing.

The only things that will sort out Africa, the East of Europe and parts of South America are progressive Political, Economic, and Social Policies. It's called the Industrial Revolution in Britain, China and Brazil are going through it now, I call it the Second Stage, the U.S. is in the Third Stage (Imperial), and West Europe is in the Post-Imperial Stage.

Anyway, whatever it is, pumping money isn't gonna work, it's gonna be a painful metamorphosis that every country goes through, in some form. It's like Iraq, the only thing that is gonna stop the fighting is a war, because then the strongest will win, we just have to make sure that Democracy and Equality win.

I'm not a Socialist by the way, I'm Capitalist, just Left.

No. Russia was Communist. And so is/was China, Not Marxist, very different thing.
Check your definitions. Russia had money. Russia had a state. Russia even had classes...and people more or less owned their own cars.

You really are quite naive aren't you?
Would you care to elaborate on that remark?

Aid (At least unregulated and undirected aid) will lead to those numbers growing ever higher. That is what they have to lose.
Well, I don't think anyone intends to give unregulated and undirected aid, it would be invested wisely (as it should be).

As long as there are people accumulating money, there will be a compensating gap somewhere.

That's an interesting fallacy. A capitalist economy is not a casino and requires neither winners nor losers. There are two factors that cause people to "lose". The first uncertainty. The further into the future you plan for the more likely you are to be wrong. The other is force. The existance of capitalism is not such a factor. If you disagree, I'd love to see why.

Being lazy today I'll post a copy of an earlier post in reply, so it's not completely focused.

First what is Capitalism?
I jotted this down a while ago and can't remember where from but I think it covers it:

"An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market".

Capitalism is flawed in that it's goals run contrary to the public good. Profit is the goal, achieved through competion and creating winners and losers. If an individual is not productive, for whatever reason, and cannot contribute to the profitability of an enterprise, they have no value.

Where a country pays at least lip service to human and social rights a vast amount of legislation is enacted to protect the population from commercial practices.
Malpractice, fraud, deceit, theft, coercion, disinformation, insider trading, tax evasion, unsafe working, racism, bigotry, sexism,......

The business community have invented the concept of "Business Ethics" to promote the idea there are moral choices in business. The immoral choices are all too frequently taken which is why so many controls are needed.

Where a country does not advocate human and social rights we see little protective commercial legislation or if it is there, it is unenforced. This leads to widespread corruption. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/gov_cor&int=-1)

There is this constant conflict between public good and profitability. It is not profit in itself which is so bad but the way it is accumulated and redistributed.
It is the control of the accumulation and redistribution in which government systems differ so much. Capitalists would control it privately and socialists publicly.