NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok people, my threads are usually some form of philosophical dichotomy of some sort, so here it is...

The third world. Poverty. Under-Developed Nations. Call it what you want, something needs to be done. The problem is too horrible to ignore. So let us approach the problem practically. What is being done?
Charity work, and international aid. Now Charity work is nice. Charities ease the symptoms of poverty, but they do nothing to treat it. In my opinion, charities mop up the water, without turning off the tap. If you save a child, that child will grow up, have 47 kids, contract aids and die of starvation. Or, that child will get an education, and emigrate to a rich country.
International aid. Foriegn aid is mostly guzzled up by the bottomless abyss of corruption. Simple as that. You will see aid being embezzeld into off-shore bank accounts, arming child soldiers, purchasing armaments from Korea, and the like. Very little (if any at all )will reach the local population. None will promote any kind of economic developement.

So what is the kernel of world poverty? Corruption. Simple as that. Poverty is an economic condition which is caused by poor governance (intentional or not). Poverty is also an easily treated problem. Economic developement is not hard. All of the worlds under-developed countries could have flourishing economies within 5 years if they followed the right path. They could, if it were not for one factor. Corruption. How does one beat corruption? What can be done?

Now we are finally at my dichotomy. I am a pacifist (more or less), but more than that I am a practical man. Usually, the two do not clash. However, now they seemingly do. It seems to me that the only way to beat corruption in the third world is to literally walk into these countries and say "Your not in charge anymore". Then set up an infrastructure for them. Either that, or wait patiently for an African renaissance while millions of people die. So do we intervene, or stay out of it?

I am inclined to say intervention. But it is very dicey on how it is done. Firstly I would say that the intervening force must be an international coalition, perhaps the UN. For the purposes of my example, I will use the UN as the co-operative task force to do the job, though it could easily be an independant alliance (oxymoron?). The reason I say it must not be one country is that if it was one country, the act could be viewed locally and internationally as colonialism, which is a bad thing. Further, an international organisation makes international corruption less likely to occur (such as with US corruption in dealing with 3rd world nations).

Next up is method. Initial set up may incurr military activity. Idealy the whole event would go very much like an alcoholics intervention, and the existing government simply surrenders to rehabilitation (or even volunteers). When there is government resistance, the international alliance will have the much stronger military, and would simply move in, and lock down the country. Meanwhile, the force would offer food, medical treatment, education and other services to win local support. Hopefully, the intervention would have popular support, and any rebel activity would be short lived.

After initial invasion, the force would begin to build infrastructure, and slowly hand over control of services to the private sector, and government-in-training. This would take time. When the infrastructure and new governmenr is satisfactorily built, the force would hand over to the new government, and remain in reduced numbers as a peace-keeping force. Eventually, after sometime of prolonged stability, the international force could pull out completely. If the nation fell back into chaos, start the process again.

One-by-one, the force should move through the under-developed world. This is the best idea I can think of. It has it's flaws, but I beleive that it is better than simply throwing money at the problem when we know that doesn't work.

Please, share your thoughts on the issue, and feel free to offer alternative solutions (non-violent if it is at all possible). I will put up a poll.

Corporate greed is the top reason, in my opinion.Only thing that could help is if those ------- find a heart.

Another large problem is over-population, though.

The cure to poverty....MONEY! :p

I said intervention was the way to end poverty (which it is), but not military intervention.

Corporate greed is the top reason, in my opinion.Only thing that could help is if those ------- find a heart.

Another large problem is over-population, though.
How does corporate greed cause global povert?! It can worsen it, but it doesn't cause it. Further, corporate greed can be harnessed to fix global poverty with the right policies. Overpopulation can be an economic advantage as long as it is with in the capablilities of the governement to manage this population. Again, though, overpopulation is not the source of poverty, just another symptom.

I think Sub-Saharan Africa needs to stop trying to copy the west’s industrial revolution and realise that before an industrial revolution can take place there needs to be an agricultural one as you will see in the news food has always been a problem in Africa this is worsened by the fact hat Africa is a net importer of food.

So in short Sub-Saharan Africa needs to get its act together and start building on Agriculture instead of industry it may not make the region particularly rich but it will keep the people from starving and hopefully Agricultural demand be a stable enough market in the future.

Also I have my concerns about sending some Alliance of nations in to take out “corrupt leaders” especially if such nations have such ties with greedy corporations like the U.S never mind the fact that sending an army into an unstable region with an unforgiving climate is always a bad idea never mind the fact that half your troops will catch aids

Again, though, overpopulation is not the source of poverty, just another symptom.

I'd say, in many cases, it is actually a source. It's definately a problem to be fixed if we (the first world) ever decide to start solving poverty seriously.

I think Sub-Saharan Africa needs to stop trying to copy the west’s industrial revolution and realise that before an industrial revolution can take place there needs to be an agricultural one as you will see in the news food has always been a problem in Africa this is worsened by the fact hat Africa is a net importer of food.

So in short Sub-Saharan Africa needs to get its act together and start building on Agriculture instead of industry it may not make the region particularly rich but it will keep the people from starving and hopefully Agricultural demand be a stable enough market in the future.
This is a good idea, but not mutually exclusive with an industrial revolution. Singapore more or less skipped the agricultral revolution. If Africa can do something at a comparative advantage to the rest of the world, then they can trade that for food.
Also I have my concerns about sending some Alliance of nations in to take out “corrupt leaders” especially if such nations have such ties with greedy corporations like the U.S never mind the fact that sending an army into an unstable region with an unforgiving climate is always a bad idea never mind the fact that half your troops will catch aids
Yeah, well this is why I emphasize the importance of an international organisation heading the intervention, wherein no member state had any more power than the other. That way the US could not hold the lot to ransom while it appeased it's corporate buddies. Personally I would prefer the US not to be there at all, but they are useful. I guess reinforcing the risk of AIDS amongst the troops would be all you could do to try and prevent iwidespread contraction. Anyway, AIDS is not the issue.

I'd say, in many cases, it is actually a source. It's definately a problem to be fixed if we (the first world) ever decide to start solving poverty seriously.
Beyond slowing it down, there's not much to be done. I don't see how over-population is actually the source of poverty. Not like corruption. Besides, unlike corruption, over-population can be turned around to become an advantage (China? India?) once corruption levels are low enough to allow for real economic developement.

I said intervention was the way to end poverty (which it is), but not military intervention.
How else do you interven to a hostile corrupt government? I'd like to know

How else do you interven to a hostile corrupt government? I'd like to knowConvince the people of the country to overthrow the government themselves.

And the billions and billions of dollars, tens of thousands of soldiers and other supplies are just going to shoot out of a horse's arsehole then. If not then I'd like to know how you're going to get it all.

Convince the people of the country to overthrow the government themselves.
Well that is indirectly military intervention, except that that way more people would die, and you would most likely end up with another corrupt government. Also, no infrastructure is being fixed. interestingly enough, that is the US's chosen method of ensuring chaos in those areas it would rather did not develop (funding terror/rebel cells. Though usually they are ousting democratic governments in favour of more easily controlled dictatorships. I still don't think it would be any better in reverse).

what also can help is make fair-trade: http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.htm,
anyways I think intervention has to be done diplomatically and enforced to the maximized point, however an intervention can sometimes sound like a military invansion used euphemistically.

Well that is indirectly military intervention, except that that way more people would die, and you would most likely end up with another corrupt government. Also, no infrastructure is being fixed. interestingly enough, that is the US's chosen method of ensuring chaos in those areas it would rather did not develop (funding terror/rebel cells. Though usually they are ousting democratic governments in favour of more easily controlled dictatorships. I still don't think it would be any better in reverse).You said how do deal with the government, not how to fix the infrastructure. That would come afterward.

I do concur that that is the US's chosen method of dealing with areas it would rather not develop, though.

And the billions and billions of dollars, tens of thousands of soldiers and other supplies are just going to shoot out of a horse's arsehole then. If not then I'd like to know how you're going to get it all.
Cut all of the billions of dollars of aid (between the various members states) going to the country that you are intervening. Another reason to include the US. An intervention would be expensive. But it would end decades of potential aid expenditure. If US can afford to f*ck around in Iraq, they could afford this. Seeing as it would essentially be a creative charity, donations could also be at hand.

Intervention and pouring money into these places is going to solve anything. And something actually doesnt need to be done, this is on them, not the west to fix. They need to figure out how to get stable, free governments and the free market economy for themselves, anything else would just be a waste of money and manpower. I know it sounds selfish but if they cant get their shit straight, let em starve.

Use the abilities of the developed world to encourage responsible governance in the developing world. Encourage strong anti-corruption measures, strong protections of property rights and other vital individual rights, governmental stability, encourage regional trade, strengthen local democratic institutions and opening of markets to Foreign Direct Investment. That's how to beat poverty in the developing world.

what also can help is make fair-trade: http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.htm
Fair trade helps developing economies. Developing economies are fine, because they are developing. Before fair trade can help most african nations, you will need to lose the band of government thugs reaping whatever rewards fairtrade offers locals.

Intervention and pouring money into these places is going to solve anything. And something actually doesnt need to be done, this is on them, not the west to fix. They need to figure out how to get stable, free governments and the free market economy for themselves, anything else would just be a waste of money and manpower. I know it sounds selfish but if they cant get their shit straight, let em starve.
I should have added an "I don't care" option to the poll.

Use the abilities of the developed world to encourage responsible governance in the developing world. Encourage strong anti-corruption measures, strong protections of property rights and other vital individual rights, governmental stability, encourage regional trade, strengthen local democratic institutions and opening of markets to Foreign Direct Investment. That's how to beat poverty in the developing world.
How do you encourage anti-corruption measures to a corrupt dictator who doesn't give two shits about the UN good-dictator-programme? Same goes for rights. Most of these guys don't even maintain a pretense of giving two shits about international guidelines.

I should have added an "I don't care" option to the poll.
But I do care. I care alot when western governments waste money and resources on lost causes like Africa/Africans

But I do care. I care alot when western governments waste money and resources on lost causes like Africa/Africans
Do you have any potential justifications for that amazingly scumbaggish remark, or are you content simply to present a first impression of yourself as a selfish bastard?

I believe that there is a saner solution to the poverty problems in Africa. One that does not have to rely on the good in man, nor does it require massive military spending in order to accomplish. I propose that we NUKE Africa. By doing so poverty will decrease rapidly and accomplish the following goals.

1) The suffering in Africa will diminish to almost nothing.

2) Government corruption will diminish

3) Moral quandaries about the Africa problem will be a thing of the past

4) Reduces the number of nukes on the planet

5) Would make a lot of really cool explosions

So I must ask, should we go for a solution that may work or one certain to work. Should we make suffering a thing of the past or should we allow it to continue in the future. I say the choice is clear. Who is with me?:D ;)

Let us give an example: Zimbabwe
Prior to Mugabe’s more recent ‘land reforms, Zimbabwe was a major exporter of food feeding a significant portion of Africa. Now it is suffering from mass starvation.
This nation is by no means unique nor the worst example in history – but it is fairly current and I trust that everyone here knows at least the general situation.

Were Mugabe to be replaced by the democratically elected representative, many of the problems could be resolved. Does this justify humanitarian intervention?


Giving monetary aid has never and probably will never work: all it does is prop up unworkable systems and perpetuate the current problems. Tied aid (can only be spent on certain things) is the current solution to this problem but it does not work much better than free money. Then things were switched to loans – theory being that if they have to pay it back it is just a business loan that can only be used for profitable ventures rather than boondoggles. This causes huge debts because the recipient governments still squander and embezzle the money so now they have debt without anything to show for it (causing donor nations to write off the debt, which the recipients count on so giving it in loans instead of grants is mostly useless).

The only way for aid to work properly is to use the money to start small businesses in the target region. I really like micocredit initiatives – basically these are small banks that hold savings accounts and give loans in tiny amounts (tiny from a first world perspective, but just what a housewife in Uganda needs to start a small business).

Couple this with great pressure on local governments to reduce bureaucratic red tape, absurd fees, and graft/corruption and you have a recipe for improvement. Problem is that a lot of anti-globalization protestors – and local politicians who love the power and money of being corrupt seize upon this – do not understand the underlying problems and cannot accept this as a viable solution.

Military invasions are expensive both in terms of money and life – while in the long run it may be considerably cheaper, the short run costs are enough to deter anyone.

[slight mental wander]
In the case of Africa, a lot of the problems are caused by armed conflict. Some people blame this on tribal warfare, and cite European powers carving out colonies without regard to ethnic lines. Perhaps dissolving these arbitrary borders, the UN could mandate splitting these countries up into small tribal territories, setup democratic local governments, and then allow then to group together as countries however they wish. Thus if nationalistic senses want them to pull back together, they can – if tribal forces are stronger, they can choose to form a nation based on tribal links. [/wander]

A lot of people would see this as forced globalization (which in a way it is – but without the pejorative term) and call it imperialism or exploitation (which it is not).

This is the old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish argument. Aid is just giving a fish, and you either keep giving him a fish or he goes hungry.

Had I the money, I would setup a teaching/research farm here and there around the third world. These farms would work at finding the best ways to farm a given region – producing crops to feed the local populace and finding what works for the local market. Additionally some ‘value added goods’ could be produced from here – showing a way to develop products for market. These teaching farms would hire people to work, and they learn how to do this on their own. When they are ready to work for themselves, they take the money they have saved while working on the farm and use it to start out for themselves or get hired at a good wage as a skilled worker by an existing business. These farms would try to become self-sustaining of course (to reduce the burden on the parent NGO) but I would not expect them to make a profit. This would require the startup cost of making this farm, but after that it shouldn’t take much money to keep going while the local economy will grow.

Anyway… back to topic…
Military intervention would, in the short-term cause too much destruction. In the end, you will then have to have either a colonial government in place, or put those same people with a culture of corruption back in power. End result – the names change, but the corruption doesn’t.

Do you have any potential justifications for that amazingly scumbaggish remark, or are you content simply to present a first impression of yourself as a selfish bastard?
You can call a selfish bastard all you like but at least I dont support throwing money into the black hole that is Africa. Money goes in, but nothing good ever comes out.

I believe that there is a saner solution to the poverty problems in Africa. One that does not have to rely on the good in man, nor does it require massive military spending in order to accomplish. I propose that we NUKE Africa. By doing so poverty will decrease rapidly and accomplish the following goals.

1) The suffering in Africa will diminish to almost nothing.

2) Government corruption will diminish

3) Moral quandaries about the Africa problem will be a thing of the past

4) Reduces the number of nukes on the planet

5) Would make a lot of really cool explosions

So I must ask, should we go for a solution that may work or one certain to work. Should we make suffering a thing of the past or should we allow it to continue in the future. I say the choice is clear. Who is with me?:D ;)
right on brother! I say we do it, the west could use the space anyway. But we should save S.Africa, Botswana and the northern arab countries like Egypt.

[slight mental wander]
In the case of Africa, a lot of the problems are caused by armed conflict. Some people blame this on tribal warfare, and cite European powers carving out colonies without regard to ethnic lines. Perhaps dissolving these arbitrary borders, the UN could mandate splitting these countries up into small tribal territories, setup democratic local governments, and then allow then to group together as countries however they wish. Thus if nationalistic senses want them to pull back together, they can – if tribal forces are stronger, they can choose to form a nation based on tribal links. [/wander]I can agree with this.

Fair trade helps developing economies. Developing economies are fine, because they are developing. Before fair trade can help most african nations, you will need to lose the band of government thugs reaping whatever rewards fairtrade offers locals.
This is true to an extent, but on the whole, I think you are confusing two issues: poverty and corrupt government. Poverty is not dependent on the form of government, but government is often dependent on or vulnerable to the poverty of the people and the distribution of wealth in the society. In some cases, a corrupt government is an active obstacle to addressing poverty, but in most instances, changing the government will not have a direct or lasting effect on poverty. However, if you can solve poverty, you can directly affect a government, positively or negatively, depending on whether it is seen to be a help or a hindrance to solving poverty.

I think this is because poverty is a foundational problem, a human condition. It is the result of bad circumstances -- drought, blights, epidemics, over-population and other things that destroy or overload resources. One of the purposes of government is to address such issues and prevent or remedy such problems. Government can exascerbate poverty by blocking efforts to remedy it, but it does not really cause it. Even if there were no such thing as government, people could still suffer poverty due to natural disasters and such like.

So, I agree that interventions -- preferably political/diplomatic, but possibly military as well -- may be necessary in the short term to stop corrupt governments from deliberately worsening poverty, either as a tool of political oppression or so that corrupt individuals can enrich themselves, but I disagree that such interventions can "cure" poverty. All they may do is clear away an obstacle to the work of addressing poverty, but if that work is not then done, some type of corrupt or oppressive government will eventually move right back in to exploit the weakened population.

You can call a selfish bastard all you like but at least I dont support throwing money into the black hole that is Africa. Money goes in, but nothing good ever comes out.
Thanks for the permission to call it as I see it. For convenience, I'll edit "selfish bastard" down to just plain "bastard."

Bastard.

a main problem is that it is in the corporate's best ineterest to keep afrika unstable. As long as it is, factions who controll oil, diamond, gold, lumber and other natural resources will sell their produce low, or let foreign corporations exploit them, as long as they get some money to fund their private wars. And the corporations dictate the prices, cause the war chiefs realy need any money they can get

the way to get africa to prosper more, would to cut allmost all contact with it.

Within a human life time, agriculture will spring back, since more people now actualy plant their own instead of waiting for emergency food aid. that said, the emergency food being sent to afrika is finishing off any agriculture still present, since that food is free
this will probably not happen, since developed nations get the warm fuzzies from sending food

Next, stop a lot of trade, mostly arms trade. They dont have their own weapon factories, except a few in north afrika. War would be back to old fashioned bows, spears and rocks after the amunition is fired. In any case, war isnt the worst thing, realy. War breeds creativity, new order and often afterwards, stability. It's only when fighting groups both get support from abroad that it actualy gets out of hand. Seriously, every faction in afrika has support from abroed. US, UK, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel... to name some likely supporters. So the fighting might actualy benefit from a non-intervention policy

What is left is education, mostly. and yes, sharing knowledge and technology that is not used for war is a good idea. Offering to build infrastructure too. Building internet acces in a region where there is no electricity or computer is stupid, building a road a good idea

Since the turmoil in afrika is partly the problem of too much technology and ideas at once without proceeding through the logical steps to come to that level by themself. To go forward, they actualy need to go backward and intergrate new concepts of economy and society one at a time, and have the peace to do so. Any other way will most likely end up disastrous. This way, it is only very, very likely

my opinion, feel free to comment

Thanks for the permission to call it as I see it. For convenience, I'll edit "selfish bastard" down to just plain "bastard."

Bastard.
yeah, well I never met my father so that term is fairly accurate. And you know instead of namecalling you could come up with ideas to solve poverty problem which is what this thread is about. You shouldnt be so shocked when someone says giving money to a cause that lots of money have already gone to with little to no results, may not be the best solution.

But I do care. I care alot when western governments waste money and resources on lost causes like Africa/Africans
They do waste it. Currently. I am proposing we stop wasting the money, and start doing something about it. Poverty is an easy cycle to break. There's even an economic formula for it. Most of asia did it. The only thing stopping Africa fro m following is endemic corruption. Rather than ditching the Africans, I propose actually helping them (and us, by reducing our foreign aid to nil) by fixing their cyclical poverty. Furthermore, my proposal, if successful, will then grow wealth in asia, thus injecting more money into the world market, thus making us richer. It is in our interests to actually help Africa (as opposed to mindlessly throwing money at the problem). Ditching africa will end up hurtings us.

GreaterPacificNations
How does corporate greed cause global povert?! It can worsen it, but it doesn't cause it. Further, corporate greed can be harnessed to fix global poverty with the right policies. Overpopulation can be an economic advantage as long as it is with in the capablilities of the governement to manage this population. Again, though, overpopulation is not the source of poverty, just another symptom.
GreaterPacificNations
Beyond slowing it down, there's not much to be done. I don't see how over-population is actually the source of poverty. Not like corruption. Besides, unlike corruption, over-population can be turned around to become an advantage (China? India?) once corruption levels are low enough to allow for real economic developement.
Both of these comments about overpopulation imply what I think is a misunderstanding of what poverty is as well as a misunderstanding of what overpopulation is. You seem to be thinking of a nation's population as a mass resource -- the more there is of it, the more the nation can use it to produce wealth or whatever, as long as it is properly managed. That may be why you think of a large population, as in China and India, as a good thing. But this is a gross oversimplification that misses the mark on a couple of key points.

First: By definition, "overpopulation" is too much population, i.e. a problem. You know your nation is overpopulated because you are already failing to feed, house, and otherwise care for all of your people. In other words, there is already rampant acute poverty, and there's nothing you can do about it because you just can't get enough food, water, medicine, etc, for all those people. This is what overpopulation means. Even a population of billions will not be overpopulation, if there are enough resources to go around, whereas just a few million can be overpopulation if resources fall short.

It is not possible to manage overpopulation for a social benefit, any more than it is possible to manage an active and on-going case of pneumonia as part of a healthy life.

Second: You seem to be thinking of poverty as an impersonal social force, like market forces. This may be why you think addressing government policies is the way to address poverty. But in spite of the fact that the news covers stories of whole nations in poverty and millions starving all at once across whole continents, poverty is, in fact, a very personal, individual matter. It boils down to one simple thing -- people without food and water, people homeless, people unable to get care for disease. Individuals suffering from the lack of basic life-sustaining resources. That's the bottom line, right there. The scope of poverty as a problem is measured by populations, but the success of anti-poverty programs is measured by individuals -- the number of people no longer having to struggle to find food, water, clothing, housing, etc.

This is why I believe that poverty is better addressed at the grassroots level than at the government level. Government is good at tracking big numbers, but grassroots organizations can get into communities and address specific needs in specific ways, thus generating the numbers for the government to track. A partnership of government in support of grassroots programs may be the best way to go.

The key thing to remember, however, is that the solution to poverty is not this or that kind of government. It is to make sure that everyone has access to life-sustaining resources and the ability to make use of those resources.

With good circumstances, authoritarian governments can successfully combat poverty -- as in Bhutan which has a good balance of population, resources, and power structure. With bad circumstances, even stable democracies can struggle and often lose against poverty -- as in India where overpopulation strains resources to the point where the government sometimes can't keep up.

This is true to an extent, but on the whole, I think you are confusing two issues: poverty and corrupt government. Poverty is not dependent on the form of government, but government is often dependent on or vulnerable to the poverty of the people and the distribution of wealth in the society. In some cases, a corrupt government is an active obstacle to addressing poverty, but in most instances, changing the government will not have a direct or lasting effect on poverty. However, if you can solve poverty, you can directly affect a government, positively or negatively, depending on whether it is seen to be a help or a hindrance to solving poverty.

I think this is because poverty is a foundational problem, a human condition. It is the result of bad circumstances -- drought, blights, epidemics, over-population and other things that destroy or overload resources. One of the purposes of government is to address such issues and prevent or remedy such problems. Government can exascerbate poverty by blocking efforts to remedy it, but it does not really cause it. Even if there were no such thing as government, people could still suffer poverty due to natural disasters and such like.

So, I agree that interventions -- preferably political/diplomatic, but possibly military as well -- may be necessary in the short term to stop corrupt governments from deliberately worsening poverty, either as a tool of political oppression or so that corrupt individuals can enrich themselves, but I disagree that such interventions can "cure" poverty. All they may do is clear away an obstacle to the work of addressing poverty, but if that work is not then done, some type of corrupt or oppressive government will eventually move right back in to exploit the weakened population.
I see the direction you are coming from, and it has been made clear that I did not express myself properly. A corrupt government in itself does not cause poverty (though it can). However, a corrupt government prevents a poverty stricken nation from developing and thus overcoming. It has to be pretty damn corrupt though. If the government is only mildly corrupt, thats fine. However in Africa the government is so endemically corrupt, that none of the standard cures for the various kinds of poverty which plague the continent are permited to work. So from a reparitive point of view, the cause of africa's current poverty is corruption. To put it better, were it not for endemic corruption, africa would have left poverty decades ago.

yeah, well I never met my father so that term is fairly accurate. And you know instead of namecalling you could come up with ideas to solve poverty problem which is what this thread is about. You shouldnt be so shocked when someone says giving money to a cause that lots of money have already gone to with little to no results, may not be the best solution.
And you could try reading my other posts before complaining that I have nothing to say other than pointing out what a bastard you make yourself look like.

Poverty is not a simple problem susceptible to an easy solution. I think the OP is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the problem, so his interventionist approach would be doomed, since it does not actually address the issue. So, I begin by arguing for a clearer understanding of the issue.

As for your breezy dismissal of Africa as a "lost cause," I would point out that poverty is not just a matter of some bunch of people you can't see starving to death somewhere far away from you. One of the primary bad results of poverty is disease. Like most preventable epidemics, the AIDS pandemic is being directly driven by the extreme poverty of the populations currently affected by it. It is thriving and getting stronger under those conditions. Likewise, drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis and influenza in Asia and Russia. And like all diseases, AIDS doesn't care if you're rich or poor, African or American, etc. It is only a matter of time before the pandemic escapes Africa, if we do not find a way to dissipate it now. And leaving those millions of people to just die of it by themselves is not the solution because that's not how epidemics work. Remember, most of the infected in Asia were already dead of the Black Plague before it hit Europe.

Because of the nature of the problems it generates, ignoring poverty is the most self-destructive thing one can do. It is inevitable that, someday, Africa's problems will become our problems. The efforts that have been tried have not worked. The answer is not to abandon the continent but to make better efforts.

One of the biggest problems Africa has is the soverign state model. Countries arround the world are unwilling to do anything to help because they do not wish to violate the state's soveringnty.

The fact is, the continual drive for African self government (when it can clearly be seen that such governmnet at present is often wholey inadiquate) is slowing down the system. Developed nations should interviene more to make Africa ready to stand on its own two feet. And when it is ready, they can leave.

C O L O N I A L I S M.

My regrets, but it would genuinely ameliorate the situation significantly.

Both of these comments about overpopulation imply what I think is a misunderstanding of what poverty is as well as a misunderstanding of what overpopulation is. You seem to be thinking of a nation's population as a mass resource -- the more there is of it, the more the nation can use it to produce wealth or whatever, as long as it is properly managed. That may be why you think of a large population, as in China and India, as a good thing. But this is a gross oversimplification that misses the mark on a couple of key points.

First: By definition, "overpopulation" is too much population, i.e. a problem. You know your nation is overpopulated because you are already failing to feed, house, and otherwise care for all of your people. In other words, there is already rampant acute poverty, and there's nothing you can do about it because you just can't get enough food, water, medicine, etc, for all those people. This is what overpopulation means. Even a population of billions will not be overpopulation, if there are enough resources to go around, whereas just a few million can be overpopulation if resources fall short.

It is not possible to manage overpopulation for a social benefit, any more than it is possible to manage an active and on-going case of pneumonia as part of a healthy life. Ok, noted that overpopulation sucks. However, overpopulation is not really the core of the problem of poverty in Africa, so much as it is a contributing factor and a hurdle to be faced whilst developing. Before overpopulation is conquered, africa must first break it's spiralling poverty, perpetuated by corrupt governments. To assist me in conveying my point, imagine if the population of africa was reduced by 9/10ths. Poverty would still be rife, and no problems other than over population would be resolved. My point is that I am approaching this from as practical an approach as is possible, and as such, focussing o what I see as the problem which must be corrected before any others are worth attending to. To sound callous and clear, it is better we let the chldren starve for the moment and divert those resources to fixing the problem that will allow us to fix the problem of the starving children. Get my drift?

Second: You seem to be thinking of poverty as an impersonal social force, like market forces. This may be why you think addressing government policies is the way to address poverty. But in spite of the fact that the news covers stories of whole nations in poverty and millions starving all at once across whole continents, poverty is, in fact, a very personal, individual matter. It boils down to one simple thing -- people without food and water, people homeless, people unable to get care for disease. Individuals suffering from the lack of basic life-sustaining resources. That's the bottom line, right there. The scope of poverty as a problem is measured by populations, but the success of anti-poverty programs is measured by individuals -- the number of people no longer having to struggle to find food, water, clothing, housing, etc.

This is why I believe that poverty is better addressed at the grassroots level than at the government level. Government is good at tracking big numbers, but grassroots organizations can get into communities and address specific needs in specific ways, thus generating the numbers for the government to track. A partnership of government in support of grassroots programs may be the best way to go.

The key thing to remember, however, is that the solution to poverty is not this or that kind of government. It is to make sure that everyone has access to life-sustaining resources and the ability to make use of those resources.

With good circumstances, authoritarian governments can successfully combat poverty -- as in Bhutan which has a good balance of population, resources, and power structure. With bad circumstances, even stable democracies can struggle and often lose against poverty -- as in India where overpopulation strains resources to the point where the government sometimes can't keep up.
I would have to disagree with you on this one, in that I study economics and have been corrupted by neo-classical Keynsian evilness :p . I think that the individuals suffer poverty as a result of various situational aspects which impact upon their individual existences. Hmm, esoteric. Let me try again, In a large society, the responsibility for avoiding and treating poverty lies in the economic policies of the government. In a 'nice' country, poverty fixes itself via the people and community action as you said (just like the market runs itself). However if a corrupt government interferes with the economics of a region for it's own profit, then it ruins the whole proccess and stems off all potential for developement. So in these circumstances, the corrupt government must be less damaging to the developement of their region, or be ousted.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this, but a large part of the problem is nothing more or less than Africa's colonial past. When the colonials arrived, they decimated any form of self-governance or memory thereof in most places. They then set to work strip mining those countries for valuable raw materials. When they left, they left no infrastructure, as by and large the infrastructure left with the departing colonials, and they economic infrastructure of most nations was geared for export: the transportation system was developed only insofar as it could expeditiously ship raw goods from the interior to ports, there was little or no internal processing facilities designed to turn raw materials into finished products, and the economies were heavily dependent upon foreign imports for goods, consumables, etc.

In short, Africa in the 1960's came to political independence with little or no economic base beyond being able to ship raw goods elsewhere, no capital, no working knowledge of how to put a government together and run it, and a heavy dependency on Western Industrialized nations to keep them afloat. This fact was compounded by the United States' stated policy throughout the Cold War of supporting only countries that were anti-communist, a fact which led to the quashing of most emerging proletarian and labor movements. Is it really surprising, then, that they would mostly turn into corrupt autocracies that rely on exporting goods to the U.S. in exchange for aid and weapons?

C O L O N I A L I S M.

My regrets, but it would genuinely ameliorate the situation significantly.
More costly than Nukes though. Think about ruling over all of that area. Come on! It would be better to blow it all up then slowly recolonize it with expendable people.... like <insert group you hate here>

More costly than Nukes though. Think about ruling over all of that area. Come on! It would be better to blow it all up then slowly recolonize it with expendable people.... like <insert group you hate here>

I know. But the upshot of colonialism is that it would allow Britain to compel its colonies to pay for its expenses, thus negating all immigration. Concurrently, the west could summarily shoot every AIDS sufferer.

C O L O N I A L I S M.

My regrets, but it would genuinely ameliorate the situation significantly.How could what caused the problem be what ends the problem?

How could what caused the problem be what ends the problem?

The problem was only profound subsequent to colonialism, not during it.

I see the direction you are coming from, and it has been made clear that I did not express myself properly. A corrupt government in itself does not cause poverty (though it can). However, a corrupt government prevents a poverty stricken nation from developing and thus overcoming. It has to be pretty damn corrupt though. If the government is only mildly corrupt, thats fine. However in Africa the government is so endemically corrupt, that none of the standard cures for the various kinds of poverty which plague the continent are permited to work. So from a reparitive point of view, the cause of africa's current poverty is corruption. To put it better, were it not for endemic corruption, africa would have left poverty decades ago.
Okay, I see now, and I agree to a degree. A couple of caveats:

First, we must remember that there is not just one government in Africa. It is a continent, not one nation. Second, we must remember that there are multiple causes for the corruption of African governments -- the deliberate corruption of old colonialism, power vacuums caused by repeated civil wars that allow thugs and juntas to take over nations or parts of nations, and the poverty itself which has so overloaded resources and infrastructures as to lead to social chaos and the actual collapse of government systems. Because of this, just one approach will not work in Africa. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that the whole continent Africa is a good example to use in discussing how poverty should be addressed as an international issue. Maybe we should be talking about just one country that might serve as a model for programs that might be applied elsewhere -- Haiti, perhaps.

Another issue I have is that I'm not entirely certain that Africa's poverty would be actually solved (rather than just eleviated) by establishing better governments. In the past 100 years or more, Africa has suffered shocking bad luck -- droughts, blights, epidemics -- affecting food, water, public health and the ability of people to work. It is possible that, even with the best governments, millions would still have died or been displaced, economies broken and governments destabilized by such repeated environmental disasters. The only thing that we might say is that one disaster might have had a chance to end before the next one began if those people had had better governments.

My take on it is that interventionist government policies should not be geared towards regime change per se, but rather as a tactic to keep the corrupt governments off the backs of relief organizations that will get the people the resources they need to get themselves out of poverty.

This is why I keep emphasizing the basic resources -- food, water, etc -- rather than economics, the personal over the impersonal. Poverty has the personal effect of weakening human beings, as organisms. It harms both physical and mental health -- it shortens life, kills brain cells, retards the growth of children, etc -- making people less able to do for themselves in the long run, less able to defend themselves against oppressors, and so on. Once the population is healthy and, most important, have within their own hands the means to control food, water, etc, then they will be able to take control of their own nations.

If we can remove or get around the obstacles of government corruption, then we can promote the kinds of grassroots empowerment and fair trade initiatives that I favor. Two examples of what I'm talking about would be Under 25, a company started by two Yale undergrads to establish fair trade international sales for small manufacturing cooperatives among poor native populations in Guatemala, and Pierre Omidyar's (he created ebay and made $10 billion off it)) Family Foundation which finances grassroots level community development initiatives, non-profit organizations, and for-profit businesses that create "deep social benefit," in Omidyar's words. He is also deeply involved with "microfinance, the practice of making loans as small as $40 to entrepreneurs in developing countries." (I'm quoting the Newsweek issue, which is right next to my computer at the moment) "'It's not about alleviating poverty through charity,' he says [still quoting the article]. 'It's about giving someone the tools they need to make their own life successful...'"

You address a crisis with charity and, in extreme circumstances, intervention. But you address the social issue of poverty in ways such as this, in my opinion.

None of this would guarantee that Africa would become the next Riviera in terms of desirable places to live -- poverty isn't the only issue in those countries -- but at least grave human suffering and a threat to international stability and public health would both be addressed (that's what I call enlightened self-interest).

Here's a link to that article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13530551/site/newsweek/

The problem was only profound subsequent to colonialism, not during it.Yes, because colonialism is what caused the problem, not what is the problem.

Ok, noted that overpopulation sucks. However, overpopulation is not really the core of the problem of poverty in Africa, so much as it is a contributing factor and a hurdle to be faced whilst developing. Before overpopulation is conquered, africa must first break it's spiralling poverty, perpetuated by corrupt governments. To assist me in conveying my point, imagine if the population of africa was reduced by 9/10ths. Poverty would still be rife, and no problems other than over population would be resolved. My point is that I am approaching this from as practical an approach as is possible, and as such, focussing o what I see as the problem which must be corrected before any others are worth attending to. To sound callous and clear, it is better we let the chldren starve for the moment and divert those resources to fixing the problem that will allow us to fix the problem of the starving children. Get my drift?
I get it, but I disagree. I think you've got it backwards. The poverty came before the dictators, and it is far more controlled by population numbers and environment than it is by this or that (ironically) cannibalistic dictator. Proof of this is that the same problems existed under the colonial governments and continue to exist through war, peace, under different regimes, etc, etc, without the slightest dent being made in the overall poverty numbers.

The bottom line is, I think you are wrong in practical terms. Let's compare two scenarios:

(1) The population of Africa is significantly smaller AND all corrupt dictatorships are miraculously replaced by real governments. Predictable result: Poverty immediately begins to fade as people are no longer blocked from accessing the resources they need, of which there is enough for everyone.

(2) The population of Africa stays as it is now AND all corrupt dictatorships are miraculously replaced by real governments. Predictable result: Poverty remains exactly as it is -- hunger levels and disease levels, especially, stay high -- because there simply are not enough resources to supply all those people, despite the best efforts of the new governments. Futher result, those new governments become destabilized as manpower, finances and infrastructure are maxed out, and, hey look, the rebels, revolutionaries, and would-be cannibalistic dictators are stockpiling their black market weapons again, ready to exploit the desperation of a hungry population to foment civil war all over again. Within 15 - 20 years, the real governments either collapse or are overthrown, and we're right back where we started.

My point is not that no action should be taken against corrupt governments, but rather that just doing that will not solve the problem. You must ALSO feed the starving children. I go further and say, if you start feeding the starving children first, then your efforts against the corrupt governments will be more successful in the long run.

I would have to disagree with you on this one, in that I study economics and have been corrupted by neo-classical Keynsian evilness :p .
Oh, well, 'nuff said. The hell with you then. :p

I think that the individuals suffer poverty as a result of various situational aspects which impact upon their individual existences. Hmm, esoteric. Let me try again, In a large society, the responsibility for avoiding and treating poverty lies in the economic policies of the government. In a 'nice' country, poverty fixes itself via the people and community action as you said (just like the market runs itself). However if a corrupt government interferes with the economics of a region for it's own profit, then it ruins the whole proccess and stems off all potential for developement. So in these circumstances, the corrupt government must be less damaging to the developement of their region, or be ousted.
You're not really disagreeing with me all that much, because, in practical terms, this would amount to treating the corrupt government as a short term obstacle to anti-poverty work, and that is precisely what I've been arguing. Remove or get around that obstacle, and the work can proceed. The difference between us seems to be how important we think government corruption is to the problem of poverty. You seem to be thinking it is a major factor and that simply clearing the obstacle away is sufficient direct action. I think it is an aggravating factor but not a cause; I go further and say that, depending on the how bad the given regime is, changing it may even be optional because addressing it doesn't necessarily address poverty. You can solve the corrupt government problem, but then you'll still have to come up with a solution to the poverty problem. Further, I think if you don't solve the poverty problem, then the government problem will come back.

death!

Something similar came up in another forum I frequent. In my post there, and now reposted here, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the answer to poverty:

Actually, due to the corruption of various African governments etc., the only real way to help the African people is to boycott companies who exploit workers, infrom the company why you're boycotting them, get as many other people as you possibly can to do the same thing, and as far as food stuffs go, only buy fair trade goods, or goods made within your country. That is the only way to help the poverty stricken nations. Because remember: it's not just Africa, they're just the most publicized. There are dozens of other countries in similar situations.
And while, yes, charities do do a lot of good work in these places, it's clearly not enough.
Another thing that might help, is all these damn reporters that go to these places. They're all quite happy to stand around filming the poor people who are starving and disease ridden etc., and happy to talk about how bad it all is, but they don't seem willing to talk about possible solutions, or maybe even take some food and vacinations in the helicopters and planes which they have to use to fly to all these places and cover the footage. Bah.

It's like something such as Live 8; the countries that the concert was trying to have the problems publicized to the G8 Summit leaders were the same countries and issues that were supposed to have been abolished after Live Aid in 1985. It didn't happen, and unfortunately won't happen, because the majority of people - regardless of what they may tell you - don't actually care, and aren't willing to adapt their lifestyles to a more ethical one, which would benefit the nations in poverty.

And that's all there is to it.

Well if everyone of legal age in a first world country was forced to give say $100 a year to OXFAM for example, then there'd be a lot less poverty. Surely that would be much more effective than boycotting companies?

Yes, yes it would. But in today's society is it likely to happen? So many people judge others on the fact that they did or didn't spend £60+ on a pair of trainers simply because they have a stupid tick on them. Maybe if people bought shop-own trainers for say £10, and gave £50 to OXFAM it would make a difference as well. The problem here is that, giving the money to charities is even less likely to happen, beacuse everybody these days wants product.

If people are made more aware, if they take a stand and act, then the very need for the charities is almost nullified anyway, because the problems will be drastically reduced. While I'm all for giving money to charities and supporting them in various ways, it is my belief that the best way is to make a stand, and get other people to make a stand with you.

If companies start losing money because you and how many other people boycott them, and they know the reason that so many people are boycotting them because of their ethical policies, they're more likely to change them and thus make a difference in the world.

I guess you could say that Communism is the cure to poverty.. If everyone is poor, no one is poor! :D

Zukariaa']I guess you could say that Communism is the cure to poverty.. If everyone is poor, no one is poor! :DAnd likewise, if everyone is rich, no one is poor.

Corporate greed is the top reason, in my opinion.Only thing that could help is if those ------- find a heart.

Another large problem is over-population, though.

Are you recommending the introduction of abortion to the under-developed world? In order to check population?

Africa has some of the lowest population density in the world, and the far east, i.e. Japan, has some of the highest.

*snip*
(2) The population of Africa stays as it is now AND all corrupt dictatorships are miraculously replaced by real governments. Predictable result: Poverty remains exactly as it is -- hunger levels and disease levels, especially, stay high -- because there simply are not enough resources to supply all those people, despite the best efforts of the new governments. Futher result, those new governments become destabilized as manpower, finances and infrastructure are maxed out, and, hey look, the rebels, revolutionaries, and would-be cannibalistic dictators are stockpiling their black market weapons again, ready to exploit the desperation of a hungry population to foment civil war all over again. Within 15 - 20 years, the real governments either collapse or are overthrown, and we're right back where we started.
I would expect exactly that, however, in this scenario developement is possible as long as stability can be maintained.
My point is not that no action should be taken against corrupt governments, but rather that just doing that will not solve the problem. *snippeddy*
The difference between us seems to be how important we think government corruption is to the problem of poverty.
*snip*snip*
You can solve the corrupt government problem, but then you'll still have to come up with a solution to the poverty problem. Further, I think if you don't solve the poverty problem, then the government problem will come back.
Ok, awesome disambiguation of two very verbose posters dialogue. Alow me to further simplify, and then move onto the minor fractures. I agree with you in that the very origins of poverty don't lie in a corrupt government. However, my focus remains on the corrupt governments because in my eyes, no progress can be made until we get rid of them first. Corrupt governments and developement can co-exist (albeit poorly), so long as the government isn't too corrupt. But in Africa there are governments which are so corrupt, economic developement is not possible. In this situation I feel like we need to remove this barrier, then get back at constructiung infrastructure and educating and the like. Basically, ousting the corrupt government won't fix anything much in itself, but it will allow for things to be fixed. I think we both agree on that (correct me if I am wrong, though)

Where I think we diverge is on the management of this situation. I feel that the extremely corrupt governments have to go, and that the instability afterwards would require some kind of stabilising presence. Further, I feel that the concerned regions could benefit from a multi-skilled, medical, education, law-enforcement, security, supplies team to satiate initial demands, and then build up infrastructure with locals so that they can do these things themselves. Basically I propose Intervention, followed by a dramatically more successful implementation of the said techniques to beat the true roots of poverty. I think if we take the focus off the military aspect, and look at it as aggressive charity, then the whole thing looks a lot less colonial, and a lot more good-willed.

Something similar came up in another forum I frequent. In my post there, and now reposted here, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the answer to poverty:

Actually, due to the corruption of various African governments etc., the only real way to help the African people is to boycott companies who exploit workers, infrom the company why you're boycotting them, get as many other people as you possibly can to do the same thing, and as far as food stuffs go, only buy fair trade goods, or goods made within your country. That is the only way to help the poverty stricken nations. Because remember: it's not just Africa, they're just the most publicized. There are dozens of other countries in similar situations.
And while, yes, charities do do a lot of good work in these places, it's clearly not enough.
Another thing that might help, is all these damn reporters that go to these places. They're all quite happy to stand around filming the poor people who are starving and disease ridden etc., and happy to talk about how bad it all is, but they don't seem willing to talk about possible solutions, or maybe even take some food and vacinations in the helicopters and planes which they have to use to fly to all these places and cover the footage. Bah.

It's like something such as Live 8; the countries that the concert was trying to have the problems publicized to the G8 Summit leaders were the same countries and issues that were supposed to have been abolished after Live Aid in 1985. It didn't happen, and unfortunately won't happen, because the majority of people - regardless of what they may tell you - don't actually care, and aren't willing to adapt their lifestyles to a more ethical one, which would benefit the nations in poverty.

And that's all there is to it.



Yes, yes it would. But in today's society is it likely to happen? So many people judge others on the fact that they did or didn't spend £60+ on a pair of trainers simply because they have a stupid tick on them. Maybe if people bought shop-own trainers for say £10, and gave £50 to OXFAM it would make a difference as well. The problem here is that, giving the money to charities is even less likely to happen, beacuse everybody these days wants product.

If people are made more aware, if they take a stand and act, then the very need for the charities is almost nullified anyway, because the problems will be drastically reduced. While I'm all for giving money to charities and supporting them in various ways, it is my belief that the best way is to make a stand, and get other people to make a stand with you.

If companies start losing money because you and how many other people boycott them, and they know the reason that so many people are boycotting them because of their ethical policies, they're more likely to change them and thus make a difference in the world.
I think you have it completely wrong. If everyone gave $100 to oxfam then you would have one giant welfare continent. Of that $100, $97 would be stolen/embezzled by the various corrupt governments with big guns, then used to line the presidents upstairs toilet in gold and purhcase him a limited edition Taepongdo missile to put next to it. The corproate companies are going to be the guys who drag these guys out of their whole, just like they did for asia. It seems like exploitation, and indeed it is, but that is early capitalism in a nutshell. Fair trade is nice (merciful) but not neccesary. If you managed to get some of those tin pot dictator out of the picture, I'm sure Ox fam would have a fair bit more success in the region.

Are you recommending the introduction of abortion to the under-developed world? In order to check population?

Africa has some of the lowest population density in the world, and the far east, i.e. Japan, has some of the highest.
However, density isn't the issue. Density is good (well, food for business). The issue of over-population is on how comfortable it is, it is on how many people the government can manage. A country could have a population of 6 people living in a country thousands of kilometres square and still face over population. It has to do with the resources available.

I'd say, in many cases, it is actually a source. It's definately a problem to be fixed if we (the first world) ever decide to start solving poverty seriously.

What are you going to do - have all the indians line up and cap every third one?

I would expect exactly that, however, in this scenario developement is possible as long as stability can be maintained.
Yeah, well, that's a pretty steep "as long as."

<reciprocal snip> However, my focus remains on the corrupt governments because in my eyes, no progress can be made until we get rid of them first. <snippy> In this situation I feel like we need to remove this barrier, then get back at constructiung infrastructure and educating and the like. Basically, ousting the corrupt government won't fix anything much in itself, but it will allow for things to be fixed. I think we both agree on that (correct me if I am wrong, though)

Where I think we diverge is on the management of this situation. <and a snip>
Isn't that just what the US gov claims to be doing in Iraq? And look how well that's going. Ah, yes, a veritable model for the world to emulate. Going back to that Everest of an "as long as," the problem of maintaining stability, avoiding a power vacuum that can be filled by warlords, AND not having to be the nanny of a broken nation for decades are strong arguments against removing a corrupt regime before you've already started undermining it by grassroots methods.

Yes, it would be great if we could just get rid of shitheads like Robert Mugabe, but who would we put in his place? One of the other cannibalistic warlords that want to run his country? Thanks to poverty and its related problems, there are few promising candidates for leaders. As Colin Powell put it about Iraq, if we break it, then we bought it. Maybe it's my turn to sound callous, but I'm not really interested in being 100% responsible for the survival of the millions of people of Africa for the foreseeable future. My 60% NGO / 40% political pressure approach is not only effective but also less of a burden on us.

I would propose political and (most important) financial interventions, backed up by military as needed, to effectively bind, even cripple, such regimes and force them to open their countries to aid organizations, with as much aggressive military presence as needed to keep the NGOs working in relative safety. But I would not remove the corrupt regime outright right away. I would wait until the population had recovered and stabilized enough to produce new leaders.

However, density isn't the issue. Density is good (well, food for business). The issue of over-population is on how comfortable it is, it is on how many people the government can manage. A country could have a population of 6 people living in a country thousands of kilometres square and still face over population. It has to do with the resources available.
I would be so happy if we could not misuse this term "overpopulation."

If the population can be managed so that it is "comfortable," then it is not overpopulation, even if it is big and densely concentrated. Overpopulation can't be managed comfortably because it's over the limit of comfortable management. 'K?

What are you going to do - have all the indians line up and cap every third one?
The more prosperous people are, the fewer children they tend to have, in general. It might be because they don't have to overcompensate for high child mortality, or it might be that individuals with more wealth can get better educations, better jobs, and spend more time fulfilling their personal potential than making babies and looking for food. This is especially true when women get out of poverty -- as soon as they get access to birth control, educations, and jobs, they start limiting the number of children they have.

Because fighting poverty can have the side effect of slowing the rate of population growth, the more we do now, the faster we'll see results as the related slowing of growth will ease the burden of overpopulation just by natural attrition over time.

The WHO as well as most international medical and human rights groups tend to list getting women out of poverty and promoting women's civil rights among public health issues because of this effect it has on population growth.

The problem with Africa is not a lack of resources – it is the most resource rich continent on the planet. Nor is it overpopulated – some areas are densely populated while others are rather sparse and in every region they are not beyond what could be supported.

The problem is in corrupt government – earlier I pointed out that Zimbabwe used to produce enough food to supply most of the region yet now is starving. This is due to corruption. Were a truly democratic government that respected property rights in place it would still be able to feed millions – that it can’t is a direct result of corruption.

This same problem is seen throughout Africa. There is no shortage of resources, or rather there would not be if reasonable governments were in place. Corruption and conflict are the sources of almost all of the problems facing Africa – either you suffer from graft and cronyism inhibiting economic growth or you see civil war and ethnic or religious violence.

Africa has some of the most fertile areas in the world as well as some of the greatest mineral deposits. There are resources up the wazoo, which is actually the problem. The sale of these resources fund corrupt governments, keep them in power, and reduce the necessity of improvement. Rational leadership would quickly see this turn around.

Opening up their borders for trade, reducing the cost of starting new businesses, and targeting what funds the governments do have toward improving the infrastructure of the country would go a very long way toward lifting Africa out of poverty.

Opening up their borders for trade, reducing the cost of starting new businesses, and targeting what funds the governments do have toward improving the infrastructure of the country would go a very long way toward lifting Africa out of poverty.In order to do this, you would first have to cancel all debts that the various countries owe, as the interest payments on these debts for many of the countries is greater than their GDP.

Yeah, well this is why I emphasize the importance of an international organisation heading the intervention, wherein no member state had any more power than the other. That way the US could not hold the lot to ransom while it appeased it's corporate buddies. Personally I would prefer the US not to be there at all, but they are useful. I guess reinforcing the risk of AIDS amongst the troops would be all you could do to try and prevent iwidespread contraction. Anyway, AIDS is not the issue.
You wouldn't get three countries before the force fell apart. Face it, even with several members, only the US has a force big enough and powerful enough to do this. Take any five European nations (since they are obviously what you consider best) and compare them to the USs(sp). Who has better capabilites. And you should stop talking about Americans like they're frakin' animals. "They're useful" is not the best way to make friends.

I believe that there is a saner solution to the poverty problems in Africa. One that does not have to rely on the good in man, nor does it require massive military spending in order to accomplish. I propose that we NUKE Africa. By doing so poverty will decrease rapidly and accomplish the following goals.

1) The suffering in Africa will diminish to almost nothing.

2) Government corruption will diminish

3) Moral quandaries about the Africa problem will be a thing of the past

4) Reduces the number of nukes on the planet

5) Would make a lot of really cool explosions

So I must ask, should we go for a solution that may work or one certain to work. Should we make suffering a thing of the past or should we allow it to continue in the future. I say the choice is clear. Who is with me?:D ;)
This idea is awesome.

a main problem is that it is in the corporate's best ineterest to keep afrika unstable. As long as it is, factions who controll oil, diamond, gold, lumber and other natural resources will sell their produce low, or let foreign corporations exploit them, as long as they get some money to fund their private wars. And the corporations dictate the prices, cause the war chiefs realy need any money they can get

the way to get africa to prosper more, would to cut allmost all contact with it.

Within a human life time, agriculture will spring back, since more people now actualy plant their own instead of waiting for emergency food aid. that said, the emergency food being sent to afrika is finishing off any agriculture still present, since that food is free
this will probably not happen, since developed nations get the warm fuzzies from sending food

Next, stop a lot of trade, mostly arms trade. They dont have their own weapon factories, except a few in north afrika. War would be back to old fashioned bows, spears and rocks after the amunition is fired. In any case, war isnt the worst thing, realy. War breeds creativity, new order and often afterwards, stability. It's only when fighting groups both get support from abroad that it actualy gets out of hand. Seriously, every faction in afrika has support from abroed. US, UK, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel... to name some likely supporters. So the fighting might actualy benefit from a non-intervention policy

What is left is education, mostly. and yes, sharing knowledge and technology that is not used for war is a good idea. Offering to build infrastructure too. Building internet acces in a region where there is no electricity or computer is stupid, building a road a good idea

Since the turmoil in afrika is partly the problem of too much technology and ideas at once without proceeding through the logical steps to come to that level by themself. To go forward, they actualy need to go backward and intergrate new concepts of economy and society one at a time, and have the peace to do so. Any other way will most likely end up disastrous. This way, it is only very, very likely

my opinion, feel free to comment

Stop blaming the damn corporations for everything.

millions of people starve in africa . right next to a large herd of wildabeast . they just want a handout . they could hunt, fish or farm but they dont . every other race left the stone age 200000 years ago . it is not that hard . look its the missing link .

You can't always just blame corporate greed.

Take Zimbabwe. It's bad government that has made Zimbabwe poor. The colonial government was vastly better for the people there.

The easiest way to eliminate poverty would be to kill everyone in poor areas. Voila - no poverty. But that's not really the gloal, is it?

Corporate greed is the top reason, in my opinion.Only thing that could help is if those ------- find a heart.

Another large problem is over-population, though.

Problem is, we've got a philosophy that the moral responsibility of corporations is to make as much money as possible, and another that says that governments should let people (including corporations, in fact, especially corporations) do as they see fit in the hopes that it will work out to be best for everyone.

Shareholders have even gotten together to sue corporations that try to act with social responsibility. That's the main flaw with the idea that if you give corporations more money they will be "able to" increase their overhead and lower their prices. They don't do those things because they can, they only do them when their forced by government.

Pass a law that says that any corporation that engages in exploitative practices overseas is not allowed to do business with the US government. Such as when Bechtel pours toxic sludge into the drinking water and bribes El Presidente to prohibit leaving barrels out to collect rain water, or the Marianas Islands where women are kidnapped and forced into prostitution on the promise of jobs in the United States as factory workers.

The problem with our government doing that is things like the recently former Tom Delay praising such things (particularly the kidnappers in the Marianas) as "everything that's good about the Republican Party.)

Our government not only doesn't care about these problems. It likes these problems.

im gonna b real cruel and sh*t but i dont care
nuke africa and kill all da suckers. its all 2 corrupt anyway.
all da money you send there goes to da goverment or some criminal organisation. there lost anyway.
own fault i say. they developed to late and wen we tried to help them they mostly use it 4 a bad cause.

so most charities get a big:upyours: . i mean i am prepared to pay for cancer trusts and stuff but i dont pay for som corrupt country to buy weapons.
and if they have 2 walk so many miles 4 water and schools etc. bloody move i would say. they havent got anything accept a bunch of twigs covert in poo called a house and maybe some dying goats. the only problem is there 20 children they have to carry around. but if they didnt behave like rabbits they were better of tbf. it would not have been overpopulated, might have been just enough food and water, and there would not be so many people 2 be poor, or have aids. cus u get aids if u live in a forest get bored and have sex wiv a monkey. but i can go on and on for hours not that any1 is interested tho. nuke them i say nuke them, and hopefully 1 day all humans die. teaches us 4 destroying a planet. wo cares about a few poor people any way. there are enuf people arround to be fair. who will mis them. cant say i do. pulling the trigger is the solution i say.

but im getting carried away here. kinda care more about poor old mother earth :( than sum lousy poor people.

and i can say that i am not rich at al myself

but i can go on and on for hours not that any1 is interested tho. The only nugget of gold in the pile of...well, not gold that was your post.

Respond to me, GreaterPacificNations!

The cure to poverty....MONEY! :p

Exactly.

If every employed person in the world was required to pay 20 pence / cents (whatever) from their monthly earnings, imagine what that could do for poverty stricken countries.

Or, these rich celebs, rather than spending money on fundraising and concerts could just give the money to the places that need it.

All I have to say is if illegal immigrants can find jobs then so could homeless people. All they have to do is get up off their fucking asses, stop blowing their money on booze and drugs, and get to work. The only way to stay homeless, is to be self-demoralizing, and incofident. To not be homeless, and to actually have money, and opening up a bank account, takes dedication and hard work. You don't have to work at a fast food restraunt, or have to have a jr high education level to get a job. Illegal immigrants don't know how to even speak english, and if homeless people can, then hell they can get a fucking job. If they don't want to work in the fields, then that's their problem not the government's. People worked hard to get where they're at, whether it's manuel labor or studying your ass off. Success is given to people who want it bad enough. That's why theres welfare, to help people out for their new life. Work hard and oppertunity will follow, that's fucking truth! Just cause you don't want to fucking pick up shit doesn't mean people have to pick it up for you.

no. the cure will always be GETTING a REAL JOB.

Yeah, well, that's a pretty steep "as long as."
Exactly, the whole thing would decend back into chaos. This is why I say there would have to be some stabilising force, to artificially maintain stability until foundation of stability can be homegrown.

sn't that just what the US gov claims to be doing in Iraq?Yes, 'claims' being the key word in that sentence. *snip* Going back to that Everest of an "as long as," the problem of maintaining stability, avoiding a power vacuum that can be filled by warlords, AND not having to be the nanny of a broken nation for decades are strong arguments against removing a corrupt regime before you've already started undermining it by grassroots methods. I don't think it would be as impossible as it seems if you followed my prescription. Specifically keeping the intervening force as a non-nationally affiliated group commited to the economic developement of the region and nothing else. Than they could implement the said grassroots methods sans trampling by corrupt government.

Yes, it would be great if we could just get rid of shitheads like Robert Mugabe, but who would we put in his place? One of the other cannibalistic warlords that want to run his country? Thanks to poverty and its related problems, there are few promising candidates for leaders. As Colin Powell put it about Iraq, if we break it, then we bought it. Maybe it's my turn to sound callous, but I'm not really interested in being 100% responsible for the survival of the millions of people of Africa for the foreseeable future. My 60% NGO / 40% political pressure approach is not only effective but also less of a burden on us.Well it isn't effective, as we can see. It is certainly less of a burden, and less of a responsibilty. You have highlighted exactly what I am talking about. Nobody wants to get involved and take responsibilty for the potential failure. Somebody has to do it, though. In terms of Robbie M, I would say he would be replaced by a democratically elected figure of some sort once the economy had stabilised and infrastrucre been peiced together. This probably wouldn't take too long (a Zimbabwe was functioning ok not too long ago). The said figure would be on 'probation' under a reduced peacekeeping force until economic, social, and political stability could be maintained.

I would propose political and (most important) financial interventions, backed up by military as needed, to effectively bind, even cripple, such regimes and force them to open their countries to aid organizations, with as much aggressive military presence as needed to keep the NGOs working in relative safety. But I would not remove the corrupt regime outright right away. I would wait until the population had recovered and stabilized enough to produce new leaders. Ok, this is agreeable enough. I say; "Remove corrupt power sctructure>employ rassroots economic measures>Build infrastructure>Attain stable sustainable socio-economic functioning>replace Corrupt power structure" you say; "Politically/economically/militarily lever corrupt power structure into compliance>employ rassroots economic measures>Build infrastructure>Attain stable sustainable socio-economic functioning>replace Corrupt power structure *maybe*" . Similar enough except my way cost more money, and your way has I high chance of being thown to shit by a non-compliant dictator (and there are plenty of them).

You wouldn't get three countries before the force fell apart. Face it, even with several members, only the US has a force big enough and powerful enough to do this. Take any five European nations (since they are obviously what you consider best) and compare them to the USs(sp). Who has better capabilites. And you should stop talking about Americans like they're frakin' animals. "They're useful" is not the best way to make friends.
It'd be fine. US military is something I would not like to have involved. In many areas they are subject to resent, and they quite often generate it if it's not there. Further, It doesn't matter how 'big' the US force is, because all of it would not be there. The useful aspects of the US force would be the money that came with it, and the tecnology/battle experience. Ideally there won't be too much 'battle' though. I'm not interested in 'making friends' with the US. This is about fixing poverty. You seemed to have mistaken me talking about the US as if they weren't gods gift to the world with disrespect, please accept my humble apologies.

Respond to me, GreaterPacificNations!
Relax, this thread is like a month old. I only spotted back on page 1 just now.

Exactly.

If every employed person in the world was required to pay 20 pence / cents (whatever) from their monthly earnings, imagine what that could do for poverty stricken countries.

Or, these rich celebs, rather than spending money on fundraising and concerts could just give the money to the places that need it.
Yeah, and then we have a bunch of very very rich dictators, and a welfare continent.

Relax, this thread is like a month old. I only spotted back on page 1 just now.

Yeah, I know, it was more like a bump than anything.

Relax, this thread is like a month old. I only spotted back on page 1 just now.

Yeah, I know, it was more like a bump than anything.

Why is it that people here seem to think that poverty in the third world is a problem that the first world should be solving. Take a little look at the history of the first world and you will see that the driving force behind the development of the first world was poverty itself. The renaissance, the industrial revolution, the emergence of modern Western culture all depended upon the local people wanting more than they had, wanting a better life and, critically, not having anyone to provide this other than themselves.

The European nations did not become wealthy by being provided with charity from and open trade with the rest of the world. They became wealthy enough to exploit the rest of the world by developping their internal trade, their internal economies first. This happened despite endemic political corruption (You only have to look at the relationship between land ownership and political power to see this.)

So what is the solution for poverty in the third world?
1. remove the chains - cancel the debt.
2. Leave the third world to do whatever the third world decides to do and setr about dealing with poverty in the first world.

Why is it that people here seem to think that poverty in the third world is a problem that the first world should be solving. Take a little look at the history of the first world and you will see that the driving force behind the development of the first world was poverty itself. The renaissance, the industrial revolution, the emergence of modern Western culture all depended upon the local people wanting more than they had, wanting a better life and, critically, not having anyone to provide this other than themselves.

The European nations did not become wealthy by being provided with charity from and open trade with the rest of the world. They became wealthy enough to exploit the rest of the world by developping their internal trade, their internal economies first. This happened despite endemic political corruption (You only have to look at the relationship between land ownership and political power to see this.)

So what is the solution for poverty in the third world?
1. remove the chains - cancel the debt.
2. Leave the third world to do whatever the third world decides to do and setr about dealing with poverty in the first world.

It's not a responsibility of the first world. We don't have to do it, but we should ( :eek: Is that moralistic crap seeping out of my mouth?!). Just like the first person out of the hole should turn around and help the others who are trying to climb out. The reason why we can't just leave it to them, is that they are unlikely to do it from their socio-economic history for some time. The renaissance happened after centuries of oppression under the catholic empires which existed. The catholic empires came after centuries of chaos in the dark ages, which came after the collapse of the Roman empire. The Roman empire came from iron age subsistence tribes. Iron age subsistence tribes came from a mixture of collapsed Bronze age empires, and bronze age subsitence tribes. Bronze age subsistence tribes is about where most of Africa is, if that, some may argue that they are neolithic. They have to start producing iron, develop some sizable civilisations, benefit from the cultral developement and philosophies of these civilisations, have them collpase, have an oppressive empire rise from the chaos of the post-civilisation period based loosely on the ideas of the former, suffer under the yoke of the large and oppressive empire, then rise up and take the empire (Infrastructure and all ) for themselves. Or we could intervene and build the infrastructure ourselves, remove the obstacles, and leave them with something of a post-industrial renaissance. Second thoughts: But what if they their culture hasn't developed sufficiently to support a free market capitalism? It took at least 2 centuries before it took hold in the west. But it took only several decades for it to happen in asia...What did asia have that africa doesn't? Colonialism? Back to the drawing board...