NationStates Jolt Archive

Almost half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, live on less than $2 a day. Of these people, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day.

This is the LITERAL cold hard truth.

In the United States an candy bar or drink at a gas station is $2! An average meal for two is $30 at a restaurant. (two weeks pay for these people). A dress or a pair of jeans are often $70 (2 weeks pay for these people, about 1 day over here). Some people drop $1000 on electronics left and right, a $1000 wont even buy you a good car but it is a car, and that is over a year's pay for these people. The average American even if poor makes at least $16,000 a year and thats our poverty line or about so. That is 16 years of work for these people. People earning over $50,000 a year make more than these people do in a lifetime, and everyone in the top 20% of income earners in the United States (Over $70,000 or so) make more than these people do in their lifetimes.


I am not a socialist, but is there not something wrong with this fact?


I am not a socialist, but is there not something wrong with this picture, maybe even a little?

I AM a socialist, and yes, there is something wrong with that picture.

That would really suck if prices were uniform across nations, but they aren't. Don't get me wrong--there are vast inequalities, but looking at them in that manner is a bit dishonest.

There's nothing wrong with people making a lot of money. What's wrong is that there are still barriers to people in other parts of the world achieving that level of prosperity.

At the same time, however those billion people win the West who make a lot of money are lifting those 2.8 billion people out of poverty through investment, trade, loans, political intervention, and globalization. Everyone on Earth can be free from poverty, and we're slowly working towards that goal through globalization and trade.

It's not easy, but global poverty is being solved. Each year of strong economic growth and reform is bringing more people in to the middle class and even more people out of poverty. We're nowhere near done, but far fewer people today (as a percentage of population) are in severe poverty as they were 20 years ago. That's phenomenal improvement in such a short time.

There's a lot wrong with rampant poverty, yes.

Welcome to the cold, hard world. Get used to it.

Get used to it.

Why?

Life sucks, and then you die.

Did you also know you have a better chance of being Murdered in Washington, D.C. then in Iraq? [If you serve in the U.S. Military.]

Welcome to the cold, hard world. Get used to it.

There is no need for poverty in this world. Poverty is a great evil that steals away innocent lives and suppresses their ability to grow and become what they want rather than what survival forces on them. In fact, there is no need for any of the terrible sufferings inflicted on people across the planet; we can and should eliminate poverty just like we do disease or any other problem that plagues our civilization.

Why?

what do you mean 'why'? Do you think the world will ever solve it's problems?

There will ALWAYS be another War, Plague, Natural Disaster, Drought, etc. It's just the way things are.

There's nothing wrong with people making a lot of money. What's wrong is that there are still barriers to people in other parts of the world achieving that level of prosperity.

But that level of prosperity, that of the U.S. and other Western nations, is simply not sustainable for six billion people.

What happens when we hit the wall? Do we tell those still impoverished that they'll simply have to stay poor?

My dear friend, there will always be poor people, and rich people, it's human nature, you'll always want to compete against your peers.

I do agree however that some people live in a beasty way, yesterday i was watching a video about the kids in the slums of Rio de Janeiro, it was really depressing, not to mention disgusting to see the way this people live crammed in a tiny shack.

However sadly i cannot see an end to it. . .

Well it isn't as if we are going to be able to change this reality anytime soon. It sucks but it will always be a fact that some will have wealth but even more will be poor. We can't change that. So are we supposed to feel guilty about being lucky enough to have more money then a large portion of the worlds population?

I think we can only slowly bring oppurtunities to the rest of the world as technology shrinks the planet and over time things will (probably) improve.

Life sucks, and then you die.That's my favorite saying.

what do you mean 'why'? Do you think the world will ever solve it's problems?

Yes. There are no real barriers to doing so.

There will ALWAYS be another War, Plague, Natural Disaster, Drought, etc. It's just the way things are.

We've successfully eliminated three of those four in much of the world, and chances are we'll be able to control or mitigate natural disasters in the future as well. I don't see why they can't extend these benefits to the rest of the world as well.

what do you mean 'why'? Do you think the world will ever solve it's problems?

In all honesty? No. I think humanity has doomed itself in several crucial ways.

But we should try anyway.

There will ALWAYS be another War, Plague, Natural Disaster, Drought, etc. It's just the way things are.

The incidences and effects can be minimized.

my buying a mink coat or a racing yacht doesnt take food out of the mouth of an african or indian orphan. the problems of the third world are not going to be solved by my sending them all my spare cash.

we are not rich because we are stealing from the 3rd world.

That's my favorite saying.

I rather like it as well, although possibly for different reasons, Mr Agnostic :P

Yes. There are no real barriers to doing so.



We've successfully eliminated three of those four in much of the world, and chances are we'll be able to control or mitigate natural disasters in the future as well. I don't see why they can't extend these benefits to the rest of the world as well.

What three have we gotten rid of?

Did you also know you have a better chance of being Murdered in Washington, D.C. then in Iraq? [If you serve in the U.S. Military.]

Only if you lie about statistics.

But that level of prosperity, that of the U.S. and other Western nations, is simply not sustainable for six billion people.

What happens when we hit the wall? Do we tell those still impoverished that they'll simply have to stay poor?

In its current form. There are no barriers to supporting our population if we use resources wisely and we use renewable or recyclable sources as much as possible. The problem is, we seem to associate material well-being with waste. That has to change if we want all people to be better off and our standards of living to continue to their uptrend.

my buying a mink coat or a racing yacht doesnt take food out of the mouth of an african or indian orphan. the problems of the third world are not going to be solved by my sending them all my spare cash.

we are not rich because we are stealing from the 3rd world.

Well, we are exploiting the fuck out of them.

I rather like it as well, although possibly for different reasons, Mr Agnostic :PI like it because it tells the truth. Life sucks, and then you die. It's like duh.

we are not rich because we are stealing from the 3rd world.
Ha Ha Ha...did you snicker when you typed this?

I like it because it tells the truth. Life sucks, and then you die. It's like duh.

True.
But I get the bonus of the thought of a warm, cozy afterlife. :D

I'm neither a "fair" trade advocate nor a socialist, and yes there is something very wrong with this. I'm thinking that when I get my degrees, I'm going to go into working for a global charity of some sort. I know that once I graduate, I'm going to serve in the Peace Corps.

True.
But I get the bonus of the thought of a warm, cozy afterlife. :DYou assume because I'm agnostic I don't believe in an afterlife. Athiests don't believe in an afterlife; hell, they don't believe in anything. Agnostic is just skepticism of there being such, not a full blown absolutist denial.

I believe in God (or a Supreme/Higher Power), and afterlife.

But I get the bonus of the thought of a warm, cozy afterlife. :D

I don't particularly want to die at all...I'm not a gambling man. I'm banking on immortality, but you never know what will happen.

You assume because I'm agnostic I don't believe in an afterlife. Athiests don't believe in an afterlife; hell, they don't believe in anything. Agnostic is just skepticism of there being such, not a full blown absolutist denial.

I believe in God (or a Supreme/Higher Power), and afterlife.

O IC
Most of the Agnostics Ive met seem to be of the more athiest disposition. Ah, well.

I don't particularly want to die at all...I'm not a gambling man. I'm banking on immortality, but you never know what will happen.

You could always try becoming an Omnithiest.

O IC
Most of the Agnostics Ive met seem to be of the more athiest disposition. Ah, well.

I'm pretty similar to Maraque in that regard. We're on the theist side of agnosticism.

You could always try becoming an Omnithiest.

I'm pretty close to that, personally. It makes a lot more sense.

Part of the reason that a $16,000 per year income in this country amounts to less ability to survive in this country than a $600 a year income in some other countries is that the overall prosperity of this country means that the costs of living are much, much higher. The requirements to be able to survive in a largely urban society driven by strong market forces are very expensive, indeed, especially when one considers the "luxury" restrictions we can afford to place upon our economy, restrictions such as environmental regulations, worker safety, unions, and insurance. To be able to survive in an American (or other industrial nation) city, you have to be able to pay hundreds of dollars per month in rent, because that's what the market is "able to bear". You have to be able to pay a lot of money to buy, fuel, and insure a vehicle since there really isn't another viable form of transportation, and the expenses associated with providing those services are high because the providers of those services also have to cope with a high cost of living. In third world countries, the poverty is terrible, true, and I am not attempting to whitewash over that fact, but keep in mind that it is possible to get by with less money in such countries because the cost of living is much lower. Even with that in mind, though, living on a dollar a day is not possible no matter where you're from.

I started a thread a while back on something related to this, regarding the question "is it ethical to live in relative luxury while others live in relative poverty because you come from a socioeconomic background that gives you relative luxury to start with?" The idea of "unearned" fortune inherited from the circumstances of one's birth and upbringing, in other words.

we can and should eliminate poverty just like we do disease or any other problem that plagues our civilization.

Got that cure for AIDS, cancer and the common cold yet?

Got that cure for AIDS, cancer and the common cold yet?

Don't know if I'd really consider the common cold a plague, per se. Not responsible for a lot of deaths, anywhere.

my buying a mink coat or a racing yacht doesnt take food out of the mouth of an african or indian orphan. the problems of the third world are not going to be solved by my sending them all my spare cash.

we are not rich because we are stealing from the 3rd world.

I disagree totally.

Blood diamonds, resource extraction. A lot of things are taken from third world countries and nothing is given back except bribes to a few government officials.

Not to mention sweat shops (Which do provide a small salary, but are much more unfairly profitable to the owners). We would not have what we do in the West World (as much mass consumerism) if it were not built on the backs of the third world as far as manufacturing goes. These do not put as much back into the nation's economy as you might think either.

Any time you have some kind of population living in ridiculous luxury compared to the rest of the world, or some form of imperialism you have this kind of situation.

Rome would not have been Rome unless it exploited its many provinces, had slavery, etc. At least Rome did offer citizenship, and some protection from the barbarian hordes but it still exploited many for the luxuries of the few.

my buying a mink coat or a racing yacht doesnt take food out of the mouth of an african or indian orphan. the problems of the third world are not going to be solved by my sending them all my spare cash.

we are not rich because we are stealing from the 3rd world.

You have got to be kidding!

I AM a socialist, and yes, there is something wrong with that picture.

Ditto.

Got that cure for AIDS, cancer and the common cold yet?

We're pretty close on all three. Within a decade, for sure; also, in the developed world, death rates from cancer and AIDS are low due to improved treatments and are improving over time as new ways of treating them are discovered. Cures are only another step away from that.

Yes, too many are poor, but as one poster said, prices are not comparable across countries. In my city, billed as one of the *cheapest* to live in, I can eat a full meal on 50 US cents. [But a friend of mine eats lunch at half that price - 25 cents!) And living in the city is considered to be more *expensive* than in the countryside.

Maybe a more reliable indicator is the nutritional status of the people, or to a lesser extent, literacy rate.

Well, we are exploiting the fuck out of them.

How? Yes, we don't pay them equivalent wages to what they would make if they lived in the U.S., but minimum wage is the perogative of their government, and us butting in and telling them what they can or cannot pay their workers is bullying them.

There are cases of exploitation. Western companies do exploit governments in the developing world. This is wrong and should be stopped. Western companies do engage in anti-union behavior in the developing world. This is also wrong, and it should also be stopped.

However, to say that the pains of an industrial era are the fault of the West is dishonest. Our own industrial era was no stroll through the rose garden, by any means. Industrialization is hell, but, as Abe Lincoln said, "This too shall pass."

Should Westerners give to charities and provide effective, targeted aid? You bet we should. But, once again, that's a matter of personal choice. Many Westerners do give a lot in aid money, but it isn't even always given in the smartest fashion. We spend more money providing fish than we do teaching the art of fishing. While we do have to feed people by providing fish, it may be more ef-fish-ent to spend more on teaching the art of fishing.

Still, I agree that we live in a level of luxury that means we have a moral duty to help alleviate the suffering of others. I intend to join the Peace Corps and try to do my part, but too many Westerners aren't even aware that the Peace Corps or its equivalents exist, let alone of the need for service in them.

We're pretty close on all three. Within a decade, for sure; also, in the developed world, death rates from cancer and AIDS are low due to improved treatments and are improving over time as new ways of treating them are discovered. Cures are only another step away from that.

Here are 2001's top causes of death:
High Income Nations:
Heart disease
Stroke
Lung cancer
Lower respiratory infections
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Colon and rectum cancers
Alzheimer's disease
Type 2 diabetes
Breast cancer
Stomach cancer


Low and Middle Income Nations:
Heart disease
Stroke
Lower respiratory infections
HIV/AIDS
Fetus/newborn (perinatal) conditions
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Diarrhea
Tuberculosis
Malaria
Road traffic accidents


Source: Top 10 Causes of Death (http://www.webmd.com/news/20060525/top-10-causes-death-worldwide)

Given that humanity has yet to cure a single virus, plagues are a very real possiblity. We can control things like AIDS or herpes, but we can't cure them. Some of the panic over bird flu is justified, a break out would be devastating, no matter where it hits.

Almost half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, live on less than $2 a day. Of these people, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day.Of course, a dollar is worth at least a dozen times as much there.. At least in terms of the necessities of life, like food and clothes.

we are not rich because we are stealing from the 3rd world.We're kinda rich because our ancestors did though. And we're still exploiting them for cheap labour.

Of course, a dollar is worth at least a dozen times as much there.. At least in terms of the necessities of life, like food and clothes.

You're forgetting exchange rates and inflation.

You're forgetting exchange rates and inflation.How do they even apply here?

. . .we use renewable or recyclable sources as much as possible. . .

One aspect of recycling that people forget is that it in of itself is a process as much as manufacturing and mining, and thus consumes resources that will never be returned (as the Laws of Thermodynamics states). Recycling may slow the process on most products, but it won't stop it.

At the same time, however those billion people win the West who make a lot of money are lifting those 2.8 billion people out of poverty through investment, trade, loans, political intervention, and globalization. Everyone on Earth can be free from poverty, and we're slowly working towards that goal through globalization and trade.

Sadly, we are not. Free trade is beneficial, but in order to compete in a free market, third world countries need established industries. In order to protect infant industries, states need mercantilism rather than free trade; closed borders are needed to allow industries to grow. However, we are forcing open borders on third world countries through IMF and World Bank loans (we pay, and therefore run these organizations) in order to sell our products. At the same time we are keeping our borders closed to products from third world countries. Consequently, money is still traveling from third world countries to the western word.

How do they even apply here?

Because inflation, particularly hyperinflation, devalues currency and erodes it buying power. A dollar may exchange for 25 of Country X's Credits, but that doesn't neccesarily mean that our hypothetical credit has the same buying power as 4 cents (which is practically nothing). You really have to look at it case by case, but for your argument to have validity prices everywhere would have to to comparable to those in the US, which isn't true. Many poorer countries suffer from high prices and low currency values (hyperinflation) and that exacerbates the already poor economic situation.

Sadly though Africa has more than anywhere been exploited by the West in all different ways. Though in many ways it is not just exploitation, but corrupt leaders selling their own people into slavery, and the modern leaders of today just being overly corrupt.

In some ways the early colonizers and imperialist powers (The French, The British Empire, early on Portugal, Germany, Belgium, and spain) set the tone for the future of the entire continent to remain in poverty, and stay undeveloped.

This happened largely due to some of the tactics used, in a way, unlike the British Empire's policy in India for example which while harsh allowed the continent to develop quiet a bit.

Even though sweatshops are bad, Western industry has not even moved into Africa to contribute anything even wages other than resource exploitation mainly. So there is a sense that the West used Africa, is still using Africa, but uses it in an abusive way. In some ways it was used, abused, then left by the wayside.



Some exploitations that come to mind are :
Slavery
Resources extraction
Blood diamonds
Unethical medical testing (less known of)
Arms Industry (less known of as well but coming out now)

Some major events in mind:
The Slave Trade
The Congo
Rwanda Genocide
Blood Diamond Mining Today


Often European nations washed their hands of things when things went wrong. Belgium for instance were one of the first nations to pull out their troops in the Rwandan Genocide, even though they created the tribal divisions, and putting a person's tribe on the national identity card when there really was no difference.

Today this is why there is a huge charity movement toward Africa, because of the major distraught they experience there. As well as several movies that depict African exploitation and problems.

However, there is now a belief by many that the Western countries keep Africa suppressed for a reason. That is because of the lack of resources and the reduction that would result for the West if many of these populated countries developed, a worry with China and India now for instance that there is "just not enough" to supply economically developing nations on the level that we have in the West (Cars, Building Supplies, Mass Produced Products). As well as population concerns (There just isnt enough to feed everyone, folks, on the massive scale needed).

No, I don't particularly care. Human life is worth nothing unless it's productive.

No, I don't particularly care. Human life is worth nothing unless it's productive.

That’s a rather unproductive stance isn’t it?

No, I don't particularly care. Human life is worth nothing unless it's productive.

Huh? These people are very productive, they probably work harder than you me?

Guess thats a common misconception that the poor are lazy or work less.

If you were in some of the countries and your family was killed by guerilla soldiers.

They suffer in numerous ways (Guerilla Soldiers and constant threat of physical danger, health dangers, on top of it all their in extreme poverty)


What if YOU had to live through:
Physical Danger Daily - From things like rebel soldiers, guerillas. In many African nations for instance they rape, kill, maim whomever they wish. In cities, in jungles. I read that some nations literally have just mainly people living in refugee camps.

Health Danger They can't afford good medical care, often what they get is second hand, and often they die of disease. Most third world country residents do not live beyond 40. Disease is rampant. You can die from just drinking tap water.

Starvation There is not enough money for food. Almost 30,000 children die a day because of starvation. There is no way to make food with drought, lack of safe land, etc.

Extreme Poverty They cannot afford any luxuries, NONE. Running water, electricity, and a fan are LUXURIES. This is what they gave Angelina Jolie and VIP Guests hwen they go there, and that is a luxury. A safe room with running water, electricity, and a fan. The poor are poorer than any on the globe, the rich barely qualify as middle class over here (A 15 year old car is a luxury of the rich). The tallest skyscraper in many major African cities is 20 stories, that just reflects on how poor their government and entire country is on all levels. Luxury hotels and the like you may see are owned by foreign companies normally, and used by mainly Western businessmen traveling etc.


Obviously its not all their fault.

Obama for President of Ghana!

Almost half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, live on less than $2 a day. Of these people, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day.

This is the LITERAL cold hard truth.

In the United States an candy bar or drink at a gas station is $2! An average meal for two is $30 at a restaurant. (two weeks pay for these people). A dress or a pair of jeans are often $70 (2 weeks pay for these people, about 1 day over here). Some people drop $1000 on electronics left and right, a $1000 wont even buy you a good car but it is a car, and that is over a year's pay for these people. The average American even if poor makes at least $16,000 a year and thats our poverty line or about so. That is 16 years of work for these people. People earning over $50,000 a year make more than these people do in a lifetime, and everyone in the top 20% of income earners in the United States (Over $70,000 or so) make more than these people do in their lifetimes.


I am not a socialist, but is there not something wrong with this fact?


I am not a socialist, but is there not something wrong with this picture, maybe even a little?


Oh my god!

We're being WAAAAAY Overcharged! :eek:

;)

This is all about gross national product. I'm sure it seems terribly unfair when you look at things from that perspective, but the average american gets his share of the pie. The slice is about the same portion of the whole pie as anybody else's pie. It's just that the American pie is considerably larger than the Rwandan pie. Is it fair that the American pie is larger? Yes. We baked it that way. And we each get a slice of the pie we bake. If that isn't fair, I don't know what is.

Because inflation, particularly hyperinflation, devalues currency and erodes it buying power. A dollar may exchange for 25 of Country X's Credits, but that doesn't neccesarily mean that our hypothetical credit has the same buying power as 4 cents (which is practically nothing). You really have to look at it case by case, but for your argument to have validity prices everywhere would have to to comparable to those in the US, which isn't true. Many poorer countries suffer from high prices and low currency values (hyperinflation) and that exacerbates the already poor economic situation.I think you have totally misread what I wrote. All I said was that a dollar there buys you a lot more than a dollar here. The exchange rates and units of currency don't factor into that.

Almost half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, live on less than $2 a day. Of these people, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day.
I am not a socialist, but is there not something wrong with this fact?


I am not a socialist, but is there not something wrong with this picture, maybe even a little?

I am not a socialist, I am a communist... and the thing that is wrong with this picture is: different buying power.

A public school teacher in Senegal (one of the most stable and economically developed african countries) gets about 30 € a month - I was told so about 5 years ago by a senegalese minister. But with 30 € you're above the average monthly income of a worker... that is, you enjoy a better lifestyle than most of the senegalese people.
30 € in Milan will buy:
1-month-ticket on the local transportation system
half a taxi ride from the city centre to the Malpensa Airport
3 complete meals in the average workplace cafeteria
a pizza, a mid-sized beer and a coffee for 2 people in the average pizzeria
The average italian empolyee gets monthly about 1200-1500€. One month's rent of a small apartment (50 squared meters) in Milan is about 600-800 €.
Hardly a privileged lifestyle.

I think that the real issue isn't that some countries have lower prices (and thus, wages) than others. The problem is the income difference between citizens of the same country - in Italy, official data (ISTAT) says that 10% of the families have the 43% of the total income of the italians, but pay about 10% of the total taxes, while 80% of the total taxes is paid by employees.

Oh my god!

We're being WAAAAAY Overcharged! :eek:

;)

This is all about gross national product. I'm sure it seems terribly unfair when you look at things from that perspective, but the average american gets his share of the pie. The slice is about the same portion of the whole pie as anybody else's pie. It's just that the American pie is considerably larger than the Rwandan pie. Is it fair that the American pie is larger? Yes. We baked it that way. And we each get a slice of the pie we bake. If that isn't fair, I don't know what is.

Wow we "baked it that way". Wow..thats all I have to say. Our "gross national product" is largely from corporations that also exploit these countries, and also sweatshops.

We sure did bake it that way, with stolen ingredients.

That would really suck if prices were uniform across nations, but they aren't. Don't get me wrong--there are vast inequalities, but looking at them in that manner is a bit dishonest.

what he said.

the disparities in quaility of life are staggering, but comparing this on a purely pecuniary basis is pointless when costs of living vary wildly between even developed countries.

however, yes i am a socialist and yes there is something wrong with that picture

No, I don't particularly care. Human life is worth nothing unless it's productive.

wow.

poor =/= unproductive
wealth =/= the only measure of productivity

Life sucks, and then you die.

you forgot the paying of taxes...

my buying a mink coat or a racing yacht doesnt take food out of the mouth of an african or indian orphan. the problems of the third world are not going to be solved by my sending them all my spare cash.

Exactly. It's basic economics - the only way for an economy to improve is for it to grow. Pouring money into a country does the same thing that printing up more money for the sake of more money does - cause inflation.

Socialism doesn't solve the problem - it futilely attempts to cure the symptom and not the disease.

Let's say that you attend MIT - you work your tail off maintaining a 4.0 GPA at the sacrifice of many a party and other social events. Then, another student, who by fate has ended up at a low-end college (Say, East Carolina University) - for some reason, whether it be because they didn't get the proper preparation in high school, or because they partied away, they abide by the rule 'two-oh and go.' Now, someone comes along and says, 'My god, this isn't right! Here you are, with your grades and your credentials, and this poor soul at ECU is going to struggle for the rest of his life to land a decent job. Let's even that up a bit!' So, they give you both a 3.0 and a diploma from a decent / above-average school. How is that fair to you? You worked for that grade and that degree, and no matter the circumstances of their failing, why should you be denied that hard work? Imagine if socialism was applied to everything in life. No thanks.

Oh my god!

We're being WAAAAAY Overcharged! :eek:

;)

This is all about gross national product. I'm sure it seems terribly unfair when you look at things from that perspective, but the average american gets his share of the pie. The slice is about the same portion of the whole pie as anybody else's pie. It's just that the American pie is considerably larger than the Rwandan pie. Is it fair that the American pie is larger? Yes. We baked it that way. And we each get a slice of the pie we bake. If that isn't fair, I don't know what is.

I semi-agree with this.

Do I like the idea that people live in poverty? no.

I grew up in "poverty" (that's American style, poverty, where while I didn't have heat or running water, or food at home, I still got to go to school and they would feed me). Do I like the idea that my "poverty" lifestyle was posh compared to people in other countries? nope.

I still can't bear to run on about how "unfair" it is.....I don't know why. Maybe I am an evil capitalist. I just can't hang with the socialist ideal.

There is no need for poverty in this world. Poverty is a great evil that steals away innocent lives and suppresses their ability to grow and become what they want rather than what survival forces on them. In fact, there is no need for any of the terrible sufferings inflicted on people across the planet; we can and should eliminate poverty just like we do disease or any other problem that plagues our civilization.

Let me add this. Every country was poor at one time. Including our own. If poverty is so inescapable, how did today's rich countries overcome their poverty?

Let me add this. Every country was poor at one time. Including our own. If poverty is so inescapable, how did today's rich countries overcome their poverty?

it depends on what you mean by poor, if one person is poor in a country is it enough to declare the whole country poverty stricken? if so, we are still poor, and I bet it's because of the evil capitalism.

And me and two or three of my friends can buy a thirty-pack of PBR at Giant Eagle for eleven dollars and get drunk.

And me and two or three of my friends can buy a thirty-pack of PBR at Giant Eagle for eleven dollars and get drunk.

you drink PBR.............I'm sorry.



Drink some "Great Lakes" the Dortmunder Gold and Elliot Ness are excellant.


As is anything by Thirsty Dog.



wait your a college student, nevermind.

Almost half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, live on less than $2 a day. Of these people, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day.

This is the LITERAL cold hard truth.

In the United States an candy bar or drink at a gas station is $2! An average meal for two is $30 at a restaurant. (two weeks pay for these people). A dress or a pair of jeans are often $70 (2 weeks pay for these people, about 1 day over here). Some people drop $1000 on electronics left and right, a $1000 wont even buy you a good car but it is a car, and that is over a year's pay for these people. The average American even if poor makes at least $16,000 a year and thats our poverty line or about so. That is 16 years of work for these people. People earning over $50,000 a year make more than these people do in a lifetime, and everyone in the top 20% of income earners in the United States (Over $70,000 or so) make more than these people do in their lifetimes.


I am not a socialist, but is there not something wrong with this fact?


I am not a socialist, but is there not something wrong with this picture, maybe even a little?

Hmmm....
A candy bar at a gas station costs around 50 cents.
A dinner for 4 will cost around 30 dollars at a restaurant
A pair of jeans often costs around 25 dollars..

I'm not saying that we are not rich compared to other countries..but if you are going to use examples you should use what the AVERAGE American pays, or what is the norm.

Let me add this. Every country was poor at one time. Including our own. If poverty is so inescapable, how did today's rich countries overcome their poverty?

And every country will always have its 'poor'. They are poor relative to their countrymen, but it is hard to say who is poorer: the poorest in Appalachia, or the richest in Gabon?

And we can never use income or prices in absolute terms. But if somebody's interested, a typical candy here costs about one and a half US cents, and the cost of living for a typical family in my city is about US$12 a day. So if I get the salary of an average Italian employee I am 'rich'. But if I am in Italy, and I still get the same salary, I'm going to be struggling, and I will be 'poor'.

Let me add this. Every country was poor at one time. Including our own. If poverty is so inescapable, how did today's rich countries overcome their poverty?

Not really. The West was quiet wealthy for some time. The average person was poor, but they were more wealthy than say the average African kingdoms etc.

Today we have a global economy , and this is why this exploitation is wrong. Cycles can develop that do keep nations in poverty, cycles that are not helped by some of the crimes of the West.

Yes, there's something wrong with it. I've heard it a million times. It's lost it's shock value. Now it's just a bit of information.

There is no need for poverty in this world. Poverty is a great evil that steals away innocent lives and suppresses their ability to grow and become what they want rather than what survival forces on them. In fact, there is no need for any of the terrible sufferings inflicted on people across the planet; we can and should eliminate poverty just like we do disease or any other problem that plagues our civilization.

Hey, Vetalia! Long time, no argue! And, just to open another GREAT BIG STINKY CANS OF WORMS, maybe the poor people shouldn't breed so much, eh?

Yes, there's something wrong with it. I've heard it a million times. It's lost it's shock value. Now it's just a bit of information.

It is still good to discuss sometimes

Hmmm....
A candy bar at a gas station costs around 50 cents.
A dinner for 4 will cost around 30 dollars at a restaurant
A pair of jeans often costs around 25 dollars..

I'm not saying that we are not rich compared to other countries..but if you are going to use examples you should use what the AVERAGE American pays, or what is the norm.

All my friends and people I know who could be said to be young lower income class regularly spend that monthly, at least going out for a $30 dinner for two twice or three times in a month.

Many I know do that regularly.

Pair of jeans $25? I do not think that is the American average from retail pricing, and average purchasing power. If the family shops at Goodwill, or a cheaper store perhaps though the average American spends more in the area of what I said on things I believe.

Hey, Vetalia! Long time, no argue! And, just to open another GREAT BIG STINKY CANS OF WORMS, maybe the poor people shouldn't breed so much, eh?

Maybe. It's easier to make them smarter and richer and then let their birthrates fall just like they have here. Of course, teaching them how to use birth control and condoms would have incalculable benefit as well.

Let me add this. Every country was poor at one time. Including our own. If poverty is so inescapable, how did today's rich countries overcome their poverty?

They did the same thing India and China are doing now. They educated their population, developed trade, opened themselves to the expertise and investment money of wealthier countries, and had their governments invest in development projects to support more and more advanced economic structures.

Now, some countries have been inherently advantaged from the start; the US was very lucky to have the kind of population and resources it did when it gained independence...that guaranteed a strong economy, even if it has had its bumps in the past.

It's alright people, the Communist Revolution worldwide is a historical inevitability, just as all history is based on class struggle.

the Communist Revolution worldwide is a historical inevitability, just as all history is based on class struggle.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Almost half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, live on less than $2 a day. Of these people, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day.

This is the LITERAL cold hard truth.

Yeah. Poverty does exist. You might say that it's wrong, because it's not a good thing. However, then you'll be wanting to know the cause. In the search for an easy answer, then you'll be blaming something or someone. Nationalists blame the immigrants stealin' our jobs. Socialists blame capitalism. Communists blame everything that isn't their brand of communism. The object of blame becomes the object of hate. And obsession. And stupid internet arguments about grandiose ideologies filled with angsty teen rage.

The dark side, that is. Go there, you should not.

It's alright people, the Communist Revolution worldwide is a historical inevitability, just as all history is based on class struggle.

That is a confusing statement.

I am just for a more enlightened capitalism, so to speak. There is a way to life these countries up without exploiting them and make a profit, using investment, etc. Having more educated minds, more people able to become scientists, and all kinds of new talent is not a bad thing at all. Africa and the like is a talent pool, it is just these people have no chance to even express their talents or intelligence. unlike the West which fosters people developing.

It perhaps would not bring the ridiculous profit levels for the West, and the corporations that currently exploit Africa but it would help lift the planet up a whole.

They did the same thing India and China are doing now. They educated their population, developed trade, opened themselves to the expertise and investment money of wealthier countries, and had their governments invest in development projects to support more and more advanced economic structures.

Now, some countries have been inherently advantaged from the start; the US was very lucky to have the kind of population and resources it did when it gained independence...that guaranteed a strong economy, even if it has had its bumps in the past.

Bingo. You win and advance to the next round. The way to help 'poor' countries is to encourage the kind of economic freedom that existed at our origin. That's the best, and probably the only way to guarantee a country will move out of third world status.

Bingo. You win and advance to the next round. The way to help 'poor' countries is to encourage the kind of economic freedom that existed at our origin. That's the best, and probably the only way to guarantee a country will move out of third world status.

And stop the exploitation by Western governments, and corporations

And stop the exploitation by Western governments, and corporations

The exploitation is generally self-induced. The Western nations, corporations, trade, etc, is what will pull a poor nation up.

That is a confusing statement.

I am just for a more enlightened capitalism, so to speak. There is a way to life these countries up without exploiting them and make a profit, using investment, etc. Having more educated minds, more people able to become scientists, and all kinds of new talent is not a bad thing at all. Africa and the like is a talent pool, it is just these people have no chance to even express their talents or intelligence. unlike the West which fosters people developing.

It perhaps would not bring the ridiculous profit levels for the West, and the corporations that currently exploit Africa but it would help lift the planet up a whole.
The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. - Karl Marx

Fact remains, capitalism in it's current form is a constant degeneration of social conditions, and also the degeneration of conservation and destruction by the capitalist classes. The decline of capitalism will of course come from a grass roots source, but it's success is all the more inevitable by the manifest failings and problems of capitalism. You should read Capital.

Fact remains, capitalism in it's current form is a constant degeneration of social conditions, and also the degeneration of conservation and destruction by the capitalist classes. The decline of capitalism will of course come from a grass roots source, but it's success is all the more inevitable by the manifest failings and problems of capitalism. You should read Capital.

Well certain forms of capitalism are good. Capitalism is a good sociological system of keeping society ordered, and people's focus on some order to keep society from degenerating into violence.

I sincerely people that the masses are not alturistic enough to maintain socialism for any length of time, people are just not that enlightened.

Communism really should be separated totally from socialism, as it was more of a "fascist/militaristic" movement than socialist. The Government owning everything is different than the community sharing everything. And when the Party Officials just replace the capitalist upper class as the "high class" of the nation then that is much different than socialism.

people are just not that enlightened.

You don't sound too enlightened yourself, chief.

You don't sound too enlightened yourself, chief.

Why not or why so? I don't believe myself to be enlightened. Though I do intend one day to possibly renounce and practice a monastic lifestyle, even then though I would not be "enlightened".. my obstacle is mainly I am a romantic and in a relationship.

I am saying though that, though there are many kind people (Many social workers, nurses, aide workers, charity workers are very selfless) there are just as many greedy people so socialism would not work in my eyes, something must keep these people's attentions focused.

Capitalism brings some order to society, but I think a better form of capitalism should be brought around than the exploitive one we have now. Western corporations do exploit Africa, etc.

There's a lot wrong with rampant poverty, yes.

Hmmm... Controversial.

Why not or why so? I don't believe myself to be enlightened. Though I do intend one day to possibly renounce and practice a monastic lifestyle, even then though I would not be "enlightened".. my obstacle is mainly I am a romantic and in a relationship.

What does socialism have to do with this...?

I am saying though that, though there are many kind people (Many social workers, nurses, aide workers, charity workers are very selfless) there are just as many greedy people so socialism would not work in my eyes, something must keep these people's attentions focused.

Scandinavia seems to be doing fine.

Capitalism brings some order to society, but I think a better form of capitalism should be brought around than the exploitive one we have now. Western corporations do exploit Africa, etc.

Then that's socialism. Capitalism means the economy is left unchecked, and "greedy people" control business interests.
See, you're a socialist at heart. ;)

I thought that the majority of corporations (with some exceptions) avoided Africa and went to Asia because of instability (sometimes perceived) and skills shortages in Africa (unlike India and China for example). Instability tends to be bad for bussines.

I thought that the majority of corporations (with some exceptions) avoided Africa and went to Asia because of instability (sometimes perceived) and skills shortages in Africa (unlike India and China for example). Instability tends to be bad for bussines.

All African countries are not unstable, not sure what you mean by "skill shortages". Mainly the West keeps exploiting Africa and selling weapons to Africa thereby helping keep it unstable.

Mainly the West keeps exploiting Africa and selling weapons to Africa thereby helping keep it unstable.

Yup - that's the cunning plan - once you get a gun see, you can't help but go shoot your fellow countryman allowing those demmed Western governments to come in and steal all your diamonds.

Diabolical!

Yup - that's the cunning plan - once you get a gun see, you can't help but go shoot your fellow countryman allowing those demmed Western governments to come in and steal all your diamonds.

Diabolical!

Not necessarily that simple, but in a way yes. Even by what is proven, the West exploited Africa then many left it unstable while still selling weapons to these countries. (Many European countries as listed earlier have a dirty history with Africa)

Not sure why many deny this is an issue, Western exploitation, when a lot of research points there.