How To Eradicate Poverty
 

Today is Blog Action Day - where a few thousand bloggers will post their thoughts on poverty. (http://www.BlogActionDay.org)

What do you think needs to be done to eradicate poverty completely from this world? (Or do you think its an impossible task?)

Define Poverty...
 

Ankesh,

Thanks for asking.

The question shouldn't be "What do I think needs to be done to eradicate poverty".

It Should be... "Do I think Anything should be done to eradicate poverty?"

See the difference?

The first version Assumes we should do something to eradicate poverty.
The second question asks if we should do something.

Poverty. Poor. Needy. They are all generic terms used by do-gooder groups to garner support/money from other people.

You want to eradicate Poverty? First define what Poverty is. Define what Poor is? Define needy?

I'll add nothing else until you have those definitions. But will leave with this... you do not help anyone by stealing from productive people and giving it to unproductive people, or people who have shown no ability to handle/manage what they earn, let alone what they are given.

Michael Ross

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Thanks Michael.

I agree with you with "you do not help anyone by stealing from productive people and giving it to unproductive people, or people who have shown no ability to handle/manage what they earn, let alone what they are given."

(You could read my views on dealing with poverty on the nontoxin.com blog. You'll like the title at least... it is: "How To Eradicate Poverty (Without Doing Charity)")

Poverty = when people can't afford the basic "survival" amenities of life. Roof over their head. Clean water to drink. Food to eat. Ability to pay their medical bills.

You may say that its not our job to help give these people a roof over their head. And provide them with food or water.

But I think people's standard of living is pretty much like the fax problem. The higher the number of fax machines, the better are things for everyone. Similarly, the higher the number of un-poor people, the better the society is for everyone.

Because richness is not having money. Its circulation of money.

---

This to me is poverty that we should work to eradicate - even if it means being anti-objectivist:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/...b__430x387.jpg

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Yes -- but isn't that pretty much everyone, if we were to stop pedaling our financial bicycles furiously (if we were to stop actively being productive)?

One aspect of poverty that needs to be focused on is, HOW DID [whomever] GET (to be) POOR?!?!

The answer to that question makes a BIG difference, when you ask yourself what needs to be 'done' about it.

-- TW

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Millions of people didn't GET poor. They were BORN poor.

How would you go about teaching them to become productive?

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Great question Ankesh!

I'm not sure what the best way to do that would be but I recall reading in the book "INFLUENCER - The Power To Change Anything"
about someone in India who started to give out micro loans to poor people so they could start businesses.

And the success rate of those he helps is very high!

Some people just need a hand up - not a hand out.

Cheers,
Steve Shulenski

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Thanks Steve.

That someone is Muhammad Yunus. He is from Bangladesh. He started the Grameen Bank. Which has been modeled by a lot of other countries now.

And the bank had 98% rate of loan payback because Muhammad gave out loans only when people who wanted money grouped together.

The groups added to peer pressure - the groups made sure that each member paid their loans on time. And each person worked hard. The group also worked as a mastermind - helping a member with difficulties.

So it wasn't just micro-financing. It was micro-financing + groups that did that trick.

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Yes, I understand that -- I was just pointing out there;s a difference between those two.

There's a further distinction among people who were born poor -- do they live in a society in which people move up (+ down) the socio-economic ladder?

America is one of those places, imo. Therefore, being born poor here may or may not qualify one for help. In other words, even if you're born poor in America, it's much easier to help yourself OUT of poverty here than in other places. Therefore, you'd have to prove MORE hardship here to get a hand-up or a hand-out.

The basic question is, is the poverty coming from withIN or from withOUT.

For lack of a better word, whose FAULT is it?

If it's the person's fault, then they should dig themselves out. If it's society's fault, then society should help out.

But 'fault' is not easy to determine!

Analogy: trying to figure out whose 'fault' a heart attack is. Is it right to start charging a 'fat tax' on food that isn't heart healthy? Is it right to blame the person who eats fatty foods for a heart attack? How can you be SURE that's what caused it? People who eat healthy + jog 10 miles/day ALSO get heart attacks.

-- TW

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Ok let me try rephrasing things a bit.

A video I once watched had a quote that has stuck with me. To paraphrase, it went: The Sun gives light and warmth to everyone. It doesn't see who is poor or who is rich.

Can we use technology to raise food / water / clothing / shelter to the level of sunlight?

(Actually - water is mostly free in most developed nations already... can we do the same thing for basic food too? And then for clothing and shelter?)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid has 5 levels. Can we take care of the bottom level for everyone - no matter if he is good or bad - or smart or dumb?

(For Michael - should we? If not - why not?)

* I'm not talking communism over here. I'm not talking equal benefits for everyone. I'm not saying people can't buy Evian water if they want to. I'm just saying - can we make tap water free for everyone in the world? And can we make other basic survival amenities free for everyone? Rich folks can buy upgrades - no restrictions on that.

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

Ankesh,

I was going to mention micro-financing! :)

I think that is a great way to give a hand up and not a hand out.

I am wanting to invest in micro-financing.

A question for everyone. Which organization should be invested in? Which is on the level with the money going to help the people and mot the administration? Which helps the most people? Where would my money do the most good?

OK. It was more than one question but you get my drift.

Thanks,
Ken

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

Umm -- unlike sunlight, the money has to come from somewhere.

You're tying to apply the (impossible) napster model to the necessities in life.

What killed napster? -- "The money has to come from somewhere."

Why can't communism work? "The money has to come from somewhere."

I know you say you're not talking about communism -- but really you are, because, it seems you're forgetting, "The money has to come from somewhere."

It's not a zero-sum game, that's true. An economy can EXPAND. But only through more productivity + more transactions.

Money cannot come from 'nothing' or 'nowhere' -- the way sunlight does.

Even producing water takes money, and... "The money has to come from somewhere."

-- TW

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

http://www.kiva.org is a good bet. (No personal experience though - but have heard good things.)

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

Ok -- so where can the money / resources come from?

TW - asking how to get it done - even though it brings in unrealistic answers - is better then saying it can't be done. At least for the sake of this conversation. Brainstorming comes before playing devils advocate.

Mark Joyner explains it better than I can:
http://www.markjoyner.name/logs/mj_constructs1.php
(I know some folks don't like Joyner - but I personally think he is very smart.)

Ok - lets talk technology:

Japan actually provides free internet to its people. And Japan is certainly not a communist country. Why do the Japanese provide free internet? Because free internet = higher productivity and more money in circulation. And the cost of providing free internet is miniscule.

1. Water: Its almost free in most developed nations. And low cost gadgets are available that can convert water vapour into water - which can be used in developing nations.

2. Electricity: I believe the price of electricity will be next to negligible within the next 20-30 years. Solar power will become very cheap.

Any ideas for food / clothing / shelter?

How much do geodesic homes cost these days? I remember reading something about a company creating houses that cost very little and can be installed within a day or so... but forgot the name...

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

Here is one very weird thought - for the question - where does money come from.

1. Everyone gets free basic necessities.
2. Every child that is born is already indebted to the society for the free necessities.
3. From the money he earns, the Govt gets 10% until his debt has been paid.
4. If something untoward happens and he dies before paying his debt - thats taken as bad debts.

How does that sound for paying for the basic necessities of life for everyone?

Too whacky? Too socialist or something?

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

How about -- you don't pay sales tax on things you agree to donate to [XYZ charity] when you're done with it -- like coats, shoes, etc. Maybe there's a number to call sewn into the clothes + shoes, for when the time comes.

But, then again...
 

Not paying the sales tax means THAT sales tax money is NOT going to where it WAS going to before -- "The money has to come from somewhere" strikes again.

PS: wi-fi IS like sunshine in a way -- one of the few things that is (radio is too).

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Ankesh,

Thanks for Trying to define Poverty.


Are you talking a Developed nation - or - some third world dung whole full of tribal disputes, class structures which may be denied but which still persists, places run by dictators who live high on the hog at the purposeful expense of its people, places where people breed like rabbits with little to no food to start with and thus only exacerbate the problem.

Define "Roof over their head"
Define "clean water to drink"

And then explain what the hell Medical Bills have to do with a person being in Poverty or not. Because, a person can be earning quite well, live in a nice four bedder, drive a nice car, but have no Savings in the bank or Medical Insurance and a $30k medical bill can bankrupt them. So an ability to pay a medical bill is Not any kind of Necessity of life. And certainly no determination whether someone is in Poverty.

The Abos of Australia are a Classic Example of this Poverty of which you speak. You see, they are given Everything. Free housing. Free schooling. Free medical. Free education. Free money.

You know what they do with it all?

Spend the money on cigarettes, booze and drugs. Rip their homes apart and burn the bits for firewood. Defecate and urinate inside their own dwelling - then complain about the Squalor they live in. Molest their children (something like 80% of their kids under 5 have sexually transmitted diseases). And don't bother going to school to Better Themselves.

But they have a roof over their head, clean water, food and medical taken care of. Would you say they are in Poverty? Because they reckon they are and that they are hard done by.

How about the bloke in England. Threw in his 80,000 quid a year job. Left his wife to move into a Caravan without power or running water. And now makes a few bob here and there by scavenging and beachcombing and selling his finds - such as driftwood - to whomever will buy his wears.

Does he fit your definition of Poverty? No clean water, cant pay his medical bills, has no money really so doesn't know where his next meal is coming from.

Should Ethiopia be helped from the outside while its own Govt stands by and does nothing - for example?

I am sure, going by your definition of Poverty, we could all find ways to be classified as living in Poverty. So what you want to achieve, is not achievable even in theory. Plus, you are trying to prevent a Symptom - a result - of some cause, without addressing the cause.

Richness is whatever you can convince people (and they believe) richness is.

Michael Ross

Re: Define Poverty...
 

Thanks Michael for showing me that I'm no good at creating definitions.

But lets not such technicalities stand in the way of making the world a better place.

The problem I have with poverty is the same problem I have with global warming. It hurts seeing people die - who otherwise shouldn't have.

I mentioned medical bills because of the thought in my mind... no person should die of Malaria just because they can't pay for a vaccine.

Maybe a better question for you is - how to make sure most people meet their peak performances?

Or can you come with better definitions?

Re: Define Poverty...
 

I actually agree that giving special treatment to a group of people doesn't work well.

But - would it matter if the same treatment thats given to Aus Abos is given to *everyone*? Yes a few people would still piss on things. But would it really be unjust if *everyone* gets free food and water? Not just one group of people?

I don't know... would love your thoughts on it.

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

I just build and maintain websites for a living and doubt I could come up with a global solution to stop poverty. I also live in Canada. We define poverty level as a single person who makes under $27,000 per year, or a family of four who live off $42,000 or less.

I see a lot of the world governments injecting billions of dollars into the financial sector to help bail out the banks and other financial institutes... maybe I don't understand.

I'm not sure what the population is in the US (maybe 560 million?) but if they define poverty similar to Canada, why couldn't the government offer a one time $1,000,000.00 to these families but make it a condition that in order to accept it they must receive counseling on their particular situation so they can be best advised how to spend it or invest it. People who don't abide by these stipulations are ineligible for this assistance program.

For example... I know a single mother of two children who works and makes $27,000 a year. By Canadian standards her family is below the poverty level. If she had the chance to stop working and still be able to maintain her families basic needs while she went back to school to learn how to better support her family, she would become a more productive member of society by earning an income she had to pay taxes on. This helps the country out and helps her out. It also gives the kids a better chance, by Mom having the money to round out their education with extracurricular activities that can improve the knowledge and experiences of the young.

OK, well maybe this is a crazy idea and you guys can all shoot some holes in it. But I can't help but think that if you have more families that are better educated with better jobs, the country is going to have more tax money and these people are going to have more money to spend and help reduce inflation.

Our federal election was yesterday. Last week while our prime minister was handing out billions to financial institutions and millions to corporations, they gave everyone on welfare a $4 per month increase.

I'm sure I don't have all the answers -- but there are some things that need fixin'.

Regards,
Steve MacLellan

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

Thanks, I have heard of them. I was looking at World Vision. Do you know anything about them?

Ken

Re: We ARE eradicating Poverty in America!
 

..

Don Alm

Re: How To Eradicate Poverty
 

When you say poverty, there are a lot of things that need to be considered. Poverty are caused by many factors such as Politics, Geographical Location and economy. We can still change poverty , but it should start from the deepest root, Change should start from the origin of the problem, Change should start within YOU.

Re: We ARE eradicating Poverty in America!
 

I personally think the US Govt is in a no win situation.

Because they loaned a trillion bux - people are saying its the end of capitalism as we know it.

If they would have done nothing, people would have said - the Govt is useless and spineless and is seeing the economy go to bust without doing anything about it. Its the end of capitalism as we know it.

Its a no-win situation for them.

So do you have a better solution that is win-win?

(Maybe this should have been a separate thread so that it doesn't interfere with the poverty part?)

Yes, it would matter...
 

Yes. It Would matter. For you see... WHO pays for it all?

Whenever the Govt Gives money - grants, bonuses, allowances, subsidies, etc., etc., that money has to First come from other people.

Those so-called free things are funded by productive people. The govt steals their money (calls it tax though) and then spends some to keep itself in fine threads and hands out some for various reasons. The productive people are financing the whole shebang.

Aust now has a First Home Buyers Grant of $14k. The govt will Give first home buyers $14k to help them buy a home. Then there is the Baby Bonus of around $5k paid to people when they have a kid. There are Subsidies for parents to put their child in day care. Subsidies for students to go to uni.

It ALL has to be funded by taking money from productive people and then giving it to those who have their hand out.

So, Yes, it would matter. Because that's communism.

Michael Ross

Technicalities are where the answers lie
 

Um... no Let's let such technicalities stand in the way. Because those annoying technicalities are the crux of the whole matter.

As I said, words like Poverty, Poor and Needy are all generic terms. They all lack clear definition. Yet they are bandied about by do-gooders to garner free labor and free money from others. Always for their Good Works.

It is only by having a Clear definition of what is Meant that we see it for what it is. A master/slave thing where the master lives off of the effort of the slave, under the pretext of doing good.


Man Made Global Warming is a crock. A load of BS. With no verifiable scientific evidence to back it up. Just a bunch of conjecture.

But don't you know... the term global warming is so yesterday. It's now Climate Change because... no matter what happens, it's Climate Change. And it drives me nuts. Nuts to see so many merrily frolicking to the Climate Change tune without a thought in their head. Ignoring the yearly seasons and longer timeframe weather patterns. For the sake of a feelgood slogan. Arrgggghhhh.

People die daily. But to say they otherwise shouldn't have, is to place one person's life above another's for no other reasons than the Manner of their death.

Ankesh, probably the Biggest Killer on the planet is Pneumonia. I don't see a pneumonia awareness week/day. I don't see a blog action day (B.A.D.) where a bunch of good-guy badge seekers write on ridding the world of pneumonia.

I don't see B.A.D.s on preventing govt's ripping off their people. I see no B.A.D. on the Horrors of Mugabe. I see no B.A.D. on the rort that is the Palestinian Govt getting something like $30m a day from the UN, while they send suicide bombers into Israel and the US pretends to Hold Talks and says it's fighting a War on Terror (itself a generic term with no definition).

There are far Better things to have a problem with than whether someone is living in Poverty.


Again... this Assumes we should be making sure most people meet their peak performance.

Such a question should first be... should we even bother to make sure most people meet their peak performance?

Do-Gooderism starts with the Assumptive Question. But that's the wrong question to ask of free people.

Peak performance? Who is the final arbiter of what constitutes a person's peak. What if someone doesn't want to meet their peak? What if they are happy to cruise? See the problem with Assumptive Questions.

But the do-gooder needs them because, no 100% solution to them is ever possible. And thus they can request Assistance forever and a day. To Help FIGHT the Bad Thing.

Michael Ross

Re: Technicalities are where the answers lie
 

Thanks Michael.

Im confused. You think there should be a B.A.D for pneumonia? Or not? Should awareness be raised or not?

I understand that there are 101 things wrong with the world. But saying that we shouldn't work on 1 just because we can't work on all together doesn't make sense to me.

I think raising awareness is a good thing. Even if it doesn't always lead to the desired outcome. (For eg: I doubt that we will eradicate poverty completely because of yesterdays blogging by a few thousand people.)

You know my take on global warming. I don't really care if its man made or natural. All I care about is it causes hurricanes and floods - which kills people. And if we can change and control nature better than before, we should.

Saying let people die and property be destroyed because global warming is a natural occurance - is flippant to me.

People die daily. True. But to say that we should let them die... no sir I can't agree with that notion.

Ankesh mentioned a little on Kiva... Some may be interested about Kiva, Amex etc...
 

In case some aren't aware about some recent Kiva news, American Express and more on the related topic...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c... Search&meta=

Phil

Re: Technicalities are where the answers lie
 

Ankesh,

Thanks for asking for more.

I am Not saying to have a B.A.D. for Pneumonia. I am saying... Why have one for Poverty - an undefinable thing, which has no solution - when there are far more important things to Blog About?

The biggest killer is pneumonia. Isn't THAT more important than whether some have a "roof over their head"?

Mugabe Murders his people; steals their property. Isn't THAT more important than someone being able to afford a medical bill?

Palestine receives money from the United Nations, they are lead by a known Terrorist Organization. The UN funds come from Member Nations, like the USA. So the USA is funding the terrorists in Palestine while claiming to be fighting a War on Terror. (How can you claim to fight something you are funding?)

I did not say there are 101 things wrong. I AM saying there are More Important things than blogging about a Feel Good subject like Poverty.

Onward.

So people die in Hurricane and floods. People also die in plane crashes, car crashes, falling down a flight of stairs, off off ladders, and a myriad of other ways. Why are those who die in Hurricanes worth more effort to prevent than any other manner of death?

I am AGAINST playing with the planet's weather - for whatever feelgood reason you have. Our weather is not just a yearly thing and be done with it. It's a Longer process. Something that changes over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. THAT is something we just should NOT mess with - for Any Reason.

There are entire ecosystems that depend on those hurricanes and floods. Stop the weather and all those systems perish. But everything is symbiotic.

Weathermen can't even Accurately forecast tomorrow's weather. And they have all the best weather monitoring gear. No way I want them - or anyone - to try to Control our weather.

If you want to build a hurricane proof home. Go right ahead. Smarter to move to an area not frequented by such violent weather.

Worried about flood? Don't live in flood prone areas then. Simple, isn't it.

You don't agree we should let people die? But you do Ankesh, you do. Your actions speak for you.

You allow it to happen daily. I don't see you out on the streets keeping people from dying. I don't see you selling all your worldly possessions, flying to Ethiopia with as much food as you can carry and feeding the starving hordes.

No. Like all do-gooders, you want Others to make your wish come true. You want Others to make sacrifices for what You deem are worthy causes and good works.

$1 a day to save a child. Nah, but it sure as heck buys a guilt free conscience don't it?

Want to save them, really. Bring them over. Raise them. Feed them in Your home. Heck, sell your home and go over there and feed them in person until you run out of money - then join the hungry queue.

1,000 bloggers writing on poverty. Phooey. They woulda done more good spending $100 of their own money - not anyone else's, their own - buying fruit tree seedlings and planting them. Letting the trees bear fruit and that fruit can feed people. Their own people in their own country.

You want to feed people? Are you buying as much foods as your money can afford and giving it away - like maybe in food give aways to the defineless Needy? Are you also giving of your time to distribute the stuff?

You're not, are you?

And that's what fries my grits. That ALL do-gooders are the same. They talk a good talk but don't walk the walk. They want Other People to walk the walk for them. They want Other people to be the Sacrificial Animals for their Good Works. Because the talk Sounds so good - and they will be thought well of.

I have no such desires. If you think I am Evil for my stance, so be it. But I think it is more evil to extract values from people and turn them into semi-slaves for what you/others deem as good works of some kind. THAT is more of an Evil than my not wanting to be bled dry and my allowing other people to be - or not be - as they so choose.

I know you want to save the world. But the world does not want to be saved. And claiming to want to save it does nothing except get you kudos from others who this year deem World Saving as a good thing to be doing.

Instead of trying to save the world - or trying to get others to save the world for you, how about leading your own life to its fullest. Lead by example. Do not gloat over what you do, just do it and be happy with it.

The best thing you can do for the world is lead a happy life and do what you want to do.

Michael Ross

Re: Technicalities are where the answers lie
 

Thanks Michael.

Why was Poverty chosen for B.A.D? I think it was because poverty is a topic most people can write on. Most people don't know what is going on in Zimbabwe. But almost everyone has seen poverty one way or another. Obvious disclosure: I'm not one of the organizers of B.A.D. So I have no idea of their thought process. Thats my thinking.

(I personally think education and poverty are 2 chief causes. Take care of them and pneumonia etc will become a small issue on its own.)


They are not worth more effort. But you have to start somewhere. Again -- just because you can't deal with every unnecessary death together doesn't mean you shouldn't start with even one.

Yes - I would like to see cars with sonar technology with auto-brakes so that they don't cause as many accidents too.

Here is the grub: I neither know how to build such cars. Nor do I know how to prevent hurricanes. So I do what I can. And I try to build awareness for what I can't.


Did we or didn't we change the way of the nature by implementing irrigation systems?

Did we or didn't we manage to dilute the influence of nature by building 101 floored sky scrapers in earthquake prone zones? (Taipei 101 in Taiwan is bang middle in an earthquake zone.)

People don't know how the waves work, yet they can sail wonderfully.

We still don't know how electricity works. But yet we have lights.

We may not know how the weather works. But that doesn't mean we can't do a better job of controling and leveraging it.


Yes I don't sell everything and go to Ethopia. Nor do I invest all my time helping others. But I do what I can. Just because I can't reach everyone doesn't mean I agree with letting people die.

That would mean saying You agree with Government taxing people because you pay the taxes. I know You don't agree with it (at least thats what I get from our past discussions). But you do what you can.


1 person phooey-ing 1,000 bloggers effort of building awareness - whats that Michael?

Wasn't the breaking of the Berlin wall initiated by 6 people with candles in their hands?


Thats where building the awareness part comes in. In persuading the world to want to change. (Ah -- I know I've opened a can of worms with that...)


I don't think that stance is evil. Its just a lazy way out in my humble opinion.

When the airplane is in trouble, you should first put on your own oxygen mask. True. But then if you just sit back and look at someone else struggle with his mask - and do nothing to help - that is either laziness or selfishness - or both.

Re: We ARE eradicating Poverty in America!
 

There was a much better solution than what was done (and there were a few congressmen who actually had the guts to say this plan was horrible). Instead of just saying "we need to do something" the government should have been saying "we need to take some time and think about this thing and do the right thing".

Watch this guy's videos on youtube and take a look at his alternate plan. It wouldn't involve stealing money from US citizens and it would get rid of the problem, which isn't a problem of capital but is rather a problem involving a lack of trust.

http://www.youtube.com/user/kdenninger