What on earth is France and Brazil doing wasting money ($50 billion) on fighting worldwide poverty when they could be using the resources to fight terrorism.
It appears these leaders are trying to convince countries via the UN to introduce “taxes on such things as greenhouse gas emissions, arms sales, airline tickets and credit card purchases”. More taxes!
My argument is that the money could be put into fighting terrorism instead of fighting poverty.
antechinus: My argument is that the money could be put into fighting terrorism instead of fighting poverty.
I think the standard response would be that the terrorism and poverty are closely linked. While terrorist leaders often come from non-poor backgrounds, thus acquiring the education, resources, etc., that help them form and control terrorist networks, popular support for terrorism is often closely correlated with poverty and hardship.
Another standard response, of course, is that even when poverty isn’t connected with terrorism, it’s still a bad thing and it’s worth some money to try to reduce it. After all, although terrorism is horrible and the losses it inflicts are tragic, poverty is still killing many more people worldwide—by orders of magnitude—than terrorism is.
We comfortable folks are apt to see terrorism as a more serious global problem than poverty because it seems more likely to create trouble for us. But for the human population as a whole, I think there’s no doubt that poverty is the bigger problem.
Care to share any reasons you have why your abstract concept of *“fighting terrorism” * would be any more beneficial to the world than the concept of attempting to eradicate poverty in troubled areas? Which has the potential to save more lives?
Can you also explain how this action can be immediately classified as *“wasting” * the money - considereing they have yet to reaise it, never mind spend it?
Credit card purchases? Just how high were Chirac and Lula when they came up with this crap?
And airline tickets for-crying-out-loud! Just as I was getting used to going to war on one abstact concept this one comes along. What next - war on discomfiture.
Pssst, Brutus:: the French and Brazilian presidents weren’t actually the ones who came up with the suggested possibilities for specific funding mechanisms to scrape up the $50 billion, they were just speechifying in favor of the antipoverty effort in general.
Don’t forget about these proposals too:
But note, these are pie in the sky ‘initial possibility’ proposals ( by a UN expert group, not Chirac ), not fully agreed and accepted policies for fund-raising. But I agree, how could they expect to tax credit card purchases further when they already include sales tax / VAT? Why should using a credit card to shop be treated any differently than a cash purchase?
Of course, the currently listed methods for raising the proposed money can be rediculed, but the idea of what it is to be used for is equally, if not more, valid than TWAT.
Terrorism kills how many people per year? A few thousand?
Poverty kills millions.
$50bn is not a lot of money, globally speaking. These two are proposing a ‘skim’ on something involving trillions of dollars per year such as, say, a tiny, tiny percentage of each credit card sale.
Of course the US will never sign up to it, because so many Brutuses live there. I think this is a first step towards something which the rest of the industrialised democratic world might eventually implement, rather like Kyoto. It’s just a suggestion right now, but IMHO a fucking good one.
Eh. What they actually said is bad enough, and they seem pretty happy about the whole damned fool idea.
Besides, it appears that at least Lula came up with/is a proponent of part of the retarded idea.
Brutus, if you have the time, can you explain for me why you deem this a "damned fool ( & retarded ) idea".
I’m having trouble seeing or understanding your overwhelming problem with the outlined proposal. Or are you merely pro-poverty?
Well spank me and call me Sally! I’ve seen famine kill millions thanks to warlords preventing food shipments. I’ve seen millions die thanks to genocide. I’ve even read an article or two over the past few years of hundreds of thousands dying for lack of medical treatment. (Sorry Bill Gates and Ted Turner, maybe money alone won’t do it) But I’ve NEVER seen how being poor killed anyone. Been there, done that, etc.
Maybe you meant impoverished countries with corrupt leaders? (Oh please mention Bush)
Really? Which countries really implemented the Kyoto Protocols? Who is on track to be at 1990 levels of emissions within the next, what is it, 4-8 years?
Brutus: * What they actually said is bad enough*
It is? Way I read it, they were basically saying that poverty is bad, and that in the long run global economic development will not be successful if it doesn’t reduce poverty.
Didn’t sound very controversial to me. Or do you mean that it’s their support for some kind of tax to fund antipoverty efforts that is bad?
I think he fears having his money being taken away for something other than killing people 
Nice whoosh by the OP.
So you are pro-robbery? Because that is what I would view a tax that went straight to global socialism as: robbery. (Of course, as has been said, it would never happen here, thank God, but the concept still sucks.) Of course, if France and Brazil want to raise their own taxes, huzzah! That just makes America that much more competitive.
As duffer has mentioned, the problem isn’t food supply or money; it is corrupt systems. Most of the world has shown its aversion towards removing nasty regimes, and since America is sort of busy right now, the poverty-stricken are going to have to remain poverty-stricken for the foreseeable future.
He wanted to whoosh, we may as well make an actual debate of it. :shrug:
So, Brutus, your only objection to the idea of fighting global poverty is that YOU might have to pay for it? Is that correct? That is at least understandable, if not defensible in my view. But it in no way makes the base idea for fighting poverty invalid ( or foolish or retarded ), as you claimed.
Would you be quite happy to support the concept of attempting to eradicate deaths due to poverty as long as you don’t have to foot the bill? You can agree with the basic morality of the attempt, can you not?
Duffer, some little facts for you. (all can be independently cited from proper sources if you have an issue with them, but they are conveniently all listed together on this page)
Well, I did say “eventually implement” (and Russia’s tardiness rather makes the original timing of the Kyoto targets rather unfeasible) but in any case, Europe’s big three will either meet their targets or miss them narrowly and the other 180 nations are at least addressing emissions to the extent that they are less than in a No-Kyoto-Whatsoever scenario. Whether this is at all worthwhile given that the country producing 36% of the relevant emissions is doing precisely nothing in this regard is questionable.
Of course, if anthropogenic forcing and suffering directly attributable to poverty are not your concern, please return to your regular broadcast.
Brutus: Which countries really implemented the Kyoto Protocols? Who is on track to be at 1990 levels of emissions within the next, what is it, 4-8 years?
I’m not quite sure what this has to do with the proposed antipoverty program, but here’s an article about the European Environment Agency’s 2003 report on progress toward achieving the Kyoto targets. Of course, this covers only European countries:
This is pretty slow progress (and AFAIK, progress on emissions reductions outside Europe is even slower), but I think it’s better than making no progress at all.
Similarly (to get back to the thread topic), if we did start a global antipoverty program, it surely wouldn’t wipe out all poverty, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it wouldn’t achieve some progress that would be worth the money.