Good. I’d rather $50 billion go to poverty over terrorism anyday of the week. I’m pretty sure around 25% of the worlds population still doesn’t have access to basic medical care or food/water security.
America asks “Why do they hate us so?”
The world replies “Because so many of you think that the answer is 'jealousy’”.
Well I’ll try to be the moderate voice…
Anyone who thinks money is better spent on Terrorism than poverty is being foolish. Like someone said terrorism kills thousands at best… poverty millions. That is the straight out view.
Now the issue is if throwing money at these problems is the correct solution… it solves neither terrorism or poverty. (wasting money on fighting terrorism also reduces competitiveness btw.)
If europeans and americans will keep agricultural subsidies and complain that Africa continues to be poor its hypocrisy. Giving them a chance of exporting food is the first step to an economic solution of both poverty and famine. Pushing the global economy that keeps out a majority of poor people in order to better defend 1st world interests isn’t the way to solve poverty. Even if the US and Europe are very generous donators afterwards… I’d rather see the problem solved in part than remediated with charity.
So its not about how much money you flush in… unless your going to solve the problems somehow. Its a structural problem.
As for Lula... the War on Famine in Brazil is a total fiasco. Its taken very long to implement and its been terribly coordinated. Its way to political and too little practical solutions. Of course it sounds very nice... but its way too hard to implent in a serious way without it seeming overly political.Brutus: * 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 […]*
Isn’t that a little oversimplified, though? For example, India is estimated to contain over 41% of the world’s poor (#1 on the global poverty list), but India is a secular democracy with free elections. (There certainly is a good deal of corruption in the Indian government, but it’s nowhere near as bad as the dysfunctional dictatorships etc. of many African and South American states.) In fact, India just installed a new national government via its elections this past spring. Obviously, the problem of global poverty isn’t as simple as a bunch of “nasty regimes” maintaining “corrupt systems”.
Similarly, China has over 22% of the world’s poor people. Aha, you say, that makes sense because China’s another “nasty regime”. Well then, how do we explain the fact that China has greatly reduced poverty over the past few decades?
Did China somehow become a “nicer” regime during 1978–85, with a relapse into greater “nastiness” until 1992, and is it now “nice” again? Doesn’t sound very plausible.
I don’t see how you can explain statistics like these without acknowledging that the issue of global poverty is much more complex than can be accounted for simply by invoking “corrupt systems” and “nasty regimes”.
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.
This sounds as though you’re implying that American “removal” of “nasty regimes” reduces poverty. I dunno about that. So far, it doesn’t seem to have significantly reduced poverty in Iraq, for example.
So lets see, theres nothing in there about opening up markets or opportunity, theres nothing in there about either France or Brazil getting rid of their mercantile systems; this is nothing more than bread and circuses.
Its point is to preserve the parts of the system that lock out peoples ability to get out of poverty, slightly tax those who benefit from the system, and give a pay off to those fucked over by it.
Its like if all over the US, a law was passed declaring you had to join a union to get a job. Then, after tens of thousands are unemployed and poverty increases dramatically, union members are taxed slightly to ‘end the poverty’. Its a pay-off.
In France alone, if Chirac really gave a shit about the poor, he might be more inclined (and Bush here in the US as well) to tell his farmers to shove their subsidies up their asses, thus reducing world food prices so the poor could afford to eat. I dont see anything here about getting rid of subsidies, lowering prices; what I see is a shell game designed to keep the poor quiet and give the impression of doing something, all the while keeping the framework that exacerbates the poverty in the first place.
Hear hear, VC.
Brutus:“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.”
Down with most of the world.
Hurrah for the USA…
Fighting abstract notions - good.
Fighting human suffering - bad.
Scuse me while i puke.
Sin
Sure was swell of them to develop a nuclear program while have most of the worlds’ poor. Ditto on the aircraft carriers, and all-around modern military. And I should want to subsidize them? Fuck that.
Golly, it couldn’t have anything to do with China slowly embracing capitalism, could it?
And sinical brit, when come back, bring sense.
Brutus: * Golly, it couldn’t have anything to do with China slowly embracing capitalism, could it?*
Sure it could. See, that’s what I mean—changes in China’s economic system are part of the factors that are more complicated than China’s merely being a “nasty regime” with a “corrupt system”. Both of those things are still true, but China has significantly reduced poverty anyway.
- Sure was swell of [India] to develop a nuclear program while have most of the worlds’ poor. Ditto on the aircraft carriers, and all-around modern military.*
Huh? Are you suggesting that India doesn’t need a modern military? Even though it has about one-sixth of the world’s total population, the second largest geographical area of any Asian country, lots of natural resources, an extremely strategic geographical location with borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China, and a long history of catastrophic invasions and conquests by its neighbors in the north?
I would definitely agree that there are certain types of social spending that ought to be prioritized over certain types of military spending, but I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that a modern nation with the size and situation of India doesn’t need aircraft carriers. I’m kind of surprised to see such a statement from someone I always thought of as a pretty hawkish conservative.
Would you argue along the same lines that it’s irresponsible for the US to spend so much on military development while we still have millions of people below the poverty line? After all, though our poor people are richer than India’s, we spend lots more per capita on the military than India does (their billion people spend about $16 billion annually on defense, our quarter of a billion people spend about $400 billion).
Very good point.
I’m not so sure I agree - although what you say about the proposed actions is true, at least we have world leaders talking about (if not truly addressing) the issue of poverty. I’m glad to see that this question is back on the table, maybe we can go back to believing that a solution is possible instead of simply accepting starvation as a necessary structural element of world capitalism.
A quibble (or maybe a question) - removing subsidies would lower food prices ? Maybe you were thinking of tariffs or of making imports more competitive ?
Re the credit card tax - whether or not it’s realisable or even desirable, on the surface it at least makes some sense :
Indian farmers don’t use credit cards, European office workers do.
Easy-ish to levy, all the data systems are already in place, and governments already tax commercial transactions.
Credit card users are less likely to find legal loopholes for avoiding the tax than say, multi-national corporations.
Hell, I would even frame it as a voluntary tax - “help fight world poverty, every time you use your AAdvantage Poverty Card a starving kid gets a bowl of rice”.
Can someone forward this idea to Lula, Chirac and Visa International ?
As for numbers, eCommerce alone is projected to be worth some $8 Tn worldwide in 2005. $50Bn is only 0.5% of this.
I haven’t got the numbers for total worldwide credit card sales or airline tickets or whatever else they propose, but it seems entirely feasible that this tax will add less than a tenth of one percent to each purchase: $1 on a $1000 purchase.
I’d vote for this. The US wouldn’t, of course, and so that figure might have to increase to $2 per $1000 to cover its share.
I’d still vote for it.
Hey Brutus, have you ever heard of a little thing called the ]URL=http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/57.htm]Marshall Plan? Most of the countries that received money from this plan were democratic socialist at the time. In the beginning, even Russia was offered aid, but Stalin refused. This cost the U.S. over $20 billion at the time, and without it the whole of Europe might look like much of the third world today. I was in East Germany before the reunification, and it was a third world country. The Marshall Plan also ended up benifiting the U.S in the long run. Would you be opposed to something like this for the worlds poorer countries?
IMHO, the best solution to the economic problems in the third world is to cancel their debts. Sub-Saharan Africa spends $10 billion a year in debt service, which is more than the whole region spends on health care and education. If there was some way to guarantee that the money no longer needed to pay the debts was spent on the right things (not aramaments for instance), this would probably be the easiest solution to the problem.
And this is a HUGE problem that will only be come more and more important to the first world countries in the future. Don’t you think terrorism would have less of a chance, if the countries where they recruit had less poverty?
:smack: Forgot to preview! That should be: The Marshall Plan
This seems so obviously the right thing to do. The reason that it has yet to be done MUST attest - very directly - to First World greed, IMO.
Can anyone rationalise it as anything other than that?
As to the OP - I agree with those who think it is a possitive step to even be talking about poverty again. As with Kyoto - everyone knows policies are not working as well as they could/should - but backing the intention is an extremely important first step.
Imagine what could be achieved if the First World in general and the US in particular were not so self-absorbed.
How about the USAID, Brutus?
Sorry to tell you, but you ARE being taxed to combat world poverty. It looks like the 2005 budget is about $8.1 billion.
Coming from a country with the kind of wealth we have here in the US, I’d say that isn’t nearly enough. Sign me up for the “Feed the poor” credit card and the pennies-for-education flight tax. (and yes, I also donate privately for programs like this.)
Sure. And with a billion or so citizens, they can have one hell of a Swiss-style reserve army. But the India is working at being a regional power, not merely defending its borders. That’s fine and dandy, but I still haven’t heard a good reason why the rest of the world should work towards keeping Indians from starving to death as they develop new missiles, improved nukes, a upgraded airforce, etc.
They are more than welcome to keep the Viraat around, or buy a bunch of Su-30MKs. Their country, their money, their choice. My problem is when they are buying up this nice new kit, and at the same time holding out a hand for some loot to buy some sacks of rice or whatnot for their starving people. (Granted, I don’t if India has hordes of starving people or not; I am assuming they do because India was brought up. If not, replace India with NK or your favorite African country)
Sure, we have ‘poor’ people. But we don’t have poor people starving to death. More to the point, we aren’t asking for international assistance in dealing with our poor.
The Marshall Plan was obviously a move to butress the West against communist aggression. It was ‘offered’ to the USSR and Eastern Europe, and it would have been a coup well worth a few billion if they came to America for help. But of course they rejected it. The aid was intended for the West from the beginning. Cold War, and all that.
As for USAID, it’s an American program, paid for and administered by America. A useful tool of state, since it carries out American policy. (Rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan is largely being done through USAID programs.) Turn that money over to the UN, and who knows what will happen?
Brutus: *India is working at being a regional power, not merely defending its borders. *
What do you think would be the difference in price tag between an adequate military for India—taking into account coping with the LOC vis-a-vis Pakistan, terrorism in J&K and the northeastern states, and the nuclear situations in China and Pakistan—and the military they’ve got now?
Brutus: Turn that money over to the UN, and who knows what will happen?
Considering all the recent war-profiteering scandals involving American contractors such as Halliburton, I don’t think the American pot is in much of a position to complain about the UN kettle when it comes to embezzling money.
Once you factor in the proportion of our tax money that has already paid for the food, absolutely. The price at the till is not the whole story, and fundamentally subsidies exist to force us to buy goods that could be more economically produced elsewhere. Before you buy any subsidised product in a supermarket, you have already paid for a significant proportion of its production through your taxes; enough to make the price at the till equal to or lower than that of imported goods. If the subsidy is removed, you’ll be paying a similar price at the till to before, but you won’t be paying extra in tax.