Will we always have poverty?

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Poverty. It's been around forever. Quite literally. There will always be people starving somewhere, struggling to survive. The fact is simple, and as I type this very sentence right now, people are dying from simple things such as malnutrition and diarrhea, things that exist as much in the western world as much as the Yeti. We see things like not eating or being stuck on the toilet as an inconvenience, they see it at a life and death battle. I won't rant on and on about some girl in Mozambique, or an orphan in Laos, because this isn't a question on whether it's sad or not. Of course it's sad.

It's a question of 'do we need poverty?' To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse 5, trying to stop poverty would be like trying to stop a glacier. But why is that? Why is it so hard to be able to provide food for everyone? This is considering we have contests for eating until you feel sick, and all you can eat buffets and supermarkets full of produce, that goes to waste if no one buys it.

Which led me to the question "Do we need poverty?" Do we need to feel good about ourselves, to have a moral high ground when we painstakingly allocate 50 cents to donate each week? Do we enjoy the feeling we get, seeing we make a difference when we have concerts like Live 8? (It's been 4 years by the way, and poverty is far from being history) I mean god, how else could we get Pink Floyd to reunite?

[YOUTUBE]0wtiNzci1Wc[/YOUTUBE]


We all live in highly developed nations, away from those situations. The closest we get is a TV screen, and thats as close as we'll dare.

What would we do if poverty didn't exist? If everyone was developed and had enough to eat? Where would our sense of entitlement go?

What would we do if instead of watching poor children struggling on TV and in National Geographic, we were the ones that weren't as powerful?

What would we do without poverty?

 

[FromTheSouth]

Poverty. It's been around forever. Quite literally. There will always be people starving somewhere, struggling to survive. The fact is simple, and as I type this very sentence right now, people are dying from simple things such as malnutrition and diarrhea, things that exist as much in the western world as much as the Yeti. We see things like not eating or being stuck on the toilet as an inconvenience, they see it at a life and death battle. I won't rant on and on about some girl in Mozambique, or an orphan in Laos, because this isn't a question on whether it's sad or not. Of course it's sad.

It's a question of 'do we need poverty?' To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse 5, trying to stop poverty would be like trying to stop a glacier. But why is that? Why is it so hard to be able to provide food for everyone? This is considering we have contests for eating until you feel sick, and all you can eat buffets and supermarkets full of produce, that goes to waste if no one buys it.

Why are you demonizing our wealth? We send more than enough to the impoverished around the world. This nation does it's duty to the poor of the world. It's not our fault that the warloards and leaders of African nations horde the resources. All we can do is keep sending it. If we try to hand it out ourselves, we will be attacked, and we will lose American lives needlessly. Blackhawk Down was a true story.

Which led me to the question "Do we need poverty?" Do we need to feel good about ourselves, to have a moral high ground when we painstakingly allocate 50 cents to donate each week? Do we enjoy the feeling we get, seeing we make a difference when we have concerts like Live 8? (It's been 4 years by the way, and poverty is far from being history) I mean god, how else could we get Pink Floyd to reunite?

You've got completely the wrong idea about this. These events help. The Children's Miracle Netwrok helps. The problem is political and military, it isn't financial. Hundreds of billions of dollars go to feeding the poor. The problem is that they don't know how to do anything themselves. Fucking Oprah builds schools to teach them to read, when we need to teach them to farm. Oprah is trying to empower little girls, but fails to teach the boys how to get water from the ocean to some crops. Norman Bourlag genetically altered wheat to make it grow in drought conditions, but the people refuse to tend to the crops. We need to stop feeding the poor, build them roads and desalination plants, and send them seeds. We need to teach them to fish, and stop throwing them some trout, hoping it doesn't get dirty on the way.

We all live in highly developed nations, away from those situations. The closest we get is a TV screen, and thats as close as we'll dare.

What would we do if poverty didn't exist? If everyone was developed and had enough to eat? Where would our sense of entitlement go?

Who the fuck are you to assume that people give out of a sense of entitlement? Why do assume they do it to feel better about themselves? This might be why you do nice things for people, but the majority of people give of themselves because they have enough and they can. They don't do it to benefit themselves. If you do, then that's your deal.

What would we do if instead of watching poor children struggling on TV and in National Geographic, we were the ones that weren't as powerful?

I don't know, but I'm sure "learn to farm" would be on my list.

What would we do without poverty?

There will always be poverty. If we eliminate poverty, prices will go up to create a new lower class.

 

[Razor]

There will always be poverty. If we eliminate poverty, prices will go up to create a new lower class.

^^^^^^^Pretty much. It's the beauty of a Capitalist society. Oh? You can pay more money? Then we'll raise prices. There will always be a lower class, middle class, and upper class. The only variable is how poor the lower class is and how rich the upper class is.


The lower class have it pretty damn rough, trust me. I lived as one of them for 12 years of my life. It's no fun. I might not have been dying of diarrhea, but that was because my mom managed to get on Medicare. Without the programs that people such as Ron Paul would deem unconstitutional I may very well not be here, and millions of others in the lower class wouldn't be eating. I suppose what I'm saying is don't assume that the poverty you see in Africa isn't so far away. In America, it's one Medicare (no matter how flawed it may or not be), one WIC, one Welfare program away.

But, if you want to get out to the African situation, that is not our fault at all. Sure, we're not giving to the extent Peter Singer argues, but we give hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to the impoverished nations. The only problem is they tend to have money hungry warlords that take all the money for themselves. You know Ethiopia? The place with all those starving people? Their government keeps all the money we give them. Sad, but true. North Korea? They had public announcements telling people to eat grass while the government was importing luxury cars and food for Kim Jong Il. Hell, we feed the people of North Korea with all the rice we openly give to them as Humanitarian Aid. Something crazy like 50% of Arkansas' rice goes to North Korea. If it weren't for us, Kim Jong Il would have a very hungry citizenry.

I suppose that if you want to get rid of the poverty in the 3rd countries you'd have to overthrow the corrupt warlords and governments. Do you want to commit the United States to toppling these governments? We will end up losing American lives among the lives of the indigenous people that will be killed in the bloody fighting. We will garner more enemies than we gain friends.

I myself don't give any money to charity, because I can't afford it. I don't know many college students who can afford it other than the frat boys, but they're too busy buying booze to donate anything to charity. It's okay though, because my taxes are donated by my government to these nations. I'll give more when I get my feet on the ground after schooling, but not right now. I don't refuse money to the charities because I want those people to be poor, and I won't be giving money in future years because of a sense of entitlement. I'll be giving because to me, the most effective way I can help is to give my money to a charity organization. Not because I feel better, but because I want them to.

 

[stingerlegends]

There is a sense of entitlement, greed, and one-upmanship that comes with wealth. It always has and always will blind the wealthy and the poor alike. Many of these "good deeds" are genuine, while many are simply tax write-offs. We do NOT need poverty, but we cannot prevent it. The wealthy enjoy being part of a "privileged" class, and 99% of them do not want 99% of the rest of us to join them, and they will keep making the gaps bigger to expand their power and influence.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Why are you demonizing our wealth? We send more than enough to the impoverished around the world. This nation does it's duty to the poor of the world. It's not our fault that the warloards and leaders of African nations horde the resources. All we can do is keep sending it. If we try to hand it out ourselves, we will be attacked, and we will lose American lives needlessly. Blackhawk Down was a true story.

Here's the fucking problem/ All we can do is keep sending it? I call major bullshit on that. We don't have to keep sending it. We have to dosomething worthwhile with that money. I have another thread on that in the Cigar Lounge, so I'll let you look at that also. In temrs of us not going over there to help, maybe thats the problem. we sure do like giving a truckload of money to these countries, just as long as we're not in danger. Just as long as we're safe and cozy, we have no problem dropping money anywhere and seeing where it lands. If we don't get out of comfort zone, there will be poverty.

You've got completely the wrong idea about this. These events help. The Children's Miracle Netwrok helps. The problem is political and military, it isn't financial. Hundreds of billions of dollars go to feeding the poor. The problem is that they don't know how to do anything themselves. Fucking Oprah builds schools to teach them to read, when we need to teach them to farm. Oprah is trying to empower little girls, but fails to teach the boys how to get water from the ocean to some crops. Norman Bourlag genetically altered wheat to make it grow in drought conditions, but the people refuse to tend to the crops. We need to stop feeding the poor, build them roads and desalination plants, and send them seeds. We need to teach them to fish, and stop throwing them some trout, hoping it doesn't get dirty on the way.

You say these events help, but then you bring it back to the age old "Give a man a fish" proverb. The truth is, all these protests and meetings dont help. At the end of the day, they are pushing the same thing Dambisa Moyo was against in the article I posted last week. That all the problems can just be solved by giving money. More money, more donations, and suddenly everyone will have enough to eat. It doesnt work that way.

Who the fuck are you to assume that people give out of a sense of entitlement? Why do assume they do it to feel better about themselves? This might be why you do nice things for people, but the majority of people give of themselves because they have enough and they can. They don't do it to benefit themselves. If you do, then that's your deal.

FTS, I admire your confidence in people, but there is no way that a good percentage of people aren't doing it because of that. They get influenced by all the images on TV and donate the money so they can say they help save the world. If you truly do it in your heart in an altruistic manner, my hat is off to you, but there is no way you can say the same for everyone.

There will always be poverty. If we eliminate poverty, prices will go up to create a new lower class.

Yeah, I admit it. The title of this thread was poor. If I could, I would change it to "Will we always have poverty?" Of course we will, but instead of people dying of malnutrition, it would be people not being able to afford luxuries, or a car. The lines would shift, and the terminology would go with it. What I'm saying is, do we need people at the bottom? Do we need those people struggling from day to day? To do the jobs that the wealthy wouldn't dare?

How important is the lower class in society?

I suppose that if you want to get rid of the poverty in the 3rd countries you'd have to overthrow the corrupt warlords and governments.

But here the problem with this Razor. This happens all the time around central africa and South America. A guy thinks he's has enough of his people starving, gets his military friends together and decid'es he's going to take over. The people are so sick of the current regime they follow him to the death. " He can't be worse than what we've got now can he?" But as soon as the guy gets in power, all that wealth and power he has gets the best of him and he loses grip on what he set out to do. Look through history and you can see how much it happens.

It's not just overthrowing corrupt governments, it goes much deeper than that. Why replace a dictator with a tyrant? The tyrant will just make the poor suffer to make his life better. I suppose thats a dictators viewpoint, that many must suffer for few to live well.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Here's the fucking problem/ All we can do is keep sending it? I call major bullshit on that. We don't have to keep sending it. We have to dosomething worthwhile with that money. I have another thread on that in the Cigar Lounge, so I'll let you look at that also. In temrs of us not going over there to help, maybe thats the problem. we sure do like giving a truckload of money to these countries, just as long as we're not in danger. Just as long as we're safe and cozy, we have no problem dropping money anywhere and seeing where it lands. If we don't get out of comfort zone, there will be poverty.

I gave the same answer in that thread that I gave in this one. We need to build infrastructure, because that will help the aid and medicina get where it needs to go. The UN peacekeepers could vehicles in to guard the shipments. Plumbing, irrigation, desalination, and roads are the aid Africa needs now.

You say these events help, but then you bring it back to the age old "Give a man a fish" proverb. The truth is, all these protests and meetings dont help. At the end of the day, they are pushing the same thing Dambisa Moyo was against in the article I posted last week. That all the problems can just be solved by giving money. More money, more donations, and suddenly everyone will have enough to eat. It doesnt work that way.

They help with short term concerns. It's a Hollywood thing. If they feel like they can show and immediate improvement, they are doing something. The long term work needs to be done to make the short term work better.

FTS, I admire your confidence in people, but there is no way that a good percentage of people aren't doing it because of that. They get influenced by all the images on TV and donate the money so they can say they help save the world. If you truly do it in your heart in an altruistic manner, my hat is off to you, but there is no way you can say the same for everyone.

I'm sorry. I know that some people may donate ut of some selfish need to feel superior, but the majority of private donations come from people who care. Idol Gives Back give millions in aid every year through donations alone. I doubt the million people who call in and give $25 is doing so to brag to his friends about his amazing altruistic motives.

Yeah, I admit it. The title of this thread was poor. If I could, I would change it to "Will we always have poverty?"

Done.

Of course we will, but instead of people dying of malnutrition, it would be people not being able to afford luxuries, or a car. The lines would shift, and the terminology would go with it. What I'm saying is, do we need people at the bottom? Do we need those people struggling from day to day? To do the jobs that the wealthy wouldn't dare?

For there to be a top, there must be a bottom. It sucks. I work hard, I got an education, I want there to be a top. That means, unfortunately, that people who choose to not take advantage of opportunities, have to fail.

How important is the lower class in society?

Pretty important. If it weren't, there would be outcry to send illegal aliens back in America. There really isn't. There is a cry to not let any more in, but no one really wants to get rid of the ones that are here.

 

[Razor]

But here the problem with this Razor. This happens all the time around central africa and South America. A guy thinks he's has enough of his people starving, gets his military friends together and decid'es he's going to take over. The people are so sick of the current regime they follow him to the death. " He can't be worse than what we've got now can he?" But as soon as the guy gets in power, all that wealth and power he has gets the best of him and he loses grip on what he set out to do. Look through history and you can see how much it happens.

Right. But that's why you don't put another warlord in the man's place. If you have to, plant your own political replacement in the country for 5 years or so, so that when you overthrow the country you have someone who has been in the country who you can easily appoint to power. It all lies in putting in power someone who won't take all the money for themselves, but rather put that money towards infrastructure, as FTS argues.

And before you argue me naive, there ARE people like that who exist. Rwanda is a shining example. After their genocide the government is now one of the shining examples of Africa.

It's not just overthrowing corrupt governments, it goes much deeper than that. Why replace a dictator with a tyrant? The tyrant will just make the poor suffer to make his life better. I suppose thats a dictators viewpoint, that many must suffer for few to live well.

Right. We don't replace a dictator with a tyrant. I never argued that. We have a multitude of ways of hand-picking the successor to the government we overthrow. We just need someone who won't pull what the rulers of 3rd world countries have been pulling for years. If Rwanda can reverse course, then so can these other countries if we just give a bit of help. Legally or no.

 

[SSJPhenom]

As long as currency exists, poverty will exist. There will always be people with next to nothing and there will always be people with more than they need. Is it always fair? NO, but thems the bricks. I lived in the good ole fashioned projects until I was 10 years old and if it wasn't for those government programs that many call sensless and unconstitutional, I probably wouldn't be here today. Luckily my father finally got his degree in Electrical Engineering and started bringing home the dough. Now, I have to be honest, I live very comfortably while I am attending college. Should I apologize because some other college students are barely making it to classes everyday? Is that my fault? NO. My family gives their fair share of charity and when I have my own money to give I will to, but not to help those countries who I think that we help more than enough, but to help our poor here at home.

I think that we should care for our own people and children who live in poverty. I think that we should help our own people who have no home, no food, no means to go anywhere, no way to get medical treatment, and so on, before we start giving money to help Africa and other 3rd World Countries. I'm not saying that helping those countries is a bad thing, but we have people here at home that can't help themselves and we are dishing out hundreds of millions of dollars to other countries, something is not right. I mean, we still have people from Hurricane Katrina living in those damn trailors that the government built and built cheaply at that. While we are trying to help those Chinese victims of that earthquake. Does anyone else not find that wrong?

Poverty will always exist, but until we can actually help ourselves, how are we going to help everyone else?

That is all!

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Right. But that's why you don't put another warlord in the man's place. If you have to, plant your own political replacement in the country for 5 years or so, so that when you overthrow the country you have someone who has been in the country who you can easily appoint to power. It all lies in putting in power someone who won't take all the money for themselves, but rather put that money towards infrastructure, as FTS argues. And before you argue me naive, there ARE people like that who exist. Rwanda is a shining example. After their genocide the government is now one of the shining examples of Africa.

You named Rwanda as an example that the government CAN work for the good of the people. Thats great, but what about the other 10 countries that have governments that are wildly corrupt and out of control? Rwanda still has three quarters of its population living under the poverty line, regardless of how good it's goverments intentions are. Just because there is an exception to the rule shouldn't mean this becomes the standard.

And who should make the decision to put the government in place? Are you suggesting that we have someone come in and take over the government and dictate what is right and what is blue? That sounds a lot like that Iraq War debacle. Speaking of which, I always thought that Saddam Hussein was heavily backed by the US in the 70's and 80's. I always thought that the coup in which he took power was engineered by the CIA.

How can you trust any countries motives for wanting to "help" another country? We may want to help and eradicate poverty, but there are always deeper issues at work.

Right. We don't replace a dictator with a tyrant. I never argued that. We have a multitude of ways of hand-picking the successor to the government we overthrow. We just need someone who won't pull what the rulers of 3rd world countries have been pulling for years. If Rwanda can reverse course, then so can these other countries if we just give a bit of help. Legally or no.

Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It would be near impossibble to find a genuinely motivated person to do such a dangerous and difficult job. On the off chance you have someone that is willing to do the tough jobs in order to establish some changes, he is immediately de-throned. you have international intervention come into play, and its a whole other bucket of worms.

The only way you could solve the problem is through not interacting with governments, or as little as possible. Go to the source, the public, and work with them.

 

[Felderino]

Unfortunately yes, poverty will always be with us. As other posters have stated the class system has to exist to keep our capitalist society's running. However we can bring the standard of living for those at the bottom up and give them more self-respect. But I agree with Takers#1 fan that we should do this in our own countries first, how can we help Africa when in our rich developed countries poverty is still rife? I see poverty every time I'm in a big city in the UK it's not hard to find, Glasgow has the most people under the poverty line in western europe! This is shameful in 2009 but our government tries to keep things like this out of the public domain. So until we help ourselves Africa will have to wait.

 

[Razor]

You named Rwanda as an example that the government CAN work for the good of the people. Thats great, but what about the other 10 countries that have governments that are wildly corrupt and out of control? Rwanda still has three quarters of its population living under the poverty line, regardless of how good it's goverments intentions are. Just because there is an exception to the rule shouldn't mean this becomes the standard.

1) Rwanda got done with a government upheaving, population culling mass genocide. It's going to be awhile before a majority of their population even reaches the poverty line.

2) I'm arguing that if Rwanda can turn course and actually attempt to help her people, then we can find people of likewise intent. You argued that every government in Africa is incapable of being non-corrupt. I gave you an example of a country that wasn't corrupt.

And who should make the decision to put the government in place? Are you suggesting that we have someone come in and take over the government and dictate what is right and what is blue? That sounds a lot like that Iraq War debacle. Speaking of which, I always thought that Saddam Hussein was heavily backed by the US in the 70's and 80's. I always thought that the coup in which he took power was engineered by the CIA.

Right, then we decided to overthrow him because he was getting all crazy. That, and we needed a war. I never said that the replacement of the current governments with our hand-chosen successors was an exact science. However, we can find the ones that will do the job we want them to. Once again, not everyone in Africa is an unethical asshole. Someone is there that will run the government as it needs to be run.

How can you trust any countries motives for wanting to "help" another country? We may want to help and eradicate poverty, but there are always deeper issues at work.

..Like finding a government head that will actually help his/her people? It's not like there is anything in Africa we actually want. Diamonds? Get with the times. We want oil, and that's in the Middle East.

Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It would be near impossible to find a genuinely motivated person to do such a dangerous and difficult job. On the off chance you have someone that is willing to do the tough jobs in order to establish some changes, he is immediately de-throned. you have international intervention come into play, and its a whole other bucket of worms.

You argue impossible, I argue Rwanda. It is not impossible, at all. As I argued above, Africa is not full of soulless bastards. There is someone that can lead the poor. Swear.

The only way you could solve the problem is through not interacting with governments, or as little as possible. Go to the source, the public, and work with them.

But if we are to believe you, the entirety of the public are so evil that we couldn't find someone that could lead amongst them. And besides. If the governments are as corrupt as we argue them, we can't get directly to the people as a government representative. We would have to work through foreign aid, and even then. All of the aid will be almost immediately confiscated by the government. Think Ethiopia.

 

[KKarvox]

Now, i grew up and still reside in the lower-middle class, and i don't hate the rich, or believe they should be punished because i grew up with less, in fact i hope to have some money some day. I don't even believe that the gov't should provide everyone with health-care, even though i don't have any. Now i have to be more cautious with my health because of this, but i feel no entitlement for it. I love how both republicans and democrats take interventionist views on different things, and non-interventionist views on others. Like military force can't work in promoting peace, but sending a ton of money to a poor nation will pull them out of poverty. Poverty is unfortunate, and will be here forever. I like that people blame Capitalism, when the polar opposite, marxism, creates even more poverty as opposed to ending it. look at the USSR, people were impoverished everywhere, the only difference is that it was everyone instead of some.

 

[Mufasa]

There will always be poverty under capitalism simply because it's based on competition. Everyone can't be winners. It doesn't work like that. Some people are better competitors than others. Also, even if everyone was given money, the value of that money would decrease. Money only has value as long as some people don't have it.

There is enough food produced to feed every single living person on this earth. Food production isn't a problem. Food distribution is uneven, so people go hungry. Is that a bad thing? Depends on how you look at it. There a lot of profit to be made on the hungry. Hungry people are willing to work for lower wages. People who are well fed aren't willing to work long hours in sweatshops for an incredibly low wage. A large part of the reason why we get such cheap goods is because we import goods from places that have hungry workers willing to work for virtually nothing. Our prosperity depends on their poverty.

I personally don't think communism can work because human beings are greedy, but I don't think communism was ever even really given a chance. America, the world's greatest superpower, deliberately sabotaged communism. You can't focus on food production in the already difficult climate of Siberia when you are in an arm's race with the world's strongest military. For communism to work it would take both remarkable virtuous leadership and it would take peace and lack of interference from aggressive capitalists. I think it's inescapable though that in a communist government there would be less freedom if for no other reason then because the lack of profit incentive would make it to where the only other incentive available would be forced coercion. Capitalists don't have to force workers to work because the threat of being homeless provides a natural incentive that will get people to work even if they are working under terrible labor conditions.

I think even if an economic system that was better than the brutal competition of market capitalism with it's tendency to give way to a race to the bottom and exploitation, or the lack of incentive that either gives way to inefficiency or strict authoritarianism under communism, even if there was a new fantastic system to emerge that solves both the ills of capitalism and communism, there would still be the problem with sustainability. The reason why is because when people are given access to easy access to prosperity populations multiply.

If there was no poor, and everyone was prosperous, eventually there would be a huge overpopulation and resource demand problem. So, I think there's no easy way to address poverty.

 

[LigerBomb]

Poverty. It's been around forever. Quite literally.

Ummm, thats not what literally means... Forever is a long time and encompasses more than human history and if we are to assume that you mean poverty as in lack of wealth, indigence, or being poor... then no it has not been around forever.

There will always be people starving somewhere, struggling to survive. The fact is simple, and as I type this very sentence right now, people are dying from simple things such as malnutrition and diarrhea, things that exist as much in the western world as much as the Yeti.

People in the western world die from malnutrition too and certainly in greater number than Yeti sightings(The Yeti is said to be from the Himalayan mountains so I doubt there are many western world sightings, but if you meant world wide sightings I'd have to say that western world deaths outnumber those too), but please go on.

What would we do if poverty didn't exist?

We'd probably create it because it's human nature to be selfish and scared. And so in answer to the thread title question, until we evolve beyond those limitations, I answer with a resounding yes, we will always have poverty. But c'mon you already knew that... didn't you?

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Jesus, I don't even remembering making this.

Ummm, thats not what literally means... Forever is a long time and encompasses more than human history and if we are to assume that you mean poverty as in lack of wealth, indigence, or being poor... then no it has not been around forever.

I'll think you'll find that I'm right. There were cavemen who died of cold when others had fire. there were Egyptians with advanced agriculture whereas Barbarians were still hunting and foraging. Throughout history, there is always a telling line between the haves and have nots.

People in the western world die from malnutrition too and certainly in greater number than Yeti sightings(The Yeti is said to be from the Himalayan mountains so I doubt there are many western world sightings, but if you meant world wide sightings I'd have to say that western world deaths outnumber those too), but please go on.

Yeah, okay smartass. Sasquatch sightings. Generally, Malnutrition is uncommon in the civilised world, and is usually more a reult of some guy stuck in his basement drinking Mountain Dew and eating fast food and not getting any of the nutrients he needs. in fact I'd say this is pretty common, but the high energy intake offsets my point.

We'd probably create it because it's human nature to be selfish and scared. And so in answer to the thread title question, until we evolve beyond those limitations, I answer with a resounding yes, we will always have poverty. But c'mon you already knew that... didn't you?

Obviously. I did this for the post count more than likely.

 

[LigerBomb]

Jesus, I don't even remembering making this.

That doesn't speak well of you but ok...

I'll think you'll find that I'm right. There were cavemen who died of cold when others had fire. there were Egyptians with advanced agriculture whereas Barbarians were still hunting and foraging. Throughout history, there is always a telling line between the haves and have nots.

I think I've found that you are not. First I was merely arguing the ludicrous notion of your use of literally, and playing with semantics, but your further "evidence" is faulty too. Cavemen who died of cold is not a case of poverty. Nor is your depiction of Egyptians and Barbarians. By the by, the word 'barbarian' etymological roots' are peoples that don't speak or weren't of Greek (and later Roman) origin, and those who made 'bar bar' or blah blah sounds as their native speech. My point of course being that Egyptians were Barbarians... though even when used as you do as to imply a pejorative for less advanced civilizations it still wouldn't be a cause of outright poverty and certainly not between shared cultures in time, as you depict, as to therefore not be induced or halted by one culture's influence (or lack there of) over the other. A proper example would've been Egyptians and their slaves, or the "free" Greeks and their slaves, or even your version of "Barbarians" and their conquered adversaries, but then of course to the victor go the spoils of war. But back to point, yes poverty of some fashion has been a mainstay of much of human history, but that is not literally forever...

Yeah, okay smartass. Sasquatch sightings. Generally, Malnutrition is uncommon in the civilised world, and is usually more a reult of some guy stuck in his basement drinking Mountain Dew and eating fast food and not getting any of the nutrients he needs. in fact I'd say this is pretty common, but the high energy intake offsets my point.

Wrong. There are plenty of people in the western world --including the good ol' US of A-- who are unable to have caloric/nutrient rich foods and as consequence develop numerous health complications and/or outright starve. It happens each and every day. In fact it's happening right now.They're called poor people, and the west has them too.

Obviously. I did this for the post count more than likely.

Which is perhaps a less than honorable or worthwhile reason to bring this to the table mind you; but hey what the fuck do I care about innocuously moot topics, least you got a few more post counts added to the tally.

 

[Tastycles]

I actually don't think there will be, but it isn't something that Bob Geldof can eradicate in a few years, it is something that humanity will eventually eradicate. There has been an overwhelming trend across human history to try and close the gap between the higher and lower classes. Human greed will always stand in the way of any truly socialist or communist system, and that's to be expected, but I do think that as we enter a more globalised world there will come a point 200, 300 years down the line where nobody has absolutely nothing anymore. In time, poverty will go I think, but it is a very slow and gradual process.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

That doesn't speak well of you but ok...

They was different times Liger, different times

I think I've found that you are not. First I was merely arguing the ludicrous notion of your use of literally, and playing with semantics, but your further "evidence" is faulty too.

Ah yes, getting riddled down in semantics. I do realise that the word "literally" is one of your pet peeves, and I read your fully enthralling post in that thread to realise that it should not be used in the presence of Liger without due care. But if we are really going to get so muddled down in the terminology of it, then why do you go on to say...

Cavemen who died of cold is not a case of poverty.

Aren't we merely taking your sense of the word as the determinant here? I would say that it is poverty in the sense of the word, that is, a case of the have nots struggling to survive and recieve even the most basic of needs. Is warmth, shelter not valid as a condition for survival? How is a homeless man dying of cold in the 21st Century any different to a homeless man dying of cold in the Stone Age?

Nor is your depiction of Egyptians and Barbarians. By the by, the word 'barbarian' etymological roots' are peoples that don't speak or weren't of Greek (and later Roman) origin, and those who made 'bar bar' or blah blah sounds as their native speech. My point of course being that Egyptians were Barbarians... though even when used as you do as to imply a pejorative for less advanced civilizations it still wouldn't be a cause of outright poverty and certainly not between shared cultures in time, as you depict, as to therefore not be induced or halted by one culture's influence (or lack there of) over the other.

Yes indeedy, I was using it as a pejorative for those less civilised in comparison to the Eygptians, well spotted my good man. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here, as I never suggested that as a result of them being barbarians, they were automatically living in poverty. Of course there would have been nomadic peoples thriving, I merely used the Egyptians as an example to signify a highly advanced civilisation that had access to far greater stores of food and resources than a tribal people living off the land. Should a bad season come along, we might see these tribes struggling to make it through. I would define poverty as the struggle to survive, and used the Egyptians as a contrast between the haves and have nots. Don't read too much into it.

A proper example would've been Egyptians and their slaves, or the "free" Greeks and their slaves, or even your version of "Barbarians" and their conquered adversaries, but then of course to the victor go the spoils of war. But back to point, yes poverty of some fashion has been a mainstay of much of human history, but that is not literally forever..

Literally. Forever.

Wrong. There are plenty of people in the western world --including the good ol' US of A-- who are unable to have caloric/nutrient rich foods and as consequence develop numerous health complications and/or outright starve. It happens each and every day. In fact it's happening right now.They're called poor people, and the west has them too.

Of course, and I never said that malnutrition or poverty did not exist in the USA, I just said it was uncommon. Before you start pulling out all those cool statistics, such as

According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty,[17] as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households [17] and 19.1% of all persons living alone.

Let's not forget that everything is relative. Although this is a very large figure, and may seem shocking, lets remember that a country such as Chad has around 80% of it's population in poverty, living off less than 2 dollars a day. I didn't mean to post that stuff to be smug, and say that "Us Westerners have food coming out the rear end", because I realise we have serious social issues with poverty, but put in perspective with other countries, it does make us look indeed very fortunate.

Which is perhaps a less than honorable or worthwhile reason to bring this to the table mind you; but hey what the fuck do I care about innocuously moot topics, least you got a few more post counts added to the tally.

It generated discussion as well. Let's not forget that!

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

To be rid of poverty, we'd need to be rid of money entirely.

But it's not just that. In some African nations, their religious beliefs actually encourage them to breed as much as possible in order to please their Gods or whatever, so despite the fact that they can't even find 1 square meal a day, PLUS the fact that most children will die within weeks anyway, they keep on generating more mouths to feed, which in turn leads to countless more graves, and more appeals, and more discussions like this.

But do ya know what gets me?

If hundreds of children die every minute, how can there be so many kids to feed?

If hundreds of kids have been dying every minute, for the past 2 decades, how are there any adults left to feed?

If disease runs rampant, and clean water and food is as scarce as they make out, then how do pregnant women even survive long enough to give birth in the first place?

It's a fucked up situation, however, most of it can be blamed on the Empires that came and went in the latter half of the 2nd millenium A.D. and unless every millionaire decides to start regularly donating to multiple charities, then sweet fuck all is going to change.