Helping the World's Poor

[lastchance]

How hard is it? How much money does this effectively cost? Not a question directed at you, but at anyone who has posted and supported this idea.

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the threat of imprisonment is at least equal to the threat of violence in my eyes. I honestly do not know which i feel to be worse.

[/ QUOTE ]



The government doesn't normally do that though. Usually they find some way to garnish your paycheck, since you(hypothetically) are violating the law. That's not violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is true, it is also true that the mugger with the gun usually doesen't shoot you he just takes your money and runs. But the threat is still there just the same.

silly

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the threat of imprisonment is at least equal to the threat of violence in my eyes. I honestly do not know which i feel to be worse.

[/ QUOTE ]



The government doesn't normally do that though. Usually they find some way to garnish your paycheck, since you(hypothetically) are violating the law. That's not violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is true, it is also true that the mugger with the gun usually doesen't shoot you he just takes your money and runs. But the threat is still there just the same.

silly

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference, in this case, is that you choose to live in this country. You can leave at any time. But, while you are in this country, you need to obey the laws.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
How hard is it? How much money does this effectively cost? Not a question directed at you, but at anyone who has posted and supported this idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is very hard and likely to cost much more than the UN estimates. On the other hand, even if $40 billion was only half as effective as Bruiser's link claims, it would still be a very worthwhile investment given that one would be saving millions of people from hunger, disease, and general misery.

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference, in this case, is that you choose to live in this country. You can leave at any time. But, while you are in this country, you need to obey the laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I need to obey the laws?

silly

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem is how to effect reform in some governments and economic systems, so that they can produce enough food and vital services themselves. And that is NOT going to happen by just sending them aid.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many problems, some of which are worse in certain areas of the world and some in others. But note that a huge proportion of the world's hungry and starving live in India, which has been a democracy for many decades and has a relatively free economic system. In fact, I almost certain that a majority of the world's hungry live in market-oriented democracies.

[ QUOTE ]
Another problem is that in some impoverished regions, the population is exploding due to a high birth rate. What is the use of a band-aid type solution where that's the case? What about a place like, say, where AIDS is rampant AND the population is exploding AND people are lacking nutrition and medical services? Is merely saving some lives going to solve the problem there? No, it isn't. The problems are a lot deeper than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the problems are a lot deeper. But is saving lives itself not a worthy goal, even if you're not going to solve all of the country's problems?

[ QUOTE ]
Those countries/regions have to get to where they can provide for themselves in a sustainable fashion. That generally will require: 1) a reasonably free political system, 2) a reasonably free enterprise system, 3) more education, 4) in some areas a much lower birthrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

For many countries numbers one and two really are not the problem. The issue is that the world is simply not cooperating with the models of neo-classical economists. Growth has been non-existant or fairly sluggish for two-decades across much of the countries in Latin America, South Asia, and Africa that have implemented market-oriented economic policies, and the gains from it have not trickled down to the lower segments of society. Better education is no doubt a good thing, but I don't think its necessarily a huge piece of the development puzzle. Getting population growth under control is likewise a good idea, but very difficult to do short of draconian regulations like those in China.

Basically, solving these problems permanently involves solving the problem of underdevelopment. And despite the enormous number of people and institutions churning out recommendations about how to make lesser developed countries grow, anybody who says they know how to solve the problems of underdevelopment is either (a) clueless or (b) lying.

[andyfox]

"It's not that hard to get food. Millenia before our ancestors discovered fire, they managed to eat."

It wasn't hard them because government didn't get in the way. We produce more than enough as it is for all the people in the world to eat. The problem is not production, it's politics.

To me, that's the point of the original post. We and other countries spend trillions on defense (a certain portion of it for "defense" rather than defense) but don't have the political will to address food issues which are, as you correctly point out, not a production problem.

[MMMMMM]

Good points, Sam, and thanks for pointing out the problem of underdevelopment.

As for saving lives: yes it is generally a good thing, but...is it so even where the population is exploding AND people are starving, or dying of AIDS and other terrible diseases?

It seems to me that in such a case, just "saving lives" might be doing more harm than good, if the population explosion is causing more to suffer and die. Sounds cold, I know, but until underdevelopment is alleviated, maybe "saving lives" in certain regions is vastly overrated. Just something to consider.

I know people aren't deer, but when deer overpopulate and yjen have a famine and widespread sickness, "saving deer" is actually best accomplished by thinning the herd (nature's solution). Obviously that's not a good solution for people, but somehow curtailing human reproduction could be a partial solution. But as you point out, that doesn't apppear possible without draconian government action--and giving such power to the gov't just opens up a potential new horror show.

So the bottom line probably is this (which I take your post to also imply): THERE ARE NO GOOD SOLUTIONS--at least at this point in time. Sad but likely true. That however won't stop some Leftists from trying to advance their agendas through the device of using such tragedies as vehicles for the fostering of guilt amongst the gullible.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It's not that hard to get food. Millenia before our ancestors discovered fire, they managed to eat."

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't hard them because government didn't get in the way. We produce more than enough as it is for all the people in the world to eat. The problem is not production, it's politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

A shining example of why less government is better.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"It's not that hard to get food. Millenia before our ancestors discovered fire, they managed to eat."

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't hard them because government didn't get in the way. We produce more than enough as it is for all the people in the world to eat. The problem is not production, it's politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

A shining example of why less government is better.

[/ QUOTE ]As often as not, rebels overpower the government, and deny food. A shining example of how more government can mean more freedom.