• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How is poverty best eliminated?

What of the following does the best for eliminating poverty in the world?

  • Total voters
    80
Josie said:
Work hard, be responsible and use your money wisely. No government is going to eliminate poverty by offering handouts. It's up to the individual.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Alot of poverty could be ended simply by putting an expiration date on welfare entitlements. If adults find that they have to work to eat, they will choose to work.
 
The Mark said:
Eliminating money would actually cause more harm than good, I think.
Click to expand...
That is why I said "even then it's not really going to work

Unless a person has no necessities to purchase, they will need some method of transforming their labor into portable form.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why I said it won't work.
 
mpg said:
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Many links have been posted many times. Surely you've seen them. Just go to the websites of the UN, OECD, wikipedia, nationmaster, or the site of your choice. Let us know when you find a link that doesn't say the opposite of what you're claiming.
Click to expand...

And apparently you don't know how to read the data, because the data precisely back up what I've been saying all along. The top 29 countries on the list on that link are almost all first-world socialized democracies. Just because you personally may want to claim otherwise, thats what the data say.
 
Poverty would best be addressed by a jobs program with genuine local impact Nationwide. For example, put wind generators and PV panels and added insulation and better windows on homes all over the Nation. It creates jobs installing and maintaining the equipment. The job money is spent in the local communities where the homes are. The savings generated and not sent to the local Centralized Distribution of Energy monopoly would also be spent locally. More money in communities makes jobs. It not like "Trickle down" that doesn't trickle down, but trickles up and stays there.
 
DaveFagan said:
Poverty would best be addressed by a jobs program with genuine local impact Nationwide. For example, put wind generators and PV panels and added insulation and better windows on homes all over the Nation. It creates jobs installing and maintaining the equipment. The job money is spent in the local communities where the homes are. The savings generated and not sent to the local Centralized Distribution of Energy monopoly would also be spent locally. More money in communities makes jobs. It not like "Trickle down" that doesn't trickle down, but trickles up and stays there.
Click to expand...

How about we start to apply tariffs to foreign good, and stop taxing productivity, so that "Made in USA" is competitive again?

If that doesn't work, then I will consider "jobs programs" as an option.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How about we start to apply tariffs to foreign good, and stop taxing productivity, so that "Made in USA" is competitive again?

If that doesn't work, then I will consider "jobs programs" as an option.
Click to expand...

I personally think that tariffs cause wars. In this Nation, Corporate hucksters would make sure the tariffs generated windfall profits at a Corporate level and screw a bunch of consumers. Our gov't would levy tariffs to benefit GE and other non taxpaying Corps. It's just how it really works. It's more of the alleged "trickle down." I also believe that it is our current gov't policy to kill unions and drive down wages to make the US competitive. I don't like that much either.
 
DaveFagan said:
I personally think that tariffs cause wars. In this Nation, Corporate hucksters would make sure the tariffs generated windfall profits at a Corporate level and screw a bunch of consumers. Our gov't would levy tariffs to benefit GE and other non taxpaying Corps. It's just how it really works. It's more of the alleged "trickle down." I also believe that it is our current gov't policy to kill unions and drive down wages to make the US competitive. I don't like that much either.
Click to expand...

Corporations will do what ever is in their power to maximize profits. If it becomes more profitable to return manufacturing to the USA, they will.

I don't think you see the same problems I do.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How about we start to apply tariffs to foreign good, and stop taxing productivity, so that "Made in USA" is competitive again?

If that doesn't work, then I will consider "jobs programs" as an option.
Click to expand...

Tariffs to protect workers jobs. Congrats, another point promoted by Marx.

Instead, why don't American workers at least make something with quality instead of junk. Or we can just get rid of minimum wage and actually pay them what their worth. Cost of living would certainly go down.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Corporations will do what ever is in their power to maximize profits. If it becomes more profitable to return manufacturing to the USA, they will.

I don't think you see the same problems I do.
Click to expand...

How profitable can you make when manufacturing in the US would close most companies out of some markets that just cannot afford the price. How much global profits do you think they are willing to give up to restrict themselves to just American profits?

Making American products only affordable in the US and Europe, and even then not by all, is not going to improve America's economy. Trade wars when we start raising tariffs also will not.

The only things that will make America stronger economically is to reduce labor costs, regulation costs and Taxes. Western countries are just too inflated for their products to be competitive or even sold world wide. The western nations needs to deflate costs so our companies can compete world wide with our labor.

Ending minimum wage, labor and environmental harassment and social programs coupled with a progressive business tax based upon profit margins would do that.
 
Some interesting reading... Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that marriage, a basic education, and learning the skills others are willing to pay you for are key. In minority groups, its notable that asians make more than whites, and that non-American blacks outperform African Americans by a factor of 2. Intelligence is also a non-PC but absolutely evident trait.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And apparently you don't know how to read the data, because the data precisely back up what I've been saying all along. The top 29 countries on the list on that link are almost all first-world socialized democracies. Just because you personally may want to claim otherwise, thats what the data say.
Click to expand...
Show us a link that says the countries near the top have high taxes and a lot of regulations.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
That is where YOU keep going wrong: you - like most conservatives - have this bogus perception that we somehow want a fully socialist society. We haven't said that...and I sure as heck haven't said that. I've said time and time and time again that what works best is a socialized democracy in which the social programs are BALANCED by a strong business sector...and this is PRECISELY what you see in ALL first-world democracies: social programs taking care of those sectors where the profit motive does not belong, and business taking care of those sectors where the profit motive DOES belong. Sure, most of us took a hit during the Great Recession, but the first-world democracies are STILL doing better than any other nations on the planet. That much is not in question.

The only question is WHY are the first-world democracies doing so much better than most of the rest of the world (and have done so for at least a half century) when conservative economic dogma says that nations whose governments and economies are thus structured SHOULD be on the way to the economic dustbin of history. That's the question you cannot answer. Actually, you CAN answer it...but you dare not do so, since the only only answer is 180-out from what conservative economic dogma requires.

And since it looks like you and I are both here for the long haul, I guess we'll both be able to watch whether California's economy crashes and burns - as you and others are Absolutely Sure is going to happen - or whether California's economy continues to improve.

Of course, if you wait long enough, ANY economy - no matter how strong - is going to crash and burn. The key is understanding whether it was due to the policies of the politicians...or whether it was due to other factors. In any case, California's economy is certainly improving, no matter what you and your fellow conservatives dearly hope - ahem, I mean, what you and your fellow conservatives Just Know is gonna happen.
Click to expand...

While it may be fun to dream, the important thing to do is see how reality contributes to the results. As I've pointed out in California, and as the economic reality of the EU has shown, your vision, with its strong social spending, leads to malaise and economic stagnation. We can do better.

Try to stick to the facts, not the ones you are believing in your head.
 
mpg said:
Show us a link that says the countries near the top have high taxes and a lot of regulations.
Click to expand...

Countries near the top have high taxes.

And when it comes to regulation, there's no place I know of on the internet that can show you the number of regulations per nation; rather, it takes a measure of experience and common sense.

For instance, try bribing a cop, a customs official, or a judge in a first-world socialized democracy. What will happen? You know as well as I do that whoever does so will likely spend years in jail. What happens if one does so in third-world nations? It's business as usual - because I have done all three.

If the people who show up to build improvements on your house here in America start welding, and the welders have no protective gear - no gloves, wearing flip-flops and tank tops, no goggles - what happens? The state would shut it down immediately and it would likely make the news, right? Yeah, it probably would...especially since in any first-world socialized democracy, any worker has the RIGHT to demand protective gear, and the boss has the legal obligation to provide it and to make sure it's used.

But when they started welding at my house overseas, this was - again - business as usual. I just so happened to have some welding safety gear and I gave it to the guy. He took the gloves, but he refused the goggles and the leather welding jacket (it was too hot for him to wear). And so it goes with ALL business there - it's the golden rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules...and is above the law. The guy on the bottom gets paid peanuts and is often forced to work in unsafe environments...but he's damn glad to have that job because it's a job. And if he gets injured or killed, oh well, too bad so sad...there's no required coverage for that worker, no fiduciary responsibility by that company. No oversight. And any reporter who is so bold to get it printed in the paper is literally risking his life.

Does this mean that in this particular third-world nation, there are no such regulatory rules governing police, judges, custom officials? No. It means that those rules are largely ignored unless it is to the advantage of the official in question to obey those rules. And why is this? Because the government officials are paid peanuts, too...and the bribes are often necessary for them to feed their own families.

But regulations that are ignored are effectively the same as no regulation at all. And that's precisely what happens when there is little or no regulatory oversight of a corporation: they will find ways to cut corners at every opportunity up to and including worker safety. It doesn't happen overnight - it happens slowly, gradually, and is eventually entrenched and becomes a way of life.

This is life in third-world nations, guy. This is the way it is - the golden rule is normally the only rule. Life in third-world nations is often BETTER than life in first-world nations...if you've got money. But if you don't have money...well, that's when you find out first-hand why even GREECE has throngs of illegal immigrants who would rather be there than any of the third-world nations on the other side of the Mediterranean.

There is a way to change it - such as Lee Kuan Yew did for Singapore - but it takes a very strong leader who isn't afraid of confronting the rich and powerful and politically-connected in order to impose true law and order while at the same time avoiding going down the road to true tyranny.

I strongly recommend you go live in a third-world nation for a while. Get to know the people, the good and the bad. It's a real education.
 
Henrin said:
The basic premise of your belief is that the earth owns to everyone.
Click to expand...

The earth is a common right, much as having access to the air around us is a common right.




They own the land, so they very much have the right to remove my trees. Why should they lose their claim to the land where my trees are planted?
Click to expand...

Having a common right does not mean people may destroy the work of others. That is like saying someone has a right to order a hit on another person because they have a right to free speech.
 
Geoist said:
The earth is a common right, much as having access to the air around us is a common right.

Having a common right does not mean people may destroy the work of others. That is like saying someone has a right to order a hit on another person because they have a right to free speech.
Click to expand...

You can not separate the land on which my property rests with the ownership of the land itself. If you are to say that the land is owned by everyone, but they may not act towards the property that I have built on their land then you are undoubtedly restricting their right to their land, as now there is a patch of land they have no control over and can not act towards to push forward their own interests. They must instead allow my trees to grow and prosper or my house to stay standing and there is nothing at that point they can do about it. Under a system where all land is owned by everyone and yet individuals own the products of their labor there is no such thing as peace as the ideas that you have laid contradict each other and can not rest without conflict.

As for the idea of rents, it is again an absurdity, as who has the right to charge me rent for property that I justly own? It is as absurd as the red hen being charged by those that didn't help make the bread for the production of the bread itself.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
While it may be fun to dream, the important thing to do is see how reality contributes to the results. As I've pointed out in California, and as the economic reality of the EU has shown, your vision, with its strong social spending, leads to malaise and economic stagnation. We can do better.

Try to stick to the facts, not the ones you are believing in your head.
Click to expand...

You're referring to the malaise in the EU, but you're forgetting that in response to the Great Recession, most of the EU did not follow Keynesian economics principles - stimulus in times of recession, and austerity in times of prosperity - but instead went straight to austerity, and most of the EU is still trying to follow austerity. America, on the other hand, did resort to government stimulus (though it was too small by half) and as a result not only quickly came out of the recession (though poorly, thanks to the weakness of the stimulus) and has had 53 consecutive months of private sector job growth - which is a record in American history, mind you, and yet another reason I keep saying that if Obama had had an (R) behind his name, y'all would be clamoring to have his face added to Mt. Rushmore.

And when it comes to California, like I said, we'll see...because we're both going to be here for a long time to come.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You're referring to the malaise in the EU, but you're forgetting that in response to the Great Recession, most of the EU did not follow Keynesian economics principles - stimulus in times of recession, and austerity in times of prosperity - but instead went straight to austerity, and most of the EU is still trying to follow austerity. America, on the other hand, did resort to government stimulus (though it was too small by half) and as a result not only quickly came out of the recession (though poorly, thanks to the weakness of the stimulus) and has had 53 consecutive months of private sector job growth - which is a record in American history, mind you, and yet another reason I keep saying that if Obama had had an (R) behind his name, y'all would be clamoring to have his face added to Mt. Rushmore.

And when it comes to California, like I said, we'll see...because we're both going to be here for a long time to come.
Click to expand...

Do you get dizzy when you spin as fast as you do GC? I know I would.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How about we start to apply tariffs to foreign good, and stop taxing productivity, so that "Made in USA" is competitive again?

If that doesn't work, then I will consider "jobs programs" as an option.
Click to expand...

In order to improve the lives for all there needs to be open competition between the markets. Tariffs only make unfit markets even more unfit, while harming those markets deserving to prosper.
 
Henrin said:
You can not separate the land on which my property rests with the ownership of the land itself. If you are to say that the land is owned by everyone, but they may not act towards the property that I have built on their land then you are undoubtedly restricting their right to their land, as now there is a patch of land they have no control over and can not act towards to push forward their own interests.
Click to expand...

That is not how geoism works. Geoism acknowledges the need for private possession of land. As long as the land due is paid no one can rightfully access the land without the holder's permission.

As for the idea of rents, it is again an absurdity, as who has the right to charge me rent for property that I justly own? It is as absurd as the red hen being charged by those that didn't help make the bread for the production of the bread itself.
Click to expand...

Bread is the fruit of labor. It rightfully belongs to its creator. Who created the land? Nobody.
 
Neomalthusian said:
How is a landowner a freeloader?
Click to expand...

The reason a piece of land is valuable is because of what the government, the community, and nature provide at that location. The landowner is a purely parasitic economic agent who either enjoys that stream of benefits from the community himself without paying the community for it or expects others to pay him rent or the exchange value for that stream of benefits.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
And how, exactly, is that 'spin'? The EU did adopt austerity, and America did not. We see the difference in the results.
Click to expand...

Your favorite countries adopted whatever plans their socialist ideas felt was best at the time. As I have been suggesting, the agenda they embrace has failed to live up to it's billing. I contend it will always fail. It is indeed spin to come up with excuses as to why their economic agenda is not working as advertised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom