• 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
33

Sounds reasonable to me.

so you dont know what you asked


it is simple in fact

dont vote politicians WHO never stop cheating despite their having billions of dollars

dont cheat ,dont be greedy ,be emphatetic to the poor
 
Last edited:


Because the market nor the public sector can provide enough (though both will argue to the contrary). They cannot.
 
No, slaves do have choices, it's just that their choices are extremely restricted relative to a person who is not so encumbered. Similarly, a person born into poverty has choices that are extremely restricted relative to a person who is born with great wealth. Although I think your point has merit in that a person should not be conditioned to a dependence on government assistance, I really don't think that focus on that aspect is a major force in lifting a person from poverty.

First off, nobody said life would be fair, but these people aren't even taking advantage of the options they have now, why whine about them having more opportunities that they simply won't take advantage of? Let's see them do something with what they've already got before we complain about them not having more options.
 
Because the market nor the public sector can provide enough (though both will argue to the contrary). They cannot.

Is there a reason? "Just because" and "can't" isn't a reason.

I figure that for everyone who is employed, they create enough additional demand (which would otherwise not exist) for someone else to be employed (or at least close to it). Assuming that there is ample potential demand, and that there is ample money available for consumers to covert that potential demand into demand realized at the cash register, then I can't really come up with a reason why there couldn't be enough jobs for everyone who desires a job to have one.

There was a time when Japan had an unemployment rate of 1-2%, and during WW2 the unemployment rate in the US dropped to as low as 1.2%. That's pretty darned close to enough jobs for everyone who wants one.
 
Is there a reason? "Just because" and "can't" isn't a reason.

I figure that for everyone who is employed, they create enough additional demand (which would otherwise not exist) for someone else to be employed (or at least close to it). Assuming that there is ample potential demand, and that there is ample money available for consumers to covert that potential demand into demand realized at the cash register, then I can't really come up with a reason why there couldn't be enough jobs for everyone who desires a job to have one.

There was a time when Japan had an unemployment rate of 1-2%, and during WW2 the unemployment rate in the US dropped to as low as 1.2%. That's pretty darned close to enough jobs for everyone who wants one.


The reasons are having to do with demographics and various other things. There's no point going into all of it as you're on one of the polarity sides that I mentioned in that you represent the private sector faction.
 
The reasons are having to do with demographics and various other things. There's no point going into all of it as you're on one of the polarity sides that I mentioned in that you represent the private sector faction.

In other words, you don't have a clue.
 
And yes, we'd still need burger flippers, but I'd like to see people better educated in the basics of life in the sense that low-paid people would be able to balance their finances, understand and make intelligent financial decision even if they make low wages. Maybe eventually move up, and leave the lowest-paid jobs for entry level people, like it's supposed to be.

This. ****ing this.

EVERYONE needs training in basic finances, because there are thousands of people and business quite willing to take your money and screw you over, while making you think they're doing you favors.
 
I agree. But I did want to point out that education is the key to getting out of poverty on an individual level, much more so than on a society level (although I would err on the side of having an over educated population than an under educated one).

You can't really apply micro level solutions to macro level problems. To solve macro level problems, you need macro level solutions.

The only two macro solutions that I can come up with is to have more jobs and the production associated with them, and to have a system that ensures a distribution system which is based upon production and merit, more-so-than individual negotiating ability.

Basically, a meritocracy with ample opportunity to prove and utilize individual merit.

So how do we create more jobs, and ensure that compensation for those jobs is appropriate? The only way we can do this is to have more demand, which can only be accomplished by higher take home earnings (either from an increase in min wage or from cutting taxes on the worker/consumer class, or both).

Once we have ample jobs, I suspect that the compensation issue will resolve itself as employers will have to compete harder for workers, assumably with better compensation packages.

I think you have good ideas. That said, what do you say to those who would put forward the notion that such higher demand leads eventually to higher inflation and over production, which have the effect of eventually depressing demand and wages?
 
Last edited:
First off, nobody said life would be fair, but these people aren't even taking advantage of the options they have now, why whine about them having more opportunities that they simply won't take advantage of? Let's see them do something with what they've already got before we complain about them not having more options.

I didn't make an observation on whether the situation was fair or not. I attempted to put forward what I thought would be the most effective ways to lift people from poverty. The problem with your observation is that it assumes that people are aware of and know how to leverage the opportunities they have in front of them. If they are not educated properly they simply will not be aware and know how to leverage the opportunities.
 
Last edited:
I think you have good ideas. That said, what do say to those who would put forward the notion that such higher demand leads eventually to higher inflation and over production, which have the effect of eventually depressing demand and wages?

You explain that inflation only exists when there is a shortage of goods and services, and is thus not compatible with over production (they don't normally exist at the same time).

Except in a bubble type situation, over production really never exists to the degree that it could significantly harm our economy. Businesses strive to maximize profits, and over producing goods and filling up warehouses doesn't maximize profits. Most producers can ONLY produce the goods and services that they have current orders for. Like a barber can't cut any more heads of hair than actually show up at his shop, and the toaster oven manufacturing company will not produce any more toaster ovens than their retailers order. Even stock brokers don't buy and sell any more stocks than their clients place buy/sell orders for. And certainly most steak houses only cook as many steaks as people order.

The typical Econ 101 definition of inflation is "too much money chasing after too few goods", but economics can be boring, and most students zone out after hearing the first few words. The part they miss is "too few goods". The amount of money chasing goods doesn't cause inflation, only the failure of producers to meet demand causes inflation, "overproduction" is certainly not the same as "failure to produce".
 
I didn't make an observation on whether the situation was fair or not. I attempted to put forward what I thought would be the most effective ways to lift people from poverty. The problem with your observation is that it assumes that people are aware of and know how to leverage the opportunities they have in front of them. If they are not educated properly they simply will not be aware and know how to leverage the opportunities.

They're not aware that they're going to school every single day? They're not aware that people have jobs? They're not aware that they have choices and some choices are better than others? Let's start with the basics. How can anyone be so stupid not to recognize these things?
 
Working hard and not having to spend an arm and a leg to get yourself educated so you can make more money.
 
They're not aware that they're going to school every single day?
We send children to school. We require it. Are you saying that they don't go to school?

They're not aware that people have jobs?
Are you not aware that there are people in poverty that work two, sometimes three jobs to survive?

They're not aware that they have choices and some choices are better than others?
Are you not aware that people in positions with power and leadership have a responsibility to see to it that everyone has the opportunity to access the resources of nature so that they can survive? People with power and in positions of leadership also have choices. If they choose to be greedy and merely usurp the resources of the world so that they can live a life of excess and degradation, of course there will be poverty.

Let's start with the basics. How can anyone be so stupid not to recognize these things?

Yep we need to start with the basics no doubt. The basics is that leadership comes from the top down. I really don't know how anyone can be so stupid as to not realize that.
 
You explain that inflation only exists when there is a shortage of goods and services, and is thus not compatible with over production (they don't normally exist at the same time).

Except in a bubble type situation, over production really never exists to the degree that it could significantly harm our economy. Businesses strive to maximize profits, and over producing goods and filling up warehouses doesn't maximize profits. Most producers can ONLY produce the goods and services that they have current orders for. Like a barber can't cut any more heads of hair than actually show up at his shop, and the toaster oven manufacturing company will not produce any more toaster ovens than their retailers order. Even stock brokers don't buy and sell any more stocks than their clients place buy/sell orders for. And certainly most steak houses only cook as many steaks as people order.

The typical Econ 101 definition of inflation is "too much money chasing after too few goods", but economics can be boring, and most students zone out after hearing the first few words. The part they miss is "too few goods". The amount of money chasing goods doesn't cause inflation, only the failure of producers to meet demand causes inflation, "overproduction" is certainly not the same as "failure to produce".

Good post. Made me have to think there for a minute. :)

I think the problem, at least how it is typically put forward in economics is that the increase in wages leads to an increase in demand. When demand increases, prices increase as well as supply. As a result of the increase in supply, there is eventually over production. As a result of this overproduction, people must be laid off, which leads to a decline in demand, which results in downward pressure on wages, which leads to a further decline in demand, etc. Something like that. Let me know if you think I got something wrong.
 
I think the problem, at least how it is typically put forward in economics is that the increase in wages leads to an increase in demand. When demand increases, prices increase as well as supply.

As long as supply is expanding fast enough to meet demand, why do you think prices would rise?

Inflation is caused by insufficient supply to meet demand. It's not caused by any particular demand level.

As a result of the increase in supply, there is eventually over production.

Businesses work hard not to over produce, and when they do over produce, it's a temporary thing, they cut back production as soon as they realize that inventories are rising. Any miscalculation doesn't happen with every producer in ever industry at the same time, it's staggered.

people must be laid off, which leads to a decline in demand, which results in downward pressure on wages, which leads to a further decline in demand, etc. Something like that. Let me know if you think I got something wrong.

Not if there is no over production. But even if there was a temporary decline in demand for a particular product, there would also be a corresponding decline in price as producers sought to clear out excess inventory, which would cause the quantity demanded to rise until the over production was absorbed. And yes, if this did happen there would likely be layoffs, but only in the particular industry/employer who had miscalculated demand.

I think you focus way too much on overproduction. You have to remember that most producers don't produce anything until an order is placed. If all they are doing is meeting those orders, then they are meeting demand, no more and no less.

Think about Walmart, or any other retailer. They determine what the optimal quantity of a particular product is to have in stock in their stores. They don't exceed that quantity, and they only order more units when they sell more units, and they only order the amount of units sold.

Factories only produce the number of units that they have orders for, and typically they warehouse far fewer goods than they used to. The last time I had a real job, I worked in a plant that made tennis balls. We had a sales manager and a production manager, and these people met daily to determine the number of units that we needed to produce that day, and the number that we needed to schedule during the up-coming weeks. Everything that we produced was shipped to the distribution centers, or even individual stores, with 24 hours of it being produced. The minute that sales started to become week, or that we had more than a few days of production on hand, we would cut back a shift, and the minute that we had customers complaining that we weren't shipping fast enough, we would add a shift. Inventory shortages and inventory overages of established products in a mature market are corrected within days.

About the only time when this doesn't happen is when it is a new product, and producers have no clue how many they will sell, or in the case that some odd external factor significantly effects demand (like a couple of years ago, idiots thought that Obama was going to take away their guns, so they flooded to the gun stores to purchase more). In this case, there may be shortages or excess production which can't be cleared in a matter of weeks, but that doesn't really effect our entire economy, only those specific producers.

Our economy is pretty much self healing, which is why we always recover from recessions. Economic cycles only occur due to irrational bubbles, such as the dot.com bubble or the sub-prime mortgage bubble, or due to temporary artificial shortages, such as the OPEC embargos of the 1970's and early '80s. If we could eliminate these irrational bubbles and artificial shortages, we could have growth at a constant rate...forever.
 
Last edited:
We send children to school. We require it. Are you saying that they don't go to school?

Most poor children perform very poorly in school and in many large cities, the drop out rate is well above 50%. They go, they just don't take it seriously.

Are you not aware that there are people in poverty that work two, sometimes three jobs to survive?

Sure, then there are plenty who don't work at all. The reason they have to work two or three jobs to survive is because they never got an education when they had an opportunity, they made horrible life decisions and ended up with minimal marketable work skills. You'd think that these parents would pass along these life lessons to their children but generation after generation, these people make the same mistakes over and over and over. Why is that?

Are you not aware that people in positions with power and leadership have a responsibility to see to it that everyone has the opportunity to access the resources of nature so that they can survive? People with power and in positions of leadership also have choices. If they choose to be greedy and merely usurp the resources of the world so that they can live a life of excess and degradation, of course there will be poverty.

That's a nice statement, but why do you think so? Sure, elected officials have a responsibility to provide an opportunity for the poor to better themselves, they are not responsible for forcing the poor to take those opportunities seriously. Corporate CEOs have no responsibility toward the poor at all, they have a responsibility to their shareholders. You act like there's something wrong with greed. There is not. Everyone is greedy. Everyone should be greedy. It's how people get ahead.

Yep we need to start with the basics no doubt. The basics is that leadership comes from the top down. I really don't know how anyone can be so stupid as to not realize that.

Because it's not from the top down, it's from the bottom up. We need to provide opportunities, which the poor already have, they simply misuse and ignore those opportunities and raise their children to misuse and ignore those opportunities. You cannot force anyone to succeed. The poor have a culture which teaches them to fail. It is the job of the poor to change their culture. It is not the job of the government to force them to do so. Only a complete moron would think otherwise.
 
They're not aware that they're going to school every single day? They're not aware that people have jobs? They're not aware that they have choices and some choices are better than others? Let's start with the basics. How can anyone be so stupid not to recognize these things?

Because they are "entitled" to get a "safety net" reward for personal financial failure. They learn the simple lesson that adding a dependent child magically transforms them from being merely a poor person to being a "needy household" that then deserves its "fair share" of the national pie.
 
Because they are "entitled" to get a "safety net" reward for personal financial failure. They learn the simple lesson that adding a dependent child magically transforms them from being merely a poor person to being a "needy household" that then deserves its "fair share" of the national pie.

Which is exactly why means tested welfare is the least effective way of reducing poverty.

We are actually training some segments of our society to feel entitled, and also to not strive for a higher income because they will lose freebie benefits if they do achieve a higher income.
 
Which is exactly why means tested welfare is the least effective way of reducing poverty.

We are actually training some segments of our society to feel entitled, and also to not strive for a higher income because they will lose freebie benefits if they do achieve a higher income.

Yep but it buys votes using other people's money. Income redistribution works very, very well in that sense.
 
How to eliminate poverty?

Soylent Green
 
As long as supply is expanding fast enough to meet demand, why do you think prices would rise?

Inflation is caused by insufficient supply to meet demand. It's not caused by any particular demand level.

Well you just said it yourself. There may be a time lag in supply. Not only that but it depends on how much control suppliers have on the market. If the suppliers control the market they can increase prices as long as demand remains high without necessarily restricting supply. What was once called vertical integration is basically about doing that. That said, what you said is correct.


Businesses work hard not to over produce, and when they do over produce, it's a temporary thing, they cut back production as soon as they realize that inventories are rising. Any miscalculation doesn't happen with every producer in ever industry at the same time, it's staggered.

Just like they work hard not to over produce, they work hard not to under produce as well. Just like I have a side business in addition to my job. In my business there is a constant balancing act between not having enough inventory and having too much. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't. I just try to be right more than wrong. I assume other people running businesses do the same.

Not if there is no over production. But even if there was a temporary decline in demand for a particular product, there would also be a corresponding decline in price as producers sought to clear out excess inventory, which would cause the quantity demanded to rise until the over production was absorbed. And yes, if this did happen there would likely be layoffs, but only in the particular industry/employer who had miscalculated demand.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is what business cycles are about.
 
I think you focus way too much on overproduction. You have to remember that most producers don't produce anything until an order is placed. If all they are doing is meeting those orders, then they are meeting demand, no more and no less.

Think about Walmart, or any other retailer. They determine what the optimal quantity of a particular product is to have in stock in their stores. They don't exceed that quantity, and they only order more units when they sell more units, and they only order the amount of units sold.

Factories only produce the number of units that they have orders for, and typically they warehouse far fewer goods than they used to. The last time I had a real job, I worked in a plant that made tennis balls. We had a sales manager and a production manager, and these people met daily to determine the number of units that we needed to produce that day, and the number that we needed to schedule during the up-coming weeks. Everything that we produced was shipped to the distribution centers, or even individual stores, with 24 hours of it being produced. The minute that sales started to become week, or that we had more than a few days of production on hand, we would cut back a shift, and the minute that we had customers complaining that we weren't shipping fast enough, we would add a shift. Inventory shortages and inventory overages of established products in a mature market are corrected within days.

About the only time when this doesn't happen is when it is a new product, and producers have no clue how many they will sell, or in the case that some odd external factor significantly effects demand (like a couple of years ago, idiots thought that Obama was going to take away their guns, so they flooded to the gun stores to purchase more). In this case, there may be shortages or excess production which can't be cleared in a matter of weeks, but that doesn't really effect our entire economy, only those specific producers.

Our economy is pretty much self healing, which is why we always recover from recessions. Economic cycles only occur due to irrational bubbles, such as the dot.com bubble or the sub-prime mortgage bubble, or due to temporary artificial shortages, such as the OPEC embargos of the 1970's and early '80s. If we could eliminate these irrational bubbles and artificial shortages, we could have growth at a constant rate...forever.

Well me as a retailer, I have to make guesses about what people will want, and that is not easy. Of course my business is very small, but I know my suppliers do the same. Of course they are not the direct manufacturers, and it is likely true that the direct manufacturers only manufacture what they have orders for. So I guess what I am saying is that somewhere down the line, there are people who have to sell directly to the public, and even if we consider a very large retailer like Walmart, that determination of what you call "optimum quantity" is a guess only. If they over order, they have to sell those products at a deep discount to get rid of the excess. Now you say that does not effect the entire economy, and honestly I really haven't done enough research on the matter to know if that is true. But something tells me that if it happens to enough retailers, such as when the recession hit back in 2008 or so, then it does indeed impact the economy as a whole.
 
Back
Top Bottom