How can we eradicate poverty in the world ?

Answer 1

I see nigelbestpeace is spouting his communist dogma here. I love reading his answers, because I find the absurdities within them to so hysterically funny. Nigel would have you believe that all labor is worth more or less the same, when clearly it is not.

This in an inadequate forum to teach economics, and I'll not attempt a comprehensive response. I'll illustrate my points with some simple examples, and I apologize in advance if you find them to be too simple.

To put it bluntly. when an individual is in poverty, it is because they are unable or unwilling to produce. That is, their labor is not being applied effectively or efficiently. When nations find themselves in poverty, it is because the people of that nation have been denied freedom, and they lack the incentive to produce. If you doubt the truth of this consider the disparities between Uganda and Japan.

Uganda, rich in natural resources, has a land area of 77,108 sq. miles, a population of 28.2 million, (366 people per sq. mile) and a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $46.06 billion; per capita $1,700.

Japan on the other hand, in addition to being resource poor, was a bombed-out wreck at the end of World War II. Today, Japan has a land area of 144,689 sq miles, a population of 127,463,611, (881 people per sq. mile) but a GDP of $3.914 trillion; per capita $30,700.

How can it be that Japan is wealth, while Uganda remains poor? Japan is certainly not stealing from anyone. The answer is in that last number, GDP. The GDP is defined as "The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year." On average, each Japanese produces eighteen times the value produced by each Ugandan. Is this possible? Of course it is, once you take into account education, skill, and efficiency.

All labor does NOT have the same value. A man with a shovel digging a trench is working harder than a man operating a backhoe, but the man with the backhoe produces far more VALUE per hour, because his ability to operate the machine (and the availability of the machine) allows him to complete more work. Because he produces more, he is worth more, and employers are willing to pay more for his labor. The worker trades his labor (which he owns) for wages, but those wages cannot be higher than the value produced, or the employer will lose money, and soon be out of business. Returning to our ditch diggers for a moment, suppose you needed a 100 foot long trench to bury a new water line. would you rather pay $5/hr to the man with the shovel who can dig one foot of ditch per hour, or $50/hr to the man with the backhoe who can dig twenty feet of ditch per hour. You'd hire the man with the backhoe, because even though his wage is higher, the cost of the trench is only half as much. ($5 X 100 = $500, $50 X 5 = $250)

Efficiency is not always dependent on mechanical augmentation. If a company needs a new design for a DVD player, (or a well pump) it does no good to hire a person who lacks the skill to do so. The supply of people with design skills is limited, and those people had to invest in an education to acquire those skills. In addition, a GOOD design will be used many times, millions of times perhaps, in the manufacture of a successful product. The manufacturer will only make a small profit on each DVD player, but the total profit is significant, so that design has great value. The designer is paid a high wage ONLY because his work product has value to his employer.

And let's be clear. No one is forced to buy a DVD player. People trade some of their cash for a DVD player only when they decide they WANT the DVD player, and they deem the trade to be advantageous to THEM.

The people of Uganda are not incapable of creating wealth, they have little incentive to do so because their own government steals too much of it.

Nigel also makes the accusation that people are blind to the truth, when it is he who fails to learn from human history, and ignores human instinct.

How much wealth existed worldwide 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago? Less than now certainly, so it must be possible to create new wealth.

Communism as an economic system, has proven itself to be an abject failure everywhere it's been tried. The Chinese have maintained the Political structure of the Marxists, but their economy has been moving steadily towards a market based system, with spectacular results.

The reason communism fails is that it does not take human instinct.into account. If there's no reward for working hard or assuming risk, most people will do as little as possible. In the old Soviet Union everyone had money, but there was nothing to buy. Shortages existed because there was no incentive to produce more.

Answer 2

there are two easy ways first is to eradicate every human and give the planet back to the plants and animals. that would get rid of all human poverty. the second is to live in a Communist society. everyone gets the same pay so everyone has the same and everyone wins. no poor, no rich and everyones equal

Answer 3

first eradicate ur poverty n then try to eradicate the poverty of others.

Answer 4

Make the poor people Rich, bring down the Rich to the poverty level.

Note: As you & I know both are the two impossible tasks.

Answer 5

there is one easy way - but it seems to be beyond the mental capacity of humanity to grasp it - if you can grasp it, let me know -

there is US$75,000 a year per family - [divide world annual income by number of families in the world] - ie, every family working average hard is producing US$75,000 of wealth - [this has to be true, because annual world wealth is equal to annual world products of work - and because of the meaning of average]

the range of work fulltime workers do is small - 40-80 hours a week - ie, broadly speaking, everyone works - [broadly speaking, the poor work harder, because they have to, to survive] - housewives do 70-90 hours a week - no one can slack without getting fired - most people at work just get on with it and dont try to slack - it is harder trying to get away with slacking than just to work

so no one works much harder than the average, and no one works much less than the average - so extreme range of pay is clearly unjust, ie theft, which causes violence [war and crime] - and violence has escalated to nuclear winter tomorrow - so for justice, and for avoiding complete human extinction, and for avoiding poverty, and also for avoiding tyranny and undemocracy and unfreedom, which are only possible with extreme overpay, we would do well to greatly increase equality

this can be done by limiting fortunes to the most a person can earn by their work [US$2 million or less, in 2006 dollars] and spreading the overfortunes equally among all families, and limiting family incomes to the most a family can earn by work [US$100,000 a year] and distributing the overincomes equally among all families

[equally among all families, rich and poor, because 1] 99% of people are underpaid, 2] it saves enormous bureaucratic cost [waste] of deciding who is to get, 3] and the overpaid are getting whittled down to their earnings anyway]

this will give every family another US$70,000 a year

and give everyone world peace and friendliness - and survival - and freedom from poverty, ie slavery, underpay - and freedom from tyranny and undemocracy and terrorism [mostly state]

such an idea has many advantages [i have listed over 70 big advantages] - but apparently humans are too dumb for it - very few people have shown enthusiasm for the idea - although no one has faulted it - although 99% gain financially from it - although 100% gain enormously from it - although everyone has to agree it will work - although everyone has to agree that it will improve happiness enormously [i prove it simply]

apparently there is a big hole where people's brains about this should be

see my other answers for more details

encourage me by having a sane discussion about it

Answer 6

you would no longer favor to get rid of poverty completely,because few human beings would paintings if it changed into no longer the money which drove them to.yet nevertheless you're an fairly sturdy guy to imagine aboout such stuff

Answer 7

eradicate the politicians

Answer 8

We can't. Each person makes their own way in life. Their own choices. It has to be this way for us, as individuals, to learn our life lessons.

Answer 9

make even the distribution of all the earths resources.

Answer 10

Cure the criminal mind !!