English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

12 answers

Spoken from a poor person's point of view. No one owes you anything. Just learn to deal with it and you'll find out that there are a lot worse things than being poor.

2006-11-04 10:16:03 · answer #1 · answered by Pearl 6 · 2 0

The World poor are poor because their governments are corrupt and incompetent. These countries also do not posses a system of private property rights that the rich countries have. This prevents the creation of wealth.

For example, if you send $10 Trillion to Zimbabwe, it will not make a damn bit of difference as long as Thug/Dictator Robert Mugabe is in charge.

This pie in the sky romantic notion of Rich people simply giving money to help the poor DOES NOT WORK. "Enough money to go around" has nothing to do with it.

.

2006-11-04 09:04:09 · answer #2 · answered by Zak 5 · 1 0

There are a lot more poor than their are rich, so there is not enough money to take care of everyone. The rich countries and people should probably help the poor more than they do

2006-11-05 12:10:37 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 0 0

More could be done, even considering the insufferability of dictatorship governments & so forth.

Humans are easily distracted by the frivolous closeby while living unaware or unrespondent to tragedy out of sensory range.

It has alot to do with distance & what the 5 senses encompass.

And quite frankly, if someone has never been poor, the idea of poverty is not very well developed in their mind.

;-)

2006-11-04 13:51:18 · answer #4 · answered by WikiJo 6 · 0 0

They can and they do. Bill and Melinda Gates have set up the Gates foundation, which is targeting poorer nations with assistance in battling basic diseases like malaria. And they don't just do a little bit, they do it with billions of dollars.

Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the US, is giving almost his entire fortune, $35 billion, to the Gates foundation. He figures since they already have the infrastructure and backbone set up, they'll be able to channel more of his actual cash to the needy rather than him setting up his own organization, which would cost a lot.

2006-11-04 14:16:17 · answer #5 · answered by szydkids 5 · 0 0

I think we need to teach people to help themselves and give them the tools to get started. Throwing more money at problems doesn't always tend to solve them. And people need to realize that there are many people in this world who do not want to learn to live independently. They are lazy or drug addicted and do not intend to work. Everyone has a free will, and we can not make them work, go through school or kick a bad habit.

2006-11-04 08:23:18 · answer #6 · answered by scottnkris819 2 · 0 0

It can't, no longer as all of us are conscious of it )and if that seems a sturdy element, then i'm going to make it extra specific: no longer as any style of non-subsistence society). money is the grease, in case you will, that makes every person's barter products or centers fungible. with out that, one has to discover a individual in % until now getting something for such. As time passes with out looking somebody in %, ability centers (which incorporate "basic" labor, I ought to element out, no longer basically Tom Cruise's centers) circulate wasted and can by no skill be recovered and products depreciate and run the prospect of never having been appropriate initially. it relatively is 2d serious use is as a save of fee. This frees incredibly issues to be utilized by skill of society particularly than held in disuse for somebody's destiny concerns while they might properly no longer be smart in any respect. It makes available for us to save up fee in years of precise skill so we at the instant are not plenty on those too youthful to be in those years yet. As they might communicate approximately their own desires and families particularly than their getting previous mom and dad and grandparents, we come across society itself extra ideal via extra desirable families and having extra people effective because of the fact they are in a position to start being so earlier. finally, it brings into service comparative benefit, with out which, human society may well be plenty the poorer via waste. So money is very significant to me, the two for my concerns for society and for the flaws it brings me. i might upload, own family members tend to be much less complicated while the pressures that incorporate too little money (and those coming with too plenty besides) fade into the previous with a average quantity of funds available. And for society, if no longer money, then something often like it is going available or we are finished. by skill of how, a uncomplicated commencing element for those with money is a mistake approximately something from the Bible. money isn't the inspiration of all evil. It relatively says: "for romance of funds..." that's an extremely different element.

2016-11-27 19:10:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

What's that old saying? It's harder for a rich man to get into heaven, than it is for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle.

2006-11-04 08:20:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

there was a number that i saw last year that said a conservative number for solving global world hunger as 20 billion to give them like crops and irrigation and stuff... and the other statistic was that americans alone spend 20 billion dollars on ice cream

2006-11-04 08:22:55 · answer #9 · answered by matthewsays 1 · 1 1

No matter how much money a person has they should always help out the less fortunate.

2006-11-04 08:22:12 · answer #10 · answered by morris 5 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers