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

watched a program earlier about a place that makes the money like £5 and £10's, why dont we just create loads more and use it to feed poor, not just that but use the money to build more homes for the homless etc etc??

2006-11-30 21:56:29 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

13 answers

If you were to just make more money the value of the money goes down. With the value being less more people would not be able to afford the things they need to live. Pretty soon a dollar would be worth a penny. The best way to take care of the poor among us is to have high employment so they can get jobs. If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Same goes for giving money to the poor. Earning their own way would give their lives more value.

2006-11-30 22:09:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I think its a great idea I don't know why they don't do it I think the just want us to suffer they are mean I think they look at it they would lose there entertainment they couldn't wtch a person not have money for a house and cry they enjoy watching me suffer mean dipshits

2014-05-15 22:07:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Re feeding the poor: They have food stamps, most cities have food pantries & my town has a kitchen which serves a hot meal to a minimum of 400 people per day; more in the winter. Churches help their poor. My church provides home made cupcakes to the food kitchen. Another church gets the leftovers from a local bakery (baked that day) for the kitchen. Most churches are involved by donating foods &, of course, individuals & companies send donations of food and money. Schools provide hot lunches free to school children. In my town, at least, no one needs to go hungry.

Re housing: Blocks of homes built by Habitat for Humanity are being built here & more are added each year. The people who buy them must be able to afford them along with utilities. If the poor are on SSI they are required to pay 1/4 of rent or mortgage & welfare picks up the rest. We have several old hotels where the poor live downtown near pantries, kitchens, free medical clinics, laundry & shower facilities. They get winter clothing & blankets free. If anyone lives on the street it is because they chose to.

When you consider subsidized housing, free food & free medical care, the poor aren't so poor compared to the poor in other countries.

And don't you think that the poor should take responsibility for something? I don't believe in free loading, do you?

2006-12-01 06:12:16 · answer #3 · answered by Judith 6 · 0 0

Good grief, just printing more currency does not increase wealth, it'll only cause inflation. You can print off a billion dollars, but what has really changed? Nothing, that's what. If you are someone who produces food, and suddenly people start coming in with bucket loads of money, you're going to wise up real quick and jack up your prices. You cannot magically produce 10 times as much food just because people suddenly offer you 10 times as much money.

You want a more technical sounding answer: money creation is linked to economic fundamentals by the banking system that creates money. If you de-link money creation from economic fundamentals, it will compromise the currency.

2006-12-01 11:22:30 · answer #4 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 0 0

Impossible. This can never happen, at least not in a democratic country. Reason is the 20/80 rule can never be broken.

20% population of a country earns as much as the other 80% population. In fact the 20%, who are considered RICH, earns FROM the other 80% population, who comprises middle-class and the poor. If we were to make money FOR the poor, it would mean we defy the priciple of capitalism, ie, wealth is to be distributed equally to all population, ie reducing the 20% rich's wealth and distributing to the other 80% poor, This scenario is least likely going to happen. Even communist countries, like China and Vietnam takes a "democratic" approach when it comes to wealth distribution.

2006-12-01 09:41:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

(A) Because money is not the solution to a problem it is merely a shortcut
(B) Inflation, the more money that is around the less value each unit of currency has (100 years ago a pound would buy you allot more then it does today) it has to do with Scarcity
So simply (in my opinion) the more money that is printed the more things cost so the more money you need to buy the same things, a self defeating cycle
As a tumbleweed1954 said, we work to pay for foreign aid
(spellchecker: greatest thing since sliced bread)

I know nothing

2006-12-01 06:18:15 · answer #6 · answered by confus 1 · 0 0

As it is naturally, there will be poor and the rich people all around. The only way to help the lest privilege is to check and see among them that are wiling to learn a trade and assist them in that direction. As the saying goes: give a man a fish, you have feed him in one day, but teach him how to fish, you have feed him throughout his life time.

2006-12-01 06:26:12 · answer #7 · answered by joe 3 · 0 0

Just print more money. What a genius idea. Who would have thought, with all the intelligent people in the world, someone on Yahoo Answers would come up with a solution to the world's poverty?

2006-12-01 06:05:03 · answer #8 · answered by jpmk054 2 · 2 0

In a truly global economy, it would work. But we don't have a truly global economy, so one economy make more money will only make inflation. This would cause other economy's money more valuable and invalidating the economy that just made more money.

2006-12-01 06:08:40 · answer #9 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 0 0

We do make money for the poor. That's why we go to work.

2006-12-01 05:58:30 · answer #10 · answered by tumbleweed1954 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers