If all Billionaries donate 50 % of their wealth to the poor countries can poverty eradicated?

Question

Most of the poor countries end up servicing loans taken earlier .So if these loans are be paid back at the earliest .,can the money saved on interest used for welfare programs thereby eliminating poverty.Or is it that the politicians in these countries would swindle most of these Monies.

Answer 1

It is a nice thought but you are on to something with your last sentence. You would need assurances that the money was actually going directly to the poor people to provide them with decent homes, food, education, medical care etc, and they would need some way of supporting themselves in the future without ever having to depend on another handout.
Unfortunately it is often the case that the money collected for these causes ends up in the pockets of corrupt people who have no intention of helping their own, often they are just interested in fighting.

Answer 2

Poverty today is not because of a lack of money. We don't need billionaires donating money. Governments already have more than enough money to pay off all the loans of poor countries. The fact is, governments WANT to keep people poor and oppressed. It is easier to rule over poor and oppressed people than to rule wealthy people with nearly limitless options. That is why the major part of the population of EVERY country is poor. The US government has spent $500 billion on the war in Iraq. It costs less than $1 per day to feed a family of four, in poor countries. How many people could the US have fed with $500 billion, and for how long? YOU do the math. And that is just one war being waged by one country. Consider how much money is WASTED around the world, every day on things like drugs. Also consider how much money is wasted on failed projects and over-payments. The US military, for example, pays $20,000 for a fax machine that you can buy in Office Depot for $50 or $100. Some of the money given by FEMA to hurricane victims was spent, not on rebuilding homes or businesses but on dance lessons and puppet shows. Many of the people who got money did not even live in New Orleans.

Answer 3

Almost all of it would be stolen and the final result would be MORE people living in poverty, not less. Nothing is gained by giving money outright to poor countries. The politicians see this as a chance to get rich, and the poor people don't have a clue.

As a matter of fact, not much is gained by giving money to poor people in ANY country. They are poor for a reason and it has nothing to do with money, so money will not solve the problem. If you took all the money from rich people and gave it all to poor people, within a year the rich people would have it all back and the poor people would be just as broke as before.

Answer 4

OK lets put this into perspective,

First

( I am exaggerate the amount of Billionaire for the purposes for show how this idea it totally not going to work)

Lets say they are 10,000 Billionaires with an average of 5 Billion each. That would about 50 trillion dollars.

Ok now lets add up what we give to each developing country in 06.

1% US GDP 06 = .01 * 12.5 trillion = 125 Billion
Australia = .962 Billion
UK = 4.749

look here for the rest

http://www.globalissues.org/traderelated...

For a total of 56.991 Trillion dollar

So even if we did do this we are only giving the developing countries one more year of help.

Remember that we have already forgiven their debts and this was not included in the foreign aid figure. If it were we would actually be giving when a lot more money annual then just one lottery ticket pay day.

Second of all

The developing countries and the poorer people in general in this world do not need your money to get them out of poverty, they need your schools and they need you car. The latter refers to the mass under-educated working class of pore countries. Until they learn how to do something else to make money they are stuck doing what they do. They need to eat. The latter accounts for the fact that the labor force is not educated. You need a degree to invent a crane but you don't need one to operate it!!! So giving them actual machinery, goods, instead of money is actually more helpful then giving them money.

Third Corruption

You can't just give these poorer countries money and expect them to spend the money on new machinery. By giving them machinery you are ensuring that the foreign aid is going to the people it was intended for,

Answer 5

No, if all the money spend on poverty programs in the U.S. was just handed over to the poor in the U.S. there would be no poor in the U.S.

The problem is that the very next week there would be twice the number with their hands out. It is best if people aren't given anything unless they are productive. That way there is a growing supply of wealth. Handouts produce a shrinking pile of wealth and a growing number of people with their hands out. Will not work.

Answer 6

To answer the main question, no, it wouldn't eradicate poverty.

To address your point on "loan servicing", the World Bank has tried debt forgiveness in the past--- guess what, it doesn't work. It only rewards bad behavior.

Micro credit for business consortiums in poor countries has shown the most promise; not dumping money by the truckloads on corrupt governments.

Answer 7

Poverty is more than lack of money. It's also a mindset. Most of the people that would receive this money would probably do something personally destructive with it, like drink or gamble it away, spend it on foolish stuff, or do drugs, etc. That is, if their corrupt governments didn't steal it first. And you need jobs to sustain income. A one-time cash infusion is not a long term solution for anybody.

Answer 8

many years of stable economic growth, and quite some investment in roads, colleges, clinics, utilities. unfastened Markets growth on the common with the aid of tax mechanism, and agricultural reform to apply the main recent crop technologies to offer greater yields so as that there extra nutrition for the entire inhabitants. Open up specific sectors of the economic gadget that the government does not in all probability do a stable interest of offering opportunities for like telecommunications, vehicle, nutrition stuffs, shape. yet, use capital controls on warm money coming to avert investments that are below 6 months. attempt to pay interest on homes, textiles, deliver development, railroads, and concentration on opposition better than privatization, and don't save on with the IMF rules too heavily, and discover new resourceful suggestion on the thank you to reveal screen the standard of residing of the poorest populations, and communicate convalescing get right of entry to to training, water, wellbeing care. Robin hood does not artwork as properly as having targets to improve the quantity of the nutrition available to the poorest, and elevating the educational point of the inhabitants as an entire. There no person thank you to bypass approximately reducing poverty.

Answer 9

It just means that the politicians would go out and buy even BIGGER mercedes 4 wheel drive jeeps. The rest would end up in Swiss bank accounts..

sorry to appear cynical but the facts - and history- speak for themselves. You can not give these people money.

Answer 10

Not until corruption, greed and self-poverty eradication are abolished amongst poor countries leaders, there will be no change even if billionaires poured their monies to poor countries.