Is ending world poverty a myth?

Question

Capitalism thrives on free markets, and a free market will always produce 'haves' and 'have nots'. All this talk at the G8 summits about ending world poverty seems like a complete myth, as a poor country is only defined as being poor in relation to wealthy nations, and no leader of a wealthy capitalist nation is going to erode its own nations wealth in order to make another country 'less poor'.

So, although a wealthy country may be willing to send aid to a poorer country to alleviate it's immediate suffering, unless we stop exploiting the poorer countries workforce then all this talk about ending world poverty is a complete myth. It seems that capitalism/globalization is at complete odds to ending world poverty. What do you think?

Answer 1

if we ended poverty...the rich wouldn't look so rich...do you think that would ever happen...as they are the ones running everything? i think not

Answer 2

Even if your definition of poverty is one countries wealth compared to another.. so lets say hypothetically americas standard of living right now was the standard living for the poorest nation in the world.. and at that point that standard of living was considered poverty.. even then if free markets were opend across the board then the wealth of all the nations would start to even out.
But I would say that Poverty is on a large scale caused by a few people making decisions that are benefical to them only on a small scale compared to how harmful that same decision is to the other people it affects. These decisions are usually made in government.. where the cost of making a bad decision is extremly small.
But even if everyone smartened up and made government smaller, poverty is also caused by laziness, and addiction, and even excessive greed. So there will always be pockets of poverty, because there will always be people that are lazy, addicts, or excessivly greedy. The only thing that can be done is limiting that behavor by making it cost more than it's worth. So whether or not it's possible I dare not say.. but we can definatly get close.

Answer 3

People always assume that poverty doesn't exist in their own country!There is abject poverty here in britain. Not Reletive Poverty but Abject Poverty which is needed as a process throught market forces to reduce wages!

Capitalism feeds off poverty and just because a country is rich it doesn't mean its occupants are! Why do you think we "need" immigrants? Some how, I don't think any working class member of society wishes this ready influx of migrant workers.
Mass unemployment is a lovely way to control society especially when coupled with a punitive welfare system. (Britain today!)
People will then work for anything, forcing the wage bill down! So then you get the povert gap between working classes and middle classes widening!

Africa is the most arable continent in the world, but because of the wars there, the farming potential is destroyed. No wonder that Western Governments do not go in with guns blazing!

We live in a very sick world! And it doesn't seem to be getting better!

Answer 4

Aid will not be able to lift third world or 'failed nations' out of their poverty for many reasons. Often the main reasons is that corrupt leaders in the countrys syphon it off for their own use. Trade and the free market do create haves and have-nots but they do also create opportunities in a country for those who are motivated and able to go out a create wealth.
Several previously poor countries have emerged as powerful new players in the world economy. They have done this through increased trade.
The other side to this, unfortunately, is that with increased trade, industry and wealth we tend to find greater environmental degredation and so some areas may become more productive for a number of years before becoming depleted and exhausted and with their ability to produce food and clean water for the region deteriorated, therefore increasing poverty for a greater proportion of the population.
The damage we in the west are causing by producing greenhouse gasses and stripping natural resources is also having a more immediate effect in some of the poorest areas of the world. There, as a direct result of our practices, we find increased drought, increased extreme weather, and other environmental problems caused by over farming, the demand for cash crops and petroleum products, the list goes on. This environmental degredation causes extreme poverty and some nations are slipping further and further.
And so, I would argue, ending world poverty is not a myth. But it is a massive task which needs approaching in a new way. Aid is obviously a good thing and I am sure it saves millions of lives each year but it is not a solution. We must look at the root causes and change our own behaviour to really help the natons in greatest need.
I am sorry I could not give too many references or examples as this is a relatively new area of study for me. There are many charities that have good information that may help you answer this question, and a lot of good books published. I have one called 'Poor Story' but as it is at home and I can't remember the author that may not help!
I reccommend doing a little of your own research too, although I warn that it can be very depressing!

Answer 5

Yes, ending world poverty is a myth. As you have correctly stated, capitalism needs inequality to survive. Capitalism is a very cruel and destructive society, but the people who benefit from it also own the media, so they constantly tell us that everything is fine.

Development is only defined along western capitalist lines. These undeveloped countries are probably culturally infinitely superior to the west, but unless there is a small number of people causing millions of their fellow country people genuine hardship with their possession of fantastic wealth, then that country is called under-developed or developing (which is the new term.)

Aid comes at a cost. It has to be paid back (usually) with interest. Or it is tied, they are forced to spend the aid money in the country which has provided it. This leaves poorer nations paying off interest on their 'aid' with all the money that they can get from exports etc.

The richest nations on this planet, have become dependant upon the interest payments that they are receiving from the poorer nations from their 'aid.'

Then there is competition. Take Africa as an example. It is a massive country with considerable resources and a massive labour force. If Africa were to be developed along capitalist lines, it would become a very serious competitor for the US. Africa is a lot closer to Europe, and transport is the most expensive aspect of any business. This would cost the US a fortune in lost exports etc, which would do great harm to the US economy.

There are global considerations to aid. If large countries like Africa, China, Mexico etc become global competitors, then they will need energy, lots of it, which will pour CO2 into the atmosphere. It's not global warming that we should be most worried about, it's the oceans absorbing all that CO2 and becoming too acidic to support life. That would be very serious indeed.

So, to answer your question, ending world poverty would be a disaster for the entire planet and it 'is' a myth. It's not that world poverty couldn't be ended, it would be quite easy in my opinion, it's that the consequences that development and being developed are having upon the environment are devastating. The oceans are absorbing the CO2 and are becoming far too acidic to support life.

I believe that we need to take a look at the very nature of the society that we live in to resolve the world poverty problem.

Answer 6

I live in a South American country, where there is much poverty. Most of it is because the people lack education, and cannot figure out how to alleviate their suffering. They continue to do things the way they have for generations, and so the basics like clean water, sufficient food, and proper housing never get any improvement. Add to this the rampant corruption by government and officials, which seem designed to keep the poor in their place, and you get a situation where nothing ever changes - the rich get richer, and the poor are just tolerated, and are used as a source of cheap labour. That's the way it is with humanity in general..I cannot see any rich country giving up it's wealth to sustain the poor elsewhere. There are too many people on the earth anyway, and it seems to me that the laws of natural selection are still in charge......

Answer 7

Third world poverty can be solved by better education. Populations in highly educated countries (like Finland) is dropping. Countries that have a lot of poverty tend to have a poor educational infrastructure. The main problem that causes poverty is over population. If there are less people sharing the resources they get more. In economic terms if the population in the third world countries that are exploited for cheap labour falls, the free market will have to pay the labourers more as there will be more competition over a scarce work force.

Answer 8

i believe that ending poverty is a myth and that the ' developed' nations say that they want it to end to please the poorer nations and give them false hope into thinking that they give a poop! besides all that is to maintain false class consciousness so that the poorer nation wont rise up against the first world countries. i think if people really wanted to end poverty they would have because it have to much money oin the world to have people living like they do in Somalia, and certain parts of Asia.
besides people like power. if we ended poverty then how would the 'now' rich persons maintain their power. i believe the best thing if they cared would be a socialist economy but socialism is often equated with communism even though they are different. but then again that would mean that someone cant look down at another person and they will be upset. after all what is having billions of dollars more than you can spend when you cant take it over when you die!
thus my ending thoughts are Socialism is the way to go and we need a revolution to start it...hence become class conscious people..!

Answer 9

A definite myth. As long as poeple continue to support a separation of social and political classes, poverty will be an ever present reality. When We as a race (the HUMAN race) realize that we are in this together and have the same basic needs... and perhaps even grow some simple compassion for one another, then things might change. As a race and as a species we are still too selfish, self centered, and immature to overcome class separation.

Answer 10

Your assumption that free markets produce haves and have nots is a quaint Marxist notion that is simply false. It assumes a zero-sum economy which doesn't exist. It also inplies that the lack of wealth of poor countries is due to the success and wealth of countries like the US. If the average wage of a worker in say India is $10 a day plowing the fields or whatnot, and Nike comes in and offers them say $20 a day to make shoes in a factory, how are they worse off for this? They're twice as wealthy, and the company saves on labor costs. It's a win win situation. Now if $20 a day isn;t enough to live on in India, then they shouldn't work in the factory should they?

Answer 11

sending money to third world countries does help their economy but that won't have them become IA countries like the USA. I don't think that ending world poverty is a myth. I still believe this can be achieved. We need to show countries how to strive economically by creating a trustworthy bank that people can actually invest in. we first need to rid the poorer countries of corrupt leaders and people.