2007-07-11 18:54:20 · 12 answers · asked by Edwin T 1 in Social Science ➔ Economics
i don't agree with your premise. First, what is included in arms expenditure? ie coast guard, family support benefits, education to soldier benefits. Next, what are you including in poverty reduction? Only government expenditures? Private expenditures on charities greatly over shawdow government spending yet not a lot of people provide their own national defense. Next, what is poverty? the world definition or the relative definition the US uses? Finally, what is a poverty reduction and medical research, education reduces poverty and helps medical research so are you counting the billions spent on education. Maybe we should all just have $20,000. let the gov take everything above that and give it to anyone that doesn't have it around the world. I don't have 20K so I would love that. What do you think would happen?
2007-07-12 04:30:24 · answer #1 · answered by haggismoffat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know why but its disgraceful. Having spent a year in India i have seen extreme poverty first hand and it is something that does need to be sorted out.
Also we need to spend more money on medical research.
I can't believe that the world is just spending more money on arms helping to cause more destruction and problems in the world instead of sorting out the problems we already have!!!
Make Poverty History!!
2007-07-11 19:04:04 · answer #2 · answered by sophia f 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Capitalism serves one major function; the accumulation of wealth. Conflict is an extremely good way to accumulate wealth. The genuine hardship being endured by billions of people and the destruction of the planet are nothing, so long as a very small number of people are becoming fantastically rich. There is a reason for this that I'm not going to go into.
2007-07-12 12:43:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Arms build-up feeds upon itself. One side arms; the other side arms for protection; the first side thinks the second side is arming for more than protection, so it arms further; and so on. The escalation game is on!
No such cumulative process is observed in poverty reduction and medical research. A shame.
2007-07-12 05:51:37 · answer #4 · answered by Econblogger 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The business of arms sales is a big business, and without conflicts engineered for the marketing of weapons, it will fail to be a big revenue producer for the corporations within it, nor for the state bureaucracies that endorse it.
Please read "War is a Racket".
2007-07-11 19:10:00 · answer #5 · answered by pedro 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Becaause few of us if we are healthy worry about health but all of us to a greater or lesser extent worry about wealth and the need to protect or get itt. This is extended to governments
rebels etc
2007-07-13 05:27:09 · answer #6 · answered by Scouse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the poor and sick can not buy things and so will not give you any wealth for working on their behalf. On the other hand the war mongers have the profits of their past imperialism to distribute
2007-07-13 08:14:15 · answer #7 · answered by bletherskyte 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Twisted priorities.
why do convicts in jail have better facilities than old people in "care" ?
Because the world is being run by maniacs
2007-07-11 19:13:50 · answer #8 · answered by Debi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the human race LIKES killing, the rest is just a chore, with no adrenalin pump
2007-07-11 19:06:22 · answer #9 · answered by lulu 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because selling weapons will realise a quicker and higher profit than eradicating diseases like cancer ever can.
2007-07-12 02:55:13 · answer #10 · answered by HUNNYMONSTA 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋