What can be done to end poverty and wealth/income inequality worldwide without resorting to socialism?

Question

rege - some people have mental impediments and the only job they can get is a low paying fast food job. it's not their fault.

Answer 1

A big "do-over"?
Life is a zero-sum game.. the rich get richer and consequently the poor get poorer.. what you're looking for is a Utopian world community.. perfect people inhabiting a planet that supplies everything they want or need.. unfortunately people aren't perfect and greed is the primary motivation (after survival?) .. next may be vanity or lust depending on gender? This probably explains the spread of capitalism.. Can anyone explain why so-called "rich" countries are sending foreign aid (taxpayers' dollars) to a country like China, which by the way, must be laughing their butts off.. Is it not fairly obvious that most charitable contributions don't find their way to the most needy but are "diverted" into the pockets of rich officials? Perhaps what is required is laws with substantial penalties to combat corruption and police with "teeth" to enforce them but then you would need watchdogs to keep the enforcers from "straying" from the straight and narrow.. ad nauseum.. This might explain why government everywhere has grown like a plague of virulant scumbags.. To add to the rant, what about the legal system? Why are blood-sucking lawyers making more money than even doctors? Is financial health worth more than physical health?
I get a headache thinking about all the "problems" in the world .. OUCH!

Answer 2

Thee's nothing wrong with some people being wealthy. The problem is some people not havig enough--and tying the two together is a serious mistake.

The answer is threefold.:

1) Governments (particularly in third world countries) that are so corrupt and incompetant they wreck the local economy. Currently Zimbabwe is a classic example. The answer is NOT, as some would have it, to resort to force,except rarely. Rather, a combination of diplomatic and economic pressure--and patience--can bring real change--as we saw in the same region with South Africa a few years ago.

2)NOT restricting individual initiative and incentive. Capitalism, unrestrained (see belw) can be destructive of individual rights and opportunity--but implemented in a balanced way, is the best economic system for producing goods and services humanity has yet devised--by so wide a margin that even comparing it to any other system is laughable. The problemm is distribution--but before goods and services can be distributed, first they have to be produced. And for that you need a capitalist economy.

3)Equity. What I mean here is something a bit differnt than "government regulation" the way we usually understand it. Rather, a return to the concept that was originally associated with early efforts and regulating the capitalist economy (not the methods--those didn't work very well). The idea is to ensure a "level playing field" for everyone. This simple phrase is VERY complex to put into practice--but here's the sort of thing I mean:
a) Not allowing covert or hidden financial arrangements (insider trading, undisclosed stock options, etc). This is critical--we'e seen multi-billion dollar companies (Enron, etc) destroyed by this sort of thing--and historicallly, this is one of the chief problems with ensuring that "level playing field"
b) a "safety net" that is focused on maximizing education, etc. for all citizens. Conventional welfare programs Do not Work. The result of these approaches is dependancy and perpetuation of poverty. The solution is not the false conservative desire to end these programs; the solution is to start applying known methods that work--education, targeted economic development in low-income populations, etc.
c) Labor (worker) rights. NOT socialism. The right wing has equated these two rhetorically for so long most people think they are the same. They aren't. In fact--labor unions traditionally have been amongg the strongest defenders of capitalism (read a biography of Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL sometime). But a labor union, properly speaking, provides both negotiating sthrength that balances the power of tthe employer--and provides a check on employer abuses.

I'm not suggesting the above is a "comprehensive list" or a prescription of what's needed to end poverty--worldwide. Rather, its a framework that includes all of the general apporaches needed. The methods would vary widely--in an African villiage, the idea of 'worker's rights" might take the form of a village coo-op instead of a union, for example. But--if that framework were implemented--based on empirical results, not ideologies--it will work. Its really jsut a capsule summary of the common elements that are present in every historic example of prosperous, growing industiral and developing economies.

Answer 3

[UK] ok, I think this is basically a loaded question i.e. You are biased against socialism with the use of the word 'resort'... so what’s the point in answering? I shall endeavour to tell you why I am saying this, and it will give you a better overview of your question. ^^

Basically, Socialism came out of the old Marxist theory, explaining that there is class conflict between the workers (the proletariat) and the capitalists (bourgeois) the capitalists, the people that own the means of production and the ones who keep the workers in their place, make a profit though producing a product cheaper than they sell it. One definition of socialism is the means by which a state could reach communism. However, socialism has been redefined into a number of ideologies and ideas over the last century, resulting in a lot of confusion among those who are not familiar with the subject.

You must understand that by disregarding socialism, you actually disregarding the whole way of ‘fighting’ poverty. Socialism is the way of fighting it. Therefore, anything that does help poverty is by definition a socialist idea, because its anti-free market to provide people with a fair wage, for example.

So herein lies the answer to your question. The answer is that you are asking the wrong question. Your question does not allow any form of left wing ideas, meaning you cannot help people. Therefore, your question should be ‘how can we utilise socialism to form a safety-net for the losers in capitalism, without infringing upon our free market system too much?’ If you ask this question email it to me and I will then give what I see as a good answer ^^

Answer 4

You will never be able to "end" poverty/wealth disparities. It certainly is not the fault of a mentally incompetent person to not be able to rise above a low-paying job, but that certainly doesn't mean he should be given a mansion in the suburbs either. In America there are resources to "help" those less fortunate. But when you start talking worldwide, that's a different story. There will always be despots and bullies who will prevent the upward mobility of the very poor. That's how they hold on to their power. Unless you are advocating a one-world government where the more fortunate are taxed to help someone half a world away...just isn't realistic, my friend.

Answer 5

I'm in the U.S.

Shrink the bureaucracy. Rework the entire system from the fundaments without special interest groups in mind. Particularly, clean up legal, tax, and insurance snafus. Decriminalize victimless crimes. Aggressive population control with eugenics. Eliminate all subsidies.

(of couse we already have resorted to socialism; my answer assumes that you remove it)

The correct answer to the question "Which is better, capitalism or socialism?" IS that the optimum is a mix of the two, but socialism is to be used only in very specific situations. Socialism is the correct way to handle intellectual property; that is the big one. Intellectual property is not a physical commodity and does not need to be distributed via a market. The fix is complex but worthwhile. Information hoarding has a huge negative effect. All kinds - art, music, technology; everything.

Think for a moment about how much this affects wealth inequality; if we all already own all art, movies, music, and patent rights, then we are all made more wealthy in an important way.

I like our socialist highway system, too, but I can't come up with a reason why it can't be done privately now that we have 'smart pass' type technology.

I also like the idea of national parks, which I guess is more of a communism than a socialism...

Now, that's just for the U.S., and off the top of my head. To make it worldwide, simply dissolve all borders and merge all nations. Free trade everywhere. Let the market forces balance everything.

You can't end wealth inequality. It's the voltage of capitalism. You can mitigate it, and you can correct the rewards system to reflect actual contribution.

Answer 6

Poverty originates from three sources. There is poverty in poor countries caused by incompetent or greedy governments who tolerate poverty for their own benefit. There is poverty in third world and developing countries primarily due to the control of trade and finance within the developed world. Finally there is poverty within developed countries arising from a lack of social responsibility by government and population alike.

The last of these can only be reduced by public demand, through the ballot box, the media, and by public example.

The second can only be reduced by the powerful nations of the world demonstrating a willingness for fair dealing. To demand and accept less so that poorer countries can have more. It is also necessary to accept that war and strife in the world benefits powerful wealthy nations far more than it does the poorer nations.

The first is perhaps the most difficult to reduce without violating the generally held principles of freedom, independence, and national sovereignty

Answer 7

Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.

Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the population with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).

Actual economics is the persons paying the monthly business loan payments of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.

Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.

Anti-democracy republicanism is the psychology of imaginary parents and false government.

Answer 8

Why do you feel it necessary to end inequality? Some people do better than others. They key is equal opportunity. If you do well, good for you. If you don't do well, keep trying.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet became multi-billionaires in their own lifetimes because they made the best of their opportunities. If the best one can do it work in a fast food restaurant, there is no way to eliminate the inequality.

Answer 9

Elect more leaders similar to FDR. FDR created what I like to call a pseudo capitalist-socialist society. This worked for DEcades in balancing powers and protecting the poor until recent decades when the Republican party started de-regulating and reversing many aspects of FDR's New Deal.

Answer 10

first eliminate the necessity for government employees invovlement in individual's lives; computerize or re-invent the paper application and insure this process.

there are plenty of social workers who can apply their skills in a number of other positions.

keep the ecomony moving; toward job creation, and not just re-alignment.

ps: prevent harrassment of individuals who may request assistance, work to create an environment where a realistic understanding of temporary need is also necessary for individuals as well as families. In reality, it is not necessarily 'your' tax dollars assisting persons who have a set back, it may very well be their own.