In what sense or circumstances is "the poverty of the poor not caused by the wealth of the rich"?

Question

This is a quote from Michael Howard MP when he was leader of the British Conservative Party

Answer 1

Poverty of spirit... has no relationship to monetary wealth... this is the way I would translate it.

This can apply whatever walk of life you are born into.

Answer 2

This statement is not entirely accurate. We have an economic system that allows certain people to become extremely wealthy while others live in poverty that is difficult to escape. It is true that the rich are not individually responsible for the situation of poor people, but the economic system that we live under is responsible for both the wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor.

Answer 3

If the rich get their wealth by increasing the net output of the economy, then they need not take any thing from the poor to gain wealth. For much of the time since the beginnings of civilization economic growth was only the result of an increase in labor, so who was rich and who was poor , was the result of dividing a fixed economic pie. However the industrial revolution changed everything, and everyone could become better off.

Answer 4

I am not sure but will take a stab at it. the wealth he refers to are the average working joes who are considered wealthy, like a doctor or surgureon, or a high class lawyer, their weatlh is not causing poverty.

the cause of poverty is multifaceted, but basically it is interference by the wealthy bankers and rulers who want these countries not to develope and not to benefit from their resources or the free market. the wealthy elites or rulers want teh weatlh for themselves (creeps). they block markets that the poor country would benefit from, won't allow them to use loans to buy technology that will create necessary machinery to harvest ores increase crop production, build planes trucks for transport of goods or whatever.

so they do things like fund enviromental groups to protest and block devleopment in other countries and even here sometimes, they do it to protect the envrioment the payers do it to loot the enviroment for themselves. they use loans as a way to control other nations and loot them.

they know that they won't be able to pay off the loans that is the idea so what they essentially do is block any efforts of the government or people to develope and bring themselves out of poverty. this is not a free market, that is a doublespeak, it is actually very much manipulated and controled by the very rich (corporations and bankers some rulers etc) to skew all markets in their favor.

So the wealth of the upper average joe doens't cause poverty, but the bankers who control the money do.

RRRR

Answer 5

He meant, the root cause for poverty is not the wealth of the wealthy. (my take is, that poverty stems from multiple causes and wealth of a few "could be" in some cases one of them, not everybody can be wealthy, so somebody has to be poor)

Answer 6

It's the difference between "Dirty Poverty" and "Clean Poverty".
"Dirty Poverty" is just that, dirty. People who live in a decnt apartment but trash the place - they never pick up or clean up, their belongings are all broken, there's cockroaches, ants, and flies everywhere because the garbage is all over the floor, they are always sick, drunk, stoned, and they don't care.
"Clean Poverty" is just that - clean. They have nothing, but their house is swept, their kitchen is sparkling, they have two bites of food that taste so very good, not a speck of dust anywhere, and their clothes are mended, their belongings are clean and mended, and they are happy working.
Both get government assistance here in California. Money does not change them.
"Dirty Poverty" stays dirty, stays where they are, and never changes.
"Clean Poverty" rarely stays in poverty for very long.
"Dirty Poverty" loses everything, becomes homeless, and dies of a myriad of preventable dieseases.
More people pull themselves out and up from "Clean Poverty" than "Dirty Poverty".

Answer 7

It means the rich did not cause the poor to be poor. Just as the oppsite would be true, the poor did not cause the rich to be rich.

That's how I read it.

Answer 8

to continue to remain in poverty lack of ambition and lethargic attitude not believing nature