How do we reduce poverty without resorting to socialism?

Answer 1

We as a society cannot 'reduce' poverty. It's our own over-blown ego's to think we can change someone without those in poverty wanting to change.

Don't believe me? Here's an example- of those who go to the Betty Ford Clinic for their drinking problems, over 98% of those who are forced to go will drink again. For those who check in, the rate of success is 3 to 4 times higher

Instead, we can provide the tools to pull yourself out of poverty. We, as a society, cannot be so naive to think that all those in poverty want to come out of poverty.

Take China, for example. The government dictating what is right and wrong for thousands of years failed to the extreme, but a decade or two of capitalism, and China has more billionaires in the last two year than you can shake a stick at. There is now a 'middle class' in China- there was none 20 years ago. Poverty is changing and shifting- as more opportunities arise, a shift of labor occurs from low-income to middle-income (their standards, not ours).

If you are really interested in how society can make a difference, look at the 'Care Not Cash' initiative in San Francisco, one of the most liberal of all cities. Fed up of the homeless, the mayor instead cut back all cash payments and instead offered virtually unlimited assistance. 2 Years later, the number of homeless has dropped significantly.

While I agree that poverty is something we would like to banish, we have to be realistic on how we battle it. My belief, obviously, is that we as a society must offer choices to those in poverty so they can pull themselves out.

Give a man a fish, and he is no longer hungry. Teach a man to fish, and he will never be hungry again.

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

Socialize the oil companies. Use the profits to help the needy. Find any other grossly outrageous profiting areas and socialize them to. Use that money to cut the taxes for the middle and upper-middle class. Let the mega-rich go off and grumble. They never played fair anyway.

Or reinvent the economy so that we have neither poverty nor 50% taxation of the wealthy.

Whatever we do we will need to figure out what to do about population level. Or we shall certainly reach a point of mass poverty with whatever we choose to do. Socialism or not. Over-population is a dead-end track. Lets get off that train

Hear that sound? Oh, it's just the natives getting restless.

Answer 4

Undo most of the government policies that have been enacted since 1980, and remove everyone from office that ever said the words laffer curve in public. Balance the budget and run a surplus which would allow the fed to keep inflation under control with out shutting the economy down every time wages start to catch up with productivity.
Fire half the school administrators and hire reading teachers and vote against any politician that mentions education unless they are running for school board. Get rid of the war on drugs and put in sensible drug policies.

Answer 5

Encourage the creation of high quality good paying jobs. Resorting to socialism would only make things worse since socialism has a history of pulling people down without improving the position of the people on the bottom of the heap.

Answer 6

Interesting question.

What countries have the lowest poverty rates?
Finland, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweeden are amongst the lowest, all under half the US rate. How do they acomplish this? They have higher tax rates, and spend some of that tax revenue to educate, house and feed thier people, and spend less on high tech military weapons, sports stadiums, corporate welfare, etc.

Answer 7

Create an organization to collect uneaten but still sanitary food from restaurants and grocery stores, repackage and redistribute to local centers for the underprivileged.

Since we are a society based off of consumerism we have to take the unused parts and put them to better use.

The same can be done with homelessness etc...

The only reason there are not many programs out there like this is they would require massive volunteers and government support. The government is not going to support a program that would eventually undermine revenue brought in by food sales which would be lost if a program like this was instituted. Its all mathematics and money.... peace out!

Answer 8

it depends on what you mean by ''we.'' this is sort of ambiguous.
poverty is caused by things like lack of education. generally it is the government who provides things like that to the masses. so if you by ''we'' you mean the government, or us via the government, i think it's sort of begging the question...you can't have a government who takes actions such as founding universities, providing health care etc and not be socialist. that IS socialism. america has been fairly socialist for a long time.
so really it just comes down to defining terms.

now for my opinion...there are certain people who benefit from telling people that this is not a socialist nation, becuase they wont have to do things like provide health care. they just want us to be smart enough to work the machines and dumb enough to not know we're being screwed over.

Answer 9

It's a wonderful thought not to have any poverty. The trouble is I think that it might take a major over hall of the way we think, the way that we treat each other and a number of other things.

Answer 10

To reduce poverty in America? (for American citizens?) If so, we should transfer all the low paying jobs to other countries (china/india) and increase funding on education and raising human capital to nurture a workforce able to work in a more efficient environment.