Its not an issue of money. The issue is pride and greed. There is more than enough to go around food and materials wise, yet the only thing that keeps us from elevating our brothers is ourselves.
2007-11-20 11:36:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To eliminate poverty you must increase incomes, because if the poor are just given money ,it is spent, and then they are poor again. It will take a long term investment that improves the health, education, infrastructure, and institutions in poor countries to eliminate poverty. Someone estimated that just being born in the US is worth an average of $12,000 a year for your whole life, but it took a long time and a lot of work to create the economy here. To Understand how difficult the problem is you have only to look at the impoverished areas that still exist in the US, even after transferring money to them for decades.
If the US would devote the defense budget which was about 3% of GDP before the war, to solving the problems of world poverty, we could make a lot of progress but not solve the problems. A vaccination for malaria and other tropical diseases, clean water project, roads, and schools would be some useful ways to spend the money.
There are billions of people living in poverty so our defense budget would provide less than a dollar a day to each of them.
2007-11-20 21:07:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by meg 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good thing you don't work in the Fed.
Some countries decided all they needed to do was add more money in circulation to end their problems. Well then they got inflation and then hyperinflation. Plus if you were to just add a bunch of money into all economies, the rich will still be relatively just as rich as they were before. If you give money to only the poor countries (without securities backing it up, or some kind of asset like gold), then you have a weaker currency all around.
A better way is for the rich to give to the poor so the value of the currency doesn't go away. And that these poor people do something with this money, like start business.
2007-11-20 20:04:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Printing more money and hading it out won't solve poverty, it will only instigate rampant inflation.
Money is only a way to keep score of differences in value between dissimilar items and services over time.
And money is most certainly *not* the same as cash, which is why the first part of your question is fallacious in its assumptions.
The second part, I am sure you already know the answer to, but you also should know that it has nothing to do with the first part either.
Way more money then that trades hands on the world stock and commodities exchanges every single day. Should we shut those down for a day and solve the world's poverty issues too?
2007-11-20 21:12:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Barry C 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Money is available in even the poorest countries; the problem is it is in the hands of a few people. Poverty world wide is not a matter of money but rather distribution of it and how to maintain it. If giving money was the answer to world poverty it would be solved easily but you cannot give money to them every year or they do not have wealth or independence but rather a dependence which actually increases poverty. To get to your political point-No the U.S. could not stamp out world poverty by giving all the money it spends on war to the poor of the world; long term how does that solve the problem?
2007-11-20 20:16:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by GunnyC 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think the problem is money it's distribution. Because human nature is the way it is, poverty will always be with us. Doesn't mean you're allowed to quit trying.
It's hard to find a straight answer about the cost of the war, there are a lot of variables and it's difficult to know whos figures to trust. The numbers I've seen vary widely.
2007-11-20 19:54:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kelly P 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well lets see. There are about 6 billion people in the world? Let's say 1 billion are at or below the poverty level and we want to give each person a healthy standard of living so, multiply by what?
2007-11-20 20:17:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It will take all the money in the world.
You take away all the money, so everybody has equal wealth of zero.
As long as there are money, some will have more than others, and those others will be called poor. US "poor" have 50% obesity rate because they eat too much and do not do any work.
2007-11-20 19:33:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Can't say how much.
But, I would recommend reading "The End of Poverty"
---- a pretty good book.
2007-11-20 19:36:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by LWSW1954 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No - no one can tell you. Poverty can't be solved by throwing money at it.
2007-11-20 19:37:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by Arsan Lupin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋