End to poverty?

Question

Poverty could be solved in no time. If everyone gave the money that they spend on chewing gum to charity there would be no poverty. Why hasn't this happened. It is not a hard thing to do.

Answer 1

Hi do you have any back up for your solution? I did a research paper on this subject matter. There are a few questions to consider...

- Is poverty a deserving problem to abolish?
- What responsibilities to the poor have?
- What circumstances are controllable or uncontrollable>

I do agree that everyone should be more generous to the poor rather to themselves. However... everyone cannot include those who are in need who don't even have the money to buy chewing gum. There's so many things to consider like people's attitudes towards the poor and general willingness to take action. Individually, personal action towards poverty is not easily taken care of.

Answer 2

You're point is well taken...It's a matter of priorities. The US in particular could have no one in poverty at all if it just made a concerted effort to STOP WASTING and REDUCE CONSUMPTION. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is as hedonistic as it's individual members (most of whom can buy and sell most of us many times over). They're so far removed from poverty and what it means to live that way they've lost sight of how to REALLY HELP. I submit with all due respect that the US could have eliminated WORLD poverty and didn't/hasn't...why...there wasn't much more than a humanitarian need to do so...In other words if there wasn't some benefit politically or with respect to natural resources/human capital to exploit...we'd basically leave the situation alone. PEACE!

Answer 3

Charity can never solve poverty. I give as well, so I don't think it is a complete waste, but I don't kid myself it will make any long term difference. Most people in poverty in the US are not there because they were kept away from opportunity, but simply because they didn't apply themselves or they got hooked up on drugs and whatnot and couldn't make it. I have seen devastating poverty in Appalachia first hand. I have relatives living there. But I have seen people who were in the same community, who had the same level of education (grade school) and same opportunity... one family kept it's dignity and was able to feed and clothe all and be happy, while others wore rags, their kids were dirty and hungry and they were constantly being arrested. That told me at an early age that poverty isn't about the money. The more you give, the more will be asked. Instead of charity, we need to be giving education. And even with that, there will always be people who choose not to take care of themselves. The old folks and the crippled mentally or physically, sure we should take care of them. It is unlikely they can get it together to help themselves. But really, I think we need to back off on so much domestic charity in order to prompt the lazy and uninspired back to work. However, if we keep giving all of our lower level jobs to people of other countries and spending all of our money on war, I just don't see how we can lift people out of the bottom.

Answer 4

Thats an interesting philosophy.
What about all of the chewing gum companies and their employees? If everyone stopped buying it, they would be out of work and broke. Maybe you could after something that would be for the greater good, like the money spent on illegal drugs, cigarettes, porn, etc.
Or how about paying people what their jobs are really worth?
That wouldn't go over very well with the sports stars and celebs who make ridiculous salaries to entertain us. Some of them could support a whole third world country if they were so inclined.

Answer 5

The problem is that the term poverty is not always the same to many people.

Is not having a swimming pool considered to be living in a poverty?

Is not having an education considered to be living in a poverty?

Is not having a radio considered to be living in a poverty?

Is not having a 'decent' house considered to be living in a poverty?

Is not having a job considered to be living in a poverty?

Is not living in a 'good' neighborhood considered to be living in a poverty?

And so on...



But nevertheless humans have three basic needs, they're:
- drink and food to sustain the body
- clothing to protect the body
- shelter to protect oneself to the enviroment

If a human that have all of these three things is considered to be not living in poverty, then the majority of the world population (99,99%) is NOT living in poverty.

Ironically, many people who have all of these three things is considered to be living in poverty, since some people considered them to live in poverty because they don't have some certain things.


So the problem is more toward the definition of poverty itself and not to the poverty itself.

Answer 6

Ending poverty does not mean giving people something.

The old adage that "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." is apt, and means that until the poor know (as in education) how to provide for themselves they are likely to remain poor.

Most charitable groups are having problems alleviating poverty because of the giving problem. Poverty takes a firmer stance and requires real knowledge to solve. It will yet take awhile.

Answer 7

The primary cause of poverty is greedy and power hungry government leaders promoting policy that hurts the poor. For example, thanks to corruption and favoritism in many Latin American countries, capital formation is discouraged and entrepreneurship is impeded because of high start up costs and regulatory difficulties. The only answer to solving world poverty is through free markets being able to thrive and as little government regulation and taxation as possible.

Economist and researcher Thomas Sowell is a great source of information on this topic.

In addition leftist governments in developed countries do a great disservice to the poor by providing various forms of welfare and destroying work incentives. The projects in the major cities of this country are a prime example of this. In the 1960s, thanks to the policies of LBJ welfare spending increased resulting in many of the poor remaining that way by destroying their incentives to work and become educated.

Answer 8

Poverty will always be here. The less than $3.00 I have spent on gum in the last 25 years would not end much poverty. Some people will always be poor...because they waste everything they get. Give them a billion dollars, and they will gamble, drink, dope, etc, it all away, and be poor. One idiot, in California, was working at McDs', flipping burgers. He won $17,000,000.00 in the state lottery, and quit his job. THREE MONTHS LATER HE WAS BROKE AND WORKING AT A BURGER JOINT AGAIN!. There is no cure for that sort of stupidity. People are stupid...especially American people who also live for the moment. Years ago, people were asked "if you had a chance to sleep with your favorite celebrity, would you do so?" Nearly everyone said "yes!". Then, they were told that their favorite celebrity had AIDS, and they were asked again: "now would you sleep with your favorite celebrity...even though he/she had AIDS, you were sure to catch it, and soon die of it?". 50% of men, and 54% of women said they WOULD sleep with their favorite celebrity who had AIDS. The idea of being able to spend their last days bragging that "I did Angelina Jolie/Bradd Pitt" meant more than life to most people. There is no cure for that sort of stupidity. Such stupid people will always be poor...no matter how much gum money we give them.

Answer 9

Because our society is selfish. And as long as everyone isn't willing to give, it's very hard for one person to give. If a person keeps giving money to the poor, then they will have no money for themselves, and there willl still be poverty.
And chewing gum is yummy!

Answer 10

you know .. that would make a great website !

a humorous one as well .. asking people to give up 1 stick of gum .. and donating the money to your website .. in which will be sent to the charity of your choice .. sounds like a hit to me

tho it wont solve all poverty of course.. but it could def help someone .. or many people