In his bestseller, Confessions of An Economic Hitman, John Perkins was struck by global inequality, not only in income and wealth, but in spending. He notes that the United States spent $87 billion on a war in Iraq in 2004, while the United Nations Development Program estimates that “for less than half that amount we could provide every person on the planet with: clean water and sanitation ($9 billion); adequate diets and basic health care ($13 billion); basic education ($6 billion); and reproductive health services for all women worldwide ($12 billion). Combined they add up to $40 billion…”
We usually do not see a dollar figure attached to overwhelming global needs, but when compared with the funding for the war in
27 comments:
First of all, I would like to start by saying that I was shocked at the fact that for less of what we spend on a war in Iraq for the year of 2004 alone, we could have helped every person in the planet. After seeing the numerical figures, I feel that it is very possible to reduce poverty on a global scale. We, as a society, just need to prioritize what is more important and beneficial to a society. We need to cut back funds that may seem less important, as oppose to poverty, and add funds to the cause of ending poverty worldwide. As the wealthiest society on Earth, we can play a great role in global poverty reduction. Like mentioned, we are the wealthiest nation, but are we using our money wisely. I feel that we need to prioritize what is more important and take action in order to reduce poverty. The family unit plays a very important role in a nation. A nation is consisted of many families. If families are destroyed, this affects a nation. Poverty not solely affects an individual, but as well a family. I believe that poverty reduction is an issue of “not choosing to do it” rather than “not knowing how to do it”. The USA has the resources needed to end poverty, but in a way, we are blind to the issues affecting our country, that we focus on other less important things. We as a nation are pretty much aware of what is going on around us, thanks to, in great part, the media. Poverty cannot disappear from a night to a day. There is a process and it takes time, but any little thing done to help reduce poverty helps and that is what we are not aware of.
It is very possible to reduce poverty on a global scale. We are spending large amounts of money on a war that has been lasting for a couple of years. Like stated in the article, this money can be going to someone's health care or anothers education. Being that America is one of the wealthiest countries, I feel that we should start spending our money in more influential ways. Ways inwhich we can help reduce global poverty. Reducing global poverty is an issue that we are choosing not to deal with. The US has plenty of money to donate to help global poverty but we choose not to. I feel that the US can donate any amount of money to global poverty and we wil still remain one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Reducing global poverty will not affect our daily lives. I feel like people will have more opportunities to succeed in life. Also people will be more educated, they will have better housing opportunities and better health care. Reducing global poverty is something that the US should take pride in doing.
While I agree with the two comments above me about the US being financially able to spend the money to help eradicate work poverty; I also think that the situation is more complex than it appears. It is easy to say, "sure, we can spend this money and every person gets food, education, clean water, etc." Throwing money at the problem won't solve it. Within nations that have poverty, there can be structural problems that need to be fixed first before poverty can be addressed. For example, if a nation cannot get clean drinking water to villages because there is no easy access to them, how does it benefit those people? How does it benefit a nation that has limited electricity to be provided with computers for their classrooms?
I think that poverty reduction is a little of not knowing how to and not wanting to. There are people in the US who are in poverty and we still have not figured out how to get them out of it, and there are some people in this country who don't want to. This applies to global poverty because if we don't know how to or want to help our own citizens how can we help others?
There is a possibility of indirect effects on American lives because it comes down to where the government will get the money from. Are they going to take it away from military spending or education? Medicare and Medicaid or Social Security? Every time you want to spend money it has to come from somewhere and it means that someone in the US will loose out be it a military base that has to close, a human service no longer being offered, or less funding for a state education program.
Although I do believe obviously that something needs to be done, and we as the wealthiest nation, should take part in doing some about global poverty (as the first two comments mentioned), I agree strongly with .266’s argument. There is MUCH more to it then we realize. Yes, we are the wealthiest and more powerful nation in the world, but we are also one of the most in debt countries as well. There are plenty of cost reductions our nation could make, but it isn’t just about this. We, ourselves still have millions of people living in poverty who still need help. If our spending on certain things will indeed be reduced, this money needs to be spent on helping get our nation’s citizens out of poverty. As well, like what .266 it is also an issue of different cultures’ structure. Enormous amounts of money is donated to suffering countries in Africa, but its taken away by its leaders who spend all of the money on themselves. Just as .266 has stated, their societal structure HAS to be changed before we can give them the means to change. I think there are measures that our nation can take to help reduce global poverty but honestly, I feel as though there is a limit to how large a role we can play based on the complexity of other culture’s societal structures and hierarchies.
I agree with the first two posts that this is more an issue of choosing not to do something rather than not knowing how to do something about it. I also agree with the next two that simply throwing money at these problems will not make them go away in the long run. Building infrastructure that supports change would be necessary for transformation. That being said, I think we can be tempted to use the "it's very complicated..." excuse to eschew responsibility in issues like these sometimes.
Original post:
I have heard statements more or less like this before. When the numbers are presented back to back though, it's more than a little sad and embarrassing. When you hear things like this they they are often shocking at first, but over time one becomes almost numb and resigned about what it means, knowing nothing really will be done to change the situation. I think Kozol explains it best in Amazing Grace when he writes of "compassion fatigue" in describing how even good people can become tired of "reading about so many problems and not seeing anything get better" (Kozol, 1995, p. 209, para 2). I can definitely agree with this. It's not that people don't care - it is more that many of us don't care enough. We are self-absorbed with our own lives and feel literally worlds away from issues like poverty and injustice. We feel detached would almost rather remain so because thinking about these issues usually make us feel bad and helpless, knowing we can't tackle these great problems on our own. In resigning ourselves to these feelings, though, unfortunately we dismiss the little things we could do as individuals to offer needed help in smaller ways. This mentality takes shape at the individual level but has a profound cumulative effect; it prevents good people from taking the right steps to effect change. We can't all do it alone, but if we all don't even bother trying we can't be surprised with the outcome. I think we could also relate C. Wright Mills to an issue like this, but in an inverse way. I think most us do recognize that things like poverty and social injustice are public issues and not private troubles, but until we make the personal connection to these issues many of us will not feel the impetus to improve anything. In that vein it is definitely possible to reduce poverty on a global scale, but everyone will have to get on board. The U.S. government needs to make it a priority, both financially and publicly, by promoting it as part of the national agenda and declaring it their social responsibility. As the wealthiest nation, the U.S. needs to acknowledge its role and should be at the forefront for alleviating social ills. Social institutions like the family, school system, and media must also step up in their role, by educating citizens about social inequalities and motivating them to respond to those that need our help. If this became a national priority, and volunteerism became more of a norm, many more people would be motivated to help than do already.
If we did choose to reduce global poverty, I think it would make people feel better about themselves in their daily lives. We would feel more productive and probably have a higher sense of self worth. As far as negative consequences, I don't think there really would be any. In terms of the old argument that you might have to "give up" more than you wanted to, if everyone donated even a small to moderate amount, they would still have plenty left over to live comfortably and without sacrificing those important luxuries. Maybe the change would lead to a decline in consumerism, especially if cultural norms shifted to favor public service over conspicuous consumption. Over the long term, hopefully we could begin to shape our nation and others to be more like those of Sweden and Denmark where social policies like healthcare, childcare, and education are national rights, income inequality is low, and people report higher levels of happiness.
I am not surpirsed to find out that the United States spent on the war in Iraq. I think it is very possible to reduce poverty on a global scale. I don't think helping people in poverty shouldn't be a choice. I think everyone should want to help people in poverty. Giving people in poverty the basic needs like food, water, and clothing are ust as important, maybe more important than the war in Iraq. I think poverty reduction is an issue of both not knowinghow to do it and not choosing to do it. I don't think the United States even knows where to start when it comes to reducing poverty because it's such a huge problem. I also think the United States is choosing not to because they are occupied with other issues in our country.
If we chose to reduce global poverty, it would have a good effect on our lives because we would be helping people in need of our assistance. Reducing global poverty could also effect our daily lives in a negative way. This could increase the amount of taxes that we pay which means we wouldn't be able to live as comfortably as we might want to. This means we would have to sacrifice certain things to help others and some people aren't willing to do that. I think reducing global poverty is a must and the United States should do something about it quickly before it gets worst.
Global poverty is a very complex thing to end for any country to combat. I think it is possible to reduce poverty, however as far as America is concerned we want a higher standard of living that we would be unable to attain if we gave our money to other countries and people to end poverty. I am shocked as well that we spend more money on the war than it would take to give every person on the planet basic things that as Americans we take for granted. I think as the wealthiest society we should give to those in need and work with other countries in order to end poverty. I think that our country is very focused on being powerful and protected the wealth that we do have know, those why so much is spent on our military. Poverty reduction in my opinion is "not choosing to do it" because we are too afraid that other countries will advance to be more powerful than us, as well as the notion that we take away something from ourselves by helping others (which may not be the case). If we did choose to reduce global poverty I believe many of our lives would benefit including having basic health care (which as students many of us will lack in a few years), and in many ways our lives will not change because we already have services like education and sanitation available. I disagree partly with 307's comment that as a country we focus on less important things than poverty because our basic needs as a country have already been met therefore we focus our efforts on stimulating our economy, legislation toward equality, democracy, and other efforts such as health care and higher education. Our society is indeed focuses more on ourselves than other countries however this does not mean it is less important. There needs to be global communications with various countries and governments in order to end poverty which our individualist society is just not focused on presently (most likely because we do not see immediate benefits from such actions).
Based upon the small insertion of how much money was spent on the war in Iraq, I do believe that it is possible to reduce poverty on a global scale. I say this for various reasons. It has always seemed to be the case that our country has put other things first before what may be considered important. The United States has always been a country to help others and put other countries first. However, we try to help other countries when we can’t even help ourselves as it is. If The United States were to put all the money and energy in what they spent in Iraq in 2004, then poverty would be reduced greatly. I think the role of the United States would be to be the leader in this situation. It’s an issue that is not going to go away anytime soon. I believe it is more of an issue of not choosing to do it. I say this because, poverty has been around for many years, and wars have come and gone. More than likely, American money will always be put towards wars than towards issues as poverty. However, if we did choose to reduce global poverty, the effect that it will have on our daily lives would be better. People would have jobs and healthcare and would not need to struggle anymore and crimes would go down. In all, I think it is possible to reduce poverty on a global scale.
I think it sad and depressing to know that more money is being spent on war, rather than to educate and empower people. Further, I think it possible to reduce poverty on a global scale. As longs as, countries around the world realize that we are one world, who can help each other to better this world. What role should wealthiest society on play global poverty reduction? Fist these nations could start out by re-building communities that they destroyed as they were explode third world nations for natural resource. They could start out by building more school, roads and economical stimulate plans that would create jobs within these countries. And, they could also stop spending 87 billion dollars on war. Wars destroy lives, communities, and hopes not rebuild countries or empower people. However, they choose not to since we live in capitalists’ society. If there was reduce on global poverty, every one live would better. Number one against poverty is education and if poverty is erased then it means the majority people are educated. And an educated world is good for everyone, including mother earth.
To reduce poverty on a global scale certainly is no small task. The magnitude and extent poverty has developed to in some places is extreme and dangerous. For instance, in some places more people than not are living in poverty and in inhumane conditions. That is why I believe that it is possible to reduce poverty but simply impossible to eliminate it. As Americans, it should be our responsibility and duty to try and reduce poverty in an area. If all well-to-do people in America and elsewhere in the world all donated a little of their extra money to people in need, than those small donations would eventually blossom into a large significant impact for the good. I believe that poverty is a mix of not knowing how to do it and not choosing to do it. Dependent upon who the person is and the circumstances surrounding them than it is a matter of either good effort but lack of knowledge or of just complete ignorance. If everyone who was able to chose to reduce global poverty than there would not be much of an effect on our daily lives other than a wonderful feeling knowing that there were not children in the world going to bed hungry.
I agree with Thomas Richards about when he says that poverty is not something that we can get rid of automatically. I come from an Indian background and I have seen first hand the poverty that is prevalent all over the place in a global way. People need to realize they can reduce poverty in a small way. A dollar in the United States is roughly about 48 rupees in India and it can go a long way. Like we learned in class many people view poverty as the individuals fault when it can include many other examples. If we as a one of the top nations in the world start setting an example for other countries to start helping the poor, people will start to realize that poverty is not just an individual problem.
As far as reducing poverty it is a combination of both not knowing how to do it and not choosing how to. The lack of knowledge about how the poor actually live may not be known to some people. Additionally, people may look at the amount of global poverty there is and choose not to change it because they do not even know where to begin.
The dollar amounts are staggering when the amount spent on the war in Iraq and the bailouts could have been spent in helping those in need. Although it is important to help our own Americans who are in poverty, those around the world in developing countries are in desperate need. For it to be the year 2010 and with all the advances in technology, there is no reason as to why there are still developing countries. I do not think that someone would choose to remain poor instead of receiving some type of help such as clean water that would improve their lives. With the amounts of money spent for the war and bailouts, it does seem do-able to reduce or eradicate poverty to those who are willing to receive and use the help. Although money seems to be the answer, cultures vary and can be a force that enables change. For example, my grandmother was born and raised in Trinidad and I once asked her if she rather move to the United States with my family. Although Trinidad is a much poorer and developing country than the U.S., my grandmother wants to stay in Trinidad for cultural reasons.
I think it is a combination of "not knowing how to do it" and "not choosing to do it" in reference to reducing poverty around the world. Even though the U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world, the act of social imagination comes into play. It is up to Americans to believe if poverty is the fault and problem of others, or if we should help each other despite of any biases one may have as to why people in developing countries are poor.
It is very encouraging and heart-warming to see all of the relief efforts made by the world in a very responsive way to the recent two tragedies in Haiti and Chile. Not to dismay the well-intended individuals and groups from the global community who showed genuine concerns and altruism, though, these tragedies were short-lived, most likely one-time "events" (if I may), that have been televised around the world in such a way that there are imminent needs now. With these worldwide efforts in donations and volunteerism, these nations will receive the basic, primary aids that will help them get back on their feet and solve the aftermath after a while. Once they are adequately back on their feet, the global interests will be drawn away from these nations, by which point they will not have been completely reverted back to their conditions prior to these tragedies. What I'm trying to argue here is that, first, when tragic issues are widely made known to people around the world and the global community becomes conscious of the imminent needs, chances are, there will be much better responses to the needs from around the world. With the inequality seen in the form of poverty and hunger, it is not as hotly debated, or televised as these recent events have been, which means people around the world are less conscious of the problems happening in these countries thousands of miles away.
Also, these issues of hunger and poverty seem to be chronic problems sufferred by the poor countries, which means they require a much more fundamental, down-to-the-ground solutions to them which may even be structural in nature (changing their infrastructure, educating people, improving the local agencies of enforcement for aid distribution, etc.). These problems are not to be dealt with in the short run, like the donations, volunteerism that are helping the earthquake-hit Haiti and Chile get back on their feet. These problems require a long-term, a more systematic approach in order to completely address them with a satisfactory outcome. Thus, this is both a problem of "not choosing to do" and of "not knowing to do it". In my opinion, what wealthy nations need to do first is to educate people of the seriousness of poverty and hunger, how real these problems are, and making these issues more relevant to people living in the wealthy nations, so that they view them as not an issue that's happening "out there" in some countries, but "inside" the global community that we are living in - a conversion from a "they versus I" to a "we" perspective. Then, perhaps many well-intended individuals and groups and even nations will join the efforts in correcting this inequality.
Attributing a dollar amount to global needs certainly makes the goal of reducing global poverty seem more achievable. Given that the U.S. is able to fund a costly war that is more than double the cost of treating global poverty, I believe it is well within out budget to get the ball rolling on this international dilemma. However, reducing global poverty is a hefty long-term financial commitment compared to temporarily funding a bailout or a war that many expected to end quickly. As a result, regardless of our position as one of the wealthiest societies in the world, the U.S. government is hesitant to take on such an overwhelming task. If there was a consensus among economically stable nations to reduce global poverty together, I think the U.S. would be more willing to contribute in treatment of this global issue. Poverty reduction seems to be a combination of "not knowing" and "not choosing" in the sense that the U.S. government doesn't know how to best treat the issue in the long run and therefore chooses to fund other seemingly short-term issues. If global poverty were reduced, there could possibly be more producers and consumers that would stimulate the global economy.
Yes I believe that it is possible to reduce poverty on global scale because if cretin institutions started to instituting new policy that help overall poverty and hunger then this would help the overall poverty level globally. I believe that it is up to the US to be in the forefront to help instituting new policies globally to help reduce overall poverty. If the US does so then they can dictate how funds and policies are spent and carried out to make sure that this process of helping reduce poverty globally works. It is an issue of not knowing how to do deal with the problem as a hole because global poverty in its self is just too big to get a grasp or handle on without the help and support of many countries.
No, I do not believe that poverty can be greatly reduced on a global scale. If there will always be people living in poverty because despite efforts for help there will always be a population that doesn’t want to work, learn, or put in effort. There are however many who need the help just to get out and then start their lives up but it seems that the small population of those who don’t try ruin it for others. It is a fine idea to build water irrigation for clean water and teach people proper nutrition information but what happens after they are taught systems are built and we leave? Who will pay for the maintenance of the systems built? Who will teach the new generation of children and parents? Who will continue to supply free reproductive health products? And are all of these questions covered in the budget? Is that 40 billion for one year as a flat rate or is it 40 billion per year? That is a very big difference that is not elaborated. As the wealthiest society on earth is it our moral obligation to help others less fortunate then others? Yes, but does it have to be to the extent where we are giving up our hard earned and deserved money for others whom we know nothing about? Children deserve help because they have been brought into this world as innocent victims. But once given help and still not having accomplished anything do they still deserve aid once unsuccessful adults? We can help people by giving them the tools to be healthier which everyone is entitled too and give them to tools to free education, which can be improved on the individual school level. If all public schools were mandated to be equal no matter the quality of community it would prevent bad vs good areas and provide poor children living in bad areas with the same tools for learning as more privileged children. The only other problem is that deciding to give 0 billion of countries money to the poor would be very controversial and hard to get the majorities of people to agree on. This is because many people may nit understand the need for helping or feel that they are undeserving. War is easier to pass because a bill like war has an element of fear that you can use against people to side with it whereas helping poverty does not.
I disagree with 306 that “it is sad and depressing to know that more money is being spent on war, rather than to educate and empower people.” I disagree because many people rarely think of poor people on a regular basis. The only time people feel or think for impoverished people is when they see, hear, or are affected by them. Many people will disagree but when people are relaxing in the homes watching tv eating snack food the only time people feel depressed for people in poverty is when they see a charity commercial on tv for starving children in Africa. War was a decision that was enforced by the government because they thought at the time it was necessary. The money could have been used for people in poverty but it wasn’t and therefore we our county is now incredibly in debt. If our country is in debt as a whole how can we help out the poor when the wealthy can’t even help themselves. At a different time and place 40 billion dollars would be nice to give to help the poor but not at the expense of driving our country even farther into debt.
I also agree that it is shocking to see the actual amount that it would take to do those things and to see it in comparison to the money that we are spending on the war. However I think that the first step for us as a country would be to try to end poverty in the United States first. I feel that it would be very overwhelming to try to conquer the task of saving the whole world and that it would need to be done one country at a time. I also feel that .263 has the most valid point regarding who would operate everything. If we were to spend the money who’s to say it wouldn’t just be a waste over the years as the equipment starts to wither away? However If there was a plan in act as to who would maintain everything and also who would teach the knowledge to the next generations than they may open up new job opportunities for people as well. I think this issue is more of a “not knowing how to do it” because many Americans suffer from poverty and I like to believe that if there was an easy plan to solve this problem than our government would try its hardest to do so.
I do not think that it is possible to reduce poverty on a global level. No matter what the poverty income level is, there will always be lots of people in poverty for many reasons. There are new advancements in technology every single day. With these advancements, there are either machines or computers that can take over jobs that were once done by humans or there are qualifications for operation that lots of people don’t meet. Those that are in poverty now are going to be worse off later on because as technology continues to advance, the required qualifications will advance also. Most people in poverty lack the education needed to have high paying jobs and are barely qualified for low paying jobs. As technology continues to advance job opportunities will decrease and the poverty rate will increase. There is nothing that the U.S. can do to change poverty besides lowering the poverty level. By doing this the country will lose money fast because of the other expenses that they have. It is not a matter of not wanting to decrease poverty, but it is more of a matter of knowing how to decrease poverty. The government has to find a way to decrease poverty without negatively affecting the economy in the long run. If we chose to reduce global poverty, if will have a negative effect on our daily lives. Prices will increase in order to afford to support those in poverty. The people who are wealthy will suffer more because their expenses will increase more and they will be indirectly supporting those in poverty. It is easier said than done.
As the wealthiest nation, I agree that we should be prioritizing our money in order to help individuals living in poverty across the nation. However in order to do this, we cannot simply give money to different areas of need and expect changes. We have to have control of each organization and be willing to create change. All structural environments and resources cannot be limited to certain individuals or groups. With the current poverty issues in the U.S, the U.S would not have the intelligence to fully be effective in reducing global poverty. We have not been able to make great changes to those living in poverty in our country because we have yet to create a system that is fair to all. If we attempt to take on the global issue of poverty, we are not being fair to other counties. Reducing the current poverty level in the U.S would allow for the U.S to be powerful both intellectually and financially. This would ultimately, allows the U.S. to have supported evidence as to why their system would work best.
In most cases, if the U.S did give money to other countries, they would want to be active in helping to see that their money is going toward poverty issues. With this in mind, some counties would not appreciate the U.S coming in to help with poverty because culturally, that is their lifestyle and way of living in which they would not want it to be interrupted. Yes some would want changes in their access to food and shelter but doing that would be both physically and mentally draining. Their entire surroundings would be changing and possibly forced to move elsewhere. The U.S has the power to help global poverty but having money, as our number one resource would not allow for proper changes unless there is change first made in the U.S.
I agree that prioritizing our needs is probably the most important factor in reducing poverty while providing the resources necessary to our citizens. We can’t just throw our money around to different causes and hope for the best. We have to make cuts in our spending and redirect other spending to areas that may need the money more. The war on Iraq accounts for a large part of our deficit and while we debate the necessity of the war, we are still spending billions of dollars in just a few weeks. If it were an honest necessity of our national security, then I would be supporting the spending for it. However, with no such overwhelming proof, I think it is important to re-prioritize our needs and direct the money being spent on the war to other areas in need like sanitation and basic health care. I also agree that other countries may feel like their toes are being stepped on should we try and make poverty a global issue. For now, the United States should be our priority and if we can’t even keep our own citizens out of poverty, then unfortunately we can’t afford to bail out other countries. Poverty is a global issue, but I don’t think we have a responsibility to help other countries if we are not stable in that area just because we are one of the wealthiest societies. Instead, we should implement programs to help our own citizens and set the bar for other countries.
Personally, I do not support the War in Iraq. I do however support the military and military families – as I come from a family with many members of the armed forces. When I first learned in class that the cost of the War was $87 billion in 2004 alone, I was astonished. Not even considering global poverty, I thought about the high rates of poverty within the United States, the lack of funding for education, and the cost of healthcare. When we break down the cost of reducing global poverty and see that it costs less than half of what the war in Iraq and the Wall Street bail-out cost, it is evident that the U.S. can play a large role in poverty reduction. This mainly comes down to “not choosing to do it”. In the media, we only see of the U.S. efforts to assist with funding globally when disaster occurs. This is a commendable effort being that disaster in a poverty stricken country can lead to a wealth of illness, loss of homes, and an even more lack of food, but efforts can be made to assist with poverty. This being said, it is important the U.S. takes care of poverty locally and then moves forward with a plan for global poverty.
Post a Comment