Question about world poverty

v1et r1ce

CAGiversary!
Feedback
35 (100%)
I'm doing a project on the subject and I'm trying to figure out what the annual costs are to end or substantially reduce poverty in the world. I've tried googling it but I get different numbers ranging from $30 billion to $124 billion.

Does anyone recall what this number really is? I thought I heard it sometime last year.
 
$30 billion would appear to end world hunger, not the same thing as poverty. I see numbers ranging from 150 billion at the high down to 60 billion as the low to end it.

Mind you most of these numbers are per year, not one payment.
 
What does this question even mean? Wouldn't it depend on how you do it, how accurate the estimates for world poverty/hunger are? I think that a range like that makes sense, if that is even close to the ballpark (seems very low to me).
 
[quote name='Bomfy']$30 billion would appear to end world hunger, not the same thing as poverty. I see numbers ranging from 150 billion at the high down to 60 billion as the low to end it.

Mind you most of these numbers are per year, not one payment.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I also saw that $30 billion is for just hunger, not everything else. Oh well.

[quote name='_heretic']What does this question even mean? Wouldn't it depend on how you do it, how accurate the estimates for world poverty/hunger are? I think that a range like that makes sense, if that is even close to the ballpark (seems very low to me).[/QUOTE]

Well the whole project isn't based on that question. I'm just trying to get an estimate so that I can include it. The ranges that I've seen are too spread out for me to use.

[quote name='MisterModest']Damn, must take a lot of food to feed those guys if it's gonna cost that much.[/QUOTE]

You betcha.
 
Asia has tons of very cheap labor. The people providing this sweatshop type labor are probably in poverty, but they're not starving. People in africa are starving, thus even by just setting up sweatshops in africa , as bad as that sounds, starvation could be ended. Once sweatshops got setup in africa they'd be making money which could be spent on food and possibly better place to live. This obviously being better than them just sitting around starving all day thinking about how they're starving and accomplishing nothing.

Once cheap labor in africa is discovered, they'll get jobs like asian countries do. It won't end poverty but easily end world hunger.

But in the end you still have gangs, rebels, and terrorist organizations that could end up controlling everything.

In the end i suppose as long as there is evil in the world there will be people suffering. The only true way to get rid of world hunger and poverty is to get rid of the evil in the world which is impossible.
 
The primary cause of poverty in the world is bad governments. Somalia was once a net exporter of foodstuffs but today cannot even be regarded as a nation. So figure the cost of a genuine world war, one for all the marbles.

Thing is, you need to get some definitions in order first. What is your standard for poverty? People regarded as impoverished in the Western world are fabulously wealthy by many historical/regional standards. There is a baseline for how poor you can be but no upper thus far for wealth. A buck naked human with no tools or useful skills is as poor as person can get. Just finding a good rock for throwing at a rabbit to acquire some protein is a major upgrade.
 
World hunger and poverty can never be achieved, especially with the huge income gaps between the richest nations and poorest nations. The only way for everyone to live without hunger and poverty is for the rich to constantly spoon feed the poor. The western capitalist countries are the cause of third world and less than third world countries that exist today. Globalization is a bitch, especially for those who cannot reap the benefits.
 
[quote name='mis0']World hunger and poverty can never be achieved, especially with the huge income gaps between the richest nations and poorest nations. The only way for everyone to live without hunger and poverty is for the rich to constantly spoon feed the poor. The western capitalist countries are the cause of third world and less than third world countries that exist today. Globalization is a bitch, especially for those who cannot reap the benefits.[/QUOTE]

Complete nonsense. Nations develop of their own will with governence that encorages improvement. I defy you to show an example of a nation that remained undeveloped because it suited Western desires. The exact oppsite has often been the motivation for brutal changes imposed on subject nations, especially under Communist regmes such as the Soviets and Red Chinese. Their vassals were of little use if undeveloped, so they'd go in and impose whatever they saw fit as having value for the dominant nation.

Another problem has been those seeking to help undeveloped nations without full consideration of the consequences. Much of the disasters in Africa came in the wake of the Peace Corp encouraging populations to radically change their way of life to approaches that turnedout to be completely unviable for the geography in question. For all their primitiveness, the level of misery would have been far less if those people had been left alone decades earlier.

Think a little. Third world status was effectively global until just a few centuries ago. When the nations of the West began enjoying greatly improved lives as they developed, there was nothing whatsoever stopping others from noting what was happening and how it was achieved, then implementing it for themselves. Nobody had a monopoly on personal liberty and rule of law, the two most important elements of Western development. Likewise, places with lousy resources and little in the way of mineral wealth managed to become quite wealthy. They didn't go to better off countries and steal their stuff as their primary method of self-improvement. Humans have been stealing each other lunch money as long as they have been humans but the general condition of humanity didn't get much better just few thousand years and then accelerated greatly in the last three centuries.

The primary source of wealth is not from a hole in the ground. It's from between the ears. The imagination that creates new things is the greater creator of new wealth that has ever existed. When Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston created VisiCalc, drawing upon the pen and paper tools of accounting and adding the capability for quickly testing different scenarios via a personal computer, they created a multi-billion dollar product category out of thin air. This, combined with an environment that allowed them to profit from the sale of their creation, created a huge new piece of wealth and provided a tool that in turn allowed others to better manage and grow their own wealth.
 
bread's done
Back
Top