Poverty in America

THREE Thirds of the world's population would be living in poverty had countries all just closed their borders. Free Trade is essential for nations to develop, and the development of nations is necessary in order to advance human civilization to points where we can raise the bar for the standard of living.

Not all countries are raised at the same rate, I'll grant you that, and if we were all stuck in our own nations alone, we'd all be at the same level-but not because some people were raised up, but because everyone is just pulled down.

My thoughts on your previous comment were "You can't be serious." Ergo, I assumed you weren't and responded appropriately.

^^ HERESY!!!!

If the most major nations of the last 200 years never went out and bothered people for one reason or another (be it trade or war) we would likely still be stuck in the Age of Sail as far as transportation is concerned, we would be using horseback mail (and Sail Mail) for communication, and people like me at the age of 24-25 would be considered old men.

The expansion of technology (and much of the drive to invent it in the first place) came about because major powers either wanted to make money or make better technology to wage war. The Internet is but one of many proofs to that statement.

Well, a certain level of free trade is inevitable (I'm a democrat-socialist), but if the Wien conference (1830) happened differently, and/or if the League of Nations/UN did its work throughout history, instead of being blatantly biased towards the interests of Great Powers, many things would be better today.

The League Of Nations had very little backing from the Great Powers of the post-WW 1 era. Thus it had effectively less power than the incompetence called the UN today.

Even if the League had actual power it could not have prevented World War Two.

Imperialism in the past was a bad thing, but what do you expect for us to do about it now? You can't really undo a history of bloody dictatorships.

Imperialism is a liiiiiiiiiiiie. The reason Great Powers invaded and occupied the Third World - politically, culturally, economically and sometimes militarily - was out of the goodness of their hearts. This process has only made the Third World richer. The Third World should be thanking the imperialists, so get on that.

Anyway, granted, the US has less absolute poverty, but what the US can do to alleviate poverty throughout the world isn't that much; indeed, the best realistic course of action is to do as little as possible, which the US has been failing consistently for a very long time. But the fact that there are people starving in the world doesn't change the fact that the growing inequality in the US should be a concern; but of course, to even admit that extreme wealth inequality is, in the US, a controversial position, even though the entire rest of the world generally take for granted that extreme inequality is bad economically and socially.

^I think most conscious Third Worlders would be contented if you were to acknowledge your role and try to not continue being imperialist dickheads for the foreseeable future. Imperialism isn't over, and it isn't far in the past; it's vastly less far in the past than, say, the Civil War which you people are still having spats over, for example.

edited 26th Sep '10 10:35:20 AM by BonSequitur

Historically, doesn't America move into third world nations, pay workers jack shit until the infrastructure is developed enough that they're no longer willing to work for jack shit, then get pissed off and move on to the next nation?

My understanding is that it's happened to India, Korea, hell even Japan sort of fit that for a while didn't it?

Reducing wealth inequity in the US might be helpful in reducing poverty in the world as a whole, because it's the very poor who patronize Wal-Mart and the like. Worrying about fair trade and stuff like that is for people with extra income.

edited 26th Sep '10 7:41:25 PM by jewelleddragon

You think Wal-Mart contributes to world poverty? I would have thought the exact opposite.

Exploiting cheap labor isn't inherently bad, in fact it's often a good thing. The wages are often much better then prevailing wages, and it also creates investment and stimulates the local economy.

The problem is when foreign commercial interests take over the government and back a puppet dictator. And in the past, a lot of third world countries have been screwed over in this way.

edited 26th Sep '10 8:25:55 PM by storyyeller

It's certainly true that as much as a "Free Market" might help third world nations, the practice of corporations going into third world nations isn't exactly duplicating a free market, and we shouldn't rely overly on an inaccurate model.

I think corporatist is a more accurate definition.

Deboss, corporatist already has a definition.

Hm, then I'm misremembering it.

@Major Tom: Ethiopia?

Well, guess I should apologize - I'm still disgruntled about living in a failed state (courtesy of Eagleland), so maybe my reaction was a bit over the top. Anyway, it would have been ideal if the UN had the balls to condemn "humanitarian" US interventions such as Afghanistan, Iraq or Yugoslavia. It's not your job to play with the destinies of other nations because "it is the right thing to do", Uncle Sam. We all know that's Blatant Lies. Oh, and don't get me started about 9/11, it was a horrible thing to do, but it didn't happen without a reason.

Isn't the US one of 5 nations in the UN with permanent unilateral veto power? Fat chance they are going to be condemned.

That's what I'm saying - the veto power should be taken away from the five.

Because the UN only has power at the discretion of those with significant military power, primarily consisting of those five.

Not sure I even opposed the initial invasion of Afghanistan but in either event we are getting off topic.

The figures are BS, they treat anyone without income as in poverty. You could be sitting on all the money you ever need, liquidating investments as needed and you would be in poverty. More mundanely, an unmarried couple living together with only one person employed who easily pays all the bills leaves the other as counted as "in poverty".

It's like the "children going hungry" one. Any minor that says they are hungry, regardless of anything else (even "I'm hungry, when's dinner ready?") counts as a child going hungry.

edited 30th Sep '10 12:47:46 PM by deuxhero

That's... completely not true. The federal standards for poverty line are explicitly based on household income. The poverty line for a couple of two is higher than for a single person living alone, and lower for a family of four; all of household income is added together to determine whether the family is below the poverty line.

The couple example may or may not be wrong, but that is how they are calculated.

Citation needed. Poverty statistics are calculated by the census bureau; they use the same standard, for obvious reasons, as means-tested government programs do. If a single-earner couple has a total household income below the national poverty line, they are counted as part of the poverty statistics and are eligible for certain federally funded programs such as Medicaid.

I'm pretty sure Bon Sequitur is correct here. It's based on households, not individuals (except if an individual is a household on their own). Someone living entirely on their savings might still count as in poverty in terms of income, although most savings will be paying some interest, but I suspect that that category covers very few people. Note that that does not cover most retired people, who generally buy an annuity with their retirement savings to provide a reliable income stream.

And, all retired people above a certain age, which is the majority of them, are eligible for social security in some form so they do have income, although this income may not add up to put them over the poverty line, especially in households with less earners than people.