Food and Energy Costs Worsen Poverty Problem

UN officials named the biggest challenges to meeting poverty reduction goals as the rising prices of food and energy as well as global warming.

The demand for oil will continue to increase as countries all over the world continue to industrialize and develop. Of course, we continue to use up more and more of our limited supply of oil. As supply goes down and demand goes up, the costs of anything involving the use of energy increases, namely food and imports.

Poor regions suffer as poorer people can no longer afford as much goods and services as prices rise. Also, charity becomes hindered since charitable funds buy less and less.

Even in the United States and the developed world, rising prices will obviously throw even more people into poverty and worsen the conditions of people already in poverty.

Of course, even with rising prices, the world will continue to have enough resources to provide food, clean water, shelter, healthcare and education to everyone. But we need to change our society structure so that people have more access to the world’s abundant natural resources.

Additionally, we can not leave people dependent on charity or welfare. We need to make as many people self-sufficient as possible, as many families self-sufficient as possible, and all local communities self-sufficient.

As Lao Tzu famously pointed out, it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. Unfortunately, charitable organizations can barely afford to buy the proverbial fish for the hungry, let alone afford to teach them to fish.

Before matters get even worse, we need to invest a lot more in helping people help themselves. It will cost a lot more upfront, but it will cost us less in the long run, and it will save much more people overall. Namely, we need to invest heavily in education to give people the skills to support themselves and their families. Also, we need to focus on finding ways to empower local economies to make them independent of the need for charity. In fact, large amounts of charitable funds or food have often undermined local economies by putting local businesses out of business and leaving the economy and its people worse off.

What do you think? How do you suggest anti-poverty organizations help people and economies become more self-sufficient? Post your answers in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums.

UN Meeting on Poverty Scheduled for September

UN chief Ban Ki-moon has announced that he plans to co-host a UN meeting on poverty with the president of the (UN) General Assembly.

The meeting will take place on September 25th, during the general debate of the UN General Assembly which runs from September 23 to October 3.

September seems like far off, but hopefully it will give them time to plan the meeting and make it more effective.

The United Nations adopted eight goals “Millennium Development Goals” in 2000. One goal included halving the amount of people in extreme poverty and halving the number of people who suffer from world hunger by 2015. At the current rate, the world will not achieve the goals.

The world has enough resources to provide food, clothing, clean water, healthcare, and education for everyone in the world. I hope the people of the world start making it a priority to end poverty. We can do it. I hope we do.

Imagine No Lending

In a recent post at the Philosophy Forums, I speculated that a society could avoid problems such as the recent credit crisis by not coercively enforcing contracts. In other words, lending would not exist in a formal way in that borrowers would not be forced to pay back what they borrow. I believe it would put the onus on the lenders to only lend responsibility. Additionally, it would mostly eliminate credit-based economics which would help stop usury and thus help alleviate what some people call wage slavery. Of course, that is mostly a philosophical proposition; in practice, it would take a long time to safely transition from a credit-based economy to an economy without enforced contracts. Anyway, you can join the discussion at the following URL:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=380

Basically, I believe that an economy without as much usury would have less poverty. In such an economy, laborers would get to keep the full fruits of their labor rather than have to pay it to rich, unproductive usurers. As a result, such an economy would have much higher wages and laborers would not need to borrow money. That would lead to much less poverty.

Of course, we could not implement it abruptly in our current economic system. Currently, most working-class people depend on credit to survive. It would help them to change that, but we need to change it carefully.

Unfair Taxes and Poverty

Forbes named Warren Buffett as the richest person in the world as of March 5, 2008. Personally, I admire Warren Buffet for a variety of reasons. Namely, he behaves in a down-to-earth way, and he has earned the title of philanthropist. Last year, he pointed out that he pays a smaller percentage in taxes than his secretary. He also has pointed out that he believes the CEOs of all the top companies pay less in taxes than their secretaries.

Mainly, the rich people do it because they get to just pay a smaller “capital gains tax” rather than the regular income tax that most workers pay.

Ironically, workers are not really making an income if you ask me. Out of desperation, the typical working person has to sell his or her labor at extremely low prices. The typical working person is not profiting, but just desperately trading his or her labor away for whatever low amount he or she can get from the powers that be.

The lazy usurers who actually profit pay a smaller tax rate!

I think many working-class people believe taxes can help them regain some political standing. But I believe the rich can always manipulate the government to use it in their favor. As a result, in theory, I oppose taxation.

I recommend that the working-class demand tax relief.

Additionally, for people who feel some taxes remain necessary, I suggest taxing property ownership rather than income paid for labor. Let me explain why.

Unfair economies mainly oppress the working-class by letting the upper-class monopolize control over the natural resources. By claiming to own more than their fair share of the natural resources, the upper-class can make money by making the working-class pay them for permission to use the natural resources.

Taxing property ownership instead of income paid for labor would possibly help hinder the monopolization of natural resources by the upper-class. It would work most effectively if the tax only existed for people who “owned” an excessive amount of property, but not those who only “own” less than their fair share. For example, let’s not let the government tax the average working person who may purchase a cramped house on a small plot of land with a mortgage.

In theory, I do not support any form of taxation because I do not trust government with that power. However, as a matter of practical reform, I much prefer taxing property ownership and usury than taxing income paid for labor.

Remember, I think we could end poverty by giving all people fair access to natural resources. Poverty exists, in part, because working class people have to pay just to use natural resources to get the fruits of their labor. And that money flows to an unproductive ruling class. In other words, the so-called “owners” of the land, machines, oil, and other natural resources demand a huge cut from the workers’ production. And that is, I believe, the main reason why wages are so low. (Lack of education is the next reason, but working-class families could afford more education if they had higher wages.)

Whatever we do, we need to alleviate the unfair economic burden put on the working-class. As I have said before, that unfair economic burden causes poverty in the so-called first-world.

What do you think? Do you agree that it would help to tax property ownership and usury instead of income paid for labor? Post your responses to this blog post and those questions in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums.

Widespread Poverty in the U.S. Does Exist

I have noticed some people have a tendency to try to underestimate poverty in the United States. These people try to make United States poverty out as mostly an illusion. They seem to most often think that “liberals” try to play with the numbers to make it seem like many people live in poverty when the people actually live comfortable lives.

The myth that widespread poverty does not really exist in the United States seems utterly absurd to me. The people perpetuating the myth could easily see the falsehood of it by simply driving down an inner-city street. But I suppose many people would choose not to drive around in those dangerously poor neighborhoods. On the same token, I wonder if they have ever watched any of the many movies displaying United States poverty such as Boyz N the Hood–one of my personal favorites.

You do not need the numbers and statistics to see the widespread poverty in the United States.

I understand the desire of people to point out the contrast between the United States and “third world” communities so desolate that the majority of people live in huts with dirt floors, where watching others literally starve to death becomes a daily routine. I can see that the hungry children in the United States have a better situation than those who starve to death.

However, in some ways, I find United States poverty even more disgusting than “third world” poverty. Something makes me even sicker at the thought of hungry kids suffering right down the road from a grocery store overstocked with food. The social juxtaposition of overabundance and poverty in the United States–the most socioeconomically unequal country in the world–in some ways bothers me more than the harsher devastation of people who live in nations with so little. In some ways, I get more disturbed by poor people suffering next to rich people than starving people suffering next to other starving people.

In any case, poverty exists throughout the world. It exists in the United States. It exists in an even more widespread way in nations plagued by devastation and international economic exploitation.

Fortunately, the world has enough food to feed everyone. We, the people of the world, have the resources to provide food, clothes, shelter, clean water, education, and healthcare to everyone no matter where in the world they live. We can end poverty anytime we wish.

Unfortunately, we have chosen not to end poverty so far. As of now, we have continued to choose to let children suffer in poverty and, in the worst parts of the world, die from starvation. Even in the United States and the developed world, we still let millions of children grow up hungry in poor neighborhoods, where they go to substandard schools, surrounded by violence, hopelessness, and bad role models. As a result, many of those children will remain in poverty their entire lives, which will continue the poverty cycle for even more generations.

Let’s not let ourselves shrug off poverty in the United States or in the developed world. Let’s work to end poverty everywhere, namely by breaking the poverty cycle.

What do you think? Have you ever heard people try to claim poverty in the United States does not exist? Tell us what you think about it in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums.

Charles Loring Brace’s Work in Child Poverty

I just read a very interesting article by Howard Husock about Charles Loring Brace’s work to help poor children in New York City. I had not heard much about Charles Loring Brace beforehand, but the article explains his life and the work he did in the 19th Century.

Most notably, Brace helped alleviate child poverty by starting a massive foster-care program which consisted of moving poor kids from the streets of New York City into midwestern farm families. He sent over 50,000 orphans and street children out west to live under the “healthy influence of family life.” He also founded the Children’s Aid Society. I found a PBS documentary about his work: American Experience – The Orphan Trains

He also created “Lodging Houses” for newsboys and other street-kids. These houses took in over 170,000 boys.

Brace focused on teaching the children to take care of themselves as much as possible. He worked to get them into school. He focused on instilling values in the children that would help them make smart decisions throughout their life.

After reading about Brace, I admire him because he did not spend too much effort in advocacy but instead focused on direct action. Nowadays, many anti-poverty groups focus their efforts heavily on advocating policy change in government. But Brice focused more on actually helping the children.