2
$\begingroup$

The idea: By convincing the U.S. that ending world poverty would actually return so much money back to the U.S. that it would more than compensate for the cost of providing the resources needed to end poverty.

Example: The influence of terrorist groups in the Middle East could be dramatically decreased if we hire the locals there to be soldiers, and this could be far cheaper than risking the lives of our own soldiers and more importantly, more effective because we could afford more of them.

Anyway, the proposal is here: http://genexie.com/the-most-realistic-solution-poverty-yet/2015/03/31/

|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That link makes so many basic factual errors that it's hard to know where to start. The single largest predicted benefit comes from a 50% drop in the cost of crime in the US, but the \$240b figure cited (which should actually be $60b, if the writer read the source more carefully) refers to ending extreme international poverty at the line of \$1.25 PPP per day, far below the US poverty line. \$240b would be enough for a universal basic income of about $1000 per American adult, which is an order of magnitude below the US poverty line. $\endgroup$ – nominally rigid May 3 '15 at 22:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think the title is misleading. How about "Is it optimal under selfish reasons for the US to end world poverty?" $\endgroup$ – FooBar May 3 '15 at 23:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unless you want to phrase it as "Does poverty only exists because the US is acting sub optimally?" $\endgroup$ – FooBar May 3 '15 at 23:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, I haven't heard of any anti-poverty groups that claim that ending poverty would benefit us. I thought it would be at least interesting to see a different viewpoint than what is normally presented. $\endgroup$ – user3272992 May 4 '15 at 0:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not judging the content of your question. I'm just saying that the title and content of your question lead to different expectations. The title implies a new solution. Your question however is rather "US should end poverty now in their own interest", than asking about a new policy/suggestion $\endgroup$ – FooBar May 4 '15 at 0:47
3
$\begingroup$

I am afraid the solution to world poverty will not be two pages long. Some flaws:

You cannot simply give poor people in other countries money, their government controls their financial system. Even if the government agreed and you transferred millions of dollars it would not make more housing and consumer goods available at their location, they would just have credit. They could use these dollars to import the desired things but this may cause a lot of additional costs and again the government might interfere with large scale imports by controlling the distribution.

On hiring soldiers in Syria: This was an idea early on, but how can you be sure that they are doing what you pay them to do? Also there might not be a sufficient number of soldiers for hire at the desired location.

On giving poor people in the US unlimited access to basic goods. I like this idea, but to my knowledge no country in the world has implemented such a scheme. Also access to some goods does not eliminate crime, look at all the white collar crime that wealthy people commit or consider that they also struggle with drug problems.

Humans are complex creatures who will always compete with their environment.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The page mentions that we could convince the governments to cooperate us (or risk a coup seeing that most of the populace would side with us if they believe that it would lead to finally getting out of poverty. It's the same thing with soldiers in Syria: By guaranteeing that their family and community access to food, and building hospitals, schools, wells, etc. it would be more logical for them to follow our leadership. Many governments in the Middle East seem to lead through primarily force, and religion/ideology second. $\endgroup$ – user3272992 May 3 '15 at 22:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The article never claimed to eliminate crime, and a reduction in blue-collar crime by 50% could conceivably be more valuable than the cost (estimated at around $1000-2000 per person-year) $\endgroup$ – user3272992 May 3 '15 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ The US government also believed (or at least claimed) that both the Afghan and Iraqi population will greet them as liberators. That with them comes stability and an end to poverty. Unfortunately things were more complicated, but now we are venturing into opinion based territory, as I am not a political scientist. On reducing blue-collar crime: Perhaps. To my knowledge this has never been tried. I would support a pilot program. $\endgroup$ – Giskard May 4 '15 at 7:36
  • $\begingroup$ +1 on the pilot program. I think the best place to do it would be Detroit - the crime rate skyrocketed ever since the local economy collapsed. $\endgroup$ – user3272992 May 5 '15 at 4:50
0
$\begingroup$

Your link is broken. Can you update it?

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review $\endgroup$ – Giskard Jan 17 '18 at 9:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But what can I do as I can't comment? I have no better choice. $\endgroup$ – bixiou Jan 17 '18 at 9:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You do. You can wait until you have sufficient reputation to comment. It is probably not a matter of life and death. Also according to her profile the OP was last seen here two and a half years ago. It is unlikely she will respond, but making your comment an answer bumps this question to the top of the queue for no reason. $\endgroup$ – Giskard Jan 17 '18 at 10:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.