Poverty

#26
#26
Lexvol said:
For the economists on the board:

My assumption is that the Asian economy (in general) is growing mostly because of deregulation/red tape removal. Is that true or false.

If my assumption is correct, then why do we seem to be moving in the opposite direction?
Click to expand...

The opposite direction would be receding. Our growth has stagnated, not reversed (thank God). We're moving sideways, to be fair. Treading water.

EDIT: Not an economist by any means, just chiming in. I could be wrong.
 
#31
#31
golfballs03 said:
I wouldn't trust any statistic that China provides.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that the quality of life for the average peasant in China has greatly improved from what it was, and their middle class has exploded.

That's really not even debatable.
 
#32
#32
IPorange said:
There's no doubt that the quality of life for the average peasant in China has greatly improved from what it was, and their middle class has exploded.

That's really not even debatable.
Click to expand...

their middle class would be in abject poverty in the united states.
 
#34
#34
you saw a similar growth rate in teh united states in the late 1800s. that is what happens to emerging economies.
 
#36
#36
I'm still not sure what UTGibbs' point is.

Beyond that, I also doubt that "poverty" is a consistent definition from nation to nation; particularly between 1st and 3rd world.

Finally, I'd have to ask how that old "war on poverty" we've been fighting since the 60s is going. After 1/2 century don't you think that government programs to reduce/eliminate poverty have been fully vetted?
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
I'm still not sure what UTGibbs' point is.

Beyond that, I also doubt that "poverty" is a consistent definition from nation to nation; particularly between 1st and 3rd world.

Finally, I'd have to ask how that old "war on poverty" we've been fighting since the 60s is going. After 1/2 century don't you think that government programs to reduce/eliminate poverty have been fully vetted?
Click to expand...

My point was to relay information see what discussion ensues.

Indeed, poverty does not have a consistent definition. The World Bank defined less than $1.45 / day as poverty level in the developing world; $10 / day in the US.

UNICEF, for instance, takes great issue at the $1.45 figure and would put it, I believe, at $2.50. If that is the poverty line, half the world is below it.

But I figured if I quoted anyone but the World Bank's numbers, the forum would go into vapor lock.

As for the "War on Poverty" it hasn't gone very well I'm afraid - 1 in 7 Americans below that line (staggering). However, if we dedicated as much government money as we did on Vietnam or War on Drugs in that regard, it might have gone somewhere. Those have failed comprehensively as well, and at much greater all around costs.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
utgibbs said:
As for the "War on Poverty" it hasn't gone very well I'm afraid - 1 in 7 Americans below that line (staggering). However, if we dedicated as much government money as we did on Vietnam or War on Drugs in that regard, it might have gone somewhere. Those have failed comprehensively as well, and at much greater all around costs.
Click to expand...

you're delusional, the "war on poverty" has cost the US taxpayer a helluva lot more than Vietnam or the drug war
 
#39
#39
utgibbs said:
The World Bank defined less than $1.45 / day as poverty level in the developing world; $10 / day in the US.
Click to expand...

which is of course absurd. apparently living in poverty in the US means not having a 60 inch flatscreen. other places it means starving to death.
 
#40
#40
utgibbs said:
As for the "War on Poverty" it hasn't gone very well I'm afraid - 1 in 7 Americans below that line (staggering). However, if we dedicated as much government money as we did on Vietnam or War on Drugs in that regard, it might have gone somewhere. Those have failed comprehensively as well, and at much greater all around costs.
Click to expand...

What madness is this? We spend ~$650bn a year on anti poverty programs compared to ~$45bn on the War on Drugs. Few will deny both have been abject failures and a colossal waste of the tax payer's dime.
 
#42
#42
I hate to be the guy that says this, but if you are an adult that lives in poverty in America, 75% of the time it's because you want to/don't have the desire to work hard enough to not be.
 
#43
#43
tigervol9802 said:
I hate to be the guy that says this, but if you are an adult that lives in poverty in America, 75% of the time it's because you want to/don't have the desire to work hard enough to not be.
Click to expand...

how dare you be so insensitive! people are hurting in this country! do you realize how expensive the data plan for an iphone is!
 
#45
#45
droski said:
how dare you be so insensitive! people are hurting in this country! do you realize how expensive the data plan for an iphone is!
Click to expand...

I have to pay a tax every month on my cell bill so the government can give these people a cell phone for free. Damn they have it rough.
 
#46
#46
For the vast majority of American the reasons for poverty all come down to choices. Either they choose to become comfortable living on what the government offers or they are hindered by personal choices and self imposed blockades to a prosperous life. The rest are driven to get back on their feet quickly.

I'm sure someone will post a story about a family or person who was trapped in poverty due to no fault of their own but these stories are the exceptions and certainly don't reflect the average person living in poverty by any means.
 
#47
#47
#48
#48
utgibbs said:
USDA claims a lot of households are not food secure, 14.6% overall with 5.7% "very low food security".

It gets worse for the children too.

Full report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ld_food_security_2008.pdf?sid=ST2009111601621

Synopsis: Hunger a growing problem in America, USDA reports - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...
let's reason through this horsecrap report.

First, an idiotic term like food secure should make every bell, buzzer and whistle on earth go off to help alert you to the fabricated nature of the information. It's political speak, period.

Second, why on earth does this office exist and why in the hell would the author of these reports not come up with idiotic terms like "food secure" so that his gig is self perpetuating and he can procure more money for his growing fiefdom and he can help make the class warfare argument more strongly next year. Wonder how many brainstorming sessions it took to come up with "food secure" so that the number could be made absolutely as large as possible.

Wonder why it doesn't address the enormous number of outlets available today to feed these "food insecure" in America? What's up with that?
 
#49
#49
utgibbs said:
My point was to relay information see what discussion ensues.

You don't have a position? What about the China praise - are you advocating something for other countries or simply relaying information?

Indeed, poverty does not have a consistent definition. The World Bank defined less than $1.45 / day as poverty level in the developing world; $10 / day in the US.

I also meant inconsistency in effect. While monetary rates can be adjusted I suspect (as others have stated) that what it "means" to be in poverty in the US is different that what it means in another country. I would imagine that those in the top half of the poverty scale of the US have significantly more in the way of goods and services (necessary and discretionary) than those in the top half of the groups for other countries.

So if poverty means different things why compare? One issue is that it is a used as a lever for "equality". There will always be an income distribution. The real question is not whether people are at the bottom but whether or not you can survive at the bottom.

UNICEF, for instance, takes great issue at the $1.45 figure and would put it, I believe, at $2.50. If that is the poverty line, half the world is below it.

But I figured if I quoted anyone but the World Bank's numbers, the forum would go into vapor lock.

As for the "War on Poverty" it hasn't gone very well I'm afraid - 1 in 7 Americans below that line (staggering). However, if we dedicated as much government money as we did on Vietnam or War on Drugs in that regard, it might have gone somewhere. Those have failed comprehensively as well, and at much greater all around costs.
Click to expand...

Already been covered on the last one but at what point would you conclude that throwing money via government programs at the problem ain't solving the problem? We've been at it for almost 50 years and the numbers haven't changed. You know the definition of insanity...
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
Already been covered on the last one but at what point would you conclude that throwing money via government programs at the problem ain't solving the problem? We've been at it for almost 50 years and the numbers haven't changed. You know the definition of insanity...
Click to expand...

Clarence Carson was actually required reading for me in college. It has been a while, but I think everybody should at least skim through "The War on the Poor".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top