there will be poor always, pathetically suffering

[GreecePwns]

Surely a different situation. You can avoid avalanches by not skiing/snowboarding, which is inherently a risky behavior. You can avoid terminal cancer by _______.

It's not so easy to fill in that blank, is it? Smoking maybe, or sleeping on a bed of uranium, but to fill in that blank completely you'd need to include countless, mundane and near unavoidable tasks.

[saxitoxin]

Surely a different situation. You can avoid avalanches by not skiing/snowboarding, which is inherently a risky behavior.

Certain parts of national parks should be de facto off-limits to those except the super-wealthy then? Those who can afford to be helicoptered out if they become victims of nature or circumstance?

Option 1 - The Alps - the best rescue equipment money can buy; immediate response - unlimited resources (however, surname must have the word Von in front of it in order for a rescue to be launched)


Option 2 - The Rockies - Vietnam-era surplus equipment -- delayed response -- equipment frequently breaks (however, no income audit or verification of family lineage required prior to rescue)

[GreecePwns]

Is there not an Option 3: "smashing both government and corporation and setting up a collectively owned rescue service?"

Your question cannot be answered for certain. Of course parks should not be de facto off limits to the poor. Insurance certainly covers these things, which would alleviate that concern here or in the Alps. Honestly, I don't know. I was simply bringing up the thought that most people who would like to be rescued put that ahead of the monetary cost (not that they ignore the monetary cost entirely, which I think is what you're getting out of my comment).

[2dimes]

Who's going to collectively own it?

I know we have have a smaller population and larger area in Canada but search and reascue is part military and part volunteers who own aircraft. It's still painfully under funded. Unless someone coughs up the money like Option 1, that's pretty much how it's going to be.

[BigBallinStalin]

As far as I can tell you're talking about 'the markets vs. central planning'. Am I right?

Isn't your debate more relevant to the quality of services than it is to the eradication of poverty? People paying for more expensive rescue helicopters are giving money to receive a service. People giving their wealth to the impoverished are giving money and receiving nothing.

That's one aspect of it.

There's also the question of why people produce and trade, and what encourages that and what discourages that.


If you look over the past 500 years, roughly 200 years ago, standards of living, income per capita, etc. rapidly expanded. Before that, social well-being was roughly the same, or very slowly getting better.

The eradication of poverty is tied with gains of trade, division of labor, prices, property rights, etc. (what the central planning v. markets debate is about).

_____________________

People paying for more expensive rescue helicopters are giving money to receive a service. People giving their wealth to the impoverished are giving money and receiving nothing.

People who give to the impoverished receive the satisfaction of giving, among other non-monetary profits; otherwise, they wouldn't give. If they receive absolutely no benefit from donating, then they wouldn't donate. (caveat: unless the exchange is involuntary, e.g. government takes a portion of your money and gives it to relatively poorer people).

[BigBallinStalin]

Odds are if you want your life to be rescued, you're willing to pay for it to be rescued.

What about people who need to be rescued from terminal cancer?

Call the US Coast Guard?

[Lootifer]

Surely a different situation. You can avoid avalanches by not skiing/snowboarding, which is inherently a risky behavior.

Certain parts of national parks should be de facto off-limits to those except the super-wealthy then? Those who can afford to be helicoptered out if they become victims of nature or circumstance?

Option 1 - The Alps - the best rescue equipment money can buy; immediate response - unlimited resources (however, surname must have the word Von in front of it in order for a rescue to be launched)


Option 2 - The Rockies - Vietnam-era surplus equipment -- delayed response -- equipment frequently breaks (however, no income audit or verification of family lineage required prior to rescue)

Roughly about 6:3 government funding (ACC covers flying fees) to sponsership.

User pays nothing.

In other words USA: ur doing it wrong.

[huamulan]

Division of labor, property rights, prices... these are all factors created and sustained by humans.

You can't treat an issue like poverty by addressing the symptoms (division of labor etc.). You need to address the cause (the human attitudes that create the system).

[thegreekdog]

Division of labor, property rights, prices... these are all factors created and sustained by humans.

You can't treat an issue like poverty by addressing the symptoms (division of labor etc.). You need to address the cause (the human attitudes that create the system).

The "I want my big screen TV, screw you" attitudes?

[huamulan]

Pretty much.

[saxitoxin]

Surely a different situation. You can avoid avalanches by not skiing/snowboarding, which is inherently a risky behavior.

Certain parts of national parks should be de facto off-limits to those except the super-wealthy then? Those who can afford to be helicoptered out if they become victims of nature or circumstance?

Option 1 - The Alps - the best rescue equipment money can buy; immediate response - unlimited resources (however, surname must have the word Von in front of it in order for a rescue to be launched)


Option 2 - The Rockies - Vietnam-era surplus equipment -- delayed response -- equipment frequently breaks (however, no income audit or verification of family lineage required prior to rescue)

Roughly about 6:3 government funding (ACC covers flying fees) to sponsership.

User pays nothing.

In other words USA: ur doing it wrong.

I'm interested in this - explain more how it works.

[thegreekdog]

Pretty much.

Since we've had those attitudes for 5,000 years or so, I doubt our ability to change.

[huamulan]

Pretty much

I just hate when people blame poverty on the poor rather than accepting that the whole community is responsible.

[thegreekdog]

Pretty much

I just hate when people blame poverty on the poor rather than accepting that the whole community is responsible.

Oh sorry, I don't think the whole community is responsible. I think there is responsibility to go around, but I certainly would never suggest that a poor person is poor because of someone else. Perhaps they are poor partially because of someone else.

I know we're not being United States-specific, but I've posted data here regarding the level of "poverty" in the United States and what that really means. Without getting into details, I lack sympathy for many of the U.S. poor who tend to have stuff as nice as I do. Are there specific indicies of poor people getting screwed or single mothers working 60 hours a week? Yes. Do I think people don't make enough money in their jobs? Yes. Do I think it's my (an upper middleclasser) fault? No way. I'm a selfish guy though.

[saxitoxin]

I just hate when people blame poverty on the poor rather than accepting that the whole community is responsible.

What about the Brazilian bartender Cosmo who spends 15% of his monthly income on exotic colognes. Is the community responsible for that?
According to the FT study, "spending this kind of proportion of monthly wages on beauty and personal care products is the norm among lower-income consumers" in Brazil.

Is there a point that - no matter how many social equalization initiatives are introduced - there is simply a class of people who will always be poor?

[GabonX]

So are you still a socialist Saxi?

Let me know when you're back from your ban..

[Lootifer]

I'm interested in this - explain more how it works.

It's weird; the public disclosures of their income list government sponsership/grants as zero; but then they have this flying fees column which is the bulk of their income.

I know from personal experience (my brother was in a car accident years ago) that the rescue helicopter does not charge the recipients any money, and we dont have an insurance model like the US. However if you have any kind of accident in NZ you get it fully funded by a government agency called ACC (um accident compensation commission?) so I am guessing (but 99% sure im right) that the flying fees are paid for by ACC...

Actually just talked to my collegue sitting next to me and he suggested the funding was likely to come from the DHBs (district health boards) who, again, are funded by the government. It's kind of opaque where the money is coming from (which obviously points to unneccessary paperwork but thats not really relevant to this discussion) but either way the punter who fell off the cliff doesnt pay for it.

This is the kind of model I like; a private - but usually charitable - organisation provides the service, and gets paid by public money from taxes. We have a similar system with our ambulances iirc.

[huamulan]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about the US. How do you explain poverty in Africa or South East Asia? The people's lack of vitality?

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about the US. How do you explain poverty in Africa or South East Asia? The people's lack of vitality?

If only I had won a Nobel Prize in economics and poverty in Africa and Southeast Asia.

If I had to speculate off the cuff, I would say lack of resources, lack of arable (sp?) land, and overpopulation. I suspect lack of resources is inaccurate, but, well...

The funny (ironic, not ha ha) thing is that Africa and Southeast Asia used to be economic powerhouses.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about the US. How do you explain poverty in Africa or South East Asia? The people's lack of vitality?

Property rights is one of the variables. Then there's institutions, as in "rules of the game," which can be in political/legal, economic, and social realms.

Africa has many resources, and the capital is available through trade. I'd say most of the blame goes on oppressive governance, which can be self-sustaining or supported by "donations."

Some of it could be explained by cultural attitudes toward trade, entrepreneurship, etc., but I don't think they're that significant.

[huamulan]

It's possible for oppressive rulers to build the wealth of their people. Gaddafi nationalized his oil industry and used the wealth to create one of Africa's richest and most developed countries. And then we look at Nigeria, a fellow OPEC member and a democracy. It rolled over to companies like Shell and as a result the money from its oil is made and spent in Europe.

The most important 'rules of the game' are the global free trade agreements that make a situation like Nigeria's possible. As long as those with the power continue to sit back and say 'do as you please' then human greed is allowed to dominate and the strong are free to prey on the weak.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's possible for oppressive rulers to build the wealth of their people. Gaddafi nationalized his oil industry and used the wealth to create one of Africa's richest and most developed countries. And then we look at Nigeria, a fellow OPEC member and a democracy. It rolled over to companies like Shell and as a result the money from its oil is made and spent in Europe.

Gaddafi was more effective at suppressing "undesirable elements" than Nigeria and its insurgents in the delta. Gaddafi and his crew also enjoyed a more homogenous population to control than did Nigeria's government. These factors were more favorable for Libya than for Nigeria, so how would that affect your analysis?

If the key to "building the wealth of a nation's people" is just a matter of nationalizing the oil industry and having extensive welfare programs on par with Libya, then why doesn't Canada and Australia do the same for their resources? Surely, we would see better results, right?

The money from Libya's oil industry still goes to western companies like Shell, as it does for Nigeria. These exchanges aren't zero-sum because the revenue earned by these oil companies goes into the west and into the domestic country...

The most important 'rules of the game' are the global free trade agreements that make a situation like Nigeria's possible. As long as those with the power continue to sit back and say 'do as you please' then human greed is allowed to dominate and the strong are free to prey on the weak.

Libya has signed such trade agreements with other countries, so it's not just "global free trade agreements" that are the main cause of these problems.

[saxitoxin]

For purposes of this thread, is poverty unavoidable in an industrialized, first-world country or can poverty be completely eradicated in an industrialized, first-world country?

[BigBallinStalin]

For purposes of this thread, is poverty unavoidable in an industrialized, first-world country or can poverty be completely eradicated in an industrialized, first-world country?

It depends on how poverty is defined.

1) For example, if we examine incomes by brackets of 20% within country A, then the lowest 20% could be called the "poverty level."
1-answer) No, never, saxi.


2) If we examine poverty on a global scale, then the poverty within a developed country would significantly less relative to the poverty within lesser developed countries.
2-answer) Maybe, but there are diminishing returns. I don't think everyone can be "saved" from poverty.


3) Definitely, yes. In order to eradicate poverty simply eradicate the poor. Problem solved!

[TA1LGUNN3R]

3) Definitely, yes. In order to eradicate poverty simply eradicate the poor. Problem solved!

This reminds me of a certain modest proposal...

-Tails