is poverty our fault? Options

[jennyt13]

who is the start of poverty? who started it? did we? we know that there are millions of people out there that have it worst than us. there are people out there that are starving but what are we doing? we go around and buy the most unimportant things we don't need. we don't need 4 houses all we need is one!!! we don't need 44 cars all we need is one!!!!!!! why are spending money on the things that we don't actually use or need? And when you are donating your money don't do it because its good image for the public or it makes you look like a good person so everyone will like you after that. do it because its the right thing to do. do it because you know you want to. do it because you know that there are people out there that will do anything to get something to eat. do it because its coming from Your HEART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[*.fire*]

Poverty is not a thing that happened overnight, it is based on the have and have nots and those acting upon greed. As an individual we cannot overcome poverty as poverty at this stage and magnitude is a societal problem where it only be reseolved by word wide unification and a striving towards a common goal. But theres a large problem to "make" everyone do something to better the entirety of the population (liberaltarian ideas coming forth) due to the fact many people are inherently selfish, greedy, and competitive. Therefore on a more realistic note we shold just strive to minimise the gap between societal tiers as we sociologists now from the past (China) that liberaltarianism (communism) is a great idea, but just cant work.

[Kontroll]

Poverty is not a thing that happened overnight, it is based on the have and have nots and those acting upon greed. As an individual we cannot overcome poverty as poverty at this stage and magnitude is a societal problem where it only be reseolved by word wide unification and a striving towards a common goal. But theres a large problem to "make" everyone do something to better the entirety of the population (liberaltarian ideas coming forth) due to the fact many people are inherently selfish, greedy, and competitive. Therefore on a more realistic note we shold just strive to minimise the gap between societal tiers as we sociologists now from the past (China) that liberaltarianism (communism) is a great idea, but just cant work.

The theory of communism is appealing. But, like you said, it can just never work.

Secondly, we shouldn't eliminate the gap between the tiers. That will only cause socialism and communism. If we place people in tiers that are close together we have almost an equal plane of a population of people.

Our country is great because if we want it, we can get it. To eliminate the wealth would destroy our country. If we head towards socialism, like we are now, we can only get bad results.

I think that you should eliminate competition from your list. Competition is one thing that makes people at least live comfortably. If we didn't have competition we would all fail and our country would go to ruins.

[*.fire*]

I think that you should eliminate competition from your list. Competition is one thing that makes people at least live comfortably. If we didn't have competition we would all fail and our country would go to ruins.

I disagree in you exclusion of competitiveness as youre saying its what makes your country great, but youre ignoring the fact that your country still has a majority of it living underneath the poverty line. Competiveness breeds selfishness as its many people striving towards one prize, that surely will result in unfair play and someone being disadvantaged. Take a look at the Olympic games, that there is a competition but people still cheat do they not?

[alysaphobia]

I disagree in you exclusion of competitiveness as youre saying its what makes your country great, but youre ignoring the fact that your country still has a majority of it living underneath the poverty line. Competiveness breeds selfishness as its many people striving towards one prize, that surely will result in unfair play and someone being disadvantaged. Take a look at the Olympic games, that there is a competition but people still cheat do they not?

i disagree with you, i think JakeKKing is right. think about it. let's pretend we eradicated competition, and nobody starved to death anymore or had to die of poverty. they could start affording health care, food, and other basic amenities, so on a whole, would live longer lives and produce more children. the population would definitely increase more, and then soon enough, cities would get really crowded. as more people try to get jobs, the value of jobs would decrease because the demand for them is so high; so job wages as a whole would decrease. it's also always been said that population grows faster than the speed of production of food. it's inevitable that thousands of people could eventually starve due to the population boom. in other words, increased population = big trouble.

this is the basic concept thomas malthus developed during the industrial revolution. he stated that we need poverty, along with other things like natural disasters and war, to "check excessive population growth". click: the principle of population