Poverty is a bane on society and it has been since the beginnings of civilization. There have always been some people who, for whatever reason, have fewer resources than others.

Some economic systems have been designed specifically to ameliorate this issue (e.g. communism) with less than stellar results.

The Romans established welfare systems to deal with their impoverished, however these systems had no lasting effect on poverty (the poor, generally speaking, didn't escape poverty).

In the United States, arguably the wealthiest nation in the world, about 12% of the people are truly impoverished (earning less than the "poverty line") and a higher percentage are living at a marginal income level (just about the poverty line). The United States government spends about $300 Billion on programs for the poor. Note that this is up from about $180 Billion in 1996, and back then about 13.5% of the people were truly impoverished.

Poverty, for discussion purposes can either mean a lack of resources to provide for material needs, or it can mean earning less than a certain dollar amount (that amount based on the average cost of these same material needs).

The question is whether or not this is an achievable goal. Can poverty, in any society, ever be eliminated?

Now lets keep answers real. Theoretical ideals are nice, but one has to show they will work. For example, communism, as an ideal, is ok. In practice, communism fails.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

There can't be a poor w/o a rich. and vice versa.

you've said it would devalue money if everyone had as much as they want (my ideal) making it worthless, but is that even possible w/ the current existing amount of currency in america or globally?

isn't currency limited to the amount of gold or precious materials unearthed & locked away? How much money is in america or in the world, does anyone know the statistics?

Hypothetically, even if it was court mandated for all million/billionares to donate 95% or more of their net worth to the poverty-stricken then would there still be enough to go around to elevate everyone to or above the poverty line? I don't know how much there is, but 6-7 billion dollers spreads out pretty thin. everyone in the enitre would only get a doller. Though If that's the poverty line then everyone might be taken care for a only day.

what's the global poverty line, how many people are living in poverty in the world? I need answers, google isn't being very friendly to me today

__________________
<---Click on it

Poverty is just one of those damn things that never go away.

__________________

Some people are like Slinkies.. They're not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

Poverty is inevitable.

__________________

Get me a hardtop with a decent engine, and make sure it's got a big trunk.

As jpklla and Sandals said, and I think Punkus did too but his post was too long for me to bother reading, there will always be a group of people who are poor.

__________________

my reply was only 9 sentences long, how was that too long? lol.

jpklla, sandals, & diablo- why? why is poverty inevitable, will never go away, & will always be there?

__________________
<---Click on it

Because some people live in shitty places where they can't work. I mean, shit!

__________________

Get me a hardtop with a decent engine, and make sure it's got a big trunk.

This is totally irrelevant. But there was a time during the "Islamic Country" period, that when "zakat" (money collected and given out to the poor and needy) was about to be given to those in need, they were'nt found. The "zakat" system is pretty effective if applied well. The "Islamic Country" streched across the middle east area to parts of Spain and Iran I think.

__________________

Really the only method that would get rid of poverty is some form of communism. As history as taught us, communism doesn't work that well.

__________________

Good responses so far,

Punkus, you mentioned the value of money. Money is not currently based on precious metals in most countries (President Nixon ended that for the United States). Rather it is based on two things. The commodities markets and the faith that people have in their government. Yes, money is faith based.

Commodities are any items that people might want. For example, gasoline, precious metals, orange juice and yes, money. Commodities markets trade one commodity for another (generally, they trade one commodity for money and then use that money to buy another). They even buy and sell currencies of other countries. When the price of a commodity drops, then the money used to buy that commodity rises in value. When the price of a commodity rises, then the value of the money drops.

The faith that people have in the government that issues the money has bearing in this way. If the world sees a certain government as weak or about to fail, the money that the government issued will also weaken in value or fail altogether. Similarly, if a government is considered stable, then the money issued by that government is considered stable and can possibly be regarded as a decent long term investment.

Why does all of this matter? Well, since money is a commodity, it falls under the supply and demand equation. If there is a lot of money and little demand, the money is worth very little (e.g. if the United States government simply printed trillions of dollars and distributed them, the paper wouldn't really be worth that much (it would be less desirable) and as such, it wouldn't buy as much, so it would devalue (and possibly another commodity would be considered valuable). To keep money's value, it must be kept desirable which means limited supply and much demand. In short, printing more money and distributing it doesn't solve poverty.

Since the goal is to eliminate poverty, we must get money to the poor in a way that doesn't devalue it. Unfortunately, that means trading for it. Value must be exchanged for like value. What do the poor have that we might value in order to give them money? About all they have is their time and labor. In short, they would have to work for money for it not to be devalued. Anything else would cause some devaluation.

How then can the government get around that need? Well, they can provide "services" for the poor. For example, they can provide health care, government owned housing (where the poor can live for free), welfare (handouts to the poor), etc. The services don't devalue money because the services employ people who are paid, cash doesn't make it into the hands of the poor, but their lot in life is improved. Unfortunately, this is not currently working. Sure, the poor may have a place to live, but they can't escape that location unless they work to earn enough money to get out. Once they start working, they are no longer poor and the government ends their services (after all, there are other poor who need help as well). The poor aren't stupid. They realize that if they don't work, they get a free ride, but if they start to work to rise above the poverty line, they'll have to continue working. Note that this is a vast generalization. Many poor people are happy to start working again after the government helps them get on their feet.

Quick note on communism. The communist ideal is that everyone has an equal amount of money and that they earn the same amount. In short, money is simply a convenient medium of exchange for goods and services. Alternatively, no money would exist and everything would be free, but then you'd get abusers of the system. The biggest problem with this ideal is the concept of perceived value. At some point, someone is going to wonder if their contribution to the community is worth more than someone else's. For example, a doctor may wonder if it is reasonable to earn the same as a tailor. Certainly, a tailor is important to a community, but a doctor requires much more training and skill. Is the perceived value to the community equal? Perhaps we can compensate by having the doctor only work 2 hours per day compared to the tailor's 8 hour day, but then we'd need many more doctors because illnesses and emergencies aren't likely to fit within a 2 hour work day. The inevitable results of this disparity are:

• People wouldn't want to become doctors and put in the time necessary and develop the skills without greater rewards.
• Doctors would resent those who earn the same amounts but do "less work".
• People might actively seek out "easy" careers (e.g. a clerk makes the same as a manager, why have the additional headaches of management?).
• Innovation is stifled because there is no reward for it.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan