Comments on Whatever it Takes - The Fight Against Poverty

Go to Making Free Marketeers Angry - Add a comment - Go to Whatever it Takes - The Fight Against Poverty

Beachbelle, it is as Ms. Lynne Truss writes in her book on punctuation, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation": "Sticklers, unite!  You have nothing to lose but your sense of proportion, and arguably you didn't have much of that to begin with."  I am not a worshipper of any person or nation, but you Brits do come up with some of the best stuff in civilization!   

posted by Dylan24 on January 20, 2005 at 8:12 AM | link to this | reply

Ex-stud

You have a clever dad to buy you that. When I worked in places where English was not the first language, The Economist was a lifeline.

I think you are more pre-occupied than me about the wrong use of "its" and "it's".

Interesting article D.

posted by beachbelle on January 19, 2005 at 6:26 PM | link to this | reply

I figured it had to be from "The Economist"; not that you can't write as well, but they have a very distinctive style that one gets used to and after awhile can recognize anywhere.  My Dad bought me a subscription to "The Economist", which made my month -- now I don't have to get just limited coverage online.  I'm sick of being excluded from "premium content".  So much does their exclusivity and elitism anger me, in fact, that I think I might just have to become a terrorist.  OK, bad joke.  The way I see it, getting rid of poverty -- or reducing it as much as possible -- is the right thing to do, terrorism or no terrorism.  I think it would help reduce terrorism to fight poverty, but governments throughout the Middle East need to make democratic, liberal and secular reforms; and we need to make sure that whatever money is invested in their development doesn't get co-opted by the regimes or funneled to fundamentalist-religious schools (the U.S. has a lot of work to do on this point). 

Also, I can't help myself: You used "it's" as a possessive in your last comment.  Points will be deducted accordingly.   

posted by Dylan24 on January 19, 2005 at 6:15 PM | link to this | reply

Whoops! I Missed...

...the credit, but it's there now. And you're spot on - the Economist was the source.

What I think is missing from this, and from the discussion on poverty in general, is it's link with terrorism. Kingmi has been running a series of questions based on a model where the world is divided into two - those nations connected and economically active, and those disconnected and poor. the arguement goes that we have to connect the disconnected or we'll face ever-more terrorist strife.

It's not a bad arguement. Basically, if we put ourselves as much as possible into the mind of a suicide bomber or a 9/11 attacker, the basic conclusion is that s/he has nothing to lose, and everything (a cause, paradise) to gain. Which is why you don't get French, or british, or American suicide bombers. People from developed countries have lots to lose.

Poverty makes people desperate, and desperate people do desperate things. Especially if they can see a person or nation who is actively working to keep them poor or, at best, ignoring them. Take away poverty - and it's really not all that hard! - and you take away 90% of terrorist motivation and activity.

I'm convinced of it.

Thanks for reading.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on January 19, 2005 at 12:06 AM | link to this | reply

Thank you, thank you, thank you!  The argument is stated as well as one can imagine!  Is this posted from another source or is this your own essay?  Since you didn't label it with a name I assume it's yours; I only wonder because it is quite different from your usual style of writing.  Also the pro-trade words sound as though they were picked straight from the brains of the editors at "The Economist".  As you've written before, the world has more than enough resources to end abject poverty everywhere; it's inexcusable that we haven't done so already. 

I think we should try to push foreign aid up to 2% of GDP.  I also agree that we need to help improve the infrastructure and legal systems that will put the money to best use.  It is indeed an investment.  When developing countries' economies improve, we will profit from commerce with them.  It's not a matter of charity, as I see it; it's a basic matter of justice, which is why I don't think leaving aid and investment to the private sector is sufficient or acceptable.  Big government, when wisely managed and kept in check by its constituents, can be a very good thing. 

posted by Dylan24 on January 18, 2005 at 6:44 AM | link to this | reply