Homeless Forums

World can end poverty, but only if U.S. does more

streetseen
04-11-2005, 09:49 PM
The U.S. government is undermining international efforts to end extreme poverty by 2025 by ignoring development issues and spending too much money on its military, a leading economist said on Sunday.
Jeffrey Sachs, special adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and one of the world's best-known economists, argues in a new book that the world could be just 20 years away from dragging 1.1 billion people out of "poverty that kills".
He notes that a growing number of countries, mostly in Europe, are committing more time and money to the problem.
"I believe there is a growing global consensus to do this, but it does not include the United States right now," he said.
"The reason it can be brought to an end by the year 2025 ... is that the world is rich," he said in London, where he is promoting his book "The End of Poverty".
But he also warned: "The book starts by saying this is not a forecast. There's no guarantee that it will be accomplished."
One major hurdle is U.S. reluctance to make aid and poverty reduction policy priorities, according to Sachs.
One problem is that the American people are unaware of how little of their money goes to aid. In his book, Sachs says 0.15 percent of U.S. gross national product is spent on aid, compared with a commitment by donor countries to give 0.7 percent.
"The American people think that they give many times more than they do. When was the last time President (George W.) Bush explained this to the American people? Never."
He also estimated that U.S. military spending in 2005 will be around $500 billion, or more than 30 times the $16 billion that will be spent on aid.
"A 30-to-1 ratio is really a problem ... As long as the United States is outside the growing development consensus, we're not really going to be able to make this breakthrough."
MILLIONS DYING
Sachs estimates that around 30,000 people die every day because they are too poor to stay alive.
But there are reasons for optimism, including the fact that the proportion of people in abject poverty is now roughly one fifth of the world's population, compared with one half just two generations ago.
However, while some countries and regions have dragged themselves out of the poverty trap, others are unable to do so without outside assistance.
The worst-affected region is Africa, which Sachs puts down to three main factors; low-productivity agriculture reliant on rainfall rather than irrigation, diseases such as malaria and AIDS and the geographic isolation of large numbers of people.
"You can see solutions in each of these areas but they cost money. If you're impoverished because of these problems, and yet those problems require money to overcome, then you can see the vicious circle."
Sachs said the key to effective assistance was targeted aid with a full understanding of what a country needed.
Labelling countries "corrupt" or otherwise was not always constructive, and was too often used as an excuse not to give.
Both he and rock star Bono, who wrote the foreword to the book, sounded a warning to policy makers who ignored poverty.
"Africa is not on the front line in the war against terror, but it soon could be," anti-poverty campaigner Bono wrote

gchicklet
04-12-2005, 05:57 AM
Unfortunatly, your right, the majority of the american people have no idea where thier money is going. Sadly, as long as they feel like thier own needs are being met many of them don't care.

America is a democracy on paper, however, in practice this country is ruled by the almighty dollar. Those that have the money bankroll the politicians. Since this is the case, our government has people in power that only look out for the interests of the big buisness owners and and those on top of the food chain.

Heaven forbid that something humanitarian actually get done. First off, you can't build a political legacy on it, and secondly, it might mean that those who have the extra cash in thier pockets may have to give it up. Our Government is too busy spending thier money on things that are going to make them look good to the uninformed american people to do anything worth while.

Example: it's a known fact that starting in the clinton administration news networks would run pieces put together by the white house spin doctors. The reason the majority of the american public hasn't been aware of this fact lies in the presentation of these news stories. They are run so that they look like an original piece done by your favorite local anchor person. In George W's administration it's being done more than twice as often as before. If you want my opinion this is the worst kind of propaganda.

Americans are people of comfort, as long as they are comfortable they don't care. And each person defines comfort a bit differently.

For one family, comfort is each person having thier own bedroom. For another, it's each person having a car. For some, it's having a decent meal once a day.

For me, comfort is having enough gas in my car to get me to work, and maybe buy an occasional coloring book or deck of cards.

So there you have it. If your counting on the US to jump on the bandwagon, i wouldn't recommend holding your breath. People like me who feel that we should be in the trenches with the rest of the world and looking out for others are few and far between. Not to mention we're labeled as bleeding heart liberals and nutjobs.

I'm defecting to canada :p

Liz
The bleeding heart liberal nutjob

< rant mode=off >

International Homeless Forums Copyright 2008