Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Niassuh)
    We'll have to start by abolishing capitalism. About world hunger, we actually produce enough food to feed the population and then some, the problem is distribution i.e that people can't afford it. If there are actual shortages in food production, sustainable farming methods like urban polyculture and high yield Aquaponics would be suitable for that method.

    Capitalism was very progressive in abolishing feudalism, no doubt about it. It's outlived it's usefulness now.
    No, capitalism is what gives us wealth.

    If you abolish capitalism, you abolish wealth, which is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedeneye1)
    The people responsible are long dead.

    What is happening there today is their own business.

    They are responsible for what's happening in their countries.

    And I'm not a part of your "we". I am from Pakistan in Pakistan.

    If you are still interested in paying a compensation for what your ancestors may or may not have done, I'll send you my bank details.
    1. not true... the IMF, World Bank, banks themselves and unscrupulous multi-nationals continue to rape and pillage. Colonialism has shifted emphasis- see China's African involvement for example but is no less damaging..

    2. poverty = terrorism = our business (even if not on humanitarian grounds)

    3. It was lazy but intended as the 'Royal we'- in reference to my own identity...

    4. Did I accidentally post? Or did you make up the part about compensation???. .. my posts refer to problems and causes...I am not as wise as you and would not post ill-informed gobbets from wikipedia or other equally as useless sites... I'd just look rather foolish compared to your mighty intellect...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mazzletazzle)
    1. not true... the IMF, World Bank, banks themselves and unscrupulous multi-nationals continue to rape and pillage. Colonialism has shifted emphasis- see China's African involvement for example but is no less damaging..

    2. poverty = terrorism = our business (even if not on humanitarian grounds)

    3. It was lazy but intended as the 'Royal we'- in reference to my own identity...

    4. Did I accidentally post? Or did you make up the part about compensation???. .. my posts refer to problems and causes...I am not as wise as you and would not post ill-informed gobbets from wikipedia or other equally as useless sites... I'd just look rather foolish compared to your mighty intellect...
    1. These banks/organizations don't force anyone into taking up those loans. Just corrupt/bad governments. Business as usual.

    2. I don't understand that.

    3. okay.

    4. okay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedeneye1)
    1. These banks/organizations don't force anyone into taking up those loans. Just corrupt/bad governments. Business as usual.

    2. I don't understand that.

    3. okay.

    4. okay.
    2. I'm sure you can find it next time ur on GCSE bitesize or wikipedia
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...oko-Haram.html
    http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/201...errorism/?_r=0
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting counter argument based on Pakistani Middle Class ... http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/06/...eed-terrorism/ (needs a 2m sign up)

    Got to get ready for A2 mocks... see you
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joyful_soul)
    Is there a way in which poverty and world hunger can be abolished?
    Good questions. There are a number of ways to do it, and they're each difficult in their own way.

    Firstly, within a mixed-market system (colloquially known as capitalism), there are a number of things we can do.

    * On a governmental level, a move away from the Thatcherite, free-market ideology that has poisoned our society for the last 35 years will help to reduce poverty. Higher taxation on the rich, high minimum wages, perhaps a Basic Income (agreed upon by economists of the Left and Right, for that matter), can help to reduce poverty in every country. In countries such as Denmark, they have a high taxation rate and a high minimum wage, and they have the lowest poverty and inequality levels. Economic growth in such a mixed-market system would mean that growth is distributed more towards those in poverty than it would be in a system closer to pure capitalism (which has never existed - every country is, at the very least, a mixed-market system.) The more equal a society, the greater its rate of poverty reduction, as this study demonstrates. And, the more equal a society, the better its economic growth. Since Reagan and Thatcher came along, inequality in the United States and Britain has shot up.

    * On an individual level, there are things we can do as well. Donating even a small proportion of our incomes (1, 5, 10 per cent or more - you decide) to cost-effective charities backed up with evidence will save lives and help to end global poverty. Resources will be less strained as well, as the lower the poverty rate, the lower the fertility rate. I link to GiveWell, which provides extremely detailed evaluations of charities and recommends top charities such as deworming charities which cure neglected tropical diseases, allowing children to go to school and get an education instead of suffering from these terrible diseases. Only a relatively small sum of can cure one person of such a disease.

    There are reasons to think that this would be difficult in a capitalist system, though. There are no signs that the rich and powerful are prepared to abandon their free-market dogma. Moreover, what we know as capitalism is responsible for the continuation of the most serious existential threat to life on Earth, namely global warming. Global warming will seriously hinder any effort to reduce poverty due to resources becoming more scarce, disease spreading, and so on.

    So, we could abolish capitalism:

    * If we abolished capitalism, there would likely be no currency. Without currency, society would operate on the principle of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Essentially, the most vulnerable would get all the things they need, as would everyone else, of course. In our technologically advanced society, or certainly in the future, there may come a point where we can produce, with robotics, for instance, enough essentials to help everyone. In such a society, everyone would no longer be concerned about petty material goods and would instead be concerned about bettering themselves and humanity.

    Sounds utopian, which is why this path is also difficult - the rich and powerful are unlikely to stand by and allow this scenario to happen either.

    On world hunger, there is another way to help to solve it:

    * A global move to a vegetarian diet would free up around 40% of the grain that we produce which is wasted when it is fed to fatten up nonhuman animals reared for meat. If this grain were instead consumed directly by humans, some estimate that around 1 billion more people could be fed.

    But, certainly, on an individual level, voting for parties committed to policies that move away from neoliberal capitalist economics, giving some of your income to cost-effective charities and perhaps adopting a vegetarian diet are the things you can do to do your bit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Good questions. There are a number of ways to do it, and they're each difficult in their own way.

    Firstly, within a mixed-market system (colloquially known as capitalism), there are a number of things we can do.

    * On a governmental level, a move away from the Thatcherite, free-market ideology that has poisoned our society for the last 35 years will help to reduce poverty. Higher taxation on the rich, high minimum wages, perhaps a Basic Income (agreed upon by economists of the Left and Right, for that matter), can help to reduce poverty in every country. In countries such as Denmark, they have a high taxation rate and a high minimum wage, and they have the lowest poverty and inequality levels. Economic growth in such a mixed-market system would mean that growth is distributed more towards those in poverty than it would be in a system closer to pure capitalism (which has never existed - every country is, at the very least, a mixed-market system.) The more equal a society, the greater its rate of poverty reduction, as this study demonstrates. And, the more equal a society, the better its economic growth. Since Reagan and Thatcher came along, inequality in the United States and Britain has shot up.

    * On an individual level, there are things we can do as well. Donating even a small proportion of our incomes (1, 5, 10 per cent or more - you decide) to cost-effective charities backed up with evidence will save lives and help to end global poverty. Resources will be less strained as well, as the lower the poverty rate, the lower the fertility rate. I link to GiveWell, which provides extremely detailed evaluations of charities and recommends top charities such as deworming charities which cure neglected tropical diseases, allowing children to go to school and get an education instead of suffering from these terrible diseases. Only a relatively small sum of can cure one person of such a disease.

    There are reasons to think that this would be difficult in a capitalist system, though. There are no signs that the rich and powerful are prepared to abandon their free-market dogma. Moreover, what we know as capitalism is responsible for the continuation of the most serious existential threat to life on Earth, namely global warming. Global warming will seriously hinder any effort to reduce poverty due to resources becoming more scarce, disease spreading, and so on.

    So, we could abolish capitalism:

    * If we abolished capitalism, there would likely be no currency. Without currency, society would operate on the principle of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Essentially, the most vulnerable would get all the things they need, as would everyone else, of course. In our technologically advanced society, or certainly in the future, there may come a point where we can produce, with robotics, for instance, enough essentials to help everyone. In such a society, everyone would no longer be concerned about petty material goods and would instead be concerned about bettering themselves and humanity.

    Sounds utopian, which is why this path is also difficult - the rich and powerful are unlikely to stand by and allow this scenario to happen either.

    On world hunger, there is another way to help to solve it:

    * A global move to a vegetarian diet would free up around 40% of the grain that we produce which is wasted when it is fed to fatten up nonhuman animals reared for meat. If this grain were instead consumed directly by humans, some estimate that around 1 billion more people could be fed.

    But, certainly, on an individual level, voting for parties committed to policies that move away from neoliberal capitalist economics, giving some of your income to cost-effective charities and perhaps adopting a vegetarian diet are the things you can do to do your bit.
    At last... a well-researched and balanced answer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Niassuh)
    We'll have to start by abolishing capitalism. About world hunger, we actually produce enough food to feed the population and then some, the problem is distribution i.e that people can't afford it. If there are actual shortages in food production, sustainable farming methods like urban polyculture and high yield Aquaponics would be suitable for that method.

    Capitalism was very progressive in abolishing feudalism, no doubt about it. It's outlived it's usefulness now.
    If you consider the market to be such an oppressive social structure then why do you choose to enter it? You're perfectly free to give away all of your property, isolate yourself from the market, and go live in a cave. It's just that your life will be crap. Which is indeed the most obvious flaw in the arguments of those who espouse your position, because - as your actions demonstrate - everybody's welfare, including your own, is so very dependent on the market that you literally couldn't survive without it. This very absence of private property rights and free markets is why over a billion people around the world are living in extreme poverty, starving, and subjecting each other to violence in many places. Just as people were here (under feudalism) prior to their emergence. The incredible record of poverty alleviation brought about by globalization and developing countries' emerging markets in the past four decades (especially in China and India) is also pretty undeniable. You do understand that, in 2015, market economies are pretty much universally accepted as being the best means of alleviating poverty and delivering prosperity for entire populations, right? It's only within your tiny fringe group that the archaic ideas you're promoting are credited with any value.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    There is a way indeed, but I guess it seems to be utopian in realization. We are living in a global economy where everyone of us compete with each other. We are in a competition where are both winners and losers. And the losers are the ones who are working in Africa and in Asia for a 'slave wage' just to produce goods which are sold in so-called first world countries. Why? firstly to save money in comany's view (so in paying wages out), secondly to save money in consumer's view (so in paying prices) its a win-win situation for us, isn't it? to stop poverty in the third world, the poor workers need the same working rights. Many countries in Africa and Asia have no opportunities in negotiate tariffs and no works councils to fight for better wages. And that is just the basis of the problem! but do we want better working conditions there and to give the win-win-situation up at the same time? I don't think so.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It's interesting listening to lefties provide evidence of lower inequality leading to economic growth when that kind of economic growth is often even more about paper growth than today. In countries like Denmark they have much larger public sector employment and by taxing the wealthy to pay for that those employees then consume.. economic growth remains high. But when your looking more towards manufacturing real goods, they produce no more than a more unequal country (the UK and US for example are still some of the largest exporters in the world), the growth is simply driven by giving people non-jobs, redistributing the wealth and then having people spend the money.

    Now there's nothing wrong with that kind of growth inherently but it does raise the question of whether you believe all people are entitled to a job or whether jobs must be productive (granted you can then argue about what productive employment is).

    Personally i'd be more interested in solutions based around tackling private sector (productive) wage growth as a means to reduce inequality (if we really must approach it from such a left wing angle) rather than taxing people, giving more people non-jobs as diversity consultants ect.. and then praising ourselves because the state gave us all massive pay rises while the private economy didn't change much.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's interesting listening to lefties provide evidence of lower inequality leading to economic growth when that kind of economic growth is often even more about paper growth than today. In countries like Denmark they have much larger public sector employment and by taxing the wealthy to pay for that those employees then consume.. economic growth remains high. But when your looking more towards manufacturing real goods, they produce no more than a more unequal country (the UK and US for example are still some of the largest exporters in the world), the growth is simply driven by giving people non-jobs, redistributing the wealth and then having people spend the money.

    Now there's nothing wrong with that kind of growth inherently but it does raise the question of whether you believe all people are entitled to a job or whether jobs must be productive (granted you can then argue about what productive employment is).

    Personally i'd be more interested in solutions based around tackling private sector (productive) wage growth as a means to reduce inequality (if we really must approach it from such a left wing angle) rather than taxing people, giving more people non-jobs as diversity consultants ect.. and then praising ourselves because the state gave us all massive pay rises while the private economy didn't change much.
    Economic growth isn't very important compared to tackling poverty and inequality.Most of the economic growth is only felt by rich businessmen and I think I am agreeing with the Green Party on this that zero economic growth would be desriable, to prevent excess consumption of resources which will produce more greenhouse emissions and make the problem of Global Warming even worser.My main two priorites are battling poverty and saving the environment, people only really need a decent amount to live off having more is just greedy and the threat of global warming is very serious in the long term with human extinction possible.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FlareBlitz96)
    Apparently, half of the worlds total wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population.
    I think on a global scale, 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 50%
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    I think on a global scale, 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 50%
    Interesting....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    People are poor because they lack the means to create their own equity. The problem is not with capitalism per se, but that those 'on top' are restricting access to the market from below. Corruption also plays its part (consider how poor the otherwise resource-rich African population is). These governments have failed to protect their populations' capacity to create wealth by allowing foreign market powers to move in and dominate.

    To alleviate poverty, we shouldn't give wealth away, but protect the means for all to produce it ('give a man a fish', and all that). This means limiting the power of monopolies and oligopolies that are taking all the opportunities and filling all the niches. This must be done by people through government (which has the potential authority to regulate the market). We need more competition; not less. Doing away with capitalism altogether won't produce anything better for society as a whole (capitalistic competition has created more for us than any other system ever has). A ladder on its side can never reach as high as one on its feet.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. There is no reason why there should billionaires on this planet while some people are struggling to feed themselves.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.