A new non-statist approach needed to reduce poverty

[gop_ryan]

Follow the American example, and your poor will be richer then 70% of the world's population.

 

[aLx]

Follow the American example, and your poor will be richer then 70% of the world's population.

Yes but not nessecarily better off. They are having to pay American prices for products, where as people in poorer countries would usually pay lower prices. Just because an American poor person gets, for example, $100 a week, and a poor African person, for example, gets $30 does not nessecarily mean that the American. It depends on the prices of products and services.

 

[gop_ryan]

Hmmm... $100 a week seems really low considering the average level of subsidies an individual receives a week if they are on assistance is around 250 to 300 dollars a week depending on state. But remember, most poor areas in the USA have lower prices then the wealthier areas. It sort of balances things out.

 

[aLx]

The poorest of today in USA live like the richest in the beginning of the 20th century.

I am sure they will love you for comparing their lives to that of those over one hundred years ago. Your saying 'Heh your live isn't that bad, even we were as poor as you one hundered years ago!' Plus thats not exactly a pro-active arguement for dealing with poverty, which thread is about.

You seem to have fallen for the nation that the gap between rich and poor matters at all, when in fact it doesn't.
What matters is that even the poorest layers of society have their basic needs met (access to education, food, shelter, etc). If they do, then it doesn't matter how richer other people are.

Do they really have all this anyway? Plus is it as good what the rich people can afford? Unlikely. Why should any student have access to a higher standard of education just because their parents are wealthier? Thats blatent discrimination against the poor!
You say the basic needs are access to education etc but who provides the education? The state. Therefore you are, to a much lesser extent then it might seem that I am pointing out, going against your opinion of a non-statist approach.

Likewise, if a certain group of people does not have their basic necessities met, it doesn't matter whether they are rich or poor in their country; their situation must be changed.

The richer you are, the better services etc you can afford, and generally, its unlikely you won't have your 'basic necessities' met (whatever they are and who gets to decide them?).

Inequality is not bad at all, thus battling against it in itself is useless, not to mention harmful for the whole nation, which becomes poorer.

Ok so its not at all bad that some people in the USA can't afford necessary operations etc? Its not at all bad that some people have little access to education if any (third world countries)?
Also please provide some prove from any country which has tried to combat inequality and found it harmful for its nation.

No country was ever forced to get a loan from the IMF. And if they do, it is because the loans help them (and they do).
As for debt from banks worldwide, that is also entirely up to the nation's government, which chooses the interest they'll pay for whoever lends them money.
And no, countries in Africa are not poor because someone else has screwed them. They are poor because of dishonest leaders, because of incompetent politicians, and because of their complete disregard for fundamental institutions to development: stable government, respect for private property and freedom of initiative.

No not forced to get a loan from the IMF but had very very little choice. Where else are they going to get millions, even billion dollers fairly quickly? At least we agree that the loans help them - its just such a shame they is so much baggage with them.
I had you down as more intelligent than this. You are claiming that the nation who is being lent money chooses its rate of interest? If this was true they would naturally but interest at 0%. But then the banks would get no profit so would not bother doing it. Thats crazy to think that.
I agree with your comment about dishonest leaders, incompetent politicians which have proved to be harmful to African nations. Yes they have definatly helped to keep Africa poor. So have we though. What are we doing to help Africa become less poor? Little, if anything, in terms of debt and economic management. Dishonest leaders and incompetent politicians may have helped Africa become poor (along with many other factors) but what are we doing to help them claw back from poverty? Unless of course your individualism streches international and you believe its their own problem?

Blaming their ills on another nations is a common political tactic of populist and demagogue politicians, both from left and right, but it is completely false. It is a shame that well-intentioned people who live in those countries fall for that old card, which whenever is successfully used makes things a lot worse for the country in question.

You are being un-smypathetic to those countries that are 'blaming their ills' on us, because maybe its actually our fault they are still living as they do. Maybe you could take the high road and say 'Yes debt repayment is unnecessary, I relise that most African and other third world countries are spending more a year paying us back than they are on health and/or education. Countries which are paying us money, when they have the greater need'.
Don't worry I am not exactly getting my hopes up that you will agree, or actually think about the implications of the facts in that statement.

Yes, I do, and that is precisely why I want freedom.
But whereas we agree life is not about money and production rates, we must remember that there are people in the world who do not enjoy basic living conditions, and it is up to those who are better off, and have access to a better education, to give them the oportunity to leave their dreadful state.
It is proved beyond all doubt, both in theory and in practice, that free trade and free enterprise bring development and better living conditions for a nation, while a socialistic, statist approach either makes the nation in question really miserable (Brazil, USSR, Bolivia, India) or raises unemployment and increases the need of welfare to such a degree that it stunts growth (Germany, France, England up to the 80s, Finland).

For a minute their I thought you were conceding something.
It is also proved beyond absolutly doubt that free markets, free trade, free enterprise has a huge negative effect on the poor. As you said, yes they can (and do) bring economic growth but where is the guarantee that the economic growth will favour the poor. I have asked for this many times and never been shown any evidence or prove to show that economic growth favours the poor as much as a statist approach.

 

[aLx]

Hmmm... $100 a week seems really low considering the average level of subsidies an individual receives a week if they are on assistance is around 250 to 300 dollars a week depending on state. But remember, most poor areas in the USA have lower prices then the wealthier areas. It sort of balances things out.

Hey I don't live in the US and I have no idea what benefits or subsidies people on low incomes/unemployed people get a week. $100 was just an example.
And it doesn't balance itself out perfectly. True it may do with everyday items but not with other stuff. You aren't going to buy health care any cheaper in one part of the US than another, same with quality education.

 

[gop_ryan]

You aren't going to buy health care any cheaper in one part of the US than another, same with quality education.

Depending on the state laws governing education and healthcare, the rates can be drastically different from state to state. For example, healthcare in some states costs less because they do not have high malpractice insurance rates and the people of the state might practice better lifestyle habits.

Education varies drastically from state to state. My home state hardly subsides education, but others pay for most of your college education.

 

[Lifesaver]

I am sure they will love you for comparing their lives to that of those over one hundred years ago. Your saying 'Heh your live isn't that bad, even we were as poor as you one hundered years ago!' Plus thats not exactly a pro-active arguement for dealing with poverty, which thread is about.

I think it is a very relevant issue, that what people hail as poverty is often someone who has the means to live a healthy life.

Do they really have all this anyway? Plus is it as good what the rich people can afford? Unlikely. Why should any student have access to a higher standard of education just because their parents are wealthier? Thats blatent discrimination against the poor!

Is it?
And the fact that the rich can afford tastier and/or healthier food is also discriminatory, right? And that they can afford more luxurious cars, another one, isn't that true?

Everyone should have a basic education, and should they, rich or poor, choose to pursue higher standards, they should have free options (museums, libraries, etc).
To be against private schools and universities because people have to pay for them, which rules out many poorer people (even with scholarships), is the first step to ruining the education of a nation, and setting it on its way to eternal mediocrity.

You say the basic needs are access to education etc but who provides the education? The state. Therefore you are, to a much lesser extent then it might seem that I am pointing out, going against your opinion of a non-statist approach.

I never said the State should be made extinct. Of course it has duties and functions to perform.
The army, the police, basic education are things which are very important for fighting against social maladies, and which the government ought to provide (or make sure that the private sector provides it for everyone), for no-one should be left without education or legal protection.

The richer you are, the better services etc you can afford, and generally, its unlikely you won't have your 'basic necessities' met (whatever they are and who gets to decide them?).

The rich in centuries past had a life expectancy that is average of third world countries today.
Will people in the future fight for the "poor of the world" who only live up to 80 and cannot afford travelling abroad?

Ok so its not at all bad that some people in the USA can't afford necessary operations etc? Its not at all bad that some people have little access to education if any (third world countries)?

Of course it's bad. But have you read about the shortcomings of public healthcare (in fact, private healthcare isn't that good either; in short, there is no good way to handle it: there'll always be people sick and dying)?
As for education, in third world countries, yes, it's true. But once people start complaining about the lack of access to education of young Americans and Western Europeans, it becomes quite ridiculous.

Also please provide some prove from any country which has tried to combat inequality and found it harmful for its nation.

I'll show you examples of country which tried statist approaches to poverty and failed badly:
Russia, China, Cuba, Tchecoslovakia, East Germany, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Laos, Cambodja, North Korea, Vietnam, Bolivia, Angola, etc

And these developed countries, though they fair very well when compared to those like the ones cited above, also tried statist approaches and are feeling its many negative effects:
France, Germany, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, etc

No not forced to get a loan from the IMF but had very very little choice. Where else are they going to get millions, even billion dollers fairly quickly? At least we agree that the loans help them - its just such a shame they is so much baggage with them.

Is it possible for the IMF to help other countries if it doesn't get payed back?
And do you think the measures the IMF advises countries to follow harm them, creating a situation of more poverty in the country, making it so that it becomes more unlikely for the debt ever to be payed back?

I had you down as more intelligent than this. You are claiming that the nation who is being lent money chooses its rate of interest? If this was true they would naturally but interest at 0%. But then the banks would get no profit so would not bother doing it. Thats crazy to think that.

It shows how little you know.
The Central Bank of each country decides the interest rate at which they'll pay loans.
If the monetary policy seeks to control inflation, they set a high interest rate, to attract more banks.
If they want to encourage economic growth in the nation, they drop the interest rate, so that less people will be lending money to them.
Yes, they could set it to 0 and have no-one lending them any money. That's exactly how the economy works.

The government needs more money, they offer to pay higher interests. They want to repay a part back, they reduce the rate.

I agree with your comment about dishonest leaders, incompetent politicians which have proved to be harmful to African nations. Yes they have definatly helped to keep Africa poor. So have we though. What are we doing to help Africa become less poor? Little, if anything, in terms of debt and economic management. Dishonest leaders and incompetent politicians may have helped Africa become poor (along with many other factors) but what are we doing to help them claw back from poverty? Unless of course your individualism streches international and you believe its their own problem?

We could be helping poor nations become rich, that is right.
Countries could be opening their borders to foreign trade. Trade barriers are responsible for Latin American countries making billions of dollars a year less than they could; all because populist politicians want to "keep jobs at home", at the expense of the people of said nation.

You are being un-smypathetic to those countries that are 'blaming their ills' on us, because maybe its actually our fault they are still living as they do. Maybe you could take the high road and say 'Yes debt repayment is unnecessary, I relise that most African and other third world countries are spending more a year paying us back than they are on health and/or education. Countries which are paying us money, when they have the greater need'.

Could you please cite the specific countries you mean so we can better analyze their situation?

For a minute their I thought you were conceding something.
It is also proved beyond absolutly doubt that free markets, free trade, free enterprise has a huge negative effect on the poor. As you said, yes they can (and do) bring economic growth but where is the guarantee that the economic growth will favour the poor. I have asked for this many times and never been shown any evidence or prove to show that economic growth favours the poor as much as a statist approach.

What do you mean with "favour the poor"?
Economic growth means the country is producing more than it was in the past. Since it produces more, it has hired more people. And that drives the internal demand for products up as well.
There are more people employed, more people buying products (increasing their material comfort), more people earning money.
The only disfavoured ones are those who didn't produce efficiently enough and couldn't keep up with the competition. But that's a good thing we are not paying for their upkeep anymore.
If in your street you had two stores with identical products and service, yet one more expensive than the other, which would you prefer? The one with lower prices, for sure.
And if you prefer the one with higher prices, don't worry, you can still buy at it; just don't expect the government to force everyone else to buy at it too.

If you care for the development of poor nations, you should be fighting for more freedom and less statist intervention.

 

[gop_ryan]

You are never going to solve the problem of poverty until you remove the governments that subside it through social programs. If you pay someone to do something, they will continue to do it and get better at it. Now this principle works with poverty because people who are in poverty will stay there if they are getting paid for being poor. There is nothing like being broke that will drive you out of poverty. Example: If my father wants a pay raise, he ask for it or gets a better job. Now isn't that simple.

 

[Law of Loud]

You are never going to solve the problem of poverty until you remove the governments that subside it through social programs. If you pay someone to do something, they will continue to do it and get better at it. Now this principle works with poverty because people who are in poverty will stay there if they are getting paid for being poor. There is nothing like being broke that will drive you out of poverty. Example: If my father wants a pay raise, he ask for it or gets a better job. Now isn't that simple.

Right... the person who recieves welfare, and is very poorly getting off will want to stay there and sit on it. In all reality, welfare isn't enough to even live a below average lifestyle on, and most of those on welfare do want to get off, and are trying to get off. There are a sad few who do abuse the system, but these are by far in the majority. In the current state of the economy, through most areas of the country, it is almost impossible to find a reasonable job.

Nothing like being in poverty will drive you out of welfare. Welfare is still a very shabby life, and few people will give in to living that way. Nobody will stay there, because it is a lousy life. But, a lot of people are down there because they had problems, or in a lot of cases, just due to chance. A lot of people are unemployed due to chance, and in the current job market, it is very difficult to pick up a new job to replace the old one. There just isn't sufficient growth.

Capitalist economies enjoy unemployment. High unemployment creates high competition in the job market, and workers are willing to work for lower wages.

----------------------------------------------------------------

As for the comment regarding the poor being better off now than they were 100 years ago, consider this... inflation!

 

[Law of Loud]

[SARCASM]Just so you know, every bum I know likes sleeping in a cardboard box on the street.[/SARCASM]

 

[gop_ryan]

I guess the Cubans do since they live in terrible conditions except Castro's favorites. Cuba is a great example of why the government should not engage in social spending isn't? If the people of loved statist behavior, they would not be fleeing Cuba for America would they?

 

[jgarden]

You are never going to solve the problem of poverty until you remove the governments that subside it through social programs. If you pay someone to do something, they will continue to do it and get better at it. Now this principle works with poverty because people who are in poverty will stay there if they are getting paid for being poor. There is nothing like being broke that will drive you out of poverty. Example: If my father wants a pay raise, he ask for it or gets a better job. Now isn't that simple.

How does this "government sponsored poverty" theory apply to most of the world, and throughout most of recorded history, where not social programs existed for the poor. Apparently, Jesus spent most of his ministry "wasting" his time comforting those who were all capable of "driving" themselves out of poverty. Are we to believe that the underlying explanation for the existance of world poverty as a phenomena can all be attributed exclusively to a lack of human "motivation?" "Simple" problems, elicit "simple" solutions, from/for "simple" minds!

 

[aLx]

I think it is a very relevant issue, that what people hail as poverty is often someone who has the means to live a healthy life.

How and why is it relevant that we focus on the apparent fact that the poor today life live like the rich did one hundred years ago?

Is it?
And the fact that the rich can afford tastier and/or healthier food is also discriminatory, right? And that they can afford more luxurious cars, another one, isn't that true?

Why can't you see that its disrcimination that people who have more money have access to a higher education?
No actually I think you will find that generally healthy food products don't cost all that much anyway, as for tastier thats a matter of opinion. (Off topic anyway!)
I think a car is slightly less important as education. A cheapish car will get you places just as a luxurious car will. Totally the opposite from education. A 'cheapish' education is not, in todays world, going to get you all that far. A better standard of education is more likely to get you alot furthur. People's livelihood often depends upon the education they recieved, it doesn't ever depend on if they own a luxurious car or a cheaper one.

Everyone should have a basic education, and should they, rich or poor, choose to pursue higher standards, they should have free options (museums, libraries, etc).
To be against private schools and universities because people have to pay for them, which rules out many poorer people (even with scholarships), is the first step to ruining the education of a nation, and setting it on its way to eternal mediocrity.

Not if you base the entry level on results and ability rather than money. Basing it on who can afford it is going to ruin the education. Also you say that they should be able to pursue higher standards, both rich and poor. Yet the rich person is ALSO going to be able to get a higher standard than the poor person. How is this fair?

The rich in centuries past had a life expectancy that is average of third world countries today.
Will people in the future fight for the "poor of the world" who only live up to 80 and cannot afford travelling abroad?

So your whole answer to this is not to worry about the straving, poverty stricken "poor of the world" because in "centuries past" rich people were used to this. So it'll all be ok. Not only is this not true its also deeply insensitive to the poor.

Of course it's bad. But have you read about the shortcomings of public healthcare (in fact, private healthcare isn't that good either; in short, there is no good way to handle it: there'll always be people sick and dying)?
As for education, in third world countries, yes, it's true. But once people start complaining about the lack of access to education of young Americans and Western Europeans, it becomes quite ridiculous.

I know about the shortcomings of public healthcare. You live in the UK and you'll hear all about that, along with alot more rhetoric from right wing neo-liberals. Still I believe that whatever the shortcomings it is still alot fairer, less discriminatory than private because people don't have to shed out their whole live savings to get that hip replacement.
Great so you agree that the lack of access to education in the thrid world is a problem. So what should we do about it?
Well if you will look at my post I never complained about the lack of education to young Americans and Western Europeans. Although I am sure that the quality alot of these Americans and Western Europeans receive has alot to be desired.

I'll show you examples of country which tried statist approaches to poverty and failed badly:
Russia, China, Cuba, Tchecoslovakia, East Germany, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Laos, Cambodja, North Korea, Vietnam, Bolivia, Angola, etc

And these developed countries, though they fair very well when compared to those like the ones cited above, also tried statist approaches and are feeling its many negative effects:
France, Germany, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, etc

So you post a list full of countries that toyed with Communism (along with a view more liberal states). I am not saying communism would work, I am saying that a more statist approach would. And where is the UK on there? I would argue that we have a statist approach but have we failed?
Also I don't think all of those countries in the second list are particulary felling 'its negative effects'. Sure they may well not be at the top of the world in terms of economic growth, but I don't see any calling for an overthrow of the statist approach and a free market economy.

Is it possible for the IMF to help other countries if it doesn't get payed back?
And do you think the measures the IMF advises countries to follow harm them, creating a situation of more poverty in the country, making it so that it becomes more unlikely for the debt ever to be payed back?

I understand the IMF has to be paid back.
Well that question links to this whole debate. It depends because some of the conditions the IMF sets out results in a budget cut for health and education for example. Then it depends on whether you agree that the state should provide these. Naturally I would say that the conditions make it harder for the country to recover in the full term. Obviously I don't think you would agree with that.

The Central Bank of each country decides the interest rate at which they'll pay loans.
If the monetary policy seeks to control inflation, they set a high interest rate, to attract more banks.
If they want to encourage economic growth in the nation, they drop the interest rate, so that less people will be lending money to them.
Yes, they could set it to 0 and have no-one lending them any money. That's exactly how the economy works.

The government needs more money, they offer to pay higher interests. They want to repay a part back, they reduce the rate.

This is an example of yet another way that we get money from them. They won't get a loan unless they offer to pay us back with alot more interest. They need that money.

We could be helping poor nations become rich, that is right.
Countries could be opening their borders to foreign trade. Trade barriers are responsible for Latin American countries making billions of dollars a year less than they could; all because populist politicians want to "keep jobs at home", at the expense of the people of said nation.

Look what has happened/happening in the US currently. America has lost alot of jobs to foreign competition (I think 4million??). And this time its not just the working class that are suffering. Also this whole attitude shows the insensitivity of your ideas - 'We could make billions more, if jobs got moved away'. Its all about the money isn't it? Not about the FACT that people would be losing what little income they had.

Could you please cite the specific countries you mean so we can better analyze their situation?

Ghana for example.

What do you mean with "favour the poor"?
Economic growth means the country is producing more than it was in the past. Since it produces more, it has hired more people. And that drives the internal demand for products up as well.
There are more people employed, more people buying products (increasing their material comfort), more people earning money.
The only disfavoured ones are those who didn't produce efficiently enough and couldn't keep up with the competition. But that's a good thing we are not paying for their upkeep anymore.
If in your street you had two stores with identical products and service, yet one more expensive than the other, which would you prefer? The one with lower prices, for sure.
And if you prefer the one with higher prices, don't worry, you can still buy at it; just don't expect the government to force everyone else to buy at it too.

If you care for the development of poor nations, you should be fighting for more freedom and less statist intervention.

In this passage you argue that the the country is producing more and hiring more people, true. But then one passage before you were saying that countries should destory trade barriers so that you could move production eslewhere, some where cheaper. You are contradictorying yourself because higher wages will often spend production abroad. So then people in the country of losing jobs. Often alot of people. Your theory may have been true in the 1920s and in the post-war period, but in todays international world it just doesn't hold.
Another problem is that prices of products are going to rise to. True more people may be earning, but its not true that more people will be earning more money.

If you care for the development of poor nations, you should be fighting for the cancellations of debt to third world countries.

 

[aLx]

I guess the Cubans do since they live in terrible conditions except Castro's favorites. Cuba is a great example of why the government should not engage in social spending isn't? If the people of loved statist behavior, they would not be fleeing Cuba for America would they?

If it were truly statist then there would be no Cubans 'living in terrible conditions'. That is not a good example of a statist approach because you even comment that Castro's favourites gain from it. Thats not statist its economically dictatorial.

 

[gop_ryan]

Well you do have a point. Seeing that the only true statist government would be something in line with fascism since its goal is promote the state over the individual.

 

[Lifesaver]

How and why is it relevant that we focus on the apparent fact that the poor today life live like the rich did one hundred years ago?

First, it is not apparent. It is actual.
Second, a lot of people whose lives are considered terrible and inhumane in rich countries are actually perfectly fair, and if the individual is miserable under those conditions it is his fault (wasn't it Michael Moore who toyed with the poverty of some neighbourhood being the cause of school shootings?)

Why can't you see that its disrcimination that people who have more money have access to a higher education?
No actually I think you will find that generally healthy food products don't cost all that much anyway, as for tastier thats a matter of opinion. (Off topic anyway!)
I think a car is slightly less important as education. A cheapish car will get you places just as a luxurious car will. Totally the opposite from education. A 'cheapish' education is not, in todays world, going to get you all that far. A better standard of education is more likely to get you alot furthur. People's livelihood often depends upon the education they recieved, it doesn't ever depend on if they own a luxurious car or a cheaper one.

I'm sorry, your criticism fails on two levels: the conceptual and the practical.

Conceptual: everyone should be offered a good education, and have the access to ways through which deepen it (libraries, mostly).
Those with more money, can afford better schools/colleges. What is wrong with it? Surely, they had to make a little less effort (those who did go to college, because many rich people throw their education away).
Why would it be fairer if person A, who is poor, got into college instead of person B, who is rich? There's no difference.
Those with the greatest merit will get in. Many of those will probably come from richer classes. That's completely fair, and as discriminatory as richer people being able to buy better food (and when I say better, I mean that the majority of people would like to buy it instead of what they usually buy).

Practical: what do you suppose to do to enforce equal teaching for both rich and poor people?
Force teachers to teach at public schools? Ban private teaching?

Any option you come with will level education to a lower level. You'll just cut off the higher education which some would get in exchange for "equality" for all. You would be harming the nation's education system.

Not if you base the entry level on results and ability rather than money. Basing it on who can afford it is going to ruin the education. Also you say that they should be able to pursue higher standards, both rich and poor. Yet the rich person is ALSO going to be able to get a higher standard than the poor person. How is this fair?

How is it not?
The person will go as far as they are interested and willing to study.
We have, nowadays, academics both from rich and poor backgrounds (philosopher Coling McGinn, for example, was the first of his family to go to college).

So your whole answer to this is not to worry about the straving, poverty stricken "poor of the world" because in "centuries past" rich people were used to this. So it'll all be ok. Not only is this not true its also deeply insensitive to the poor.

No, my whole answer is not to cry over people who do have the means to support themselves but still insist on being supported by someone else at the expense of the whole nation.

Great so you agree that the lack of access to education in the thrid world is a problem. So what should we do about it?

Better basic education is imperative. And for that we need teachers. And for that we need more people in college today. And for that we need higher incomes. And for that we need more jobs. And for that we need economic growth. And for that we need less taxes and more freedom (in Brazil, at least).

And where is the UK on there? I would argue that we have a statist approach but have we failed?

The UK, thanks to Thatcher and liberalizing economic policies, has got out of its stagnant state and is not facing the huge problems of, say, Germany today, nor does it have the same high unemployment rate.
You have your dreaded "neo-liberalism" to thank for the economic growth (interest rates are even going up to slow it down a bit, since there is fear of over-heating) and dynamism.

Also I don't think all of those countries in the second list are particulary felling 'its negative effects'. Sure they may well not be at the top of the world in terms of economic growth, but I don't see any calling for an overthrow of the statist approach and a free market economy.

People in France have to pay absurd amounts of money for food they could get very cheaply, if they would buy from Latin America. Germany is right now being forced (by the conditions) to adopt freer economic policies and break down some labour laws, which create unemployement and the stagnation they are in now.

I understand the IMF has to be paid back.
Well that question links to this whole debate. It depends because some of the conditions the IMF sets out results in a budget cut for health and education for example. Then it depends on whether you agree that the state should provide these. Naturally I would say that the conditions make it harder for the country to recover in the full term. Obviously I don't think you would agree with that.

If a country truly becomes unmanageable because of IMF debt, then yes, of course new conditions should be discussed.

This is an example of yet another way that we get money from them. They won't get a loan unless they offer to pay us back with alot more interest. They need that money.

Many poor countries have terrible debt-paying records, have very unstable governments (regimes and constitutions get changed overnight), show contempt for private property, have a lot of corruption and, as a consequence of all that, a very weak and unstable economy. Private investors will only lend them money if they will receive high interest rates.
Do you want them to do charity, giving money to corrupt governments which will certainly not put it to good use, much less when they have no obligation of ever paying back?

Look what has happened/happening in the US currently. America has lost alot of jobs to foreign competition (I think 4million??). And this time its not just the working class that are suffering. Also this whole attitude shows the insensitivity of your ideas - 'We could make billions more, if jobs got moved away'. Its all about the money isn't it? Not about the FACT that people would be losing what little income they had.

No, the income would be higher.
The USA is right now making a lot of jobs. It has gone through a recession (and all economies go through good and bad phases) and is now growing again.
Still, compare their unemployment rate to that of Social Welfare Europe. USA, when it comes to unemployment, is very good, because it allows for economic freedom.
As a counter-example, France tried to diminish unemployment by making it harder for firms to sack employees. Needless to say, this increased unemployment. Once the person receives a little introduction to how the economy works, it is easy to understand why.

Ghana for example.

Give me the figures, the data. I don't know anything about their foreign debt, much less with the IMF.

In this passage you argue that the the country is producing more and hiring more people, true. But then one passage before you were saying that countries should destory trade barriers so that you could move production eslewhere, some where cheaper. You are contradictorying yourself because higher wages will often spend production abroad. So then people in the country of losing jobs. Often alot of people. Your theory may have been true in the 1920s and in the post-war period, but in todays international world it just doesn't hold.

Another problem is that prices of products are going to rise to. True more people may be earning, but its not true that more people will be earning more money.

No.
Even though inflation always follows economic growth (and a healthy economy usually has some inflation), the resulting effect is an increase in production and consumption, and therefore, people are being able to buy more; they are effectively richer in real terms.

If you care for the development of poor nations, you should be fighting for the cancellations of debt to third world countries.

Should I?
Many nations have not payed their debts in the past. Have they got any better because of it? They haven't.
On the contrary, investors become even more sceptical and will require even higher interest rates to lend them money again.

 

[Russebby]

Still, I don't think the problems of my country, or even of the world today, could be solved by economic policies and re-structuring. The deeper flaws of our societies are moral and spiritual, not material (though if material conditions were improved, things would indeed be a lot better).

As much as I bagged on you on another thread, I completely agree with you on this, that the world's basic problems do not stem from political economic ideology, but from moral and spiritual decay. As much as we want to debate in terms of capitalism vs. socialism, liberalism vs. conservatism, left vs. right, what is clear is that there are indeed deep problems. And these problems were specifically pointed out by Jesus for us to address. At the end of the day, it will not matter the titles we fight under or the philosophies we defend; the only thing that will matter is that we conquered poverty, and we did while expanding human dignity.

Consider Matthew 25.

 

[Lifesaver]

I don't know why you see poverty as a disease. There will always be poor among us, and there is nothing wrong with being poor, as long as life's material necessities are provided for.
Many great saints were poor.

It is also wrong to think richness is inherently immoral, as many sadly do, and wrongly apply this notion to Jesus. I wonder what they thought of King Solomon, and so many other rich people who have lived...

Neither richness nor poverty makes someone more or less worthy, more or less just or righteous. The problem is when wealth, or the want of wealth, comes before God (and this is quite usual today).

Proverbs 22:2
Rich and poor have a common bond: the LORD is the maker of them all.