Why can't rich countries wipe out poverty?
I come from a rich country - Singapore - and we have wiped out poverty here. It is the government’s interest to reduce poverty because when a person cannot provide for themselves, it falls to the government to provide for their basic needs, which costs money. We’re all about the money.There's two kinds of poverty - absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is where some people don't have their basic needs met. Relative poverty is where some people don't have as much as other people in the country has. It's probably impossible to wipe out relative poverty unless everyone is contented to be equally poor (or rich).In Singapore, if you're too poor to buy food, the government gives you a monthly allowance of $200 in grocery shopping vouchers and $100 in hawker centre vouchers. There are also numerous charities and religious organisations that provide free food.Water is ubiquitous and very affordable. My own water bill is $3 a month. Potable water flows from every public tap.Education is also very affordable and bursaries are available for those who cannot afford it.Healthcare is very expensive. We have a universal healthcare system. Everyone has medical insurance paid by social security (our version is CPF), and if you don't have enough to pay the premiums, the government gives you the money to do so. Public healthcare is also heavily subsidised. There is Medifund which is a healthcare fund that serves the poorest of Singaporeans.If you are homeless not by choice, you are put into a welfare home. If you can work, you will be put to work. The penalty for non-compliance is imprisonment.Social workers and police officers scout and patrol the island daily to find people who may have fallen through the cracks and offer them help.No one in Singapore dies from starvation. Loneliness, on the other hand, can be a problem. Especially for the elderly and home bound.The poverty that Singaporeans experience is either relative poverty, or spiritual poverty. We have eradicated absolute poverty on our land.
If the US decides to stop importing from China, how much will China suffer?
There are many very good answers here. I would like to point out that “stop importing from China” is a very vague rule. So what could you mean by that phrase? Let’s give two extreme scenarios:(1) You cannot import anything sold by a Chinese-domiciled company.This is very easy to get around. Neighbouring East Asian countries will benefit greatly because of their new ability to play middleman between China and USA. So company “McChinaman Limited” will sell to “Singapore Middleman Co” and then “Singapore Middleman Co” will sell to “USA Importer LLC”.China has FTAs (free trade agreements) with most countries in the Asia-Pacific region. So it’s pretty trivial for them to re-route the goods through a third party, and the third-party can get a fee for doing pretty much nothing at all.(2) You cannot import anything which has, in its supply chain (recursively, so to any depth of the supply chain), anything sold by a Chinese-domiciled company.This means you basically can’t import almost anything at all. That would massively debilitate the US economy. Keep in mind US-manufactured products often also contain Chinese-made parts in their supply chain.Therefore:Probably you need some rule about how much of the “value added” is done in China, or some other quantitative “line in the sand”.Hey guess what: China’s “value added” is often not that much! How much money do you think Foxconn makes from every sale of an iPhone? How much money do you think Apple makes?So your import ban is most likely to result in case (1).Conclusion:USA will suffer. China will suffer. Other countries (middlemen) will benefit. Go ahead USA, make us non-Chinese non-US people richer. We’re looking forward to it.
Does the west owe reparations to third world countries?
For what?It seems to be an undying myth that poverty is caused by exploitation, that the presence of rich people can only be possible if they stole from others. But the world started in poverty and gradually, over centuries, some countries managed to lift themselves out of it. This was largely accomplished through having a legal structure preserving freedom and allowing free trade within and between nations. Poorer countries should be trying to emulate the economies which have grown the quickest (the US, Hong Kong, Singapore). Playing victim means you’ll never take responsibility and never become independent.Almost always, in cases of things like colonisation, conquest and imperialism, the nation which was attacking and taking advantage of other groups was already ahead of them technologically (that’s what facilitated the abuse of power in the first place). I know of no case where a country went from poor to rich via the exploitation of others. Eg) 90% of the slaves in America were in the southern states but the northern states consistently grew faster economically than the south. The places where slavery persists to this day (India and Africa) are the poorest places on Earth.Reparations are a tricky idea. Who pays these reparations and who do they go to? Usually the perpetrators and victims of past crimes are dead or elderly. What can taking money from one group of descendants and giving to another group of descendants accomplish? I’d say it’s got a good chance of fostering resentment in some and an unearned sense of entitlement in others, purely based on race or national background. Fantastic.Foreign aid has been given to many countries to little avail. In fact, it incentivises failure because if a country starts to succeed, its foreign aid is likely to be taken away. It’s also hard to guarantee that the money will get to the places where is it most needed. If a country has an inept government which enforces policies resulting in no economic growth, why would you expect them to make good decisions with a lot of money?Sweatshops are helpful to poorer countries but distasteful to those in Washington who compare them to the standards present in first world countries. They usually pay more than the other jobs available to the workers but hey, who wants to waste time looking at facts?
What happens to the fetuses of second trimester abortions?
That might depend on which abortion method is used: Saline Solution. Fluid is drawn out of the amniotic sac where the baby is and a concentrated salt solution injected in its place. The baby breathes and swallows the solution, struggles, hemorrhages, goes into convulsions, and in a few hours dies. Thereafter the mother goes into hard labor and delivers a dead or dying baby. This method is used in advanced pregnancies, four to six months.* Prostaglandin Abortion. Birth hormones are injected into the amniotic sac to induce premature birth. Salt is often injected first to prevent live births.* Hysterotomy. Similar to a cesarean section. The abdomen and womb are opened surgically and the baby is removed. Nearly all these babies are lifted out alive, struggle for a while, cry and die. Used in very late abortions, when premature births could survive.* After removal, if parts of their bodies can be sold for profit, they are. If parts can be used for experiments, these are donated to the experimenters... I've personally never heard of an aborted person being given a burial, or even cremated. They are usually very unwanted, & considered no more than inconvenient garbage by their parent/s... Since death during the process does not always occur, some nurses have reported witnessing abortion doctors kill live, aborted babies, after removing them from their mothers. There are also reports of hospital workers seeing these tiny, aborted babies still moving, in the hospital's garbage some time later...
What is the Republican plan to eliminate ghettos in America?
They have absolutely no solution for those people, they will continue to let them further be deprived of any opportunity.
Why does poverty exist?
Poverty exists because we all (regardless of tax bracket) are not only selfish but ultimately self-destructive. We are a species that cannot exist without soiling our own nest and devouring our own weak until we ourselves are devoured. We all want to have more stuff for the amount of wealth we have to give up. That means we all are demanding that someone generate more wealth for less than it is worth (the worker in El Salvador will generate $1.00 worth of product for 1 penny worth of salary, etc). Unfortunately, we are willing to take this to extremes. We are more than happy to see all of our neighbors lose their jobs in the mill next door because the super center gets the same item made by slave labor in China. The people at the top are merely making a profit on what we demand they do for us. Poverty also exists because of a lack of investment in the future at ALL levels. The manufacturer outsources to China because he does not want to invest in long-term employees. The government does not want to invest in quality employees through education, infrastructure, health care, etc. The potential employee does not want to invest in his future through education or training, but would rather have immediate gratification of leisure. Who benefits from poverty? The consumer benefits in the short term because he can have more goods than he expected, until his job is outsourced. The manufacturer benefits because he has cheap labor until the revolution destroys the factory. The investor benefits because he has short term profits and will hopefully be able to abandon ship before everything hits the fan, and he makes it onto the last helicopter off of the American embassy. That is why the US declared War on Poverty in 1963 under President Johnson, but then President Reagan unilaterally withdrew in 1981.