When trying to alleviate poverty I think it's a very noble to try to fix the basic infrastructure while clothing and feeding the impoverished. Maybe if we can fix why people become/are/stay impoverished we can get closer to ending poverty. Someone mentioned the trickle-down effect and having to deal with selfish rulers. I agree that private contractors come in and do what needs to be done, it will happen. I think it will be very hard to get this done because of allocation of resources. There will never be enough money for one group to throw money down and get it done. This goes back to what I was saying about not-for-profits. There's too many that there would need to be a collaboration and a probably an investor. When you get so many different sources of income, you get a lot of different expectations. Whereas if you're using that money to simply feed and clothe the impoverished, there are relatively no expectations. Also, fixing the basic infrastructure is (I would assume) very expensive. Before starting such a project, you would probably want to gather all of the funds. Feeding people and giving them a coat is not nearly as expensive , and would be much easier to collect resources to do so.
Although it's tragic, I'm not sure poverty will ever be eliminated. With capitalistic desires to have the most, there seems to be little concern about poverty. Someone also mentioned social darwinism, which I believe is another great example as to why there will always be a huge disparity between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich.
2 comments:
I don't think its fair to label the desire to acquire resources as innately "capitalistic." Its simple human nature to act out of self-preservation and accumulate as many resources as we can. Communism fails, at least in large part, precisely because it does not count for this universal facet of human nature; capitalism does not create but merely acknowledges it.
I think private investors could do a lot to help in certain impoverished countries, but there are many reasons why some would hesitate. In countries that are constantly destroyed in warfare, it is unlikely that companies would want to put down any money when it would end up being ineffective. This is why I would say that NGO's are better vessels for aid. NGO's that collaborate, like you mentioned, would be even better. I like what you are saying, but it does make me sad that there are so many impossibilities facing us in the struggle to eradicate poverty. Sometimes capitalism makes me sad. Maybe someone will come up with an even better way to operate, but I figure if we have not figured one out yet, we probably never will.
Post a Comment