Poverty is due to moral lacking

[thir]

"Poverty is Due to Moral Lacking"

Assuming "moral lacking" means the absence of any distinction between right and wrong, and accepting that the consequence of poverty is hunger, dependency, disease and death, then it must be. With most of the world's wealth in the hands of just 2% of the population, and that Two Percent believing it has actually "earned" its fortune by its own good honest toil, there is next to no chance that the Two Percent will do anything to alleviate poverty elsewhere. Amoral.

The Two Percent earned nothing - they took it, and the wealth they "created" was through the hard work of others.

In fact, the Two Percent is likely to take steps to ensure it retains its privileged position: Multi-national corporations using poor nations to produce raw materials, paying pitiful wages, and paying the lowest prices for the goods they buy; dumping food and goods onto these nations at prices that undercut local producers, preventing the growth of independent agriculture and industry; nourishing corruption by supporting client rulers who provide favoured nation deals they can't afford in return; and attaching penal conditions to the aid that is provided, causing what wealth poor nations do have to be handed over to wealthy countries as "debt" repayment. Immoral.

The fact is, the Two Percent doesn't give much of a fuck ... what it does care about is keeping its own privileges and comforts, at everyone else's expense. Meanwhile they pretend they have worse problems of their own, that must be tended to first. Evil.

Today 21,000 children died around the world

"The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage."

In other words, although we have the means to do much so much good around the world, we would rather ignore the problem. Only when there is a major catastrophe will the western media pay any attention to the disaster - as a form of entertainment - but within days, or weeks, their interest, and that of the audience, will fade away, and the gossip programs will take primacy once more.

The wealthy nations of the world have promised to increase the amounts of aid they give, and in 1970, they set a target of about 0.7% of GNP to be given annually from about 1975. Those nations are now giving about 0.2% to 0.4% pa, some forty years later. The USA is notable laggard. More recently, the EU nations set a new target for achieving the target: they are all failing. The cost for vested interests is too high.

I see no answer but war, and it is likely that the poor will lose, and and lose again, and will be made to pay for their temerity. However, once there have been sufficient martyrs for the cause of the impoverished, maybe there will be some kind of revolution that makes life easier for some. A token.

Don't think the Two Percent will have given up their position of dominance. That will never happen.

Maybe it will..we are making ourselves so vulnerable with more and more technology and in other ways - maybe the system will crach, and maybe in a way that gives us a chance to start over.