If limited resources are the cause of poverty and starvation what exactly would we expect?
- Poverty and starvation would be independent of geography
- If there is a limited amount of people who have the vast majority of the resources there is no reason to assume that they would all be in one geographical location
- All or nearly all known resources are currently being exploited
- If limited are resources are the problem but there are still unused recourses then limited resources cannot possibly be the cause of poverty.
Considering that poverty is confined to geographical location and we are not even close to using all of the resources around us, limited resources cannot possibly the the explanation for poverty. Consider places like Africa, the land is abundant with natural resources and the possibly for farming yet the people are in poverty. This is the case with most of the 3rd world countries.
The better explanation is the policies of the government in the area cause poverty. This is the only explanation for why people in New Mexico are relatively wealthy compared to those just across the border. Limited resources cannot possibly explain why this happens all over the world. Why mass poverty and prosperity would change suddenly across borders.
Posts
3 comments:
It certainly is possible for one region to have a more plentiful share of resources than another. However with the today's advanced ability to transport things from one place to another, it's not as much of an issue as it once was. It actually has more to do with corporate policies and capitalist philosophies designed to create unnecessary competition by consumers and eliminate other suppliers and ultimately their ability to influence government policy.
Without that, everyone who wanted to could very easily plant their own garden and/or raise animals in order to sustain themselves. Instead, people who could grow their own food starve, perfectly good food is thrown out everyday, and people who produce more than they actually consume stockpile the remainder rather than provide relief to others.
Its certainly fine with me if you and others would like to have small gardens and be self reliant. Of course assuming no force is involved.
I agree if what you mean by "capitalist philosophies" you are referring to the lobbying/bribing of governments to gain unearned advantages over others. However if you are referring to a non-coercive free market I might need some more convincing.
I'm all for free markets. Capitalism has very little in common with free markets.
Post a Comment