Can the world be without poverty

[DrBeer]

No. people must be responsible at  a young age. there is no problem with our natural resources but we must know how to use it. Of course, the government has a huge role to guide and support us. Education plays a vital role, everyone should be educated to minimize poverty. Perseverance is the key. Its not easy to end poverty, but we can eradicate it. There are lot of things we can do to help end poverty. Starting a small business is a good idea, it will easily grow if we are responsible enough to manage it. Also, we must make use of our natural resources.

Extraction and trade in natural resources, and building an economy on this basis, is the worst option. The resource-based economy is ineffective (there are exceptions, but they are rare), it belongs to a rather low-level economy and, as a rule, is the lot of backward countries. No offense. There are plenty of examples of the total failure of such economies! Recently, Venezuela showed "well" what it means to orient the economy towards resources, and at the end of the 20th century - the USSR, which collapsed with a crash, for the same reason - the rate on budget income (including currencies), after the "golden time "oil / gas prices fell, and this" colossus on oil feet "collapsed. Now a similar situation exists in the Russian Federation - after sanctions and problems in the oil market - the budget of the Russian Federation does not receive up to 30%, and this has burned out a lot of their internal funds worth many billions of dollars in a couple of years.

A more efficient economy - built on scientific and technological progress and technology. The world is actively developing and changing, and it turns from a resource into a technological one. Accordingly, technologies will be most in demand in the coming decades, and they will be ready to give any resources for them. technological backwardness gives rise to the strongest backwardness of the economy, and its further decline

[ene1980]

some say that poverty is made by capitalists, I'm sure that's because if everyone is rich then there is no human power they can use to help their business stay up

Which means everyone was filthy rich before capitalism , there are many countries following different political views and which view is creating more billionaires, it is capitalism that is making more billionaires.

everyone can be rich if they are willing to learn, open-minded, and receptive to new things
being poor is a mindset, not destiny because thousands of super-rich people today, on average, come from poor families and drop out of school

It is not just the mindset, you need to have some qualities than the average Joe to think and perform better than the rest of the common people, the idea to make money is easy, have a billion dollar mindset is not enough, it is how you are going to execute things and that requires skills.

[Shasha80]

It all happens naturally how a person faces the world with the various things they can do, and also actually this is influenced by the people themselves, their thoughts and efforts affect their economic life.
It is different if the state government really cares about its people by providing many job opportunities/business capital, perhaps the poverty rate will continue to decline from time to time until the people are able to continue to develop.

Actually, it really depends on us and what we do that affects our economy. So if we really want poverty to decrease, cannot only expect
government assistance. We are the ones who can change our lives, because everyone has the same time of day, so what we do during
the 24 hours determines the future. We must be able to do something useful, because successful people are not lazy, they work hard to
use the time they have to do useful things.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Actually, it really depends on us and what we do that affects our economy. So if we really want poverty to decrease, cannot only expect
government assistance. We are the ones who can change our lives, because everyone has the same time of day, so what we do during
the 24 hours determines the future. We must be able to do something useful, because successful people are not lazy, they work hard to
use the time they have to do useful things.

Unfortunately, the world seems to be moving in the opposite direction. More and more governments are coming up with populist budgets (i.e more handouts to the poor, and more taxes to the middle class and rich). The problem with this model is that hard working and successful people are being penalized and the unproductive population is getting rewarded. If the trend continues for the long term, then eventually it will result in the reduction in tax paying population. Either they will stop working, or they will simply migrate to other countries with saner tax policies.

[Shasha80]

Actually, it really depends on us and what we do that affects our economy. So if we really want poverty to decrease, cannot only expect
government assistance. We are the ones who can change our lives, because everyone has the same time of day, so what we do during
the 24 hours determines the future. We must be able to do something useful, because successful people are not lazy, they work hard to
use the time they have to do useful things.

Unfortunately, the world seems to be moving in the opposite direction. More and more governments are coming up with populist budgets (i.e more handouts to the poor, and more taxes to the middle class and rich). The problem with this model is that hard working and successful people are being penalized and the unproductive population is getting rewarded. If the trend continues for the long term, then eventually it will result in the reduction in tax paying population. Either they will stop working, or they will simply migrate to other countries with saner tax policies.

What you describe is a sad reality, no wonder it is very difficult to reduce poverty. The government should change the system related to tax policy,
in my opinion the poor should not be given financial assistance, it will make them even more lazy to work. The government should provide training
to the poor, so that they have the skills and can get a job. Actually, the government also needs to educate the poor to change their mindset, not to
rely too much on government assistance.

[tyz]

everyone can be rich if they are willing to learn, open-minded, and receptive to new things
being poor is a mindset, not destiny because thousands of super-rich people today, on average, come from poor families and drop out of school

It is not just the mindset, you need to have some qualities than the average Joe to think and perform better than the rest of the common people, the idea to make money is easy, have a billion dollar mindset is not enough, it is how you are going to execute things and that requires skills.

Education is not always enough. At least not in all parts of the world. If you are well educated in industrialized nations, you will certainly get a job. If you are very well educated in a developing country, for example, then it is not certain that you will get a job. The general conditions are just as important as the education itself.

[AndySt]

What you describe is a sad reality, no wonder it is very difficult to reduce poverty. The government should change the system related to tax policy, in my opinion the poor should not be given financial assistance, it will make them even more lazy to work. The government should provide training to the poor, so that they have the skills and can get a job. Actually, the government also needs to educate the poor to change their mindset, not to rely too much on government assistance.

We just need a reasonable balance between material assistance to the low-income population and creating incentives for this population to earn money on their own. Nevertheless, in any case, it will be a shameful phenomenon for any state if in the 21st century people will die of hunger or do not receive the necessary medical care due to lack of funds. Let's be realistic, but unemployment is an indispensable part of modern capitalism and no normal democratic state can and is not obliged to provide everyone with work, and any violation of this principle leads to human rights violations and slave inefficient forced labor. Therefore, I would advise you to be more careful with statements about financial assistance, because often the price of this is a human life.

[carlfebz2]

What you describe is a sad reality, no wonder it is very difficult to reduce poverty. The government should change the system related to tax policy, in my opinion the poor should not be given financial assistance, it will make them even more lazy to work. The government should provide training to the poor, so that they have the skills and can get a job. Actually, the government also needs to educate the poor to change their mindset, not to rely too much on government assistance.

We just need a reasonable balance between material assistance to the low-income population and creating incentives for this population to earn money on their own. Nevertheless, in any case, it will be a shameful phenomenon for any state if in the 21st century people will die of hunger or do not receive the necessary medical care due to lack of funds. Let's be realistic, but unemployment is an indispensable part of modern capitalism and no normal democratic state can and is not obliged to provide everyone with work, and any violation of this principle leads to human rights violations and slave inefficient forced labor. Therefore, I would advise you to be more careful with statements about financial assistance, because often the price of this is a human life.

One of the factors that should be needed to control is to suppress or slow down the population growth. This is where the problem do start on and if you do try to look on rich countries which does have
proper family planning where families could really raise up their child and give out a good life compared into those non-stop giving birth or uncontrolled ones which will really be adding up on the problem.

Even government had done some programs on giving out livelihood or support or assistance but due to number it wont really be enough.Theres no such thing about unlimited budget
allocated for such problem.

It is a matter of governance and of course self discipline by its citizens itself.

[Vaskiy]

World can change as a place without poverty. For the same we need to sacrifice more and a transition to the old stone age needs to happen.

In the early days there is no money, people lived with what they had. If you have something for the day, you share it with rest of the people surrounding you. Today that isn't possible and we can't expect the same to happen again.

Next way is the initiative from government. When there are billionaires who had got money higher than a government, surely there'll be poverty. This imbalance can be made equal through effective plans and for this governments can make billionaires adopt villages and make development and provide opportunity for the upliftment.

[Shamm]

 It's Impossible cause were over populated and some government was experienced a difficulties handling their people and some people never aim to rich the Government cause they think  will never heard their opinion or wanted to tell. Except the country origin in a royal or stable that can able to support thier people.

[oHnK]

World can change as a place without poverty. For the same we need to sacrifice more and a transition to the old stone age needs to happen.

In the early days there is no money, people lived with what they had. If you have something for the day, you share it with rest of the people surrounding you. Today that isn't possible and we can't expect the same to happen again.

Next way is the initiative from government. When there are billionaires who had got money higher than a government, surely there'll be poverty. This imbalance can be made equal through effective plans and for this governments can make billionaires adopt villages and make development and provide opportunity for the upliftment.

I can say loudly that world without poverty is non sense. Why? Look at this time, the gap is so far. Not only about economic but also mentality. Some poor people are not only poor in wealth but also poor in mind.  If you want to tell me whether this world can be without poverty, it is the same if I ask whether all humans can have belief in the same religion?  In the book which I read, it is taught how to manage the nation and state with zakat.  Zakat is able to provide a solution to poverty and inequality.  But is Zakat accepted in all countries?  Not.  such is poverty.

[Shasha80]

~

~

One of the factors that should be needed to control is to suppress or slow down the population growth. This is where the problem do start on and if you do try to look on rich countries which does have
proper family planning where families could really raise up their child and give out a good life compared into those non-stop giving birth or uncontrolled ones which will really be adding up on the problem.

Even government had done some programs on giving out livelihood or support or assistance but due to number it wont really be enough.Theres no such thing about unlimited budget
allocated for such problem.

It is a matter of governance and of course self discipline by its citizens itself.

It is quite reasonable that the problem of poverty begins with uncontrolled population growth, many families have many children. And if parents
do not educate their children properly, this becomes a burden for the country, because the number of unemployed will increase. Therefore, some
Asian countries with high population, usually the poverty rate is also high. I really appreciate countries that limit the number of births, fortunately
my country has a program that recommends every family to only have 2 children. The problem is that the residents of my country are not disciplined
and do not carry out the program from the government, no wonder in my country the poverty rate is very high.

[Sithara007]

I can say loudly that world without poverty is non sense. Why? Look at this time, the gap is so far. Not only about economic but also mentality. Some poor people are not only poor in wealth but also poor in mind.  If you want to tell me whether this world can be without poverty, it is the same if I ask whether all humans can have belief in the same religion?  In the book which I read, it is taught how to manage the nation and state with zakat.  Zakat is able to provide a solution to poverty and inequality.  But is Zakat accepted in all countries?  Not.  such is poverty.

There will always be wealth inequality in the world. But from what I can see, with some exceptions (such as Sub-Saharan Africa), this wealth disparity is reducing with time. Extreme poverty is rare nowadays, even in Africa. Some of the countries such as China claims to have completely eradicated extreme poverty. But they achieved this through tough family planning measures. For African countries, this is not practical because they don't believe in family planning. So it will take more time to eradicate extreme poverty in these countries.

[John Jefferson]

I don't think it is easy to eliminate absolute poverty. If the whole world is no longer poor, I can't imagine whether people in this society will still have the initiative to make progress. In my opinion, it is because of the existence of people at different levels that the world's economy is balanced. Although the government can help the poor, it can only solve part of the problem of food and clothing, and cannot make them rich. The most fundamental way is to change oneself and change the status quo through hard work.

[Davidvictorson]

Hopefully, by 2030 according to the Sustainable development goal 1.

However, poverty cannot be eliminated until the earth’s resources is distributed  a remotely just way. Until the courageous people in governments and corporations are able to stand up and demand for economic reform, through policies that combat poverty and its causes. It should be more than just giving people jobs.  Because in most Sub-Sahara African and  South and Southeast Asian countries people who are employed still find themselves locked in very low paying jobs. These jobs have to be able yield a liveable income to pull people out of poverty.

[oHnK]

There will always be wealth inequality in the world. But from what I can see, with some exceptions (such as Sub-Saharan Africa), this wealth disparity is reducing with time. Extreme poverty is rare nowadays, even in Africa. Some of the countries such as China claims to have completely eradicated extreme poverty. But they achieved this through tough family planning measures. For African countries, this is not practical because they don't believe in family planning. So it will take more time to eradicate extreme poverty in these countries.

If we talk about poverty, even that's extreme or not, poverty is poverty. We walk through the city and look around, certainly, you will meet some guys who ask you a little bit of money that you have. A world without poverty, what I see, there's no more people who can't fulfill their life's needs without lack. There is no more place for you to give ur charity. As long you meet them, the world is still a place for inequality.

[DrBeer]

What you describe is a sad reality, no wonder it is very difficult to reduce poverty. The government should change the system related to tax policy, in my opinion the poor should not be given financial assistance, it will make them even more lazy to work. The government should provide training to the poor, so that they have the skills and can get a job. Actually, the government also needs to educate the poor to change their mindset, not to rely too much on government assistance.

We just need a reasonable balance between material assistance to the low-income population and creating incentives for this population to earn money on their own. Nevertheless, in any case, it will be a shameful phenomenon for any state if in the 21st century people will die of hunger or do not receive the necessary medical care due to lack of funds. Let's be realistic, but unemployment is an indispensable part of modern capitalism and no normal democratic state can and is not obliged to provide everyone with work, and any violation of this principle leads to human rights violations and slave inefficient forced labor. Therefore, I would advise you to be more careful with statements about financial assistance, because often the price of this is a human life.

I understand your idea, and it sounds quite humane. But there are nuances here.
For example, when it was such a country in the USSR. The ruling party told everyone that it was building a humane, balanced socialist society. Some of the actions were similar to what you are proposing. BUT. There was no unemployment in the country, but 80% of the population did not receive income, but a handout. Medicine was free, but its effectiveness was extremely low, life expectancy lagged noticeably behind European. The overall quality of life was very low, and instead of growth, we got poverty spread across the country. It turns out that the system works either with stratification (rich, middle class, poor) or everything is mixed, and the mixture tends to deteriorate in quality. Conclusion - basic social protection should be for the poor, low-income, incapacitated. Most likely it should be a state fund and a separate tax. But this does not mean that it is necessary to reduce the standard of living or the possibilities of others, through an attempt to level the standard of living for everyone. And we must understand that the ideal balance is possible only in rich countries with stable economies.

[Vishnu.Reang]

I understand your idea, and it sounds quite humane. But there are nuances here.
For example, when it was such a country in the USSR. The ruling party told everyone that it was building a humane, balanced socialist society. Some of the actions were similar to what you are proposing. BUT. There was no unemployment in the country, but 80% of the population did not receive income, but a handout. Medicine was free, but its effectiveness was extremely low, life expectancy lagged noticeably behind European. The overall quality of life was very low, and instead of growth, we got poverty spread across the country. It turns out that the system works either with stratification (rich, middle class, poor) or everything is mixed, and the mixture tends to deteriorate in quality. Conclusion - basic social protection should be for the poor, low-income, incapacitated. Most likely it should be a state fund and a separate tax. But this does not mean that it is necessary to reduce the standard of living or the possibilities of others, through an attempt to level the standard of living for everyone. And we must understand that the ideal balance is possible only in rich countries with stable economies.

Socialism works for a short period of time, when the wealth from the upper class is redistributed among the poor. But once this phase is over, the government needs to loot the middle class and the poor to manage the economy of the country. And this has repeated almost in every country where socialists came to power - Cuba, North Korea, USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela.etc. It can be argued that there were no poor people in the USSR. But the so called "middle class" in the USSR had a worse living standard than the "poor" in western nations such as the US and UK.

[Sirait]

In world, there is hierarchy, that is why some people are rich, some are average, some are not that rich but still having good living some are poor, while the poor still look at some and still appreciate life because they are poorer. I am beginning to thinking laziness can be the result of some people not having good living, while some is purely due to ignorant an lack of knowledge and exposure, some even only lack information.

I am thinking with how people is, is there a way possible for everyone to live without being poor, though their can be hierarchy but in a way no one is poor? But I am thinking it is not possible. If anything happens today that the poor are richer and got richer than the rich people, the rich people will become poor too because life is not just balance.

Economically, can there be a way people can live and no one will be poor?

Poverty cannot go away, as long as stupidity, laziness, and corruption persist. no one in this world wants to be poor but there is nothing they can do when they are still stupid and lazy. I once asked a lot of poor people randomly and the words that came out of them were "just living like this is comfortable"

[Clairvoyance]

Economically, can there be a way people can live and no one will be poor?

Theoretically it can exist but not in reality. As long as there are greedy single minded people in power, we can never achieve an economically viable living for all. Take a look at this well defined article. The rich can always find a way to evade taxes and accumulate more wealth than they could possibly live out. We can only dream of a world where wealth is properly distributed and opportunities are well within reach of everyone.