Debate: What To Do About Poverty | Learn Liberty 

At 9:00 they touch on "charity vs welfare." And the professor says with charity "you give what you see fit," with welfare "you GIVE WHAT YOU OWE." And that welfare "allows the recipient to have more dignity..." There is a lot to say on this issue. Let me say just a couple of things. Let's consider charity, and the mindset of the recipient; we will use the Will Smith character, just call him Will. Will ends up poor, for whatever reasons. Will seeks help from his family or community; a local church ends up giving him money for the month. Will IS VERY GRATEFUL to the church, and feels that because these are his good neighbors that are helping, the people he actually sees around him in town, WILL OWES IT TO HIS NEIGHBORS to live up to the donation that they gave him. Will would be disgracing his neighbors and the church IF HE WERE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF the charity, and not look for work, or to just abuse the money that was given to him by buying drugs or alcohol or partying. So in the case of charity THE RECIPIENT OWES something, not the donator! And the recipient MAY ACTUALLY FEEL THAT HE NEEDS TO PAY BACK EVERY DIME that he borrows! ---- Whereas with welfare, IT IS THE DONATOR THAT OWES SOMETHING. And the recipient does not feel ANY RESPONSIBILITY directly to the donator to repay or not to abuse the donation or the situation, nor does the recipient feel responsible to repay the donations; THE RECIPIENT FEELS THAT THE DONATOR OWES HIM THAT MONEY SOMEHOW. ---- So the notion of CHARITY VS WELFARE are antithetical in nature. In welfare: The poor person feels "you guys OWE ME something." And the donator feels "I OWE it" to pay to the poor. In charity: The poor person feels "I OWE IT TO YOU" the donator to live up to or even repay this contribution. And the donator feels "I DON'T OWE YOU A DIME," but I wanted to help, so make it count. ---- Complete opposites! ---- In both cases, the poor get help. The question is WHICH of these two ALIGN WITH OUR NATURAL RIGHTS? And WHICH OF THESE RESULTS IN GREATER PROSPERITY?

the second i hear anyone say "think of the children" i instantly switch off. having emotions is fine and necessary but making real decisions based solely upon them is ludicrous.

The problem with the “think of the children” argument is that it becomes a nearly ubiquitously applicable shield against any and all criticism. That kind of emotional appeal is often an instant win in political scenarios, which is the danger since it stifles any actual debate about the merits of the policy in question. The issue is not that people care emotionally about children and their plight, but rather that the children are used as mere political pawns (after the fact) to further the speaker’s preexisting agenda.

Too often these videos are billed as "Person A vs. Person B" and we are told they "duke it out." In reality, Horwitz and Reiman agree on about 70% of everything discussed here and have somewhat differing views about the remaining 30%. They are having a discussion, not an adversarial contest.

Profs. Steve Horwitz and Jeffrey Reiman duke it out over an essential social question: what is the best to eliminate poverty while caring for the impoverished? Tell us what you think after watching this week's NEW release!

1/2 of my government education was daycare, 1/4 was obedience(part of that was good as social interaction), and 1/4 was actually applied knowledge(that includes art and critical thinking). Maybe that was just me, but I could have been tossed a book, taken a test for 1 hour per week,spent a few hours at the park, and learned as much as I did in school.

Libertarians. The ideologues of libertarianism do more thinking about the effects of economics on the poor then every single ultra-lefty and ultra-righty in the country, combined.

It is a fact that we just had the 50th anniversary of the federal government's War On Poverty, and after spending TRILLIONS of tax dollars over the last 50 years, purportedly to end poverty, we have more poverty in the US than before the War On Poverty was waged. Professor Reiman argues that charity, the voluntary giving from one person or group to another, in some way diminishes the recipient, while the social justice principle that forces us to give "our fair share" to the government that then redistributes our wealth is better. Not even close. Charity is a moral decision that is somewhat analogous to the free market. Both parties are bettered by their participation, or they would abstain. With charity, there is a genuine exchange. Both parties are improved. The giver sees the benefit of their gift in another person's life. The recipient sees a real human who cares about their plight and wants to help. There is a personal connection and a personal relationship that is much more likely to give someone a hand up. With government "assistance", at most they get a hand out. They're made to feel entitled and dependent which leads to generational welfare. We shouldn't be surprised by the immoral results, because government initiates the process by stealing, and it only goes downhill from there. Government programs have no incentive to end a problem, and every incentive to cozy up to a problem and increase the problem to justify more government funding to grow the agency. The federal welfare program is less than 50% efficient, so less than 50 cents of every tax dollar goes to the poor, and more than 50 cents of every tax dollar goes to administer the program. What could be more demeaning and soul crushing than to tell a person that they are unable to provide for their most basic needs and they'd starve to death if not for their government handout? Professor Reiman also seems to believe the big government marketing lie that government helps end racial discrimination. Society demanded these reforms and governments were dragged kicking and screaming to this new reality. The US Congress passed fugitive slave laws and the US Supreme Court upheld them, while US citizens in juries across the country refused to convict people who aided runaway slaves. Dred Scott. Jim Crow. Please do your homework before claiming that government was needed to end discrimination. Even today, the federal government has programs that perpetuate discrimination, often under the guise of helping disadvantaged minorities. Sometimes, the easiest way to enslave someone is to "help" them.

As soon as you throw in the "think of the children" they dont deserve poverty the roll of gov't becomes unlimited. The child shouldn't even be an option if a person can't support them.

Simple. Stop the government from helping people stay poor. End minimum wage. End affirmative action. End quota systems. End all race and gender based government discrimination.

You know what's funny. The solution to will smiths poverty in that character was a business that relied on free market. Yes we was poor but at the end he became rich. Not because of government welfare but because of hard work and free market opportunities.

That professor flipped the script when nobody was looking . He changed the argument to make it about just rights . It isn't a matter of justice to take my stuff without my consent . People aren't owed 40 acres and a mule by right of birth .

Thank you so much for subtitle.

If I hit hard times, I'd feel much more dignified accepting money from someone willingly giving it to me than some gargantuan entity that coercively takes it from peaceful people.

"The promotion of economic equality and the alleviation of poverty are distinct and often conflicting." - Peter Bauer

He actually admitted gov. was a problem! How can you say that you need gov. as part of the solution when you admit they are a problem?

The only thing you "deserve" is what you earn. Society doesn't owe you anything, except your freedom.

The old man's argument completely falls apart when you try to reduce it to basic moral principles. He's opposed to charity, essentially, because he's concerned it will hurt the feelings of the recipients to receive it because it is "charity". So rather than respect the very real right to property everyone has to the fruits of their own labor, he would impose, by law, mandates to strip people's right to property so that the poor can enjoy an imagined right not to have their feelings hurt while they receive the same money under the title "welfare" instead. He wants them to feel like they are entitled to it, like they have the right to it, ignoring the fact that no one has the right to the fruit of another's labor. If they don't like getting charity, GOOD, that will be incentive to get a better job and work their way to a better financial situation. On the other hand, if they are "entitled" to other people's money, where is the incentive to work hard so they can stop taking it?

The mixed answer is the best answer because it allows flexibility to work with different people in different countries with different cultures. Some people or cultures value safety, while others value independence, and the mixed answer allows us to work with both.

Wow this is really interesting. I'm one of the few libertarians who don't necessarily think charity organizations are the solution to those in need. I don't think they have the far reach a government organization does. However, I feel like this should be handled at the state level with blank checks rather than social programs, leaving those in need with the responsibility to seek out help.

Government's should be the equivalent of a sports referee/umpire. And that is to make sure the playing field is as level as possible and that ALL are playing by the rules. After that it's up to the individual to do all the hard work and sacrifice that will get him/her 'points on the scoreboard'

I don't find it more dignified or just for B to depend on government coercion to take from A simply because B is poorer and A is richer. Justice, imo, is for A to give willingly as all parties respect personal property and refuse engage in any sort of theft.

Someone who receives charity is "diminished"? As opposed to being forced into a role of thief and murderer through welfare! I would rather be given a gift and given opportunities, than to go take someones wallet at the end of a gun (even if that violence is by proxy).

I personally don't believe beggars can be choosers of how dignified they are treated. If they need help and someone is willing to meet their needs out of kindness rather than obligation, great. Be thankful. Get back on your feet as quick as possible. Pay that debt off or forward it to someone else in need if dignity is so important. People who feel dignified in their poverty stay in their poverty. People who feel icky about being a charity case want it to stop. Isn't the point to END poverty?

It's my opinion we all need Wisdom Knowledge an Understanding. If we could learn and teach investing. All education in world can't replace Wisdom.

I believe in the island method, If you are alone on an island then you have all your rights. If you have the right to a home then it should be there, right to food then it should just be there...if on the other hand I have to build a shelter then maybe that is my real right, if i have to catch kill and cook food then that is my real right. On an island nothing is given to you but Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How about this - let's make it not fail anymore.

Chris Gardner began with an internship and separated himself as having exceptional talent. Now imagine if his employer had to comply with minimum wage law.

Sweet Deal!

minimum income ideas though sounding good, have huge negative impacts on the incentive to work...especially in current environment where people don't want to work min wage jobs if they can get by without working.

Although I don't agree with most of what Jeffrey Reiman says, I still like him.

Our society owes everyone a 'fair opportunity' just like the Will Smith character got in the movie. It does not owe everyone a 'fair share'. You TAKING from others and giving it away rather than allowing people to decide what they want to give simply because you want the recipients to 'feel dignity' is not justice, its theft.

Here is a formal response to Professor Reiman's emotional argument, "Think about the kid" at the 4:35 mark: Tell that to the parents. I sure won't 'think about the kid'. I did not cause that child to exist in this world, their parents did. They conceived the child, well knowing of whether they had put money aside to feed it, to nurture it and to educate it. If they instead chose to prioritize short sighted leisure or very risky ventures as the case is With Will Smith's character in 'Pursuit of happiness', but still conceive and give birth to a child, they have no moral right to require strangers to feed it, to nurture it, and to educate it. To entertain that idea is to excuse the irrational behaviour in bringing a child into the world With no plan to invest money into actually raising it.

"Ignorance is a voluntary misfortune".

"What to do about poverty" 1) Peaceful parenting to allow children to develop the necessary negotiation skills and stable personalities essential to a successful life and career 2) Abolish welfare and the government if we can. These are the 2 greater hindrances toward escaping poverty 3) Recognize the efficacy of the male parent in shaping a child's empathy and stigmatize any notion of single parenthood as a choice, especially single motherhood Do these 3 things, or even just 1 and 3 and we won't have much poverty left in the world. (2 will inevitable happen if 1 and 3 are met)

Churches & Mutual Aid Societies can be more discerning which means they can tell people things the government can't. Maybe you turn in 3 job applications on a government program but everyone knows you really didn't try but nobody can do anything. But a Church can tell you that you are taking advantage and you'll have to make earnest effort to get help. It is this ability to discern on an individual basis that makes non-government solutions superior.

At 6:11, the moderator looks like he's more interested in the transfiguration of his hand into a pillow.

Minimum wage absolutely is damaging. price (wages of workers)=demand\supply First minimum wage reduces demand for workers, by increasing the risk (cost vs expected benefit) to hire. If someone with no or a bad record cannot prove he that he can produce more value than minimum wage, he simply will not be hired. However without minimum wage, a person accept low or no wages, in trade for job experience or a chance to (re)build their reputation, when their value to employers increases they can negotiate higher wages or find a better job elsewhere. At the point the employer can quantify their value (no risk) and determine how much they actually benefit the business. Minimum wages causes marginal workers to be unemployed and limits the ability for small businesses to grow. Also government oversight (aka goons with guns looking for free lunch) increases the cost of running the business and in turn increases the risk to hire. Second minimum wage lowers the wage of all workers by increasing the supply of the labor pool, for the reasons stated above. Third minimum wage drives up the cost of education because it increases the artificial demand in that field. Because if getting on the job experience is out of the question because they can't get a job, they must improve their value elsewhere. The higher prices then in turn, screw those who need it the most. I am sure there are most ways it causes problems. The bottom line is whenever voluntary exchange between two people is interrupted it costs society as a whole. If mimum wage is good, why stop at $7 an hour, why not $20, $100, $1,000,000/hr

I need someone to prove that poverty is even solvable.

I'd really like to know when the last time this guy had to work on minimum wage was, to call for it to be abolished. Even if it were on the federal level, luckily the states would maintain it.

People need to be taught, and believe, that individuals are responsible for their own survival. Equality, is a fallacy! you play the hand your dealt. If you complain, instead of learning the game, you will lose!

Horowitz raises an important point about considering the giver. In voluntary charity, charity organizations have limited resources and must appeal to their effectiveness to win donations. The incentives in play are to make the most of donations, which means contributing to genuine self-improvement to beneficiaries. When government can threaten and defraud a population into "giving" to the poor, the incentives are categorically different. If the state welfare system actually did solve all poverty, would they close up shop? No. It's in the political interests of transfer program departments that there always be a sellable cause "for the poor"; and unlike voluntary charities, they can use government power to see to it that they have their jobs forever. Higher up, politicians are well aware that cutting benefits loses their base, so by and large these programs are designed to expand and there's no direct price paid by the policy makers when these programs create perverse incentives that trap "beneficiaries" on them for generations. Indeed, it's not just a question of getting financial help to the poor, but of where the money is coming from and why.

There will always be poverty because man is flawed and limited. Even if you get rid of almost all of the social programs people will make their own choice to strive to become better or not strive.

Jeffrey Reiman is a very smart man.

Economic mobility

No mention of NIMBY? NIMBY seems to be a big driver of poverty. Government preschool seems like a very, very inefficient thing to do.

What could have happened that led these people into the hole they find themselves in? Were they already born there? If not,did they see the hole, avoided it by going around. If they still fell in,did they stop digging an try to get out while the hole was still shallow? If they were too ignorant and lazy to recognize a hole than...

not discussed --how over regulation is used as a tool to cut some businesses out of opportunity.

Charity is better than wastage on welfare/corrupt policies which waste money on Bureaucrats or Political swamp.

Did will Smith's character put his son in that situation by having a child without the means to support one ?

"Do we NEED government to solve those problems? I like to think we can do with the least government possible to solve those problems. And for ME, the more interesting question is, let's see what happen when we get government out of the way..." THIS! As a former SJW, I was taught to take down arbitrary barriers(a great lesson, but only emphasized when talking about access for the disabled). Welfare has become a barrier to prosperity. If you actually care, you'll care about the fact that welfare is incentive not to advance in life.

the solution is all summed up by minute 3. lets see what the rest of the video is about.

Less government always, except when private banks creates "financial products" which are nothing but ponzi scheme merchandize. Remember 2008? Profits are private, losses are for public to bear.

9:21 "If you say that this is charity, then you make the recipient - in a certain sense - is diminished. That person receives the free chartity of other people who are better off" - exact a fucking lotely! That is a 100% accurate description of what is going on. Anything lese is essentially a lie. 9:49 "Charity means I give freely what I have out of generosity" - again 100% right (well not 100% right in that some people give out of a sense of obligation (why I don't know) and not just pure generosity). 9:55 "Justice means I give what I owe, what people have a right to". Ok now here's where it call breaks apart. Justice doesn't mean I give what I owe as I owe no other man anything - period, end of story - unless I've entered into an agreement with considersation. Also, no, sorry but poor people have no right to my property - again, period, end of story.

A life with God is a good life.

Add another one. Fixing the currency It should not inflate at 3% Wages increases have never kept up with inflation, hence people are getting poorer. The minimum wage would unnecessary if the currency was not controlled and did not inflate.

I like to think of it this way: - Money represents a person's time, skills and labor, basically his life. - The older guy doesn't care about the dignity of the person giving of his money (life) as payment to another person. - When one person is taking another person's life without regard for that other person's dignity, you basically have slavery. So, according to the progressive liberal on stage, slavery is okay in his mind.

There is no need to have a debate. We can look at the poor nations that lifted themselves from poverty and copy them. Why reinvent the wheel?

We need the UBI tied to the GDP get a petition. A dividend.

Poverty is not a problem, thus need no fixing. It's like ugly vs beautiful, stupid vs smart or cold vs hot. This things exist on a contrast only and relative. One group of smart people could seam stupid in comparison with a group of even smarter. And so on. Besides, some people like being poor and miserable.

pursuit of happyness??? pls correct the spelling just sayin

8:30 "... other things like discrimination are problems too, and government doesn't make that happen." I disagree. Government isn't the root cause of discrimination, as it's probably some overactive human adaptation. However, government almost certainly amplifies discrimination. Most historical discriminatory laws could only be enforced by government. And if substantive discrimination exists nowadays, then government would almost certainly be a primary cause, since it monopolizes power. Affirmative action, for example, is both discrimination on its surface, preferring one race over another (whatever the intent may be), and also has the effect of making some individuals have -- and perhaps act on -- the belief that its benefactors are potentially less competent than others with similar credentials.

A poor person has no way of getting out of poverty if no one invests in him/her. So my question is, how should we invest in poor people? What programs should we have, public or private, that help poor people get out of poverty?

What I don't hear from people is how long do the poor need help? I've just looked at a statistic that most people tend to be on welfare for more than 7 months. Most numbers are at 1 to 2 years. But really how long does a person who is poor need to be help?

It is not the Government's role to eradicate poverty. It is the person's responsibility to eradicate his/her own poverty. The Government's role is to not allow obstacles to this from themselves, big businesses, teacher's unions, and any other entity or special interest. Gvt's role is to defend the people from those who disallow him/her to get his own richness.

Allot of people will avoid wealth generation if they are forced to pay others by law for “justice”. We should also decriminalize theft and breaking a entering too... 🤓... for justice-

Minimum Wage puts more money into the economy? There we have the philosopher's logic.

A drug user or a welfare bum does not have "right" to anything that belongs to others.

so the poor feels bad when receiving aid paid by another people voluntarily, but feels good when receiving aid paid by other people forcefully at gun point !! When receiving aid paid by people who may need it but forced to pay it ?!! Because this is the reality, He just wants to obscure it. Besides, if the poor understands this is charity paid by kind successful people, they will not feel hatred to the evil rich and want to destroy them. Do not the givers deserve a little bit of acknowledgment in return?!

Real capitalism is still new to society. Shouldn't we have let the flower be and see if it was still blooming before authority decided what to do with it? Government put it's rear in a growing body of hands and minds and stunk everything up.

Sure, kid doesn't deserve it, I absolutely agree. The state should take over the kid and give the kids to the people who can raise them without sucking on tax payers.

Being Broke Is Cruel The Solution Lies With One Way Giving Communities Based On Social Policies That Or Providing Stable Employment & Purchasing Power Decision Making PPL

don't try to take an example from small size country like france and applied to big size country like america, china or even india ....

There's not enough social engineering that will help poverty due to the population booming. Automation is on its way and the human worker (with all its flaws) will be considered an hindrance, not an asset. This is a loosing battle due to current capitalistic trend (value due to scarcity).

What to do about poverty is to make more than one video, on what to do about poverty and then actually have the right formula oh, I'm not just have one video that's put up 7 years ago period is very easy. Economic freedom and a sound monetary system. The absence of these two and what is produced is actually what we use to determine the misery index. Thus the true source of all human-generated misery stems directly from Monopoly over economy and monetary system. Solve that problem and you solve the misery problem. Simple as that

Get rid of Unions too.

The idea of universal pre-k sounds great, but is worthless when the facts are examined. Yes, students who attend preschool in the US today tend to have a higher quality of life and success later in life, but this has nothing to do with pre-k itself. By the time a child reaches fourth grade the differences between those who attended pre-k and those who didn't isn't discernible. The kids who attended pre-k are no smarter than their peers by the time they reach middle school. The difference between pre-k and non pre-k is family structure. While pre-k is not taxpayer funded, a family must have expendable resources to pay for it. Households with a stable two parent nuclear family are much more likely to have the needed resources than unstable or single parent households. In the long run students from stable households are educated in the value of family structure and are provided both the discipline and empathy needed to be a good citizen. Students without a parent tend to grow up with minimal discipline and structure which makes it extremely difficlt to be successful. If we want more children to succeed we need to strengthen the family. Throwing more taxpayer money at a building sounds like a nice thing to do on a campaign stop, but is entirely worthless in the long run.

As far as I can see the more towards socialism a country moves, the worse things tend to become. Also, I agree with the libertarian in this debate; there is no dignity in government handouts. There is not much dignity in charity either, except the opportunity to say 'thank you'. Having said 'thank you', this humbling act will surely give the recipient the impetus to make changes to their life if they can, in order to restore their dignity. Government handouts just engender a culture of entitlement. The left always misunderstand human nature. As they are humans themselves, this strikes me as perverse.

Minimum wage if fine if it goes up with inflation but America hasn't done that so get RID of minimum wage and employees will be able to bargain for their employment.....

Steven Horwitz needs to read some history books.

Rational conclusions in economics are no more dogma than principles of geometry. Some things are true by logical necessity, and where so, empirical examples have nothing to add. Case in point, minimum wage. What a price floor means is that any transaction that would have taken place below the price floor is illegal. To the extent it's obeyed, all other things equal, a price floor will necessarily cause more unemployment than would otherwise be and to the degree of the floor's encroachment on the market clearing price. Only by using the methodologically incorrect approach to this question - empiricism - could you conclude that outlawing jobs would have no effect on employment.

I saw the movie that was cliped in the begining and he was poor because he had to pay taxs! I mean he was poor before that but the taxis is what made him homeless.

"I'm not worried about the dignity of charity givers, I'm worried about the dignity of the poor" Translation: I value life differently. THAT is why government is NOT the answer.

Many College age people who don't have a J-O-B, and living in Hyper Expensive places like San Francisco or New York know Poverty, if that is they are a normal person who comes from a Middle Class family or a real impoverished family, yet, since there are Scholarships for Poor Students and Not for Middle Class the Poor Student has it better off.. If you are of a Wamen or 'Person of Color' you are also better off as there are many Race and Gender based programs and scholarships for you out there. You have a struggle by choice, whereas the white straight guy who can't claim the Struggle has the real struggle of not qualifying for all those programs and scholarships. We need that movie. Hire a broke White guy to play it, not some millionaire actor like Mathew Mcconaughey, the white equivalent to Will Smith. No, hire a no-name Actor. Who is BROKE, and trust me you can fine that guy. They exists, in spades. They know Poverty. So are you obligated to do something by hiring one to be a Working actor? The most privileged people are Wamen of Color because they are both People of Color + Wamen = Privileged Elite.

What to do about Poverty. First thing hire a Millionaire to play a Poor person and a Privileged Kid child actor who in reality has an extremely privileged position to play a Poor kid. Then make it seem like Race and Poverty are linked and that Black people are Impoverished and have The Struggle. A struggle which no one else experiences. Reality is you could swap out the Race, have a Broke White Man and the same story occurs, the same points can be made. You could do this with any other Race too obviously, but this story, the Rags to Riches story is a common think so since they put a Black Man into the roll they literally put a Black Face on it. This then is the Rags to Riches story with a Black Face on it. There is nothing unique about being poor and black.

Absolutely morally correct! The difference between a believers thinking, and the thinking of a secular mind! Without God morality doesn't have a compass. How can you navigate this world without a compass. The secular compass is always changing meaning and direction!

End the fed Constitutional public owned banking only!

Occupational licensure laws are the curse of Western Civilizations. Wherever I go around the world, I find clear examples of their profound idiocy. I tried using Uber in Germany only to discover that an entrenched taxi owners cabal had made such thing impossible- the result are exorbitant fares and more relevant, the complete absence of service in small village rural Germany. Not only does that income opportunity not exist, in rural areas that don't have sufficient density for public transportation, the elderly, infirm and poor are effectively isolated as they were before the advent of the car. If it were not for the still existing social networks of family and friends the situation would be dire. But even that is changing with changing demographics. Driver licenses are also difficult and expensive to obtain with no benefit in the form of lower accident rates, in fact, the opposite is true.

I disagree on the minimum wage mention. I firmly believe that that will give big corporations a gateway to gives less and less, since they can hire people who are willing to work at lower rates, which lowers the amount of LIVABLE jobs. Why hire Jerry, a full time worker, at $8 an hour for 40 hours, when you can hire Tom and Steve at, say $3 an hour for 20 hours a week? Sure, you have more people working but at lower rates and Jerry is out of a job that he needs. Especially in our market right now, where job's are scarce. I work a 40 hour a week job at $8 an hour and just make ends meet, and being paid less would mean I could not live. I think chains, franchises, and super stores should all have to enforce a minimum pay requirement, while I could see a small store pizza shop owner being able to bypass this but that would create a dispute between companies. To sum up: I really don't see how getting rid of the minimum wage would work in the current model economy we have now. Maybe if things change, we get to a comfortable level where inflation isn't running rampant, corporations DON'T have their hands in the pockets of the politicians, and we have an atmosphere that doesn't make the common person try to compete with another just to get a job at lower rates, I can see the minimum wage being gone but I think for the time being, removing it would cause a lot more harm than good.

hahaha, that is how these people think poverty looks like? hahahaha

I was hoping for a what to do about poverty in the world & instead it just focused on here in the states. Making at least 12k a year in the world is considered rich. In the states it is considered poor (which all makes sense). Not saying that focusing on the states alone is bad, I was just hoping fort something more over arcing. The biggest thing I see with government intervention is that it has helped keep many people out of falling into poverty, & that the statistics shows that we have been growing out of it. Children are better off since before 1950's, & the elderly have seen the most improvements when it has come to getting out of poverty. So far I don't see anymore solutions than what has already been thought up for a long while now. Be happy you don't live on less than $900 a year like most of the population on earth.

I can agree with Steven Horwitz's suggestions, but they do not go far enough. A major underlying cause of poverty is that which was most famously noted by Henry George in "Progress and Poverty." The problem comes from rent seeking behavior, particularly by land owners who control other individuals' access to scarce natural resources which we all need in order to survive but which are not the products of human labor and thus not valid private property. (The problem is a whole lot worse where there are governments which use public funding to protect these private monopolies, but could still happen if landlords relied instead of private guards. In such a case, they could themselves be considered micro-states.) Despite the way it is often taught today, the Homesteading principle as proposed by John Locke explicitly did not grant ownership of Land. Only the improvements which are the fruits of labor could be considered property. The Land itself could never be owned, although possession of land could be justified when it was necessary in order to secure control of the valid property on it. Unilaterally exerting a monopoly control of a plot of land was considered acceptable only under the conditions of the Lockean Proviso, requiring that the landholder leave as much and as good of any other would be homesteaders. This law of equal liberty was the moral underpinning of homesteading. Being a "Non-Proviso Lockean" makes about as much sense as being a "Christian who rejects the commandments to love God and your neighbors." The Lockean Proviso is rarely met in the real world, at least in more densely populated parts of the world. We know that it is being violated whenever the landlord is able to convince tenants to pay him land rent (separate from the payment for the use of any buildings or other improvements on the land). This rent is a measure of how seriously the land holder is aggression against the rest of the community. It is thus fair that the landlord compensate the rest of society for the act of holding the land out of the commons. There may be many ways to do this, but a redistributory Land Value Tax may be the most feasible. Since as an economic term Land comprising all natural resources, not merely the ground, the category of Land Value Taxes could include more than merely taxing the market value of physical space. It could also include the exclusive use of waterways, specific parts of the EM spectrum, tolls charged to reduce road congestion, etc. The LVT should not be charged merely for using resources, but only for preventing others from doing likewise. There is no need for the government to interfere with non-rivalrous uses. Most taxes are inefficient, causing significant deadweight losses and leaving the economy weaker. This is because they are a disincentive for production. We should never tax any produced good (except perhaps when trying to reduce the level of production to prevent negative externalities suffered by innocent parties). Income taxes, payroll taxes, tariffs, sales taxes, etc, are completely unacceptable. Land is not being produced, so its production cannot be disincentivized. AN LVT has zero dead weight losses, and can actually make the economy function more efficiently. Charging those who are speculating in land rather than using it would tend to cause them to either develop things on top of their land, or sell it off cheap enough for someone else to develop it. An LVT encourages urban infill, discouraging urban sprawl and making cit life more pleasant and efficient. It drives down housing rents relative to income. The sort of social safety net programs that are used by most governments are very bad ones. Means testing causes perverse incentives, where the poor are afraid to risk taking a job that might not be worth losing their benefits. We would not have such perverse incentives with a simple Universal Basic Income. With this, the poor could keep their benefits no matter how much else they are earning. (The rich could collect such benefits too, but it would not be as significant a part of their income. If there was a public domain list of recipients, it shouldn't be too hard to shame those who don't need the help not to accept it.) Real world experiments with basic income show that its recipients do not work significantly less and often end up working more. In the Angola experiment it was often used as seed capital for founding family businesses. In the Manitoba experiment only 2 demographics worked even slightly less: teens who had previously needed to work to support their poor families but were then enabled to put more effort into schooling, and working mothers children who were able to stay home with their small children when they were sick or get home early to help their children with homework rather than leaving them unattended all afternoon. Those are things likely to reduce poverty in the next generation. A Basic Income funded by bad taxes still has the bad effects of those taxes. It would also allow landlords (and other sellers of things which are in particularly inelastic demand) to charge more unless the policy was paired with a means of keeping the rents down. The best approach is to provide a Citizens' Dividend, a Basic Income Guarantee funded exclusively through Land Value Taxes. Redistributing the LVT per capita after the minimum administrative costs of government are paid would also provide an incentive for the poor to vote against wasteful government expenditures. If the Citizens' Dividend is given to children too, then it would go a long way towards paying for childhood medical costs and allowing parents to afford to send their children to private schools or home school. Charity still has an important role, but it is much better able to handle unexpected emergency situations rather than recurring costs like rent.

Eliminate poverty? 2 things. 1: Reduce the barriers to entry to enter the job market. There was a time when people who didn't even know how to read and they could get work. Low skill fields (retail, food service, etc) were seen as "basic" jobs, not fulfillment jobs (as in support a family). Cure? Incentivize job training programs so companies can train employees to do what they need. Stop funding debt through education when education isn't as high a rung on the ladder lately. 2: Criminalization is a symptom of opportunistic capitalism. Why did Will Smith go broke? He was hustled and went broke and his wife left. Why criminalize drugs, poverty, terrorism, etc? There's a huge government contractor market that makes billions off of "wars" on things. It's opportunity through politics and politicians fund raise around that.

Broki

If we observe the creation of god, in that creation exists ecosystems, that are perfect and work!!!!! E got observe how the things works and try to replicate and all got a certain rule! To fight poverty, we need a money generator, on top of the pirâmide in those communities, in that part is where the government got to act🤝we need a strong one to lift the small ones, if in that area is low skilled workers, that areas require factories or business and industry that requires in majority low skill workers!!!!! I strongly believe that to fight poverty work is the answer when people work don’t think in commit crimes when people work feel responsibility, the education that everything in the life requires work is fundamental, not give way free stuff 👉

Hmm Reiman sasys private industry cant supply quality education for the poor, but everything else from food, cars, phones, clothes it can? Also i wonder where his morals come from to remove the right of low skilled people to work (min wage) and build their employment history, likewise taking via force to give to others at the cost of opportunity. If we go that path taxation should be flat and in a NiT format with no min wage. Enough to feed the family, enough to school children....go out and earn the rest.

Reverend is not a libertarian rather a socialist.

You think discrimination is a problem? Get off the stage.

min. wage should be... zero

Leave out the country I don’t think divorce or marriage is the solution LEAVE ME