1. If some diseases can be completely eradicated, I don't see any theoretical reason why poverty also cannot be eradicated. A well managed economy with reasonable amounts of resources should be able to attain the goal of virtually zero poverty. The criteria to measure poverty vary from country to country. A person above poverty level in America may be below poverty level in a Scandinavian country like Norway. What is the standard for Bangladesh or India or any other country in the developing world? It will be a laughable to act to try to measure all the countries on the same scale.
2. The economic system in a country may determine the percentage of people living in poverty. Looks like a socialistic structure of an economy reduces poverty and economic disparity at the cost of overall economic prosperity. A capitalistic economy simply does the opposite. A typical capitalistic economy has highly disproportionate income distribution and the economic gap tends to widen over time.
3. What is going on Bangladesh or India or in a similar country? Both real GDP and per capita income are increasing no doubt, but what about quality of life or welfare index? Bad governance coupled with rampant corruption is increasing economic disparity and is not doing much in reducing poverty.
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Stockholm Syndrome -- for Jiten Roy
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Stockholm Syndrome -- for Jiten Roy
Dr. Das is right - there is no economic system in the world (Socialism, Capitalism, etc.) that can eradicate poverty. What we see in the name of eradicating poverty – is just politics with poverty. For example, current American President is fighting for the poor and middle class in public, and then hosting a dinner party for $35,000 a plate. That's what is going on in this world. You want to get out of poverty; you have to do it yourself. That's the only system that works. Ms. Majid thinks so much about the poor and the downtrodden in India; I can't help but admire her empathy. After all, India may have the largest segment of the poor in the world. I agree, India should do much more to alleviate poverty in India. It just feels odd that she is worried about Indian poor and downtrodden, while we have so many in our own backyard ( e.g., in the slums of Tongi, Sadarghat, Narayongonj, etc.). Unfortunately, her socialist ideology will not provide solution for the world hunger; it has failed everywhere, even in the birth places of socialism. Capitalism has failed also to eradicate poverty. So, I am afraid - there is no magic bullet, and she may have to bear this lingering pain forever. She feels for workers' rights in the USA. She did not clarify what those rights are. As far as I know - there are laws to deal with the discriminatory practices (sexual, communal, racial, etc.) in the workplace. Workers also have the right to quit the job. In my view, that's the most important right a worker can have. There are countries in the world, where workers are bonded to the employers. Those are slave workers. America also has contract provision also, but it works usually more in favor of the workers. What else she could be complaining about workers' rights in USA. Maybe she was talking about the right to organize. She may be suffering from the defeat in Wisconsin. Those dumb Americans in Wisconsin rejected her socialist ideology. Too bad! Jiten Roy
|
__._,_.___
