The Importance Of Economic Globalization On Toth And Poverty

Underdeveloped countries need help from the privileged nations, but it is not mean that all of them should become rich countries’ dependents. On the other hand, the developed countries could support them with technology, quality control and new product development. Based on the aided information and technology, the developing countries could get better future development path. Third, the capacity of the lifeboat is misestimated. Although the poorer countries have larger population, rich nations obtain the majority of the world’s fortune and resources. In that case, rich nation’s supporting capacity is definitely much larger than that of the lifeboat, and these developed countries have the great ability to help more people in the world.

In “What Should a Billionaire Give?” Peter Singer makes some good points, however, I disagree that “the United States should contribute more than 36 percent of total global donations” (p.588). I agree that the wealthy or those in a position to give or assist the less fortunate should do so. I also believe that it should be their choice, not for the purposes of easing a guilty conscience or for public notoriety. If wealthy Americans were mandated to make contributions to relieve poverty, that should be optional and secondary to eliminating poverty in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, nearly 565,000 people were homeless in the United States in 2015! I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t assist or contribute to global efforts to end poverty. We can contribute a lower percentage while investing a percentage in improving our economy. A wealthy nation will have a better impact on global efforts as opposed to a few wealthy individuals.

A view on the subject matter I find myself agreeing with is that “redistribution of a static supply of resources accomplishes nothing and makes no one richer.” (M. Pennington, 2013.) The reasoning behind my stance on this subject is that the more we tax the wealthy to redistribute to the poorer, we fall more and more into a socialistic society. While

Singer points out the problem if the poor countries have improved or better agricultural techniques, then there might be enough foods and can consume more kilos of grain a year. Rich countries’ famers have improved seeds, fertilizers, better machinery, drilling wells, and etc. compared to poor countries’ famers. Transferring some of the wealth to the poor might change the situation. Then, there is absolute affluence where people are affluent by a reasonable standard of what we need daily. So, they have the income where those people in poor countries cannot meet those needs like foods, clothes, shelter, health, and the absolute wealth still want more needs. He also mentions that “their food for the pleasures of the palate, not to stop hunger…and after al this there is still money to spend on stereo systems, video-cameras, and oversea holidays” (645). This quote emphasis that those in absolute wealth needs on luxuries when they have enough already compared to those in absolute poor. So, considering giving a small amount of wealth or morally obligated to give them some wealth might improve a person’s life in absolute poverty. This is based on Singer’s utilitarian argument, which an action to maximizes utility on well-being and happiness. In Singer’s article, he displays that only a few countries like Netherlands, Norway, and Britain give more to help those countries in absolute poverty.

The rich countries are inside, the poor countries are out in the water. This metaphor is feasible but invalid. The rich countries are rich for a reason. They prey on the poor countries. The relationship between the rich and poor countries is more comparable to a bank and a robber. The poor countries are the bank, the rich countries are the robber. What usually happens when a rich country discovers a resource that they want in a poorer country? They find a way to take it. They can invade the country, ‘befriend’ the country's government to control the resource indirectly, or they can sneak in and take it without the country ever knowing. Sometimes the rich country doesn’t even need the resource; they just want it for themselves. Some might argue that a rich country in today’s world would never do such a thing and that they do everything they can to help the poor countries. This is not true. If the rich countries really wanted to help the poorer countries we’d stop taking their resources and make due with our own. In order to really help the poor countries of this world we must teach them how to sustain themselves. If they never learn to do that then we might as well have just never decided to help them at

The United States does not have an obligation to help poor countries. Although the U.S. has a high gross domestic product and strong military, it still hasn’t been able to succeed in other areas. In order to help others, you need to help yourself. Until every aspect of the United States is in order, we should not supply any other countries with help. The United States also has a failing public education system, citizens with food insecurities, and aging infrastructure. Giving aid can do more harm than good to a developing country. Instead of giving handouts, the U.S. should allow poor countries figure things out for themselves. “The American way” doesn’t work for everyone and countries, without help, should figure out what kind of system

Poverty is a huge issue which never seems to ever go away or be fixed. There are many options as to what can be done to eliminate poverty but, not all options please everyone. John Kenneth Galbraith in his essay “The Position of Poverty” argues that “to eliminate poverty, we must invest more than proportionately in the children of the poor community (Jacobus). Money has been a very important tool that has divided the world and given humans labels as wealthy or poor. The wealthy seem to have worked hard for what they have but others not so much. Poverty has been growing and it has been spreading across the world. Those people who are poor sometimes have no chance to exit the poverty that have been in because of very little supplies or just not a great community or environment, some with very little food and they just give up and never keep trying to exit this moment in their lives. The rich must make an effort to try and redistribute the money in our nation to eliminate poverty for good.

Financial resources alone will not fix child poverty; but a more even distribution of wealth has been proven to address the inequality that creeps silently throughout society, decaying the hope of opportunity and change for whole generations. Through enhanced wealth distribution we can create a fairer, more productive society which has endless benefits for this generation and for generations to come.

Giving money and resource to the poor, the rich can make the life of the poor people much better. A lot of poor people are in miserable condition, especially the people in Africa. They don’t have clean water to drink and enough food to eat, and when they are ill, they can do nothing but to wait for death, because they don’t even have a doctor. On the other hand, the rich people have luxury life. They buy shoes that cost thousands of dollars. They can use those money to prevent a poor person from starving for months. Giving away most of their money, the rich can still live their life without worrying about their survive. In addition,

As such, taking wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor would maximize the aggregated utility, and the state of optimized utility would be perfect economic equality. As Lerner puts it, "If it is desired to maximize the total satisfaction of a society, the rational procedure is to divide income on an equalitarian basis" (The Economist, 2015). In other words, if we are given a fixed amount of wealth and a group of people to distribute it to, we can maximize total happiness by dividing the wealth equally between the members of that

The main flaw with the above argument is the assumption that the lifeboat of ‘rich’ inhabitants is self-sufficient. This, of course, is not the case. One can assume that, in any case, the rich country that makes up the lifeboat has in some way benefited from resources acquired from the country of those poor people that swim around the boat. Those who swim around the lifeboat certainly came off of a lifeboat of their own, one that itself became overcrowded and unstable as its resources were drained. This is the exact situation that rich countries want to avoid, but it can’t be overlooked that rich countries like the U.S. came to economic prosperity as a result of resources derived from developing nations. It would therefore be morally unsound for rich countries to deny aid to the same countries which allowed them to become prosperous in the first

People in the rich nations have major obligations of extending a helping hand to the poor countries preventing deaths from happening without necessarily sacrificing anything. The rich nations tend to reside in comfort while the poor countries continue to witness countless deaths as a result of deteriorating economic conditions. As depicted by Peter Singer the people in the rich nations have specific obligations of helping people in the poor countries. The argument is founded on the basic concept of helping and sharing in the society towards attaining a common good. The principle that he appeals to is that of “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we

Globalization today has dramatically changed from many years ago. It has benefited multination corporations greatly and helped many people around the world submerge form poverty. This has created many foreign labor jobs and provided them with food, water, shelter and education. Although foreign labor has help them out of extreme poverty they are still struggling. The United States ships out products to foreign countries at a cheaper labor rate and once the job is complete the foreign country will ship it back via airplane, boat and/ or ground

“Can the rich become richer without making the poor poorer as a result? Can someone be poor and not suffer? What purpose is served by the rich showing charitable kindness towards the poor? How do people get

Poor countries cannot learn from experience something that they had never experienced before. How can poor countries learn to be rich, if they had never been rich; it is completely impossible.