The kind of TED talks I love the most! The guy first did something great and then came speaking about it, not only gives speeches. I hope to follow his example some time. Great example, I respect this man so much!
It wasn't a criticism, it was about the use of a word and saying what he isn't, and that throwing money at a problem won't fix it in the long run, its good ideas like this that create a long lasting solution, no matter how much someone gives to charity, a hundred years down the track the people are still impoverished.
Such a simple idea yet it works so brilliantly for these people. The man has a great idea, wish it could expand around the world for all the children. Thank you sir for your work and ideas.
I agree with what you have to say. I want to point something out though -- although perhaps not fundamentally different, we ARE all different, and there are fabulous things that we can learn from that, both about each other, and about different ideas. Diversity and differences should be embraced.
First, I have to apologize. I misunderstood you comment. I interpreted your comment as meaning each person should do the work for themselves, which seemed unrealistic. I can see you have more knowledge and experience in this than I do. I do, however, feel that having experts come in, particularly those with similar backgrounds to teach and guide the work, as well as bringing in specialized equipment, has a great deal of value.
to those who don't understand what he means with "home maintenance should have been done by state or local government": ofc he's not referring to simple tasks the occupants can do. imagine a leaky pipe in the pipe system of a apartment block affecting multiple flats. or an issue with the electricity beyond parts of the system that are visible or comprehensible for common occupants. also, don't equalize your state of housing with the examples Paul gave in his talk.
the book was quite good as well. One interesting factoid i took from it was that indigenous australians were the first ancient people to command seacraft
Although the monetary economy is the most common, and most known, it is not the ONLY economy. There is also a time economy, a sharing economy, and a giving economy. Not everything has to be done solely with money. I think much of the power we have lies not with the money we can leverage, but with the love, passion, and enthusiasm that we can channel into important goals.
Thank you. So at least there is a reason for it. I obviously am not familiar enough with Australian history to comment further on that, then. As for the US, the government should provide routine maintenance for public roads and facilities. But you mentioned a key word regarding social security for individuals, "opportunity." The government may provide education and basic sustenance, but its main goal should be to provide opportunity for the individual to survive on his/her own.
I'm pretty sure I did answer the question. Either directly or indirectly, making sure houses are kept in good shape is an investment in the people, and government is not possible without the people. Note that we already have this going on in the US, though it's not enforced all that well. Ever heard of building code laws or otherwise "keeping a house up to code"? Yup, that's exactly what's going on.
i haven't had a working shower at home for maybe five years. i usually use the creek. sometimes a river or dam. i get cut and covered in dirt all the time and never get skin infections. showers aren't the be all and end all..
Actually money is not limited at all. Our banking system work with a called fractional reserve, this system allow a bank to create the money you want to loan by simply printing the money it need. The problem is that they want you to pay it back with intrest, and the intrest is paid back with money that was created in the same way. As debt money that got to be paid back with intrest. Banks collect intrest on money that don't exist.
In real terms, what's being discussed here is something called absolute poverty. That means that the people don't have the resources for basic human needs including, in many cases, education. In that circumstance, there is no spending less and there are few if any opportunities to earn more. You are, however, correct in terms of relative poverty, though very few people have the skills or knowledge required to get their money to develop returns.
Being Australia, and the Australian Govt having formally recognised and apologised for the centuries-long genocide of natives / aboriginals, it does become Govt business. Now, outside Australia, your question would need a little more general discussion into the benefits of socialism - eg. USA / EU (Every US citizen has a Social Security Number and is given food and job opportunities and housing if he is poor, plus there are roads, drinking water, freedom to walk on those roads, etc)
Go watch Guns, Germs and Steel guys. Very good show that gives a very good hypothesis on why certain parts of the world are poor because of their geography.
*Europe* did not have drainage and indoor plumbing. Do not forget West Asia and South Asia have had cultures with advanced water management for millenia, even the Roman Empire, millenia ago. The Dark Ages - roughly from 1000 AD to 1600 AD were called that for a reason.
Wealth has a formula: Spend less, Earn more, Convert the difference into passive earning. Endless wealth is when the passive income is larger than total spending. Any deviation of the above results in poverty. Few people know how to have their money work for them. Most spend equal or more than they earn and have passive outgoings.
Ensuring that the people have good living conditions means the people themselves are better off. It's an investment in the people, just like education and infrastructure are.
Hmmm that is why I like the invention a lot. Spend less also includes spend less time or effort. In real terms those villagers now will spend now significant less time on collecting wood, bringing sick people around and healing. So there really is less spending. Also it seems they earn more by being more productive on the land that is better fertilized. If they can convert that into cash, which could be used to create passive income.
Hes talking about things like Serwer systems and power lines. He isnt very clear on that, which is a mistake, but he isnt talking about things like fixing your own stuff. You actually have to look outside of the video to find that out, which is something you shouldn't have to do on these things, so i can understand your shock.
Oh...Thats really great job...Actually we are also planning to construct such types of Toilets in the rural communities of Nepal...How can it be done??
Even though your comment is very rude, I'd like to explain something. They don't know. They don't have sufficient education systems or internet access to know these kinds of things. For all they know, at a certain age their eyes just start doing that. It's not that they're poor because they're dumb, it's the other way around.
That is close to my favor definition of wealthy. To be wealthy to have you enough wealth to live off of without work. Though when talking about the truly poor, spending less then you earn is not an option as the truly poor need all their money simply to live. Think of people living on a dollar a day.
Internet access is great, but while it give the knowledge to do the work, it doesn't give the equipment or skills. Installing a septic system and plumbing require, at the least, practice. I've done a lot of this type of work, and, like most, when I started, I made a lot of mistakes. The last thing you want is someone reading how to do it off the internet, trying, and flooding their living room with poop when the connection to the septic system gives.
It's genius I must admit though as he says he only reduces the amount of poverty and the other problem there is not enough money for the project to go fully global.
The way he was saying it definitely made it sound like a criticism. I'm not sure if you're are saying this but correct me if i'm wrong, do u think that bono just throws money to charities? Because that's so far from the truth. He has helped generate tons of healthcare for Africans especially vaccinations for various diseases, and he's attempting to reduce corruption by increasing transparency. Bono is a great advocate and spokesmen on top of that as well.
Yeah, let's just forget about the frivolous spending by the government and the inflation rates caused by the Fed... Instead of getting rid of the income tax, or stopping inflation, we should spend MORE money to repair homes...
and yeah, i did go off half cocked initially- turns out that the speaker has a good way of looking at different dynamics and wider systems. whatever, have a cool day.
Why is this still a question? If everyone would stop saving their money and spend it somehow, then the money would flow to everyone through it. And yes this means that even rich people need to spend instead of saving millions in their bank account. As long as people hoard wealth there will be poverty. That wealth that you are holding is away from someone else.
I once had an idea to start a company whose intent and goal was to end homelessness by hiring homeless people. I had it all planned out. There would be on site housing with security, life skills classes and finance training. Healthcare would be provided and meals would be paid for through the earnings of the individuals. Then, after they had learned a skill and gotten clean and sober, we would provide them transition and career search help. Then I realized that beggars don't want to work. period
That was an example of an exception. Humans are greedy beings (afirmation) -> Example of a mentality that should be encountered more widely -> Sadly in western countries i have not seen this mentality, but a very greedy one. (conclusion) I see i must point out the fact that English is not my main nor second language and i have almost never used it IRL with a native English speaker therefore the structure and ways of argumentations may differ from Latin languages.
It is odd to say poverty is not natural. Poverty is the most natural state of mankind. If we look at historical mankind, we have been adjective poor for 99.99% of our existence. Wealth is not natural, but it is also good. Poverty and inequality are bad, but very natural.
We tried building new homes in Canada. Low and behold the natives messed up their new homes in record time, because nobody made trained them how to take proper care of their homes.
Many of them sees it that way. Also it's no excuse to save money if starting new small business takes 3 years to pay back. There are tons of other options and you know it. Stop trying to avoid issue and already admit that there is limited amount of money in this world that we can have, and we will have always poverty as long as few individuals decide to keep all those wealth for himself without actually spending it.
the first half made a big deal about showers (skin infections>nephrology)- it actually makes sense, but it is something you hear with condescending overtones quitre often in Australia- something like white man either "needs to teach black man about washing", or even just that showers or ppl needing them aren't symptomatic of a wider thing.. it's systems i like to look at. i don't know why you are being so presumptive, but evidently my fears of ignorant do-gooders wasn't entirely ill-founded.
Every time that machines have taken over the work of people new jobs have taken the place of those lost. The tendency is for people to work less as their work becomes more productive with new technologies but the cries about unemployment never prove correct. As technology takes over people's work they are free to develop new products and services. People always invent new ways to serve their fellow man. Perhaps someday robots will do everything but that day is not yet here.
People have been shitting in gardens before the internet. People have been making chimneys before the internet. People have been having great lives before the internet. The problem is the world has become connected. Poverty becomes isolated areas which stay that way. In the past in an area was poor the people would either build it up, die or leave poverty would not stay. Famines affected people. There are no famines, there are just poor people.
I disagree with the idea presented at 9:10-9:25. Why should government be responsible for routine maintenance. Regardless of it's your own home, a rental place or government sub. housing the person living their should be doing basic maintenance. Maybe the government should offer some basic maintenance training instead.
Give criminals jobs. Check FALSE allegations thrown against some one to give them a false criminal record Make sure every city in every state has a shelter with ACTUAL resources with employment opportunities, health care, that are not dead end. Make sure these people can recieve homes and expenses on that income. Work on financial back ground.... DONT STOP WORKING WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS. MOST ARE MENTALLY UNSTABLE. EACH NEED TO BE ASSIGNED A WORKER.
Saving, by hording money under your bed, is fact bad, but the rich don't see their money they way. The simplest way to save money is in a bank. Banks then give money interest to savings by earns money by loaning out that money for things like home loans or car loans. The other is investments in companies or government. Take a small business, it generally takes ~3 years for any small business to become profitable, the money to start those businesses come from saving/investing.
Money are in limited number, after the economical crisis stroke the world billions if not trillions of dollars that rich people used in investments preferred to store them in bank accounts, thus making them inactive and just a measure of inflation. As money circulate in the system things they touch develop, just like your circulatory system, if it doesn't flow, everything degrades slowly, those who know this invest billions in art and precious metals instead of making deposits
i wounder when they will start working that system in america? need water bad. theres whole comunitys that live on there boats in ca that have no water, fule for cooking, they cant even vote becouse they dont have legal address. no showers or bathrooms.
All people that have studied economics see it my way. Without savings you can not build large durable goods. If there are no savings, there are no loans and therefore no large purchases. I would buy a car, but I can't because I must save up money to do so. I would buy a home, but I can't because I must save up money to do so. I would build a restaurant, hire staff and buy equipment, but I can't because I must save up money to do so. Idiocy!
Really, the truly poverty is expected to eradicated from the world within our life time. By the truly poverty, I mean absolute poverty. Meaning not starving, clean water, sanitation, basic medical care and basic education. These are things even the poorest people in the west have had for decades and the rest of the world is getting their reasonable quickly. And ofcorse, the rich "holding" on to their money is where we get investment capita, which is needed.
Actually rich people still save. Only people who are so poor that they have money only for food can't really save. I never said force rich people to spend money. I just said if you really want to fix this problem. Then there is only one way to do it. Stealing is different than spending it. In fact they could create more jobs with that extra money in their banks. What is the point holding millions in your account if you're not going to use them?
Humans are greedy beings, i grew in Romania, where people, at least in the rural area were very supporting to each other (and i do not mean lending money, i mean really giving from little that they had to others to prosper) and thrived even under heavy government taxes and a mountain of bureaucracy (Romania is also called the "country of papers" because of this as it takes years to make something legally. Sadly in western countries i have not seen this mentality, but a very greedy one.
No, putting your money under your pillow would be pointless and there for bad for the economy. That is what rich people NEVER do. The rich, almost without exception, invest their money. This sever a very real and useful role in the economy. There is a realistic argument for less investing and more spending, but this is a question of short term or long term gains. Spending is great for any economy in the short term, but without investment there is no long term growth and vice versa.
How to reduce poverty? Bring some sanity to US politic again. That's the key issue. As long as your "great" country has evil forces dominating it's politics and ppl your country will not move forward and develop in a good way. You can start this new better tomorrow by put your idiotic leaders responsible for their actions and RALLY.
World is way too complex to do such a thing, problems would appear as anarchy. Money will be stable only when every human being will use the same digital currency worldwide, yet we are decades away from that achievement. Luxury goods are now the most common way of putting rich men money back in the system and then there are investments and donations witch need to be stimulated somehow, give me 48 hours and i will think of something. Also, anyone hires a visionary ?
Not actually. Also you are now trying to plead on authority instead of making legit argument. You don't seem to understand what I was saying here. Yes you can save money in order to build better bussiness, but if you just save money without any plan to use it. In another words save it like uncle scrooge you will only cause economic damage. Saving that you are talking about saving in order to spend. This is totally different thing. talk about idiocy...
unless you are supporting kids on that, you are not living hand to mouth. You are using a computer on the internet. That means you have a computer, power and an internet subscription. Live hand to mouth means you only have want is needed to live. Maybe you are living paycheck to paycheck, but not hand to mouth.
You are trying to change issue again. How do you end up saying that saved money is invested money? Investing and saving is totally different thing, or are you saying that squirrels that save their nuts for winter are investing? Common, with your logic me putting my money under my pillow and never use it at all would be investing. Be real.
lol...I'm a little confused. You just made a fact claim but then gave an example that proved your fact incorrect. What? lol. "Humans are greedy beings." --> fact "i grew in Romania, where people, at least in the rural area were very supporting to each other" --> non-supporting evidence Humans aren't anything but what their environment around them encourages them to become. So there isn't much choice in life, only to the extent of your environments.
So you're going to force rich people to spend their money? Yeah, that's a silly, naive notion. And no one saves anymore. The economy is in the shitter and most people live hand to mouth. Stealing money from rich people isn't going to solve anyone's problem.
No, rich people generally don't have billions in their bank accounts. Banks give a poor ROI. Billions are kept in bonds and stocks. But lets pretend they did... So, the rich then take out there money from the bank. Now, you want a home loan? Nope, the banks need money in their accounts to give out home loans so, when those billions are taken out the banks, the bank can now make 5 times than that less in loans. This drives up the cost of loans, so instead of a 4% home loan it is a 8% home loan.
If you have the ability to own a home, you should have or acquire the skills to maintain that home, or be able to hire it done. Who the hell expects the government to take care of their house for them? If you're poor, you're not owning the house, you're renting. Now it's the owner's responsibility. If you don't like the shithole you're living in, move. Look , the poorest most rural Mexicans I know, that come up here in the states to work can build and fix any house they live in.
Actually we have no poors starving in west simply because we use tax money in order to give necessary tools for living for those who don't have. This money is away from savings of people. "And ofcorse, the rich "holding" on to their money is where we get investment capita, which is needed." Excuse me what? Please do explain how the fuck someone saving their money helps anyone? How that even helps that person who actually saves them? Our system works because people spend. Saving is evil in this
great idea come great price, but american like to pay for thing. they do not like to listen to free idea that save them. in addition, americans pay more attention to lie and fiction story. i like this video.
I already pointed out there are people who save their money. Go educate myself? What the fuck, in my country we have one of the best schooling system in the world, not to mention that I spend my private time to argue and educate myself. Again not used money is useless money. You also did use strawman argument here, you previously said that saving money is good, and now you are saying that investing it good, which I have never claimed to be bad.
Then you hire someone, or go on RUclips, watch a video and fix it yourself. The last thing a person needs is a fucking government taking care of their homes.
Blame the parents who produce like cats and rats, without having enough resources to feed & educate their children. Kindly watch my youtube videos to know more in my youbube channel " Poverty Reduction 007 "
The kind of TED talks I love the most! The guy first did something great and then came speaking about it, not only gives speeches. I hope to follow his example some time. Great example, I respect this man so much!
I feel so lucky to work with him. He is not only a noble architect but also a great man.
It wasn't a criticism, it was about the use of a word and saying what he isn't, and that throwing money at a problem won't fix it in the long run, its good ideas like this that create a long lasting solution, no matter how much someone gives to charity, a hundred years down the track the people are still impoverished.
Such a simple idea yet it works so brilliantly for these people. The man has a great idea, wish it could expand around the world for all the children. Thank you sir for your work and ideas.
I agree with what you have to say. I want to point something out though -- although perhaps not fundamentally different, we ARE all different, and there are fabulous things that we can learn from that, both about each other, and about different ideas. Diversity and differences should be embraced.
We need more people like this guy.
I love his voice and calmness. One just have to believe in everything he talks about.
First, I have to apologize. I misunderstood you comment. I interpreted your comment as meaning each person should do the work for themselves, which seemed unrealistic. I can see you have more knowledge and experience in this than I do. I do, however, feel that having experts come in, particularly those with similar backgrounds to teach and guide the work, as well as bringing in specialized equipment, has a great deal of value.
to those who don't understand what he means with "home maintenance should have been done by state or local government": ofc he's not referring to simple tasks the occupants can do. imagine a leaky pipe in the pipe system of a apartment block affecting multiple flats. or an issue with the electricity beyond parts of the system that are visible or comprehensible for common occupants. also, don't equalize your state of housing with the examples Paul gave in his talk.
the book was quite good as well. One interesting factoid i took from it was that indigenous australians were the first ancient people to command seacraft
Although the monetary economy is the most common, and most known, it is not the ONLY economy. There is also a time economy, a sharing economy, and a giving economy. Not everything has to be done solely with money. I think much of the power we have lies not with the money we can leverage, but with the love, passion, and enthusiasm that we can channel into important goals.
Thank you. So at least there is a reason for it. I obviously am not familiar enough with Australian history to comment further on that, then.
As for the US, the government should provide routine maintenance for public roads and facilities. But you mentioned a key word regarding social security for individuals, "opportunity."
The government may provide education and basic sustenance, but its main goal should be to provide opportunity for the individual to survive on his/her own.
I'm pretty sure I did answer the question. Either directly or indirectly, making sure houses are kept in good shape is an investment in the people, and government is not possible without the people. Note that we already have this going on in the US, though it's not enforced all that well. Ever heard of building code laws or otherwise "keeping a house up to code"? Yup, that's exactly what's going on.
i haven't had a working shower at home for maybe five years. i usually use the creek. sometimes a river or dam. i get cut and covered in dirt all the time and never get skin infections. showers aren't the be all and end all..
Actually money is not limited at all. Our banking system work with a called fractional reserve, this system allow a bank to create the money you want to loan by simply printing the money it need.
The problem is that they want you to pay it back with intrest, and the intrest is paid back with money that was created in the same way. As debt money that got to be paid back with intrest.
Banks collect intrest on money that don't exist.
absolutely beautiful! shows that you don't need a ton of money to make a difference in this world!
In real terms, what's being discussed here is something called absolute poverty. That means that the people don't have the resources for basic human needs including, in many cases, education. In that circumstance, there is no spending less and there are few if any opportunities to earn more.
You are, however, correct in terms of relative poverty, though very few people have the skills or knowledge required to get their money to develop returns.
Being Australia, and the Australian Govt having formally recognised and apologised for the centuries-long genocide of natives / aboriginals, it does become Govt business.
Now, outside Australia, your question would need a little more general discussion into the benefits of socialism - eg. USA / EU (Every US citizen has a Social Security Number and is given food and job opportunities and housing if he is poor, plus there are roads, drinking water, freedom to walk on those roads, etc)
Go watch Guns, Germs and Steel guys. Very good show that gives a very good hypothesis on why certain parts of the world are poor because of their geography.
Very informative and great work facts instead of emotions
*Europe* did not have drainage and indoor plumbing.
Do not forget West Asia and South Asia have had cultures with advanced water management for millenia, even the Roman Empire, millenia ago.
The Dark Ages - roughly from 1000 AD to 1600 AD were called that for a reason.
Right, yes.
Wealth has a formula: Spend less, Earn more, Convert the difference into passive earning. Endless wealth is when the passive income is larger than total spending.
Any deviation of the above results in poverty. Few people know how to have their money work for them. Most spend equal or more than they earn and have passive outgoings.
Todos podemos poner un grano de arena para erradicar la pobreza del mundo, y es con buenas acciones sociales
amazing Ted talk - must-watch
Ensuring that the people have good living conditions means the people themselves are better off. It's an investment in the people, just like education and infrastructure are.
Hmmm that is why I like the invention a lot. Spend less also includes spend less time or effort. In real terms those villagers now will spend now significant less time on collecting wood, bringing sick people around and healing. So there really is less spending. Also it seems they earn more by being more productive on the land that is better fertilized. If they can convert that into cash, which could be used to create passive income.
Good man - doing good job
Hes talking about things like Serwer systems and power lines. He isnt very clear on that, which is a mistake, but he isnt talking about things like fixing your own stuff. You actually have to look outside of the video to find that out, which is something you shouldn't have to do on these things, so i can understand your shock.
Oh...Thats really great job...Actually we are also planning to construct such types of Toilets in the rural communities of Nepal...How can it be done??
Whenever I have Ted talks on, dictionary(dot)com is my second tab.
Even though your comment is very rude, I'd like to explain something. They don't know. They don't have sufficient education systems or internet access to know these kinds of things. For all they know, at a certain age their eyes just start doing that. It's not that they're poor because they're dumb, it's the other way around.
That is close to my favor definition of wealthy. To be wealthy to have you enough wealth to live off of without work. Though when talking about the truly poor, spending less then you earn is not an option as the truly poor need all their money simply to live. Think of people living on a dollar a day.
Important lessons that all governments around the world should implement.
Internet access is great, but while it give the knowledge to do the work, it doesn't give the equipment or skills. Installing a septic system and plumbing require, at the least, practice. I've done a lot of this type of work, and, like most, when I started, I made a lot of mistakes. The last thing you want is someone reading how to do it off the internet, trying, and flooding their living room with poop when the connection to the septic system gives.
gotta say though, some of the community oriented solutions were elegant
Give this guy a nobel prize
It's genius I must admit though as he says he only reduces the amount of poverty and the other problem there is not enough money for the project to go fully global.
5 stars!
The way he was saying it definitely made it sound like a criticism. I'm not sure if you're are saying this but correct me if i'm wrong, do u think that bono just throws money to charities? Because that's so far from the truth. He has helped generate tons of healthcare for Africans especially vaccinations for various diseases, and he's attempting to reduce corruption by increasing transparency. Bono is a great advocate and spokesmen on top of that as well.
j'aime ça
Yeah, let's just forget about the frivolous spending by the government and the inflation rates caused by the Fed...
Instead of getting rid of the income tax, or stopping inflation, we should spend MORE money to repair homes...
and yeah, i did go off half cocked initially- turns out that the speaker has a good way of looking at different dynamics and wider systems. whatever, have a cool day.
Free energy solves most poverty issues.
Why is this still a question? If everyone would stop saving their money and spend it somehow, then the money would flow to everyone through it. And yes this means that even rich people need to spend instead of saving millions in their bank account.
As long as people hoard wealth there will be poverty. That wealth that you are holding is away from someone else.
I once had an idea to start a company whose intent and goal was to end homelessness by hiring homeless people. I had it all planned out. There would be on site housing with security, life skills classes and finance training. Healthcare would be provided and meals would be paid for through the earnings of the individuals. Then, after they had learned a skill and gotten clean and sober, we would provide them transition and career search help. Then I realized that beggars don't want to work. period
I wouldn't necessarily say that's what it is. Sometimes a person's mental capacity isn't sufficient to maintain work.
shocking how in many place in this world these are not objectives for the local authorities
That was an example of an exception.
Humans are greedy beings (afirmation) -> Example of a mentality that should be encountered more widely -> Sadly in western countries i have not seen this mentality, but a very greedy one. (conclusion)
I see i must point out the fact that English is not my main nor second language and i have almost never used it IRL with a native English speaker therefore the structure and ways of argumentations may differ from Latin languages.
Wait, routine home maintenance "should have been done by state or local government"??? Um, here we maintain our own homes.
It is odd to say poverty is not natural. Poverty is the most natural state of mankind. If we look at historical mankind, we have been adjective poor for 99.99% of our existence. Wealth is not natural, but it is also good. Poverty and inequality are bad, but very natural.
how can someone thumb this down? why?!
Now i feel bad, im from singapore... I never realised how lucky i am...
Wisdom
We tried building new homes in Canada. Low and behold the natives messed up their new homes in record time, because nobody made trained them how to take proper care of their homes.
Many of them sees it that way.
Also it's no excuse to save money if starting new small business takes 3 years to pay back. There are tons of other options and you know it. Stop trying to avoid issue and already admit that there is limited amount of money in this world that we can have, and we will have always poverty as long as few individuals decide to keep all those wealth for himself without actually spending it.
the first half made a big deal about showers (skin infections>nephrology)- it actually makes sense, but it is something you hear with condescending overtones quitre often in Australia- something like white man either "needs to teach black man about washing", or even just that showers or ppl needing them aren't symptomatic of a wider thing.. it's systems i like to look at. i don't know why you are being so presumptive, but evidently my fears of ignorant do-gooders wasn't entirely ill-founded.
Every time that machines have taken over the work of people new jobs have taken the place of those lost. The tendency is for people to work less as their work becomes more productive with new technologies but the cries about unemployment never prove correct. As technology takes over people's work they are free to develop new products and services. People always invent new ways to serve their fellow man. Perhaps someday robots will do everything but that day is not yet here.
Where does he get that "the government" should have anything to do with "routine maintenance?"
People have been shitting in gardens before the internet. People have been making chimneys before the internet.
People have been having great lives before the internet. The problem is the world has become connected. Poverty becomes isolated areas which stay that way. In the past in an area was poor the people would either build it up, die or leave poverty would not stay. Famines affected people. There are no famines, there are just poor people.
i didn't believe what you had to say simply because you started the sentence with money are in a limited number
I disagree with the idea presented at 9:10-9:25.
Why should government be responsible for routine maintenance. Regardless of it's your own home, a rental place or government sub. housing the person living their should be doing basic maintenance.
Maybe the government should offer some basic maintenance training instead.
Give criminals jobs.
Check FALSE allegations thrown against some one to give them a false criminal record
Make sure every city in every state has a shelter with ACTUAL resources with employment opportunities, health care, that are not dead end. Make sure these people can recieve homes and expenses on that income. Work on financial back ground.... DONT STOP WORKING WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS. MOST ARE MENTALLY UNSTABLE. EACH NEED TO BE ASSIGNED A WORKER.
Saving, by hording money under your bed, is fact bad, but the rich don't see their money they way. The simplest way to save money is in a bank. Banks then give money interest to savings by earns money by loaning out that money for things like home loans or car loans. The other is investments in companies or government. Take a small business, it generally takes ~3 years for any small business to become profitable, the money to start those businesses come from saving/investing.
Agreed but let's teach them how to read first.
In High Point NC, Government builds housing for poor they tare it up 20yrs tare it down
Money are in limited number, after the economical crisis stroke the world billions if not trillions of dollars that rich people used in investments preferred to store them in bank accounts, thus making them inactive and just a measure of inflation. As money circulate in the system things they touch develop, just like your circulatory system, if it doesn't flow, everything degrades slowly, those who know this invest billions in art and precious metals instead of making deposits
i wounder when they will start working that system in america? need water bad. theres whole comunitys that live on there boats in ca that have no water, fule for cooking, they cant even vote becouse they dont have legal address. no showers or bathrooms.
Bring us the age of the £100 house.
What happens to the wealth of a wealthy person who loses that wealth and stops being wealthy?
The ONLY way to reduce poverty is to increase productivity. This is achieved by reducing or eliminating governmental interference in business.
get rid of the trust of money, and the institutions that support that trust.
All people that have studied economics see it my way. Without savings you can not build large durable goods. If there are no savings, there are no loans and therefore no large purchases. I would buy a car, but I can't because I must save up money to do so. I would buy a home, but I can't because I must save up money to do so. I would build a restaurant, hire staff and buy equipment, but I can't because I must save up money to do so. Idiocy!
Really, the truly poverty is expected to eradicated from the world within our life time. By the truly poverty, I mean absolute poverty. Meaning not starving, clean water, sanitation, basic medical care and basic education. These are things even the poorest people in the west have had for decades and the rest of the world is getting their reasonable quickly.
And ofcorse, the rich "holding" on to their money is where we get investment capita, which is needed.
Actually rich people still save. Only people who are so poor that they have money only for food can't really save.
I never said force rich people to spend money. I just said if you really want to fix this problem. Then there is only one way to do it.
Stealing is different than spending it. In fact they could create more jobs with that extra money in their banks. What is the point holding millions in your account if you're not going to use them?
Humans are greedy beings, i grew in Romania, where people, at least in the rural area were very supporting to each other (and i do not mean lending money, i mean really giving from little that they had to others to prosper) and thrived even under heavy government taxes and a mountain of bureaucracy (Romania is also called the "country of papers" because of this as it takes years to make something legally. Sadly in western countries i have not seen this mentality, but a very greedy one.
No, putting your money under your pillow would be pointless and there for bad for the economy. That is what rich people NEVER do. The rich, almost without exception, invest their money. This sever a very real and useful role in the economy. There is a realistic argument for less investing and more spending, but this is a question of short term or long term gains. Spending is great for any economy in the short term, but without investment there is no long term growth and vice versa.
How to reduce poverty? Bring some sanity to US politic again. That's the key issue. As long as your "great" country has evil forces dominating it's politics and ppl your country will not move forward and develop in a good way. You can start this new better tomorrow by put your idiotic leaders responsible for their actions and RALLY.
If you want to do something long-term about poverty, start thinkng about fixing genes.
World is way too complex to do such a thing, problems would appear as anarchy. Money will be stable only when every human being will use the same digital currency worldwide, yet we are decades away from that achievement. Luxury goods are now the most common way of putting rich men money back in the system and then there are investments and donations witch need to be stimulated somehow, give me 48 hours and i will think of something. Also, anyone hires a visionary ?
Get rid of money.
Not actually. Also you are now trying to plead on authority instead of making legit argument.
You don't seem to understand what I was saying here. Yes you can save money in order to build better bussiness, but if you just save money without any plan to use it. In another words save it like uncle scrooge you will only cause economic damage.
Saving that you are talking about saving in order to spend. This is totally different thing.
talk about idiocy...
unless you are supporting kids on that, you are not living hand to mouth. You are using a computer on the internet. That means you have a computer, power and an internet subscription. Live hand to mouth means you only have want is needed to live. Maybe you are living paycheck to paycheck, but not hand to mouth.
even if the rich ppl spent their money to end poverty, it woudlnt be sustainable
You are trying to change issue again. How do you end up saying that saved money is invested money? Investing and saving is totally different thing, or are you saying that squirrels that save their nuts for winter are investing?
Common, with your logic me putting my money under my pillow and never use it at all would be investing. Be real.
Yes it is, tax the rich and spend it on reducing poverty. The rich will still be rich and the poor will be less poor.
lol...I'm a little confused. You just made a fact claim but then gave an example that proved your fact incorrect. What? lol.
"Humans are greedy beings." --> fact
"i grew in Romania, where people, at least in the rural area were very supporting to each other" --> non-supporting evidence
Humans aren't anything but what their environment around them encourages them to become. So there isn't much choice in life, only to the extent of your environments.
So you're going to force rich people to spend their money? Yeah, that's a silly, naive notion.
And no one saves anymore. The economy is in the shitter and most people live hand to mouth. Stealing money from rich people isn't going to solve anyone's problem.
No, rich people generally don't have billions in their bank accounts. Banks give a poor ROI. Billions are kept in bonds and stocks. But lets pretend they did... So, the rich then take out there money from the bank. Now, you want a home loan? Nope, the banks need money in their accounts to give out home loans so, when those billions are taken out the banks, the bank can now make 5 times than that less in loans. This drives up the cost of loans, so instead of a 4% home loan it is a 8% home loan.
So you're saying that you're smart enough to understand what I was saying in the first place, eh?
Why give yourself carpel tunnel?
if there is no food they should all eat that guy Yumi.
12 likes WHAT!!!!! O.o ???
A lot of those extremely poor people are coloured. Discuss. But not at me, thank you...
If you have the ability to own a home, you should have or acquire the skills to maintain that home, or be able to hire it done. Who the hell expects the government to take care of their house for them? If you're poor, you're not owning the house, you're renting. Now it's the owner's responsibility. If you don't like the shithole you're living in, move. Look , the poorest most rural Mexicans I know, that come up here in the states to work can build and fix any house they live in.
Actually we have no poors starving in west simply because we use tax money in order to give necessary tools for living for those who don't have. This money is away from savings of people.
"And ofcorse, the rich "holding" on to their money is where we get investment capita, which is needed."
Excuse me what? Please do explain how the fuck someone saving their money helps anyone? How that even helps that person who actually saves them?
Our system works because people spend. Saving is evil in this
its a really nice empty avatar youve got there
great idea come great price, but american like to pay for thing. they do not like to listen to free idea that save them. in addition, americans pay more attention to lie and fiction story. i like this video.
I already pointed out there are people who save their money. Go educate myself? What the fuck, in my country we have one of the best schooling system in the world, not to mention that I spend my private time to argue and educate myself.
Again not used money is useless money. You also did use strawman argument here, you previously said that saving money is good, and now you are saying that investing it good, which I have never claimed to be bad.
omg
Then you hire someone, or go on RUclips, watch a video and fix it yourself. The last thing a person needs is a fucking government taking care of their homes.
Blame the parents who produce like cats and rats, without having enough resources to feed & educate their children. Kindly watch my youtube videos to know more in my youbube channel " Poverty Reduction 007 "