The Millenium Development Goals sound great.  But they don't reflect an understanding of the underlying cause of the vast majority of the poverty we see around us.  

May I send you to a book and a film?  The book is Henry George's "Progress and Poverty," which you can read online in a modern abridgment at http://www.henrygeorge.org/ or listen to at http://www.hgchicago.org/audio.  The unabridged is available online at http://www.schalkenbach.org/, at Amazon and in Schalkenbach's bookstore, and often on ebay.  It is the all-time bestseller on political economy, and it speaks eloquently to the poverty we still see around us.

The film premiered at Cannes, and is called The End of Poverty?  (That question mark is important.)   It explores some of the causes of poverty that most of us are not used to noticing.

Henry George wrote in a later book about the "robber that takes all that is left."  (See http://www.henrygeorge.org/trade/pft19.htm).   The Millenium Development Goals may do a fine job of dealing with the "interim robbers." But if they don't touch that last robber, they simply won't end poverty, or even reduce it by more than a minor amount.

Think about it.  Read widely.  Then put your shoulder to solving the underlying problem. 
Else

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Your argument is based on two premises: first that the greatest poverty is found amidst the greatest wealth, second that both capital and labor will immigrate to relatively poorer countries.  Unfortunately, the evidence is not consistent with either of the George’s conjectures.  First, the OECD countries are the wealthiest countries in the world.  Poverty in these countries, while exists, it is not nearly as extreme as in the developing world where billions of people live on less than a dollar a day, the definition of extreme poverty.  Second, while it is true that capital does flow to many poorer countries due to the relative abundance of cheap labor, there is no evidence that large flows of people occur from the OECD countries to the poor nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.    Henry George suggests that when workers pay a fee to use an asset owned by those with wealth, such as rent for a home, they are being robbed.  Moreover, he contends that as a society advances the assets held by the propertied class claim a higher fee which keeps the working class impoverished.  Following this simplistic logic, you are claiming that reaching the Millennium Development Goals will not settle the issue of poverty.  However, this perspective is misguided.  Millennium Development Goal #2 calls for universal primary education.  If this is reached then more people will acquire secondary education, be more productive and hence earn high enough wages to begin to own property themselves.  In addition, technological changes have provided greater access to housing for those outside the propertied class so that they are not doomed to poverty in an effort to acquire poverty.   The factors that lead to extreme poverty are varied and have little to do with control of assets lying with a small wealthy class.  Poverty is primarily due to poor health, poor education, and limited natural resources such as potable water and farmable land.   

Allyson,

I think you misunderstand Henry George's argument.  You say, "Henry George suggests that when workers pay a fee to use an asset owned by those with wealth, such as rent for a home, they are being robbed."   You've not read George!  He separates assets into two classes, land and capital.  They are quite different, and the tenant clearly owes payment for the use of both the house (which is capital) and the land, which is land.  And the owner is rightly due the return on his capital, but HG posits, and I agree, that the return on land ought to be required to be passed through to the commons ... the public treasury ... as the rightful tax. No tax on the return to the house itself.  And no other taxes on the landlord or the tenant.  The problem with our current system, which you'd be conversant with if you'd read HG, is that we are asked both to pay the landlord for the value of the land AND pay the commons taxes on our wages and sales. 

*That's* where the injustice lies.  The landlord gets to pocket value he hasn't created, and we must pay and pay in the form of taxes on things which ought not to be taxed!

Georgists don't begrudge capitalists -- true entrepreneurs -- a full return on their capital, or laborers -- that's most of us -- a full return on their labor.  That's the goal!  What we are objecting to is that he who "supplies" the land gets to pocket its value.  Since none of us create land, and none of us individually add to its value more than the community as a whole does, we think that increases in land value ought to be socialized -- and wages and the products of capital privatized.

You write, "The factors that lead to extreme poverty are varied and have little to do with control of assets lying with a small wealthy class.  Poverty is primarily due to poor health, poor education, and limited natural resources such as potable water and farmable land."  

Here's the quote I was referring to.  We can fix poor health, and education and water, but if we don't fix the underlying problem, the robber that takes all that is left will leave people healthy, educated ... and poor:

"Labor may be likened to a man who as he carries home his earnings is waylaid by a series of robbers. One demands this much, and another that much, but last of all stands one who demands all that is left, save just enough to enable the victim to maintain life and come forth next day to work. So long as this last robber remains, what will it benefit such a man to drive off any or all of the other robbers?

Such is the situation of labor today throughout the civilized world. And the robber that takes all that is left, is private property in land. Improvement, no matter how great, and reform, no matter how beneficial in itself, cannot help that class who, deprived of all right to the use of the material elements, have only the power to labor — a power as useless in itself as a sail without wind, a pump without water, or a saddle without a horse.

I have likened labor to a man beset by a series of robbers, because there are in every country other things than private property in land which tend to diminish national prosperity and divert the wealth earned by labor into the hands of non-producers. This is the tendency of monopoly of the processes and machinery of production and exchange, the tendency of protective tariffs, of bad systems of currency and finance, of corrupt government, of public debts, of standing armies, and of wars and preparations for war. But these things, some of which are conspicuous in one country and some in another, cannot account for that impoverishment of labor which is to be seen everywhere. They are the lesser robbers, and to drive them off is only to leave more for the great robber to take.

If the all-sufficient cause of the impoverishment of labor were abolished, then reform in any of these directions would improve the condition of labor; but so long as that cause exists, no reform can effect any permanent improvement. "

Wonderful idea! Good luck!

This is a great idea. However, the good news is that we can end global hunger, sustainably, for far less money than this suggests. Less than $2 billion a year for the next 15-20 years could do the job, if spent using the most effective, successful methodologies, which have now been used successfully in 13 countries on 3 continents by The Hunger Project, www.thp.org. The Hunger Project is now empowering 35 million people in 20,000 villages on a global budget of $16 million. Over a period of 5 years, a group of villages moves from the worst poverty on Earth to self-reliance, then needing no further financial support from The Hunger Project. The Hunger Project does this at a cost of $10 per person per year for 5 years. A key component of this methodology is a focus on the empowerment of women's leadership in the poorest communities.
The US would need to abandon normal bureacratic approaches and subsidies for favored industries, and turn over $1-2 billion a year to be administered by qualified NGOs, with cost-effective monitoring that could be contracted out to universities. That would take a revolution in foreign aid, but it would accomplish more than 20 times as much money spent using the current paradigm.

Americans are generous, yes. Charitable giving in the United States is estimated to be $306.39 billion in 2007, exceeding $300 billion for the first time in history, according to Giving USA 2008, the yearbook on philanthropy released today by Giving USA Foundation.

Organization will always rely on you—the donor! Individual giving, the mainstay of fundraising and giving, reached an estimated $229.03 billion, or 74.8 percent of total estimated giving in 2007. This is an increase of 2.7 percent (a drop of 0.1 percent adjusted for inflation).  “Individual giving makes up a grand total of 88 percent of all giving when you combine bequest, family foundation and individual giving,” added Ms. Del Martin, chair of Giving USA Foundation (TM). (Half of all individual giving goes to religious organizations.) “Even if you only look at donations to secular organizations, individuals—through their outright gifts, their wills, and the foundations they control—still give more than 80 percent of the total.
 
“And what you can’t forget,” she added, “is that the ‘little guys,’ the families most affected by the economy, kept on giving despite any worries they might have had about their personal situations.”

But where does all the money go?? International Affairs organizations, which include relief, direct aid, exchange, and other programs [Opportunity International falls into the "other" catagory] focused on international issues, received an estimated $13.22 billion, or 4.3 percent of total estimated giving [only 4.3 percent goes to global organizations? This is outrageous. Even though it’s growing, we can do better!  - sarah]. This is growth of 16.1 percent (12.9 percent adjusted for inflation). Giving to international affairs has risen dramatically over the past few years.

One recent study released by Giving Institute member firm Campbell & Company showed that the Millennial Generation—those born after 1981—are concerned with causes that make the world a better place while those born before that time are looking to provide relief closer to home.
 
It’s time to solve extreme poverty! YOU can help. (Opportunity.org)

To tackle extreme poverty:
Get rid of the Minimum Wage
Get rid of the all the restrictions to start a business.
Less taxes so people have the extra money to help others.

Let people work and grow with minimum hassle.  We are a caring nation and can fight this without the hands of government.

Another idea to add to the mix: stop subsidizing US farmers.  This makes it more difficult for impoverished farmers to compete with US  food that is being sold for cheaper prices than if it were not subsidized.

Poverty can be brought to an end within 5 years, as a high estimate.  The only way it could possibly take until 2025 to eliminate even just the most extreme poverty is if capitalism remains the only economic paradigm on the table; and if that's the case, then even that target will fail miserably because capitalism is built on poverty.  You cannot have capitalism without poverty, because you cannot have capitalism without exploitation.

Alan,

I disagree with you.  May I suggest an essay which provides a finer form of capitalism?  It comes from the ideas of Henry George, and is entitled "Henry George and the Reconstruction of Capitalism."   It is online at http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Andelson_HGRC.html

My late grandparents saw the wisdom in these ideas, and I have come around to them slowly and grudgingly.  Land monopoly capitalism is the form of capitalism we currently practice.  (Do you know that the game of Monopoly is based on an older game entitled The Landlord's Game, which was created by a Quaker Georgist to teach Henry George's ideas.  The problem with the game, though, is that it describes a sustainable community, one where all can thrive and prosper, without victimizing their fellow human beings.  Not much fun as a game, but a fine idea for reality!)

You'll find links to more of Henry George's writings at http://www.wealthandwant.com/ (The URL comes from the subtitle to George's bestseller, Progress & Poverty; the book is online, and lays out the existing but unnecessary connection between progress -- social and technological -- and poverty.  They needn't go hand in hand; a simple reform will undo the relationship.)  

THE BLUE VOTE BUTTON has to turn RED for your vote to register!! Please make sure you check this after voting!! Thanks!

LTVfan:  you're right when you say land and property based exploitation is among the worst of the exploitation inherent to capitalism, and comprehensive land and housing reform would be a huge step in the right direction, but it is by no means the only offender.  Wage slavery, while not as severe a problem as it was in the 18- and early 1900s, remains rampant today, and the fact that the market is allowed to dictate prices, which means means greater demand - and therefore greater need(!!!!!) - leads to higher prices is frankly abominable.

this is bs. drug policy dominated the votes. obama ignored the will of the voters blowing them off. Change my ass this site is bunk.

I'm inclined to agree, Rahm Emmanuel and certain black spots on Obamas Senate voting record certainly suggest so anyway, but its worth giving him a chance - lets see what the first policy Obama pushes forward is, whether its progressive or regressive and how much so.

*specific black spots on voting record, that I know of:

# He voted for NAFTA

# He voted to renew the PATRIOT Act

# He voted against the egalitarianisation of marriage

# I think another one has to do with support for the Israeli apartheid wall, but I can't remember the details

If you are looking for a great vehicle to begin ones education on the issue of Extreme Poverty (which some define as poverty which kills) then might I suggest you get hold of a great British film called "Girl in the Cafe" Starring Bill Nigey (?) and Kelly McDonald (She was the "schoolgirl" in "Trainspotting".  It is on my top ten all time favorites.  It is an incredible story, it informs one in a profound way about this issue and should quite honestly be viewed world-wide.  I can not shake from my mind one statistic in particular that is presented.  Nearly 30,000 children die everyday from extreme poverty.  That's right nearly 30,000 children every day, that is nearly 250,000 a week!  In the movie they call extreme poverty  "A silent Houlacaust" and it is.  This is poverty that we can stop today, it is within our power, we have the resources, now all we need is the collective will to solve this horrible tragedy.  Rent or buy the movie, invite your friends over, spread the word.   "As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said so saliently, "I don't want to be a part of that generation who halved the tarrif on grain, I want to be known as a part of that great generation that had it within it's power to do something about extreme poverty and did so"  (My quote may be a little off but that is the crux.)  There is some beautiful, touching, rare dialogue in this movie that is with me always.