[video=youtube;cjDpQrFWJg8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjDpQrFWJg8[/video] Read more at: http://freeindependentsun.com/natural_law/help-me-start-a-non-profit-to-end-poverty-by-2020-video/
The guy in the video has his heart in the right place, but is obvioisly a dreamer. I wonder if he has been to a developing country. I have been to a few of these "model" villages here in Laos where both government and non-government organisations have established infrastructure. It all works in theory, but in practice no unless the village is very closely monitorer. What happens is, as people, esecially the younger people get more educated they tend to move away to the cities to find work, and unless you establish some kind of productive industry near the village it could wither. This is one reason why developing countries are slowly moving away from agricultural societies. Also, these model villages don't propagate new villages, so each new village has to be set up individually. A very expensive exercise. Another problem is tribal traditions and practices. Move a group of people away from their ancestral homes is problematic. This can be seen with the Hmong ethnic group in Laos. The Lao government at one time had a policy of moving entire villages off their mountain tops into lower regions where land is much more fertile for agriculture. The Hmong being animists and ancestor worshippers would lose their ties to their ancestors and ancestral land once they move. Also, most of the land in the lower regions was already being used and taken up by the inhabitants of these regions. Therefore, the newcomers had to make do with poorer land. There was also a bit of discrimination of the newcomers because of ethnic differences.
Friendly,, what do you dislike about my post? What are your experiences of working in developing countries? Please share with us.
Sorry, but your idea CANNOT end or even reduce poverty, and here's why: How AID goes WRONG A Cautionary Tale A Quaker enterprise in the Ganges Delta The much travelled author Karl Eskelund describes the effort made by a band of young American and English Quakers in trying to assist some of the Indian population, millions of whom live at starvation level. The young idealists took up their task in 1946 at the village district of Pifa, which lies in the Ganges Delta. They were fully aware that their work would test their patience, for in India you can get no results 'at five minutes past twelve.' But after having outlined their plans to the peasants, the fishermen and the landowners - which met with general approval - they organised a co-operative enterprise for cultivating the land and marketing the produce. They set up day schools for the children, evening schools for adults, clinics et cetera. After overcoming the initial difficulties, they saw signs of progress. Inspiration grew. Health conditions improved. Everyone took a greater interest in their work and their earnings increased. New ideas took shape - there was advance along the whole line - an advance, slow but sure. Only the Landowners Grew Fatter Five years after the experiment began, Karl Eskelund visited Pifa and, with one of the Quakers as his guide, went through the village to see how it was faring. The Quaker had lost more than two stone and was as thin and spare as the natives. But what was worse, he had lost heart because the experiment had proved a failure. The day school still existed, but only one-quarter of the children attended it. The evening school had closed. The clinic was hardly used. Agriculture, fishing and trade were back to the old methods. Eskelund asked for an explanation of this fiasco. The young Quaker offered quite a number of reasons, none of which Eskelund could accept. Finally, he got to the root of the matter. This is what he says: "In the first year after beginning the experiment, both peasants and fishermen earned more than ever before. What was the result? The large landowners at once raised their rents and the smaller landowners followed suit. The peasants had to pay more for permission to cultivate the land. The fishermen had to pay more for permission to cast their nets on the flooded fields. In that way, practically the whole of the increased earnings passed into the landowners' pockets." "The people of Pifa were unhappy at this. Nevertheless, next year they worked hard. Crops were plentiful, there was a rich catch of fish; good prices were paid for produce. At once, the landowners raised their rents still higher." "The people then began to lose heart. What was the use if, for all their efforts, they got no benefit? Only the landowners waxed fatter. The peasants and fishermen did not become any thinner - they could not - otherwise they would die." "Indians are ignorant, but they are not stupid. They can put two and two together. They had found themselves momentarily enriched by the new methods but, in the end, all the extra money went to the landowners. If one of the new ideas would not work, what faith could they put in any other novelties? Perhaps, after all, the old methods were the best." This is the story as far as it goes. It would be difficult to find an example that more simply and clearly demonstrates the truth of what Henry George had taught. It is that, as long as the private right to the rent of land obtains, so long will every advance, crystallising in land rent, be gathered by the owner of land; while he who works, he who produces, must toil the day long without gaining more for his labour than is enough to avoid death from hunger. This story reveals the problem in all its simplicity; cleared of all that in civilised society makes it more difficult to see the importance of land. The Need to Remould the Whole System The young Quaker would not lay any blame on the landowners. There could be no objection against the landowners trying to gain as much as possible, and after all, there was nothing unlawful in owning land. The young Quaker admitted the immorality of the circumstances, but argued that it could be mended only be "remaking the law and remoulding the whole system." Eskelund himself sees clearly the part the land question plays, and proposed the subdivision of land (by creating small-holdings). Yet he is not sure that subdivision will solve the problem. For he writes: "Meanwhile, there is evidence that you don't get rid of landownership in that manner. Landownership is like the weed that always resprouts." Conclusion The story of Pifa reveals the evils of the private ownership of the rent of land. The comments of the Quaker and the author both go to prove the weakness of dealing with effects. The author is honest enough to acknowledge that small-holding schemes are no remedy, and the Quaker, although unconsciously, tells the truth that things cannot be changed without "remaking the law and remoulding the whole system." For the truth is that we cannot reach a solution of the social problem without "remoulding the whole system", without recognising the joint property right of the people to natural resources. This truth applies in our own country and the world over. We can offer all manner of foreign aid to underdeveloped countries, but so long as we fail to solve the land problem, all this will be in vain. There is a solution to this problem and it is simple, practical and just: Collect the rent of land for the community and reduce taxes that cripple industry and labour. Whatever you imagine you are doing for the poor, you are really only doing for their landlords. That is an inescapable implication of the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem. Until you address the problem of landowner privilege, NOTHING you do to "help the poor" can possibly work. All charitable efforts devoted to anything but recovering the rent of land from landowners for public purposes and benefit are a waste of time.
Here's some Charitable Foundations that may just help you on your way! http://www.clintonfoundation.org/ http://www.soros.org/about Paul And Nancy Pelosi Charitable Foundation 235 Montgomery Street # 610 San Francisco, CA 94104-2915 map http://www.heinz.com/sustainability/social/heinz-foundation.aspx Harry Reid Searchlight Foundation Ltd Po Box 296 Searchlight, Nevada 89046-0296 http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/about.html http://www.rifoundation.org/AboutUs/2010AnnualReport/Home/tabid/906/Default.aspx Rahm Emanuel And Amy Rule Charitable Trust 4711 Golf Road # 200 Skokie, IL 60076-1236 map Phone: (847) 972-5804 http://www.charities.org/charities
The problem was the way the economy was set up. The landowner is essentially the government in that area, and what he is doing is taxing other people labors and when they produced more he raise the taxes after all it is the Obama way.
Any end to world poverty will require population control - not just "encouraging" birth control measures. A certain segment of the poor will just continue to keep shooting out more babies - and this is the real source of world poverty.
