Shonga, I share your passion for reducing poverty, I just don’t share your view of how to achieve it. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce things that its citizens want, or things it can trade for things its citizens want. No country ever got rich on development assistance, but some have reduced poverty through other means. It’s neither bloody minded nor inhumane to ask how they have done it and whether their successes can be repeated.

For the record, I think that Australia should increase its aid budget, and its citizens could do more to address poverty at home and overseas. But I don’t think aid will cure global poverty by itself. It can alleviate the symptoms of poverty, so there’s definitely a case for humanitarian aid. And in the right circumstances, it might help to raise economic capacity, but only as part of a package of policies measures whose key focus must be on raising the productivity of poor economies.

You assume globalisation is synonymous with business exploitation. I don’t share that view, but even those who do recognise that the alternative can be even worse. Joan Robinson, a leading left-wing economist, said “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all”. If you can’t offer a realistic alternative that’s going to be better, then you do the poor no favours by denying them the benefits of globalisation.

There is a clear correlation between poverty and family planning.
If women in Africa are forced to have 6-7 kids instead of a couple,
no wonder they have problems feeding them all.

Its high time that every woman on the planet has access to family
planning, birth control and abortion services, despite the
protestations of the religious lobby.

The world keeps increasing population at 80 million a year, virtually
all of it in the poorest countries. Give these women a choice!

At last someone has stopped dancing around with words.
Unlike the rest who just fogg the discussion about world poverty, thereby ensuring the problem is not adequately discussed, and lessen possibilities for effective action.
Thanks, Yabby.
The Vatican, George W Bush, and other repressive groups promoting social customs which prevent mothers from limiting their pregnancies: Such antediluvian thinkers stand top of the list of reasons for continuing world poverty. Take away their influence, and there may be a chance for less poverty - and a world having much less misery.

I am totally in agreement with Yabby and Colinsett.

Well meaning groups, with compassion, endeavouring to halt poverty simply take 2 steps forward and 3 back.

Aid to third world countries should come with a clause - no population control, no aid!

Why should we not speak out against the practice of giving birth to children who will be born into poverty, a life of misery, or an early death?

However, I do object to Yabby's rather chauvinistic recommendation that "all WOMEN have access to family planning etc etc....". It takes two to tango Yabby. You appear to have dismissed the male's role in their contribution to the population explosions where it would be much simpler, cheaper and more efficient to give irresponsible males, the "snip"!

"women in Africa are forced to have 6-7 kids instead of a couple"
I don't believe this is the case. This is quite culturally ignorant of you. For a lot of people, children are a blessing, and a promise of someone to care for them in their "old" age (where pension systems don't really exist) not something done under coercion. Also, with high infant mortality rates, you have 5-6 expecting to keep 1-2.
I support better access to contraceptives and family planning services (though not abortions, I don't think this is something that needs to be supported) AND better health care for children/adults. When women realise they can have 1-2 children and keep them healthy, rather than 5-6 and watch 3-4 of them die, they will naturally choose this option instead.
Did anybody see the news item about Japan's ageing population? Apparently, toy companies are marketing toys to senior citizens now because there's not enough of a market with children (not enough children). Also, some of these toys are basically dollies, so the elderly have somebody to "care" for in their old age (like a 6 year old child would nurse her dolly). It's to combat loneliness. How sad that on one side of the world we have adults with no children and lots of money, and on the other, children with no adults, and no money.

Rhian,
That's fair enough mate, we all have different ideas that's why we are here, I'd like to know your philosophy nof solving our our people living in poverty crisis, the rodent tells us that only 4.9% of the population is unemployed, which when I went to school meant that 9r.1% of the population is employed, if this is the case why are there still so many people living in poverty, they presumeably have a job, so the answer in your view is......