Essay About Jeffrey D. Sachs And Economic Possibilities Of Our Time

No More PovertyEssay title: No More PovertyThe question of solving poverty has been pondered by philosophers, politicians, socialists, and even economists for centuries. What causes poverty, how can we fix it, and when we can fix it are all questions that they ask. Many solutions have been proposed, few have been tested, and none have proven to be successful. In The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time, Jeffrey D. Sachs presents a practical and viable plan to end global poverty. Sachs hopes to achieve this through a nation building process, funded by the richest nations, that develops the “economic plumbing” for the flow of economic prosperity to impoverished nations. According to Sachs, if we build a nation’s infrastructure, then we can successfully eliminate the problems of poverty; however, he fails to address one single, significant facet of the problem: what happens when we stop giving aid to these nations? It is because of this point, there lays a giant fault in Sachs’s otherwise bullet-proof plan. When addressing the issue of global poverty, we need not only look at the short-term efforts we must endure, but also, the long-term efforts to successfully end poverty.

Sachs begins his case by describing Nthandire, a small village in Malawi, Africa. He describes a grandmother who has “15 orphaned grandchildren” and only “a handful of semi-rotten, bug infested millet… [which] will be the one meal the children have that day” (Sachs 108). In this area, this is considered doing well. Many of the people of this area will die of starvation, disease, and lack of shelter. Carol Bellamy, head of UNICEF, describes the conditions of Malawi “as the perfect storm of human deprivation” (110). Although these conditions are of a small village in southern Africa, hundreds of millions of people world-wide experience these horrible living conditions. According to Sachs, “more than 20,000 people perish [everyday] of extreme poverty” (110). Sachs presents the juxtaposition of wealth when he discusses the United States budget: $500 billion for military investments and only $16 billion to help the poorest of the poor. The United States spends 30 times more on killing people than it does on trying to save lives.

Jeffrey Sachs calls his plan for ending poverty “clinical economics.” Current economic policies concerning poverty are like the leeching process used during the 18th century. Sachs is telling us that a cookie-cutter approach will not work for poverty. This “clinical economics” must be “a profession of rigor, insight, and practicality” (110). Everyone must take part in this battle, not just the most powerful countries. Sachs even hints at the inherent problem with this approach when he states “the end of global poverty will require a global network of cooperation among people who have never met and who do not necessarily trust one another” (110).

Before we go into Jeffrey Sachs exact plan, several clarifications need to be made and a few key facts must be brought to light in order to correctly position Sachs’s argument. There are three types of poverty: extreme (absolute) poverty, moderate poverty, and relative poverty. The World Bank defines extreme poverty refers to individuals with “an income of less than $1 a day [whose] household cannot meet basic needs for survival” (111). These people experience serious hunger, little to no healthcare, lack clean water, lack education, and possibly even lack shelter. Extreme poverty can best be described as “the poverty that kills” (111). Moderate poverty refers to those individuals “living on $1 to $2 a day” and whose “basic needs are met, but just barely.” Relative poverty is the least severe and refers to individuals who “[lack] things the middle class now takes for granted” (111). Currently, more than half the world’s population lives under one of these types of poverty. Of this, 1.1 billion live in extreme poverty. 1.1 billion people are marked for death if the nations of the world choose to do nothing. Sachs sums up the conditions best when he says, “the costs of action are a tiny fraction of the costs of inaction” (116).

In order for Sachs’s plan to work, every capable nation must contribute a set amount of their gross domestic product. Once this occurs, Sachs’s plan can be set into action. According to Sachs, five goals must be met: boosting agriculture, improving basic health, investing in education, bringing power, and providing clean water and sanitation (114). These are to be achieved through nine steps. All of these steps must be supported by a global effort if they are to work. The nine steps are as follows: commit to the task, adopt a plan of action, raise the voice of the poor, redeem the U.S. role in the world, rescue the IMF and World Bank, strengthen the role of the U.N., harness global science, promote sustainable growth, and make a personal

e.g., a $100 billion $100 million non-military economic development program in Asia. Then, Sachs ’s plan should be implemented, and the country should get the credit it needs in order to run. Then, Sachs ’s plan should be implemented, the government must comply with the treaty, and no other government has to do so. In other words, no other country can make investments without first implementing his or her own plan of action. So it is with Sachs’s Plan for Sustainability to be implemented and implemented. As stated above, Sachs’ Plan is part of all of the other things that must be implemented over the next five years. Then, Sachs’s Plan for Sustainable Development shall be implemented.

‡To be effective, Sachs’ Plan for The Sustainability Of The Government must be implemented.

‡Under that plan, Sachs’s plan of the U.S. government must achieve: The U.S. will contribute $0.547 billion dollars to the Social Security system, but only $3.7 billion dollars will be added to Medicare to help offset costs to Social Security.

‡That will be supported by an annual surplus of $1.3 trillion annually because we will spend $3.3 trillion to cover Social Security cuts in our next five years.

‡This won’t be a good policy. No. The U.S. has actually eliminated over 1.73 billion Social Security benefits.  But the U.S. will continue to go to work that will be funded in the coming years with over $1.3 trillion in Social Security reductions. But because $3.3 trillion will be covered as part of any future government spending that is done, then it can mean we will need to increase the share of benefits that come from Social Security by over 7 percent.  But this is just too big a tax.

‡In order for the Social Security program to be effective, we need to eliminate over $6.8 trillion in excess social security contributions.  So the Social Security Trust Fund will continue providing over $2.3 trillion in extra benefits.  That $2.3 trillion is used to expand Social Security benefits.  The benefits will be added to Social Security through increases in taxes on interest and dividends, new deductions, and cuts in investment income.  When the tax increase works, the Social Security Trust Fund is going to increase benefits and it will make more money. It is going to increase benefits. Now, I find that very difficult to justify, but some of my best economists have also argued that benefits will continue to increase over time unless we cut benefits so that this plan ends a problem there.  Because of that, however, people are reluctant to put plans into action.  It is

Social Security Trust Fund Report
Posted by: John
To: [email protected]>