World's poorest increase despite growth: UNCTAD

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 7/17/08 | Reuters

[NormsRevenge]

GENEVA (Reuters) - Record growth in the world's poorest countries has failed to prevent an increase in their total numbers of poor people, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) said on Thursday.

Recent rising food costs threaten to undercut what modest progress has been achieved, while three quarters of people living in least developed countries (LDCs) still survive on less than $2 a day, it said in a report.

Income under $2 a day does not allow most people to meet basic needs for food, water, shelter, health or education, the Least Developed Countries Report 2008 noted.

The 49 LDCs experienced record growth of 7.9 percent in 2005, followed by 7.5 percent in 2006 and a projected 6.7 percent in 2007, the report said.

But the high growth rates, driven in many cases by record exports boosted by high energy and minerals prices, may not be sustainable, it said.

--snip--

"In fact, as compared with 10 years earlier, half of the LDCs have experienced deindustrialization, reflected in a declining share of manufacturing in GDP."

DEPRIVATION

This record growth should have provided the opportunity for substantial improvements in living conditions but rapid population increases and other factors mean some 581 million out of a total 2005 LDC population of 767 million continue to live in material deprivation, it said.

--snip--

Growth had some impact on absolute poverty, defined as those living on less than $1 a day, which fell to 36 percent of the LDC population in 2005 -- a still high 277 million people -- from 44 percent in 1994, it said.

Sharp rises in food prices in 2007 and early 2008 have led the prices of staples such as maize, wheat and rice to double in some countries over the past year and a half, ...

[Brilliant]

There is a simple solution: Birth control.

[Slapshot68]

If they can’t afford food/shelter etc on $2/day, what makes you think they can afford birth control? Or are you talking about abstinence?

I would like to point out, however, that this ethanol idiocy is partly to blame for the rising food prices. Also, it seems that no matter how much money the West throws at 3rd world nations, poverty increases.

[Roccus]

POTUS-to-be Obama has the answer before the Senate right now...it’s his Global Poverty Act (S. 2433)

BOHICA!

[Will88]

“But the high growth rates, driven in many cases by record exports boosted by high energy and minerals prices, may not be sustainable, it said.”

So, who in these populations is receiving the revenue from the selling off of their natural resources? How many new jobs have been created that the poor can obtain, and how much do those jobs pay?

[max americana]

So what;s the objective of this sob story?

Here it is: there are poor people in the world. The UN rehashes the same ole “there are poor people in the world” report every year like clockwork.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Now, at the midpoint towards the 2015 target, it is clear that significant progress has been made in many areas. The number of people living on less than one dollar a day has fallen by roughly 250 million people and so, at the global level at least, it looks like we will meet the goal to halve extreme poverty and hunger. In some regions more children are in school – both girls and boys – and people can expect to live longer and more productive lives.

http://content.undp.org/go/newsroom/2007/october/dervis-idep-20071010.en?categoryID=349467&lang=en

[hermgem]

Contrary to U.S. media spreads, Europeans did not engage in producing ethanol.
The media over there came out strong upfront that ethanol is toxic for food pricing, has a negative yield of input versus output (uses more energy to be produced than yields) and was openly accused as farmer enrichment.
The former world's bread basket, the U.S.A. now serves as a wealth transfer vehicle to farm states assuring Democrats their “deserved” rewards with congressional seats while the world goes hungry.

[calex59]

The answer is in the old saying: Give a man a fish and you will feed him for one day, teach him to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime. I didn’t get the quote exactly correct but you should get my drift. Does anyone remember the book “The Ugly American”? This book has been around for a long time but it demonstrates the difference in sending foreign aide and sending people with knowledge to teach others how to take care of themselves.

[Brilliant]

I would not have difficulty with the idea of shipping condums to them if they’d use them. A lot of these poverty stricken nations are that way because they have 100 times the population that their nation can support, given their low capital base.

And we’ve seen with China that it tends to backfire if we help them develop. With their large populations, they would just put further strains on existing resources, like oil, minerals, fishing, etc.