Are poverty and inequality unavoidable?

In short, poverty is avoidable, but inequality is not, because the process by which wealth is generated is an intrinsically unequal process.

But first, if have relative poverty as your definition of poverty, it will be meaningless.

"If you find yourself given a million of your currency, then you are a million better off than someone who had the same as you before. Compared to you, that person is now poor..."

According to that theory, even if everyone in the world now enjoyed the living standards of the richest countries, we would still have "poverty" because one guy would have ten mobile phones, and the other guy would only have one or two.

You should reject that definition because, even if it made sense, which it doesn't, so what? Why would that be a bad thing, apart from mere envy? Why would it be a worthwhile social goal or value to eliminate "poverty" so defined, to ensure equality?

Equality itself is not possible, desirable, logical or ethical, and there is no reason whatsoever why it should form a social goal.

It's not possible because people aren't equal in fact. Some have better mathematical abilities, better singing abilities, more children, and so on.

Also, they can't be made equal. Ever.

Also, they can't be treated equally without gross injustice and nonsense and abuse of power.

Also, they can't have equal opportunity. You and I and everyone in the world can't have an equal opportunity to enjoy the view from your bedroom, can we? Some people are born dead, or deformed. How can we have equal opportunity for them? It's actually a nonsensical idea.

Also, the achievement of equality would have to be by force; unless you're supposing it's going to come about voluntarily. But then those authorised to use force will not be equal to everyone else; *and* they will have every incentive to use their unequal power and privilege to benefit themselves.

And finally, there is no reason why people should be, or should be treated as equal in the first place. They have different circumstances, different abilities, different values, different goals. They are not robots or animals owned by the state. What kind of daft idea is it that they should be made "equal"?

Therefore it's not possible, logical, desirable, or ethical.

However poverty is avoidable. What we call wealth comes from human social co-operation, specialisation and the division of labour, the use of money as a medium of exchange, secure property rights, and various other known ingredients. We also know the main things that cause poverty, and the main culprits are:

a) nature. Poverty is the original and universal condition of mankind. Nature does not pour riches in our lap. Poverty is not a wrong done by the rich to the poor. It is the normal condition of nature, done to every living thing.

b) socialism/government control of production. It doesn't matter how much people *believe* that government control of production makes society wealthier, the fact is, it doesn't.

The process by which wealth is generated is intrinsically unequal, because *if people were equal, no exchange would ever take place, because no-one could benefit from it*.

Therefore it is the inequality of people that is the driving force behind their exchanging goods and services, and it is the exchange of goods and services that gives rise to human wealth above the level of animals.

The highest theoretical standard of living is if everyone in the whole world were joined in one freely trading society. This would greatly raise the living standard of everyone above what we now call poverty. But it would never eliminate inequality, and there is no good reason why inequality per se should be eliminated.

Income inequality is the difference between the income of rich people and poor people. High income inequality means there is a very large difference between rich and poor, while low income inequality means there is not much difference between them. High income inequality has severe negative consequences on every aspect of life. For example, high income inequality is the leading health problem in America. And in countries like America with a high income inequality, even the very rich have a lower life expectance than the very rich in countries with low income inequality such as Denmark. There are only two ways to control the negative effects of income inequality. Either incomes are maintained at relatively low differences or greater taxes are charged against the very rich and redistributed to the poorer people. In America the very rich make most of their income from capital gains. This means they get their money from interest or investments. Also in America we currently tax capital gains at a lower rate than other income. So rich people pay LESS taxes than poor people in America. Also currently, every Republican wants to eliminate the capital gains tax so that rich people would pay NO taxes.

Since both have been prevalent in all known civilizations from the earliest ones to the present, apparently they are unavoidable (at least so far)'.

Equality is often misunderstood. Human beings are by NATURE unequal in genes or physical endowments and personal qualities. That will NEVER change. What our country, for example, is committed to, is equality of OPPORTUNITY and equality in the justice system, though we haven't achieved either completely. Otherwise, our competitive values are NOT about guaranteeing other kinds of equality. And so-called communist or socialist cultures have failed DISMALLY in achieving equality even of opportunity and justice.

You can never have equality. It was tried and failed. Called Communism and the failed example of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR).

There will ALWAYS be poor people, rich people, and folks in the middle. The key is to have a small percentage of the population as rich and poor, with the bulk of society in the middle.

I think that the definitions make them unavoidable. Even if we get free energy and one of those Star Trek gadgets that creates food or whatever you ask for (God, I'm going to have to turn in my Star Fleet Insignia. I can't think of the word ;) ) people will still be different and behave differently to each other. The standards may change, but not the result.