Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
106
views

People that are in extreme poverty are barely able to survive. With all the advances in technology, medicine and education, these parts of the world are falling farther and farther behind. This is because they cannot afford these things to have the access to them. The world has become very greedy. It is all about making money for oneself and often not about helping others. I do not believe the poverty will be eradicated. Someone is always going to be at the bottom as rich nations get richer and the cost of living gets higher. I do believe that we should be able to eradicate extreme poverty but not with just the measure of the 0.7% request. I believe to fully eradicate extreme poverty it will have to be more than that. Rich nations should not have a problem fulfilling this request, however; greed shows its ugly head. It is also essentially making a country better off than what they were, so what if they prosper with that help? That is more competition. Money isn't the only thing that is needed to help. We need to educate the people and help them to manage money and their economies.

Give your reply to the above post.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
106
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Retselisitsoe Pokothoane
Retselisitsoe PokothoaneLv10
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

In our text, we read about extreme poverty and global efforts to address it. This article discusses some successes and set-backs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-china-now-threatens-one-of-the-worlds-greatest-success-stories/

1. With so many global advancements in technology, medicine, and education, why is it getting harder to combat extreme poverty? Do you think it would be eradicated if the rich nations would fulfill the UN request of 0.7% of GNP for foreign aid?

2. With India and Sub Saharan Africa having similar numbers of extreme poverty in 1990, what are some reasons India has been able to cut their extreme poverty numbers by 50% while Africa struggles at 15%?

3. China has reduced its extreme poverty numbers by 57% over the last 25 years but that growth is slowing. While the article discusses the impact the downturn will have on Africa, do you think China will see their own numbers of extreme poverty begin to rise again? Why or why not?

 

 

Can someone please do this question for me and walk me through it in simplest terms? I have a midterm on this and am confused on the material. Thank you. Please note that the variables aren't 100% accurate. They won't let me copy and paste the variables correctly. variables such as "a" and "T" that I used are the closest variables I used to match the problem with. They look like a and T in symbol form on the original problem.

1. Michele, who has a relatively high income I, has altruistic feelings toward Sofia, who lives in such poverty that she essentially has no income. Suppose Michele’s preferences are represented by the utility function

UM = (cM , cS) = c(1-a/M) c(1/S)

where cM and cS are Michele and Sofia’s consumption levels, appearing as goods in a standard Cobb-Douglas utility function. Assume that Michele can spend her income either on her own or Sofia’s consumption (though charitable donations) and that $1 buys a unit of consumption for either (thus, the “prices” of consumption are pM = pS = 1).

(a) Argue that the exponent "a" can be taken as a measure of the degree of Michele’s altruism by providing an interpretation of extreme values of a= 0 and a= 1. What value would make her a perfect altruist (regarding others the same as oneself)?

(b) Solve for Michele’s optimal choices and demonstrate how they change with a.

(c) Suppose that there is an income tax at rate T, i.e. net income now is just (1-T) I.
Solve for Michele’s optimal choices under the income tax rate.

(d) Now suppose that besides the income tax rate T, there are charitable deductions, so that income spent on charitable deductions is not taxed. Argue that this amounts to changing the price pS from $1 to $(1-T). Solve for the optimal choices under both the income tax rate and charitable deductions. Does the charitable deduction have a bigger incentive effect on more or less altruistic people?

what you think for this ? do you agree or disagree and why ?

I don’t think it’s wise for nations to begin raising tariffs and increasing subsidies when we are faced with a global recession. If a smaller country raises tariffs on a good they are importing, it might not have that big effect on the global economy. However, if a country like China, Japan, United States etc. decide to raise tariffs on imports, it could lead to a global increase in the average tariffs. In the article “Barriers to entry: A rise in protectionism would worsen the already grim outlook for world trade,” it talks about the worldwide average for tariffs. In 1986 they average 26%. If the big economies of the world start increasing tariffs, the rest of the world will eventually follow, leading to a global increase on tariffs. A rise in the tariffs would slow down the global economy even more in the long run. In the article it mentions how trade has picked up immensely when tariffs are lower, and the world GDP was higher compared to when tariffs are increased because countries are more willing to trade. I think they’re still benefits to be gained from trade even when a global recession may be taking place. If tariffs are increased, countries might try to specialize in goods where they don’t have a comparative advantage in. Instead of trading for that good, they will try to produce it domestically. The opportunity cost of choosing to specialize in a good when they don’t have comparative advantage is using those resources elsewhere. Perhaps for producing a good they do have comparative advantage in. Also a decline in trade because of rising tariffs means firms wouldn’t be able to benefit from economies of scale.

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in