Thesis On Domestic Poverty

The thesis of domestic poverty There are some authors like Rawls, that argue that poverty is mainly due to the nature of political culture, religious beliefs and philosophical traditions of corrupt national elites and the moral responsibility of the rich countries in this regard would be a duty of assistance (Pogge:2010) The author nonetheless puts this thesis in a historical context and criticizes Rawls position mainly stating that the current better off situation that some regions experience is based on inherited slavery and colonialism that created an economic and social inequality. And explains that Africa will need 2 centuries to catch up the per capita income that most European countries experience. But it is important as well to

These aspects reflect choices among various options which the author doubt they would have produced the same overall evolution and geographical distribution of poverty. More importantly I find that these treaties and conventions are not contested in an early stage like in universities, we learned in western universities and even in top schools in the developing world this unfair game rules that perpetuate such situation, so my question is, why do we still allow this? Why do school in the developing world keep teaching their students that this is how we should keep playing? An argument from a colleague of mine (economist) mention once that Mexico would be worst off if we wouldn’t have signed the NAFTA ( North American Free Trade Agreement) because the exports from the first one, increased exponentially, but again only those who benefit are the white elite of the country, leaving the poor in a more precarious situation. I personally think that the argument that in free markets are always winner and losers is valid, but my biggest objection is that in this case the winners and losers are always the same. So I support the authors rational.

The Panglossian view of the present global order

Four elements allow us to conclude that this perspective is not admissible:

1. Global institutions are not primarily intended

Is the present global order merely less beneficial than it might be?

Here the author responds to the objection: we are not just doing enough collectively and individually to reduce poverty, but the world order is not a cause of poverty.

To do this he uses its narrow concept of human rights, the violation of human rights where a violation of human right is only positive action that violates a negative duty. The distinction between the omission and the action used in objection is difficult to assess. We must distinguish the effects that system causes positively and those it neglects. Several elements should be taken into account to answer the argument of the lack of causes that create poverty.

First Idea: invoking baseline comparison Compare is