September 29, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Maybe it didn’t come up because Americans have more important things to focus on these days. I used to support global poverty reduction, but not anymore. What’s the point? Sure it might help save some lives but a lot of those people will end up dying in civil wars anyway. Spending on poverty is a luxury that we can no longer afford and no American should feel too badly about that.

September 29, 2008 at 8:29 pm

This web page and as a whole everything it stands for really pisses me off. If you and you constituents are so worried about global poverty, why don’t you devote YOUR TIME and MONEY to it? Why should my tax dollars or any other American who could care less about this issues’ money be in danger? If poverty is such a issue to you why don’t you send your cohorts over and try to preach abstinence and hand out condoms or something? With a world population of approximately 6,602,224,175 don’t you think there’s other things to worry about?

September 29, 2008 at 8:38 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-poverty26-2008sep26,0,5066039.story

Fighting poverty makes business sense to companies
Executives answer a U.N. call to enter underserved markets in poor countries.

By Richard Boudreaux
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 26, 2008

UNITED NATIONS — It’s been a bad week for a global anti-poverty summit. Even before Wall Street’s turmoil damped the generosity of donor countries, economists were predicting that food and fuel price shocks would drive 100 million people into destitution across the world.

But Thorleif Enger and Michael Landau see opportunity amid the gloom. They have launched investments aimed at helping some of Africa’s poorest countries ease the crisis by producing more food.

Enger’s Norwegian fertilizer giant, Yara International, and Landau’s New York-based financial services company, Map International, announced the ventures this week in response to an appeal to corporate chiefs to join a United Nations campaign to reduce poverty in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Unlike previous U.N. pitches to business executives, which played to their sense of social responsibility, this one asks them simply to look for profitable markets in underserved regions of poor countries.

“If you look at where is the biggest potential to increase agricultural production, it’s Africa,” Enger said in an interview. “We’re there to make money. We make no secret about it.”

Yara plans to spend $60 million to build two seaport terminals, in Tanzania and Mozambique, to speed shipments of its fertilizer to millions of African farmers, bypassing now-clogged government port facilities and lowering the product’s cost.

Map expects to bring modern electronic banking to 1 million Ugandans within two years via low-cost, specially programmed mobile phones. Many of its target customers are long-isolated farmers, who would gain access to credit.

The commitments were among $16 billion in pledges announced this week by private companies, governments, charities and U.N. agencies during a summit of the world body’s 192 member states to finance its anti-poverty goals.

Those pledges included $4.5 billion to get all the world’s children in school by 2015, a $1-billion-a-year program to buy surplus crops from poor farmers and $3 billion to fight malaria.

U.N. officials are struggling to meet the 15-year Millennium Development Goals they set in 2000. The plan aims to cut in half the number of people in the developing world who live on less than $1 a day; an estimated 1 billion still do. Its other targets include reducing child mortality, stemming epidemics and reducing debt and trade barriers.

After rising for several years, development aid to poor countries has slumped since mid-decade, falling behind target. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said donors needed to provide $72 billion a year to put the program on track.

Ban called the $16 billion in pledges “remarkable” in light of the financial crisis, but his appeals for more aid encountered resistance. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said it was “sort of unfair” to hit up rich countries in the midst of market turmoil.

The U.N. appeal to entrepreneurs was a response to critics who said the anti-poverty plan overemphasized the need for more money and lacked a broader strategy.

More than 60 companies have signed commitments to invest in poor countries in support of the development goals, U.N. officials said. They include Coca-Cola, DuPont, Vodafone, Sumitomo Chemical and Microsoft.

U.N. officials gathered executives of 33 companies, many of which have not yet signed up, for lunch Wednesday. They heard an appeal by former President Clinton, who said the drive for self-sufficiency in poor countries facing food shortages offered “staggering” opportunities to invest in agriculture.

Executives said the credit crunch was not a serious obstacle to planned investments, although some said they would seek support from their governments to face the risks involved.

Private overseas investment in poor countries is often plagued by lawlessness and weak regulatory regimes. But Enger and Landau said they were not discouraged by conditions in Africa.

“There’s a lot of goodwill on the part of governments there,” Enger said.

Enger’s company is offering to help link its port terminals to isolated farming regions by road or rail so that farmers could import fertilizer and move crops to market faster and more cheaply.

Landau’s project would tap into a huge advance in recent years: the spread of cellphone coverage to more than three-quarters of the developing world. His company would bring farmers’ co-ops into the banking system, equip them with ATMs and enable customers to make transactions online. It would profit from subscription and transaction fees.

“This will open a whole new avenue for microfinance for these farmers,” Landau said. “They want to buy a goat — it used to cost a fortune to travel to borrow the $100. Now, they’ll be able to do it with the phone, click, and get the money immediately.”

September 29, 2008 at 10:44 pm

leighton, i assume you feel threatend by the economic situation currently at hand “more important things to focus on these days”. there is more than we realize going on here… beyond your comments: “…people will end up dying in civil wars anyways”. “spending on poverty is a luxury that we can no longer afford”.

you don’t have to go any further than our own borders to witness the escape of civil, religious,financial or military oppression. even with our own problems, our nation will seem a more likely destination… less bullets to dodge i guess. the ONE campaign brings awareness to the rest of the world, and asks that all contribute, not just the U.S.,not only for our own well being, but more importantly the well being of those in need to substain themselves. we prime the pump and teach them how to pave their own way. a “teach a man to fish…” kinda thingy.

Christ taught us to treat our neighbors as ourselves, but, this is a religious teaching… and reading your comment, i am sure this teaching is one more thing to seperate you from your “more important things to focus on these days”.

so instead, i will remind you that we are not an isolated society. everything is a little more reciprocal.

i understand your concerns, this may be a time to test one’s financial wit… but through all times, our spirit, our hope, and our resolve should remain.

besides, you know its the right thing… you wouldn’t let anyone die for money… right?

we all have a story to tell

do not let

hunger, poverty, or disease

deprive this world from ONE story of

hope, kindness, and humanity

please take action with me here:

one.org

peace always.

October 5, 2008 at 12:04 pm

In 2008, isn’t the time right for the United States of America to re-focus attentions and resources to aid and assist the needs of our Domestic poor, and finally begin to give less to those in foreign lands?

October 5, 2008 at 7:37 pm

american has a great point, and his/her comment brings up a great question; why is the richest nation in the world still dealing with poverty? when it should be the model nation in the combating of poverty, hunger, and disease within its own borders.

why am i and my spouse, with a $70,000 COMBINED yearly income household with children, who balances their budget every month, along with others like us, asked to contribute to a $700billion dollar “rescue plan” that bails out many of those who live better than us. and, not to mention, would be the same people to come take everything away from us, if we ran our budget… as they did theirs.

why, in the faith based communities alone, with all that they give, are there still the poor and the needy? if you think about it… there is a church on almost every corner, in this great nation. there is always some kind of mission to be found in everyone of them… soup kitchens, pantries, coat drives, book drives, shelters, etc. and still here we are. there is an answer somewhere… i guess.

answer all of these, and i will write in your name for president.

the reason we keep the faith, is ours alone.
i can understand in these times, how faith can be doubted.

the reason i keep giving and volunteering to the cause globally is simple.
we began the millennium goal development in 2000. we have made great progress
in the last 8 1/2 years, and too lose everything we have worked for in that time,
would not only cost our children more to repeat in some distant future, but would come at a greater
cost in human life.

i would like to think americans are more compassionate than that.

then there is the notion that organizations of compassion (one is… well, only one of them) were to just give up. then, all that would be left would be the radical extreme groups that would pick and choose the aid they offered to gain access to any rescources which aided their own cause.

there are as many angles to this as there are hopes, and i believe the best chance of the millennium goals is through organizations with no agenda, but the true eradication of hunger, poverty, and disease everywhere is through the actions of each of us and any faith that we have in ourselves.