Principal Voices is intended to be a global debate everyone can participate in, and we are keen to hear your views on the subjects being discussed. These comments will form a central part of the Principal Voices Web site.

What do you think?

Name
E-mail address
Your location
Comment
	Comment Policy All fields are required

"Behind every fortune there is a crime." This will explain why some nations are rich and others not. It is simply exploitation that never seems to end. Whatever aid that is announced is only eyewash to cover their crimes.

The only way to bridge this gap is a great deal of sacrifice from the richer countries. I might add that the wealthier people in these countries too should change (butt I don't expect that to happen in India!)

The will to develop the economies of the poor countries, so that they are brought on par with their developed counterparts, seem to be unfortunately missing. However, the private sector seems to be making rapid strides in grabbing the ever-opening markets in these countries. Huge investments on infrastructure, without ensuring their proper utilization, have led to inflationary impacts in these countries as well as breeding corruption.

Only multi-national corporations seem to benefit as a result of their expanded markets. Developing countries are simply not equipped to survive much more thrive in globalized environment. Debt relief is a good take off point. In my country alone roughly around 60 percent of the national budget is appropriated for servicing the debt.

Unless developing countries could turn the world upside down and reinvent the business model, we will greatly appreciate the guidance, training, support, and technology from the principal proponents of globalization.

The world is becoming richer every day, but still some countries are poor. The reason is a lack of education and no access to the right information. Also an absence of good leadership is a prime factor for the economic dormancy of many countries.

Cutting down trees to help agriculture only works temporarily -- development must be sustainable and it must benefit all. Nature should be kept intact because this attracts tourists, as well as keeping the country attractive.

Come on. It's a well known fact - people are selfish. The richer you get, the more selfish you are.

It seems so easy to propose funding to developing countries, or helping them with their debts. There is A LOT we can do. I bet everyone knows that. The point is - who will take the first step?

Yes, China is taking a great step forward in development but America is still the world's number one country. Yet it's like they're not taking action to help with the situation - they're actually worsening it.

All this debate is debris if everyone just faces the computer and throws in their ideas but NO ONE MOVES.

What the debates about global inequality are sadly missing is a sense of history. Why is the living standard in some countries 200 times higher than in others? Hundreds of years of ruthless exploitation of the global south by the global north.

Europe and America made their considerable fortunes via slave labor and colonialism and were able, at a societal level, to invest that 'front money' into technological development.

This money - trillions of dollars' worth of labor and natural resources - has never been paid back to the places it was taken from. Take the case of England - in 1600 a 'backwater of a backwater' as one historian called it. Two hundred-some years later it was the most powerful and wealthiest nation the world had ever seen. Magic? Plucky Protestant know-how? No - thievery and murder.

Western companies and governments are still doing this of course. Only in a thoroughly brainwashed world could we regard it as natural that Shell gets so much of Nigeria's oil and that people in Bangladesh are sweating their lives away making clothes for other people.

How do we end global poverty? We acknowledge that the world's rich are rich largely because of historical injustices. Then we (the other 99.99999% of the planet!) demand payback. The answer has always been the same -- we're just too afraid to answer honestly.

The developed world maintains its stranglehold over the developing nations of the world via years of accumulated debt, debt that developing countries have no hope of paying down because of annual interest applied by lending nations.

In response to this debt, developing nations must look to other lending nations and banks to gain loans to pay down the accumulating interest, leaving the central issue still unresolved, that of the original debt.

Developed countries have no motive to see these debts dropped or the establishment of more worldwide equality, instead it depends on the pointless efforts of rock stars to try and amass any support for solutions. Such solutions include forgiving all or part of accumulated debts, however government response to this topic is hesitant at best and nonexistent at worst.

Developed countries also control developing nations through trade tariffs, enforcing unfair costs for all goods shipped into the country.

These goods are many times the finished products of raw resources sold to developing countries, who seek to take advantage of the low cost of labour within these developing countries. Possible solutions raised by other rock stars call for the abolition of tariffs worldwide, allowing for free trade among any party. Reception to these ideas however parallel the issue of accumulated debt.

Developed countries and big business have no reason to adjust the status quo because it works in their favour. Not only can vast wealth be made on the backs of the less fortunate but debt payments can be relied on by developed governments to pay down other expenditures.

The infrastructure of these developing countries is severely handicapped by these additional costs, because governments instead of focusing on modernizing their own industry must focus instead on paying off archaic loans while also facing steep trade tariffs.

The ability for developing nations is further hampered by internal conflicts among various groups, such as the various conflicts in Africa. These conflicts further hamper modernization by diverting all money to supporting the conflict, forcing the purchase of guns and other implements of war.

Lack of international action in these conflicts hurts these countries as well, forcing them to slog through unnecessary bloodshed until a final bloodstained conclusion can be found. If governments offered help, or a force to stablize the region, perhaps these groups could talk, ironing out differences and areas of influence, allowing for the more important goal of modernization to take place.

Instead none of this happens, and we're left only with the futile lament of a rock star who ironically posses a clearer vision than many of the people we call our leaders.

I think that the rich countries get worried because they really don't want the poorer nations to build up their economies.

Maybe they do just to a certain extent -- if they feel you may be a threat they will come in and just try to take over. If they really wanted these nations to do well, all the richest nations would put at least 2% to 3% of their yearly incomes and bring world hunger to an end or at least give them a really good start.

The civilized, or First World countries, as they call themselves, do not want the poor countries to be any richer than they are right now. The developed countries take joy in the poverty of the poor nations.

Do we think that the big corporations do not know what to do when it comes to reinvesting in the very economy from which they derive majority of their raw materials? Take the case of the Niger Delta of Nigeria. When I visited Nigeria in 2004, I was in Ogini Pumping Station which is just 10 miles from my birth place in Aradhe, in Isoko, Delta State of Nigeria.

This Flow Station pumps 34,000 barrels of crude oil daily into the economy any yet, there is no road, no light and no water. Those that manage these oil industries are all from developed nations. The developed nations also are aware of how one group is armed against the other group, in an effort to disable them from protecting the very resources that is in their own land.

In all the cases the rich countries are quite intent on keeping the poor countries in their place, where they get the best of the international trading system. The rich countries can not say that they are not aware of the huge amount the leaders in Nigeria stack in foreign banks.

Monies that should have been used to develop their own countries, thereby eradicate poverty and diseases and better the lives of the growing population. The rich nations, are very deliberate in their intentions to keep the poor nations poorer.

Let's face it, too many good people will not get a fair crack at the explosion taking place on the world economic stage. Most who do are not your garden variety human being.

In addition to that, wars are going to continue, so will disease and poverty. The uneducated will become even less educated, and those who starve will increase.

Why? Because there are limits to everything except for hate, intolerance and greed. You see, there are a lot fewer people who love more then those who want more. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of few, at least in a world where the powerful actually cared about some one other than those who make them richer and powerful.

That would be just grand, don't you think? Sure, there are some who do a lot of good for a lot of people, but, their efforts will prove futile in the end because the super powerful will find a way to destroy hope, peace and joy in a world where there is already far too little of those things now.

Principal Voices is a wonderful program which brings together several highly inspirational people of our time to share their views.

Please be careful not to belittle the complexities of the issues being discussed, however, by posing questions in overly simplistic terms. Rather than posing a question: "Who is to blame for the world's inequality?" please focus on what can be done to address the inequality and the many problems that arise from the extent of inequality. Please move away from "blame" - the challenges are too important to get bogged down in such thinking.

Richer nations are obligated to help poorer nations. It disgusts me that we (in America) are obese and eat too much when people in other countries are dying because they don't have enough.

Globalization is a means for the richest to get richer at the expense of everyone else. In the West we see our jobs outsourced to the cheapest places, this way the people everywhere lose and the richest get richer.

Large global companies are hard to manage for all countries and local laws have to be discounted in order to keep or acquire jobs from these global companies.

While it is perceived as true reality, the World Trade Organization continues to serve as a forum for richer nations to protect their own interests, while the developing nations are calling for trade liberalization.

Not until we focus on the liberalization of global trade policy by allowing poor countries to trade freely, the world will continue to widen the gap between rich and poor nations.

Developed countries like the U.S. and U.K. are claiming to be helping Africa but it's a shame that they are not doing that actually. I sometimes look at them as exploiters, because for years all we have been asking for is free trade, not them taking raw materials which we buy back refined.

There should be sharing of technology in order to achieve development, that is to say more advanced countries should go to all these countries and establish some of the companies that will help them produce some of these products that they need; and not selling it to them.

Wealthy nation such as the United States have allowed large businesses to become globally involved, which seriously hurts the economies of impoverished nations.

Corporations go into nations like Iraq for profit. They may provide jobs for the poor, but they don't pay them nearly enough, just like the Mexican illegals that are running the U.S. agricultural system.

All of the large wealth created by these businesses is simply sent back to the U.S. to make the millionaires a little richer.

I have always thought that a global distribution of wealth, including health care, is important and needed. We just have to focus our interests into helping the poor rather than profiting from them.

Civilization does not happen overnight and so before America got to where it is today it took time and hard work, and determined efforts, too -- especially with the help of black men and women who were inhumanly from taken from Africa.

Africa is not saying the developed nations should release all their resources and cash to them because, of course, money you give somebody who does not work for it is a waste and will not be properly managed.

All Africa is saying is: create an enabling environment for them to have access to your technology, tools for development and also to empower them to be on top, too.

The increasing levels of world inequality will continue as long as there is no effort to break from the past.

For instance, commitments to this or that continue to be made, but at the same time no serious effort of taking stock of the accomplishment of those commitments is made. Fresh pledges are made without fulfilling old ones!

If the world wants to see Africa grow out of poverty, it is not sufficient to just provide aid, the world must also ensure that Africa is given some level of power in world politics.

For instance, what voice does Africa have at the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, WTO -- all these places where far-reaching decisions are made? Africa, on its part, should love its continent and its peoples, without which leaders will continue to be self serving.

The best way to end the global disparity of wealth is to unify all nations into a world government based on democracy, which would collect taxes and use those taxes where they are most needed.

The current system relies on charity, but the world government system would rely on taxes. The world government would not be extremely intrusive on current nation-states, but would merely collect taxes in order to ensure that social needs are met, the environment is sufficiently protected, and that human rights are ensured to all mankind.

I read Time Magazine which featured Bono and Jeffrey Sachs when they declared that poverty should be made history. The cover featured a young woman with three children who were all of pre-school age. Where was the father? Were these 3 children the result of immaculate conception? Or, the real reason, the picture would not evoke the same sympathy if the father was featured as well?

I so dislike propaganda. The responsibility for these children rests with, primarily, the father and, in addition, with the mother. One cannot produce children and then look to others to support them.

I may be old-fashioned but I grew up taking responsibility for my actions. If Bono wants to save the world then he should give his fortune to the poverty-stricken people.

He cannot expect Europe to do this. They have problems of their own, with an aging population which will need medical care. As there are fewer children the burden will fall on the next generation.

The present generation was able to rebuild Europe after two devastating world wars and they should be taken care of ahead of a continent which has never displayed any control. In South Africa, single mothers are given child-support of $30 per month. They are busy producing a child every year. Are you saying that I should support these girls?

From all I see and hear, very few that speak out on these bulletin boards have much in the way of common sense, or how everything and everyone depends on everything and everyone else.

There seems to be an almost complete disconnect for most people. It seems many can make accusations, but it seems they can't get past that.

On this board it seems quite a few are an echo chamber, as Kurt suggests. If you want serious reflection and intelligence, one must have lived many of the insults of power, to be able to speak to at least part of the subject.

You must also be able to admit when you are wrong or at least back away without childish name calling and attacks.

.

When I first came to this board I just scanned a few posts instead of reading them carefully. I may have been looking for the worst and I apologize. I was wrong. There seems to be a lot of good thinking here.

It would seem that people can only understand what they have lived, even when there are some that say they understand. They absolutely cannot, no matter how hard they may try and they cannot defend what they do not understand.

Is this supposed to be a global debate board? I see very little in the way of debate.

This is more of an international echo chamber touting thievery. As the continent of Africa has shown us, you cannot be rescued from your own corruption. We cannot spend you into economic prosperity.

We spend more than we ever have before on ensuring more 'equitable distribution' of wealth in the world. You people are telling us the gap is worse than ever, which shows that your ideas don't work.

The problem with your thinking is that distributed wealth is unearned wealth and will always be wasted by despots, and will simply be gobbled up because it encourages irresponsible behavior.

The answer is that you need to clean your own house. It takes time, so you can't expect immediate returns.

Free countries rarely remain poor countries. One of the most basic freedoms is the freedom to own property. That is what spurs a people to succeed -- enlightened self-interest.

History shows that people are not generally motivated to succeed because of some silly and lofty notion of economic equality for all people. It will always be against human nature and so it will always fail.

One last point: corruption and oppression will probably always be part of the human condition and therefore, so will poverty.

It is an unrealistic goal to eradicate world poverty. Working to change your own little corner of the world will bear more fruit than trying to change the whole world by separating the industrialized nations from their wealth.

Your essay speaks of country on country, but be assured, while your suggestion that richer nations keep the poor nations down is true, within these rich nations they do the same to the poor -- or should I say the hardest working. It's far from being just nation on nation.

It is in the way people are taught that really scares the governments of the world, because if the best teaching was in place, even in the poorest nations, and used extensively, those nations would surpass the rich nations in relatively short order -- IF you have the right teachers.

Equality and fair distribution and transparency in each individual country is the most important things to do before any third parties can help.

Free Trade means no trade tariffs on imports or exports. This means trade is based on survival of the fittest. The developed countries, WTO, and IMF demand free trade rules.

In developing countries, imports are always of greater value than exports because imports are usually high-tech and exports are usually low-tech (mostly agriculture).

The wealth of developing countries is being drained. Under free trade rules the wealth of the developing countries must be shifted to enrich the developed countries.

Fair trade means imports should equal exports (the trade deficit should be zero). In order to have fair trade in developing countries, an import duty is required so that the export income plus the import duty equal the import expense. The import duty should be used to build the infrastructure needed to increase exports in the developing countries.

If the UN and developed countries were truly interested in helping developing countries, then they should not be advocating free trade. They should be advocating fair trade.

They should even be advocating a 10% bias toward the developing countries to address the past exploitation of the developing countries. The extra 10% could then be used for projects toward eliminating poverty.

If developed countries want to lower the import tariffs in developing countries, then they should import more from the developing countries. Fair trade rules would then require that import tariffs be lowered.

If corporations want to sell more to developing countries they should set up businesses within the developing country. They could then avoid the import tariffs.

Anyone who advocates free trade is advocating the exploitation of developing countries to increase the wealth of developed countries. This is not fair.

Economic inequality? Here's a volatile situation for you -- North Korea is sitting smack-dab in the middle of a region that is prospering economically. China, up and coming super power, Japan technologically in the forefront, South Korea's gains in the field of science and Russia having international clout.

All these countries enjoying social and political stability for the most part -- what is NK to do? We need to really look at the situation these people are in with diplomatic and humanitarian eyes, because if we don't, watch out.

They are being pushed around, sanctioned, and as time passes, like the Korean folklore suggests, if you back a tiger into a corner you can be sure it's going to come out fighting. Let's give this tiger it's freedom to live.

For there to be a so-called "global" market, it has to be participated in by "global" competitors. The term "global" should successfully describe a wider composition of individual countries in the world.

In short, the focus of globalization should be, at this stage, on helping the poor countries be able to compete in the market on equal terms, as opposed to seeing conflicts of interests between multinational companies and governments.

Since poor countries cannot financially manage to deal with big multinationals, they should be granted more time, aid and encouragement to enter the "global" market at some stage in the future.

The answer is easy, let the big nations pay for the poor nations without expecting big paybacks and returns.

After all, the Western nations have over centuries profited from the poorer nations. It is about time they pay and return back what they have stolen over the years.

Colonialism is nothing else than piracy and big-time robbery, and it is about time the whole world accept this fact. How would these Western nations feel if million of Africans or Asians invaded their countries and called them theirs?

If 60% of the world's population could produce all the products and services that twice the world's population needed, then would we allow the second 40% of the world population to die?

Markets try to get the 60% to consume more then they need in order to create more jobs. New, useless products are designed for the 60% who are allowed to over-consume. The 40% are essentially ignored and not allowed to consume. Is this correct? This is the current capitalist system.

It seems that there should be a minimum income that everyone would be entitled to and that would assure everyone a minimum standard of living.

This would create a minimum demand for products and services. If a person wanted more they would have to work hard to become one of the 60% with a high standard of living.

The game of life is work, so there would be a high demand for one of the jobs that 60% of the population holds.

In the communist system there was no incentive to work and therefore no product and services to consume. In this system there still would be incentives to work and produce. This would seem to be a better economic system then we have now.

The problem is: how do we finance the minimum income? How do we move from a system that excludes 40% of the worlds population to one that includes everyone?

We have to change the way we look at wealth, given that half of the world doesn't get food, health and housing, and build a consensus to bring welfare to everyone in the world.

All these "proposals" ignore a basic fact: population growth. If the US had grown as Brazil did during the last century, the population would be roughly 1 billion and the U.S. would be disorganized, like India or the favelas of Brazil.

Nobody even touches this problem and reminds the developing countries of their own responsibility concerning population policy.

There is no organization which dedicates, say, half of their resources to helping the poor to a better life and the other half to help prevent the "production" of more poor people. Therefore I do not support any aid.

I think philanthropists should concern themselves more with poor countries and those really in need, like the people in the Darfur region of Sudan and other refugees in Somalia instead of channeling huge amounts of money into medical research purposes that only benefit the rich, as the poor are too impoverished to be able to afford the breakthroughs.

On a recent trip to India I was shocked by the high percentage of illiteracy. Vast numbers of the population live in rural areas and have no access to schools.

This problem could be solved by a mobile school. One would need a van which the teacher could live in and take to remote villages. The teacher could spend a month or two in each village teaching reading and math. We could start a pilot project simply by having one of the large auto makers donate a van. The salary of the teacher could easily be financed.

If India does not become literate I fear their economic growth will benefit only a few at the top of society. How can one start a mobile school program such as I am suggesting?

I think the best answer is Biblical: God blessed the rich people to help the poor people.

Why save millions and billions of dollars in the bank if you can help? It is in rich people's hands, and those of rich countries. Share, give and you shall receive.

China is a perfect role model. While others may or may not agree with its political stance, its economic stance has proved to be highly effective.

Instead of blaming globalization, countries should try to leverage globalization. Each country should determine what it can do best and try to focus its efforts to maximizing value.

Many of the poorer countries waste whatever little resources they have on wasteful expenditures like arms. Instead they need to focus on basic human needs like health, education and infrastructure. If there is a will, there is a way to get out of any situation.

We all live in the same world. We should enjoy and share wealth with our partners.

I have a dream that as rich persons can help poor ones, developed nations will assist developing nations. I hope the dream can come true someday.

Impoverished countries should seek ways to develop their economies on their own.

China used to be a poor country, but now its GDP ranks fourth in the world. It is all due to its own hard efforts. So-called justice ought to be created by your own competence rather than others' pity.

Inequality worldwide is just like the problems inside a country. People are not born in equality. People from different families and countries have different development opportunities.

I think the most important thing for the poorest is the equal chance for their development. People born in poverty should not have to live and die in poverty.

Give them an equal chance, especially education and health for their personal development.

Strengthening the border between Mexico and the U.S. is ridiculous. Making millions of Mexican citizens felons is extremely misguided. The border between Mexico and the U.S. should be eliminated, and the border between Mexico and Guatemala should be strengthened. (It is a much smaller border and much more easy to control).

Illegal aliens are doing work that Americans do not want to do. They are earning a lot of money and are buying American-made products. They are significantly increasing U.S. GDP and the wealth of the U.S. corporations. They are significantly increasing the wealth of US business leaders.

If the borders were removed, U.S. companies would be able to move south of the border to make products and easily move those products to the U.S.

This would lower Mexican and NAFTA unemployment and discourage Mexicans from moving north of their border. This would significantly reduce the probability of inflation and this would also significantly reduce crime and poverty in Mexico. If carefully managed, this would not significantly increase American unemployment rates.

Please follow the European model by eliminating borders and help to eliminate poverty in the world.

I believe that the figures from the World Bank are misleading. It is quite evident that only 20% of the world population is getting richer, the other 80% is getting poorer and their living conditions are slowly being eroded.

Global companies are taking advantage of the cheap labour force that exists in undeveloped countries, not only to reduce the price of production (and not passing this on to the consumer) but also to force reductions in wages in developed countries.

Here in Australia we have had new industrial relation laws passed that provide the worker very little recourse if they are dismissed by their employers.

There have been incidents reported where employers tried to legally dismiss their employees and then re-employ them at a lower wage.

This was very embarrassing for the government and they forced the employers to drop the dismissal of the employees (it is most probably a deal was made between the two parties).

One of the major problems today is the unfair distribution of income around the world.

The chasm between the rich and the poor is a consequence of corrupt political systems, which cut off citizens' social rights. Particularly in developing countries, the lack of social policies, especially on education, is indeed the reason why there's little hope for a majority of people living in such a challenging world.

In order to achieve peace in any instances, there must be social justice. However, as long as there's no significant change in the way politics is made, the world scenario is unlikely to be reshaped.

Equitable wealth globally seems far remote as of now when there is so much inequity within a nation, a city and a community.

However, there is hope, as I believe growing democracy, rule of law, from two superpowers to one to none in a few years, blurring of national borders... will hopefully lead to one earth, one people, greater equity.

We need to change our systems to "what works for all" and not "what works for a privileged few."

Globalization is good. For starters, it brings to the forefront, the pathetic state of affairs in certain parts of the world.

The question should not be about globalization, but one about social responsibilities. What social responsibilities should the countries and multi-nationals have when they draw upon the resources of some poor country.

Companies have a obligation to their shareholders, what are their obligations to the society they draw from, to the environment that they tap into, and the world at large.

Unfortunately, most often it is not the multi-nationals who exploit these less developed countries, but their own political leaders who will sell anything to fill their own coffers.

How do we tackle these situations? One way to do this is public accountability. All companies, local or mutlinational, need to be take upon themselves to contribute up to two percent of their revenue to social welfare.

Is globalization a new form of death sentencing? Mentioning it among the poor is like telling the community "you about to die."

Globalization under a so-called new world order has been a gold mine for the world's big international banks and multinational corporations, but has been nothing less than a total disaster for the world's developing economies.

Until there is equity in the distribution of the world's resources and wealth, the problems that plague the planet will continue.

Poverty and despair breed intolerance. There is enough for all, but greed and indifference prohibit fair distribution.

Entrepreneurs in developing nations need equity investment. This won't come locally, so the wealthy nations need to get involved through the likes of new "development associations," a hybrid between banks and investment funds.

Some countries are behind due to discrimination by the UN and World Bank.

For example, they are giving subsidies to agriculture in countries like the U.S., U.K., etc, and ignoring poor countries where it's hard to get one meal a day.

I guess inequality is in itself built into economic law to an extent. For example, economics and practical life tells that if you produce a product on a large scale you can produce it at a lower cost, and people will buy a cheaper product, everything else remaining the same.

Now, in order to take advantage of economies of large scale, you need to have a large factory. In order to have a large factory you need to have large sum of capital. To have a large sum of capital you need to have good financial capital.

This is the circle which poor countries are finding it difficult to break into.

India is breaking this circle because of IT and a large IT-educated population. China was able to do so because of tough policies in the beginning.

I guess other poor nations also have to find an opportunity to break this circle. Or the international community has to treat them like an infant, and continue doing so till they become responsible adolescents.

Contrary to the apparent concern on inequality, we are going through a historic epoch where there is not only rising income and wealth disparity, but in which people appear to see nothing wrong with that and are actually flaunting their wealth through conspicuous consumption.

This is a global process and as true in poorer countries as in the rich ones. In fact, the poorer the country the more it appears to be true.

Economic disparities are a major problem the world is facing today

Poverty and economic disparity leads to the creation of radical Islam. Poor Islamic countries are breeding grounds for Islamic Jihadists -- innocent youths are brainwashed to become suicide bombers.

International trade has become a platform for developed nations to thrive on the competitive disadvantage of developing nations. There is no trickling down whatsoever.