When Americans see televised images of bone-thin children with distended bellies, their humanitarian instincts take over. They don't typically look at UNICEF footage and perceive a threat that could destroy our way of life. Yet global poverty is not solely a humanitarian concern. In real ways, over the long term, it can threaten U.S. national security. Poverty erodes weak states' capacity to prevent the spread of disease and protect the world's forests and watersheds . . . It also creates conditions conducive to transnational criminal enterprises and terrorist activity, not only by making desperate individuals potentially more susceptible to recruitment, but also, and more significantly, by undermining the state's ability to prevent and counter those violent threats. Poverty can also give rise to the tensions that erupt in civil conflict, which further taxes the state and allows transnational predators greater freedom of action.
Poverty is an issue that affects all of us, but there is disagreement as to what is the best method of fighting it. Consider the two articles below:
1.) Jeffrey D. Sachs - "Securing the Future at the Evian Summit"
2.) Jim Klauder - "Paper Money Can't Save Billions from Poverty"
Then answer the following questions in relation to all three of the articles linked above:
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
Post your responses in the "COMMENTS" section of this entry before class on Friday.
17 comments:
"The Threat of Global Poverty" - Susan Rice
1) Rice argues that the United States is trapped inside of a "bubble." She argues how the poverty in poor countries could easily ignite in the U.S.
2) Rice describes how poverty could be a threat to U.S. natioal security in terms of terrorist activity, and other criminal acts.
3) I did find Rice's article convincing. It seems plausible that the poverty in poorer countries would reach the U.S.
"Securing the Future at the Evian Summit" - Jeffrey Sachs
1) Sachs argues that rich countries do not invest enough money in foreign aid to poorer countries.
2) Sachs suggests that the G-8 leaders are with holding money from other nations. He preposes that greed and corruption are the main components of the G-8 conference.
3) I found the statistic that the U.S. devots $450 billion to military services and only $12 billion to humanitarian aid startiling. I do believe that corruption is rapant in today's politics, so I do find Sach's article convincing.
"Paper Money can't Save Billions from Poverty" - Jim Klauder
1) The argument of Klauder's article is that money from rich countries is not the answer to end poverty. He describes how the money given to poor countries goes straight to bureaucratic hands, instead of the people.
2) He supports his argument that foreign aid helps make poorer countries corrupt by listing a few countries that the U.S. supports, yet these countries house some of the world's corrupt governments. He preposes that the way out of poverty is through local economy activity-not outside help.
3) There a few components of the article that I find convincing, however, I don't know if some of the poorer countries could activate a decent economy without the help of wealthier countries.
Susan Rice article
1. Rice argues that since poverty is such a pressing issue in our world today that it will lead to disease problems and more places for terrorists and other criminals to recruit and set up bases.
2. Rice uses statistics, and well know organizations like the World Health Organization to state her claims.
3. I do think the article is convincing. I have never thought of poverty in that way, but it seems to make sense that poorer countries would be less likely to have the means to defend themsevles.
Jeffrey D. Sachs article
1. This article argues that the United States, along with other well off countries should be doing more to help the poverty stricken nations in Afria and China.
2. The article tells how much money the US spends on war in comparison to the money it spends on helping poor countries. The article also says that whileb baby steps have been taken, more drastic steps need to be followed to achieve any success.
3. I do find the article convincing. If the US would stop spending so much money on wars, we could do a lot more good in the world helping impoverished countries.
Jim Klauder article
1. The article argues that democratic institutions, not money, are the way to solve global poverty.
2. The writer uses many stories about the poor in places like Africa and India. He also states that even though so much money is being given to these places, it doesn't seem to be helping in the long run. Maybe something to help get these countries economies going should be done.
3. I do find the article convincing. I don't think just handing out money is the key to ending poverty because the people don't know what to do with the money, and its going to run out sometime. They need a new way of life to help them keep gaining income, not just handouts.
"The Threat of Global Poverty" - Susan Rice
1) Rice warns that the U.S. is not thinking far enough ahead, that we are too wrapped up in ourselves to realize that the poverty in other nations could reach the U.S.
2) Rice uses the recently all too common scare of terrorist activity and crime in terms of threats to U.S. national security.
3) Rice wrote and supported her claim well, and as sad as it is, it felt convincing to me that these kinds of things could really happen if we keep ignoring third world countries the way we are right now.
"Securing the Future at the Evian Summit" - Jeffrey Sachs
1) The article argues that the wealthy world powers have the capability to end world poverty, with hardly any more effort than they are already expending. If only, they were smart enough to realize.
2) Sachs tells of how poverty leads to so many other dangerous things, such as violence and disease, and that we have to consider these issues as well as food.
3) I think that Sachs makes a good point in saying that it is more than just starving families and poor living conditions that we have to consider. I am also convinced that we have the ability to change it, with a little more effort and understanding.
"Paper Money Can't Save Billions from Poverty" - Jim Klauder
1) Klauder makes the argument that money is not enough. Money alone won't help starving countries at all.
2) He lists countries that the U.S. supports and they turn out to be some of the most corrupt governments in the world. He believes that the way for these countries to climb out of poverty, is to work on building their local economies - not through free food and foreign dollars.
3) I think that Klauder makes a good point when he says that money is not enough, and I believe that, but I also think that leaving the countries to try and build their own economies by themselves is not quite what should be done either. If they could do it themselves, wouldn't they have done so already?
We, (the powerful, wealthy, successful countries), need to go in at a non-military angle. Build them schools and hospitals, help them cultivate gardens & farms, and STAY THERE AND HELP AND TEACH them how to use these institutions and plant a healthy crop. We can't just go in, build things, plant some seeds and leave, you don't send your baby to high school immediately after they graduated kindergarten, you spend time with them. In order to help these countries change the way they are living, we have to be willing to commit not only our money but our time and patience and knowledge. Rome wasn't built in a day...
The Threat of Global Poverty
1.) The argument of this article is global poverty is a major problem and is not just a humanitarian issue but also a threat to US security. It also argues that the effects of poverty can be a threat to all nations not just the US.
2.) The two main techniques this article uses are statistics and scare tactics. The article tries to scare the reader by stating that poverty stricken states cannot prevent disease or protect the world’s resources. It also states that poverty can lead to conflict ad terrorist activity. This is a very concerning to many American readers who are constantly reminded of terrorism from media coverage on September 11th, airport security or the war in Iraq. The article even goes as far as using Al-Qaeda as an example of terrorist activity as the result of poverty. The article also uses many statistics about the how much money the majority of the world population is living on or the GNPs of several countries.
3.) I did find this article somewhat convincing but I don’t think that poverty is as much of an imminent threat as this article makes it out to be. I think that poverty over a very long period of time can turn into the problems the article described but I also think that developed countries will most likely develop a way to block its effects, especially diseases. However, this is not say that I think we should sit back and do nothing; I think that we need to start working on improving global poverty or these problems will begin to occur. I don’t think that there is any reason anyone in this world should be living on less than two dollars a day, especially when we have multibillionaires out there.
Securing the Future at the Evian Summit
1.) The argument of this article is that the world’s richest countries have had several opportunities to help poverty-stricken countries but have done nothing to help. It also argues that the US is the number one example of this problem.
2.) The use of statistics is the main technique this article uses to persuade it readers. Sachs uses statistics on the number of people living in poverty, where these people are located, the economic growth trends of nations and more. He also states that rich countries are greedy and can solve the problems of global poverty and dramatically reduce the amount of suffering in a way that has very little impact on their own income. He states that the total cost of helping the problem would cost less than on percent of the annual income of rich countries.
3.) I also find this article somewhat convincing. I do think that wealthier countries should contribute more to helping solve the global poverty issue although I can also understand why they don’t. Donating money to help the global poverty problem has become a collective action problem. One country doesn’t want to donate if they think other countries are not going to donate and spend that money elsewhere, say on their military. I think developed countries need to come together and quit worrying about themselves for just a little while and solve this problem because if nothing is done about it, in the future its repercussions may affect everyone.
Paper Money Can’t Save Billions From Poverty
1.) The argument of this article is that foreign aid to poverty-stricken countries does not help them get out of poverty. The aid may help them in the short run but if we want them to be able to support themselves in the future we need to create economic intuitions in their own countries.
2.) Klauder uses statistics as well as examples to help persuade his readers. He gives statistics about population growth and describes how most foreign aid in the form of money goes to the leader of the country, which often leads to more corruption. He then gave examples of how setting up economic institutions in the countries can help them over come poverty. His example of the institution that has been created in India illustrates the successes and failures of creating an economy for themselves.
3.) I found this article convincing. I thought that Klauder was very realistic in his idea to help solve the global poverty problem. His article made it apparent that it is very crucial that these countries develop their own economies with help from the wealthier nations so they don’t have to continually rely on them for help. I also think that he made a very good point when he sated that aid in the form of money usually just leads to more corruption and by supplying food we hurt the local farmers in the country (although sometimes this is necessary). I also thought that he was very honest about how setting up economies in other countries has been working. In the example Klauder gives about India he describes both the positives and negatives about the system. This article made me feel as if Klauder understands that global poverty is a tricky problem that needs a realistic solution and that will take a while to solve.
Securing the Future at the Evian Summit- Jeffrey Sachs
1. The arguments of this article is that extreme poverty exists globally, and the US blames only the poor for their poverty. The US and G-8 promised to cut global poverty by 2015, but are not doing much of anything. More money is spent on military spending, and each increase annually is drastically more than foregin aid.
2. Sachs enforced a sense of guilt upon the reader. He states the G-8 leaders are greeding and scared to give money to other countries, and the US is doing the same.
3. I believe that global poverty is definitely an issue, and this article had intersting statistics that strengthened my opinion even more.
Paper money can't save billions from poverty-Jim Klauder
1. Klauder argues that yes, poverty does exists, but money and foreign handouts is not the way to go about solving it. Money sent to less weathly nations simply go to the hands of the wealthiest there, and the use of money is abused. Klauder thinks that setting up a free market is the only way to end poverty.
2. The technique used in this article is that Klauder suggests poverty as a threat to the US. The spreading of diseases, civil unrest, terrorist activities, and to our national security. At the very end, Klauder states that help from a basic institution of democracy will be more likely to be remembered by the grandchildren of those who suffer today.
3. The article was convincing to me. Klauder made some very reasonable and logical explanations to deal with poverty, however, I believe money is a necessity to begin this process.
The Threat of Global Poverty- Susan Rice
1. Rice beleives the countries that suffer from poverty will eventually become a problem in the US from many aspects.
2. Rice argues that poverty in other countries will cause "transnational security threats: infectious disease, environmental degradation, international crime and drug syndicates, proliferation of small arms and weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism" in the United States.
3. It did seem convincing. This is an issue that I feel is very obvious. The US wants the world to see the US as the most powerful nation, in turn, it should be out responsibility to help less wealthy countries out. Poverty won't be "cornered" to certain parts of the world, and will spread rapidly.
Article 1
1. The argument of this article is that poverty is a global issue that affects every country and that something needs to be done about it soon.
2. The author tries to convince the audience of the article by using many statistics and trying to scare the audience. The author states that many bad things are caused by poverty such as terrorism and war.
3. I did not find this article convincing. The author made it seem as if poverty was the only cause of terrorism and war and I believe that these things are caused by many other issues; not just poverty.
Article 2
1. The argument of this article is that poverty can be stopped but is not because of rich nations not willing to help. The author blames mostly the United States.
2. To convince the audience, the author shows that poverty can be easily stopped by doing certain things, and then shows how countries capable of doing so, aren’t. This makes the audience hate the countries for not helping when they can and realize that poverty is a solvable issue.
3. I did find this article convincing. The money that countries are spending on war and other “problem-causing” things would be much better spent on solving major problems on earth rather than creating more problems with the money.
Article 3
1. This article states that poverty cannot be solved by just emptying money into countries with poverty.
2. The author convinces the audience by reasoning with them and showing that money may solve the problem for now, but in order to eliminate poverty, the people will have to learn to manage money and keep up their economy. The author also uses examples of how the money that is supposed to go to poverty ends up in the hands of the ruler of that country which inevitably leads to more corruption. By this, the author implies that the rulers of such countries need to be removed from power in order to eliminate corruption and allow for a healthy economy.
3. I found this article convincing, but the plan seems to be very hard to accomplish. I was convinced when I realized that most of the money was wasted because of corruption and that just giving out money will not solve anything in the long run.
The Threat of Global Poverty by Susan Rice
1) Argument of piece? - The point of this article is mainly to educate people of how bad of a problem poverty is and will eventually turn into. Susan Rice warns that things can only get worse when dealing with poverty
2) Techniques used to persuade reader? - This author uses statistics to persuade the reader ($2 a day and low/middle-income countries suffer from 90% of the world’s diseases yet take up only 11% of its healthcare).
3) Is the argument convincing? - For me, this article was very convincing. The author brought up good points in saying poverty would eventually cause civil conflict and/or make us more susceptible to criminal/terrorist activity. The stats were eye-opening and the introduction made me want to read on.
Securing the Future at the Evian Summit by Jeffrey D. Sachs
1) Argument of piece? – The main argument of this article is that America and Europe (among other richer developed countries) aren’t doing enough to help the poor.
2) Techniques used to persuade reader? – Sachs uses sympathy and guilt by bringing up how many people die each year due to lack of medicine, clean water, basic sanitation, etc. Also, a few statistics are used.
3) Is the argument convincing? – I thought this article was convincing because it brought up why it’s not Africa and central Asia’s fault for being in such a severe state of poverty. Sachs writes about how we haven’t had to deal with hardly any of the serious problems places like sub-Saharan Africa have such as the malaria epidemic and massive droughts. I agree that global poverty could be solved easier than most people think.
Paper Money Can’t Save Billions from Poverty by Jim Klauder
1) Argument of piece? – The central argument of Klauder’s article is that sending more money in foreign aid is not the solution to global poverty. If it isn’t misused, it will only help in the short-term.
2) Techniques used to persuade reader? – This author explains a lot of things in this article and makes me see a different side of things. He made a good point in saying the rich members of the government are the ones keeping the majority of the foreign aid. Also, the part about the U.S. sending a boatload of free grain is only hurting the farmers of those poorer countries who are trying to make a living by selling their grain. It’s only helping American farmers.
3) Is the argument convincing? – Klauder brings up a good point in saying that the money we’re sending to poorer countries as foreign aid might not actually be getting to the sick starving people who need it the most.
“The Threat of Global Poverty
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
The author argues that Americans should look at the issue of global poverty through different lens. Instead of see global poverty in a humanitarian way, one should examine the threat of human life (health and safety), especially those in the US.
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
The author raises awareness through personal interest, especially for Americans. She creates a sense of urgency to act, prepare, and change the issue of global poverty. The author uses example about the bird-flu pandemic and poverty rates to support her claim.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
The argument is convincing, because the author uses common sense. The argument appeals to ones logic, making it easy to understand and reasonable.
Jeffery D. Sachs- “Securing the Future at the Evian Summit”
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
The argument of this piece is that rich well developed countries, like the US should be doing more to assist extremely impoverished nations. Because of the vast differences between rich nations and poor nations, if rich nations would give minimal efforts to help, then they could possibly fix global poverty issues
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
The author examines the US budget and compares what the US spends on the war compared to global poverty. The difference is major, which portrays the US as a country that would rather destroy a nation than develop one like Central Asia.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
The argument is very convincing. The US could easily help eliminate major problems within impoverished nations if it channeled resources to where it is needed and accepted and not to a place where its efforts are not wanted.
Jim Klauder- “Paper Money Can’t Save Biillions From Poverty
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
The author argues that while billions of dollars have been channeled from developed nation like Europe and the US, money is not the answer to impoverished nations. Creating or providing a free economy that generates its own money has a better and long term affect.
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
The author points out that through free hand outs, developed countries are hindering those in business within developed countries. Klauder also presents India as a country that is thriving because free market institutions.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
The argument is convincing. The author presents his claim on free market and how it can influence nation. The free market institution concept is quite logical. If one would simply help and assist in creating independent economies, then developing nations could become developed. The Free market institution is a long-term solution to poverty rather than a short term one that consist of money and food handouts. These countries can generate wealth for themselves.
David Mussared- Biodiversity in Your Backyard
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
David Mussared argues that humans depend on thousands of different organisms everyday to live, despite the fact that one is not aware of all the organisms or their functions. The well being of humans is interlocked and depends on the well being of organisms. If humans continue to wipe out organisms, one could possibly harm and wipe out humans as well.
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
The author engages the reader by using an example about breakfast. Through this example, the author shows how interdependent one is on the environment around us. The author uses the unknown as a scare tactic, because we don’t know all the organisms we kill or those organisms specific function, this creates major problems.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
The argument is quite convincing because humans are part of the Food Web, despite the fact that we don’t live in an environment that reminds us. Humans adapt quickly to change but others organisms cannot do so, as a result, humans must change their impact on the earth because in the end their actions will harm themselves
Article 1
1. The article argues that poverty is a very important issue and the US is ignoring it.
2. The article uses statistics as a shock factor to raise sympathy for the poor.
3. I find the article unconvincing due to the biased argument of the author.
Article 2
1. The article argues that the US and other wealthy countries are selfish and don’t do enough to help reduce poverty in poorer countries.
2. The author provides numbers of the money that could be used to help poor countries prosper.
3. I find the argument convincing because of the realistic plans it provides for the G-8 to help other countries.
Article 3
1. Wealthy countries shouldn’t give more money to poor nations, they should help create an economy that is easy for economic prosperity.
2. The author uses statistics and statements about corrupt governments to sway readers to his opinion.
3. I don’t think it is feasible for the US and other countries to mold a global economy that helps third world countries flourish.
Joe Dust
The Threat of Global Poverty
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
The argument presented is that poverty will affect our national security and ultimately our well-being in this country. Poverty will create more attacks on our country due to lack of security in other poverty-stricken countries.
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
Rice uses typical scare-tactics to persuade the reader to believe that if we don't eliminate poverty soon, it will reach the U.S. and all hell will break loose.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
Not at all. Terrorist activity will continue to thrive, wether we aid poor countries or not. I can see how some nations might be unable to keep tabs on the terrorists living there because of their weak economy, but increasing foreign aid is NOT the solution.
Jeffrey D. Sachs - "Securing the Future at the Evian Summit"
1.) What is the argument of the piece? The argument that Sachs presents is that rich nations are not giving enough foreign aid, which could be the solution to the end of poverty.
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
Sachs provides examples of how very little money from rich nations could greatly help poor countries. He notes that strides have been taken towards an increase in foreign aid, but much more is required.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
I found the article convincing. It would make sense that in order to improve a nation, you give it more money to spend on it's well-being. It takes money to earn money attitude. Also, his arguments were plausible and feasible, so it wasn't too difficult to see his plan in effect.
Jim Klauder - "Paper Money Can't Save Billions from Poverty"
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
The argument is that an increase in foreign aid is not the solution to the crisis that is poverty. In fact, supplying more money to poor nations could potentially make them worse.
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
Klauder says that providing more money to poor, corrupt nations will only make conditions worse. Instead, you have to help the local economic activity so that way the nation will remain stable and will be able to provide on its own.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
I found the argument convincing as well because the argument was, again, plausible and feasible. However, I believe if that Sachs and Klauder's idea were to be used together, they would solve the poverty problem.
shawn finney
1.the main arguement was the world needs to help the poor, it would take minimal effort
2.he uses stats about how people are so rich or poor
3. i did not find it convincing bc the way he worded everything he could of put in more examples
1. he argues that just giving poor nations money or food is not a way to solve the problem
2. he talks about how weve been giving money for decades and it hasnt worked yet, but if we fix their economy then it will work
3. a little convincing, he says we need to wait till 2050 which is a long way away, we have not had that long for just giving them money, and the example about the farmer, if the people were so hungery they would just buy from him right?
Rice argues how poverty is a bigger problem then most people perceive. How if left as is it will hurt the US in more ways then it would if we were to help those countries in need.
Rice says it wil affect our taxes and give us great security threats in the US.
I didn't find her article convincing because terrorist can find people either way all the need is a common hatred towards the US. And though poverty is obviously bad we already do a lot to try to help and it really has no effect.
Sachs says how the richer countries are somewhat selfish and dont help out the less fortunate countries.
Sach says that there is some propoganda in the G 8 and they arent being honest with the money they have.
I find it somewhat convincing only because we could help the poorer countries a lot more then we do, and there obviously is some sort of corruption with how the money is being distributed to the poorer countries.
Klauders arguement is how we need to do more then just send poor countries money we need to garuntee that money goes to the people.
He says how the money is used by only government officals who use it wrongly most the time instead of helping their people get better lives.
I dont find this article convincing because with out help from higher powers the poorer countries would just end up with higher crime rates and more deaths do to fighting over control of the money.
The Threat of Global Poverty
1. The argument of this article is that global poverty is a serious threat and those who have the power to fix it need to fix it, and fix it now.
2. The article pushes this point by giving a few statistics on crime and warfare in impoverished countries as compared to wealthy countries. It continuously repeats the idea that crime, violence, and terrorism grow stronger and become more threatening every day in impoverished countries because these countries don’t have the resources to stop it. The basic jist of what the article wants to impress upon the reader is that “the apocalypse is nye” because of global poverty, and we’re all screwed if we don’t stop it.
3. I agree with the idea that global poverty could be a big factor of increased terrorism and warfare, but I think the article would have been much more convincing if the author had given more evidence as to why wealthy countries should help, and perhaps given some solutions as to how that help could be given. The author just says that we need to do something, but doesn’t give any suggestions at all as far as what we should do. Bottom line: it needs more support. Right now, the author sounds like one of those annoying religious nuts standing on a street corner saying “The End is near!!! Repent!”
Securing the Future at the Evian Summit
1. The central argument of this article is that rich countries, like the U.S., should use some of their wealth to help the poor countries, like Africa, to get out of poverty.
2. The article pushes this argument by giving statistics about how rich the wealthy countries are and how poor the impoverished countries are. It also mentions that the wealthy countries would only have to spend approximately 1% of their annual income in order to bring poor countries out of poverty. It attempts to place guilt on the rich countries by saying things like “The Evian Summit will clarify whether greed, ignorance, and the bombast of war have closed the eyes of the US entirely.”
3. While I agree with the idea that the wealthy countries could and should at least try to help impoverished countries get out of poverty, at least to the point that these countries are not suffering, I do not agree with the arguments presented in this article. The author uses mainly guilt to attempt to influence the reader, but does not support the ideas with any facts or suggestions. The author says that wealthy countries should spend some of their wealth to get the poor countries out of poverty, but he doesn’t give any suggestions as to how they would do that. Maybe he’s thinking we should send food to them, but that’s not going to bring them out of poverty. The real truth is that in order to help them on the scale that the author is proposing, the U.S. would basically have to take control of these countries (at least temporarily), and we all know how well that always works out.
Paper Money Can’t Save Billions from Poverty
1. The argument of this article is that wealthy nations should help poor nations by helping them set up a better government system that allows for better economic prosperity, rather than just giving them money and food.
2. The article pushes its point by explaining why simply giving money and food and medicine etc. to poor countries doesn’t help them, and in many cases, hurts them. It also explains how helping to establish a better government would be much more beneficial because it would allow the country to provide for itself, rather than rely on foreign aid in order to survive.
3. I found this article convincing at many points, such as when the author went through the process of explaining the benefits of establishing a different government system rather than giving food and money. However, at other points, particularly where the author started talking about The Foundation for Teaching Economics, I was not convinced. I think I would’ve found it more convincing at these points if the author had not mentioned that he worked there. By saying that he worked at the place that all of his theories come from, he makes himself sound arrogant and biased. He sounds like he’s gloating when he says things like “We’ve come up with this solution.” It just sounds like he’s been programmed to say all of these ideas in order to promote his organization. I’m curious as to whether or not any of his ideas are his own, or if this article could have been written the exact same way by any other person of this foundation.
The Threat of Global Poverty
1. Rice argues that global poverty is not just a problem for the countries it is currently affecting but it could actually come to the United States.
2. To convey her argument Rice talks about how the United States and its citizens are in danger. The currently poor countries could possibly become recruiting grounds for terrorists.
3. I found this article convicing because it is not really that much of a stretch of the imagination to see that the poverty problem could spread to the United States.
Securing the Future at the Evian Summit
1. This article argues that global poverty could be greatly reduced if only the strong, wealthy countries would contribute money and resources to aide.
2. To convey his argument, Sachs talks about the dangers of poverty, as well as the corruption of some of the stronger countries. Sachs also talks about how much money the United States spends on war efforts and says it could be put to much better use aiding poor nations.
3. I found that the article is convincing especially when the comparison of what the United States spends on war was compared to what the United States spends on humanitarian aid.
Paper Money can't Save Billions from Poverty
1. The argument of this article is that instead of any aid from wealthy countries going to the people of poor countries, the rulers of those countries simply keep the money, and thus, paper money is not the way to solve global poverty.
2. Klauder talks about how even though the United States gives money to poor countries, some of these countries are the most corrupt in the world because of the people who are running them. He proposes that free money and food is not going to be able to get the job done when it comes to getting rid of poverty. Something needs to be done to jump-start the economies of these countries.
3. I found this article convincing because it is easy to see that the people of the poor countries do not seem to get all if any of the money that is given to the country. I think that Klauder is on the right track when he says that something needs to happen to get the economies of these countries started, but I think it may require the help of the larger countries to start this action.
Sachs
1.) The U.S. and other greater-developed countries can and should be helping the world’s poor.
2.) Alliteration: grapple, have closed the eyes, look inward or outward
He talks a lot about paradigms, paradoxes and irony. I think this is effective.
3.) Yes. The point about the growing divide between the upper and lower classes is compelling, that the upper class really wouldn’t have to do all that much to help the lower class.
Klauder
1.) Giving money to nations with less money will not get them out of poverty. “Foreign aid only serves to make poor countries more corrupt and dysfunctional.” Create a commercial society. Yay, capitalism.
2.) He rattles off some pretty skewed, out-of-context facts. He offers the solution of establishing commercial societies within these LDCs.
3.) NO! Klauder is crazy:
“ Haven't we been pushing more money at the problem for quite a while? One is tempted to ask, "Is all that money doing any good?"
Sadly, the answer is "No." “ What money? What money have we been pushing?
Rachel Post
“The Threat of Global Poverty,” Susan Rice
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
The argument that Rice makes is that global poverty can lead to extremely increased disease rates and violence.
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
Rice’s argumentative writing style is convincing because she uses statistics that astound the reader.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find it convincing, because the statistics opened my eyes to the scale of poverty around the world and gave me information that I did not know earlier. Her succinct writing style and credible sources help the reader believe what she has written.
“Securing the Future at the Evian Summit,” Jeffrey D Sachs
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
The argument of the piece is that at the G-8 summit in Evian, France, world leaders and representatives need to follow through on their promises to decrease global poverty.
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
Sachs has a sort of melodramatic tone in this piece. He makes the opposition feel smaller by speaking for them as if he knows their motivations.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
I found the comparison between aid for those in poverty versus military spending shocking, which helps with the credibility of the piece. But mostly I felt like Sachs was just bitching and not providing anything very helpful.
“Paper Money Can’t Save Billions from Poverty,” Jim Klauder
1.) What is the argument of the piece?
Klauder argues that shoving paper money at countries in poverty does nothing in the long term to help those who are in poverty. He writes that creating a strong economic system within democracies (idealistically) will immensely help, because it will create the foundations for helping people to help themselves get out of poverty. This phrase was particularly important: “…only when a society begins to experience economic activity can its members begin to live more comfortable lives and enjoy the benefits of progress.”
2.) What techniques are used to persuade the reader?
This argumentative piece has great solutions that can be applied. I think the most important thing he does is provide solutions for the problems.
3.) Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
I think the argument is very convincing. For so many years richer countries have been handing out free money to the tyrannical leaders of countries in poverty, yet poverty rates have increased. Klauder provides good solutions for this problem.
The argument of the first article is that the world denies that it can help those in poverty and prevent it. Sachs uses several statistics to prove his point. He tries to blame it on money mismanaged and misused. He compares the economic difference between third world countries and also how health is affected. It was a harsh reality which I’m sure was meant to shake the reader but it didn’t seem to connect with the audience to be convincing. If the author made it more personal and made the affects closer to home it would be more powerful.
The argument of the second article is that we should not jus throw money at the poverty problem but the bigger countries should help build up the societies. Once this is done the country will continue to progress. He ties it more directly to the reader because it is talking about our future generations he suggest that the bigger countries jus have to give the poverty stricken country a push in the right direction. His argument is not convincing because if the governments are corrupt then richer countries can’t help because they can not completely change that government.
Post a Comment