But how does one define poverty?

On the surface, it seems like the answer ought to be fairly obvious since the question is rather simple.

Or is it really that simple to actually define poverty in a very real sense?

Simplistic as it sounds, defining what poverty can really is can be as onerous as it is politically incorrect.

So how about this definition:

Poverty is the absence of wealth.

And this interpretation is not intended to be an Augustinian theodicy (like evil is the absence of good) but rather a blunt and frank explanation about the implications of poverty.

Overall, it is amazing that the media attention seems to avoid the issue of wealth. Sure, it is easy to say that if wealth can be redistributed from the rich countries and given to the poor countries, that the problem would be solved. And this is the popular approach taken by the activists and celebrities.

Take from the rich and give to the poor in the form of aid, debt forgiveness, and other forms of aid.

But does that really solve the problem of global poverty?

There are a number of impoverished countries that already have vast natural resources yet their populations are still mired in the scourge of human suffering. Look at Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, and even Mexico. Those are oil rich countries yet all of their wealth has been squandered with not a whole lot to show for it.

In fact, Norway is about the only oil rich democracy that has truly reaped the benefits of its natural resources to develop a prosperous economy.

Yes, there are other oil rich countries that have done very well such as Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, and others but they are not democracies. In fact the brutal irony is that many of the authoritarian governments did go on to achieve financial success in their economies while nearly all of the corrupt democracies wasted their wealth.

Tragically, countries like Mexico have almost depleted their entire petroleum fields and will have to begin importing oil in the near future. Mexico is a socialist country that blatantly loathed the free markets and big corporations of its United States neighbor. In fact, Mexico as a society and as a government resents the intrusion of foreigners, such as the United States, especially when it comes to reaping its natural resources.

Yet, all of that wealth still has been wasted.

As for other resources, Zimbabwe was once the breadbasket of Africa. Today, famine is widespread and Zimbabwe must now import its own food. Unfortunately, there are just too many examples of this kind of waste.

And what about the nations that do not have any abundant natural resources?

Japan and Singapore have also done very well for themselves. The former, a democracy, and the latter, an authoritarian regime has little in natural resources and must import almost everything they consume. However, its financial success is enormous.

These examples illustrate that wealth is actually an elusive state.

Wealth can and cannot solve poverty. Aid can be given to a country and have its national debt forgiven but that does not guarantee that it can be prosperous. Only its leaders and its people can ensure that. Aid and debt relief can only go so far if the elements for prosperity are not available.

And wealth is not a dirty word.

Wealth is necessary for the prosperity of a country. Wealth does not have to be derived from ill-gotten means but it can evolve from its lowest form to an acceptable standard of living. It is foolish to think that prosperity can happen overnight. It has to be developed and harnessed over generations much like the way that the United States became an economic powerhouse.

A nation can forge itself an economy that can produce goods and services that can sustain itself especially in cooperation with the rest of the world. But therein lies the rub. Activists tend to hate wealth as much as they hate poverty.

Although the free market can create a huge middle class, it can also create rich people. And that is what really generates the opposition to free enterprise. Somehow, if someone dared to take a risk and that risk handsomely paid off in the form of profits, then why can't that person enjoy the fruits of his or her labor without being viewed as a criminal especially if he or she hasn't done anything wrong?.

And even if success is obtained justly, then why can’t wealth just be given away?

Well, wealth has been given away in vast foreign aid packages and in debt relief. There are plenty of countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and others that have taken the aid packages to create thriving and prosperous economies.

But that is where the political correctness of today's modern era steps in. Is it really fair to blame a poor person for being poor? Not necessarily, if that person has been given the tools to pull himself out of poverty but refused to properly utilize them. And admittedly, there are exceptions to everything.

But why is it easy to blame the rich nations as the activists and celebrities have done instead of discussing any responsibilities and obligations that a poor country has in adequately administering the aid packages and debt relief it has already obtained?

It is time for the activists and celebrities to grow up. Wealth is not the same thing as corruption although often times it is viewed as one in the same.

Corruption does exist in an enormous scale and it has ruined countries that did have abundant national resources such as Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc. But wealth has also succeeded in a number of other countries as well. Wealth has forged a civilization and created enormous opportunity for the rest of the world.

Abject poverty can be greatly alleviated only if corruption and dishonesty are removed from the countries that need the most help since that is what destroys an economy, not wealth.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.