This is one of those documentary films you simply must see. Instead of trying to shock you or force you to do a specific action, it leaves the viewer to make the decision. It is not about poverty as a whole, and it doesn't try to solve the problem entirely. Instead it is about poverty in Third World Countries. The film uses nothing but facts and logic to make clear that it is caused by Europe and the US, who first took the lives of many, then took the resources, then used religion and forced economy ("fair" trade & such) to make sure those countries will never recover and forever be in debt. It is very good that something makes you realize what our (well, at least recent) leaders had been doing without us knowing. Maybe we are just stupid, letting this happen, I don't know.

One of the strengths of this film in my eyes is that it highlights the connections among poverty, privilege, access to natural resources (including but not limited to land itself), joblessness, low wages and terrorism, and touches at least briefly on the fact that a relative few of us are consuming a hugely disproportionate share of the world's natural resources, thereby depriving others of their equal right to these resources, and depriving future generations.

Most people tend to think of these problems as intractable, and therefore devote themselves to charitable attempts to ameliorate their effects.

Poverty is a function of how we structure the world's economy -- what we permit to be privatized, and what we treat as common property. Most countries, including the US, permit the privatization of the economic value of natural resources (Alaska being perhaps an exception) and land value, and then socialize wages and tax sales.

The foundation which financed this production (Schalkenbach) comes from a different point of view. It was founded in the 1920s to promote the ideas of Henry George (b. Philadelphia, 1839; d. NYC, 1897), the author of "Progress and Poverty," the best-selling book ever on political economy, which, incidentally, comes from the same question as the film: "with so much wealth in the world, why is there still so much poverty?" To learn more about views of George's ideas, search on "quotable notables," "poverty think again" and "why global poverty." Look for his speeches, including "The Crime of Poverty." Like George's thought, TEOP? doesn't blame poverty's victims; it seeks to understand the systematic, structural aspects of poverty.

The film itself only hints at George's ideas (mostly in the interviews with Clifford Cobb) and seems to me to be designed to open our minds to asking better questions about poverty's causes. I found it rather effective. It is beautifully photographed, includes some memorable music and visual images, and makes effective use of legible subtitles for most of the speakers whose words or accents I had difficulty understanding; I liked that I could listen to their voices and intonation, rather than hearing a translator drowning them out.

Henry David Thoreau said "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The widely-discussed "solutions" to poverty -- micro-credit, malaria nets, small-scale clean water devices, general education, etc. -- nibble at the leaves of poverty. Henry George's ideas go to the root of the problem, and show us how to eradicate it. I hope this film will ultimately lead more people to ask the right questions and discover that root for themselves, and then, switching metaphors, to connect the dots and strike at the root, illuminated by George's insights to guide policy.

We CAN end poverty, but not in the ways we're currently going about it. We can also create a sustainable economy and environment.

Just watched it last night at the Athens International Film Festival. This is the kind of documentary I love! It gives you an excellent overview of how the so-called First World has been exploiting the natural resources and human labour of Third World countries for the past 500 years and how the economics and politics behind this brutal exploitation work. This movie is completely different to the Michael Moore-style documentaries that seem to dominate the scene nowadays. Rather than using populism to impress the audience, it presents its case by providing both the opinion of highly respected economists, authors and political advisors, as well as the view of third world people that have been actually experiencing the consequences of the neo-liberal policies. An insight on the methods used by the West (the US in particular) to promote and impose their preferred policies to Third World countries is one of the strongest points of this movie. I am not going to expand on that as I do not want to spoil it for you! In any case, this is a brilliant documentary worth seeing by anyone who has the slightest interest in politics and economics.

A good documentary about the causes, including root causes, of world poverty. Chiefly, the world's natural resources are controlled by a small number of rich governments and corporations, and whatever is necessary is done to maintain the status quo.

A solution to world poverty is beyond the scope of the film. It's beyond the power of everyone with such an ambition since ... whatever is necessary is done to maintain the status quo. The film does argue that the taxation of personal income needs to be vastly reduced in favour of increased taxes on land, particularly land containing natural resources; or the privatization of world's natural resources would need to end. But no-one sees this happening anytime soon.

It's possible to criticize the use of statistics which, without a tiresome definition of terms, comes across as a series of sweeping statements.

I had the privilege of watching this documentary at the African Film Festival here in New York City at Columbia University. It resonated with me. It was well done and provided vital information and perspective in relation to the way things have been structured. It is very easy to pass judgment on nations that are mired in poverty and resulting civil unrest and other ills, but producer Philippe Diaz brings forward a well put together valid explanation based on history that goes a long way in explaining what has brought them to this point.

The documentary takes you around the world to make its points. The long legacy of despair that afflicts nations in "the south" can be found on both sides of the Atlantic and even as far east as Indonesia; in other words, areas that were touched by the colonial grabbing arms of Europe.

It is definitely a documentary film I would recommend highly. Some may want to argue about the finer details. Some may want to provide a million different solutions or argue for this solution over that one. I'm not sure the director's intention was to provide solutions as much as he was trying to provide education and awareness in an appeal to conscience which in the end may spark ideas for solutions. Again, I would certainly recommend it and I commend everyone involved in the film's production. Certainly a must see!

I was somewhat amused to see the "leftist" criticism of this movie by Barry Freed. I have been involved with Marxist politics since 1967 and can assure IMDb readers that the movie is based on Marx's theory of primitive accumulation. My review begins here:

Scheduled for theatrical release in September 2009, Philippe Diaz's "The End of Poverty?" was a feature presentation at the 2008 African Diaspora Film Festival. After watching this documentary last night, I feel confident in stating that there is no sharper critic of the capitalist system in the film world than Philippe Diaz. This amazing movie not only explains how global inequality has its roots in 1492, but also allows the victims of "Western civilization" to speak for themselves. Indeed, the movie will remind you of Mahatma Gandhi's famous rely to a Western reporter who asked him what he thought of Western civilization. He answered, "I think it would be a good idea."

full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/the-end-of-poverty/

I saw this film at the African Diaspora Film Festival a few weeks ago. I consider myself fairly well read, and abreast on world news, but "The End of Poverty?" was a real eye-opener for me. I would highly recommend it to anyone who has any interest in the state of the world at large.

The film pinpoints the origins of the modern separation between the rich and the poor, and goes in depth explaining the barriers that are in place to only keep this gap growing larger over time. Citing many examples in countries all over the world, we're given a global tour of the state of poverty over the past three centuries.

It seems there have been complaints that not enough solutions to the question posed by the film have been offered up. I think the reason for this is fairly simple - there are no easy answers. There's no magic switch to be flipped to solve the problem, and even though theoretical answers are technically offered up by some of the experts interview throughout the documentary, I think the movie's intention was more to inform and start a dialogue than it was to propose a singular solution. Just my two cents.

Phillipe Diaz's "The End of Poverty?" pretends to take up the cause of the world's oppressed. According to the short plot summary (written by producer Beth Portello) which appears on the main IMDb page for this film, it was "Inspired by the works of 19th century economist Henry George, who examined the causes of industrial depressions." The fact that the film methodically ignores the contributions of the far more influential and widely celebrated 19th century investigator of industrial depressions and poverty, Karl Marx, is but one indication of this film's intellectually shoddy and ultimately dishonest character.

"The End of Poverty?" is structured as a series of three intermixed components, which goes on for nearly all of a seemingly endless 106 minutes: (1) interviews with impoverished people in the "Third World," which, here, is synonymous with the "South"; (2) interviews with historians, economists and political thinkers (mostly from the "First World") who sketch out some of the history of European colonialism and its effects on the colonized peoples and (3) full-screen, white-on-black statistical statements like "X percent of the world's people consume Y percent of the world's energy" etc. Along the way, some of the commentators point out that the rise of capitalism was based on — and a large share of its profits continues to be based on — the ruthless exploitation of the colonial world. Although the talking heads often use the circumspect word "system," references to "capitalism" appear more frequently as the film progresses. Thus, the viewer might reasonably expect the film to culminate with a call for the end (overthrow?) of the system which causes all this misery: capitalism. Don't hold your breath!

The film's portrait of the world's wretched is peculiarly skewed. Most of the interviews with poor people and footage of pitiful living conditions are from South America, notably Bolivia. The time allotted to Africa is a distant second and focuses on Kenya, with a much smaller Tanzanian component. There is precious little footage from — or mention of — Asia. Most of the interviewed poor are or were connected to the land in some way. Industrial workers are essentially ignored. Causes of poverty such as war and ethnic victimization are similarly overlooked. "Does poverty exist even within the over-consuming 'North' as well?" one might ask. As far as "The End of Poverty?" is concerned, the latter is invisible. Other viewers might be forgiven for wondering about the effects on poverty of the overthrow of capitalism in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba (the "Second World"?). Again, silence reigns. Thus, as a study of the world's misery, the film is impressively inadequate.

As the film enters its final stage, there is a half-hearted invocation of the long-forgotten U.S. economic philosopher, Henry George. In his 1879 "Progress and Poverty," George proposed that poverty could be eliminated(!) by the abolition of ground rent and of all taxes save one: a tax on land. Not only was this panacea unoriginal (it had been advocated for more than 50 years by the followers of classical British economist David Ricardo), it was wacky. Karl Marx thought that George's theory was "the more unpardonable in him because he ought to have put the question to himself in just the opposite way: How did it happen that in the United States, where . . . in comparison with civilised Europe, the land was accessible to the great mass of the people, . . . capitalist economy and the corresponding enslavement of the working class have developed more rapidly and shamelessly than in any other country!" For Marx, adherents of George's view ". . . try to bamboozle . . . the world into believing that if ground rent were transformed into a state tax, all the evils of capitalist production would disappear of themselves. The whole thing is therefore simply an attempt . . . to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one." (See Marx's letter to F. A. Sorge, June 20, 1881.) The film does not make so bold as to try to resurrect George's single-tax panacea. Instead, it offers an updated version: the "Commons" paradigm. Supporters of this liberal nostrum believe that the solution for the world's poor is to remove all of the land from private ownership and to hold it in common. Unsurprisingly, they do not explain how to achieve this little miracle.

In the film's last few minutes, some of the commentators raise the specter of the supposed limitations (as judged by what standard — present-day capitalist production?) of the world's resources and the excessive and unequal consumption of those resources by the "North." The real aim of Diaz & Co. here is to guilt-trip gullible people in the industrialized countries into adopting moralistic "use less energy" schemes, as if conscience-stricken lowering of consumption in the "First World" will magically increase consumption in the "Third." The accelerating global descent into depression, triggered by the unprecedentedly massive "mortgage securities" fraud perpetrated by the U.S.'s financial sector, will, no doubt, achieve Diaz's aim of lowering consumption in the "North." Does he actually believe this will benefit the world's poor?

For Diaz & Co., the "North" is an undifferentiated entity. Its working class, whose exploitation remains necessary for the survival of the capitalist system and which regularly loses some of its ranks into the maelstrom of poverty, does not figure in their calculations. And this is the most pernicious omission of their retreaded Malthusian ideology. For it is ONLY the working class of the developed countries — once it becomes conscious of its historic class interests — which has the SOCIAL POWER to reorganize production on a rationally-planned, world-wide, for-need basis, in order to lift itself AND the colonial masses out of the chain of misery. Because "The End of Poverty?" conceals this vital knowledge from anyone who is interested in ending poverty, it is, finally, an obstacle to achieving that goal.

Barry Freed

This documentary explores poverty as it exists today, and takes us through a historical account of how it came to be, as it is today(it does not go into the larger discussion of there having been different status levels and each having specific benefits(or limitations) as long as there have been even barely organized communities - this would require its own feature-length piece), across the world, not only in the US. It does so with personal interviews with economists with the perspective and who've studied the subject, and the individual workers and their families, who are living with the consequences of the irresponsible and callous actions of corporate leaders, banks and politicians. This engages with a healthy mix of facts and accounts(to keep it from getting dry or letting it become too theoretical, we have to remember that there are actual people suffering, and many of them, no less), and it keeps a nice pace throughout. It's well-edited. This really gets you wanting to solve the problem, and few will keep holding on to the opposing opinion after watching this. There is disturbing content in this. I recommend this to everyone. 7/10

The rich started taking advantage of the poor since the 16th century, when is agreed that capitalism was born (I would like to know what brilliant economic system ruled before that). According to the director's view and people interviewed for this documentary, colonialism is responsible for the division between north and south that we see today, and that's when capitalism starts. All the fault falls upon Spain, Portugal, Holland and England (but wasn't the US a former British colony? What about Australia? Maybe they were lucky they did not have any gold).

The message is correct: there is a huge gap between rich and poor. The system is a failure, as appropriately states John Perkins. But the director committed the mistake of showing less well-founded words from Amartya Sen and more of labor unionists and most-probably corrupt politicians of emerging countries, that use their speech to manipulate less-educated masses. There is much information with lack of basis in this doc. 1) Brazil does not have 50 million people starving but 13 million, as data from 2004. 2) India and China are not emerging economies because of communist protectionism (as mentions Cliff Cobb); on the contrary, they boomed only after they opened their markets. And 3) Germany is not the largest coffee exporter in the world. Those are things I knew, but because of that, I was skeptical about all the other information in the documentary.

Talk about poverty. But use the right data.

The longer I live the more I value history.

I am less distracted with the tiny incidents of current events when I understand the historic context.

Our current reality is the result of thousands of chains of events that stretch back in time.

I have come to especially value videos that tell the stories that go back hundreds of years.

This offers a summary of major events over the globe during the centuries.

I do not agree with all that is said here but many major parts of the mural of history are presented well.

I'm not really sure why those who made "The End of Poverty?" felt compelled to include a question mark in their title, since around 90% of the movie is devoted to defining the problem and only about 10% to offering solutions.

For much of the movie, director Philippe Diaz and narrator Martin Sheen keep hitting us with a litany of shocking and depressing statistics: that over 9,000,000 people die of starvation each year, that millions around the world earn less than a dollar a day, and that 60 to 80 million people work for nothing but room and board, making them virtual slaves in a 21st Century world. And that's just for starters. And just as you're about ready to throw in the towel and declare there's no hope for the world, the interviewees begin exploring possible answers (a fairer tax structure, returning land ownership to indigenous peoples, etc.), but it still seems an insurmountable task overall.

On an instructional level, the movie traces the roots of modern poverty to the colonial era that began with the discovery of America, when countries - and now mega-corporations with no moral compass beyond the bottom-line - could exploit someone else's resources and amass huge stores of wealth at the expense of the lower classes. And that doesn't even include the robbing of the culture and the feeling of self-worth from the indigenous peoples of these lands.

Diaz shows how the "haves" in the Northern Hemisphere have built and continue to build their fortunes primarily on the backs of the "have-nots" in the Southern Hemisphere. He interviews both economic theoreticians and common folk struggling for survival in both South America and Africa to drive home his point. He provides example upon example of how the policies of First World nations - neo-liberalism, unfettered free trade, multinational corporatism - have devastated the economies and peoples of the Third World.

It's a depressing experience sitting through this film, but the shards of hope it provides towards the end do provide some comfort. And you might even be inspired enough to rouse yourself off the sofa and work on doing something about the problem. Now, if only anyone knew what that solution was.

Louis Proyect's objection to Barry Freed's scathing critique of this movie is that it mentions primitive accumulation, and that this is a Marxist theory. Fair enough. However, one of the problems with the film is that it never STOPS being about primitive accumulation. The filmmakers indulge themselves in a kind of 21st century, post-modern romantic nationalism, which blames, the words of one of them tonight where I saw the film, the "overconsumption" of the First World--every single member of the First World, even the starving children in Harlem and Bed Stuy and Appalachia?!--for the problem of poverty in the Third World.

Freed is correct to argue that this doesn't give us much in the way of practical solutions, and nothing approaching the Marxist strategy of workers revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. Indeed one of the experts interviewed poo poos the very idea of communism, as Freed points out. It's just unthinkable, he says or implies.

Freed's review however, is only half right--the first half. The second half indulges in the curious notion that once the workers take over, all the scarcities, the Limits to Growth, the finiteness of energy resources, and environmental problems we see today under capitalist industry will somehow magically disappear in a puff of (genie?) smoke, and that anyone who questions the rather questionable idea that technology under workers control will solve all our present problems with overuse of resources, global warming, and pollution--well such sceptics are nothing but "Malthusians." Somebody in the audience during the Q&A period expressed this point of view as well. Marxists really sell themselves short and come off like muddle headed ignoramuses when they talk like this. This isn't science--this is wishful thinking.

I am not able to re-recite the economic views expressed in this film, and although a lot of things have changed globally since 2008, many of the corrupted activities cited in this film are still occurring. It both saddens me and enlivens me to be aware of the poverty cycle in our world because at some point, it seems hopeless and yet curiously easy to fix. I would love to continue sharing this great film because it's documentation is so important in educating people and maybe enough to motivate positive change in our lifetimes. Thank you for shedding some light with this film! Here's to a brighter tomorrow.

"In a world with so much wealth, in modern cities, and so many resources, how can we still have so much poverty where so many people must live on less than one dollar per day?"

Poverty is an issue that is currently affecting billions of families and individuals. I came from a third world country where poverty is extremely common. I grew up witnessing neighbors struggling and parents losing their jobs and not being able to make enough money in order for their family to live with dignity. Mothers were forced to stay home and take care of the house, while fathers were the breadwinners of the family. In the documentary "The end of Poverty" the director, Phillipe Diaz, discusses poverty as an issue that is pervasive all across the globe. In his documentary, he focuses on the slums of Africa and the barrios of South America to elucidate poverty to the world. We are reminded that families are facing destitution and due to this children are forced to neglect school because they must help their families and cannot afford an education.

Poverty has been affecting the world for over five hundred years. Conquistadores and colonizers roamed South America, Asia, and Africa, robbing lower class families of their land. For example, at the end of the colonial era in Kenya, one percent of the white population owned about fifty percent of the arable land. The conquistadors and colonizers imposed severe taxes on huts and forced lower class people into harsh labor. This can be closely connected to slavery. In today's world, poverty is still a penetrating issue, as third world countries are still plagued by inequitable debts, trade, and tax policies. Rich countries take advantage of third world countries, by ensuring and benefiting off of their underdevelopment. Landowners are still in possession of land that does not belong to them but in reality to the poor people. The poor continue to be perpetually oppressed throughout the world.

Individuals are still forced to work in inhumane conditions, being treated immorally, and are not receiving appropriate salaries. It is estimated that 60 to 80 million people still continue to work in dystopia societies, as they are living in slave like worlds and depend heavily on the little money they earn to support their families. In Brazil, seventeen workers died from exhaustion and another 490 as a result of their slave-like employment, which entails sugar application. One of the workers explained the need to wake up at 1 am, in order to eat breakfast to begin working at 3:30 am. They spend hours cutting bundles and working insufferably hard to solely earn a paltry amount of 27.50 dollars per month. In less than four hours of making pizzas at work, I am able to make about the same amount of money, if not more, than these individuals who endure hard labor under the scorching sun.

An article posted by CNN stated that forty percent of the food in the United States is thrown out, which is approximately 165 billion dollars squandered each year. Furthermore, about twelve percent of fresh fruit at supermarket goes to waste. It pains me to realize that so much food is discarded and wasted each year in this country, while people are dying of hunger every day and parents are risking their lives to put food on the table for their children. The documentary states that "less than 5% of the world population lives in United States, and we consume 25% of the world's resources, and creating 30% of the world pollution," which indicates that poverty is not about the lack of resources, but rather the distribution of resources.

The documentary includes many experts such as, economists, authors, university professors, government ministers, Bolivia's vice president, and Brazilian activists. Phillipe Diaz succeeded in giving a voice to people affected by poverty and through allowing us, the viewers, to witness their daily struggles. I was extremely distressed when seeing individuals, wearing ripped clothes, discuss the grueling labor that they endure to earn less than a dollar and the starving children that yearn for an education. It is often the case that we forget our privilege and victimize our situations and ourselves. It is only when we watch documentaries, such as this one, do we understand the harsh reality that many individuals actually face. While watching this documentary, I experienced the very emotions that the director had intended for. In an interview with a kid from Kenya, he talked about having to give up on school because his parents could not afford to pay for the test to attend school. Mr. Diaz is implying that man created poverty; therefore man can end it, that it is the duty of the privileged to consider the struggles of the working poor and seek to alleviate them, by helping to create an egalitarian society.

Global poverty did not just happen. Yet the overwhelming magnitude of poverty seems unsolvable. Can we really end poverty within our current economic system?

In this award-winning documentary, narrated by Martin Sheen, we see the historical foundation that, for over five centuries, laid the groundwork for today's financial crisis. It began with military conquest, slavery and colonization (often in the spirit of missionary zeal) that resulted in the seizure of land and minerals and in forced labor. Today, the problem persists because of the structuring of debt, trade and tax policies. The "End of Poverty" (2009) reveals a co- dependency in which the southern hemisphere provides cheap resources for the northern hemisphere without a way out of financial indebtedness and towards economic independence. The dependency is necessary to prop up the industrialized nation's standard of living. Read my detailed review at: www.unhealedwound.com (July 27, 2014)!