Hmmm

Is there a need for poverty...? I mean What is the need of eradicating poverty?

Poverty is easily removed, it's one of the many problems in which money can solve, and if money can solve it, then it really isn't a problem. If I remember correctly, Bill Gates is so rich that he can give £5 to every one person. And he's just one person....So eradicating poverty eh....

Unless of couse there's a darker side to it...

Throught recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there has always been three kinds of people, The High, Middle and the Low.. They have been subdivided in many ways, many have countless diffenernt names too, and their relative numbers as well as their attiude towards one another have vaired forom age to age....

But the High, Middle and Low is essential to society, this caste system is the structure of socity...and has never been altered, even after changes, rebels, roits, whatever....the same pattern has always reasserted itself, and will always to so..

The aim of the High, well is to remain high (durh), the middle is to change with the High, and the low...well if they want to have an aim, to create a society in which everyone is equal...<--the riot lot.
...always, the middle will swap with the high and the low....well the lucky some will go to the middle, and basicly everything stays the same. hiearachical society.

Perhaps the answer is fairly obvious, it's clear than an all-round increase in wealth threated the destruction of a hiearachical society . In a world in which everyone worked shorter hours, and enought to eat, lived witha house, and anything they want, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inquality would of been gone. It is possible without doubt to imagine a society in which wealth can be evenly distributed, yet it is not so....
If power should while remained in the hands of a small privileged caste, in practice, such a society would not long remain stable. If leisure and security were enjoyed by everyone, then the great mass of people would become educated, other words literate and would learn to think for themselves (uh oh...) and when they have done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function and they would...well simply sweep it away.
Basicly for a hierarchial society running was only possilbe on the basis of poverty and ignorance. Sad times.

Of couse, Leaders are obliged to prevent their followers from strving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenitent but once that minimum is achieved, taht can twist reality into whatever shape they want.

Back to that hiearachical society thing....If you leave all the Highs to goven the world (other words, if everyone is rich...blah...blah, and have everything they want), and leave them arricultural and industrial things to do....and they were left to mange their own affairs, the result is pretty obivous. The land woudn't be exactly fulfilled, they would be strikes in factories; the laws will be set at naught, and orders disobeyed. All the people will be detailing for a spell of low grade work is perpetually intriguiing for "high-grade jobs" and people with high-grade jobs will be counterintriguing at all costs to stay wher they are. In short, evetunally a "first-class" civil war.
Or think about it in a political sense..."Communism" Where everyone is "euqal" and share the same in everything, ecomically, this would do the county wonders....but if a Doctor earns as much as a (say) sweage worker, why go through the effect in training as a Doctor if they both earn the same amout?

Poverty to keep people in line...eh?

Hmm....Perhaps that explains the need for poverty...?

Probably not.