[citation needed], both for the figure, and the assessment that it isn't a small amount of money.
Take note that money has to come from somewhere. A large chunk of the opposition to universal health care is "why the hell is the government using my taxes to pay for these deadbeats?". And there's also the the "fix our country's economy/hunger/homeless first before you even think of helping other countries!" And finally there's the "I'd rather throw away my produce rather than sell cheap and cause market prices to crash."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
[citation needed], both for the figure, and the assessment that it isn't a small amount of money.
Take note that money has to come from somewhere. A large chunk of the opposition to universal health care is "why the hell is the government using my taxes to pay for these deadbeats?". And there's also the the "fix our country's economy/hunger/homeless first before you even think of helping other countries!" And finally there's the "I'd rather throw away my produce rather than sell cheap and cause market prices to crash."
And I said 30 billion IS a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things. In the US the GDP is 15.6 trillion. From Trading economics.
The US is the largest economic powerhouse in the world right now but that doesn't discount the resources of the other countries as well. Then there is unnacounted for personal fortunes. All in all its far less than .001% of the world's resources.
I understand why there are people who oppose it on the basis that they have no responsibility to uphold a moral decision like this and I'm not here advocating a method to end hunger.
I am just posing the question of why something hasn't been done. Its spare change in the grand scheme of things.
It is estimated that it would only take 30 Billion dollars a year to eradicate world hunger and poverty. That is rather small amount of money.
I agree with the call for citation here, but I also know that in the grand scheme of the world 30 billion a year is a small amount of money.
The reality is though that hunger is an economic and political tool, just like other hotbed issues based around necessities of life, cultural issues, etc. Until the world gets the idea that businesses and politicians use these to their advantage and want them addressed but never fully resolved, this will continue to exist.
Talk of eradicating world hunger is a noble thing that never takes anything but baby steps towards being done because doing so would take away tools of economic and political leverage. That dangling carrot just can't ever be taken away because business and politics has evolved(devolved?) into needing it in perpetuity.
The next big worldwide political revolution will be either towards a firmer grip on that carrot by those who need it most or towards taking it and the abusive context of it away by the people regardless of what country they live in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
Whats amazing, America trimming its defense spending a bit could feed the world and eliminate one of the world problems, yet we continue to build up a huge defense to save use from..................:-/ Yeah, I dont get it either.
this is a complicated subject. I would have to find it again, but in the US we do produce enough food to actually feed the majority if not close to all the world.
The problem in the US is that we pay farmers not to grow crops. also i think 50% of the corn that we produce goes to fuel 40% of the soy beans to go produce feed for cattle.
not to mention that wheat and other base types of food fields are not planted.
they are paid to do it by the government as a form of price control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Your assertion that "money has to come from somewhere" is a falsehood. There is a printing press used by the American Treasury and a loans office in the Chinese government that disagrees with you.
Additionally, to present a "devil's advocate" opinon; based on the American GDP (15.8 trillion) and our commitment to making the world a better place, couldn't we just apply a minute tax to all money made and stop world hunger permanently? Why hasn't anyone thought of this?
Your assertion that "money has to come from somewhere" is a falsehood. There is a printing press used by the American Treasury and a loans office in the Chinese government that disagrees with you.
Additionally, to present a "devil's advocate" opinon; based on the American GDP (15.8 trillion) and our commitment to making the world a better place, couldn't we just apply a minute tax to all money made and stop world hunger permanently? Why hasn't anyone thought of this?
/sarcasm
You hate to love me
You're being sarcastic, but one could actually apply a minute (even as low as 0.05%) tax on all financial trades and make quite a bit of money that way. Not to mention that if basic nutrition were guaranteed for every human on the planet, we'd see some pretty massive increases in economic activity both supply-side and demand-side.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Whats amazing, America trimming its defense spending a bit could feed the world and eliminate one of the world problems, yet we continue to build up a huge defense to save use from..................:-/ Yeah, I dont get it either.
How do you distribute food to the starving people when the dictators take it from them as a form of control. Oh yea, you shoot the dictators which requires a military. (This is a tongue in cheek argument not weighing in on defense spending which is mostly a personnel issue.)
The problem is not growing and buying the food. The problem is getting it to the hungry people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Turns out that if you increase food stability, education and access to contraceptives, population growth tends to slow down and/or become negative as people focus on careers rather than making sure they have enough children to support them in old age.
Also, drug use tends to be associated with people attempting to escape their terrible and/or boring lives, so as long as the entire population of earth doesn't go immediately from starvation to idle-wealth you probably won't have to worry too much about crack abuse.
Turns out that if you increase food stability, education and access to contraceptives, population growth tends to slow down and/or become negative as people focus on careers rather than making sure they have enough children to support them in old age.
Yeah, it's almost as if people generally want to give their children the most love and attention possible, and not (ceteris paribus) have as many as they can.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Whats amazing, America trimming its defense spending a bit could feed the world and eliminate one of the world problems, yet we continue to build up a huge defense to save use from..................:-/ Yeah, I dont get it either.
How do you distribute food to the starving people when the dictators take it from them as a form of control. Oh yea, you shoot the dictators which requires a military. (This is a tongue in cheek argument not weighing in on defense spending which is mostly a personnel issue.)
The problem is not growing and buying the food. The problem is getting it to the hungry people.
By most estimates around 2/3 of the starving people in the world live in regions with no stability issues.
So while yes, we couldn't get it to zero without some level of intervention we could at least get it to zero in the safe nations before having to worry about intervention on top of it.
Hell, we still have starvation in the US today. (Which of course fixing that would be step #1 to me)
Whats amazing, America trimming its defense spending a bit could feed the world and eliminate one of the world problems, yet we continue to build up a huge defense to save use from..................:-/ Yeah, I dont get it either.
How do you distribute food to the starving people when the dictators take it from them as a form of control. Oh yea, you shoot the dictators which requires a military. (This is a tongue in cheek argument not weighing in on defense spending which is mostly a personnel issue.)
The problem is not growing and buying the food. The problem is getting it to the hungry people.
Which I agree with, but no action in most cases is worse then trying and not meeting the needs of everyone.
Quote from Vaclav »
Hell, we still have starvation in the US today. (Which of course fixing that would be step #1 to me)
Something else I agree strongly with but we both know there are people living among us that dont care about their fellow man and country men. We should have solved the hunger issues in America, decades ago,the world, not to long after, but there is no profit in helping people so we both know it wont happen.
What is the UN doing with the (7?) billion the US gives annually?
This sounds like a world systemic issue that isn't as easy as "throw money at the problem" and is more about the UN's ability to solvie world poverty... an arrogant claim at best without some HARD evidence to back it up.
30 billion is a very small amount of money to end world hunger. If every American gave up around a hundred bucks a year, they could meet that sum.
So why aren't we doing it?
Because the problem to end world hunger has never been about not having enough food, or having enough money for the food.
You may as well try to say, with only 1000 trucks a year, we could end all hunger in north america. From a shipping capacity perspective, you might be right, but thats not the bottleneck.
How are you going to feed people who live in war torn nations, without any stable government, overrun by warlords in continents across an oceans, without controlling their jurisdiction.
Let me analogize another way:
If your neighbor's kid went hungry, can you just walk into your neighbor's house and feed their kids? Your neighbors kids go hungry while you have left overs. Production wise, you may have enough food to go around. You might even be able to let little Timmy come over for dinner now and then. You might treat him when he hangs out with your kids.
But at the end of the day, unless you adopt little Timmy, he is not under your direct control...and that creates major, even unsolvable impediments to you getting your leftovers to him.
What is the UN doing with the (7?) billion the US gives annually?
The US government gives about $32,000,000,000 a year in foreign humanitarian aid, $14,000,000,000 of which is USAID money. Private charity in the US gives a further $10,000,000,000 (lowball figure).
So the United States is footing the vast majority of this bill already. Wealthy nations don't do enough? Please. The problem is clearly not one of financial liquidity or generosity.
Hell, we still have starvation in the US today. (Which of course fixing that would be step #1 to me)
I really would like links to any study showing there is "starvation" in the US that can't be corrected by already existing programs. I'm not talking "oh I got hungry once in the last month" I'm talking "starvation" which is the word you used.
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
What is the UN doing with the (7?) billion the US gives annually?
The US government gives about $32,000,000,000 a year in foreign humanitarian aid, $14,000,000,000 of which takes the form of USAID food aid. Private charity in the US gives a further $10,000,000,000 (lowball figure).
So the United States is footing the vast majority of this bill already. Wealthy nations don't do enough? Please. The problem is clearly not one of financial liquidity or generosity.
I was talking about what we give the UN alone, because they're the ones claiming they can end world hunger. They just need a measly extra 30 billion? Great. Where did they get that number? What's this amazing plan and how does it get implemented?
Otherwise, thanks for the figures. Nice to see those numbers spelled out. It puts quite the bee in my bonnet to hear Americans so often painted as selfish warmongering imperialists.
Originally Posted by billydaman What happens when overpopulation occurs?
For someone who feels education is so important, I am surprised you made this comment. Over population is a side effect of medical advancements and poor education. Cut the funding to medical advancements and educate people and we should not have to ever worry about over population.
30 billion is a very small amount of money to end world hunger. If every American gave up around a hundred bucks a year, they could meet that sum.
So why aren't we doing it?
Because the problem to end world hunger has never been about not having enough food, or having enough money for the food.
You may as well try to say, with only 1000 trucks a year, we could end all hunger in north america. From a shipping capacity perspective, you might be right, but thats not the bottleneck.
How are you going to feed people who live in war torn nations, without any stable government, overrun by warlords in continents across an oceans, without controlling their jurisdiction.
Let me analogize another way:
If your neighbor's kid went hungry, can you just walk into your neighbor's house and feed their kids? Your neighbors kids go hungry while you have left overs. Production wise, you may have enough food to go around. You might even be able to let little Timmy come over for dinner now and then. You might treat him when he hangs out with your kids.
But at the end of the day, unless you adopt little Timmy, he is not under your direct control...and that creates major, even unsolvable impediments to you getting your leftovers to him.
I couldn't agree more.
It's not the food, or the money. It's the Empire. There isn't one.
You want to end world hunger, or some other ill.
To follow Tomcats analogy.
The Man in the Mansion lives a few miles outside a city, and wants to end the poverty, hunger, and sex trade going on in that city.
He set up some charities, and he set up some helpful programs. However, some neighborhoods are run by the gangs, lack funding or police presence, or there are just too many that need help.
Poverty, hunger, and the sex trade continue to persist despite his other efforts.
He's left with the only remaining option.
Take over the town.
The answer is not 30 billion dollars. It's a one world government, with a "police force" capable of maintaining the presence of force in order to help those who need it, while suppressing resistance.
Is that really something we want? It would require so much more control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The answer is not 30 billion dollars. It's a one world government, with a "police force" capable of maintaining the presence of force in order to help those who need it, while suppressing resistance.
Is that really something we want? It would require so much more control.
Depends on what good it does. Genuine global co-operation to end hunger and malnutrition sounds fairly worth it. "Suppressing resistance", okay, why is there resistance and what form does the suppression take? If it's people who want to stop others from being fed then I don't care that they are suppressed. Frankly, their suppression would be good. But how? And why is that method chosen?
The resistance is those warlords, despots, dictators.
While I agree that stopping those people who perpetuate the suffering is a good thing - we're talking going into North Korea, Somalia, and a couple dozen other countries and ousting their leaders.
Sure, those leaders might be warlords, or whatever, but they still have the control over the region.
When we were doing food drops in north Africa, the starving weren't getting it. The armed warlords were.
I agree with you in principle, that suppressing the "resistance" is good.
The problem is that it means a bunch of little wars all over the place, and building an one world government. Even if we call it something like "Coalition of Untied Societies" whatever we call it is only so that it sounds less like the NWO.
What kind of bloated government would that kind of world require?
I promise, it will look worse than 1984 - (which I would argue we are already approaching and maybe surpassed)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The resistance is those warlords, despots, dictators.
While I agree that stopping those people who perpetuate the suffering is a good thing - we're talking going into North Korea, Somalia, and a couple dozen other countries and ousting their leaders.
Sure, those leaders might be warlords, or whatever, but they still have the control over the region.
When we were doing food drops in north Africa, the starving weren't getting it. The armed warlords were.
I agree with you in principle, that suppressing the "resistance" is good.
The problem is that it means a bunch of little wars all over the place, and building an one world government. Even if we call it something like "Coalition of Untied Societies" whatever we call it is only so that it sounds less like the NWO.
What kind of bloated government would that kind of world require?
I promise, it will look worse than 1984 - (which I would argue we are already approaching and maybe surpassed)
So in other words, the only solution to minimizing all the world's problems is a universal totalitarian government forcing everyone to play nice in the sandbox...
Or... completely defy Prisoner's Dilema, and take it upon ourselves to come together and not be asshats to each other.
Take note that money has to come from somewhere. A large chunk of the opposition to universal health care is "why the hell is the government using my taxes to pay for these deadbeats?". And there's also the the "fix our country's economy/hunger/homeless first before you even think of helping other countries!" And finally there's the "I'd rather throw away my produce rather than sell cheap and cause market prices to crash."
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
New York Times: Solving Food Crisis
And I said 30 billion IS a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things. In the US the GDP is 15.6 trillion. From Trading economics.
The US is the largest economic powerhouse in the world right now but that doesn't discount the resources of the other countries as well. Then there is unnacounted for personal fortunes. All in all its far less than .001% of the world's resources.
I understand why there are people who oppose it on the basis that they have no responsibility to uphold a moral decision like this and I'm not here advocating a method to end hunger.
I am just posing the question of why something hasn't been done. Its spare change in the grand scheme of things.
I agree with the call for citation here, but I also know that in the grand scheme of the world 30 billion a year is a small amount of money.
The reality is though that hunger is an economic and political tool, just like other hotbed issues based around necessities of life, cultural issues, etc. Until the world gets the idea that businesses and politicians use these to their advantage and want them addressed but never fully resolved, this will continue to exist.
Talk of eradicating world hunger is a noble thing that never takes anything but baby steps towards being done because doing so would take away tools of economic and political leverage. That dangling carrot just can't ever be taken away because business and politics has evolved(devolved?) into needing it in perpetuity.
The next big worldwide political revolution will be either towards a firmer grip on that carrot by those who need it most or towards taking it and the abusive context of it away by the people regardless of what country they live in.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
They dont make enough for you to care anyway.
Whats amazing, America trimming its defense spending a bit could feed the world and eliminate one of the world problems, yet we continue to build up a huge defense to save use from..................:-/ Yeah, I dont get it either.
The problem in the US is that we pay farmers not to grow crops. also i think 50% of the corn that we produce goes to fuel 40% of the soy beans to go produce feed for cattle.
not to mention that wheat and other base types of food fields are not planted.
they are paid to do it by the government as a form of price control.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Your assertion that "money has to come from somewhere" is a falsehood. There is a printing press used by the American Treasury and a loans office in the Chinese government that disagrees with you.
Additionally, to present a "devil's advocate" opinon; based on the American GDP (15.8 trillion) and our commitment to making the world a better place, couldn't we just apply a minute tax to all money made and stop world hunger permanently? Why hasn't anyone thought of this?
/sarcasm
You hate to love me
You're being sarcastic, but one could actually apply a minute (even as low as 0.05%) tax on all financial trades and make quite a bit of money that way. Not to mention that if basic nutrition were guaranteed for every human on the planet, we'd see some pretty massive increases in economic activity both supply-side and demand-side.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
How do you distribute food to the starving people when the dictators take it from them as a form of control. Oh yea, you shoot the dictators which requires a military. (This is a tongue in cheek argument not weighing in on defense spending which is mostly a personnel issue.)
The problem is not growing and buying the food. The problem is getting it to the hungry people.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Get your guns, it's hunting season...
Believe the hype!
Also, drug use tends to be associated with people attempting to escape their terrible and/or boring lives, so as long as the entire population of earth doesn't go immediately from starvation to idle-wealth you probably won't have to worry too much about crack abuse.
Art is life itself.
Yeah, it's almost as if people generally want to give their children the most love and attention possible, and not (ceteris paribus) have as many as they can.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
By most estimates around 2/3 of the starving people in the world live in regions with no stability issues.
So while yes, we couldn't get it to zero without some level of intervention we could at least get it to zero in the safe nations before having to worry about intervention on top of it.
Hell, we still have starvation in the US today. (Which of course fixing that would be step #1 to me)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Which I agree with, but no action in most cases is worse then trying and not meeting the needs of everyone.
Something else I agree strongly with but we both know there are people living among us that dont care about their fellow man and country men. We should have solved the hunger issues in America, decades ago,the world, not to long after, but there is no profit in helping people so we both know it wont happen.
This sounds like a world systemic issue that isn't as easy as "throw money at the problem" and is more about the UN's ability to solvie world poverty... an arrogant claim at best without some HARD evidence to back it up.
So why aren't we doing it?
Because the problem to end world hunger has never been about not having enough food, or having enough money for the food.
You may as well try to say, with only 1000 trucks a year, we could end all hunger in north america. From a shipping capacity perspective, you might be right, but thats not the bottleneck.
How are you going to feed people who live in war torn nations, without any stable government, overrun by warlords in continents across an oceans, without controlling their jurisdiction.
Let me analogize another way:
If your neighbor's kid went hungry, can you just walk into your neighbor's house and feed their kids? Your neighbors kids go hungry while you have left overs. Production wise, you may have enough food to go around. You might even be able to let little Timmy come over for dinner now and then. You might treat him when he hangs out with your kids.
But at the end of the day, unless you adopt little Timmy, he is not under your direct control...and that creates major, even unsolvable impediments to you getting your leftovers to him.
The US government gives about $32,000,000,000 a year in foreign humanitarian aid, $14,000,000,000 of which is USAID money. Private charity in the US gives a further $10,000,000,000 (lowball figure).
So the United States is footing the vast majority of this bill already. Wealthy nations don't do enough? Please. The problem is clearly not one of financial liquidity or generosity.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I really would like links to any study showing there is "starvation" in the US that can't be corrected by already existing programs. I'm not talking "oh I got hungry once in the last month" I'm talking "starvation" which is the word you used.
I was talking about what we give the UN alone, because they're the ones claiming they can end world hunger. They just need a measly extra 30 billion? Great. Where did they get that number? What's this amazing plan and how does it get implemented?
Otherwise, thanks for the figures. Nice to see those numbers spelled out. It puts quite the bee in my bonnet to hear Americans so often painted as selfish warmongering imperialists.
For someone who feels education is so important, I am surprised you made this comment. Over population is a side effect of medical advancements and poor education. Cut the funding to medical advancements and educate people and we should not have to ever worry about over population.
I couldn't agree more.
It's not the food, or the money. It's the Empire. There isn't one.
You want to end world hunger, or some other ill.
To follow Tomcats analogy.
The Man in the Mansion lives a few miles outside a city, and wants to end the poverty, hunger, and sex trade going on in that city.
He set up some charities, and he set up some helpful programs. However, some neighborhoods are run by the gangs, lack funding or police presence, or there are just too many that need help.
Poverty, hunger, and the sex trade continue to persist despite his other efforts.
He's left with the only remaining option.
Take over the town.
The answer is not 30 billion dollars. It's a one world government, with a "police force" capable of maintaining the presence of force in order to help those who need it, while suppressing resistance.
Is that really something we want? It would require so much more control.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The resistance is those warlords, despots, dictators.
While I agree that stopping those people who perpetuate the suffering is a good thing - we're talking going into North Korea, Somalia, and a couple dozen other countries and ousting their leaders.
Sure, those leaders might be warlords, or whatever, but they still have the control over the region.
When we were doing food drops in north Africa, the starving weren't getting it. The armed warlords were.
I agree with you in principle, that suppressing the "resistance" is good.
The problem is that it means a bunch of little wars all over the place, and building an one world government. Even if we call it something like "Coalition of Untied Societies" whatever we call it is only so that it sounds less like the NWO.
What kind of bloated government would that kind of world require?
I promise, it will look worse than 1984 - (which I would argue we are already approaching and maybe surpassed)
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
So in other words, the only solution to minimizing all the world's problems is a universal totalitarian government forcing everyone to play nice in the sandbox...
Or... completely defy Prisoner's Dilema, and take it upon ourselves to come together and not be asshats to each other.
I wonder which is more likely.