Could Just 4% of the Wall Street Bailout End World Hunger?
World hunger seems like one of those grand unsolvable problems ““ the perennial favorite wish of beauty pageant queens. The truth is, it’s not unsolvable at all.
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that it would only take $30 billion a year to launch the necessary agricultural programs to completely solve global food insecurity. (Severe hunger afflicts 862 million people annually.)
$30 billion sounds like a lot of money, but considering we’ve just bailed out Wall Street to the tune of nearly a trillion, it’s trifling. After I did a little digging, all I could think was…really? $30 billion is all we need to end world hunger? That’s it? I thought such a major goal would require some unreachable, vast sum. Here are six things I learned we’re doing with that money instead.
Global military and arms trade expenditures hit high at about $1 trillion annually. Approximately $540 billion is spent by the United States alone. (I don’t mean to single out defense here, but…wow!)
The United States Department of Energy spends $23.4 billion yearly just to develop and maintain nuclear warheads.
How could we forget the recent $700 (and growing) billion housing bailout bill? In other words, 4% of the Wall Street bailout would end world hunger.
The U.S. Congress has approved $44 billion of U.S. funds for Iraqi construction projects (meanwhile, 39% of bridges in the United States have been deemed structurally deficient ““ but that’s another story. Am I being partisan?)
$30 billion was spent on Homeland Security in 2008, and they’re requesting $35 billion for 2009.
Lest we pick on ourselves only, residents of the United Kingdom waste about ₤20 billion worth of food every year. That translates to about $31.7 billion U.S. dollars.
You’ll notice that the big spenders are on corporations, defense and military organizations, but in my research I didn’t intend to focus on this. It’s just what we spend on! I can’t help but think that if we could channel even a few of those war dollars into peace spending (like helping alleviate world hunger), there might not be much left to fight about in the future. This idealist believes it’s worth a try. What do you think?
Images: skyscraper, food, child
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Climate Change Hurts Winter Sports, Maple Syrup & Fishing Industries (to Name a Few)
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. Every 10 years, the United
The Butts Remain
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. Everyone knows that smoking is
A Military Shade of Green
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. It used to be that
On Yer Bike
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. Ever considered biking to work?
|
Bookmark |
15 Comments
November 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Sadly this great idea is not the answer. Sure, $30B invested wisely would vastly improve agricultural output potential in Africa, but the paradox is that Aid itself is Africa’s biggest headache. India became a net food exporter in 2 years after banning food aid in the 1970’s, and is now poised to be a Superpower. Trade, not Aid, is what African farmers are crying out for. Africa can never raise itself out of poverty because well meaning Europeans keep sending all their cast offs. Africa no longer wants to be dependant, but have the dignity to shake off the culture of ingratiation with their former Colonisers..
November 10th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Is $30B enough? What about kickbacks, unforeseen circumstances. Please multiply this figure accordingly before accepting it as correct. I guarantee you that you will be dumbfounded!
November 11th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Hi John. I agree that what’s needed is to invest in the economic structures of the countries that require food relief, to provide the means for supporting the population in the future. But in the meantime, food aid is how to keep people alive – it’s a problem as a dependency, but it’s meant to be an emergency measure. Both development and aid running at the same time is expensive – but as Sarah’s article shows, there’s a lot of money flying around. In a literal sense, it’s food for thought.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Net food export is a noble thing, net being the operative word. Even in the great USA hunger is still an issue. One misses the point if one argues it could actually cost ten to one hundred times the 30 billion, because that would still be less than the 700B bailout which will wind up in CEO bonuses.
I think African farmers demand political stability before they can think about import export, it’s hard to harvest when your forced to exodus into the next country.
Bootstraps are all good and fine, but someone has to teach people to mine, tan and cobble, and corporations have not done the best job in the past 30 years.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Sarah is correct and the conclusions she reached are detailed in a book I wrote called American Hiroshima. To learn more and be part of the solution, become a free Teach Peace member at http://www.teachpeace.com.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Working with food banks and social service organizations in Detroit — one of, if not THE, poorest cities in the USA, I suggest that systematic change is the only REAL answer. Money is often a Band-aid, but it’s never the total answer, if it were, hunger, homelessness and a plethora of other ills would no longer exist. Think of all the money that has been thrown at these causes, yet the solution is hardly any closer. The adage “give a man a fish – teach a man to fish,” is the real truth. We need to invest our money in helping people help themselves — with dignity! Think of this the next time you make a donation – is the organization helping “their clients” become self sustaining, or are they simply taking care of them ensuring the agency will continue to be necessary. Non-profits are the fastest growing “business” in the U.S.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Looking at the source article, it states that the United Nations would like to give that 30 billion dollars to improve agricultural programs in various poor regions of the world, in order that they may effectively feed themselves. I think everybody who is on any kind of world hunger committee knows that giving bags of rice is a temporary solution, and that better agriculture is the answer. Hopefully they will incorporate permaculture principles, and not pesticides and fertilizers.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
You know what. All of those hungry people don’t vote. That is why no one in gov’t gives a shit
February 10th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Why not leave well enough alone. We can’t be responsible for propping up most of an enormous continent out of these conditions. It’s sad, but guess what: there is no shortage of people on this Earth.
Survival of the fittest, isn’t that how we partially describe evolution?
Perhaps if the Africans played a greater role in the world (other than constantly killing their citizens and usurping their governments) they would be more appreciated by our fair country. If they can’t overcome these differences, rise up, and become the masters of their own will, they deserve their fate. Cause and effect.
Unfortunately, the US can’t babysit the entire planet. $30 billion needs to be used here in the United States to help our economy. If we aren’t around, then there will be no one to help the Africans.
February 13th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
4 % percent wouldn’t solve the problem. No amount of money would solve it .
Until the dictators and warlords of these poverty stricken areas are dealt with and removed, no progress can be made. Yay for all the good intentions. But results are what makes the world go round. The Warlords/Dictators take the aid that is given and keep it. That is what happens. We can never make this utopia everyone supposedly yearns for, because human nature will trump it every time.
Even if said warlord/dictators are removed somebody else is right around the corner to take their place, its that pesky human nature.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Unfortunately, gooferment (government that goofs up everything) is the meme that kills. It’s not about money. It’s about energizing the people who are starving to throw off the limiting beliefs and criminal gangs (aka government) that are killing them.
Unfortunately, we in the USA are part of the problem. For example, we tolerate the UN. We should toss them. For example, we allow the government crooks who are killing their people to enjoy their ill gotten gains here. Declare them Persona Non Grata. For example, we don’t from a foreign policy perspective MYOB. We need to stop picking winners and losers.
We imho should free people to trade with people. We need to get governments out of the way.
reinkefj’s last blog post..RANT: Media bias in the “witch hunt”
March 24th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
China’s tainted milk criminal was blood-typed, shot in public, in the head, and had is organs harvested, for a good human being – Do this on Wall Street and purge the U.S.A. of any mistaken Christian notions – business is business, and we should mean business – the Chinese sure as Hell do, and they are winning this struggle, hands down. P.S. They can populate an army bigger than the U.S.A. has citizens – period. so don’t get any military supremacy notion going in your G.I. Joe head either, we hardly have enough soldiers to cover our current very charitable commitments as it is, and outside of hiring Asians as mercenaries, we will be pulling back, far back, and very soon! We are in an economic battle with Asia and losing badly! We cannot afford charity of any sort – the best we can do is send our unemployed teachers to the poorest people of the world, and hope to show them a better way. The ball is now in Asia’s court, What are they going to do, that is the question to ask.
Who Linked To This Post?
Welcome! The comment box is all yours to say what you like. Just make sure you use a real name, not a site or company, so you don't get sent to the spam bin. (That makes us sad.)