Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).

  • errer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    What if we sent so much food that the hoarders couldn’t hoard it all? Just a metric assload of food. Eventually food is so cheap and plentiful the hoarders give up.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      You flood their market with cheap food and you put all their domestic farmers out of business.

      Dumping charity on developing countries rarely works. You need to help them invest in their economy. This was shown with that micro loans paper (which won a Nobel prize).

      • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Yup. Goods aid is only a very short-term measure. Vaccines for example expire if not stored correctly and used promptly.

        Service aid is more effective medium-term, such as when the BBC World Service ran their health advisory bulletins during the W African Ebola outbreak.

        Investment aid is the long-term solution, with the goal of a sustainable uplift in living standards, such as aid money being spent on the Indian space programme which allows satellites to monitor landslides and direct assistance safely.

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Food should never have been a buisness in the first place.

        Also areas that are struggling with food shortage and famine don’t really have for profit farmers. You’ll find that the majority are subsistence farming and maybe sell a little bit of excess. The exception would be those in these places that own a ton of land and have the money to farm at scale. Remaining food needs typically come from wealthier nations producing excess food at scale.

        Ideally the state should produce staple crops at scale. Keep the people fed. This frees up subsistence farmers to engage in other economic sectors or employs them through the state to produce food. Either way it’s more reliable and more people get to eat. For the for profit farmers they could simply focus crops that aren’t staples.

    • Triumph@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The hoarders have guns. They will take it all, and they will be able to recruit more with the promise of that food.