What if the top 10 millionaires gave 10% of their income to a fund to feed the hungry?
Would there be enough to feed all in the world?
For how long?
According to Cecil, they give way more than that already. What do you want, blood?
I’m more interested in what if 1 of the top millionaires gave 10% of his money to me! 
Producing enough money to feed the world isn’t a problem. Getting that food to the people who need it isn’t as easy as one might think.
Marc
We should all take a nod from the late Sam Kinnison. He suggested that we stop sending food to impoverished nations and send them buses, suitcases, trucks, U-Hauls, cars, and get those poeple the hell out of there. We’ve got desert wastelands in America too, we just don’t live in them!
The rich can donate all the money they want it won’t raise my opinion of them one iota. In response to the OP I would guess that 10% of the fortunes of the 10 richest men would be around 20 billion tops. I would guess that this could feed the world for a couple of weeks.
SarumanRex said:
Why not? Care to expand on that?
Unfortunately, it’s pretty difficult to give someone money and say, “Now go feed the poor people.” Most people who are starving live in places where it is impossible or difficult to grow food (and so there aren’t too many animals around to eat, either) or have had their livelyhoods destroyed by war. Also, it’s questionable whether the industrialized nations of the world would actually have the capacity to produce food for themselves and everyone else…someone, somewhere, I think he was an economist, believed that the food supply would never outgrow the demand. Can’t remember who it was.
This is not true!! 90% of the time people are starving because of a lack of money or a food distribution problem. Not because of a lack of global food supply!
The problem is not suppies and food. The problem is distribution.
Because of bad policies in transportation here and abroad, we are left with woefully inadequate and more expensive modes of transportation. And these modes would have a hard time getting past checkpoints and other obstacles that governments or rebels posted around the world.
**
Not true at all. most people starve because of tyranny, and racial hatred. Get rid of that and you have a pretty happy planet.
Something tells me you might be confused with the ideas of Thomas Moore. He came up with the idea that food supply grows arithmetically, while population grows exponentially. If population were not kept in check (Moore lived during a population explosion) the world would not be able to produce enough food.
'Fraid not. Thomas Moore wrote “common Sense”. You are thinking of Malthus, who hypothesizes that humans procreate geometrically while food productions grows arithmatically. This has proved to be un-true.
BTW, Malthus was an {b]Anglican Minister**, and not a scientist.
OK you asked for it, here goes…SarumanRex’s theory of why super-rich people suck:
First, a definition of terms: “rich” is relative, we are all very rich compared to the starving people of the world, when I am ranting about the “rich” my comments are directed primarily at the super-rich, i.e. the billionaires of the world. “Evil”, “wrong”, and “bad” are vague terms that mean different things to different people, when I use these words I mean a person is acting selfishly. That is, acting so as to advance one’s own cause without regard to others. As a member of the human race you have an obligation to help your fellow man whenever possible and not to take more than you need from the world’s limited supply of resources.
Now let me ask you some questions: If a man robs a bank of $200,000 dollars is he a good guy or a bad guy? Of course, he’s a bad guy. If that same man later donates $20,000 of his ill-gotten wealth to charity is he still a bad guy? Yes, of course he is, you can’t eliminate the crime of armed robbery by making a donation to charity. Now, here’s a tougher question, if you have no knowledge of this man’s crime (assuming he got away with it and no one knows how he came up with the $20 grand) and you see him on TV giving an oversized check for $20,000 to a local charity, are you a fool for raising your opinion of this man? For example, if up until that moment you had thought that guy was a low-life thug who would steal from his grandmother for beer money but now you think that you were wrong in your earlier assessment of him, that he isn’t such a bad guy afterall, are you a fool? Futhermore, if after making the large donation the charity spokesperson “just happens” to mention that this man has just opened a local pawn shop and it is located at such and such address and the grand opening is tomorrow, would you be a fool to take your business to this man? If one year later it is announced by the police that the pawn shop is a front for a fencing operation and the man has been indicted, would you be a fool if you joined a local citizens group and protested the arrest of this charitable man.
My conclusion is that if you don’t know how a person came by their money you shouldn’t automatically raise your opinion of them when the media reports that they are making a large donation to charity. It is a common PR/advertising stunt for wealthy persons and businesses to donate money to charity in a very public manner. Typically, only people who need a PR boost because they are such flaming red assholes and everyone knows it, make highly publicized donations to charity. Charity should be done in private, it is a way to make yourself a better person not a way to advertise yourself to the public.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
[B’Fraid not. Thomas Moore wrote “common Sense”. You are thinking of Malthus, who hypothesizes that humans procreate geometrically while food productions grows arithmatically. This has proved to be un-true.
BTW, Malthus was an {b]Anglican Minister**, and not a scientist. **[/QUOTE
‘Fraid not, asshole. While you are right about Malthus (I knew I had the name wrong shortly after I posted). You are dead wrong about Moore. Any American who has passed his high school American history course knows that Thomas Paine wrote “Common Sense”. Furthermore, I have never heard Malthus’ theory to be disproven. How would you disprove it? And what does occupation have to do with it? Reagan was an actor, and he was President of the United States for eight years.
Christ argyle87. Mr. Z just disagreed with your post. That’s sorta the point of Great Debates.
Not only that argyle87, I count you guys as even since you both missed the Thomas More question.
If Mr. Z is an Asshole for missing it, what’s that say about you?
What the hell is this? Are you bucking for July’s Most Unreasonable Reaction award or what? This stuff is appropriate in The Pit, not here.
To the OP. I think that the most telling bit in the OP is the question “For how long?” The answer, implied in the question, is, “However long, if at all, it wouldn’t be long enough.”
The problems of global hunger are systemic. Food distribution, wars, the vagaries of the weather and its effects on agriculture, all these things are simply beyond the band-aid effect that throwing some money at the problem would have.
…the OP (and some subsequent posts) lead one to believe that rich people somehow have a greater responsibility to the poor than the low and middle class income earners. Why is that?
Why must we constantly expect handouts from the wealthy? How are the super-rich more responsible for the world’s ills than the average working class stiff? Is it simply because they have significant amounts of disposable income and resources? Why must they be required to spend those resources on causes which they do not support? Just because Joe the Public thinks they should? How very silly.
I am particularly disgusted with the analogy that says a guy steels $200,000 and donates 10% to charity in an attempt to clear his name of suspicion. Are we to believe that every rich person is a thief and a scoundrel? What about the guy who became rich by using his head and producing something that people would pay money to own and use? He came by his wealth and success honestly. Why must we paint every successful business person as a robber baron?
Finally, I whole heartedly disagree with SarumanRex’s definition of charity. It is in fact not meant to be an act which makes one a better person. One either does or does not give. What has that got to do with goodness?
In fact, given SarumanRex’s presumptions that all rich people are evil, either giving or not giving to charity automatically condemns the giver. If he gives then he must be covering up for some former evil, if he does not then he is obviously evil because he does not share his wealth. That’s quite a double edges sword… and here I thought I was an accomplished cynic.
argyle87 said:
[Moderator Hat ON]
As others have noted, that remark was not appropriate for this forum. Please confine direct personal insults to the BBQ Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]