How much money would it take to eradicate global poverty and hunger?

Question

I would really appreciate a researched answer. I think GDP may be a good thing to take into account.

I just want to know because according to http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm:

$505 billion of US taxpayers' funds, including $70 billion for fiscal year 2007. President Bush is expected to request another $100 billion in war-spending for 2007, bringing the cumulative total to over $600 billion.

I want to match the value for the $600 billion by means of global poverty and hunger.

Thanks.

Answer 1

I doubt this'll get picked as a best answer, but hey, my two cents:

It's impossible. People will always be hungry, and people will always be poor. What you're describing is a paradise, something that just can't come about in a physical world. The only way to "end poverty" is to hand someone the power to level out the economic playing field -- and that's called what, children? Yes, communism, something that has been proven, from very huge cases in history, to not work.

So, to summarize: the only way to truly end poverty is to do entirely away with economy, or to hand one person or group the power to decide who gets what, etc. But that doesn't work, because the world still needs work to run, and if there are no real, cashy-money incentives for people to work, they just won't. There used to be a saying that was spread around by people who didn't like the idea of communism being passed through their area: "You pretend to pay us, and we'll pretend to work." The Ukraine, as another example, in the former Soviet Union, is one of the most fertile places on the planet. And yet, somehow, the Soviets kept underproducing, blaming it on "bad weather". So, somebody pointed out, they must've been having about seventy years of bad weather.

And for anyone who wishes to claim that the Soviets just "messed up" with communism, the response is, "Insanity can often be described as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results."

Anyway, back on-topic: I don't really see what you would expect President Bush to spend X dollars on. It's not just that other countries are poor -- it's that their dictators keep taking advantage of them. Take the Oil-for-Food scandal. The UN promised Saddam that Iraq could sell oil on the world market (or something of the sort) for medicine, food and other supplies for his country's people. Doesn't that sound like a good-hearted humanitarian effort? Well, it wasn't, because people expected a rabid dictator to do the right thing. So, instead of selling the oil for food for his people, Saddam spent it on weapons. The UN knew, of course. How could they not? Kofi Annan, the then-seventh Secretary-General of the UN, covered by pretending not to know about the meetings with private weapons contractors, as well as the kickbacks that he knew people were receiving. Was there an uproar about this? No. Did this show that humanitarian efforts will eventually succeed because the only problems that other countries have is a lack of money? No. This showed that humanitarian efforts can only work when there's nobody to leech off the money flowing through along the way. The UN has been, in general, ineffective -- how could throwing bills at other countries be any better?

Answer 2

I want to just add this bit of info to think about, even though it isn't what you are asking, it is something to think about...

In many third world countries9and of course others as well) where poverty and hunger are rampant, their governments spend enough money on weapons each year to feed their entire population. It is not that there isn't enough food, but food is exported so they can have money to buy weapons! There is a verse in the Bible that says...

Jeremiah 10:23: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step."

and another one...
Ecclesiastes 8:9: "All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury."

Well, I could go on about why man cannot govern man right, and what the answer is, but this is the wrong catagory for that, but I will leave you with one last verse (or more) from the Bible...

Daniel 2:44: " “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;"

Psalms 72:16: "There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth;
On the top of the mountains there will be an overflow."

Psalms 145:16 " You are opening your hand And satisfying the desire of every living thing."

The last line of the following verse is very important, and all those in high positions should take it to heart...

Revelation 11:18: "But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

"and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

Answer 3

Good question, and one I have thought about quite a bit myself, too. I am surprised reading through as to how many people instantly say "no". Anything is possible, but the reason I am more surprised by all the "no" answers is that humans lived without money for thousands of years. It is only a fraction of the timeline in which humans have existed that money has been a factor. No other species of animal use money, so how is it not possible to live without? It does have roots deep within our modern ways of life, so I guess you have to think really far outside the box to figure out another way. That said, forms of society that existed without money were primitive by modern standards, so I guess the point of the question now is how can we live in a money-less society by modern standards? I think it would be a complete reformation of what we see as "modern". And even moreso, we would need to re-prioritize values as a species. I mean, we are very materialistic now, which is a manifestation of our human greed. If we put other values higher, such as compassion for others, we wouldn't be as worried about having anew Ipod as we would that our neighbors were all happy. It would require writing a book I think to explain it all, so I'll wrap it up here, but it couldn't just be an elimination of money in our current society, it would be a complete reformation of our highest values. For example in the post above, someone mentioned that a person tried this by having a bartering system, but it failed because someone might not want a sack of potatoes in return for fixing a car. Instead, the society would need a new perspective, in that when you fix your neighbor's car, you don't immediately expect some sort of "payment" in return. Instead, you know that the rest of your neighbors will all work to make sure everyone is fed, and healthy, and that by fixing someones car you too will be taken care of by your community. You know, its all possible. We have great technologies and such that cost lots of money now, but all these things were made either directly or inderectly by resources from this earth, so they don't have to cost money...

Answer 4

Quite simply, it cannot be done, regardless of the amount. If one were to divide all the world's wealth equally among the 6.8 billion inhabitants thereof, within a year the world would once more be divided between the haves and the have nots.

Further, please remember that as corrupt as some may find the US, we're positively squeaky clean compared to most nations. We have NO chance of doing much of anything to eradicate poverty and hunger until something is done about the corruption which is so pervasive among Asian and African governments.

Answer 5

It is not a question of how much money. It is also not a question of giving. Giving, in the long term, can often destroy the economies of the recipients.

More often than not, the best thing a country can do for itself is pursue freedom in their markets. Take a look at China.

I suggest you do some in depth economic research on the issue, because most people will give you meaningless anecdotes that they haven't even taken the time to consider, let alone research.

Answer 6

The world produces enough food to end hunger, the problem is the logistics. Food is perishable (spoils) and can not reach people in war, repressive countries, and be economically shipped to many locations.

Throwing money at problems never solves problems.

Poverty has more causes than just "a lack of money." There are freedom problems (countries with corrupt governments, communist countries), cultural problems (women in many countries can't attend schools), and lack of educational materials (africa and other areas).

Throwing money at these problems isn't a "magic bullet."

Answer 7

Can't be done. Poverty is a relative term and all the food in the world can't get to people who are living under a dictator that won't let the food through. For a long term improvement it takes getting the governments out of the way (both here and abroad) so that people can be free to improve their own lives.

Answer 8

Why are we responsible for global hunger and poverty?
We didnt cause it. It happened long before we were a nation and will happen long after we cease to be a nation ( God forbid)
The United States isnt responsible for the world.
Thats ridiculous, this war as wretched as it may be will benefit us in the future, ten to twenty years from now.

Answer 9

These figures are on the net just search for them. I think you will find the money spent on Arms (ie. killing people) far exceeds the amount it would take to eliminate poverty.

Answer 10

It doesn't really take money. It takes food. We can't possible produce enough food to feed every person on the planet. There simply are not enough resources for Earth to support the current population.