if every family in the world (wealthy or not-so wealthy) gave $1 [or less], could world hunger be solved?

Question

i think yes, what do u think

Answer 1

No, it wouldn't likely work for long. And like others have mentioned, dependency is not a good road for development.

But it's kind of hard for primarily agricultural countries to develop when on one crop, rice, the United States alone has subsidized in the amount on 17.5 billion dollars over the last 20 years. Europe has been at least as bad. As a result, places in Africa and Asia that could grow rice much more cheaply than the developed world, don't have a prayer to compete. Their farmers go out of business as cheap imports or western aid damages their domestic markets.

It's a loss for both sides when a country's comparative advantage isn't utilized.

Stop subsidization, lower your taxes and keep more of your money to help feed the underdeveloped world. Weird, huh?
Of course, it's not that simple... but it is part of the problem.

Peace

Answer 2

It would depend on how all of that money was spent. If it just purchased food for them, they would be back to where they started from once the food ran out. But if the money went to supply the worlds poor with the resources and education they need to be self sustaining, it could make a huge dent in world hunger. I think the problem is that many of them are only able to depend on a hand out. If they were able to learn how to grow and raise their own food they would be much better off. But what do I know. The amount of money it would take to provide farming equipment and education to every third world family is probably an exponential figure that the western world could never afford. Aside from that possibility, given the corrupt nature of our worlds leaders, it is likely money would not be spent appropriately.

Answer 3

You'd think so, but some of debates at the World Bank (which just had its head resign) have been over what has been done with the money that was supposed to help poor people.

If everybody who had a dollar was matched with a hungry person, it might work for awhile, but then you have a problem that another poster mentioned - dependency.

But you sound like an idealistic caring person - the best thing you could do is be a good example for other people.

Answer 4

Not even close.

Just do the math. If you figure 4 people per family then there are approximately 1.5 billion families so you get a maximum of $1.5 billion. If you look at the stats there are over 500 million people suffering from malnutrition. So we are now talking about less than $3 per hungry person. That is not going to make a dent in the problem. Even CCF needs $24/month.

Answer 5

Most people in the world don't have $1.00 to give.

About half the people in the world live on less than $2.00 a day. They not only don't have an extra dollar to give, they need more dollars to survive long-term.

However, there's not even 7 billion people in the world. $7 billion is not enough to end world hunger. The UN estimates that we need a $50 billion increase in funding to feed everyone.

Answer 6

The humane answer must be start administration in areas of overpopulation. the subject concerns are faith, loss of guidance, loss of investment and shortage of political will. the situation final if such start administration is accompanied international is purely too many old supported by using to few working youthful. This concern does no longer final for long, because of the fact the old could die off and stability could resume in purely some years. Then, a balanced inhabitants could could desire to be controlled. This answer could desire to be carried out by using voluntary approaches and bribes of one variety or yet another earlier the inhabitants reaches 12 billion, however the course is quite no longer mushy, and a few areas could desire to pass intense as defined under. starvation is the incentive that drives the urge to stay to tell the tale, and intercourse is the incentive to multiply a species to guarantee its survival. inadequate aspects and ailment are the administration mechanism that places the brakes on multiplication. the international constantly unearths its very own point of keeping or extinguishing a species inhabitants. human beings deliver reason and making plans into nature's scheme, yet for this reason far there is little motivation to wrestle the situation of overpopulation in specific areas of the international. So, nature is already controlling inhabitants by using starvation in those areas overpopulated.

Answer 7

It can't be solved. What happens when that food runs out? That one dollar could help the cause, but what they need to do is have more jobs in the places that people are starving. Then they can work for their food and not just take it for granted. People shouldn't be given everything, they need to earn what they have.

Answer 8

It's been said many times before... If all the money in the world were distributed evenly to each person on earth... in five years the same people who have got most of it now will finish up with it again........

Answer 9

Nope. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.... you know the rest.

Answer 10

I dont think so, They might eat for that day but what about the next day?