7 billion was the projected amount it would take to end world hunger.
Lie—that was nonsense that went viral, and immediately collapsed under scrutiny. That claim was tweeted at Musk, and when he replied saying ‘explain how that would work and I’ll give you the money right now’, he got a sheepish response to the tune of ‘well actually, it would only help, not end it, and only temporarily’.
A more recent, actual estimate, puts it closer to $93 billion. And not once, but annually.
Stop being so gullible and falling for this sensationalized nonsense just because it confirms your biases.
Still seems like a pretty low number to me. The U.S. military budget request this year was 1.5 trillion dollars. Thats unusually high, but even at previous levels of 700-800 billion a year, that’s chump change to take out of the U.S. military budget yearly.
Now if we all actually cared about world hunger 93 billion annually is a pretty small price to pay.
For those not doing the math - assuming a trillion dollars just gets dumped into a bucket labeled “world hunger” (because we as the world decide to start taxing millionaires, billionares, etc heavily), and assuming we’d need $93 million to eradicate it annually, we could eradicate world hunger for the next 10,752 years.
Closer to 11 years because they said 93 Billion. Which is still a lot. The US spends over a trillion each year on the military so a trillion per decade isn’t bad.
I refuse to believe it would need that much ad-infinitum. The first bunch creates a load of infrastructure, and that becomes self sustaining over the next few years.
CORRECT! And THATS why I’m ok NOT Taxing Billionaires! Because if we CANT Solve something RIGHT NOW we should LET KIDS DIE while letting Billionaires BUY Countries instead!
Lie—that was nonsense that went viral, and immediately collapsed under scrutiny. That claim was tweeted at Musk, and when he replied saying ‘explain how that would work and I’ll give you the money right now’, he got a sheepish response to the tune of ‘well actually, it would only help, not end it, and only temporarily’.
A more recent, actual estimate, puts it closer to $93 billion. And not once, but annually.
Stop being so gullible and falling for this sensationalized nonsense just because it confirms your biases.
Still seems like a pretty low number to me. The U.S. military budget request this year was 1.5 trillion dollars. Thats unusually high, but even at previous levels of 700-800 billion a year, that’s chump change to take out of the U.S. military budget yearly.
Now if we all actually cared about world hunger 93 billion annually is a pretty small price to pay.
We should probably still try taxing them and not letting them commit crimes right?
Maybe we could even solve world hunger for 1 year, like to see if it’s a good idea?
For those not doing the math - assuming a trillion dollars just gets dumped into a bucket labeled “world hunger” (because we as the world decide to start taxing millionaires, billionares, etc heavily), and assuming we’d need $93 million to eradicate it annually, we could eradicate world hunger for the next 10,752 years.
Closer to 11 years because they said 93 Billion. Which is still a lot. The US spends over a trillion each year on the military so a trillion per decade isn’t bad.
I refuse to believe it would need that much ad-infinitum. The first bunch creates a load of infrastructure, and that becomes self sustaining over the next few years.
CORRECT! And THATS why I’m ok NOT Taxing Billionaires! Because if we CANT Solve something RIGHT NOW we should LET KIDS DIE while letting Billionaires BUY Countries instead!