The Ghost of RubangB said:
The United Nations estimates it would cost about $195 billion a year to end world hunger. 22 countries have pledged to donate 0.7% of national income to meet this goal, but only 5 countries have done it. The U.S. hasn't. Meanwhile, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad cost $592 billion to make over the last few years. I think it's affordable. |
While I agree that wealthy nations should provide aid to nations that need it at moments, you have to stop thinking in a fantasy world, Rubang.
Yes, wealthy nations could provide the world with food. But what is the incentive for third world nations to ever improve if they're on the dole from another country? It creates a permanent sub-standard for the country and would create the first indentured nation in the world. Congrats, you've just re-instated modern slavery.
As unfortunate as the world is and how much it pains me to see some countries suffer, you have to try to help them pull out of it with a strong government and prosperous industry, not more free shit handed to the citizens. Hell, with that kind of thinking, South Korea would still be run by the American government and its citizens would rely on us for everything. With smart moves by foreign bodies and a strong will of the people, the country has thrived as it became a world power over the past 50 years.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/