Saving the World with $100 billion.

[redneck]

Is there a hunger problem in the U.S. ? Yes...


However, throwing money at the problem will not fix anything.


Fixing the economy - Will.


Getting rid of the Federal reserves pump and dump cycles - Will.


Stop using corn for producing ethanol - Will.


Encouraging food independence and the return of "small farms & victory gardens:" - Will.


Of course doing these things would take the government and industry out of the equation and they worked hard to get it to this point. They will not give up easily.


From the article you quoted.

The 18-item questionnaire asks about skipped meals and hunger pangs, but also whether people had worries about getting food. It ranks the severity of their condition by the number of answers that indicate a problem.

Right there is a problem, a big problem. It skews the whole questionnaire.


However, being that this is a assignment for school and you will be graded on it. I wouldn't use anything I mentioned above since colleges along with most universities and their staff are overwhelmingly liberal.


Your idea of investing most of the money and using the interest for science fairs is probably something they would approve of. Just throw a "few save the children" in the report along with "it takes a village" and you should be fine.



>

[Frank Lee]

^ = ROFL

The title says "saving the world" but we're only talking about the U.S. Which is it?

[poomanchu]

Lol at the notion that hunger can be 'cured' or 'solved' by throwing monies at it, but only for a year or so.

[P-hack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqVyRa1iuMc

Lol at gore bowing

[Xist]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The title says "saving the world" but we're only talking about the U.S. Which is it?

There is a world outside of America?

Frank Lee, tell me how to theoretically save the world for this quantity of currency, in a fashion that will earn me an "A" for my assignment, and we will save the world by committee. The fact that this is for a grade changes nearly everything, but if this were not an assignment, then there would not be any point of discussing this, because I will never have $100 billion.

Honestly, I think that the best point shared thus far has been one posited by a vulgar comedian: There will always be hungry people if they live where they cannot grow enough food. Thanks Redneck. I think the second-best point was also his, my statistic is misleading and useless because it asked if they were worried about food. So, we do not know how many actually go hungry, while people in this country not only throw away enough food to feed everybody, but they eat enough to feed everybody!

If I actually had the money, could I solve this problem? Can I pretend that I can for the assignment? Honestly, I do not know that curing domestic hunger would benefit anyone outside of this country, although people in this country have a very poor track record for trying to help other countries.

Can we discuss my most recent idea? Five billion a year or so for science fairs. How many states do we have? Oh, how do you divide 5,000 million by fifty?!

An average of $100,000,000 per state for scholarships, which we would not be paying out for a few years, and then only if they attend college. I was honestly thinking that the top prize would be full tuition for two years at a community college and two more at a state university. That would be $25,000 in Arizona. $100 million divided by $25,000? Four thousand scholarships per state?

How about ten and we spend 99.75% of the money in other countries? I do not think the science fair approach would work universally, there must be places where people are too poor and undereducated for that. So, we fund schools? They are still going hungry, getting sick, etc.

How much overhead would there be on the science fair idea? Actually, if it is a science fair, then shouldn't we try to get tech companies to put up displays? Show them exciting stuff that scientists are doing now. Then take 4.9 billion and find some desolate villages and using as much local labor as possible, give them a clean water source, vaccines, make sure they can grow their own food, support the local schools, and provide scholarships for the best students.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Xist

...Honestly, I do not know that curing domestic hunger would benefit anyone outside of this country, although people in this country have a very poor track record for trying to help other countries.

I don't know if that is fair, is that something your teacher told you and how do you measure it?
United States foreign aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yes, being productive is key, but even then libs will call you satan you if you come up with inventive ways to employ folks, insisting every kind of work imaginable is worth $10/hour or somesuch. See the backlash from "bumvertising" for how closed minded folks are Bumvertising | Outsource Marketing

Sorry, I know you are just trying to get through this, but it is a political issue on a public forum, and your teacher has fantasies about spending 100billion of other peoples money. How about $100billion in condoms?

Food insecurity and family size go hand in hand, here and everywhere.
Factors Influencing Household Food Security Status | Scientific Research Publishing - Academia.edu

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

^ = ROFL

The title says "saving the world" but we're only talking about the U.S. Which is it?

I have the impression for a lot of people the two are the same, at least as far as the internet goes...

I heard they have the web in France now too...

[Xist]

P-hack, I was bitter regarding situations irrelevant to this discussion. I guess that I would just need to verify and validate my good intentions.

There does seem to be an inverse relationship between children and capacity to support them. How many condoms can one hundred billion purchase and distribute worldwide? What happens once the condoms run out? Do we pick the poor country of the week and tell their government "We will make sure that every family in your country has enough food for two parents and two children, but you need to make sure they understand that if they have more kids than they can feed, they will go hungry."?

It kind of seems like the real problems are not ones that we can fix through holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but what can we do with money, which we do not really have?

As for being a political issue, right. I can get in trouble if this gets out of hand.

No fistfights!

[Xist]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I have the impression for a lot of people the two are the same, at least as far as the internet goes...

I heard they have the web in France now too...

I joked about the first part. I have tried to discuss this with one of my roommates and he insisted "help the world, not save the world. You cannot save the world for $100 billion!"

As for the second one, I read about Minitel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in school.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by poomanchu

Lol at the notion that hunger can be 'cured' or 'solved' by throwing monies at it, but only for a year or so.

Poomanchu, we are trying to have a serious discussion. How would you contribute to the world with $100 billion?