Fixing world hunger.

[FearlessLeader2]

Ok, so I'm a tad ambitious. I just think this is a good idea, and would get the job done.

The present popular solution to world hunger is for people to give money to people to give food to the people who need it. The problem is, there aren't enough people or transports to do the job. This makes sure that people realize that there is big money in people starving to death, and it will go on indefinitely.

My idea is this: make all costs of shipping food to starving nations worth 10 times their dollar value (or some other multiplier, maybe 3 times?) in tax credits. That means if Federal Express has three of its cargo planes fly food to the Sudan, and it costs Federal Express $100,000 for each flight, they just made $3,000,000 in tax credits. Seems to me that the big money now lies in sending food to the starving, not sending money to agencies that can't get food anywhere.

Let's say Brinks Security wants in on the big tax cuts. Groovy. Some of their boys step forward for hazard pay to ride 30mm cannon on the shipments, to make sure they get where they're intended. Total cost to Brinks, $50,000 per guard, ten guards per shipment. Brinks just made $45 million in tax cuts.

Let me tell ya something. If the world governments started doing this, world hunger would be a bad memory, and nothing more. And let's not forget that these companies now have more money, and can now afford to expand, hire more people, create more jobs, end dependency, etc... And those ex-starvaing people can now have decent lives, and maybe become a stable economy that can stand on its own, and become a trading partner, and now there's more jobs, more money, more good life for once poverty-stricken people.

So, what do you think?

 

[Maj]

Maybe I'm being a tad cynical, but no government will launch an initiative (such as feeding the poor and hungry) that will injure the national economy without some form of equivocal payback (eg votes). Your plan infringes upon this unwritten policy.

Let's take your Federal Express example and make the tax credit multiplier 3 times the dollar value of the cargo and transport costs. So one shipment of US$100 000 worth of food and transport fees would earn Fed-Ex US$300 000 in tax credit (ie money Fed-Ex will be able to deduct from its tax losses). In effect, Fed-Ex has just made a very tidy profit. Those US$300 000 in tax credits are about as good as hard cash. If Fed-Ex were to continue making deliveries, they would eventually be absolved of paying any taxes for the fiscal year. Some credits could even spill over into the next fiscal year.

In a way, the government has just spent 3 times the original cost of transporting food by surrendering tax revenue it should have received from Fed-Ex.

Your idea looks good on the surface but begins to crumble as one analyzes the economic and political consequences. But that doesn't mean your idea is wholly bad, it just needs to be expanded.

-Maj

 

[amadeus]

Why is it always the industralized world's responsibility to change diapers for Africa and the rest of the third world?

 

[BlueMonday]

The plan has many fundamental flaws. First of all, there is a ceiling to the amount of tax credit a company would recieve. Let's take United Parcel Service -the largest private delivery service in the world. UPS brings in about $30 000 000 000 in gross revenue annually. After all of the costs only about $4 000 000 000 is taxable income which means the Federal government taxes only about $2 000 000 000 in a year. As UPS would make shipments of food the tax credit would pile up very quickly to that two billion dollar mark, after which any shipments made would only add up to additional costs on the company. Also, as they build tax credit costs would rise also...a double shrinking effect. In the end, the amount of food delivered would be limited to a certain amount.

And as there are only a handfull of privatecompanies in the world with the manpower and infrastructure to deliver food to starving nations the effects would be limited very much to only a couple billion dollars worth of food...hardly enough to solve the world hunger crisis. Not only that, but those private shippers have almost all there capital assets tied up in the business at hand...they'd have to invest many millions of dollars into new trucks, employees, and buildings -money that might not be immediatly available. Independant companies with the ability to deliver to the hunger spots in the world would barely be able to make a dent in the hunger issue. Meanwhile, delivery services such as USPS, DHL, and other national postal services would not benefit from tax breaks as they already ride tax free. Making national postal services would merely push a new tax burden on the population.

The secong option of shipping food by seagoing method is equally riddled with problems -primarly distribution. A modern freighter would most certainly be able to carry enough food goods to feed a couple million people for a few weeks, but the logistics of it would be a total nightmare for the ship. To start off, a seagoing vessel such as a freighter would have a similar tax ceiling to contend with. Loading up those massive metal beasts in harbor alone costs tens of millions of dollars in labor, capital, and lost time. Then you have the infrastructure of getting the food goods to the dock, another tens-of-millions-of-dollars affair. Then the costs of the shipment would cost several more millions and some frieghters could take as long as three to six months to get to their destinations. Furthermore on the other side of the delivery you have the same problems. A lot of time in port unloading, then putting it all on trucks, then all the time of moving those trucks to wherever they need to be, and lastly the cost of the return trip. With the costs of international shipping like that only two or three frieghter shipments would fill the tax ceiling.

And that's not to mention the trouble of distribution to get those trucks to the places they need to be. Most hungry coutries have terrible infrastructure and getting those trucks out of the port and inland would be a massive pain in the ass -even if those trucks only had to travel a few hundred miles. In Africa a truck may have to travel a thousand miles to get into the central parts of the continent. Or you could start hiring out planes to ship it to where it needs to be, in which case you keep adding on the costs exponentialy whereby a shipper would find the tax ceiling in a hair's breadth.

Your plan also only figures that all countries would follow suit and give tax credit based on humanitarian shipments. Whereupon one country might allow the tax credit, the country recieving it might not (particularly if the food is intended for one of thier rival nations). I doubt many governments in the third world would turn away all that money in tariffs no matter how hungry their people are or their neighbors are.

Lastly, the plan fails to address many of the fundamental problems with world hunger -poverty, poor farming methods, inefficient vertical integration structures, despicable governing policies, poor water purification, bad cooking and storing methods, medical systems which cannot coupe with the resulting malaise, and most importantly: the population bomb. In order to cure world hunger, one would have to address all of these problems, not merely whether or not Western states ship them food. Even if the Western States had the ability or intiative to ship the third world enough food to survive you'd create another set of long term problems. You be creating a dependency effect on the third world countries in which you'd be turning a portion of the population against you (sound familiar?). It's rather ironic that they hate use because we don't give them enough, and then hate us when we give them what they need.

 

[Apollo]

If you send food to a starving country, then you ruin their economy in the process. These countries where so many people are starving have very little of an economy to speak of, and a large part of what they do have is (surprisingly) agriculture. The problem is their agricultural system doesn't produce enough for the country because of inefficiency, spoilage, and a bunch of other reasons I won't go into now. What happens when you ship a bunch of food to these countries, which the US tried back in the '60s, is that their farmers can no longer compete because the US is giving out free food, and who would buy the food of these farmers when there is free food available. This leads to a collapse in their economy, and you end up with a country that is completely dependent on foreign aid.

BlueMonday touched a little bit on this issue, but I just wanted to go more in depth on it.

 

[bvd]

For the past few decades, nourishment per capita, running the entire gamut of foodstuffs, has been declining while the world population has burgeoned; supply hasn’t met demand. There are now almost 850 million undernourished worldwide. Africa, specifically, now produces only 80% of the food that it consumes.

Citing this and other alarming trends, a recent Cornell University study calculated that Earth seems poised for a Malthusian check by the 22nd century if a mere two billion is added to the population. We can discern the effect in our (well, my) very own country; due to exponential growth and development, accelerated food consumption and topsoil erosion, it is estimated that the US will no longer be a food exporter by 2030. (And, with the loss of $40 million in yearly income, suffer an exacerbated trade deficit and a diet lacking in animal products – even if all exports are ceased.)

There is no solution, even if the First World does manage to bestow the necessary victuals upon the needy or adopt an extensive population-control policy. But while the US consumes more than its share of global resources and, for much of the its citizenry, becomes hideously obese (for both succinct examples, no statistics are needed), an attempt must be made. Incentive, however, isn’t the answer to such a ubiquitous human concern. The answer lies in awareness and initiative.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

A valiant solution, but one that stands very little chance of happening for 2 reasons.

1) Most US Presidents don't really care about third world hunger. They send millions of dollars there just to look like they are doing someting good. And with all the issues facing the Bush Administration today, third world hunger has got to be pretty much nonexistant to them.

2) Other businesses will complain of favortism. "Why should business X get millions of tax break while our businness gets nothing for doing plenty of other good things for humanity?"

Still, I like the idea fundamentally and we certainly need to change SOMETHING.

 

[amadeus]

I don't think you understand..this isn't like a house -- it won't last for a hundred years.

Okay, we feed everyone in Ethiopia for a week.

What do you do the next week?

The problem is, you guys (liberals) accuse companies of trying to exploit people, and when they have to screw around with the federal government, they could be out in developing nations.

It's not the fault of the United States government to solve world hunger -- it's to solve the problems here in the United States.

 

[Magnus]

feed all the starving people and behold - more starving babies... in trying to fix the problem you have created a bigger one.

 

[amadeus]

How about this - we mash up birth control pills and put them in the food?

We never count on any responsibility from Africa...

 

[allan]

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life."

--an old proverb

Solving hunger is thus not in giving or redistributing food per se (however it is suitable in emergency situations for short-term relief), but in helping people build the infrastructure and upgrade their agricultural methods so that they may feed themselves for as long as we all exist here on earth....

 

[Maj]

It's rather ironic that they hate use because we don't give them enough, and then hate us when we give them what they need.

A large reason why they're in such a mess has to do with Western meddling in their agricultural production output.

After the World Bank began its Structural Adjustment Programs, Third World nations turned to growing cash crops (under WB persuasion), using the money they'd earn from exports to import food from outside sources and use any surplus to fund improvements in national infrastructure. However, demand has to be high in order to keep the prices of the supply adequate enough to allow for these nations to bring in enough to import food. With so many producing these cash crops, the supply soared while demand remained rather stable, thus forcing the producers to lower their prices to compete, leaving them with far less money to import their basic necessities. Recessions didn't help much either. Now with fewer farms growing enough food to feed the population (because a lot of the land is being used for cash crops) and only a bit of money trickling in, the only way to feed the population would be by taking out loans; a major reason why there is Third World debt. You can see how this problem can compound itself. Of course this is a very simplistic view of the issue...there are a lot more factors and major contributors.

Take a good look at your next cup of coffee. If the farmers who picked the beans earned about as much an average farmer in North America, that cup could cost you a day's salary.

-Maj

 

[BlueMonday]

Originally posted by Maj
Take a good look at your next cup of coffee. If the farmers who picked the beans earned about as much an average farmer in North America, that cup could cost you a day's salary.

That's a matter best left at cultural relativism. The difference between the money an American farmer makes and what a Bolivian coffee picker makes are fundamentally the same, yes, but culturally different. A farmer in the U.S. might make geometrically more money in a day's work, but he must also pay geometrically more to support his lifestyle. It's called standard of living. Post industrial countries make far more money, but pay equally more in the costs of living everyday. The Bolivian coffee picker doesn't make as much money, but doesn't have to spend as much money to support his lifestyle. Instead of saying the American makes more money and leave it at that, one should look at the difference in the standard of living -the two (in a socio-economic view) are on the level. They both enjoy the same lifestyle on par with the society they live in.

*Farmers -even American farmers- are not rich by any means. Farms all accross America fall below the poverty line in terms of income every year. In terms of profit margin, farming is one of the lowest businesses in the industrialized world

Going back to the hunger issue: despite the output of cash crops, many third world countries still have enough land area to produce the food to feed themselves. The core of that problem has much to with the infrastructure and farming methods in those countries. To start off with, the farmers in those countries have neither the knowhow nor the capital to produce food effectively. If one were to allow modern farming techniques to be employeed in these spots, food output would increase exponentially. Modern farming techniques are light years ahead of the primitive donkey pulling a plow. Crop rotations, contour farming, fertilization, pesticides, fungicides, and genetically engineered grains have all served to increase the farm output in post industrial countries -enough to the point that the farmland in the American midwest (yes, Canadians, that includes your part of it too) could alone feed several billion people.

But even if they had the ability to produce that amount of food, the hunger issue would still have to deal with the vertical integration chain. Let's say a farmer harvests 100 tons of grain. Meanwhile, people are starving in an overcrowded, polluted city fifty miles away. How does he get that grain to the city before it spoils? That's a question many people in the western countries take for granted.

First he has to be able to skim off whatever he needs for him and his family and a handful of his close neighbors. Not really a problem -he's got one hundred tons sitting around. First real problem: what if his harvest get's wet? If it does (say the monsoon swoops in), mold and all manner of dirty little creatures will get their mouths around it; he'll lost a majority of his crop. Most of these hungry countries do not have the facilities to store that grain -that right there is a problem of immense proportions. Then he's got the trouble of transporting it to the city. Does he have a truck to get it there? If he does have a truck is the road reliable? Has it washed out in a cloudburst? Will militants jack his truck? Imagine all the things that go wrong in this scenario. Then when he gets it to the city what happens then? Even in the city few people have the facilities to store the grain or the resulting product.

In the end, it might not matter whether he produces 100 tons of grain or 100 pounds. If the food can't get to the hungry people, no one will have food but the farmer. In the west this isn't a very big problem for us. We have grain silos, and water tight warehouses, refrigerated rooms, refrigerated trucks, etc. Then when we have to move the food to that city fifty miles away that's not a problem either. We put it on a truck, it gets on a highway, and the town gets 100 tons of unspoiled grain within the hour it was shipped. So effective is our transportation system that a rice farmer in Georgia could get his grain to Seattle 3000+ miles away in less then a week using ground transportation alone.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

{mild sarcasm}I guess you're right. Screw 'em, let 'em starve. It's not like John Deere or Agway would want any of the tax credits either. And I'm sure the road-building companies would rather slit their wrists than get any tax credits. Yes, Only distributers and growers could possibly assist in this. No one else has anything to offer, so no combined, coordinated efforts would be possible. And if it only provides $2 billion a year to Africa in food shipping, well then why bother?{/mild sarcasm}

Honestly, is there any industry in America that doesn't have something to offer, whether it be logistical support, infrastructure rebuilding, or any of the host of other problems attached to and associated with world hunger?

And don't tell me this wouldn't get politicians re-elected. The senators from Michigan could go home and tell their constituency that not only they, but their children, would be guaranteed jobs from the trucks and construction equipment needed by other companies eager to get the tax write-offs (oh, and there's a relief on our tax burden, no unemployment).
In the farming states, representatives could inform farmers that their grain could be sold at a profit for the first time in decades, obviating the need for subsidation (oh, and there's another relief on our tax burden, no subsidies).
Imagine the effect upon our soldiers as the president told them that their role was shifted back to soldier from policeman to the world. (Could it be, another tax relief? Lower operation budget for the military. Say, I think I see a trend here...)
And once stable economies formed in the region, instead of a flood of tax-free charity, a flood of TRADE would follow. You remember trade, right? That thing that is good for everyone, including the US? Now every manufacturer in the US will reap the rewards, as sales increase with the addition of new markets.

So, in exchange for a reduction in budget and a tax-cut, we get increased trade, and a cleaner conscience. That should satisfy Maj.

Rmsharpe, Magnus, and Allan, just because they are 9,000 miles away, doesn't make them any less human, ar any less our neighbors. And it is kind of hard for a man to fish when his neighbors are killing him for his fishing pole. If they all had a fish, then maybe he'd survive the trip to the lake...and then HE could get their fish for tomorrow. That kind of thing can get out of hand. Next thing you know, he'll be hiring them to help him fish, and then someday, you and I will be dining on Lake Victoria brown trout almondine. I shudder at the thought. Oh, no, wait, that was a joygasm.

Apocalyspe Kurtz, it seems that all businesses CAN benefit from this, except perhaps purely service ones, and they can form joint-ventures with businesses like FedEx, to partially fund (and thereby share the tax credits for) these humanitarian efforts.

As I understand it, tax is a percentage of sale value applied to goods. If they are not sold, how can they be taxed, BlueMonday? Additionally, while we know that billions in aid money is a worthless token, we also know that that is a waste of money. Billions in delivered food is a whole other story.

BVD, your objections are noted. I would like to point out however, that these figures are based on current trends. New technology, especially hydroponics and water-farming (IE farming of fish and other aquatic foods) are sure to have a significant impact on these figures. Then there's the whole cloning issue. If we can clone one sheep, we can clone a whole lot of sheep, or cows, or chickens, or whatever. It is not too great an assumption, I feel, to think that a hydroponics facility will be as effective on African soil as it would be here or even on the Moon. Neccessity is the mother of invention. We have a Neccessity for more food production capacity. The Invention is sure to follow (or in this case, the application of existing inventions). I have several thousand years of history backing that statement up.

So, How am I doing?

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Quoting Allan:

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life."

--an old proverb

Teach a man to fish and you run out of fish.


Teaching a man who is starving to death to fish is ridiculous...third world hunger at its worst needs to be met with aid that can sustain people. It is true that swamping an area with aid removes the motivation of many to work and ruins the economy but a safety net for the poorest must be built to prevent malnutrition (which makes disease more devastating and in children dramatically effects their development) and death.

Providing the means for people to make money/food (either way allowing them to be fed) is another thing altogether...and DOES rely on help in this "world economy" where a few countries can supply cheaply goods to the whole world.

People point to capitalism as a good thing for the third world...and it is where it exists as it does provide a means of making a living (though I believe it works on exhortation of these people)...however economies of scale and the reliance on being next to a good communications network and in a relatively stable area means that capitalism in the second/third world is only effective in places like the philippines, mexico and vietnam not in the Sudan, Somalia and Congo etc.


The west does have a moral duty to help these people whose accident of birth lands them in lands with little opportunity, much strife/disease/war/famine and lacking education, health care (food, upbringing and health correspond mightily to intelligence, strength and generally adility) and fair justice as they are of the same species and because we CAN help.

People talk of slavery as a great evil...though with the end of slavery in the USA the descendants of slaves have done very well whilst the descendants of those that remained in africa do immeasurably worse...it is not the case that one group is "better" than the other, but that one group had greater opportunity from birth...and that is something that is worth aiming for.


To remove the idea of capitalism principal fromthird world countries and DEFINITELY the idea of free trade in these areas (so making worthless the produce of these backward areas) but allowing these countries to protect their trade and aid these countries -or even unions of countries- to be self-sufficient in the vital areas such as food production, clothing etc...it may be inefficient but it should provide massive labour so people can subsist...essentially these procedures should continue alongside providing better education, sanitation and medicine for these people UNTIL capitalism can provide enterprises that can make use of the resources in people and material from these backward nations.

At present capitalism is failing these people as seen by the amount of premature death and the tragic conditions these people live under through no fault other than accident of birth. The 1st world should payroll these areas to alleviate suffering and try to THEN provide some means for these nations to improve and become self-sufficent.

As for getting the money from the West...some means are being worked out e.g tax on currency speculation being given to aid the poor...

 

[Maj]

That's a matter best left at cultural relativism. The difference between the money an American farmer makes and what a Bolivian coffee picker makes are fundamentally the same, yes, but culturally different. A farmer in the U.S. might make geometrically more money in a day's work, but he must also pay geometrically more to support his lifestyle. It's called standard of living. Post industrial countries make far more money, but pay equally more in the costs of living everyday. The Bolivian coffee picker doesn't make as much money, but doesn't have to spend as much money to support his lifestyle. Instead of saying the American makes more money and leave it at that, one should look at the difference in the standard of living -the two (in a socio-economic view) are on the level. They both enjoy the same lifestyle on par with the society they live in.

Regardless of standard of living,an American farmer will still live a better life relative to whatever the Bolivian, in this example, values as being a good way of life. An American farmer will never end up in squalid conditions with little to nothing to eat as long as his government is in existence. It's rather difficult to starve to death in America so long as you're willing to sacrifice some dignity and the fruits of life you so grew accustomed to.

Even with cost of living factored into their lives, the average coffee farmer will earn far less than the American farmer and live a more destitute life.

-Maj

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Yes, and a doctor from the coffee farmer's country could get himself a top-flight job in the US as a taxi driver. And the average taxi-driver in the US could make a living as a doctor in the coffee grower's country. I would be an engineer or architect there, and I'm not that great with load-stress ratios, tensile strengths, and all that. But my education probably stands up well compared to theirs. And my buildings would probably stand up well compared to theirs also.

Standard of living. Look it up. It is what a society is used to. The US SoL is the highest in the world. Other nation's SoL's are represented as a percentage of the US SoL.

IE Japan has a 98.9% SoL. A US doctor would be a slightly-more sought-after doctor there. A specialist perhaps. And he might have trouble finding a golf course he liked. A Japanese businessman working in the US would find some things a trifle more expensive, but would have little difficulty locating sushi, a karaoke bar, or getting anime titles while in the US. And the golf courses!

Sudan's SoL is about, say, .03%. A US doctor there would be the equivalent of Albert Schweitzer. And the doctor would be appalled at the living conditions, food, and drinking water that he would have to suffice himself with while there, even when spending his incredibly valuable US currency. A Sudanese refugee in the US would finding himself living in palatial accomodations (a two-room efficiency), eating the finest imaginable foods (McDonalds, Wendy's, and actual beef in the grocery store and by-God potatoes up to your eyes), and earning a King's ransom in a single day (minimum wage or maybe a factory job in a union shop).

Standard of Living.

 

[allan]

"A Japanese businessman working in the US would find some things a trifle more expensive, but would have little difficulty locating sushi, a karaoke bar, or getting anime titles while in the US. And the golf courses!"

I'm not sure how the statistics (that 98.9% figure you mentioned) for "standard of living" were derived, but in terms of COST of living, Japanese certainly wouldn't find things "a trifle more expensive" here. I lived in Japan when I was in the Navy, and as of that time anyway (1995-97), things were DEFINITELY more expensive there: Rents were $1000+ for efficiencies in modest-sized cities; gas cost over $4 per gallon; a domestic beer at a nightclub cost $10 or more; admission to the nightclub could be close to $50; public city buses charged by the distance rather than the normal "flat rate" here, meaning a trip of 5 miles could cost $5 or so; McDonald's costs were about double what they are here, and restaurants in general (even those serving staple fish dishes) were more expensive than their US counterparts; subway fares were generally higher, as were regular train fares; tolls on freeways were MUCH higher (although we servicemen were exempt from paying them, by treaty); food in grocery stores cost about double what it did here; in general, about the only thing that was the same price that *I* encountered were cigarettes, and I gave up smoking about halfway through my time there....

Of course Japanese in general get paid a lot more, in order to meet these costs--often a girlfriend who was a lowly waitress (no tipping in Japan either) or part-time student clerk/receptionist would treat me when we went out, because she made way more than I did on an E-4 Navy salary, even with COLA (Cost-of-living adjustments) added in for overseas duty!

No wonder some Japanese businessmen are able to buy top-of-the-line prime US real estate in large quantities without batting an eye! Our country is a BARGAIN to them!

 

[allan]

"Teaching a man who is starving to death to fish is ridiculous...third world hunger at its worst needs to be met with aid that can sustain people."

As I said in that post, "giving the fish" (giving food) IS suitable for short-term relief. It is true that no other way is possible when one is starving NOW and has a month or two left to live as a result.

However, while we do what needs to be done in the SHORT term, we must also look at the long term, and find long-term solutions so that the underlying causes of hunger are eliminated. I.e., "teaching people to fish", meaning teaching people to better manage their resources, farm more efficiently, build good infrastructure to eliminate shipping spoilage, reduce or eliminate corruption, diversify and rotate crops, etc. etc. Stuff the Peace Corps and related groups currently do, but on a much larger and more comprehensive scale....

Doesn't that make sense?

 

[BlueMonday]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
As I understand it, tax is a percentage of sale value applied to goods. If they are not sold, how can they be taxed, BlueMonday?

No, you're wrong. Businesses are taxed based on the pretax income into the organization. If a company makes a gross revenue $100 000 000 000 but after all of its operating costs only has an income of $1 000 000 000 then the company is taxed only about $400 000 000 by the federal and state governments. Sales tax on the other hand is pushed on the customer and I don't see a way to make sales tax exchange a tax refundable credit. Who is the customer? The seller, the buyer, or the beneficiary? Once you remove the idea of selling food goods to another customer and instead give it away, you remove the sale itself and therefore remove the sales tax. Without a sales tax there can be no 3x tax credit refund.

I don't think you really have an understanding on how much capital would be required for companies (of which only world wide shippers have the capability) to take on something of this magnitude. That's why food aide is generally left to federal governments. They are the only entities with the ability to do such things. In order for a private company to start a distribution like this they would have to invest billions of dollars into new trucks, buildings, aircraft, new employees, new training. If you're getting a 3x tax credit refund but your only being taxed $400 000 000 you're only going to be able to profitably invest $133 000 000 in this venture. What does that pay for? A couple new buildings, maybe some jets, and a few hundred more employees. Then you'd also have the costs of sustaining it. Like I said before, the companies would hit thier tax ceiling long before they even did anything.

And you still fail to address the long litiny of problems with world hunger. You've assumed that just having the western world give away food is a cure-all for world hunger. Far from it, it would probably create more problems then it would solve.

Standard of living. Look it up. It is what a society is used to. The US SoL is the highest in the world. Other nation's SoL's are represented as a percentage of the US SoL.

Wrong again. The U.S. is actually twenty seventh on the list.

Source: http://www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/wbon.html

see also: http://www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/wonrank.doc