WELCOME TO CRISISFORUMS.ORG!
(1) Please swing by our "HELP CENTER" to view our forum rules prior to commenting.
(2) Acknowledge that by commenting or posting, you take full responsibility for the content and message of the information you put forth, which do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website.
(3) If you would like to post your own discussion threads, just contact one of the staff so we can verify you as a human.

Visualizing $1 Billion (worth watching)

GrumpyGuy_MOD_GrumpyGuy_MOD_ Moderator
edited March 5 in Science & Learning


Even though $1,000,000 is nothing to a billionaire (and there are an estimated 1,810 billionaires in the world today according to Google), I'm willing to bet that reading "$1,000,000" still affects them in a similar manner to how it affects us - "That's a lot of money!"

Removing a couple of lines from a giant multi-page block of numbers, though?  Very difficult to notice, let alone feel.

It's estimated that the cost of eliminating world hunger would be $30 Billion/year.  An astronomical sum to people like us, but divided among 1,810 billionaires?  That would cost each billionaire $16,574,585.  That's 0.016% of the fortune of a person who has "only" one billion dollars.

Further math dividing $1 Billion by $16,574,585 shows me that the 1,810 billionaires, if together they only had $1.8 Trillion, could feed the world's hungry for 60 years assuming they receive zero further income/interest on their wealth.  Google tells me that, as of 2016, the world's 1,810 billionaires have, combined, $6.48 Trillion.  That's a little over three and a half times the cost of feeding the world's hungry for 60 years - assuming none of those individuals earns a single additional dollar beyond this very moment in time.

Now I ask - is the burden of feeding the world really such that it is sufficient excuse for why humanity has yet to manage the task?

Now consider that Wal-Mart Corporation reports an annual revenue of $482 Billion.  Using only 6% of that amount, they could single-handedly foot the bill.

Also consider that, of the ten corporations with the highest annual revenue, last place is awarded to a corporation (British Petroleum in this case) that reports "only" $226 Billion per year.  The world hunger bill would cost them 13% of their annual revenue.

That means there are at least ten corporations that could, by themselves, pay for the yearly ongoing cost of ending world hunger using under 15% of their annual revenue.

Of course, annual revenue and "net profits" aren't the same thing.  Revenue is just the total money brought in by the company before considering all of their operating costs and various expenditures.  That said, let's look at some of the highest corporate net profits from 2015:

#1 Apple - $53.4 Billion

#2 JP Morgan Chase - $24.4 Billion

#3 Berkshire Hathaway - $24.1 Billion

#4 Wells Fargo - $22.9 Billion

#5 Gilead Sciences - $18.1 Billion (this company gets rich off drug sales, like Hep. C drug Sovaldi at $1,000 per pill

#6 Verizon Communications - $17.9 Billion

#7 Citigroup - $17.2 Billion

#8 Alphabet (Google's parent company) - $16.3 Billion

#9 Exxon Mobil - $16.2 Billion

#10 Bank of America - $15.9 Billion


Grand total = $226.4 Billion

Those ten corporations alone could have, by each paying $3 Billion, footed the bill for ending world hunger.  All $226.4 billion combined could have ended it 7.5 times.  Worth noting is that there are far more wealthy corporations than just those ten.

The cost of ending world hunger, if spread across those billionaires and wealthy companies in percentages based on their respective dollar figures, would be so little that they wouldn't even notice the loss.

And yet, the $30 Billion cost remains unpaid while nearly 800 million people go hungry every day.

Something tells me our species should be discussing this information and making a collective decision about what to do about it. 
People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment.
- Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings

Comments

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    Fantastic analysis.

    Even better news is that we don't even have to wait for people who hoard things to help out: If every single person in the world who had something to give gave one dollar a month, it could achieve the same end. The average per capita income in China alone is $15,000 a year, so if every Chinese could spare $12, that's $15.6 billion dollars raised just from the Chinese people. This doesn't include the rest of the world. This also doesn't include the billion people of the West giving $10 or $100 a month.

    Not only would starvation be conquered, so would health challenges, infrastructure challenges, telecommunications challenges, education challenges. There would be so much wealth generated together that there wouldn't be enough projects to meet its ambitions.

    And on top of all this, such cooperative raising of funds doesn't include the new funds that would be raised as a result of people being lifted out of poverty through such a plan. "I went from starving to making $5,000 a year. Here's half. Do even more."

    Even the poorest people in the world might contribute to this, because the existence of such a worldwide effort would surely mean that eventually it would come knocking on their door, and their lives would change forever. The poorest people of the world live in Somalia, and make just $400 a year. If they sacrificed $12 a year, and every single human being contributed one dollar a month, it would raise $84 billion dollars a year.

    This is before corporations and people of wealth added in their help. Together the world could probably raise a half a trillion dollars a year towards the total reconstruction of the earth an the uplifting of all peoples.




    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • I should also add that the cost of eliminating world hunger, if tackled intelligently, wouldn't likely remain $30 Billion/year forever.  Part of ending hunger would include the funding and creation of systems to manufacture and distribute food.  Ideally, after a few years or perhaps a decade of concentrated effort, nobody would have to pay anything anymore because the global population would be sustainably fed.

    Furthermore, numerous people and NPOs that are wealthy in thought but perhaps not resources have already come up with numerous unique plans to implement the ending of world hunger.

    It's not like we'd be tackling this with no idea how to proceed.
    People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment.
    - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    What if we decided that it's worth the risk to trust the people in the land next to us? What if we decided that, "Hey, I trust my brothers and sisters to respect me, and I will respect them, and even if they don't at first, I'll trust that they can learn the way"?

    The world, right now, spends $1.6 trillion dollars on weapons. Why don't we get rid of the weapons? All of them. Patience is a whole lot cheaper, after all.

    Now, add that money into all the other money. Paradise awaits. It's literally right there, waving its arms at us from the horizon.
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • Fantastic analysis.

    Even better news is that we don't even have to wait for people who hoard things to help out: If every single person in the world who had something to give gave one dollar a month, it could achieve the same end. The average per capita income in China alone is $15,000 a year, so if every Chinese could spare $12, that's $15.6 billion dollars raised just from the Chinese people. This doesn't include the rest of the world. This also doesn't include the billion people of the West giving $10 or $100 a month.

    Not only would starvation be conquered, so would health challenges, infrastructure challenges, telecommunications challenges, education challenges. There would be so much wealth generated together that there wouldn't be enough projects to meet its ambitions.

    And on top of all this, such cooperative raising of funds doesn't include the new funds that would be raised as a result of people being lifted out of poverty through such a plan. "I went from starving to making $5,000 a year. Here's half. Do even more."

    Even the poorest people in the world might contribute to this, because the existence of such a worldwide effort would surely mean that eventually it would come knocking on their door, and their lives would change forever. The poorest people of the world live in Somalia, and make just $400 a year. If they sacrificed $12 a year, and every single human being contributed one dollar a month, it would raise $84 billion dollars a year.

    This is before corporations and people of wealth added in their help. Together the world could probably raise a half a trillion dollars a year towards the total reconstruction of the earth an the uplifting of all peoples.




    But.. but... that's *my* $10!  I worked hard to earn that!  Why should I just give it to some stranger somewhere when I have a family to keep comfortable!

    (Classic argument for why people don't share their money)

    We need to overcome that attitude but, unfortunately, it appears to be growing worse.
    People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment.
    - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings
  • tazweisstazweiss Member, Permitted to post new threads

    You have the right idea Matt.  It would be up to "we the people" to accomplish an undertaking of that kind.

    Leave the elites, the extremely wealthy and the big corporations out of it.  To them, the "useless eaters" are nothing more than a drain on resources that should rightfully belong to them.  Profit and power will always take precedence over compassion and caring.

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

Sign In or Register to comment.