this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
144 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
785 readers
474 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He literally has enough money to end global hunger several times over. He could reduce the misery of billions of people
Do you think we could end global hunger by throwing 200-600 billion USD at it? I feel like even if you could distribute it to all the poorest citizens of a country, $100 per person is not enough to permanently ward off food insecurity.
I was going based off the findings that in the West at least, after about $80-90k, increased wealth no longer translates to increased subjective well-being. Then, boosting the median American worker's income (~45k) up to that level.
At minimum, it could be used to build the infrastructure necessary in the places that need it to transport and/or grow food to address root problems.