Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).

Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).

  • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    21·
    9 days ago

    Posting on Twitter on Sunday, the Tesla chief executive said: “If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6 billion will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it.”

    “But it must be open source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent,” he added.

    Beasley replied to Musk’s post on Twitter, saying he could assure the billionaire that the WFP had the systems in place for transparency and open source accounting.

    “Your team can review and work with us to be totally confident of such,” he said.

    “$6 billion will not solve world hunger, but it WILL prevent geopolitical instability, mass migration and save 42 million people on the brink of starvation. An unprecedented crisis and a perfect storm due to Covid/conflict/climate crises,” he added.

    CNN.

    He word-for-word demanded detailed explanation on a twitter thread, not linked document. Also, even if the proposal give might not have solved the world hunger crisis that amount of work would have made him the biggest benefactor on the planet by a pretty decent margin and there would be statues of him around and schools would teach about that single event. But no, the plan wasn’t immediately perfect so he just ditched it and left 42 million (and who knows how many more due to multiplier effects) people on their own fate.

    But I guess ‘bluff’ was called and everyone clapped their hands.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      9 days ago

      You are definitely not beating the “deliberately obtuse” allegations.

      In no way did Musk insist that the entire plan be tweeted in plain text as tweets, and no reasonable person would consider putting a link to X (pardon the pun) in a Twitter thread as not counting as ‘putting X in a Twitter thread’.

      “not linked document” is literally a lie, why would you think it wouldn’t be identified as such, when his exact words are so readily available?