THE APPROXIMATE SUM TO CARRY OUT THIS PROJECT OF UNEQUIVOCAL VALUE IS 200 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, SIMILAR TO THE CALCULATIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS' INEFFECTIVE PLANS. ONE FIGURE MENTIONED IN THESE PROJECTS IS 267 BILLION DOLLARS... FOR INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, UNDOUBTEDLY VERY VALUABLE FROM A POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW AND WITH BENEFICIAL EFFECTS FOR THE POPULATION... BUT WHICH DO NOT GUARANTEE THE END OF HUNGER AND FOOD INSECURITY. ONLY CORRECT NUTRITION GUARANTEES THE END OF MALNUTRITION.
THE 200 BILLION IN THIS "UNEQUIVOCAL" PLAN WOULD BE BROKEN DOWN AS FOLLOWS:
80 BILLION FOR CROPS PRODUCTION ON 60 MILLION HECTARES
The cultivation of one hectare of extensive agriculture of average value costs between 1,000 and 1,500 dollars (capable of producing, for example, 8,000 kilos of corn or 3,500 kilos of peanuts or 3,000 kilos of soybeans or 3,000 kilos of wheat). This cost includes the price of land (rent), seeds, fertilizers, use of machinery...
20,000 MILLION FOR PROCESSING CROPS IN ORDER TO PRODUCE 220,000 MILLION KILOS OF FOOD (HALF A KILO OF RATION PER PERSON PER DAY, WITH AN AVERAGE OF 2200 CALORIES AND OTHER NUTRIENTS)
Four processing plants for every million hectares are 240 plants capable of producing, from about one hundred and thirty thousand kilos of crops (corn, peanuts, soybeans, wheat...) an average of one hundred thousand kilos of food per hour (2.5 million per day): cleaning, grinding, mixing, cooking, cooling, dehydration... The process is relatively simple and economical since the product would be stored in bulk in sanitized containers for maritime transport. Each plant (buildings, machinery, energy, industrial space and other expenses) that must process 1.2 billion crops annually to generate 900 million kilos of food (for 5 million people) would cost about 80 million dollars. One dollar for every 11 kilos of processed product. The cost of the harvest is one dollar for every 2.5 kilos of harvested vegetables. The total cost of the product (220 billion kilos of product times 200 billion dollars) is 1 dollar per kilo (feeding 2 people per day, 0.5 the ration of one person per day). Of this cost, 0.4 is the cost of the harvest and 0.1 is the cost of processing. Packaging, packing and transport take up the other costs.
30 BILLION FOR LAND TRANSPORT OF CROPS AND PROCESSED RATIONS
Every day, 24,000 truck-containers of food must be distributed in Africa, each containing about 1,700 small plastic containers (each containing food for one person per month). The vast majority will be transported in container trucks with an average load of 30 thousand kilos (150,000 trucks in total). In the producing countries there will be cheaper transport systems (mainly railways) and the total costs could add up to ten billion. Fuel costs in Africa would be around ten billion per year to distribute rations, and costs for vehicles and other means of transport (trains...) could be a similar figure.
40 BILLION FOR NAVAL TRANSPORT FROM PRODUCING COUNTRIES TO AFRICA
Some 460 vessels with a capacity of 60,000 tons (2,000 containers), each of which would make about eight trips a year. About 3,700 trips a year in total. Considering the distance to be travelled there and back, each trip could cost 10 million dollars (to transport 60 million tons of processed food). A container ship of this capacity has a new price of 250 million dollars and a useful life of 25 years.
30 BILLION FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND PREPARATION OF REUSABLE RATION PACKAGING
They would be manufactured in the ports where the packaged food is received in bulk, in Africa, which would create jobs among the local population. Some twenty large plants are needed, where not only would some 4 billion containers be manufactured each year (at a cost of 5 dollars each, and only a part of the 14 billion needed each year), but the used containers would be sanitised and all the product that has to go on to the distribution process would be packaged, labelled and packed.
THE MONEY WOULD COME THROUGH HUMANITARIAN FINANCIAL FOUNDATIONS, LIKE MANY ALREADY EXISTING. COSTS CAN BE REDUCED IF THE MAJORITY OF THE WORKERS ARE VOLUNTEERS, BUT IF WAGES HAVE TO BE PAID THIS WOULD NOT INCREASE THE COST BY MORE THAN 20%. IN PACKAGING PLANTS IN AFRICA, WAGES CAN BE PAID TO LOCAL WORKERS, WHICH WOULD BENEFIT THE INCOME OF THE POPULATION.
THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF MONEY IN THE WORLD, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE LARGE NUMBER OF BILLIONAIRES (MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND) AND CENTIMILLIONAIRES (ALMOST THIRTY THOUSAND). IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN 12 TRILLION DOLLARS IN TAX HAVENS, AND LET'S NOT FORGET THE CAPITAL IN BITCOINS. LOGICALLY, MONEY DOES NOT COME OUT OF NOTHING: IT IS A CONSEQUENCE OF GREAT TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES... ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIGH PERFORMANCE OF EXTENSIVE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD PROCESSING WHERE THE CONDITIONS ARE GIVEN FOR THEIR PRACTICING.
OF THE 8 BILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, ONE EIGHTH (1 BILLION) HAVE A GOOD STANDARD OF LIVING. IT IS ENOUGH THAT EACH PERSON CONTRIBUTES 200 DOLLARS A YEAR TO MAKE THIS PROJECT VIABLE. THE POPULATION OF RICH COUNTRIES IS AROUND 1.2 BILLION (NORTH AMERICA, WESTERN EUROPE, FAR EAST ASIA AND OTHER SMALLER ENCLAVES). FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM STATES CANNOT BE DISCARDED, BOTH FROM PROSPEROUS NATIONS THAT ALREADY CONTRIBUTE TO HUMANITARIAN CAUSES AND FROM AFRICAN NATIONS THEMSELVES.
IN ADDITION, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THAT THE SPENDING OF 200 BILLION ON THIS PROJECT WOULD LEAD TO SAVINGS IN MANY OTHER RELATED HUMANITARIAN PROJECTS CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE, SOME OF WHICH MENTION EXACT FIGURES RELATING TO HELPING HUMAN GROUPS AT GREAT RISK: 23 BILLION FOR EXTREME HUNGER AND 14 BILLION FOR CHRONIC HUNGER... OTHERS GIVE THE FIGURE OF 53 BILLION FOR ECONOMIC AID TO AFRICA. ALL OF THESE FIGURES WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS UNEQUIVOCAL PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO AFFECT FOOD IMPORTS FROM AFRICA, ESTIMATED AT AN ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF 40 BILLION, WHICH WOULD PROPORTIONALLY REDUCE POVERTY ON THE CONTINENT, AS WELL AS MEDICAL EXPENDITURES DERIVED FROM PROBLEMS DUE TO POOR NUTRITION.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WITHIN THE POSSIBILITIES OF FINANCING, UNPRECEDENTED SOURCES OF CAPITAL SHOULD NOT BE DISCARDED.
IT COULD HAPPEN THAT THIS UNEQUIVOCAL PROJECT AGAINST HUNGER, GIVEN ITS UNPRECEDENTED CHARACTERISTICS, WOULD ONLY BE VIABLE IF IT IS NECESSARILY ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW CULTURAL PHENOMENON OF AN ALTRUISTIC NATURE, AND THEN IT WOULD BE LOGICAL FOR IT TO HAVE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF A NEW KIND.
EVEN IF THE VOLUNTEERS FULLY COMMITTED TO THIS PROJECT ARE NOT MORE THAN 1 PERSON FOR EVERY 10,000 (A FIGURE SIMILAR TO THE NUMBER OF CATHOLIC CLERGY WORLDWIDE), THE PSYCHOSOCIAL EFFECT OF THIS CULTURAL PHENOMENON (CUSTOMS OF EXTREME PROSOCIAL MORALITY) AND ECONOMIC (CHARITABLE WORK ON A MULTINATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SCALE) COULD MAKE ORIGINAL STRUCTURES VIABLE, SUCH AS NON-FRAUDULENT PYRAMIDAL CAPITALIZATION. IN THIS SCHEME, A PERSON COULD DONATE 200,000 DOLLARS TO THE HUMANITARIAN FOUNDATION WITH THE PROMISE OF RECEIVING 20,000 IN ANNUAL INCOME. WHETHER OR NOT THE DONOR RECEIVES THE DONATIONS WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER THE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION CONTINUES TO RECEIVE DONATIONS (WHETHER OR NOT IS EXPECTED TO MAKE A PROFIT). IF THIS STOPS HAPPENING, THE DONOR-ANNUITANT IN THEORY LOSES EVERYTHING, ALTHOUGH HE CAN COUNT ON THE PROMISE OF RESTAURATION OF HIS ASSETS BASED ON THE MORAL PRESTIGE OF THE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION. THE DONOR CAN ALSO RECOVER SOME OF HIS MONEY IF THE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION HAS USED IT TO BUY ASSETS FOR HUMANITARIAN USE, SUCH AS FARMLAND, REAL ESTATE OR MACHINERY WHICH CAN BE SOLD TO REIMBURSE HIM.
THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE THAT, ONCE THE HUMANITARIAN AND CULTURAL CHANGE PROJECT IS LAUNCHED, WE WOULD ENTER INTO A PROCESS OF GLOBAL ECONOMIC CHANGE. AS FAR AS DONORS ARE CONCERNED, THIS CHANGE COULD BRING THEM TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE BENEFITS FOR MANY YEARS TO COME DUE TO THE ARRIVAL OF NEW DONORS (ATTRACTED BY THE SUCCESS OF THE ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ALTERNATIVE, AND WHO MIGHT NO LONGER BE INTERESTED IN GETTING THEIR MONEY BACK), OR THE ENTIRE CAPITALIST SYSTEM WOULD COLLAPSE AND BE REPLACED BY AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM GENERATED BY CULTURAL CHANGE, A SYSTEM BASED ON ALTRUISTIC INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, AND IN SUCH CASE THE FINANCIAL FUNDS COULD BE WORTH NOTHING IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE "REVERSE MORTGAGE" TYPE PRACTICES, ALSO BASED ON EXPECTATIONS OF FUTURE STRUCTURAL CHANGES ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
FINANCING FROM CRIMINAL PRACTICES BASED ON SUPPOSED "MORAL DILEMMAS" SHOULD BE DISCARDED BECAUSE THEIR CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE UNCONTROLLABLE (A CRIMINAL PRACTICE OF THIS TYPE WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EMBEZZLEMENT OF BANK DEPOSITS FOR SUPPOSEDLY ALTRUISTIC MOTIVATIONS). NOR DOES IT SEEM APPROPRIATE TO ORGANIZE ALGORITHM FORMULATION TEAMS TO OBTAIN LARGE AMOUNTS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES IN THE STOCK MARKET AND IN GAMES OF CHANCE, SINCE VIABILITY WOULD NOT BE GUARANTEED AND INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES MAY BE WASTED ("OPPORTUNITY COST").
ANY OTHER NON-CRIMINAL FINANCING RESOURCE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE LOSSES OF THE "OPPORTUNITY COST" TYPE MAY BE ACCEPTABLE.
No comments:
Post a Comment