But if you put money into it you can produce much more.
I don't know if you realize this, but money get's shit done, and we're wasting alot of it right now.
We have a military budget of 570 billion+ per year.
You haven't looked lately - it is obvious. Or you are simply trying to make a political point.
The world is awash in basic commodities to make food. We have more corn, rice, barley, wheat and soybeans in storage than you could ever imagine - Ending stocks, after all use this year, will be over 1.8 billion bushels of corn alone - each bushel of corn is approximately 60 US pounds. The world is producing more pork, chicken, and beef than ever before - again ending stocks after use skyrocketed last year. Getting that out of storage and in use would certainly end a lot of hunger.
The problem truly is distribution - and you want us to produce more? The US price of corn and soybeans has been below production cost for 3 years in a row now. We have so much wheat that farmers planted 3 million fewer acres this year (10% of total US production) - and the grain markets don't think it is enough to relieve the oversupply.
There is a case to be made to reduce the military budget, but it seems rather silly to tie it to global food shortages... especially when there is a record amount of basic food commodities in storage right now all over the world.
And it has been proven time and time again that giving money intended for food distribution does not work in many countries. They truly want their people starving... for whatever reason.
Here is another fact, due to the plummet in diesel fuel - the cost of transportation of these commodities is now cheaper than it has been in ten years.
So at a time when we have more food in storage than ever before in human history, and we have the cheapest shipping charges in a decade, we still have people starving.
The issue is decidedly not more money thrown at the problem of food production, IMO.