Get your daps on boy bach, you're going to school https://twitter.com/NoBezosCant/status/1311548369492467713

Now, what you'll notice about the first argument in this article is that it's not saying he's incapable of ending world hunger - it's saying boohoo wouldn't it suck for Jeff not to have a major stake in one of the richest companies on Earth

1) He can stagger his sell-offs - as he already does. So he can sell either $11.6bn of shares worth at once, or he can do three lots of $3.8bn, or whatever, and then wait for the value to reclimb.

2) He can announce this publicly (as he no doubt would if he chose to do it)...

...for the purpose of making clear to people that Amazon as a company is still perfectly fine, as many businesspeople do when they're resigning from major positions in a company.

3) He doesn't need to resign as CEO. He'll lose his shareholder's stake, yes...

...but if he's doing a good job, the board can choose to keep him on as CEO and wham bam your whole market crisis is averted. And if he's not doing a good job? Well then the market can be relieved that they're getting a better person for the job!

To make this argument, as you yourself concede, is not only uncharitable but it ignores the role of imperialism.

The purpose of a lot of foreign aid is *not* to build up, but to keep suppressed.

As the great Thomas Sankara said:

"Where is imperialism? Look at your plates when you eat. The imported grains of rice, corn, and millet – that is imperialism. Let’s not look any further”

Doing this can destroy the ability of local and regional agriculture to develop.

A lot of foreign aid acts not as aid, but as imperialism and this factor cannot be ignored.

Now, let us look to his next argument:

We're going to address that top figure first: $265bn per year.

This is the United Nation's figure, in conjunction with the WFP and the FAO. This figure includes another key thing eliminated alongside hunger - extreme poverty.

This is the source I got this screenshot from, on page 4:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4997e.pdf 

Now, it is a fair assessment to for the UN to say that extreme poverty and hunger are two goals that are joined at the hip. However, history has shown us that it is not necessary to totally eliminate poverty in order to feed people sustainably.

Under Thomas Sankara, Burkina Faso achieved food self-sufficiency, but did not end extreme poverty (much of that progress has been eroded since the coup). In Vietnam, approx 10% of people live in extreme poverty, and in neighbouring Cambodia that figure is 13.5%...

...Yet according to the Global Hunger Index, Cambodia is at a much more severe risk of hunger than Vietnam. It *is* possible to eliminate or reduce hunger separate of extreme poverty.

It is, ofc, desirable to eliminate both - but it is not a prerequisite to eliminating hunger.

I have never claimed Jeff Bezos can eliminate extreme poverty globally. That is an intensely more structural issue. Eliminating poverty means improved trade, infrastructure, transport links, access to healthcare and education, industrial development - it's much more difficult.

The other figure, $52bn - the IMPACT model - is doing two things that the MIRAGRODEP (the one I use) is not:

1) It is aiming to boost agricultural yield
2) It is doing this within the context of climate change

Now, you very well might say that this is the more sophisticated model, and I would agree with you - but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if we were to say that IMPACT model is better than MIRAGRODEP....

....which would be strange off the bat because their goals and methodology are different, but even if we say that OK - Jeff can't end extreme poverty AND hunger, and he can't end it by boosting agricultural yield and making adjustments to defend against climate change...

...it is still pretty fucking huge to say that he *can* end world hunger by targeting undernourished households using the MIRAGRODEP model. This is not a path that exists for a single other individual person on Earth.

You've not conclusively argued that Jeff is incapable of plugging the hole; you've argued he's incapable of doing it with his hands tied behind his back and a blindfold on. And I'd agree with you there.

But let me even be *more charitable* than I already have to your argument. Let me say, for arguments sake, that he can't end world hunger totally; maybe he can only end it for 2/3 of the hungry people

That's half a billion people

I don't feel my point has been defeated here.

I have to admire the sheer naivete to think that the United States has genuinely tried to rebuild Afghanistan and pretend that there isn't a relationship between the $30bn opioid market that predominantly exists in N. America and Afghanistan producing 90% of the world's opium.

Here's the thing: if the United States genuinely wanted to rebuild Afghanistan, they could.

Also, it's wild that he's mentioned the report I'm using just a few paragraphs up...and then interprets my argument as "dropping money from a helicopter".

On the argument of "you need infrastructure", I would wholeheartedly agree. It's why it's lucky this is already priced into the MIRAGRODEP model.

As for the human terrain: I am not proposing Bezos *himself* go in and start doing this.

The IISD and IFPRI propose working with locals and local suppliers to solve this issue. Which is the only feasible way to do this.

If you're going to address my argument at least read the report I'm citing before you tackle it.

Despite all this;

This is still the most comprehensive and fair counter-argument I have come across so far, if albeit with a few flaws. Hats off to the author.