You're right, but 100 billion is definitely not enough to solve world hunger. It an enormous systematic problem and can't be solved by just throwing pocket change at it.
Now, influence maybe, that's hard to quantify.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Actually, you could solve world hunger for free, by destroying the system that creates it, and fairly distributing the food already being produced

But even if you look at actually tackling it within capitalism, I was basing my estimation on when the UN told Musk it would take 6 billion.
That link confirms that that figure is out of date, but yours is still off Current estimates suggest that as of this year, we need donor governments to invest around $37 billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hunger

That really is pocket change if they split it between them, even just the top 5 or even ten richest, let alone all of them.
They choose not to

[–] redempt@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Thank you for this. So sick of pretending our problems are unsolvable when we have both the resources and the knowledge to solve them. "It's just too big/complex to tackle!" is capitalist propaganda.

[–] dvdv@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

I believe in most estimates that 100 billion would get us 33% to solving world hunger. Definitely not enough, but also not a drop in the bucket