The investment volume of the OECD-industrial countries in ratio of armament to own agriculture is 3:1 according the Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO. If food had the infrastructure of weapons there wouldn't be famine. In the industrial countries 4 of 100 persons produce enough corn for the respective populations. In the developing countries it's 80 of 100. In vue of this disproportion arises the question. Why not catapult these 80 persons though agriculture aids to the production level of OECD-states?

The at the beginning mentioned balance of power of 3:1 impedes this development and reflects political realities. From the industrial nations point of vue, independent developing countries with working agriculture jeopardize not only own agriculture exports, they don't need interest bearing standby credits and don't offer plattform for our helping industry. Further more, hungry persons are easier to manipulate, ensure cheap costs of globalisation, hence cheap imports, what again keeps domestic production costs low. 

The consequence of these economical think cramps are long since established and make the number of poor-working grow. This trend leads forseeable to social tensions with historical best known passing, the bullet producers again profitate.

The political redesign of this deconstruction vehicle to a constructive is asking for a change o circumstances. Our politelite is probably not able and willing to move to a concern building trigonal splits in between bulletproducers, industrial fodder producers and the third world farmers. The consument can make or brake it though. Return to regionality, seasonality and a little of sacrifice. Not only this minimizes the worldwide transport slapstick comedy, but reduces also global over-exploitation at human, animal and environment with involved wars.

Economists will call this consume sacrifice a century recession. But please: What do we have today? Only a consume change changes the circumstances in favor of all, because our over weight stresses the global balance, finds cynic manifestations in neocolonial doctrines of globaly acting profiteer, who in vue of permanently growing numbers of hungry people gets confirmed in their enemy stereotype pleas to grow the numbers of bullets to continue to eat corn in quiet and as long polit sponsored Wall Street gladiators continue to fund potential of destruction, nothing will change.

Our potential of aggression (ratio of 3:1) needs blood since ever. So it's questionable if it's a opulence of corn that makes the change. But at least you could strike yourself dead with bread.