What is the Theory?

The theory here is to show that when free food is provided to people, it will always
lead to a holistic improvement and development of the society. The aim here is to
provide free food to the hungry. Societal norms for centuries have evidently shown
that the inability to provide food for one's self and family is strongly linked with a
low income level, which is largely correct, so the entire analysis here will be giving
importance to those who suffer from serious economic constraints and low levels of
income.

Why Food?

Living beings are cursed with the inability to survive without food and water. Surely
the time span of going without food varies, but sustaining one's self without any
food is something we dont come across. Where Darwin's Theory of the survival of
the fittest does talk a little about the fact where those with more power and
strength eat those lacking it, the jungle being a proof to his theory, its something
that we as humans also come across often since the basic animalistic extinct lies in
all of us. People have eaten one another in desperate times, foregoing their beliefs
in morality and society, only for survival. It is particularly because hunger often
drives people to such extremes that we cant even imagine.

For centuries wars have been fought for resources, food being one of the most
important of them, explorations in the old ages in the tribes and gypsies in search of
food in order to sustain their selves. History provides us with enough examples that
food is the most important thing.

In economics, we often talk about a break-even point. Providing two square meals a
day has often been the breakeven point for survival. Biologically, the human body
needs shelter to protect itself from harsh weather and unclean environment which if
remains constant, is a onetime investment. The body demands only one thing to run
itself, food and water. Thats all the body wants. Wants beyond that, is a
psychological explanation which at no point in time, needs to be defined. Almost
everything is justified so long as it is within the legal parameters of a State.

Now lets talk a little scientifically and socially as to why food is important.
Scientifically, it provides us with the energy to run ourselves which provides a
healthy welfare of our body, important for fighting against diseases and sustaining
ourselves. Socially, a healthy body helps in improving performance or at least
maintaining it. Since all achievements in life are linked with performance, ensuring a
good health is important. Performance is also largely affected by psychological
environments and incentive structures, but that something we will deal with some
other time.

Food can be given to the humans as well as animals.

Food to the Animals

People give food to the animals for their love for them and because they feel happy
in doing so. They realize that unlike humans they cannot earn money and cannot
enter into a transaction in the market in return for food. So people resort to giving
them food which is of course, free, because there is no other way of exchanging the
food with them. How is it good for humans? If I go and make a value judgment of
deciding how my money is to be spent, I have already judged that by doing that
activity I am the happiest. The very fact that I give food to an animal rather than
feeding my own self means that I decide that feeding them will give me more
pleasure in doing so. And well, if I am satisfied with my choice and realize that the
utility derived from the happiness of feeding an animal is more than that of feeding
myself, its absolutely fine. Selfishly speaking, it is a maximization of ones welfare
but socially and ethically speaking, the responsibility of another living being has
been taken upon ones self which is absolutely legit in the state structure.

Why should we give free food?

This is perhaps one of the most important questions a person would ask me. The
world operates on rationality driven by incentive structures. 'What should I do in
order to get something in return? What will I get in return if I do something?' The
latter part is precisely what people do think about in this case. Rationality in
economics talks about maximizing benefit. Rationality however does not however
lay restrictions on whose benefit needs to be maximized. People when driven by
slightly sensitive environments and backgrounds have a very passive ideology of a
utilitarian concept. A utilitarian concept is also sometime perceived to be socialistic
but so long as a person thinks beyond earning his own bread and thinks about
another person, family or not, we in society tend to give him a higher social
standing. That is why we always have good things to say about those engage
themselves in charity. The reason for this is that rationality is often assumed to be
driven towards maximizing self interest. But when people realize that they have
enough and the other doesn't, this selfishness of rationality takes a back seat and
this is precisely where many people are automatically inclined towards contributing
to such a program, whether they need to be explained why or why not they should
be a part of it, their sensitivity already directs them towards this. So when a person
asks, 'Why should I feed the poor?', I would say "You owe this to the society because
the society provides with the ability and resources to you which enables you to be in
your current situation', but the above explanation is itself taking a very aggressive
front to justify the cause which is something we want the people to realize on their
own, not forcefully. So instead, the better explanation is, "Many people die of hunger
every day, and you have the ability to ease this pain of theirs." The result will
depend on that persons will. Even if he doesn't contribute, somewhere these words
should have a little impact on him which might change his actions in such situations
in the future. And if that happens, in the long run, it has paid off.

The Economics of it

Firstly before we go and establish the entire benefits of this entire model, we will
make major assumptions to this entire theory.

Considering the standard utility functions we will first narrow down the assumptions
to get the perfect fitted utility function. We shall assume two goods here, x and y.
Assuming x to be food and y would be everything else. Since y is everything else, y
would be a composite good. X and y are goods that are consumed without any
specific relationship existing between their consumptions. X and y are neither
perfect substitutes nor perfect complimentary goods. Hence we shall assume a non-
kinked function over here; hence the best fitted utility function would be a Cobb-
Douglas utility function. Hence the function would take the form xayb respectively.
Now we need to set a relationship between a and b, hence we assume that a + b
= c (constant). For convenience sake we shall assume c = 1. Hence a +b = 1.

Now, lets try to hypothesize what would be the values of a and b. Intuitively
speaking, the value of a should be less than that of b. Here is where we use
choice and the utility of money. For simplification if we assume the price of both the
commodities to be 1, thus we have food and a composite good. Now, why would the
utility derived from the other goods be more? Lets assume I have 100 rupees. With
100 rupees I am going and buying food worth 100 rupees. Either I eat it today or I
keep it and store it in terms of raw stock for the future. The pleasure derived for
consuming it is short lived. The only time I realize I am getting utility while
consuming it is when I eat it. Now, what happens when I can spend 100 rupees on
the composite good y which the money I have left. I can buy a number of things, a
ball, paper, pens, batteries, small clock etcetera. When I see them, the duration of
their consumption is prolonged and when I get to use something for a longer time I
get more utility from it. The assumption here is that food consumption is short lived.
Whereas all other material things bought here is long lived as a result of which
people can prolong the utility derived by using that good again and again and as a
result, the cumulative utility derived from those goods are more. Hence 100 rupees
when spent on other good gives more utility than 100 rupees spent on food. This is
how utility derived from the composite goods would be more.

The Benefits of Free Food

When I go and distribute free food to people, it has a twofold impact that is very
important. Firstly, when I go and distribute free food I am providing food to those
who spend a huge amount of their income on food in the first place. What happens
when I go and do so? He is able to save the money he would otherwise spend on
food. The money saved can thus be spent on other goods, goods that would give
him higher utility. As already shown, when money spent on other goods has a higher
amount of utility derived when the same amount of money is spent on food, we see
that the total utility derived increases as explained before. When I get a higher
satisfaction level and can prolong its duration my overall welfare improves from
status quo. As a result, I get a public that has a higher welfare. Higher welfare not
only in terms of a better health but also in terms of being better off due to a better
situation. When I increase my expenditure on other goods due to this, I am creating
a demand for other goods too. My demand for food is not falling because the people
providing free food are already demanding and creating food for them, so the
demand is already there. I create an additional amount of demand in the economy
in terms of other goods. Secondly, I can save money for things that can be used in
future. I am reducing the propensity to steal for petty matters since some crimes
are performed because of less money. Certainly it will not stop but it can certainly
reduce slowly. People have a better health and can perform better be it manual
work or so. The benefits for this entire thing are something that creates additional
demand for goods in the economy leading to higher profits, higher expansion plans,
higher employment and higher incomes and higher demand and the cycle
continues. When people are asked to save money and open bank accounts from the
money they save, they create more money available in the economy, money being
spent and available for better avenues and investment, possibly reducing the
interest rates slightly. When the government educates people to take up life and
health insurances issued by the government from the money they save just by
preventing them being spent on meals you lead a safer future with lower risk and
better outcomes in life.

Who would provide free food?

The government can do so. The government and state enter into a Social Contract
of the State. When you enter into a social contract with the people, the peoples
responsibility does fall on the state. The state knows that people die of hunger. To
ensure their welfare, it is legitimate that people demand for the state to look after
this welfare of the people. The government can set up NGOs to demand funds from
the general public. The people dont mind giving a little money. There are many
people that are interested in doing so. Proof of this statement is the thriving
business of NGOs and how people show interest in their responsibility towards
society. The government can simply employ the techniques of economies of scale.
People use firewood and LPG gas cylinders. When food for 1000 people is cooked in
300 different households, the total cost of spending and resources used are
significantly higher as against food cooked for 1000 people at 5 places. The raw
material used is less. Gas is a significant expenditure. This is where poor people
would always like to save money and always try to. This activity is something that
can be outsourced to the charity houses. The government does believe in the
ideology of free food, Mid-Day Meals being a proof to this entire thing. Now, is there
a demand for free food? Do people take it on their prestige of not eating free food if
they are poor? The answer to that is a no. They are always in search of it. Religious
institutions are proof to this skepticism. Hence here demand and supply of food is
justified how it helps.

To conclude, free food if given leads to a better situation. The world understands the
importance of food. That is why there is a World Hunger Project, a Food Bill and all
sorts of measures to provide free food. This was just a theory of how free food is
cheaper and beneficial not only for its recipients, but also for many other people in
a country, directly or indirectly. The country will definitely benefit from it.