It is an interesting game-theoretic question how to spend money x (say, hundreds of billions) to maximize good. - Should you first educate anyone who cannot re

It is an interesting game-theoretic question how to spend money x (say, hundreds of billions) to maximize good. - Should you first educate anyone who cannot read or write? - Should you first feed anyone hungry/thirsty? - Should you first provide shelter for all without homes? - Should you first make peace for all without safety? (all the way down the Maslow pyramid of needs) How would the philanthropic billaires united ensure peace, if he had even more money? (Should one "buy" a military force that is mightier than any country's, to send out the message that every nation that started an armed conflict would regret it? Not sure if that could suppress war, but perhaps one would not feel inclined to call that "peace"...) If I had the financial means, by gut instinct I would start out with the most vulnerable, those that can least help themselves, e.g. orphaned small children, the handicapped, the unborn. However, in a geopolitically unstable world one could then argue it is a "waste" of resources to help people by first feeding them when they get invaded and killed by their neighboring country soon after. But creating world peace has historically not been something that a single person - billionair or otherwise - has been able to solve.