$1.25 a day can buy a ton of food in many of those countries, so your guilt trip is misleading.
It is not misleading. The World Bank's poverty estimate (what my claim is based on) specifically takes account of purchasing power; that is, 1.3 billion people quite literally do subsist on less than what $1.25 purchases in the United States
. Most people would spend more than that on a bottle of water at a convenience store without batting an eye.
But let's go down your path. How would that work? You think it would be a good idea to feed the world, but is it actually possible? without breaking the very market that provided the surplus in the first place?
Yes, it is possible through one of two routes. One is by personal donation. For example, if the top 10% of America donated a modest amount of their income to international aid efforts, America could singlehandledly be responsible for achieving the UN's Millennium Development Goals
, which basically aim to eradicate poverty and hunger on the global scale. I'll spare you the details unless you're interested, but it could be done with a progressive scale starting at 5% of income for those earning more than $100,000 per year. The rest of America would not even have to donate, although they could (and should).
Another is by switching to vegetarian diets on the large scale. Annually, the world feeds hundreds of billions of tons of grain to feed animals that we later eat. But the process is incredibly inefficient. For cows, for example, we get fewer than a 10% return in food compared to what we put in (in terms of pounds of food produced). If most of the developed world stopped eating meat, there would be enough food left over to end world hunger. I'm not exaggerating.