Scarcity of what? Certainly not money - there seems to be enough of that, it's just not in the poor people's hands

How are capitalists addressing homelessness? Have you read about homelessness in SF and the bay area?

You know that France is a capitalist society right?

Because to make a significant difference to that person's life you'd have to give them an astounding amount of money (and probably other forms of support), and personally speaking I'm still desperately saving just for a chance at having a place of my own myself. Nobody claimed to be 'virtuous', but caring is a good first step. I donate some of my time and a small amount per month to a local multicultural group. Small things help. Caring helps. Why is this suddenly about whether you're happy to give away half your savings to a person you don't know? Society as a whole could make things better by sharing wealth just a little more equitably. But some people seem to think that billionaires are just fine and not at all a symptom of a sick society.

Sorry but I get really frustrated by this lazy kind of 'well why don't you do it?' response. It just feels like you're trying to convince yourself that you're right not to care (to be clear, I have no idea whether you do or not), and implying that anyone who does, and hopes for something better, is just a hypocrite.

This "why don't you do it?" type of argument is probably the most common straw-man response to this topic.

The whole point, is to point out that some people have enough money to uplift hundreds of thousands out of poverty. Some have greater personal wealth than the GDP of an entire country, and that those people should either:

Give up some part of their wealth for the greater good.

Never be allowed to accumulate that much personal wealth in the first place.

The common person, like myself, doesn't have that kind of money. I cannot even afford a house for myself.

Your example proves my point

You have a fixed amount of already acquired property

You do specified labor on that

You exchange your labor + property for someone else’s labor + property

That’s commerce and has nothing to do with the question I’m talking about, which is: How you acquired the property in the first place is the ethical question.

What’s unethical is if your a neighbor was struggling to survive and instead of caring for him out of your property and labor, you convinced him to trade your excess money for a portion of his property in perpetuity.

So no, there is no more uncaptured “pie.” It should have never been caputured in the first place - it’s equally everyone’s right

Every “win-win” most certainly produces side effects, usually unmeasured, which leads to naive statements like “it’s not zero sum”.

We may no longer be peasants (hard to prove), but a large number of extinct species and ecological disasters would like to argue the “not zero sum” point.

We’ve strip mined the earth, decimated humanity, are globally hopeless (look at birth rates) and individual alienation has never been wider spread

Suicide is quickly becoming the leading cause of death

I’m not sure we’re any better off now holistically

Without (yet) having an opinion here, that's not necessarily true: resource consumption is adding value to the system at a level that might offset population growth?