Homeless people also exist in non-capitalist economies so I’m not certain that is evidence of anything.

Scarcity is the problem, not capitalism.

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

Scarcity of beds in mental institutions.

> Scarcity of what?

Attention and logistics. The cost of getting things where they need to go, the administration of an empire, frequently dwarves by orders of magnitude the cost of the materials being transported to and fro. The problem is not solved by localisation given the increased exposure to volatility that brings.

The state takes 63% of our income here in France, and there are still homeless people.

I’d say the capitalists do a better job.

You know that France is a capitalist society right?

Capitalist, yes, but with many more socialist features than the US.

My impression that welfare state and social support systems are on par with their neighbors, they just have a stronger culture of labor rights.

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

Caritative actions are part of capitalism. I donate voluntarily to charities, this is part of capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t prevent people from having a soul.

Capitalism is the framework that makes all those people work together: The nun, the family guy, the corporate shark, the idealist who can buy land and create an inefficient community based on non-monetary exchange.

Capitalism also makes us globally quite rich (by virtue of allowing us to simply take the revenue we generate in our startups), which affords us the luxury of giving 63% to the state. Supposedly in exchange for the state taking care of poor people. It’s the capitalism that allows me that money.

So I get it, you pin everything bad on capitalism. It’s just that you allow CEOs to pactise with the state to remove freedoms from you. Meanwhile you forget that this unprecedented lifestyle improvement since the industrial revolution, it’s also due to capitalism.

> Some have more money than they can spend in a lifetime while others are homeless. > This is the society we live in, created by capitalism that demands unsustainable growth.

Who are you blaming? If you're so virtuous, why don't you give away half of your money to a homeless person?

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.

I share your frustrations and thanks for your support.

The accusation and tone was that billionaires have incredible wealth that they horde while people around them suffer.

But that is a very uncharitable framing of their philanthropy.

They should pay their fair share of taxes, they aren’t some emperor who decides over us.

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.

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

And you think they don’t?

s/some/most

Governments have to give them tax breaks / tax write-offs in order to convince them to part with a small amount of their wealth.

So no. And especially so for the corporations they own.