If you choose to redistribute wealth in a way that immediately alleviates all of those issues, you kill the golden goose (private industry). Similarly, if you just give food, shoes, supplies, etc. to poor people everywhere, you screw with the local economy and destroy businesses. For example, if a guy is selling chickens, and all of a sudden a million chickens are donated to everyone, that man can no longer sell chickens.

Also, you can't simply give billions of dollars to foreign governments and have them build infrastructure, provide clean water, etc. They will squander and steal a large amount of it, as has happened repeatedly.

So yes, I agree that it's sad that in a world of abundance, people are starving and dying. But you need to give it time, align incentives, and let prosperity continue to raise the world out of poverty, as it has done in so many countries that are adopting market-based systems. China and India, despite their faults, have adopted systems that embrace the market more than their socialist / communist pasts, and have raised hundreds of millions out of poverty.

It's a utopian belief that if we could just get everyone on board, we could instantly solve everyone's problems. The correct solution is to remove barriers to free enterprise, allow people to gain and re-invest their wealth, and over time people will be raised out of poverty world-wide.

You're correct that amassing all the wealth in the world, divvying it up equally, and passing it out to everyone won't work.

But I think your view of letting free enterprise run rampant is the exact opposite of that idea, and will work just as well at "lifting" those who are in a more desperate situation. Not only does free enterprise destroy cultures and local economies just as badly as your example, it tends to poison the planet we live on at a rate we just can't ignore anymore.

Not to mention, our economy is growth-based. Most of our growth comes from exploitation of other countries...pumping our wealth into their country (arbitrage, as another comment put it). Eventually, when those countries are no longer third-world, and a hamburger there costs $10 like it does here, the companies exploiting the cheap labor there move to the next third-world shithole.

What happens when all the third-world shitholes are gone, though? Our growth economy runs out of fuel to grow. On top of this, as populations find equilibrium with our amount of resources (and resource distribution mechanisms) there will be even less people to exploit at our current rate of growth.

I believe, in the next 50-100 years, our growth economy will collapse because the people driving it believe that growth is infinite, and the resources that drive it (developing nations/growing populations and all the resources that they require) are also infinite.

The entire thing is based on an equation that doesn't balance. We're scrambling to get to the top of a mountain that will crumble. Free enterprise won't solve this, in fact, it's only accelerating the need to find an economic system based on equilibrium, not growth. Whether that means private/public/mixed ownership, socialism/UBI/etc, we need to start thinking now about how to fix this.

Pretty much all of this. And I'd add that we not forget about sovereign debt, which is another lever for exploiting poor nations (think World Bank and IMF). So, we're not just pumping wealth into poor nations to extract more wealth; we're billing them for the privilege. That is, we're really pumping debt into these countries.

It's a racket. And it is not a flaw in the machinations of the free market; it is the definition of our current free market.

>you kill the golden goose (private industry)

This is the fallacy of all fallacies and is purely circular. It is the golden goose only in a system that makes it so; the reasonableness of which is the very point we're discussing. If I were arguing in favor of communism, I would say that the state or the people are the golden goose. And, like you, I will have proved nothing.

>if you just give food, shoes, supplies, etc. to poor people everywhere, you screw with the local economy and destroy businesses

Again, you are begging the question. This problem only exists in your vaunted free market system. In fact, you are arguing against yourself and acknowledging that the system you favor creates a resource distribution model that is unjust and untenable.

>all of a sudden a million chickens are donated to everyone, that man can no longer sell chickens

Yes, another problem created by the artificial scarcity intrinsic to your beloved model. And, what if the resource is water or another essential resource that has been commoditized and made profitable? Do we withhold water and let people die to protect the free market? If so, then we have placed an ideology above human life itself, the absurdity and futility of which should require no explanation. You talk of freedom, but the most fundamental right a person has is the right to live. Starving to death is not freedom.

But, if you say that we should be humane and intervene in any way, then you have exposed a massive chink in the armor of your perfect market. Either the market itself must neccesarily be purposely impacted, or you are expecting NGOs or the state or others to marshal resources in order to mitigate the externalities created by the "free market". In so doing, you are subsidizing said market and it is no longer free. Its profit takers are indebted, but will never repay. Whether via taxation sheer lack, or otherwise, someone is counter-party to that debt but will never be made whole. So much for their freedom.

>The correct solution is to remove barriers to free enterprise, allow people to gain and re-invest their wealth

Always the fall-back: "we're just not doing it enough". It's not enough that massive deregulation has led us to the brink of disaster on more than one ocassion. It's not enough that even as corporate profits reached record-highs, wealth disparity grew and more people fell into poverty. It's not enough that automation has devalued the one commodity that the majority have to sell into the "free market" (their time). No, we simply need to make the market "more free" and that will fix everything.

This argument can be made ad nauseum by those who promote unfettered markets as the solution to all, because they know it is unreasonable that totally free markets will ever exist, owed to the tremendous human costs that would follow. Thus, there will never be (nor should there be) the political will to remove all restraints or stop subsidizing people who will die without those subsidies. So, the argument can ever be made that the problem is that markets are not free enough.