>Not quite, we are post-scarcity on the production of those items, but the economy hasn't caught up with it yet, which is why so many in the US severely lack on

>Not quite, we are post-scarcity on the production of those items, but the economy hasn't caught up with it yet, which is why so many in the US severely lack one or more of those necessities I'm unaware of any significant number of US residents suffering from malnutrition due to lack of access to healthy food or exposure due to insufficient clothing or shelter. That is not to say there are none, but most are due to factors other than the lack of access to basic necessities. >I would be surprised if you mean the US can't or shouldn't strive to provide better for its citizens ~300 million citizens until all other countries are caught up for the rest of the 7 billion people on Earth, which leaves me unsure about what you're trying to communicate with this. What I am saying is that I question the assertion that everyone deserves a particular quality of life even if it must be attained at the expense of another. Even if I were to accept that, the complications of such a position are legion. What constitutes the appropriate quality of life? What happens in an economic downturn when that minimum quality of life is no longer sustainable? Etc.