> There is absolutely enough food and shelther available on this planet for every man, woman and child to have a roof over their heads and enough to eat. It is

> There is absolutely enough food and shelther available on this planet for every man, woman and child to have a roof over their heads and enough to eat. It is a choice to deny it to them. Why? So a handful of people can become obscenely wealthy. That's it. Can we stop a second and talk about this? Morally and ethically, you are absolutely and completely right in every possible way. There's nothing at all to talk about. Yet food and shelter aren't just moral questions of basic humanity. They're also logistical questions. Having a warehouse of stored grain in Nebraska is useless to starving people in Indonesia without a way to get it there and a way to feed them for all the days to come. Having empty houses in Detroit is not useful to unsheltered people in Budapest without a way to get the latter to the former and enable them to actually live there - never mind if they would accept such an offer. You're absolutely right. These are moral and ethical non-questions. There just might be practical questions in there too. Ignoring the latter to focus on the former is perhaps not an ideal way to identify systemic changes that can address systemic problems. Otherwise you wind up in a situation like San Francisco's, where people point to misleading numbers on vacant housing (and decry the abominable human greed) in order to distract from a decades-long failure to produce enough housing for people.