Why not?

In 2019 very few people do not have debt. In fact- the wealthier you are the more debt you tend to have. It’s not “bad debt” but it is debt. Habitual debt is when people live above their means. The better off do it for toys and luxuries and the less well off do it to get by. The backbone of the credit system is... property.

Labor can be created. Babies are born, people brought in, jobs sourced out, robots, automation, etc. money can be created. Products can be created and marketing can create demand for over priced or useless items (the “Apple” bashers etc. can’t argue against this point.) Though banking and cash apps and acting as a platform you can make money for doing essentially nothing. You can’t effectively create property in a given area. It can be bought, you can find deals, trade, etc. can’t create. It’s the non imaginary figure in the equation.

The wealthy and corporations buy up large tracts of land and housing, then charge poorer renters to pay their mortgages plus profit, then use the equity to buy more land etc. The markets are controlled by virtual monopolies. Overrun with tacit collusion and price fixing. Instead of “trickle down” the money trickles up from poor to rich to make them richer. The regulations put in place to prevent the Carnegie’s and robber barons have been dissolved or side stepped by innovative business and legal sleight of hand.

People in a free market created these problems through the ways they use their money or the ways they organize (really the ways they don’t organize) and value their labor.

Tl:dr- throwing more money at the problem is like giving a non repentant coke head cash every month so they can buy stuff because they’re too broke from buying coke. You’re fueling a fire, not putting it out. Regulations in business and especially credit and real estate aimed at treating property like a necessity and not an investment instrument would go much further. Caps and other rules to facilitate retirement but not add to generational wealth gaps for the landed wouldn’t help the poor get rich- but it would help more people be able to have a place to sleep and money for things they need.

Careful regulation to prevent the lost revenue and wealth in real estate from being passed on in other costs of living would be another. A gradual transition- staring with tax reform and development/real estate law reform to enforce the creation of communities people can live in and not desolate suburban wastes of endless homes and scattered mags stores would also help.

If you look at periods in history where cost of living was less an issue you’ll see that in general- people had lower standards of living and more hardship was out upon them. Not everyone in the world can have everything. Those things we take for granted but are actually rather amazing that the “average person” can have access to can’t be had by all.

To provide for everyone means that a lot of people have to have less so that those with the least can have more. But you can look and see an unprecedented rise in inflation along with stagnant wages and the thing that spikes along with it? Property.

"To provide for everyone means that a lot of people have to have less" - what is " a lot of people"? There's around 600 billionaires in the US, the richest 15 of them are worth around 900 billion alone. Nobody can "earn" a billion dollars, people can only aggregate such piles of money under a state's protection, so let them pay for that for real. Problem solved. No wait, the real problem is that some of the richest of those mothers have convinced too many average Joes that "to provide for everyone means that a lot of people have to have less". And let's not rely on billionaires charity, see Hasan Minhaj on "Why Billionaires Won’t Save Us".

I think you misunderstand me hammerhead. I’m not advocating suckling rich teet. I’m stating as a fact- there is only so much on earth. When I say “provide for everyone” it is interference to providing the “have it all” lifestyle for everyone. Not everyone can have 5 properties and never have to work again, not every person on earth can have 4 cars each, etc etc. “a lot” of people- not most- and not “a large percent.” A lot.

There are at least 3,000 billionaires In the world and about 14 million millionaires. That is “many.” If they all does in the same disaster we would not say “a few people died today...” If your friend said “you can bring a few people to my work and I’ll give them a tour but don’t bring many...” you’d likely know that it would not be ok to bring 14 million people for a tour. They are not few, they are most certainly many.

So yeah- many people will probably have to give things up so other people can have things. It’s simple economics. You can have all the shoes you want when they are $10 a pair- but I have to pay pennies to make them to sell them for that. For you to be able to afford more shoes- someone gets paid less to make shoes. I can’t pay$40 to make something I sell for $10. If they should were $50 a pair you can’t afford as many shoes- about 5x less shoes. The trade off is that the guy making the shoes doesn’t have to live in total poverty- and you have less shoes.

Tl:dr- simple math. About 16% of the worlds population uses about 80% of the resources. 16% of 7 billion is 1.12 billion people. That is... many people. With those 1.12 using 80% of resources- that leaves 20% for everyone else. We don’t get regular deliveries from Amazon Mars or Amazon Alpha Centuri- so what is here is what is here. If you want to give more to the 6 billion or so splitting the smaller percent- it must come from that 16% who are using most of it to live their lives. Within that 16% roughly 14 million of them have most of that wealth. That leaves less that 1% of the population with the highest concentration of wealth.

The same applies to land as well- with most of the rest of the worlds population being able to fit into the state of Texas and live with the population density roughly of India. We waste a lot, we take many luxuries in space and convenience that have a high often unseen human cost. There isn’t a magic bullet that will let us create something from nothing with 0 pollution. Water, land, food, convenience- there are only so many seats on the bus so for someone to sit down your backpack has to go in your lap and not the seat next to you. We have to give up seats so people don’t have to stand.