The USDA’s Economic Research Service estimates that 31% of food is wasted[1] while 1 in 8 families are food insecure[2]. About half a million people are homeless any given night[3], while 16 million homes are vacant [4], many of them perfectly liveable. Where's the scarcity?
It's right there in what you have written yourself. 31% is a finite number, that means scarcity. 16 million homes is a finite number, that means scarcity.
In a world without scarcity you'd have infinite food and infinite houses. We do not live in such a world.
You don't give people without the ability to pay for things stuff for free because you don't want to absolutely wreck your economy. If I'd get food and housing for free, I'd be the first one to quit my job and just live the good life of not working ever again. I'm incentivized to work because that isn't the case. And also because it's such a stupid idea, that I can see that it would collapse fast.
"Scarcity is the limited availability of a commodity", emphasis on _limited_.
Scarcity does not mean shortage. It means you do not have infinite of something.
Scarcity: the state of being scarce or in short supply; shortage.
That's the common definition. There's also an economic definition having something to do with limited supply and limitless wants. I'll leave that to the academics. My argument is that there is enough food to feed the hungry and enough shelter to house the poor in the US. If someone has evidence to show otherwise, I'm open to it.
What I'm saying is that it would be self-destructive behavior to give people things for free. It is much better to let people starve in the streets, then to give them both food and housing for free. You'd completely destroy the entire country by facilitating this.
You can give them your own money if it pleases you.
