Based on your comments, it sounds like you wouldn’t be satisfied with a solution to poverty that didn’t involve resource transfer or also ‘solving’ resource ‘hogging’.

‘Expanding the pie’ is what has the most evidence of poverty reduction by a wide margin, and capitalist-style allocation systems have the strongest evidence of pie-expansion.

I don’t think we have evidence of compulsory resource transfer ever working to the satisfaction of those pushing for more of it, nor do I think we have a clear model of how it can morally/ethically be sufficiently accomplished to meet the standards of those advocating for it for poverty reducing reasons. Primarily because the bar implicitly rises due to the hedonic treadmill.

No system is perfect, including the one we have now, but I would caution at taking for granted incremental/gradual improvements because today isn’t fully solved. I see a theme of impatience and desire for extreme system scrutability/legibility at the expense of empirically examining what has the best chance of accomplishing the stated goals and leaning into that.

(To be clear, no fan of musk here, I don’t think the solution is simply unfettered capitalism, and I’m under no illusion of ever being a billionaire, but above all that I’m more convinced that resource transfer will never ever accomplish its stated goals on its own.

I further don’t think this absolves one from duty to the less fortunate, just quibbling with the absolutist statement that transfers are the only real solution.)

Well, the "transfer" part wouldn't be necessary, if all the wealth hadn't been "hogged," already (where we are now).

Revolutions (what happens, when the hogging goes too far) tend to put knuckleheads in charge, and don't always help. Some folks are very good at fighting (and campaigning), but terrible at actually governing.

The long-term solution is to arrange the realtime distribution more equitably. That's the part that has been whittled away, and that terrifies people.