Every once in a while I begin looking into and thinking about a certain problem facing society and how/if capitalism can solve that problem. Reading Doug Casey's article Charity? Humbug! (the URL is http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_11/casey-charity.html) made me think about the subject of the extremely poor who have no possibility of helping themselves - e.g. the severely mentally and physically retarded and the very young (e.g. Casey's "trashcan baby"). This paragraph from Casey helped clarify some of my own thoughts:
The usual straw men beg to be set up: "What about the blind baby that's thrown into a trash can?" and such. My answer is that most people would want to see the baby rescued. And the richer the world is, the more likely it is that people will try to do so. In poor countries babies in trash cans are hardly noted; here they make headlines simply because they're so exceptional. Are we more moral than poor Third Worlders? No. We're just richer.
This led me to think about the subjective theory of value and marginal utility. To someone who is extremely rich like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, money does not have much value. The next billion earned is not much different from the last billion earned to the wealthiest. To them, giving a couple hundred thousand dollars to make sure someone will survive a few more years might well be worth the cost. In other words, the money given is worth so little to the extremely wealthy that they value the goodwill from the benefactor more than they value the money they have given to keep that person alive.
Thus, economic growth and wealth creation - which is capitalism's specialty - is the best way to make sure that those "trash can babies" and the severely mentally and physically handicapped can survive.
Political Atheists Blog
Simply, if assume ceteris paribus with respect to the human desire to help others, as average wealth increases, (1) fewer people need help, and (2) each person contributes more on average to helping others (same desire + easier to help = more help).
The only way it could be otherwise is if wealth made people miserly.
Why anarchy fails
In one of those John Stossel documentaries, I remember Ted Turner saying that the reason my he donated a billion dollars was because of the favorable publicity he would get from it; people would think better of him than by simply producing what the consumers want. Plus, chicks dig guys who volunteer for random charities.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."