[XorNot]

You could easily spend far more trying to distribute overproduced items to someone who needs them, or trying to match supply too precisely too production and the consequences of that are not symmetric either.

For example, we can survive an oversupply of food just fine. We absolutely cannot survive an undersupply of food: if you have a population needing a certain number of calories and you don't have it, then in about 3 weeks you no longer have a problem because they've died.

[FalseNutrition]

The excess isn't a problem on its own, but it prevents people from making money.

You get stuck with people who have money, who have everything they want, and people who don't have money who can't make any, becauae there is already a huge excess of anything that people who do have money would want.

Capitalism has no solution to this problem.

[fragmede]

The solution is pretty simple, tax the rich and give it to the poor. Hard to put into practice due to the power dynamics involved, but let's not pretend it's this great mystery with no possible solution.

[FalseNutrition]

The rich are not your problem. It's the guy who can't work any cheaper because he has to keep paying his mortgage who causes this deadlock.

[fragmede]

but the guy can work cheaper if he has more money, no? If the rich, through a series of steps including taxes and a debt relief program, pays that guy's mortgage, he can work cheaper, breaking the deadlock, no? Or am I misunderstanding the problem you're stating?