I think that capitalism's endgame may be a post-scarcity society, where technology allows us to have almost free energy, and very cheap everything that we may require for survival, with minimum human work.
There's only so much money you can squeeze out of rich people; they tend to be, well, tightwads. The best way to earn more money is to reach more people (read: increase market share). You can think of prices as indicators of inefficiencies. The high price invites participation which causes competition. The players, driven by greed or desire for profit, seek to eliminate competition (or become monopolies in their field). With the right legal incentives this competition is healthy and innovation leads to lower prices to gain market share. Again, market share == people, and poor people are included in that group.
From this perspective, Capitalism (or "the market") can be viewed as a tool governments can use to increase the quality of life of its citizens.
Granted this explanation is a bit banal and hand wavey and leaves out a ton of stuff (consider impacts on jobs for instance); this is an internet post not a thesis on economics. :) Hayek, Mises, and Friedman are good sources if you care to explore more.
I just don't understand why rich people would need to share their resources with poor people at all if we live in a world that does not value labor.
Guy says "post-scarcity" but what does that really mean? Even if we have cheap energy and cheap raw goods, there will still be things that are limited, perhaps open space, nature preserves, beach property.
Or maybe even in a land of plenty, there will still be those who live in poverty (some would argue that poverty is a choice today).
I'm not sure what will be valuable in the future, but I am sure the rich will hoard it.
