if the worlds wealth was equally distributed
Discussion
How long would it take for the present status quo to return?
Ie, the assumption being that the loser scumbags would piddle it all up the wall and the switched on sorts would be ready and willing and intelligent enough to take it from them.
The ultimate social experiment, if you will!!!
Ie, the assumption being that the loser scumbags would piddle it all up the wall and the switched on sorts would be ready and willing and intelligent enough to take it from them.
The ultimate social experiment, if you will!!!
CzechItOut said:
If the wealth was distributed across the whole of the world's population than presumably everyone in Britain would be significantly worse off and people in Africa would received the equivalent of many lifetimes worth of wages?
And we could email all those rich Nigerians claiming to be a a general and needing their bank details to free up our money 
MacW said:
Nah.. we'd all be £57.28 in debt.
I know that's a joke, but. Of course there's is far more money in the world than debt, so we'd have some money each.
Guessing that the 80/20 rule applies, because it normally does, then 20% of the people have 80% of the money. Given that we're in the 20%, then the average british person would have 1/16th of what they have now after the divi up. I guess we're talking total assets not cash, so we'd all have to sell our houses, which we couldn't do because no-one would have the money to buy them. Or rather I guess prices would plummet due to supply massively outstripping demand and the Africans would feel pretty hard done to when we sent their share over.
otherman said:
I know that's a joke, but.
Of course there's is far more money in the world than debt, so we'd have some money each.
Guessing that the 80/20 rule applies, because it normally does, then 20% of the people have 80% of the money. Given that we're in the 20%, then the average british person would have 1/16th of what they have now after the divi up. I guess we're talking total assets not cash, so we'd all have to sell our houses, which we couldn't do because no-one would have the money to buy them. Or rather I guess prices would plummet due to supply massively outstripping demand and the Africans would feel pretty hard done to when we sent their share over.
But we'd still all have the same "stuff", whatever its "value".Of course there's is far more money in the world than debt, so we'd have some money each.
Guessing that the 80/20 rule applies, because it normally does, then 20% of the people have 80% of the money. Given that we're in the 20%, then the average british person would have 1/16th of what they have now after the divi up. I guess we're talking total assets not cash, so we'd all have to sell our houses, which we couldn't do because no-one would have the money to buy them. Or rather I guess prices would plummet due to supply massively outstripping demand and the Africans would feel pretty hard done to when we sent their share over.
CzechItOut said:
If the wealth was distributed across the whole of the world's population than presumably everyone in Britain would be significantly worse off and people in Africa would received the equivalent of many lifetimes worth of wages?
But local inflation/deflation would faily quickly even out this imbalance, wouldn't it?Greg_D said:
How long would it take for the present status quo to return?
Ie, the assumption being that the loser scumbags would piddle it all up the wall and the switched on sorts would be ready and willing and intelligent enough to take it from them.
The ultimate social experiment, if you will!!!
I don't think it would. Or rather- it would be a more meritocratic status quo. Just as Carnagie argued for a 100% inheritance tax and Steve Jobs mentioned death being the best invention of life, an instant redistribution would result in the most competent and/or ruthless rising to the top, with the chaff falling to the bottom. Ie, the assumption being that the loser scumbags would piddle it all up the wall and the switched on sorts would be ready and willing and intelligent enough to take it from them.
The ultimate social experiment, if you will!!!
At the moment, there are plenty of intelligent people without the means, and plenty of experienced people without the youth/safety net to build the capital required to become super wealthy. Just as there are many heirs/esses and old farts who made it in the good old days who would be destitute if everything was equalised.
The "wealth" assuming it is in pure monetary terms, would just become worthless. If you mean chopping up all the natural resources, oil, intelligence, experience, equipment and what have you then the project would go tits up before it even got off the ground.
One of the many problems with left-wingery is the focus on wealth as money. At least Karl Marx focused mainly on the means of production as the thing that should be communally controlled, as the cornerstone of his wrong headed theory.
One of the many problems with left-wingery is the focus on wealth as money. At least Karl Marx focused mainly on the means of production as the thing that should be communally controlled, as the cornerstone of his wrong headed theory.
think of that NHS database debacle only much bigger! Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff