3 ms·
Let's say all the wealth in the world, minus a few percent, belonged to 400 people. Can you think of some ways that would wreak havoc on the economy, even witho
by deciplex 11y ago
Let's say all the wealth in the world, minus a few percent, belonged to 400 people. Can you think of some ways that would wreak havoc on the economy, even without triggering a "proletarian revolution?"
- cynicalkane 11y agoNo, because an economic crisis is a fall in economic output. The point is that "undesirable wealth distribution" is not what an economic crisis is. If 400 people controlled everything, the world wouldn't be a great place to live, but the economy would probably be more stable.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoI don't recall high Gini coefficients being associated with economic stability. The massive reduction in marginal utility from most people focusing only on immediate consumption, coupled with the massive oligopolism and centralization leading to price distortions -- those alone don't imply economic stability to me. An extreme oligopoly would likely imply civil unrest, so all else would suffer.
- deciplex 11y agoCan you think of some ways that an economy where virtually all the demand for goods theoretically possible is coming from 400 people, would see a substantial drop in economic output? Assume everyone's participation in the economy aside from that 400 is limited to getting enough shelter that they don't die of exposure and enough food that they don't starve to death.