3 ms·

If you take $1.76 trillion and distribute it to 3.6 billion people, each gets about $500.

by powertower 11y ago

rimunroe 11y ago
(which is actually a staggering amount of money in some places)
- powertower 11y ago
  Its a LCD TV for 50% of those people. And a month's wage for another 25%. And for the last 25% it would get wiped out by relative local inflation, bad decisions, corruption, etc. And that assumes you distribute it equally, and not by the area that wealth was primarily generated from. IN which case all the people that consider this amount "staggering", get around 50 cents to $5. The point was that this is pointless, as wealth cannot be distributed, it can only be destroyed.
  - rimunroe 11y ago
    The point was that this is pointless, as wealth cannot be distributed, it can only be destroyed. I don't really know what your reasoning behind this is. I'm pretty sure we redistribute money all the time through taxes. And that assumes you distribute it equally, and not by the area that wealth was primarily generated from. IN which case all the people that consider this amount "staggering", get around 50 cents to $5. If someone were actually magically redistributing that sum of money somehow, then I'd hope they'd do the opposite of that. What you've described is the status quo, where people continue to get exploited by being rewarded comparatively little for the amount of work they do/hardship they experience.
    - powertower 11y ago
      > I don't really know what your reasoning behind this is. I'm pretty sure we redistribute money all the time through taxes. Taking "wealth" from a few and giving it to many does not create more wealth. Wealth is a concentrate of money, you can't redistribute "wealth" and make everyone "wealthy". > then I'd hope they'd do the opposite of that. What you've described is the status quo, where people continue to get exploited by being rewarded comparatively little for the amount of work they do/hardship they experience. The only way the system works is when those that provide the most value get rewarded the most. Having "hardships" in life provides zero value to the rest.
      - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
        Which would be fine, if it were the case. In reality those who provide value do get relatively more, but in absolute terms they generally gets screwed over by those who own value. I'm fairly confident that I would not give those people half of the earth (were it mine) to continue doing whatever it is they are doing. Thus I suspect that most of their wealth is the result of rent seeking rather than provided value.
        powertower 11y ago
        (you got a few down-votes, that was not me) Explain just 1 thing to me... Lets take your suspicion that the 1% are keeping everyone down and miserable. And let say their wealth is bigger - 10 times bigger - for the sake of the argument. This mean that over the last 10 years, on average, they stole $500 from you and me and the other billions of people. Per year, in the US and the rest of the western world [lets assume this is where most of that wealth is being siphoned form], has the $500/year they have stolen from you ruined your life, has that missing $500/year kept you from advancing in life, etc? To me this the answer is absolutely no. And this is coming from someone that is self-employed, and makes just above the poverty line. An extra $500/year would help me, but it would not affect my future. This was a rhetorical question, as the rest of the middle class does much much better than I, but if you can show me where I am wrong I'll be glad to readjust my view of the situation. Because right now it mostly looks like people are seeking victim-hood wherever you look. [edited for spelling]
        CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
        Wrt to happiness, I actually think it is a problem that people aren't more outraged then they are. It's a fairness issue for many of us, as you note. But as the topic of this post is that half the population of earth gets to share only 1% of its wealth, (I do not agree with your assumption), it should be pretty evident that it's a serious issue for them. But mainly, you should look at booth sides of the equation, it's a democratic problem when you consider the relative power difference they represent. While a little more money for you might just be nice (for most part of the world it would make a big impact though), the aggregated influence it affords the top 1% also affects you. They get to decide how half earth resources are employed.

If you take $1.76 trillion and distribute it to 3.6 billion people, each gets about $500.

rimunroe 11y ago

(which is actually a staggering amount of money in some places)

powertower 11y ago
Its a LCD TV for 50% of those people. And a month's wage for another 25%. And for the last 25% it would get wiped out by relative local inflation, bad decisions, corruption, etc. And that assumes you distribute it equally, and not by the area that wealth was primarily generated from. IN which case all the people that consider this amount "staggering", get around 50 cents to $5. The point was that this is pointless, as wealth cannot be distributed, it can only be destroyed.
- rimunroe 11y ago
  The point was that this is pointless, as wealth cannot be distributed, it can only be destroyed. I don't really know what your reasoning behind this is. I'm pretty sure we redistribute money all the time through taxes. And that assumes you distribute it equally, and not by the area that wealth was primarily generated from. IN which case all the people that consider this amount "staggering", get around 50 cents to $5. If someone were actually magically redistributing that sum of money somehow, then I'd hope they'd do the opposite of that. What you've described is the status quo, where people continue to get exploited by being rewarded comparatively little for the amount of work they do/hardship they experience.
  - powertower 11y ago
    > I don't really know what your reasoning behind this is. I'm pretty sure we redistribute money all the time through taxes. Taking "wealth" from a few and giving it to many does not create more wealth. Wealth is a concentrate of money, you can't redistribute "wealth" and make everyone "wealthy". > then I'd hope they'd do the opposite of that. What you've described is the status quo, where people continue to get exploited by being rewarded comparatively little for the amount of work they do/hardship they experience. The only way the system works is when those that provide the most value get rewarded the most. Having "hardships" in life provides zero value to the rest.
    - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
      Which would be fine, if it were the case. In reality those who provide value do get relatively more, but in absolute terms they generally gets screwed over by those who own value. I'm fairly confident that I would not give those people half of the earth (were it mine) to continue doing whatever it is they are doing. Thus I suspect that most of their wealth is the result of rent seeking rather than provided value.
      - powertower 11y ago
        (you got a few down-votes, that was not me) Explain just 1 thing to me... Lets take your suspicion that the 1% are keeping everyone down and miserable. And let say their wealth is bigger - 10 times bigger - for the sake of the argument. This mean that over the last 10 years, on average, they stole $500 from you and me and the other billions of people. Per year, in the US and the rest of the western world [lets assume this is where most of that wealth is being siphoned form], has the $500/year they have stolen from you ruined your life, has that missing $500/year kept you from advancing in life, etc? To me this the answer is absolutely no. And this is coming from someone that is self-employed, and makes just above the poverty line. An extra $500/year would help me, but it would not affect my future. This was a rhetorical question, as the rest of the middle class does much much better than I, but if you can show me where I am wrong I'll be glad to readjust my view of the situation. Because right now it mostly looks like people are seeking victim-hood wherever you look. [edited for spelling]
        CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
        Wrt to happiness, I actually think it is a problem that people aren't more outraged then they are. It's a fairness issue for many of us, as you note. But as the topic of this post is that half the population of earth gets to share only 1% of its wealth, (I do not agree with your assumption), it should be pretty evident that it's a serious issue for them. But mainly, you should look at booth sides of the equation, it's a democratic problem when you consider the relative power difference they represent. While a little more money for you might just be nice (for most part of the world it would make a big impact though), the aggregated influence it affords the top 1% also affects you. They get to decide how half earth resources are employed.