4 ms·
And their wealth was distributed evenly? Hell yeah the poor would have it better, is this a trick question?
by point78 9y ago
And their wealth was distributed evenly? Hell yeah the poor would have it better, is this a trick question?
- user5994461 9y agoThe rents would increase everywhere the next year to capture all that new cash.
- ryanbrunner 9y agoIf the hypothetical we're discussing is "kill all the rich", assuming the year after takes place in a capitalist economy doesn't seem like a sure thing.
- aoeusnth1 9y agoThen construction would increase, causing rents to fall.
- user5994461 9y agoConstructions cannot increase indefinitely. Land is a limited resources.
- namarie 9y agoNeither can human population. At some point everyone would have houses.
- aoeusnth1 9y agoNo, the hypothetical was if the wealthiest disappeared, along with all their wealth.
- jedharris 9y agoWhat could this mean? For example if some rich person had a few billion in T-bills or Apple stock, when they disappeared what would happen to those? If that ownership just vaporized, the national debt or Apple's shares outstanding would fall. In effect US Citizens or Apple shareholders would be wealthier. The only other option I can see is that some tiny percentage of the country or of Apple would disappear. But what part, specifically? This comment to me is characteristic of thinking of ownership in far too simplistic terms. Very rich people don't actually own productive things, they just own rights to income streams. There are certain exceptions, such as the Koch brothers who do own their companies. If those companies disappeared that would also be a net benefit to US citizens.
- closeparen 9y agoYou can only distribute it evenly the one time.