3 ms·
The causality is a hard question to answer honestly but I can answer the ending poverty portion. So ignore it for now and engage in a bit of rough math. Take th
by Nasrudith 2y ago
The causality is a hard question to answer honestly but I can answer the ending poverty portion. So ignore it for now and engage in a bit of rough math. Take the 5.2 trillion of every US billionaire combined and divide it by a third of the US population. It comes out to a one-time payment of about $45k. An amount which would certainly be appreciated by the bottom third of the population, certainly but not a panacea. The poverty line is defined via income and not assets. So lets do a conversion, if paying out the interest only at long-term treasury bond rates that would give the bottom third a "trust fund" which gives an extra $2K per year.
Of course that is ignoring many of the messy practicalities. The inflation that would ensue from this hypothetical influx of cash to the bottom third, or if one could even extract the nominal market cap via selling assets vs the value crashing after the first third is put on the market. Combine that with the fact that the fortunes are invested in productive assets and the hypothetical mother of all liquidations would do majorly bad things to productivity and the economy.
- gwbas1c 2y agoI like your thinking. I tend to look at extreme wealth accumulation as a symptom of not paying people enough. IE, instead of requiring a liquidation, what about increasing pay at the lowest levels?
- cryptonector 2y agoThat's marginal income, which is not necessarily related to book value, and is almost certainly just a small fraction, which brings you back to less than $2,000 per person per year. I.e., it's not much, and you really can't extract it. Eating the rich doesn't work. It's never worked when it has been tried. It cannot work. It will never work.