4 ms·

1) A year with money and the rest without is better than always being without. You might as well argue "we all die eventually so why do anything". 2) For a yea

1) A year with money and the rest without is better than always being without. You might as well argue "we all die eventually so why do anything". 2) For a year they did have money. There is a lot you can do with a year of having money to radically improve your future chances. 3) The money will not have all been sucked back into the hands of a few people. There will still be billions of people with money, and that money will continue being spent and going round. If you have no money and everyone around you has no money, you've got a big problem. If you have no money and all around you are people with money to spend, you can now get money, because that's what creates jobs; demand for goods and services and the ability to pay for them. The redistribution wouldn't vanish back to the original situation for a long, long time, and quite possibly never given the precedent set.

ThomPete 13y ago
There is a reason why eg. Scandinavian countries re-distribute wealth continuously and not just once. I am not sure why you would think that wealth wouldn't skew back into in-equal distribution.
- EliRivers 13y ago
  I am not sure why you would think that wealth wouldn't skew back into in-equal distribution. Maybe you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I said: "The redistribution wouldn't vanish back to the original situation for a long, long time, and quite possibly never given the precedent set." Let's break that down. "The redistribution wouldn't vanish back to the original situation for a long, long time" - hey, looks like I do think the wealth will skew back to in-equal distribution! I simply think it will take a while to return to a handful of people holding half the world's money, and given that the rest of my third point is about what would happen when some people with no money find themselves surrounded by people with money, it seemed pretty fucking clear to me that I was talking about an in-equal distribution. "and quite possibly never given the precedent set." - because once it's been made clear that at the point a handful of people hold half the world's money it all goes back again, nobody will be stupid enough to get that rich because they know they'll lose it all.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    I can read, so no need to be snarky. The question is whether we are discussing the same here.

ThomPete 13y ago

There is a reason why eg. Scandinavian countries re-distribute wealth continuously and not just once. I am not sure why you would think that wealth wouldn't skew back into in-equal distribution.

EliRivers 13y ago
I am not sure why you would think that wealth wouldn't skew back into in-equal distribution. Maybe you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I said: "The redistribution wouldn't vanish back to the original situation for a long, long time, and quite possibly never given the precedent set." Let's break that down. "The redistribution wouldn't vanish back to the original situation for a long, long time" - hey, looks like I do think the wealth will skew back to in-equal distribution! I simply think it will take a while to return to a handful of people holding half the world's money, and given that the rest of my third point is about what would happen when some people with no money find themselves surrounded by people with money, it seemed pretty fucking clear to me that I was talking about an in-equal distribution. "and quite possibly never given the precedent set." - because once it's been made clear that at the point a handful of people hold half the world's money it all goes back again, nobody will be stupid enough to get that rich because they know they'll lose it all.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  I can read, so no need to be snarky. The question is whether we are discussing the same here.