4 ms·

I know one way Eric Schmidt and other billionaires could put their money where their mouth is...

tomp 13y ago
Great idea! Take the 100 richest people in the US, say their wealth is worth $3tn. Distribute this amongst 300m Americans. Everybody gets $10 000. Congratulations! Even disregarding inflation, you'll be in exactly the same situation next year, except this time there will be no more billionaires...
- griffinmahon 13y ago
  This is, I think, an absurd extrapolation of the argument that the original commenter may have been hinting at. (And anyway, since the problem at hand is inequality - despite your belief that the situation will remain the same, which can be argued for or against - "no more billionaires" would mark this end as achieved.
  - thrill 13y ago
    ABSURDITY, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one’s own opinion. -- The Devil's Dictionary
    - griffinmahon 13y ago
      Touché!
- joshsegall 13y ago
  That actually sounds like a worthwhile experiment. I doubt the 100 richest would be worse off or at a lack for opportunities to become rich again. And I bet giving $40K to a family of four (since you include children in your 300m count) in poverty would on average go to significant good use and provide excellent returns for many years to come, contrary to your condescending implication that non-rich people would waste the money.
  - daemin 13y ago
    Not the same thing, since most of the wealth of those billionaires would be in stocks and other illiquid investments/assets. Therefore someone would need to buy them in order to have cash to give out, and who would have that kind of cash available?
  - gatehouse 13y ago
    Scarcity would immediately arise and that would determine who would end up with it. My predictions would be an immediate price increase of low cost housing and fast food (due to labor shortage.) Saving for education would mean moving downwards in the housing market.
  - horv 13y ago
    I'd definitely suggest listening to this freakonomics podcast: http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cash-really-change-your-life-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cas... You could also make a similar point as the podcast by looking at the experiences of modern lottery winners. So I would say I'm pretty skeptical that something like this would be effective for the vast majority of people.
    - joshsegall 13y ago
      My comments were not a serious proposal. I was replying to a comment that lacked intellectual rigor and I proposed the opposite to point out some logical flaws. That said, cash transfers can help bring people out of poverty. A flat redistribution of wealth is not the right way to get that effect, but some kind of direct cash assistance is not remotely a wasted effort.
  - tomp 13y ago
    I didn't meant they would waste money, I implied that cost-of-living is minimally about $10 000 a year, so after one year, they're poor again.
    - joshsegall 13y ago
- SapphireSun 13y ago
  That doesn't make sense. If the billionaires haven't returned, then the money is still more evenly distributed than before.
- dmschulman 13y ago
  I have no ill will towards those who've earned their incomes through building legitimate businesses or have otherwise prospered through capitalism. I do find it frustrating however that this system has gone into overdrive, fueled by the banking, tech, and energy sectors, to the point where, even after recovering from the most devastating economic crisis the world has ever seen, the concentration of wealth in the United States has risen even higher, bordering on criminal proportions (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-f...) If you asked the Fed (or most people who understand economics) they would tell you giving people money does help stimulate the economy, but you're not solving any income inequality issues by doing so. Obviously your not seriously suggesting the solution above. Listening to those who hold a substantial chunk of this concentrated wealth tell the rest of the world that financial inequality will soon become the biggest global concern hits a bit of an oxymoronic chord, wouldn't you agree? No single human being, or family for that matter, needs the amounts of money the ultra wealthy keep in their bank accounts. The ultra wealthy who pose concern for the problems the ultra wealthy have created should do something proactive with their fortune instead of preaching from the pulpit. Whatever form that proactivity takes is up to the individual. Eric Schmidt should ask Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffett for advice on how to use his own wealth for good. On the sliding scale of responsible wealth holders, I think Eric Schmidt exists outside the realm of the Gordon Geckos of the world, so I don't mean to give him a hard time, but it is a serious problem when those who are uniquely qualified to help in this specific circumstance (the sole qualification here is being ultra wealthy) choose to spout doom and gloom instead of making a real and substantial positive contribution.

tomp 13y ago

Great idea! Take the 100 richest people in the US, say their wealth is worth $3tn. Distribute this amongst 300m Americans. Everybody gets $10 000. Congratulations! Even disregarding inflation, you'll be in exactly the same situation next year, except this time there will be no more billionaires...

griffinmahon 13y ago
This is, I think, an absurd extrapolation of the argument that the original commenter may have been hinting at. (And anyway, since the problem at hand is inequality - despite your belief that the situation will remain the same, which can be argued for or against - "no more billionaires" would mark this end as achieved.
- thrill 13y ago
  ABSURDITY, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one’s own opinion. -- The Devil's Dictionary
  - griffinmahon 13y ago
    Touché!
joshsegall 13y ago
That actually sounds like a worthwhile experiment. I doubt the 100 richest would be worse off or at a lack for opportunities to become rich again. And I bet giving $40K to a family of four (since you include children in your 300m count) in poverty would on average go to significant good use and provide excellent returns for many years to come, contrary to your condescending implication that non-rich people would waste the money.
- daemin 13y ago
  Not the same thing, since most of the wealth of those billionaires would be in stocks and other illiquid investments/assets. Therefore someone would need to buy them in order to have cash to give out, and who would have that kind of cash available?
- gatehouse 13y ago
  Scarcity would immediately arise and that would determine who would end up with it. My predictions would be an immediate price increase of low cost housing and fast food (due to labor shortage.) Saving for education would mean moving downwards in the housing market.
- horv 13y ago
  I'd definitely suggest listening to this freakonomics podcast: http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cash-really-change-your-life-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cas... You could also make a similar point as the podcast by looking at the experiences of modern lottery winners. So I would say I'm pretty skeptical that something like this would be effective for the vast majority of people.
  - joshsegall 13y ago
    My comments were not a serious proposal. I was replying to a comment that lacked intellectual rigor and I proposed the opposite to point out some logical flaws. That said, cash transfers can help bring people out of poverty. A flat redistribution of wealth is not the right way to get that effect, but some kind of direct cash assistance is not remotely a wasted effort.
- tomp 13y ago
  I didn't meant they would waste money, I implied that cost-of-living is minimally about $10 000 a year, so after one year, they're poor again.
  - joshsegall 13y ago
SapphireSun 13y ago
That doesn't make sense. If the billionaires haven't returned, then the money is still more evenly distributed than before.
dmschulman 13y ago
I have no ill will towards those who've earned their incomes through building legitimate businesses or have otherwise prospered through capitalism. I do find it frustrating however that this system has gone into overdrive, fueled by the banking, tech, and energy sectors, to the point where, even after recovering from the most devastating economic crisis the world has ever seen, the concentration of wealth in the United States has risen even higher, bordering on criminal proportions (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-f...) If you asked the Fed (or most people who understand economics) they would tell you giving people money does help stimulate the economy, but you're not solving any income inequality issues by doing so. Obviously your not seriously suggesting the solution above. Listening to those who hold a substantial chunk of this concentrated wealth tell the rest of the world that financial inequality will soon become the biggest global concern hits a bit of an oxymoronic chord, wouldn't you agree? No single human being, or family for that matter, needs the amounts of money the ultra wealthy keep in their bank accounts. The ultra wealthy who pose concern for the problems the ultra wealthy have created should do something proactive with their fortune instead of preaching from the pulpit. Whatever form that proactivity takes is up to the individual. Eric Schmidt should ask Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffett for advice on how to use his own wealth for good. On the sliding scale of responsible wealth holders, I think Eric Schmidt exists outside the realm of the Gordon Geckos of the world, so I don't mean to give him a hard time, but it is a serious problem when those who are uniquely qualified to help in this specific circumstance (the sole qualification here is being ultra wealthy) choose to spout doom and gloom instead of making a real and substantial positive contribution.