Discussion If you could control access to all the money in the world, would you give everyone an equal share?

[Forever Sleep]

Firstly- would you do that or, would you give some people more money than others? I'm not refering to wages here. More like an initial lump sum for everyone so- we're all equally well off to start with.

Just as a concept, it wouldn't work of course. Why shouldn't people who worked really hard to build a business then want to help their children, rather than some random stranger?

What effect do you suppose that would have though as a hypothesis? Would everyone have a reasonably comfortable life with what they get? I still imagine some would continue to make more money than others- bearing in mind genetic potential, work ethic, corruption and exploitation even.

But, if everyone started off at the same financial baseline, would we all be in a different place? It was just a thought I found curious. How much does our potential success depend on a solid financial backing?

Of course, there are outliers. Rags to riches stories plus, those who have it all but squander it. Overall though, I wonder how different the world would look. (If it was fairer/ more equal from the start.)

I suppose we were all equal once- in terms of finances anyway. I wonder how early the corruption started!... Coin minters making a few extra on the side etc. Imagine being able to make believable money! People realising that the rate of demand could raise or lower prices. Depressing really to think exploitation probably started earlier than money maybe. I'm sure people stole from one another. Expected some in the group to work harder than others or, do the more dangerous tasks.

 

[quins]

Well, even as a hypothetical, I don't like to entertain the idea of a centralized "dirigiste" economy, much less some ICJ standard of "reimbursement" or distributive justice, but I've definitely fluctuated over the years in terms of whether or not surplus economies can square with the comparative benefits that come from "unequal exchange" (I use this in the "thirdworldist" sense), which I guess is a product of "hypercapitalism" and globalism as a general ill... But again I've only had cause to complain when I was strapped on cash. Even so, I dislike the Trumpist boons and juif libertarians who have a "eat-or-be-eaten" mentality, but I don't have as much conviction as I did when I was hanging with the socialist crowd.

Anyway, I'm a bit too morally diffident to ever reprise my more "radical" positions on the matter, so I'll just say that airheaded utopianism already puts you ahead of the curb, in some sense, of those who are mainly fixated on retconning Imperialist narratives and "allat."

 

[Pluto]

 

[Lost in a Dream]

If I could control access to all the money in the world, I would find a way to destroy it or burn it. Everyone can start out with nothing.

 

[Apathy79]

I don't mind the idea as a starting point. Equality of opportunity is a noble goal. I definitely wouldn't redistribute all current wealth equally among everyone though. Equality of outcomes is a disastrous situation, where no-one is incentivised to contribute anything. So there's nuance. But the way you describe it I could get on board with.

I think over time we'd end up with the same situation we have now, and probably to at least a decent degree the same people on either end. To at least some extent, the people who are best with money I think have ended up with a lot of it, and would again, and the people who are worst with it have lost it, and would again. The main difference would be people who never had a chance to be good with it because they never had it might flourish and those who always had it and never had to start from a low point might not be able to get back there.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't mind the idea as a starting point. Equality of opportunity is a noble goal. I definitely wouldn't redistribute all current wealth equally among everyone though. Equality of outcomes is a disastrous situation, where no-one is incentivised to contribute anything. So there's nuance. But the way you describe it I could get on board with.

I think over time we'd end up with the same situation we have now, and probably to at least a decent degree the same people on either end. To at least some extent, the people who are best with money I think have ended up with a lot of it, and would again, and the people who are worst with it have lost it, and would again. The main difference would be people who never had a chance to be good with it because they never had it might flourish and those who always had it and never had to start from a low point might not be able to get back there.

I agree with this. I think, even if we started off comfortable and equal, some would still amass wealth while others would quite possibly just loose or squander the lot! Then, beg for more quite possibly. I definitely think it's part of a mindset that I suppose we are taught or observe in those around us.

Plus of course, there will be people genuinely unable to work. Or, those who make phenomenally bad business decisions- like me.

I also agree that salaries need to be set to incentivise people after that. Why should people risk doing very demading or dangerous or very skilled jobs if they aren't compensated properly? Why would someone invest in learning to become a doctor if they could earn the same as a shop assistant?

Still, some jobs are ridiculously well paid and some, ridiculously low. I also imagine the real wealth comes from other possibly shadier outlets which absolutely smack of corruption.

I guess as a society, we've tried to make adjustments. Like scholarships for those who have the potential and work hard but, don't have the funds. That's likely only available to a tiny minority though. Most regular students amass huge debts now on their gamble to get a better paid job.

It was more a thought experiment more than anything practical. Where would we be if things were more equal?

I suppose the one I find bizarre is- some people claim Trump is so good at business. I don't know enough to be able to tell. Still, we do know his Dad gave him at least $413 million dollars. I imagine most people would do better in business with that kind of safety net! How can you fail if there's someone there to bail you out? Can people like that even conceive what real failure results in for regular people?

 

[foreverfalling]

There's definitely some people I wouldn't want to give more money to. If I could I'd probably like to flip the tables and give all the losers like me more money.

However as pointed out the money will probably eventually end up with the same people anyway. People good with money will amass it, the ones bad at it will lose it. Not only that, the bad people that I wouldn't want the money to end up with will inevitably find ways to take that money from the ones that have it. They will come up with evil schemes and scams, change the tax laws, or even murder the people with money to get it.

 

[Apathy79]

I think we'll get a closer sense of it in about a decade when most people lose their jobs to AI/robots and the government needs to subsidise the majority. Some sort of UBI seems to be the most likely outcome. Enough to survive, but likely not to thrive. Then people have to find their own ways beyond that if they want more. Not quite as pure as your experiment but at least a base for all.

But back to your hypothetical, I think there are outliers and extreme cases currently that probably wouldn't be repeated. But I tend to think most of the top 20% of wealthy people now would find their way back there, and ditto the reverse. It would be a game changer for some, but probably less than most people think. Intelligent, hard working, confident, well connected, passionate, highly specialised people who make wealth a priority will do the best. I think it's mostly the same today.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think we'll get a closer sense of it in about a decade when most people lose their jobs to AI/robots and the government needs to subsidise the majority. Some sort of UBI seems to be the most likely outcome. Enough to survive, but likely not to thrive. Then people have to find their own ways beyond that if they want more. Not quite as pure as your experiment but at least a base for all.

But back to your hypothetical, I think there are outliers and extreme cases currently that probably wouldn't be repeated. But I tend to think most of the top 20% of wealthy people now would find their way back there, and ditto the reverse. It would be a game changer for some, but probably less than most people think. Intelligent, hard working, confident, well connected, passionate, highly specialised people who make wealth a priority will do the best. I think it's mostly the same today.

Didn't think of that angle. That AI could make it a reality! Still, the super rich will still be super rich and in control so, I wonder if anything will really change much.

Do you really think vast quantities of people won't work at all? Maybe they'll go and live off grid if they get tired of trying to scrape their way through in the cities.

It's curious to think about. Will AI give the less wealthy more power maybe? Who else will the rich sell their plastic crap to? So- they simply can't allow them to become too poor, starve to death or start an uprising. I imagine it's going to do a number on the economy! Imagine hackers taking control of AI! A 'Kill the Masters!' type scenario... I don't even trust Alexa!

The education system would have to change if everyone started off at an equal baseline though. So- I think from the start, people would be taught equally the importance of managing money. Sure- some would still take to it better than others. I have confidence I'd still be useless!

 

[Apathy79]

Didn't think of that angle. That AI could make it a reality! Still, the super rich will still be super rich and in control so, I wonder if anything will really change much.

Do you really think vast quantities of people won't work at all? Maybe they'll go and live off grid if they get tired of trying to scrape their way through in the cities.

It's curious to think about. Will AI give the less wealthy more power maybe? Who else will the rich sell their plastic crap to? So- they simply can't allow them to become too poor, starve to death or start an uprising. I imagine it's going to do a number on the economy! Imagine hackers taking control of AI! A 'Kill the Masters!' type scenario... I don't even trust Alexa!

The education system would have to change if everyone started off at an equal baseline though. So- I think from the start, people would be taught equally the importance of managing money. Sure- some would still take to it better than others. I have confidence I'd still be useless!

I think some people won't work at all and most people will work a lot less on things they don't enjoy if they don't need the extra money for survival. I like the idea tbh but we need to somehow survive the interim first where hackers and military uses could cause immense damage, so it's an optimistic view of a decade from now rather than necessarily the most likely. But yeah if we avoid all that and robots start doing everything for us then its hard to imagine how the cost of everything doesn't come drastically down almost to zero and most of the jobs humans do now become obsolete.

But it's all extreme speculation at this point. I don't think anyone knows where all this is leading. I hope hypotheticals like this become legitimate experiments though.