It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A simple solution to global meltdown

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:00 PM
Cap wealth.

Pass laws in each country until we can reach a global consensus.

There is no rational reason to allow a person to amass huge amounts of wealth for his or her personal benefit.

They have no inherent "right to wealth" that I can see. If the common folk have no right to healthcare, decent jobs, food or shelter, how can there be a right to unlimited wealth?

The superwealthy are uniquely gifted in one thing only: their ruthlessness and lack of empathy for others. They are not uniquely intelligent, hard-working, inventive or business savvy. They are just people with a lot of wealth.

So limit global wealth to $1,000,000,000 per person. When the limit is reached you are economically retired: go find something else to do. Allow those who are in excess four years to disburse their excess as they see fit, providing you set amount limts, organization types, etc., and make the transfers tax free.

If any refuse, cut them off from all electronic money transfers within signatory countries: no credit/debit card access, no entering into contracts, no allowing proxies. Force them to use cash only until they agree to play nice.

To justify it, cite public safety and antiterrorism. Demand that each billionaire PROVE they are not financing terrorist organizations. Whe they say it's impossible because they have so much they can't track it all, you reply, well, there you go: you agree the limit is needed.

Allowing gifts of up to $250 million to non-profits sounds good with a limit of $500 million per non-profit would jump-start the economies of the world in a good way.

I don't see where anyone would lose anything by subscribing to this plan. I can't see where it makes a whit of difference if you have one billiion or forty except in your head. Surely there isn't anything you can't get with merely a billion.


posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by apacheman

Most of the wealth upwards of $1 billion is just paper wealth, anyway. The poor will still be poor because they don't know how to make wealth. If you cap my wealth then I won't bother making it. The poor will still lose.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by apacheman

Go take some Economic classes mate. There's literally no way a plan like that could work. Most wouldn't want it anyways .. I know my answer to such a plan is measured in Calibers.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:33 AM
You two realize that the massive accumulation of wealth inherently destroys economies, right?

I liken the Economy to an engine block, with the currency being Engine oil.

Wealthy people hold more and more oil for themselves, and do not move it through the system.

What happens to an engine that does not have enough oil?

Yup... Overheating, Throwing a rod through the block, snapping pistons, etc...

Fiat money is even WORSE, where as the rich remove oil from the block, the Government introduces a like amount of WATER to the block.

Same end result, it just takes longer.

Capitalism isn't all rainbows and sunshine.


posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:49 AM
the idea of rationing money is like rationing air.

besides the super wealthy will divest their monies into dummy corps. & things like commodities or even stuff that is excluded like their home -

what you suggest has too many loop holes
or would require to many edicts/proclaimations by a world ruler/dictator
to be workable or acceptable.

i can appreciate your passion to DO something...even if it's wrong

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:54 AM
No offense but thats a horrible idea. It wouldn't help the poor at all and it would cause more harm than good. Lets take a fictional company that designs life saving medical equipment. They hit the motherload with a revolutionary breakthrough eliminating the need for invasive open heart surgeries and eliminating 99% of the risks that come with such surgery. They have other break through ideas that could save the lives of millions, but because all of the CEOs and other higher ups in the company have hit their wealth limit those ideas never achieve reality. The company is not so altruistic as to invest their time and hard work into something that will not yield profits. That simple fact applies to the majority of the wealthy.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 05:45 AM
I've always liked the idea of a Maximum Wage, as opposed to a minimum wage. Perhaps a ratio of some kind, like certain business have already?

We could also go back to the tax rates on the wealthy from the Ike era, and return the top rate to 90%. There was not shortage of entrepreneurial ambition because of it.

Indeed, there must be firewall of some kind to prevent a tiny group from hoarding the vast bulk of the wealth - like how it is right now.

Some how, in some way, we need to knock them down a bit from the pyramid cap - the reverse, raising everyone else to their level, is materially impossible.

Hoarding in such massive proportions is patently immoral, and I think anyone who aims to sit atop the world, needs to expect to be despised, and knocked down. It's unnatural. It makes no sense. It hurts people, breeds discontent, and must not be tolerated.

Somehow, we must strike a balance between allowing individuals to pursue their own success, and also look out for our brothers and sisters. Our right to pursue happiness stops at the point where it blocks other people from doing the same.

The american dream, of working hard and doing great, is a myth. There are always few counterhegemonic examples, but that's meaningless in the face of the starving masses.

Somehow, yes, there needs to be a limit to how much a person can accumulate. There are simple concepts of fairness that we are destroying ourselves by denying.

We can do it consciously, or wait for the underclass to finally go apes**t and reenact the Storming of the Bastille, and the Reign of Terror. If we push people past a certain point, our animal nature takes over, and 'course corrects'. I'd truly not want to see that happen. It would be terrifying.

Revisit how tribal societies functioned - this kind of hoarding wouldn't have been tolerated for a moment.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:58 PM
Talk about being brainwashed by TPTB!!

"It won't work", "Can't happen", "Kills the economy"..

Where's your proof for such sweeping statements?

Once they hit a billion, they'd be retired. That means no board of director jobs, no more running the company. New blood, fresh ideas would be allowed to come to the fore.

They'd be banned from business activities for the good of the rest of us.

How many inventions do you think are stifled now to protect profits?

If you say it can't work, explain why, please. Economics is not a hard science, it technically isn't a science at all, last time I checked. Economists have failed miserably at predicting or contributing to the general good. So if you base why you think it wouldn't work on economics, cite something valid to prove it, I'd love to see it.

The billionaires don't invent squat themselves, they merely control the money that others need to be creative and inventive. Very few billionaires have any talent for anything other than ruthlessness. Sjhow me one who actually invented something on their own.

Transferring the money to non-profits would result in an explosion of good jobs in research, building, repairing and in many other areas. How could that be bad?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by apacheman]

top topics


log in