IF the worlds Wealth was divided FAIRly

a reply to: VonDoomen

Prove their worthiness. LOOOOOOL. What you say is BS.

If everyone can prove their worthiness they should all start from the same level ground. There is no merit in you building a billion dollar company if you came from a rich family, had all facilities, best education money can pay, daddy's contacts, a life of legal privilege, etc. More merit has someone that is born with nothing and still goes to work 10 hours a day for an entire lifetime and get his/her little things going after a while.

Also "advance"? Advance. And who is to say what is good advance and what is not and in what direction? Just money? At whatever cost? Ever ripping off your peers or society? An to what extent? Endlessly and unlimited? Isn't that thinking what has caused a few billionaires to control everything and wanting even more, although most of the world is poor and in flames? Ridiculous.

a reply to: badgerprints

Yes, because of huge differneces in income, aka access aka purchaisng power...mainly, but among other things related too. If not what then according to you?

a reply to: TreadUpon

Fair does not exist as all people come from different backgrounds and opportunities and privileges. Is not the same rising a billion dollar company if your family is rich and they gave you everything, including some money to start, than if you are poor and had nothing to start. You did not earn all that you have, your family gave you a lot, your peers too. Most of the stuff you own and use is not yours, is inherited, is given to you by someone else (your daddy), you did not have to work for it. So the only word is equal.

originally posted by: sara123123

Originally posted by 12voltz
If the worlds wealth and land were divided equally then each person would have equal except some people would be more equal than others .I believe its called communism and has been tried before.

And it is marked by slavery, oppression and mass murder to such an extent that it would make Hitler jealous. Why are people so dim as to not know this obvious and well documented history of Marxism????? Not only that, Marxism is unconstitutional in the US. For the dim Utopians among us who do not or can not read history - unconstitutional means ILLEGAL.

There are many things legal that can kill you like TOBACCO. And there are many things illegal that should be legal, like deciding what substance you put in your own body, or sharing.

originally posted by: sara123123
reply to post by TheGhostViking

 

Aren't you clever! Opposing the New World Order - a global government - while you promote the global redistribution of wealth? Would not that require a global government to confiscate and re-distribute wealth, genius?

This struggle with logic, history and even current reality, is why the dim bulb Marxists continue falling for the same ideology that history proves - over and over again - results in total enslavement, poverty, blood sacrifice, and oppression.

Our best bet to defeat the NWO and oppression is National sovergnity and freedom.

Not necessarily. Again of course according to your imperialistic views everything has to be done by force, just like the elite have done. There is no cooperation, of course. Yous history proof is bullcrap. Soviet russia and CHina were never communist, that was just americna propaganda. those countries ere in the facts tyrannies or oligarchies. True community oriented, social welfare states like the nordic countries are doing pretty well, way better than USA and such forcing, individualistic, selfish cultures.

originally posted by: undo
alot of charitable donations from the usa end up being stolen by drug runners, war lords, corrupt governmental officials abroad, terrorists and anarchists, before they reach their final destination. so even if capitalism has a chance to alleviate the suffering of others overseas, the people suffering still have to deal with the criminals in their own populace, who find various ways to keep the people from realizing help.

in addition, there are charitable organizations, who not only feed the hungry in other countries but provide them with their first chance at an education, shelter and new clean clothes. unfortunately, many of these charity workers are killed by drug runners, war lords, corrupt government officials abroad, terrorists and anarchists.

in a system such as you suggest, the following scenario would develop:

one guy would work his 5 acres and grow crops to feed his family.
another guy would not work his 5 acres, but would sit on his tush, and when he got hungry, just go steal the food off the guy next door's 5 acres.
his buddy would see that he doesn't have to work his 5 acres either. he can just go steal off the 5 acres of someone else.
soon you have a class of people doing all the farming, and a class of people stealing all the food off their neighbors.
eventually, no one has anything and everyone is suffering.

that's the reality of socialism, i kid you not. socialism is slavery and abject poverty just waiting for an official stamp to legalize it.

Criminals are a product of the capitalist system. Hunger too. Poverty too. Not the other way around. It is called corruption, greed, selfishness, indifference, all of which are product of the capitalist system.

Also, those charities give less in charity than what they exempt in taxes, so it basically is NOT a good deal for society in the long run. A lot of taxes get unpaid.

Your socialist scenario is hypothetic. The actual scenario of capitalism where 3+ billion people are poor andthe 1% control more than 50% of everything is a fact, a proven failed system.

originally posted by: 3finjo
reply to post by TheGhostViking

 

Do you consider wealth divided equally to be fair? So a person who works hard all their life should hand money to someone who can't be bothered and actually prefers life on the dole? And there are a lot of people like that, both here in NZ and in the UK.

I would rather see higher wages going to those whose jobs are difficult, dangerous and /or make a difference like nurses, cops, fire fighters, teachers, military personnel, etc instead of news readers and celebrities and sportsmen.

Yes, equally, only to those who work of course. But it wouldn't be hard to make everyone jump on the work wagon, as all would have to work only 2 days per week at most, as the cost of everything would drop drastically, access would be more or less equal for everybody and there would be no interest, no debt, etc so the working time required would be small.

Of course some lines of work will disappear such as spotrsmen, news readers, famous, artists, etc. The activities would exist, but not paid. Everyone would have so much free time that all would be engage in sports, arts, etc just for the # of it, not for money as no one would pay for that.

a reply to: p450p

wow a super socialist, 22 posts in a row thinking that your ripping people to shreds in a 5 year old dead thread.
keep up the good work.

lol

originally posted by: TheGhostViking
HI guys
A question to you guys . If the worlds total wealth was divided by the worlds total population , how much wealth would each person have ?
I ask this because i want too know if wealth was distributed fairly could we ALL live a prosperous life ?
Is the wealth really held by a few elite families? , rockerfellers rothchilds royal familily etc ?

My 2nd question is if the worlds total land was shared equally , how much land would each person have ?
Again I believe the Queen of England owns a huge amount of land as do other elites . , the slaves never got the "40 acres" they were promised ! , land and wealth are two crucial elements that are not disributed fairly imo and this is why as the old saying goes , the rich get richer , the poor get poorer . I beleive land and wealth are necessary for tptb to maintain the status quo and thats it part of the nwo conspiracy .

Thanks .

Bad idea I'm afraid, sorry. It all depends on your definition of the word 'fair". I have not read your post but i am assuming for your sake that you actually meant 'even' instead of 'fair'

I agree that as a community most of us would believe and agree that monetary wealth should be more evenly distributed.

The rich always claim that without more tax reductions and deductions they will not want to work but in the real world we all know that money ceases to be an incentive much beyond having a big flash house, a lavish lifestyle and the toys to go with it and a 100 mill in today's money, in the bank.

originally posted by: loves a conspiricy


paper money isnt worth the paper its printed on

100% true. Here in the UK they don't even pretend otherwise. It says on the bank notes that the governor of whatever bank issues the notes "promises to pay the bearer on demand" whatever the note is worth. Essentially it's IOU's...

the math I did assuming there's 8 billion people means that each person would get: 15.744 acres of land. You raise a good point. We're taught that we can only own land if we buy it. The indians taught no one owns land at all. But in reality both are wrong. But one equitable way too look at it would be that if it's all divided up equally then each person is entitled to 15.744 acres of land. So if you're able to exercise squat rights or even if you just want to ease your concious about doing something on land out there that you're not able to actually by then you don't have to feel so bad. Because ya if you boil it all down and realize we're all just people on one planet, that means each person gets 15+ acres. Regardless of someone else telling you otherwise.

Robots and AI are taking over the work force as we speak. We need leaders who understand this in order to prepare humanity properly for will come of that. The wealthy and powerful wont exist eventually as there will be enough for everyone as long as we do not over populate.

They wont want to give up the power that their wealth provides them but it is destined to be the future.

Fusion energy will provide clean nearly free unlimited energy and it is happening in corporation labs around the world. Unlimited energy means unlimited Robotics to be the slaves of humanity.

originally posted by: woogleuk
Well there is 6.8 billion people on Earth, and Trillons of pounds / dollars / francs / yen etc etc etc, so I would imagine everyone would live comfortably if it was distibuted evenly.

Within a month there would be the have and have nots this is just human nature .

a reply to: tom.farnhill

to truly start everything off equal there would need to be no family structure, no government, no connections, no infrastructure, no money, no dna, no genetics. we can never be equal because we are not all equal. the best we could probably get would be a higher basic standard of living.

www.marketwatch.com...

originally posted by: gimme_some_truth


Well according to this website the worlds wealth is about $46,513,000,000,000. Now, there are approximately 6,897,873,808 people in the world.... So if you divide that, you have $6 743.09233.


Not all that much... Assuming I did my math correctly. I do ask that some one double check me... But if I am correct, spreading the worlds wealth evenly, doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference to many people... But at the same time... There are quite a few people in the world that it would make a huge difference to.

My 2nd question is if the worlds total land was shared equally , how much land would each person have ?

OK, again we have approximately 6,897,873,808 people on earth.... There are approximately 57.5 million square miles of land on earth.

Once again, let's divide, amount of land, by the amount of people. That comes to 119.963023. So just under 120 square miles per person. Pretty large amount of land actually... To put that into perspective The district of Columbia is 68 square miles. So each person would get the equivalent of just under two districts of columbia.

Again, I encourage everyone to double check my math, just to be sure.

So, because wouldn't make that much of a difference then lest just leave things like they are with billions poor and a 1% controlling 50% of all wealth, right?

No. It WOULD make a difference, because the price of everything would drastically decrease. 6 thousand dollars could last a lifetime of decent life. The problem is now your apple seller wants more things so he raises his prices so then you raise your prices (whatever you sell or do) and everything keeps going up and up, despite of all the advancements in technology, science, etc.

If you make the analysis of inflation increase worldwide over the years you would see that it does not match the increase in population and more like matches the increase in wealth gap. The only ones who cannot rise their prices as much to keep up with such frenetic pace are those that sell products with many competitors (which are few really these days) and those who sell their time aka salary, so those start getting behind in pruchasing power and access. The salary people because there is so many poor and desperate willing to sell their lifetime for a few crumbles that the time of people is devalued and if you are not willing to work that much for that little money they can just bring another one out of the bunch who will.

originally posted by: undo
reply to post by TheGhostViking

 

marxism = serfdom. fascism = serfdom. (that's why it's so hard to differentiate. the difference is so miniscule, that it's nearly irrelevant)

either way, the result is the same: a few "royals" (et.al. elitists) have everything, while everyone else has a shared misery. when there are lots of rich people in one country is good not bad. that means the government encourages everyone to be an elitist. not serfs for life.

Not true. If there are too many rich then that is no rich, that is the new standard, thus the middle. Problem is most don't have the newer living standards, they have been long forgotten in the past. It is possible to have few rich, a vast majority middle and very few poor. The importance is not in if they are rich middle or poor, but the distance between them aka inequality. If all rich had 3 small houses, middle had 2 small houses and poor 1 small house there would not be that much different, not that much greed, not that much need to get always ever more, no need to fight over stuff, no jealousy among classes, etc. Hell, classes would be highly attenuated, irrelevant.

In other words if rich had 3 private islands but poor had 1 private island, it wouldn't matter that much. The problem is the uber rich own all the land (many private islands), all the wealth (many private jets), work little or nothing, have all the privileges, have access to anything they want and control lots of peoples' lives. The middle have a little and everyday shrinking while work hours and pressure keep building up and if lucky they gain little control over their lives. The poor, have nothing or next to nothing, work a lot or cannot even find a job, don't control anything aka are uncertain about the near future aka next week, and don't have any privilege and don't have access to almost anything, some don't even have access to food/water.

USA government and such countries keep letting the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and a shrinking middles class, and THAT is no good. That is a clear direction towards tyranny, oligarchy, dictatorship and such. Real and high living standard countries with a community-oriented, social-welfare state, like the nordic countries, are doing very good, far above what the USA, UK, etc are doing.

originally posted by: undo
americans sent billions of charitable money and it ended up being tied up in red tape at the local shipyards, where the import of materials to facillate the building of the new housing units, was held hostage by the haitian government, as demands for import/export fees were exacted. who's gonna pay for those fees when the money was all donated, a year earlier?

Americans sent billions in aid in exchange of trillions of tax exemption. This in the long run is no good for anybody. Less money being spent in the people and more money to the pockets of the rich. Further increasing the wealth gap and concentration of power.

If donations don't get to where they need to be is because of CORRUPTION, a symptom of this failed capitalist system, which demands you to always get more, always get higher, always win, always profit, even if at the expense of corruption of any kind and at the expense of your peers.

originally posted by: undo
reply to post by XLR8R

 

problem is, every time there's an innovation that allows them to rise above their condition, someone steals it, busts it up, or otherwise makes it so the people can't use it. for example, a device that takes water from the air and turns it into clean drinking water for an entire village, is dismantled or broken by drug lords, anarchists or people of different religious beliefs, to force the people into compliance to their demands.

there's no easy solution to this. there's only your ability to make money and be charitable, in hopes that your heart felt offers are not stolen in some way, from their intended recipients.

Well, that would be a consequence of today's neoliberal system wouldn't it? Corruption is led by greed, and greed is the main driver of neoliberalism.

originally posted by: TheGhostViking

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by XLR8R

 

problem is, every time there's an innovation that allows them to rise above their condition, someone steals it, busts it up, or otherwise makes it so the people can't use it. for example, a device that takes water from the air and turns it into clean drinking water for an entire village, is dismantled or broken by drug lords, anarchists or people of different religious beliefs, to force the people into compliance to their demands.

there's no easy solution to this. there's only your ability to make money and be charitable, in hopes that your heart felt offers are not stolen in some way, from their intended recipients.

So where are the UN or the us army to stop the corruption ? NOWHERE , the un was set up to cater for the elite not the poor !

Agree. So where is the USA and buddies (aka the mickey mouse club) in all the war and famine in Africa? They are too busy donating millions in aid so they can save trillions in tax thru exemption.