U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2019, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
11,711 posts, read 7,086,430 times
Reputation: 15184

Advertisements

Moderator cut: deleted quoted post and partisan politics
You might come up with some new excuse, but a lot of your followers can't even distinguish between cash money and productive capacity -- between the means to spend and the means to produce. (So, of course, you'll be squealing for a way to seize and "redistribute" that).

And when ypour groupies are back on the bottom rung, they'll go looking for someone, anyone to blame. And we know where you'll point your finger, as usual.

Because the stuff that rolls downhill also tends to stick together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy View Post
poor people would give it back to rich people within 5 years.
Spending a windfall on unwise choices isn't "giving it back"; the behavior of poorly-educated windfall recipients (such as lottery winners) demonstrates this regularly. Stronger economic education would help, but most of the participants in this modern-day "shell game" (and I'm not speaking of the disadvantaged themselves) have nothing to gain from this.

Last edited by toosie; 02-01-2019 at 03:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2019, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Boston
5,917 posts, read 1,746,990 times
Reputation: 4342
poor people would give it back to rich people within 5 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 12:01 AM
 
Location: San Diego
4,522 posts, read 1,164,220 times
Reputation: 3192
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Everything would eventually regress to the mean. This has been proven in pretty much every social experiment or study for the past century.
Name one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 12:08 AM
 
Location: San Diego
4,522 posts, read 1,164,220 times
Reputation: 3192
What would happen if all money was redistributed equally?


People who worked hard and saved all their lives, would find themselves without the nest egg (or retirement fund) they had worked so hard to accumulate.

Companies planning to expand and hire more workers, would cancel those plans when the cash they needed to do it melted away.

Younger people who planned to work hard and save their way into prosperity, would no longer bother, knowing it would all be taken away from them before they could use it in their later years.

Lazy people would become even lazier, slacking off at work or even quitting their jobs, knowing the money of the wealthy would soon be coming their way, so why work hard?

Pharmaceutical companies developing a new drug to battle cancer, would abandon the programs when the money they needed to pay their scientists vanished overnight, long before the drugs were perfected and brought to market.

Families who were ready to take out a mortgage and buy a house, would have to cancel their plans when the bank they were going to borrow from, lost is capitalization overnight and had to refuse all mortgage requests.

Need more results?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 12:12 AM
 
1,006 posts, read 458,226 times
Reputation: 2584
They tried this in Massachusetts at the outset of settlement. Massive oversimplification spoiler alert - it worked so poorly that they switched systems to avoid starvation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 05:14 AM
 
2,393 posts, read 1,529,366 times
Reputation: 5185
There would be a lot less value to spread around if the incentive to create it was destroyed for the sake of...”equality”.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 07:24 AM
 
2,393 posts, read 1,529,366 times
Reputation: 5185
See also: Venezuela. Two companies I worked for had their assets seized by the army to “spread to the people”.

Money, as you call it, is just a medium of exchange. It’s the real goods and services that maintain its value.

A side effect would be loss of confidence in the usd as the reserve currency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Central New Jersey
2,160 posts, read 754,581 times
Reputation: 3733
Would be a lotta frivolous spending. Many people that don't have, would be purchasing items to keep up with the Jones'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 07:43 AM
 
3,923 posts, read 2,236,427 times
Reputation: 9036
The poor, having not had money before, would spend spend spend.

The wealthy would save and invest and make more money, or would figure out a way to sell stuff to the poor, and fleece them of their money, just like now.

Thats why so many poor people who win the lottery are broke again in 10 years on average. They spend with no regard to the value of each dollar they spend, and dont invest or dont invest wisely.

So sooner or later the wealthy would be wealthy again, and the poor poor again.

Just like the OP assumes.

Otherwise everything would grind to a halt, as mentioned previously. No one would to work among the poor, who now assume they dont have to work.

Now if every one was paid the same regardless of what job they do, thats a different story, but wed be right back to smart people getting wealthy again and poor would go poor again.

Thats why the world's resources, including money, are not evenly distributed. Some would use wisely, others not so much.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2019, 07:48 AM
 
1,023 posts, read 303,175 times
Reputation: 2579
I listened to podcast on a study on this subject- probably "Freakonomics". There was a time in America, maybe the 1800s, when anyone could get tracts of land owned by the Federal government in a lottery. The researchers had census records so they could see how people who won did before and after getting land and compare them to those who didn't win. They found, unfortunately, that the free land did little to improve the lives of the people who won or even their subsequent generation, as measured by occupation and education levels before and after.

So much more goes into accumulating and managing money- look at what happens with most current-day lottery winners. I'll be the first to admit that it's partly the good fortune to be born into a family that values saving, where you learn delayed gratification. Some learn from families who are the opposite- they decide they're never going to live paycheck-to-paycheck. At any rate, handing a large pile of income or assets to most people would make little difference over the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top