Last Sunday's "Parade" had an interesting clip in the "Ask Marilyn" column.
A reader asked if all the money in the world were equally distributed to everyone on the planet how much would each person get? Marilyn used the M3, which it noted included more than just currency, which indicated that there is $60 trillion of money in the world, with 6.8 billion people.
If it were equally divided, it would come out to roughly $9000 per person.
This is great food for thought. If you and I and Bill Gates (all his $ would be thrown into the pot), got $9000 out of the deal we'd probably not be happy about it. However, someone living in Sudan or some other similarly poor country would have been given a fortune in their economic framework.
And, I would think that within an hour after the distribution was complete, the wealth would again start re-distributing itself. The industrious Sudanese would buy themselves something to generate ongoing income, like a plow (if there is farmland) or a cow to sell milk.
It might be more difficult to imagine what would happen in a country like the U.S., but I don't see the creative, industrious individuals not finding a way to provide a product or service to someone else to begin changing the balance again.
Interesting to think of the scenario if the redistribution were limited to the U.S. (or any other developed country). There would be more wealth and fewer recipients, but the net result might not be very different than imagined on a world-wide basis.
Is this why income redistribution, as in a communist country, ends up with the wealth still being unequally distributed in spite of the ideology?
Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.
Einstein said if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it. Zappa must have been an economic genius!:D
Originally Posted by TN_LAB