There was an economic experiment doing just that a couple of decades ago.
There was an isolated village in Africa. Economists took inventory of each household to determine its wealth and noted the distribution. They then gave money to everyone in the village so everyone had the same wealth. They then went away and let the experiment run for 10 years.
They went back and took inventory of each household to determine its wealth. What they found was the new distribution was "almost exactly" the same as the original by individual household. The richest before ended up being the richest. The poorest before ended up being the poorest.
The conclusion is that where one falls on the wealth distribution curve has to do with one's own decisions, talent, and industry, not so much where one starts out.
We see this with lottery winners, actors, and ball players all the time. People of modest and lower class means who get a large windfall and are too dumb to hand it over to a financial manager often end up dying broke.
Accumulation of wealth is the result of decisions, talent, and industry. You can't hand someone money and change any of those things.
I disagree almost entirely, and the "study" sounds fake. What's the name of the isolated African village? Also, it didn't sound like they were trying to maintain financial equality over time, but for an instant
@ryryryan You don't have to agree, that was what happened.
I read the report a long time ago. It was probably something in The Economist.
Of course they were not trying to maintain equality, that would be strict redistribution. They wanted to see what would happen with an equal distribution initial condition. It essentially proved that wealth inequality is primarily due to individual merit, not initial condition.
1. No one would pick up the garbage. 2. Some people would waste their money and soon be poor again. 3. Leftists would again call for another redistribution of wealth.
The idea seems highly unlikely or impossible for it to occur outright.
The government would most likely discourage entrepreneurship for wealth to remain 'equal' among the constituencies. If this were to happen, then innovation would not take place, and this is to the detriment of civilization. Everyone's money would most likely be left idle and not utilized. Any exercise of utilizing money would decrease one's purchasing power, thereby resulting to 'inequality'.
There are different currencies adopted by each sovereign state. If everyone in the world were to have an 'equal' amount of money with a basis on monetary value, then its worth would be dependent on the exchange rates that fluctuate on a daily basis.
I guess it depends whether people start off with the same amount of money or consistently get the same amount of money. If people started off with the same amount then within a few months, maybe a year, maybe even a few years, some people would be poor again, some would be rich and some would have about the same. If people were all paid the same then society would collapse because generally people wouldn't want to do more work or more difficult jobs if they get paid the same as someone doing something simple.
People wouldn't rely on money anymore. Money usually reflects one's personal value. But if the same money is given to people who don't contribute as much, then money isn't reliable.
Money isn’t about individual contribution 😂 It’s a way to pay for items you need... you need money cause that’s what stores accept and that’s what banks accept
CoffeeWC makes a good point. Money only holds value because of the time and effort taken to make it. Certain jobs are worth more than others, hence why doctors are worth more than McDonalds employees. If everything was equaled out, our economic system would collapse because it would try to force goods and services that are not equal to be equal. People will find a way to get what they are worth, and the collapse of money would lead back to trading and bartering. All money does is standardize how value is measured. By negating that measurement, you make the entire system useless.
Think of it like saying inches, feet, and miles are now equal to each other. The system would be useless because it now makes no sense nor serves a purpose in denoting differences.
@WrathXXI not really... think about barter system... money is just a means of exchange Working as a doctor for the same income as a farmer... makes no difference, the price of bread is still the price of bread...
Just now the incentive to be a doctor isn’t money... it’s actually the love for it So I guess better doctors?
@WrathXXI its not loafs of bread Its money And the bread is worth enough to be comparable to the income people earn
So maybe 1$ for bread The ONLY reason inflation and prices increases and all that bullshit exist is because the person at the top of the pyramid is getting rich off us!
Let's say somebody finds a genie and actually pulled this off
*Poof* Everybody now has the same amount of money.
It wouldn't take long at all for those originally rich to become rich again, and those originally poor to become poor again.
The primary reason why most people get ahead, is because they were willing to do what others weren't. This could of course mean cheating, but it also means personal sacrifice, working longer hours, foregoing vacations, educating themselves, etc etc.
Everybody starts with the same amount of money in Monopoly right? Poker tournaments? Hell, MOST games start players in a level playing field. The competent will rise, the incompetent will fall. Inequality is not some great injustice, it's the natural result (Paretto Principle) of compounded wins or losses, along with luck, and larger gains possible at the top. So if you or I get a 10% return on investment it's not a whole lot. When a billionaire gets 10% that's millions of dollars.
So again, people wrongfully assume that if there's not equality of outcome then something wasn't fair. Granted many things in life aren't. But even if there were a system with no prejudice or discrimination, a few would rise astronomically. Inequality is NATURAL.
Equality of outcome is the idea that everyone makes the same and are free to their own devices and passions. Only problem is that everyone has different needs and wants. Certain passions are valued more by society such as techsperts, entertainers, athletes and food vendors. Equality of outcome doesn't allow for growth.
Life and the economy is like a race. Their are winners and losers, but each person gets a chance to enter the race and have a shot to move up. In a Nascar race you have two races start in the front and then that continues until the last car in the back of the pack. However, that 43rd spot isn't set and stone, he or she can move from 43rd to 40th, or 35th or wherever. As they get opportunities, they learn from them and grow eventually getting higher and higher. Maybe they were in 30th but wrecked and fell to 43rd again. Luckily for them they get to enter the next race and start over again.
The leaders who tend to average in the top 10 might start getting passed by others who once were not elite, as time went on they surpassed themselves and the elite to become a top contender themselves. However, you can't just put someone in a race. They have to have the ability to actually drive, adequate tires, a full gas tank and a pit crew. Without these its impossible to join the race and compete. This is where something like Universal Basic Income would come in, to provide equal opportunity for everyone to join the race.
There are always winners and losers, then there is the majority in the middle that move around (middle class). This is important to understand because those losers might not always be. And sometimes those that were once winners fall into the middle or worse. But they always have the possibility and aid to help get them back up. Equal outcome doesn't allow this because it prevents people from becoming their best and competing.
Rich and poor has little to do with money. Donald Trump once was $330M in debt, and remembered seeing homeless people and thinking "that guy is worth $330M more than me right now." But a decade later, he was a billionaire again.
If you gave everyone in the US a million dollars, 2 years later, most "poor" people would have nothing left, while the "rich" would likely have multiplied their money.
Why? Because the difference between rich and poor isn't money - it's ambition, hard work, education, but most importantly, discipline and contacts.
Poor people (in the US and many first-world countries, anyway) lack discipline and the ability to delay gratification - the can't save up over time to improve their situation, but focus only on what they want THIS MINUTE. Middle class folks think weeks in advance, but rich people think years in advance, and work towards distant goals.
Rich people invest in themselves to improve their market value through education and building a network of contacts who are or will likely be in a position to help them at some point - and they often sacrifice and risk a lot to accomplish that.
That's how it is possible for lower class people to become rich, and how lazy or undisciplined "rich" can become penniless.
How are u an expert on this topic? It sounds like cliche BS a rich person says to feel better because they are insecure and truly feel they are lucky and actually no better than any avg. poor person. The point of this question is not to dismiss it! Can anyone truly imagine a world of financial equality? If yes, then you are ready to answer the question.
@ryryryan I come from a lower-middle-class background, and because of the type of work I used to do, I spent a LOT of time in the homes of the "poor", the middle class, and these days, a lot of time in upper-class homes. I've overheard hundreds of hours of conversations working in these homes, and have witnessed a lot of things, because people have their guard down at home and say and do the things that tell you how they really are.
I've also talked with a lot of people (because it's interesting to me) about things like this and have gotten perspectives from people across the whole spectrum.
I'm I an "expert"? I don't know, but I'm pretty smart and very observant, and with the amount of experience I have, I can make pretty accurate deductions, I believe. But, this is an opinion website, so you are free to ignore what I have to say.
I think you'd be surprised at what you don't know or think you know but ain't true. For example, many of these rich people whose character you admire, work less hard, are less happy, and are less intelligent than poor. Intelligence does not equal to one wealth. In fact, confidence I've seen in poor people can outway that of rich. Poor people are often confident they will be happy in life without feeling like they need a million bucks, whereas many rich people are insecure and overly self conscious. As if to be respected and to respect themself they need money to prove it. Also your whole argument is flawed if these differences between rich and poor mean that poor trump is a dumbass and rich Trump a success. His example my point. Wealth fluctuates and isn't important compared to happiness and relationships and community
There are variables!!! I need answers... Are talking about starting from scratch? If all wealth and debt were erased and then everyone was given 50k, and it there was still an open marketplace? If that's the case, we'd end up in the same place. Smart, industrious people would invest in businesses and make money... dopey people would spend it all on clothes and toys. Or, your talking about a star trek type society where no one needs to work for money at all. If that's the case wealth would get replaced by fame. Some people would sit around not doing much, others would drive into they're passions and do impressive things... i think it all comes down to drive... and we're not all equal in that respect.
Even if some how everything was equal and enough for everyone, it would not last.
Humans lie, cheat and steal. Even a very good person would in the right circumstances act inappropriately.
Look at some of the Oil rich countries. They have enough money from the sales of natural resources to fund all budgets, yet their people work useless government "make work" jobs.
When I see a welding robot, I do not see free GNP, or step towards the future, instead I see a loss of several jobs.
If I invented a cornucopia device tomorrow, it would not solve corruption. In the end some one would benefit from it at someone else's expense.
Even if money did not exist, and everyone was honest, we are each different. Some people can live far better with less, some people produce more, others squander what they have.
Communism hag never truly existed, every some has ended up in some kind of dictatorship, I get what you mean and there's a theory that says that if you hive the whole money in the world to everyone in same amounts the money would go back to those who already have it in less than 4 years… because the difference it is about how people spend it… rich people buy assets first ad then at the end they buy liabilities, and poor people buy first liabilities and at the end (if they even buy ) buy the assets…
People who work hard would stop working, they would wonder why they are bothering. The whole reason people take on very responsible jobs, long hours etc is because of the pay and advantages. Lazy people would sit back and get the same as them, so they would stop working. Even if you gave everyone the same money after a bit those who are crap with money would be in dept and those who are clever and save would be saying they have investments and properties, and it would go back to how it was before because the stupid ones wasted their money and the bright ones were careful.
I think it would soon be unequal. Freedom necessitates the ability to achieve unequal results, and the results can become unequal rather quickly. Say one person invents an exciting new product that everyone wants to have. He originally invented it for himself but now everyone wants to have their own and pushes him to start selling the product, and so he risks all his money to start a business and sell the product and becomes wealthier than everyone else who voluntarily gives him the money in exchange for his goods. As long as money exists (which tends to imply property rights as well), it's going to move around from one hand to the next, creating unequal outcomes.
The concept sounds good but would fail if ever tried. Whoever was responcible for distributing the money would definitely give themselves more, eventually there would be no uniqueness in our clothing or looks. There would be little motivation for innovation so there would be no new technology to further society and we would be producing goods inefficiently.
China is in horrible shape because of it, they may be growing but only by producing empty appartment buildings that are too expensive for the average citizen to afford. Just watch, poverty will rise and this growth will catch up with them.
China may pretend to be a communist country but in reality it is simply extorting poor people. The rich in China are extremely rich and the poor are poorer. I wouldn't say that China is an example of communism.
Eventually, over time, it would return to the present state.
You would have a group of people who are not financially responsible spending their money and not able to replenish or maintain their balance and on the the other end of the soectrum, you would have a groyp that is financially frugal and increase their money.
It's just human nature and laws of financial responsibility. Several camps of thought and 1point of view might not be better than the other.
Some people will spend until gone, some will invest and let it accumulate and in the middle, some will spend to make more to spend to make more.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
It wouldn't be a life worth to live for that what I am sure of. I have never imagined and can't imagine what will happen if all people in the world had equal money. Though I believe that it shouldn't be like having equal money but it should be like if having basic needs (water, food, shelter, medical needs and education) given to everyone. And I am sure the world will be a different place. Where people will only live to make there life better and won't suffer for like people these days are suffering without those needs.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
We would slowly trend back towards inequality as some people settle into this life and feel content while those not driven by fulfilling their basic needs start to either accrue money for reason or provide service that people volantarily give more towards. Those people would most likely use said money to support the thing that’s making them this money and would gather even more money. Setting the bar back to a flat equality will only reshuffle the deck it wouldn’t change the game. Now raising the basic starting point and ensuring no one exists in the portion of the game that entrapps them in an unwinnable struggle through well structured policies could be an amazing solution.
Holy shit, why do people have to be so cynical - it would be great to live without poverty, for all peoples sake. Homelessness, starvation, discrimination, economic disparity - gone. That's bad? And even if it were just temporary, at least we could be happy knowing that we tried. Blacks are disproportionately poor, and also were disproportionately enslaved for decades... Coincidence? It's time for reparations. I'm all for this idea, and considering the deep inequalities that exists, I think most people are supportive of financial equality. The CEOs are not, but fuck them for exploiting the masses for minimum wage. Let's share the wealth, share the love, and stop bitching about communism being a dirty word. We all have equal rights (supposedly), money is a right. We need money to live. Work too. Much rather live in a world without poverty, and i challenge anyone to say they cherish poverty and will fight to keep it.
People already do those unpleasant and difficult jobs. Why would you wish poverty onto those people? If you were starving, would you not want a community to help you? You're going to refuse food in that situation because it's a fantasy, right?
If we all work together, I'm sure we can all work less... Or not need to work at all or only when we feel like working...
Can't fathom people being against this. Why do I want to work 60 hours a week? The earth used to provide Humans everything they needed. Fishing... Foraging... Money does not just have to exist because societies existed without it far longer
And you would work because maybe you need to work for food, like humans did for tens of thousands of years. Work never meant earning an amount of dollars until recent in human history
I think that there would be a lot more fairness in life, I think that people would be happier to work crappy jobs as long as they are getting a decent life. I think that we could have more workers Doig one job, work less hours because of it, and everybody would be better off.
Nowadays people with qualifications and education can't even get work. If we could all work any job, then the basic jobs will be covered, as for the jobs that we consider highly like doctors and other health care professions, we could give them a better wage, but it should be capped.
But I think that everybody should have a decent shot at life, without having to worry about surviving.
Also I think that crime rates would be down, because crime wouldn't benefit as much as much as it might now.
The hard worker, the strivers, inventors, the driven, the clever, wise, intelligent would prosper and grow their money and would get more and more. The lazy, foolish, self destructive would squander it and they'd probably be back to not having any money before too long. A lot would just save and live frugally and they'd stay even.
Again the situation will turn to same. Again there will be rich and there will be poor. Same as before. As it is proved in history there are many person who came from poor condition bt by their hard work or smart work they become richest. Also money is unstable. It can't stay always with us. Of course not if we will behave like a lazy person. So at last again there will be poor and rich as per their behavior.
But yeh, then there will be a best thing. Many person who struggle due to less money to achieve what they deserve it will not be there or will be very less such case. Then rich will be only those who deserve that place. For at least one generation surely
People will not work for one another the only thing that makes you work in group our team is money Not many people will like the idea of working together if there is no common interest in world which is monetary gains everyone must to do something by their own to prove their potential which is not sensible. If everyone has equal amount of money there will be no competition no shelf improvisation. And beside all money is a yardstick to measure your potential and capacity in society there is no other physical yardstick to measure it
Wealth distribution will not solve the world's problems. The issue is not one of scarcity, equality, or even progression to 'a better future'. These are all just superficial and external adornments. Longevity, equanimity, true understanding comes from cultivating what lies internally. Harmony is achieved when we forget these artificial social desires and develop our bodies. When lakes dry out the fish squirm and keep alive by spitting on one another, but wouldn't it be better if they could forget one another in deep waters?
That’s honestly the best way You wanna be a doctor. Well not for the money pal... we want docs that do it for the love of it... yes
Would be a so much better world I can actually do what I really enjoy instead of always trying to chase what’s the best education or best job... for money
I would still do what I love and would still continue to go to school to get to where I need to. I love being a EMT I want to work for the state so have to get my fire and will eventually be a paramedic. I love helping people when they need it the most.
There would be poverty and misery for all; complete technological stagnation; rampant corruption; and eventually civilisational collapse. How do I know? Because the proposition is part of the unnatural idiocy of Communism. Look at every Communist state. China has prospered because it has abandoned Communism in everything but name and is being propped up by the global elite.
It will still result to the status quo because it depends on how people use it. Some spend it terribly, some make a good business and it will end up to what it is now. Those who have poor mentality and poor financial IQ will continue to be poor and the opposite is true.
Money is the root of all evil. People wouldn't care about prices of green paper if they didn't buy houses and food and air conditioning. If you're going to be communist at least do it with stuff that everyone should be equal on like not starving to death or being able to get an education.
okay. As i said that basic needs should be given equally (food & education), wouldn't a person have it with equal amount of money? They will be provided with what is needed for a good life.
Rich and poor still exist in western countries... They've just become the poor working class lol. The devide between rich and poor will get wider. It will never equalise to balance as then you'll see major devastation. If equlity in finances happened across the globe it would definitely get rid of the 'elite'.. But yeah I don't think that could ever happen..
Also, if everyone was distribute the same money, the people who've never had money prior (80% of those atleast) would most probably spend that money just as fast as they got it.. As they've never handled mucb money prior and aren't great with it...
This kind of a system could never work in practice, because not everyone has the same needs, or even the same wants. What if someone never used all of the money altered to them because they just didn't need all of it, and wanted for nothing? Should their money be taken from them? Is it fair for them to give it to someone else?
I would be concerned. Being single with no children the 'same' amount should get me by. Then you have families with more than two children. They need more than me to support their family which is not the 'same' amount as me. Even if it was it would not be fair in others perspectives.
I think the vast amount of rich that have factually piggy-backed on the success of others would be pretty pissed.
What needs to happen is a tightened noose around tax havens and avoidance. It disrupts the economy, whether you're rich or poor - but it isn't the avoiding rich who will feel the drawbacks unless they happen to care about their country.
The Government's Brilliant Plan, Man, Was to Then... Wipe out of all the BANK Accounts and Pay themselves back the Trillions in Debt that we Are. Does it make any Difference Now? Just got an alert from Newsmax News last night. July 21st our own Dollar is Soon to be Dead, Which with Anyone having any Brains, Knows it is Dangling by a loose Thread. xx
I think it would really boring because people do not have the same interests. Some people want a sports car that cost half a million dollars other people do not really care about their car. You would have some people who enjoy a simple life and some who want to live extravagantly. I do not think most people would be happy with everyone having equal money.
Its called marxism. Thomas more wrote a book that inspired him. Please read it. Its called Utopia. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Pkease see above, but sadly it's execution remains elusive.
Yeah and one thing I would like to add, "Different abilities, equal demands" - slogan of the USSR (collapsed at 1991) "Freedom, equality, brotherhood" - slogan of the french republic (collapsed at 1800) "God made us all equal" - slogan of the United States (expected to collapse, however there never was any form of equality, so may last for quite long).
@Prankster13 In god we trust is a slogan of your banking system. Your constitution starts with godly equality bullcrap. Thanks lord nobody take it seriously.
Also it says "all men were created equal... and (therefore) endowed with certain unalienable rights..." And you wanna guess what's NOT in these rights? The right to have the same amount of money as anyone else.
@Prankster13 your motto today is Kim Kardashian and twitter of Donald Trump. I am talking about the equality in philosophy and the states that used to use the term (at the moment i. e. 1776)
@Prankster13 I don't give a dam about your country and your motto. Especially I don't give 2 fks about what you think your motto is. Your opinion is insignificant. What the united states has since the beginning of the united states is their declaration of independence and constitution postulating that "god made us all equal". And speaking about stupid hypocrites you're just one of them.
No I'm not! I know just my opinion doesn't count for much! And I KNOW you're smarter than me! THATS WHY I PROVIDED PROOF! From people SMARTER THAN YOU!
I don't want to try to defend myself to you. I just wanted to say what our motto is. YOU said it was one thing that it just isn't. I corrected you. You don't accept it. So I provide PROOF. And you still don't except it! Why?
That's not what I'm doing though! It's not a coin it's a motto! The coin doesn't matter. Abraham Lincoln is on a penny and that doesn't make him just as Important as one! It makes him Important enough and so because he was important they decided to put him on a coin. Not vise versa!
Look it up! Please! That is our motto I swear! If you won't believe me or what proof I give then find some for yourself! I'm not stupid!
"Also it says "all men were created equal... and (therefore) endowed with certain unalienable rights..." And you wanna guess what's NOT in these rights? The right to have the same amount of money as anyone else." -- What I just said earlier.
What you are saying is in there isn't that part. I don't know ow where you're finding that all people should be payed the same. That's not what America was founded on at all!
Look I may not have passed history but I had a veteran for a dad and both grandads. I know what we were founded on at least.
@Prankster13 dude the point is not in the nonesense you keep shouting about. The point is in the whole USA philosophy. First you declare people equal then you separate less equal people from the more equal ones. And the funny thing is that in the body of my answer I mentioned that the USA formally declares people equal while there has never been any equality. So if you'd STFU and GFYS 1hr ago you'd save 1hr of your life and some rare brain cells.
I'm not talking about philosophy! That's why this is going nowhere because you're talking about philosophy and I SUCK at philosophy!!
I'm talking about our MOTTO that you misquoted. No matter what we "act like" or stuff our MOTTO is clearly defined as "In God we trust." Look it up please I'm not lying! That's the official motto. That's ALL I'm trying to say here!
If everyone simply started off with the same amount of money, rich and poor division would be created again sooner or later. If anyone just got paid same amounts of money, that would mean that either money has no value anymore, or that every human work has the same worth, which is pointless because not every job has the same substantiability. So society would pretty much lose reason to function properly.
There would eventually be rich and poor, because peolle are good and bad with money. Some will find a way to get more money, while others will spend and waste their money.
It wouldn't take long for the rich to get rich again, and the poor to fall right back to where they were.
There would be some who would make the best of it simply because they have the right mindset, but no opportunity. This would give them that opportunity and they would thrive. But in general, poor people are poor because they make bad decisions, and rich people are rich because they make good ones (monetarily speaking).
Some would be poor again pretty fast, because they are used to spending all they have by the end of the month, and others would get richer again in comparison, because they are not big spenders.
Probably there will be strict leaders seating in the government. It might be stressful, and take out the independence. And of course the government would act more powerful than what we have now
I would hope there be less crimes, crime happens mostly cause of lack of money and being in a poor environment. people wouldn't be on the streets, and have a roof over their heads.
Then immediately rich people would be made. There are two types of poor: #1: Due to dire circumstance - usually born into. #2: Due to their own self making - almost 100% because of bad money choices and generally shitty life choices.
This would play out as well and rich people would start acquiring the money to actually say "I'm literally rich". Because in reality a rich person isn't a person who has a lot of money, a rich person is the one who knows how to make a lot of it.
The problem is the human females desire for *more* always more, more, more. In order to have the opportunity to mate the male must meet these demands.
When we were hunter gatherers this was fine, kept us from starting or dying of exposure, in the modern age it is horrifically poisonous to society, individuals and the planet.
I don't know maybe everyone got eaten by dinosaurs. I just know the only way there will ever be an equal amount of cash or cash equivalent among the population is if there is a population of one. Otherwise monies will never be equal.
Fewer people will be motivated to work hard or innovate. Fewer people would pursue difficult or unpleasant careers. Why should one person expend more energy than another if they will never receive greater compensation? Why work at all? Even people who are naturally motivated to excel may choose to put that effort into personal pursuits rather than a job.
You're owned and owe the dictater. Your a slave for the communion and you must do what ever is mentioned or death is absolutely iminate. Equal money , you never have money , just coupons. No protesting ever , or death be it. Capilist is the only way to stay free from total government rule. Prisons are communionist , great example of how that works for the strong , and the weak are usually struck with death.
Nothing. But it wouldn't be fair. Want money? Work your ass for them. But some people are lazy as hell and expect to win lotery instead of working hard.
In idealistic society, not having to worry about money, health insurance, car insurance, housing, college costs for children, living expenses etc would free mankind up for science, education, technology, engineering
Since everyone would have the same amount of money, it would become invaluable and a new form of currency would develop, thus returning everything back to the way it is now—rich and poor.
I'd be pretty pissed that someone who puts minimal to no effort can have just as much as I can despite the blood, sweat, toil and tears I put into my work.
It'd be awful!!! Imagine a world that people who wouldn't done nothing at all still get paid as much as the ones who work their ass off. If that happened, no one would ever feel like working.
It would still need to have room for growth for the individual or else there would be no incentive to work. For this to work, the whole world would need to be unified, but ideally if that did happen, people would start doing what they want to do vs what society needs them to for money. In an ideal world it would work briefly, but there will always be people who want more than the average
I think that would be ideal. There would ofc still be bad people and criminality, but mostly it would be less bad things happening, less criminals, less wars, less starving, less depression etc.
It will end up balancing itself out again. People will lose their money and become poor, some will lose all of it, some will keep majority and some with take that money and turn it into money.
Then the world will be perfect no one is greater all are parallel but that's not gonna happen and yup its sounds like Marx's thoughts like 'abolition of private properties' but that's too not gonna happen because nobody willing so it's not practical and china is not a real communist country, there is no country has real communism which executes what marx said.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Society would take huge steps backward because it would remove the motivation that makes people try to excel and achieve excellence.
There is a reason why some jobs are paid much higher than others.
It can't exist because there's always gonna be greedy people who want more and more money. I wish everything and everyone was equal but thats just a dream
It would make absolutely no difference. Different costs of living in different places would cause people to spend money differently, and some would be able to keep it while others can't.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
u +1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(25-29)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions