Well, if everyone has equal shares, and trading them becomes as common as exchanging money, you could just use your shares (or fractions of it) to buy something at the grocery.
I am sure that people will find solutions for what you describe, if they want to.
But sure if you don’t effectively prevent developing wealth-inequality after you redistributed it, it will slowly move back to a similar situation, but not sure what your point here is, you cannot simply fix capitalism by redistributing wealth one time and not changing the underlying incentive structure. But that is not what is expressed here.
Fine then, create a mechanism that lets people spend shares at the grocery store. Some people will spend all or most of theirs and others will focus on accumulating more, which will result in a repeat of wealth inequity. I think dangling a big number with a dollar sign in front of it as a marketing tool is playing to the spending mentality, which bothers me. I would rather inspire people to look for an end of the scarcity era, when money will be either mostly or entirely irrelevant. I think making profits and greed obsolete through innovation is more realistic than proposing to take wealth away from the class that has almost all the power to resist that.
Sure, but you might be missing the point of the post in the picture. This isn’t about solving wealthy inequality, it is about demonstrating how bad the inequality is.
You have to develop better tax policies to fight it, policies that takes more money from the rich and feeds it into the government, for it to redistribute where it is needed most, the social security and welfare services.
His point is that a lot of people are really stupid and financially irresponsible and it doesn’t matter if you give them the wealth in stocks or assets or cash it’s going to be used up fast. Meanwhile those who are smart with their money will use it to accumulate more and in a few years you’ll be back at square one.
Are you saying the solution for this is to continually redistribute wealth? Do you understand what you are saying?
Well, if everyone has equal shares, and trading them becomes as common as exchanging money, you could just use your shares (or fractions of it) to buy something at the grocery.
I am sure that people will find solutions for what you describe, if they want to.
But sure if you don’t effectively prevent developing wealth-inequality after you redistributed it, it will slowly move back to a similar situation, but not sure what your point here is, you cannot simply fix capitalism by redistributing wealth one time and not changing the underlying incentive structure. But that is not what is expressed here.
Fine then, create a mechanism that lets people spend shares at the grocery store. Some people will spend all or most of theirs and others will focus on accumulating more, which will result in a repeat of wealth inequity. I think dangling a big number with a dollar sign in front of it as a marketing tool is playing to the spending mentality, which bothers me. I would rather inspire people to look for an end of the scarcity era, when money will be either mostly or entirely irrelevant. I think making profits and greed obsolete through innovation is more realistic than proposing to take wealth away from the class that has almost all the power to resist that.
Sure, but you might be missing the point of the post in the picture. This isn’t about solving wealthy inequality, it is about demonstrating how bad the inequality is.
You have to develop better tax policies to fight it, policies that takes more money from the rich and feeds it into the government, for it to redistribute where it is needed most, the social security and welfare services.
His point is that a lot of people are really stupid and financially irresponsible and it doesn’t matter if you give them the wealth in stocks or assets or cash it’s going to be used up fast. Meanwhile those who are smart with their money will use it to accumulate more and in a few years you’ll be back at square one.
Are you saying the solution for this is to continually redistribute wealth? Do you understand what you are saying?