Can everyone in the world be rich?

1. 60

   wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years ago

   Can everyone in the world be rich?
   
   If there were a system, or procedure in which anyone in the world who used it would be rich,  what fundamental properties would that system entail?
   
   By rich I mean having the ability to trade for or purchase anything a person desires.

   replyreport
2. 64

   Sapperposted 11 years ago

   What you are explaining is the very basics of communism. Let's say you produce vehicles, and I produce food. I need a car and you need food, so I would give you food and you would give me a car. That's how communism works on paper. However, as many countries have found out, how it works on paper is vastly different from how it works in reality.
   
   With that being said, to some people all they desire is a lot of family and friends, a roof over everyone's head and food on everyone's table. In that sense, yes it is possible for everyone to be rich. In the sense of having money, no, it's not.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think that it's also possible to think of communism as a system where the gov owns the means of production in a society, and capitalism is privately owned industry? If so there could be a capitalistic system with the same benefits right?

      replyreport
   2. 64

      Sapperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Again, on paper, yes. But with anything publicly or privately owned, greed plays a big part. No matter what, someone will always want, and get, more then they need, and in return, someone will get less then they need.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your input. So a system would have to be resilient enough to handle people taking more than their share.  This can be done either by restricting the amount you can take, or increasing the amount you can acquire.

      replyreport
3. 82

   Philanthropy2012posted 11 years ago

   Remember that age old fact: 1 % of the world's population owns 99% of the world's wealth.
   
   So yes, if the wealth could be shared equally we would all have enough money for the basics and certainly a lot more, whether or not we would be "rich" and be able to have "anything" is a different question, especially since even now rich people cannot buy all that they desire - especially the property of other rich people.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your insight. I had not considered the case where you want a unique item that someone else possesses. The system would have to be able to generate an option in even that case.

      replyreport
4. 60

   wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years ago

   [Please note this is not the best answer.]This question should have been posed better, so please forgive me. A more accurate version of this question should have been How can everyone in the world be rich. I believe that if we can get enough people to come together and describe the requirements of such a system, we are one step closer to creating it. Philanthropy2012 raised an important issue. One of the required elements of the system must be a way to handle situations where a person wants a unique item or an exclusive service. This is what I'm looking for. A system such as one that I envision has subsystems that it depends on. I want to identify those subsystems. So far what I have is that wealth consists of two things. A product or service of value, and a way to distribute that product or service to those who desire it. I now know that one subsystem must deal with unique products and services somehow. I need to know what else the system must deal with. What are the other foundations upon which this system could be built.

   replyreport
5. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   The Answer is unfortunately NO.  In a free society the irefutable laws of inflation make this impossible.  If we simply redistributed the asset equally among all citizens to a point at which you might define as "Rich"... those who are on the lower end of the income scale will immediately alter their behavior and purchase things they had not been able to obtain prior.  The increase in monetary velocity would immediately drive up the cost of the corresponding goods and services to a point at which the standard of "rich" would now become poor.  This is expressly why the Gov't can't simply print money and hand every citizen a million dollars.  Because a millionaire would now be poor as the million dollars would instantly lose it's purchasing power.  The fact is that in a free society someone will always be at the top and someone will be at the bottom. 
   
   The real question is what is the quality of life at the bottom like.  That can certainly improve.  But the only way to avoid the laws of inflation destroying the value of your "Wealth" is that those at the bottom have to produce more than they are paid.  Increases in productivity offset the increase in the monetary velocity.  The key is do not confuse working hard with being productive.  If I work on a sanatation truck emptying garbage, I may be working very hard.  But I am less productive then the inventor of the next I-pad or whatever new innovation you want to cite.  Those that create more capital are more productive. This is primarily done through innovation of new products and services that enhance the life of the consumer.  If productivity on the lower end of the economic scale improves, then the standard of living will improve.  But nothing will change the fact that some people for a number of reasons offer more of an economic benefit than others.  Some of us are workaholics and some leave at 5pm.  Some are smarter than others.  Some are more easily satisfied than others.  Others are more ambitious.  The reality is humans have have skill sets that vary greatly.  And as such are compensated differently.
   
   The alternative is a marxist society where we can all be poor together with the exception of the communist commissary. But as history has shown, that eventually implodes as well.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your insights. It is obvious now that the redistribution of wealth will fail for the reasons you have given. Therefore the system that I am looking for cannot redistribute wealth, it must create it.  It must create new valuable products

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Precisely.  There is no limit to the creation of wealth. The economic pie expands infinetly.  But in order to realize the greatest benefit, you have to contribute more to it in terms of innovation/productivity.

      replyreport
6. 82

   unvrsoposted 11 years ago

   Yes, anyone who is alive and breathing can consider himself or herself rich. On the other hand if a person starts saving a dollar every day starting from today and invest it, he or she will have enough money to live comfortably during the last days of his or her life.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your opinion. By rich I mean able to trade for or buy anything that person desires, not just life. I am trying to define the requirements for such a system and want peoples input.  This must work even for those who cant save a thing.

      replyreport
7. 66

   IDScienceposted 8 years ago

   This question seems to be in the wrong folder, but answer it.
   
   The answer is, not until God shows up. Disparity exists everywhere in nature for a reason, this is because nature left unto its self, practices blind colorless natural selection (i.e. positive and negative selection).
   
   This means if something has the inherent ability to fit into a particular "nitche", it will be allowed to fit that niche, and propagate in that nitche. And if something does not have the inherent ability to fit a particular nitche, it will not be allowed into that nitche to propagate its self, because it did not qualify to be in that nitche
   
   Examples: Only the bee that fly's fast enough can reach the queen to procreate, he is (positively) selected for, the rest are (negatively) selected against. . Only the fastest runners are selected for the 100yd dash, the rest are selected against
   
   Only certain people are inherently credit worthy enough to qualify for loans, thus banks (if they practice natural selection) should not give a loan to someone who does not fit the "nitche" of credit worthiness. This practice assure stability and excellence to the system.
   
   The problem arises when a guilty liberal sees disparity and thinks an injustice must be taking place if disparity exists, and tries to rectify it by allowing/forcing something/someone into a nitche that they don't qualify to be in. (i.e. even the playing field)
   
   For example, the liberal democrat Barney Frank wanted to give loans to people who did not qualify for them (he did not practice natural selection) and the system collapsed causing huge problems. Natural selection will always produce excellence, if variation and competition is allowed, followed by positive and negative selection afterwards. However selection produces disparity in every case, thus you can't produce true excellence without producing disparity.
   
   This is why capitalism produces incredible wealth in a short period of time (The country of Chile for example) , because its based on variations -of people, plans, ideas, etc..- all competing for a nitche, and the positive and negative selection thereof.
   
   Lastly, disparity is important to human nature, because it serves an innate need in humans to "rise through the ranks". People will spend many long hours playing video games, just to satisfy the need to "rise through the ranks". and capitalism gives people that opportunity to satisfy that need, conversely socialism stifles it because socialism removes disparity.

   replyreport