|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
What do you think of this idea?
He believes that everyone should be given a pot of money whether they work or not. It is like welfare payments for everyone. This is the ultimate income redistribution scheme.
Do you think it is a good idea?
Do you think it will work as intended?
Here is link to the story -
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuc … peech.html
It plays right into the whole wealth re-distribution mentality of people who have not yet attained their first gainful employment , The Zuckerburgs of the world are still collectively sleeping in late while the mommies of the world scream for them to get up and go to school , half asleep , dreamily hoping that someone else does it for them !
There are pros and cons to the idea but the cons probably outweigh the pros in the short run.
It would be interesting, though. People who could pursue their passions. There would probably be a shortage of workers to cook the french fries.
To cook the fries, to build the roads, to clean the sewage we produce, to fix our car, to clean the motel room we sleep in, to slaughter the beef we eat or pick the strawberries. We'd all be artists and travelers, but unfortunately we can't eat statues or airplanes.
Yes. Those are the cons which outweigh the pros.
Perhaps Zuckerberg could try it out on a small segment of society to see if it works. With his own money, of course.
Well, the hippies of the 60's tried it and it worked for them...as long as they could find someone that was working and would give them what they needed. It's also been know to work for small groups...until the original stock of goods ran out and there was no one producing any more.
Perhaps he could try it with the state of California - they seem eager to give people's earnings away. Have to stop the Federal money, though - that's part of the deal. Nothing but what is produced in California, including what is earned by "exporting" their goods.
You should really look into what the Federal Reserve in cahoots with the World Bank and the IMF practice if you really want to crack down on wealth re-distribution. The countries that are funded through their own defaults orchestrated by these crooks should be our focus and not the poor. I agree that everyone should earn their own way but for an elitist view of bail outs and restructuring defaulted loans it is more than one sided.
It's a conventional economic theory, not something he invented. If you are curious look into some of the programs to implement it. I think one was in Denmark, but I am sure it could be easily googled. How using it would effect a society is an experimental question--no one really knows. But many countries are quite close to this approach and seem to be doing fine.
Name one socailist country thst is succeeding in the global market place? I can point to many that are broke in recent years including Greece and Argentina...
Checkout this story on Denmark -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world … fault.html
It's a horrible idea!
I agree with the statement by Dr. Ben Carson about changing mindset. Changing mindset, changes everything.
Until that happens, Zuckerburg's idea is the equivalent of just throwing money into the wind.
That's right , I don't understand what's going on today , instead of guiding a child through the acceptance and the appreciation of 'earning what you attain in order to fully appreciate it ' rather than "here , its all yours just for the asking ". and by the way , taking that from someone else's sacrifices .
Wealth re-distribution . Simple .
Zuckerberg's idea is dangerous. It undermine human nature and human dignity of work. Even if robots take over some jobs, it is no reason for the people to accept it and sit back be vegetables. It is ironic for a drop out of Harvard to give a speech and advice graduates of Harvard to work hard and then give away their hard earned income. Only a progressive school like Harvard will award him with an honorary degree. Facebook is the opium of the masses that Karl Marx wrote about.
Excellent points , From the most intellectual of minds that Harvard has to offer ;;;;Let's create one more government instituted "program " that will instantly change the whole picture of social ill's to that which has always worked before ? One more program that changes nothing for the underdog and costs the rest of us in higher taxes and lost treasure .
They don't work.
Mark would have a bigger impact if he personally donate his fortunes to charities that actually does some good... Red Cross, Catholic Charities, Food for the poor, or start a job training program.
He can also stop the H1B1 visa hiring practices so that more Americans can keep their jobs.
One of the European nations (Switzerland?) recently looked at this, in an amount sufficient to live on.. They gave it up because it made the country such a huge magnet for immigration, but IMO you're right - without incentive to work and produce all too many will contribute nothing to themselves, society or the country.
IF Mark Zuckerberg is voluntarily giving away HIS OWN pot of money that's fine. If he's giving away other people's money, i.e., tax money, that's just more of the same old destructive groupthink coercion that destroys societies. A better "Social Contract" is the libertarian social contract called the non-aggression principle against coercion, intimidation and fraud. It's voluntary, not coerced.
Have to wonder if Zuckerberg is willing to reduce his own standard of living and bankroll to what everyone else has? If that were part and parcel of the package - everyone shares alike - I kind of think his story would change. And rapidly.
by sandun813 years ago
Is Mark Zuckerberg really a bad guy as the movie "The Social Network" portrayed him?
by Beth374 years ago
... a thief prospers?When you look at Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates... all thieves, all hugely prosperous and all relatively high on society's pedestal. What about Woody Allen? He was in a relationship for 12...
by Don W11 months ago
I want to get people's views on this. The thread's inspired by comments I've seen from people in and outside of this forum that suggest taxes are theft. The idea goes: if the government forces people to pay taxes (under...
by Laurel Rogers7 years ago
I, for one, have no idea!
by celebritie6 years ago
I thought you would like to read about this article I came across today that was pretty interesting, it talks about how Mr. Zuckerberg along with other Facebook executives has set-up profiles on Googles new Social...
by Harvey Stelman8 years ago
President Obama is my prime example. Every poll and Town Hall Meeting says the people "do not want his health-care bill." Still he continues to push for it in every possible way.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.