If you had all the money in the world...

[Blobbenstein]

There wouldn't be any shops open, as the staff wouldn't be able to be paid, and there would be nothing to sell, as the factories wouldn't be able to buy the materials to make things or employ staff to work there..

That is the problem with the rich accumulating wealth.

I expected you though you were going to post what you would do with it.

I suppose you would have to give some of the money away to get things moving, or lend it...now there's an idea...

 

[RascalsMom]

I'd be dead. Someone would kill me within minutes.

 

[Calliegirl]

If one person had all the money in the world, I would expect that people would just start bartering for services, or come up with a new type of currency.

 

[flyingsnail]

Money is really just a unit of measure, if you had "all the money in the world" it would be worthless.

The rich accumulating wealth works just fine.....it just means that the masses lose a good deal of their productivity.

 

[Clueless Git]

I'd found Git Global Enterprises Inc.

I'd own everything so everyone would work for me and I'd pay them wages.

Anywhere they could spend or save their wages would belong to me so it would all just flow straight back to source.

99% of the worlds population would notice no difference twix that and the system currently in place at all.

 

[Clueless Git]

I'd be dead. Someone would kill me within minutes.

That a good idea!

Just in case you do ending up owning all the money in world, where do you live?

 

[Blobbenstein]

The rich accumulating wealth works just fine.....it just means that the masses lose a good deal of their productivity.

well, do you think it works because governments can just print more money(QE)?
The rich lap up the money, avoid as much tax as they can, and then governments print more money. Perhaps a sort of equilibrium is reached whereby the rich own 95% of everything, regardless of inflation.
Everyone will end up borrowing, and renting everything from the rich.

 

[flyingsnail]

well, do you think it works because governments can just print more money(QE)?
The rich lap up the money, avoid as much tax as they can, and then governments print more money.

My comment wasn't about money but rather the distribution of wealth, wealth has been accumulating to the aristocrats well before fiat money was invented. Money is ultimately just a measure of value, when "the rich" accumulate wealth what they are really doing is taking productivity from the masses. That is, part of the wealth the masses create when they work is being transferred to the aristocracy.

The masses, for the most part, already rent everything from "the rich"......that is the whole point of the western economic system. The only difference between today and the past is that the aristocracy isn't defined strictly in terms of blood lines, etc......there is a bit of an open door policy which, I think, is critical to stability of the system.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Money is ultimately just a measure of value, when "the rich" accumulate wealth what they are really doing is taking productivity from the masses.

that isn't the case when it is just numbers in a bank account, is it? Then it just becomes a tool, a way to accumulate higher numbers in bank accounts, to buy power, as a guarantor against bad financial times. They only turn a portion of that into products and services, don't they?

With the financial crash, I think it would/would have served the wealthy people, companies, if more of their money was put pack into the system. Someone isn't being productive if they are out of work, and that doesn't benefit the wealthy, or the unemployed person.

 

[flyingsnail]

that isn't the case when it is just numbers in a bank account, is it? Then it just becomes a tool, a way to accumulate higher numbers in bank accounts, to buy power, as a guarantor against bad financial times. They only turn a portion of that into products and services, don't they?

Wealthy individuals have only a small portion of their wealth in bank accounts but when they do deposit their money they are collecting rents on it (e.g., interest). The wealthy own assets, for example bonds and equity in business, and these assets allow them to extract a portion of what workers produce. Whether they receive this in money or tangible goods makes little difference.

Someone isn't being productive if they are out of work, and that doesn't benefit the wealthy, or the unemployed person.

Right, if people aren't working its hard to extract wealth out of them....that is why women have been pushed into the work-force in the west ; )

But there are conflicting interests here, monetary polices that tend to increase employment (e.g., QE) also tend to lower the amount of interest the wealthy can gain from their wealth. Which policy a particular person prefers is going to hinge on how they extract their wealth from the economy, for example, someone that primarily rents out their money to gain interest is likely to prefer hard-money policies while someone that makes it from active business operations will likely prefer more inflationary policies.

But, in any case, since civilizations have formed there have been aristocrats extracting wealth in some form from the working class. Not much has changed in this regard over the last few thousand years.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I was reading that land in Britain is still mostly owned by the same families who owned it in the 19th century. Less than 1% of the population owns 70% of the land, making Britain a close second to Brazil for the title of the country with the most unequal land distribution on Earth.

High house prices? Inequality? I blame the Normans | Paul Kingsnorth | Comment is free | theguardian.com