Why is it acceptable for 10% of people to own 90% of the world's wealth, but not 100% of people to own 100% of the world's wealth?
>inb4 hurr becoz communism is ebil
>inb4 go back to /pol/
As a mathfag, I'm just genuinely interested to know how human civilization can function with such an unequal boundary condition when it is inherently unstable and leads to frequent periods of instabilty (economic uncertainty / recessions) and chaos (uprisings, revolutions, war)
Other urls found in this thread:
That's not a scientific question. That's a ethical or philosophical question, go ask /leftypol/.
Because capitalism is the only system that tends to work on huge populations. SJWtards can go fuck themselves in their cesspool
10/10 argument.
>but not 100% of people to own 100% of the world's wealth
100% of people own 100% of the world's wealth though
So long as the 90% of the rest can still make a dignified living, I don't see what's wrong.
>but not 100% of people to own 100% of the world's wealth?
Actually, 100% people will always hold 100% of the wealth. Unless you consider that some people have literally no wealth at all.
Anyways, you are right and we need more socialism and by that I mean that we need to start taxing the rich so much that they lose status slowly (unless they stay competitive in business).
The problem is that the very rich own businesses, they own MANY businesses and while sure, a small percentage of what that company makes goes to employees, the biggest chunks always goes to the executives and owners. This way they will always get richer, unless their company goes bankrupt.
What we need to do is to start funding government companies and then write law that will make them VERY competitive against private businesses.
Example: Make a completely NON-PROFIT national bank and then write laws about how only this national bank can give their clients an interest rate of their savings X high
Then everyone will want to move their money to this national bank as they will get the highest interest rate and big banks will slowly go bankrupt as their pools of money dry up... unless they become competitive. Unless out of their "good will" they put in something that is as good as a higher interest rate. This will make them competitive but lower their profits, which is what we want.
We should also fund government non-profit construction firms that work for the government but also can be hired by anyone. Why would this be good? Because it is a non-profit, you would only have to pay for the materials and workers wages. You don't have to pay an extra for the profit of the fat cat on top.
Oh, and I forgot the second part of my overall plan. The other thing we need to do is to treat vey seriously "big money crimes". Like for example, tax evasion by billionaires and millionaires.
I say that if a person is found evading their taxes either as a company or as an individual then by law they should be jailed for life and then have ALL their wealth taken off them, except for maybe a 1% - 5% left for their family.
That way we will quickly kill of corrupt people and then other rich people will fear tax evasion, which is an actual fucking problem. And then from this extra money I think we should fund new programs. If nothing creative comes to mind then just give the money to the poor.
Communism is evil.
Communism has never worked.
Capitalism always works.
It's acceptable because people are naturally unequal and the majority of people living in the first world get plenty to live. You're the one who needs to explain why inequality is unacceptable. Extend the inequality issue to any other thing (talent, intelligence, looks) and you see how stupid it is to ask that when it comes to wealth we all be equal.
Capitalism rewards hard work, the truth is that most jobs are shit, we can't all be academics and the majority of people would just be slackers if they didn't have the economic incentive to work.
Redistribution of wealth is not necessarily communism, it is socialism, which an work alongside capitalism and honestly should.
If you live in a first world country (one with free healthcare for all) then you know how socialism works and you know that it works. Free healthcare is socialism because it is a program that takes a lot of money from the rich, some money from the middle class and nothing from the poor and then gives it to the poor in the form of a pool of money that will be used to pay everyone's medical expenses when needed.