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.
That's a little bit of socialism but Europe is mostly capitalist (neo-liberal). The public healthcare in Europe isn't the best. In Canada people go down to the USA whenever they are in urgency. Also healthcare in the US wasn't that bad and it's also a bit socialized.
According to my principles socialism is also evil, taxation is a form of theft but I tolerate it as a necessary evil however I think it should be kept to a minimum. Privatizing things like healthcare would encourage people to save their money which would otherwise be spent on superfluous things (rewarding people who are smart with money), if you didn't save then it's your fault and you pay the price. However I'm willing to accept that some degree of free healthcare is acceptable.
>Europe is mostly capitalist
Economic policy has very little to do with socialism. The intersection between socialism and capitalism starts and ends at taxation. They are completely separate things that can co-exist in the same system.
> I think it should be kept to a minimum.
But without government programs to help the poor and middle class then those people would not be competitive against rich people. Only rich people can really afford to pay for higher education without the need of any loans, so the rich should be taxed to help the poor get free universities
>Privatizing things like healthcare would encourage people to save their money which would otherwise be spent on superfluous things
But this is discriminatory because the rich can waste their money on hundreds of superfluous things and STILL afford great healthcare. The poor have to choose.
>(rewarding people who are smart with money)
No, rewarding people who were born with money.
>if you didn't save then it's your fault and you pay the price
Well, tell this to a coal miner earning minimum wage. How much can he really save? A lot of what you say works only when poor people don't exist. I know that rich people can save, I also know that middle class people can save. But what about poor people? They can't save for shit because they are tight on money.
So maybe in the future when everyone in the country is middle class then your ideas would make sense. Meanwhile, we need to tax the rich more to help the poor become middle class.
>muh loans
There's nothing wrong with getting a loan, and if you struggle to pay it back, then guess what, either you got a shitty degree, or you yourself are a worthless piece of shit. But I guess every fucktard deserves a free degree in a useless major, because that's the """"ethical"""" thing to do.
>but poor people being unable to afford superfluous things when they get sick is
So you think "rich" people should have their money taken away by the government so that poor people can afford a nice things, which they deserve to have by virtue of existing?
>b-b-but muh minimum wage
I live in Europe (so not in some shithole in Africa), and the $7.25/hour federal minimum wage is twice the minimum wage in my country, while the cost of living isn't twice as much in the US as it is in my country, so if you're some poor guy living in the US who works a minimum wage job and can't save money, the only thing I can tell you is to go fuck yourself.
>rewarding people who were born with money
Most of the richest people actually earned their money, and it's true for the less wealthy too, I mean if you're bad with money, you're not gonna be well of your whole life just because you inherited a couple millions.
>There's nothing wrong with getting a loan...
It puts you in financial risk that is not necessary (and something the rich will never experience for simply getting a higher education). It is not necessary because it is possible to fund free education. I have free higher education. I have to pay only about 30 bucks each semester and then everything else is funded by taxes. It is possible. Having a loan industry is simply predatory.
>So you think "rich" people should have their money taken away by the government so that poor people can afford a nice things, which they deserve to have by virtue of existing?
They should because the rich make too much money. Imagine that you lose 5 dollars. Would it hurt you? It wouldn't hurt me, I am so careless with such small sums of money.
Well, that is how taxes work. They take a percentage of your money specifically so that you do not consider it a huge loss. If you earn 70k a year then having to pay like 3k is literally nothing for you. Obviously, having those extra 3k would be nice but losing them does not hurt your financial security.
Now imagine people earn 70 million. We can EASILY take 10 million dollars from them in taxes and how is that going to hurt them? It is not going to hurt them at all! They will make those 10 million dollars back in like a month!
Are you seriously going to tell me that the poor 70 million dollars a year making guy will be hurt because he has to pay 10 million in taxes? That is like a drop in the bucket because rich people own things more valuable than cash. They own businesses which produce a lot of cash. You could, today, take all the money from the rich and by tomorrow, the rich would be rich again.
> if you're some poor guy living in the US who works a minimum wage job and can't save money, the only thing I can tell you is to go fuck yourself.
People working full time on minimumw age earn about 17k a year. How much would you save from that?
cont.
Watch this video where the guy breaks down where minimum wage money goes
youtube.com
It is very informative and objective. If you care about the political ideology of the host, he is kinda center left.
>Most of the richest people actually earned their money
Demonstrably wrong. Most businesses owners were born middle class or above. Most politicians were born middle class or above. Most executives were born middle class or above. Most stock brokers were born middle class or above. Most people in high ranked universities were born middle class or above.
How do you explain that? Rich people have it better so it is good for the government to try to make the life of poor people a little better so that they can compete against rich people in the market.
Good diet would erase most of everyone's healthcare bills, should we still from the rich because the poor have no concern for their health? And no, healthy food is not expensive.
There's no happiness in money, the unhappiness comes BECAUSE of the inequality which leads to jealously, they don't actually need the money. I live in a shitty apartment that I pay for with the money I make working at Burger King, I'm perfectly happy doing this, I see nothing wrong with it and I wouldn't mine doing it for the rest of my life. Happiness doesn't come from your job, it comes from being satisfied with life and desperately trying and suffering to be something you're not (IE: rich). We also don't need any more college students, college should be for the best of the best but instead everyone goes to college now and taxpayers are forced to pay for it. College is now a place to have sex and do drugs/alcohol plus some studying before a deadline. Nothing wrong with people not going to college in fact if only the really smart people go it'd make college a much better place.
>Good diet would erase most of everyone's healthcare bills
This is true, which is why I am for taxing people for their weight.
>should we still from the rich because the poor have no concern for their health?
Well, I know a lot of bankers and business owners. A lot of them are fat, so obviously the rich don't have a monopoly on "health knowledge". I would even say that rich/middle class people are more likely to be fat than poor people.
> I make working at Burger King, I'm perfectly happy doing this
This is very fishy. What do you do when something in your house breaks or you get a shitty disease and need the doctor? If you really work at Burger King then, as the video showed, you don't have that much free money. Unless by working in burger king you mean you are an executive.
>We also don't need any more college students
But the rich will ALWAYS get college. What is a poor man meant to do other than at least get a degree aswell to not be disregarded as inferior in the job market?
Now, if we were to limit the number of people who can get in university and then distribute those based completely on merit then I agree. I agree, as long as some rich people also fail to get in.
Obviously, this will never happen because the rich will always be able to make big donations and afford higher prices so the only strategy left is to make everyone get in.
ask they love to answer that sort of question.
I am sorry but Socialism means that the means of production are owned by the whole population of the country and not that there is some free healthcare and the rich still take most of the money.
>but not 100% of people to own 100% of the world's wealth
>Capitalism only works where a false sense of infinite growth and absolutely zero stagnation exists.
FTFY
Because a lot of people are lazy fucks who think they deserve to have everything they want just for existing.
I'm afraid you're stupid. Yes, it's very contagious. I'm sorry.
Holy shit, sci is full of retards. Occasionally there's an interesting thread, but dam this takes the cake for stupid. How many of you are paid to be here? I refuse to believe these are actual viewpoints people have.
Any true scientist, rationalist and logical thinker would understand that extremes (both left (Communism) and right(libertarianism, Anarchism) ) do not work in reality.
Capitalism is rationally also the only system that can work with humans as we are simply not insects.
Communism can only work if it uses some form of capitalism like China (State capitalism combined with a one party communist dictatorship) which when both are combined is actually the best system to manage a large empire/nation/country.
Whats with the sudden influx of off-topic communism threads?
Because peasants like this guy accept being pissed on.
Except in China they have industrial disasters that wipe out a town 40,000 and nothing is said or done about it, it's just ignored.
Veeky Forums has always been heavily left-leaning. I imagine it's just backlash to political threads started from the other radical side of the spectrum, possibly in order to trigger them.
Doesn't belong on Veeky Forums however.
and there you have herding mechanics to seize by control or intelligent ways to develop everyone's capability in a first world plus country
which is not a reality
You obviously don't know math very well because 100% of the people will always own 100% of the wealth. Unless you are implying aliens own some of the wealth.
>but not 100% of people to own 100% of the world's wealth?
>As a mathfag
90+10=100
The ultimate problems are:
1.) Too much power concentration, including wealth, in too few hands stagnates innovation and development because it's too easy for the people with the next best, efficient ideas to not be able to execute on them because they don't have the freedom and wealth to do so. Larger the population of "wealthy" people as a percentage of the population, the better the society can function because wealth, along with guaranteed political rights, allows more freedom action the largest number of people; helps prevent the metaphorical forest from becoming too stagnant and rotten and requiring some kind of arsonist to burn the forest down (such as recessions, wars, revolutions, etc.).
2.) the free market exists in fields where it cannot efficiently function in a way that all participants benefit relatively equally (healthcare, electrical distribution, basic water distribution, execution of financial transactions, etc.). It is too common that the distributors of such services benefit the most from their distribution, which is not optimal for social or economic function.
>rich people are rich because they deserve it
>billionaires are more talented and smarter that's why they're successful
>you can get rich too! Keep working as hard as you can im sure you'll get there :DDDD
I have an IQ of 140, as well as my father, but neverthless he never went to highschool because he didn't have food to eat so he had to start working at 10, his dream was to be an engineer, he ended up fixing cars. I have an IQ of 140 and was born in the ghetto, was considered the most talented student wherever I went, still I was poor as fuck. Ive seen so much similar cases so many brilliant and talented people that amounted to nothing in the end because of lack of opportunities. Capitalism does not work that way, dude. This is just what they want you to believe, so that you keep working like a dog for the rest of your life believing you don't deserve to have a comfortable life because you're not as good as them
>the guy breaks down where minimum wage money goes
He starts out by assuming a private single dwelling and a 40-hour work week with no overtime ever or any kind of supplemental income. That's not how you save money on minimum wage.
Two thirds of it is going to housing for one, which could house at least two people (especially a couple), and probably four in a pinch. A private apartment is a luxury.
You don't start your career as a minimum-wage lifer renting a private apartment. You either live with your parents or you live on a friend's couch until you get money for a deposit together, then you find roommates or a girlfriend.
So right away, that's $5,000-$10,000 (I'm converting to dollars because fuck King George) more potential savings than Sargon is willing to acknowledge (I think he's skipping over some tax deductions, too).
Then there's the second job, or odd jobs, or overtime. Find a way to work the equivalent of eight hours per week at the same wage, and you've got another $3,000 of potential yearly savings.
So let's say a kid drops out at 16, and his parents let him keep his room for a while. By college graduation age (22), he can have a $100,000 investment portfolio (factoring in some interest). Then he moves out and lives with roommates, so he's spending more and can only save $10,000 per year. Assuming 5% interest, he's got a quarter-million by the time he's 30, and he no longer has to work to live. At this point, he marries a like-minded 22-year-old girl and adds her $100,000 to the pot. They both work for four more years and bring it to a half million before they start having kids. He works, she stays home, they have a $40,000/year income and a half-million-dollar nest egg to fall back on. When he's 43 and she's 35, they have 3 kids no younger than 5 years old, and she can go back to part-time work.
Also:
>barely making ends meet
>paying the TV license
srsly?
Jesus your fucking dumb.
lizard aliens aren't people
>A private apartment is a luxury.
Okay, so do you agree on giving aid to those who can't even afford a private apartment?
>You either live with your parents or you live on a friend's couch
Okay, so you are fine with giving aid to poor people with no family or dependable friends? You knwo there are at least thousands of people like this.
>Then there's the second job, or odd jobs, or overtime.
So are you willing to give aid to those who live in places where the job market is so tight and saturated that even getting a first job is a problem?
Also, your story is a bit dumb because...
>Implying every poor person has parents
>Implying every poor person has parents who even have a place themselves
>Implying every poor person has parents who will support him completely such that he can just save 100% of his earnings
*Daily reminder that people who work when young usually do so to help their families.
>Assuming a person will live up to their 30s without having something happen to them that will take away a lot of money.
>Assuming some hack faggot who spends no money at all could get a wife.
Why are there so many questions science can't answer?
And hidden from the populace. Almost every FOB still don't know about tiananmen square (source of "tank man" picture).
>do you agree on giving aid to those who can't even afford a private apartment?
>Okay, so you are fine with giving aid to poor people with no family or dependable friends?
>So are you willing to give aid to those who live in places where the job market is so tight and saturated that even getting a first job is a problem?
Only voluntary charity. Not one penny from taxes.
Rents fall to the level of ability to pay. Immigrants swarm toward welfare systems. Welfare systems encourage and enable the least successful people to have the most children.
The UK needs to push out the non-whites and "guest workers" who bid down wages, limit imports that destroy local industry. Its government needs to support freedom to produce, not restrict production and tax those who squeak through to support those who can't.
>dependable friends
People who can't even find and get along with roommates are garbage who should not reproduce.
>Only voluntary charity. Not one penny from taxes.
I think that 50$ are worth more to a poor person than a billionaire so lets be economically efficient and redistribute those 50 dollars, man.
>. Immigrants swarm toward welfare systems
This is true but the solution is simple. Close the country or at least heavily regulate immigrations. Just because I'm a liberal does not mean I am a fucking cuck. Europe and America should literally close their countries until their economic situation gets better. I say that the poor people of my country are worth more than the poor people of other countries, as least when it comes to who should be a priority for the government.
>People who can't even find and get along with roommates are garbage who should not reproduce.
70% of young people in poor towns are gang members, drug addicts and literal murderers. Finding dependable friends is harder for poor people.
>I think that 50$ are worth more to a poor person than a billionaire so lets be economically efficient and redistribute those 50 dollars, man.
If you knew anything about history, you'd understand why I'd consider it self-defense to shoot you first once you start talking like that.
>gang members, drug addicts and literal murderers
"Hey, look at all this rampant lawlessness! Let's solve it by advancing my progressive agenda instead of just enforcing the fucking law!"
What would 100% of the people buy with 100% of the money?
>you'd understand why I'd consider it self-defense to shoot you first once you start talking like that.
Because you are a psychopath who cannot tolerate other political opinions? Believe me, you are not the only one.
>Let's solve it by advancing my progressive agenda instead of just enforcing the fucking law!"
Enforcing the law is good, but simply not enough. A lot of poor communities are rotten to the core. Everyone there is a black single mother who fucks a different Tyrone every single day and lets their kids be raised by TV and gangs.
Sure, the mother is a bitch who should have never had kids. But the kids? Is it any of their fault for falling for it? Specially when pop culture praises being a criminal drug addict? I don't think so.
All that it takes to change a community is investment in it. Where business flows and communities grow, everything naturally gets better. People become wealthier so they take more care of their streets and houses. People pursue more education, etc.
No? You're thinking of banking, specifically fractional reserve banking. That isn't related capitalism.
For "intellectuals" this board is pretty fucking stupid.
>but not 100% of people to own 100% of the world's wealth?
But that's always the situation, unless you count money left by owners to their pets.
>Believe me, you are not the only one.
Hey, guess what? Other people also know the plan you're pushing has always led to mass murder. You're trying to incite a self-righteous looting spree.
>A lot of poor communities are rotten to the core. Everyone there is a black single mother who fucks a different Tyrone every single day and lets their kids be raised by TV and gangs.
>All that it takes to change a community is investment in it. Where business flows and communities grow, everything naturally gets better.
No, it's doesn't get better, not when it's that bad. It just grows. You get more of the same problem.
You're a mushy-brained utopian who thinks ignoring inconvenient details of reality is a perfectly reasonable way to plan national policy.
>Other people also know the plan you're pushing has always led to mass murder. You're trying to incite a self-righteous looting spree.
If you think I want communism or a dictatorship then you are wrong. I am perfectly fine with capitalism and democracy. I just want the government to intervene more in social issues like poverty.
>No, it's doesn't get better, not when it's that bad. It just grows. You get more of the same problem.
Well, mass poverty support like, for example, a basic income has not been tried in most of the world. Just now are some experiments happening that involve merely thousands of people instead of whole populations.
The results of helping the poor are most likely them growing to the middle class and a bigger middle class means a better economy.
Honestly 10% owning 90% of the wealth isn't a big problem. Shit's been happening since antiquity.
It's the fact that the other 90% are force to accure some amount of "debt" (doesn't have to be college, could easily be from car or housing, etc.) just to get anywhere in life and the rich can buy and sell that "debt" and make a lot of money off it.
Thats the kind of bullshit that irks me because you now have control of a people's lives over wealth that literally DOES NOT EXIST. And the common populace just fucking took that economic witchcraft without very little resistance.
Let's wait on the data from those tests before celebrating prematurely. I've always supported a negative tax structure since you're motivated to make more (produce more) at every run in the ladder, as opposed to current welfare systems where you're fucked in the ass if you make a nickel more than the liberals want.
>If you think I want communism or a dictatorship then you are wrong. I am perfectly fine with capitalism and democracy. I just want the government to intervene more in social issues like poverty.
Poverty is an economic issue. If you think government should intervene in it, especially in this way:
>I think that 50$ are worth more to a poor person than a billionaire so lets be economically efficient and redistribute those 50 dollars, man.
...you are a commie.
>Poverty is an economic issue.
But it is also a social one. Poverty has real psychological effects on a person. And people who are poor live in shittier communities than rich people. And poor people live in the same society that over values materialistic gain to the point of shaming those who do not earn enough, and you want them not to become criminals looking for an easy way out of the poverty that is killing them.
Also, what I said about the 50$ is just a very literal sense. You know what I want.
I want every person earning 6 figures or more to be taxed an extra percent and I want all that money to go into a huge pool of poverty assistance money.
From this yearly income I want the government to kickstart investment in poor communities. Give out good loans to companies (better if local companies of the place) to build a new school or new apartments or new anything and to also tell them to have their workers in these projects to be at least 50% local people.
That way we are (ideally) giving a lot of money to a businessman (having millionaires in communities is always good) who will hire the poor people struggling and hire them to go get a well earned chunk of that government money.
And if we able to overpay those workers even by a little that will be great because then we will have a population that out of nowhere got a lot of spendable income and then other savvy businessmen will see this and start creating new shops and remodelling their new shops to attract a new, slightly wealthier population.
That is all I want. And affordable education, obviously, but that should be a separate program that should start first by getting public universities to stop over spending so their tuition lowers and then see what taxes we can put in place to pay for free tuition for students.
>You know what I want.
Yes, I know what you want. You want arbitrary redistribution of wealth through taxation from the successful to the unsuccessful. You want to lay out a very modest plan at first which you think will produce downright magical results, and then when that doesn't work, you'll want to increase government intervention in the economy, and keep doubling down as it continues to produce bad results.
>I want every person earning 6 figures or more to be taxed an extra percent
You don't even know what the rate of taxation is, and you think it should be higher. You don't recognize that much more than this amount of tax money is already spent fighting poverty, with the results you previously recognized but mysteriously couldn't attribute:
>A lot of poor communities are rotten to the core. Everyone there is a black single mother who fucks a different Tyrone every single day and lets their kids be raised by TV and gangs.
>rom the successful to the unsuccessfu
This is correct but I do so simply because I know that having wealthy parents heavily correlates with you ending up wealthy yourself, while having poor parents heavily correlates with you ending up poor yourself. And I don't think the way you were born should influence your opportunities. Everyone deserves a shot.
> and keep doubling down as it continues to produce bad results.
I am not an ideologue. I see how conservative policy "lets give tax breaks to the rich" works in making the rich even richer, so I want to try that very same policy but for the poor.
Remember, giving a tax break to a billionaire literally means giving him like 30 million extra dollars a year. I just want that in reverse. Lets take those 30 million dollars and give them to the poor, and see how the poor get richer.
>You don't recognize that much more than this amount of tax money is already spent fighting poverty, with the results you previously recognized but mysteriously couldn't attribute:
The establishment's bullshit welfare state is not what I want and is an obvious failure. Specially he idea of rewarding fucking single mothers.
You know what I want for single mothers? Give them free fucking abortions and then tell them to get a job. But no, today's liberals don't want that.
I will wait for Bernie though. He is the man capable of creating a real socialist society.
because 10% of the population have advanced knowledge in economics and a sophisticated knowledge of business and how to form mutually beneficial social relationships
That would devalue all wealth you numb fucking fuck fuck fuck
>instabilty (economic uncertainty / recessions) and chaos (uprisings, revolutions, war)
you're not a mathfag, that is not correct usage of terminology. Chaos and instability have very specific meaning in maths
100% of people already own 100% of the world's wealth, I think you should reword.
No they don't, unless you make the qualification of "currently owned wealth".
So yah 100% of the world's people own 100% of the wealth owned by people. kek
bcoz muh Pareto Principle
You both failed to understand that democracy is actually a severe handicap. If a nation wants to achieve super power and even hyper power status (which does not exist at this time). Then human rights, liberty of expression, etc.. are actually useless in the grand scheme of development.
China managed to at least catch up its development gap against that of the United States in such a short period of time mainly due to the fact of its autocratic laws and is predicted to surpass it proving that human rights and democracy are rather useless.
100℅ of the population does have 100℅ of the wealth
>Communism has never worked.
It has never reached the stage of communism, only worked towards that goal
>Capitalism always works.
For the people who can do something about it
>You're the one who needs to explain why inequality is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable by the people who are toiling so that others may act high and mighty wasting resources. The people on top are not expected to not accept the current conditions.
Also, it's not part of the plan to look after people who refuse to work, only people who are unable to and not by choice
If the autocratic leaders are for science than all is good. But what do you do when its not? Democracy gives you predictability and stability. Autocracy is uncontrolled
This captialist meme has got to do. Captialism has been around since the Qing dynasty. The tremendous progress economically comes from the invention of thr credit economy.
But 100% of people do own 100% of the world's wealth.
Because people are unequal. Some people are clever and industrious, others are dumb and lazy. To equalize them is a disaster