We don't need to redistribute any wealth. We only need to disappear the wealth of the billionaires, and the billionaires themselves just to be sure they do not rise again.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
893 points (97.6% liked)
Bluesky
1174 readers
680 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
Except the wealth you're talking about is ownership, not actual money. Redistributing it won't give everybody a pile of Scrooge McDuck coins, it will give them stocks and other asset ownership worth half a million. To spend any of that, they would have to sell shares to somebody for cash and spend the cash, which they can only do once. After a flurry of liquidating and spending, you'd end up with a lot of people who have more stuff but are otherwise back where they were, and other people who spend less and gradually accumulate a ton of shares to become rich.
Well, if everyone has equal shares, and trading them becomes as common as exchanging money, you could just use your shares (or fractions of it) to buy something at the grocery.
I am sure that people will find solutions for what you describe, if they want to.
But sure if you don't effectively prevent developing wealth-inequality after you redistributed it, it will slowly move back to a similar situation, but not sure what your point here is, you cannot simply fix capitalism by redistributing wealth one time and not changing the underlying incentive structure. But that is not what is expressed here.
Fine then, create a mechanism that lets people spend shares at the grocery store. Some people will spend all or most of theirs and others will focus on accumulating more, which will result in a repeat of wealth inequity. I think dangling a big number with a dollar sign in front of it as a marketing tool is playing to the spending mentality, which bothers me. I would rather inspire people to look for an end of the scarcity era, when money will be either mostly or entirely irrelevant. I think making profits and greed obsolete through innovation is more realistic than proposing to take wealth away from the class that has almost all the power to resist that.
His point is that a lot of people are really stupid and financially irresponsible and it doesn't matter if you give them the wealth in stocks or assets or cash it's going to be used up fast. Meanwhile those who are smart with their money will use it to accumulate more and in a few years you'll be back at square one.
Are you saying the solution for this is to continually redistribute wealth? Do you understand what you are saying?
"people would just have a little bit of more stuff, don't give the poors anything, they're not responsible with their money"
you're labouring under the just world fallacy
science disagrees, buddy
You could see it that way, but those are your words you're putting in my mouth, not mine. The point is that most people (not just "the poors" as you choose to call them) aren't used to thinking like wealthy people. When most of us, including myself, see a number like $471,465 we think of things we would buy. Maybe move into a nicer place, for example. Why do you think OP is saying we should be promoting redistribution this way?
I've quoted multiple studies like the one you linked that demonstrate that most people who get Basic Income don't even quit their jobs. In one case the only ones who did were single moms with young children at home, and teenagers who went back to school because they had dropped out to work to help support their families. But I would be shocked if those people didn't buy more stuff with their newfound income, because that's what people do. The wealthy do that too, they just also think in terms of acquiring assets that produce more money. There are definitely people with that mindset (not even necessarily previously wealthy ones) who would focus on asset acquisition, and after a while they would end up accumulating most of the assets.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying that's the rhetoric used by people usually saying things of that nature.
I'm not saying you think that.
(not just "the poors" as you choose to call them)
In the bit where I'm writing in a sarcastic tone about people who are prejudiced toward the financially less well off?
Maybe don't get so upset at people discussing things you bring up. Not everything is a fucking personal attack bro. Go alone a bowl and eat something. Have you been getting enough sun? Low vitamin D can cause irritation and moodiness.
"I would be shocked if they don't buy new stuff because that's what people do."
Your implication being? That the money is wasted on.... "stuff"? What if that "stuff" is clothes, bikes, tools, a car, a washing machine, etc etc? I know for a fact that there's purchase I've put off for literally years. Purchases which maybe have enabled me to do a lot more than I have. They're would've systematically build my life up. A new vacuum cleaner for one. That would help me clean which would help not only psychologically, but with my breathing problems.
And if someone doesn't need those and can invest in a home...?
What are you against here, exactly? What is you implication with "just buy stuff", because it sounds an awful lot like the people who complain about social programs because they don't think poor people deserve money because "they're poor because they haven't worked hard enough, so they're lazy and wasteful and thus giving them money is a waste".
I'm not saying you're saying that. I'm saying that "they just buy stuff" sounds a lot like it.
Hmmm . . . as a lump sum the market would then react and everything would cost 1 million dollars. Money isn't real. Food, Land, and property are.
I think money's value is directly tied to its velocity of trade vs the scarcity of the item it's being traded for.
However
IMO: What you are owed is 500,000$ worth of government services per person. The costs of things like public education, infrastructure, healthcare , social security and other social services should be covered by this.
This is what they want to take from you.
No one said it would be 500k in money/cash. It could very well be real estate, gold, shares, bonds, or a mix thereof.
I assumed it was cash by "each couple would have a million dollars".
... Of networth. Given that we're taking about the wealth of the US, most of which is NOT cash, assuming the post-redistribution would be all in cash is ridiculous.
load more comments
(4 replies)
If 20 strangers get 1/20 of a 10 million dollar mansion what do they do? The most anyone could pay for it is $500,000.
Everyone is on here talking about how this would cause inflation, but I don’t think it would. A vast majority of this value is not in cash but in stocks bonds and property. I am more sure how you would divide up who gets apples shares and who gets 5% of their neighbors $600,000 home. But even if you were able, what is sure is that most people would want to convert their stock/bonds/property to cash so they can eat. Only problem is that no one in America would have any cash to buy up the assets. So in a market full of sellers and no buyers the value of everything will plummet.
I think there's a lot of distraction discussing the particulars of this hypothetical, when it's clear that it couldn't work that way in practice.
It's really only helpful to illustrate the equity imbalance and just how much equity is in the system that most people don't see.
I don’t disagree that the commenter was not calling for all wealth to be seized and redistributed. But I didn’t want to post my disagreement with all the other people who said this would cause inflation.
To be honest we could use a little deflation right about now.
I just want billionaires and churches to pay their fair share and end citizens united. That's a great start
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›