Rather than re-allocating their money across every human on earth, why not allocate it inversely proportional to the net worth of the recipient (and maybe also local currency conversion rate), to uplift the poorest folks?
Could probably choose a lower number, too - say, $100M. Nobody needs anywhere remotely close to that.
Yeah 100M feels right. Also, wealth is usually tied up in non liquid assets, and it makes no sense to either force liquidation even if it crashes the value, or divide ownership equally among 9 billion people. Each asset needs to be re-allocated on a case by case basis. Like, the private international bridge in Detroit, it’s much more valuable as a single asset than the steel scrap it could be sold for.
I just realized that the realty market always runs a drought to up its sale price. Also, since homeless also don’t have housing, there’s an even greater housing shortage than just those seeking to move into a “forever home.”
I’d rather make sure everyone has everything they need for at least basic life. Healthcare, education, infrastructure to name a few. Food for schools. I know a lot of countries already have this. But many don’t even have access to clean water. Ideally worldwide. And throw corrupt politicians and military overlords in there. Although many of them would be counted in the >$1b. Get rid of the religious wackjobs and maybe we could start progressing as a species.
That’s just gonna drive up inflation. Instead, invest that into better farms, industries, businesses, and schools that provide services at-cost or free. Or just use the assets left by those guys for the public good, they’re already set up.
Every person in the world with a net worth over $1B USD. Then I’d equally reallocate their money across every human on earth.
Rather than re-allocating their money across every human on earth, why not allocate it inversely proportional to the net worth of the recipient (and maybe also local currency conversion rate), to uplift the poorest folks?
Could probably choose a lower number, too - say, $100M. Nobody needs anywhere remotely close to that.
The economics of unlucky Mario Party spaces
Yeah 100M feels right. Also, wealth is usually tied up in non liquid assets, and it makes no sense to either force liquidation even if it crashes the value, or divide ownership equally among 9 billion people. Each asset needs to be re-allocated on a case by case basis. Like, the private international bridge in Detroit, it’s much more valuable as a single asset than the steel scrap it could be sold for.
I just realized that the realty market always runs a drought to up its sale price. Also, since homeless also don’t have housing, there’s an even greater housing shortage than just those seeking to move into a “forever home.”
I’d rather make sure everyone has everything they need for at least basic life. Healthcare, education, infrastructure to name a few. Food for schools. I know a lot of countries already have this. But many don’t even have access to clean water. Ideally worldwide. And throw corrupt politicians and military overlords in there. Although many of them would be counted in the >$1b. Get rid of the religious wackjobs and maybe we could start progressing as a species.
That’s just gonna drive up inflation. Instead, invest that into better farms, industries, businesses, and schools that provide services at-cost or free. Or just use the assets left by those guys for the public good, they’re already set up.
Or better yet, send the money with them.
Seems like an arbitrary threshold. Does anybody actually need $900 million? Or $300 million? Or…
Yes, I’m in dire need of $999,999,999.99 but of course I don’t need any more than that, thank you
B-but billionaires have rights too!!
They can stop being billionaires by giving away that money anytime they want to not go into the black hole.
OMG that’s actually fair
Using Hawking radiation!