If All The Wealth In The U.S. Were Divided Up Equally ...

LMAO.

Well Robin Hood, how long do you think a policy of spreading all the wealth would last, before devolving into chaos? Before those running businesses just shuttered up, & moved along down the road?

Better make sure those getting that 300k spend it sparingly....

 

This is called cognitive dissonance. If the current rich have stolen all the money then how do the newly rich get rich? There isn't any money left for them to steal, right?

 

NO, they did *NOT* happen. The day Stalin took power the Soviet Union began a long spiral downward. Epitomized by the fact that you could have any new car in the Soviet Union you wanted, as long as it was a black, two door sedan with a 4-cyl engine! Every year the people of the Soviet Union had less and less until it just wasn't viable any longer.

Same with Maoist China.

Things *never* got better in either system, only worse. We didn't have to do a single thing.

 

Agreed

 

Your analysis is all wrong.

Dividing up Wealth means redistributing Stocks, Bonds & Real Estate.

The Stocks, Bonds & Real Estate would have to be liquidated in order to convert them to cash. It would seem that neither you nor Professor Piketty-ass understand the difference between Market Value and Salvage Value.

Suppose the purpose of the US & UK is to prolong conflict in order to have a reason to maintain a presence in the Middle East? In that case it was not a colossal disaster.

 

The amount of wealth possessed by the very few at the top is disgusting. They cannot spend all they have, yet they want more.
The GOP has been bought by the top and gutting Obamacare to give the disgustingly rich a tax break is on their agenda.
Our so-called president values money above all else and is profiting from the presidency in every way he can.

 

You aren't aware that the rich take particular care to make sure their children INHERIT their fortune rather than work for it?

 

It's neither desirable nor practical to redistribute all that wealth.

But we should understand that what is stated in the OP is a reality.

And don't tell me that the rich "spend" as much as the poor when they have 4 mansions in various parts of the world and almost of the assets they have that aren't stagnant real estate are rolling around on the Wall Street Casino tables chasing more money

 

Why do you even bother posting idiocy like this?

The stock market works to allocate resources, in this case using stock prices. As stock prices go up a company has to issue fewer shares in the future to get the same capital. This lowers the dilution of existing stock. As stock prices fall it is an indication to the management of the company that changes need to be made if the company is going to remain viable.

As companies pay out dividends that rewards the shareowners with money. What do you suppose they do with that money? If the stock prices go up then the shareholders can sell the stock are realize a capital gain. What do you suppose they do with that money?

 

What a crock of shyt.
Once the IPO is made...it's just gambling.

 

The rich, spend much more than the poor.... They have more to work with.

Teach a man to fish, he'll have food for a lifetime. Give a man a fish, & you have to continue the practice.

Simply redistributing wealth will not solve the problem raised in the second part, so, no, the OP isn't a reality.

 

If everyone made $100,000 per year, a $100,000 would not be worth much.

 

If wealth was divided up equally, we'd suddenly find ourselves in a depression that would make the 1930's look like an economic boom.

 

That explains the complete and total ignorance.

In the OP you confuse money and wealth which are two different things. You describe dividing up all of the currency equally and then claim it is wealth when it is NOT.

IF everyone had an equal share of all of the money then the money would be WORTHLESS and there would be NO wealth.

It is the completely ignorant and stupid view of economics ( among other things ) which makes communism the most horrific of all ideologies.

 

Except they DON'T spend it. An apartment in Manhattan, a mansion in Far Hills and a "cottage" on Nantucket doesn't do much for the economy

 

No doubt there would be all sorts of chaos...which is why I said it's neither practical nor desirable.
'
We should understand JUST how much of "everything" just a few people control(own)

 

Soupnazi;

The old joke in the communist world.

They pretend to pay us
We pretend to work.

 

There is no understanding of reality within you.

Your world apparently sees the wealthy somehow getting their wealth, then, after purchasing a few properties, & dropping a bag in the Market, they simply hibernate in a cave with their earnings.

Whatever.

 

Can you explain how money and wealth are different?

Thanks.

 

I'm game....as long as registered Democrats have to divide up and pay off the $20T debt and annual deficits out of their pile.

 

It will when I retire. Whoo boy has my 401k gone up.

 

That's not far off. Do you know any seriously rich people? I do.

 

You better have a couple million then

 

They're not irresponsible. They're just unlucky. Or they're the wrong color which has hampered their ability to succeed. Or they grew up in a bad situation so it's really not them. If they only had the money and support they would be fine...said nobody ever who has a clue

I'm amazed people actually can have this conversation. That professor is a danger to any student. Give a poor dumb person a lot of money and that poor dumb person will still live like a poor dumb person...except with an infusion of cash. What do dumb irresponsible people do when they get money? Take a guess!!!