Quite radical ..but interesting! In the long run, I believe AI will lead to people becoming less important for wealth creation and we will anyway then have to develop back to socialism. Covid showed that governments can even act faster and more radical than anticipated on things no one imagined they could happen - so your vision may not be as far off as it sounds. However, for the near future it is still utopia ..if done forcefully. Nnot a fan of American culture, but here Europe can learn from the US where many billionaires - above all Buffett & Gates - are putting your idea into practice. Instead of force, they do it voluntarily and instead of redistributing shares to citizens they give it to charities in causes they believe in. It may indeed be fairer that their wealth is used to eradicate poverty in Africa than to make average Americans or Europeans even richer. So Bernard would not be the first (but he could be the first big one in Europe).
Thanks. I think that automation and AI can lead us to rethink what wealth distribution could be, or what material comfort distribution could be, if not a monetary comfort and if for example some comforts get to a cost of near zero.
Some mentality shift need to occur for sharing to be a goal rather than accumulating more than 100 millions lets say. I agree that Buffett and Gates are doing good by redistributing to charities and it's a first. But I am not a fan of charities because free education paid by these charities has it's limits. Zimbabwe is very educated but when Capital is not there, no development can happen, and wealth in the hands of citizens beats education. for healthcare charities, it's great and needed. And second, they are still massive wealth hoarders even after their charity donations. Tech could be a radical way to distribute shares to the poor faster than charities.
I hope that one day, someone would do it and lead by example.
The underlying issue of making sure everyone has what they need is real and important. The solution proposed would not solve the issue since it would only address a tiny part of it. It would also be unequal and impractical.
I've thought about this a lot and the best concept I've come across is Social Threefolding (originally by Rudolf Steiner). This would need a much deeper reorganization of our society and realistically another 100-400 years to become prevalent.
Thanks for writing the piece. I like reading other people's ideas and applaud you for being brave enough to risk alienating your viewership with controversial thoughts.
Thanks I appreciate this. Unfortunately it would not fix the most pressing issues of poverty but just patch up a bit some budgets and would be applicable quickly. I think that some mentality change needs to happen for this, maybe one billionaire will set up a precedent one day around the giving pledge idea but, giving early.
What about large companies that don't have billionaire founders that control the company?
Take Shell Plc, for example, which earned $42.3bn last year and had $45.8bn free cash flow.
Even they were thinking of changing their domicile from Europe to USA because Exxon and Chevron are valued at about six times their cash flow, compared with about three times for Shell:
That's absolutely absurd. It would only cause inflation. If you give assets to the population, who would work?, what would happen to the productive economy?
“The billionaire should be happy”, “that should be enough”... I don’t like that the government would have a say in that. I wouldn’t like that the government would have a say in any of that.
You also completely ignore the liquidity of the economy with this. You are talking about redistribution of wealth -in cash- to people. What would the banks do? 😂 Why would anyone lend or invest their money when they know it will be taken?
What will people do with the redistributed wealth? They’ll spend it!
It would be in shares of businesses, blocked until retirement to prevent inflation or crazy spending.
I think people would still invest their money because they would still like to become multibillionaires and get to keep many millions, which is better than having no million.
Quite radical ..but interesting! In the long run, I believe AI will lead to people becoming less important for wealth creation and we will anyway then have to develop back to socialism. Covid showed that governments can even act faster and more radical than anticipated on things no one imagined they could happen - so your vision may not be as far off as it sounds. However, for the near future it is still utopia ..if done forcefully. Nnot a fan of American culture, but here Europe can learn from the US where many billionaires - above all Buffett & Gates - are putting your idea into practice. Instead of force, they do it voluntarily and instead of redistributing shares to citizens they give it to charities in causes they believe in. It may indeed be fairer that their wealth is used to eradicate poverty in Africa than to make average Americans or Europeans even richer. So Bernard would not be the first (but he could be the first big one in Europe).
Thanks. I think that automation and AI can lead us to rethink what wealth distribution could be, or what material comfort distribution could be, if not a monetary comfort and if for example some comforts get to a cost of near zero.
Some mentality shift need to occur for sharing to be a goal rather than accumulating more than 100 millions lets say. I agree that Buffett and Gates are doing good by redistributing to charities and it's a first. But I am not a fan of charities because free education paid by these charities has it's limits. Zimbabwe is very educated but when Capital is not there, no development can happen, and wealth in the hands of citizens beats education. for healthcare charities, it's great and needed. And second, they are still massive wealth hoarders even after their charity donations. Tech could be a radical way to distribute shares to the poor faster than charities.
I hope that one day, someone would do it and lead by example.
The underlying issue of making sure everyone has what they need is real and important. The solution proposed would not solve the issue since it would only address a tiny part of it. It would also be unequal and impractical.
I've thought about this a lot and the best concept I've come across is Social Threefolding (originally by Rudolf Steiner). This would need a much deeper reorganization of our society and realistically another 100-400 years to become prevalent.
Thanks for writing the piece. I like reading other people's ideas and applaud you for being brave enough to risk alienating your viewership with controversial thoughts.
Thanks I appreciate this. Unfortunately it would not fix the most pressing issues of poverty but just patch up a bit some budgets and would be applicable quickly. I think that some mentality change needs to happen for this, maybe one billionaire will set up a precedent one day around the giving pledge idea but, giving early.
I will look at this idea of Social Threefolding.
What about large companies that don't have billionaire founders that control the company?
Take Shell Plc, for example, which earned $42.3bn last year and had $45.8bn free cash flow.
Even they were thinking of changing their domicile from Europe to USA because Exxon and Chevron are valued at about six times their cash flow, compared with about three times for Shell:
https://www.ft.com/content/5940c650-ae5d-4465-919c-d3359967e03a
These being companies, would not be affected. normal taxation of individual beneficiary owners would apply.
I prefer you write about stocks
well that's what I do
That's absolutely absurd. It would only cause inflation. If you give assets to the population, who would work?, what would happen to the productive economy?
The assets redistributed would be some side income but not enough to stop working.
this is the worst idea i ever heard
Thanks for your constructive feedback. I should take your suggestions on board for the future.
“The billionaire should be happy”, “that should be enough”... I don’t like that the government would have a say in that. I wouldn’t like that the government would have a say in any of that.
You also completely ignore the liquidity of the economy with this. You are talking about redistribution of wealth -in cash- to people. What would the banks do? 😂 Why would anyone lend or invest their money when they know it will be taken?
What will people do with the redistributed wealth? They’ll spend it!
Ahh, I get it. But I really don’t.
It would be in shares of businesses, blocked until retirement to prevent inflation or crazy spending.
I think people would still invest their money because they would still like to become multibillionaires and get to keep many millions, which is better than having no million.