What If The World's Wealth Is Distributed Equally Among Everyone?

What if you distribute the wealth of the world equally among everyone? Well, Wealth inequality is not a distribution issue entirely. Individual choices and temperament can’t be neglected. A one-time reset does not change anything. Wealth distribution may sound like choosing altruism over greed, but there is a lot more to it.
Why Can't We Print More Money To Pay Off Debt?: • Why Can't Government P...
More videos on Economics: • Economics
First you have to answer questions like what do you mean by wealth? do you want it to happen as a one-time event? Who would you sell all the assets to? Who would manage this whole event? Do you consider taking money from rich as stealing? How would you redistribute the wealth without halting the production lines?
The video also answers what would happen if you actually go through the process of distributing wealth among everyone. It also discusses scarcity economics, demand and supply, inflation, and various groups inclination with newly found wealth. The video also mentions communism and capitalism .
The video also discusses human psychology and disparity. It also highlights the Pareto Principle also known as the 80/20 rule.
Please share your thoughts by writing in the comment section below.
#equality #money #inflation
Support us on Patreon: / economicraven
Connect with us:
EconomicRaven.com
economicraven
economic_raven
economicraven
anchor.fm/economicraven

[@brownerjerry174]

These analogies and examples of giving everyone in the world a free chicken or giving a man a fish, often ignores the fact that many of those who ate the chicken that very night were starving for days before that. The idea that poor people are poor because they can't get their desires in control looks very stupid when you factor in just how many folks have to go to sleep hungry each day. That chicken will literally be the best most nutritious meal many(millions of people) WILL EVER HAVE IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIME. One can't think about savings and investment when the answer to the question "will you survive by the end of the week?" isn't an immediate Yes. Those that were able to wait for the chicken to lay egg, weren't starving that day, Those that were able to let their chickens breed with a rooster(assuming they bought a rooster) were privileged enough to 1) buy the thing that would increase the value of their now asset . 2) wait enough time for them to start laying eggs. One or both of them aren't in reach for majority of people. Btw, i am not some Socialist Lefty SJW crying about "mind your privilege" , i was born in an upper middle class background and now earn an income that would put me in the top 2 or 1 percent of my country technically because i worked hard, saved and invested money, started my business and all that routine(but also adding the massive privilege i had because of my background would make things a bit more clear). I never insulated myself from the poverty and misery all around me, and maybe that is why i can easily see through all these "you poor because you couldn't control your spending" BS. That argument wouldn't even work in a very rich country like US, a lot of people(i think a solid majority) can't even afford a 500 dollar emergency payment and a lot of them aren't in that situation because they just make it rain buying random things as soon as they get their paychecks. These arguments make it look like poor people are some mindless drones that can't control their immediate impulses or somehow can't read an article from The Economist to still think that millionaires and billionaires just have these mountains of cash and gold lying around. Believe me these people have heard the word 'Stocks', as hard as it may be for you to believe.

[@jeevacation]

Economic leaning has nothing to do with income.

[@BatsiraiMusuka]

Refreshing to see someone with similar leanings to me. Often those that come from wealth do not understand why poor folk struggle. l am like you, from upper middle class family but in a relatively poor country.

[@hadisian1823]

I believe in minimum livings (if possible for country like usa,sweden,swithzerland) and equal opportunity for everyone with education oppurtunity,resources,book library,internet access, easy loan opportunities,startup investment etc. Suggest me if you have any oponion.

[@severinbechtold1873]

Great point. Only one side of the coin though. Economic Raven presented the other

[@aidan5083]

"If everyone has superpowers, no one has super powers" -Syndrome

[@johnl.7754]

That’s why Americans average income is around $50,000 which is great for much of the world but not much if living in USA

[@UnCaje]

@Economic Raven is a pos that makes it seem as though wealth redistribution is a bad thing. Another conservative cuck that is no doubt paid handsomely by other wealthy ppl to cuck for them

[@robertwilsoniii2048]

What's wrong with that? *I want that.*

[@abd4704]

To me wealth means the ability to sustain yourself without external support . Example - Land of a farmer is a wealth , Industry of an industrialist is a wealth .

[@iceseic]

True

[@abd4704]

@@iceseic Broh ! You reminded me that I said this .... I was feeling low today but you uplifted my confidence thanks. 😀

[@jamesmoy1214]

That’ll only work in an infinite work of infinite resources

[@abd4704]

@@jamesmoy1214 Anothe reply in 6 months

[@ChristyLynn313]

In 2020 and part of 2021 I received unemployment, I was the person who ate the chicken and bought another the next day, I have nothing to show for the money I received. unfortunately I have a poor mentality and seek the immediate gratification, this video is really eye opening and I just discussed it with my 13 year old son. I worked last year and this year but lost my job in October, I don't know how I'm going to pay rent but I'm looking for a job, the thing is, now I hope I will know better. I kept feeling like I was given the short end of the stick in life but I now realize that I have had the tools, but never the ambition.

[@chinghis5266]

Are you winning son?

[@hasan1618]

u doing better now?

[@ChristyLynn313]

@@hasan1618 yes much better, thanks for commenting so I can watch the video again.

[@fightthepower4648]

Proverb: 'Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.' That said, wealth inequality is a weapon of mass destruction; reform or revolt?

[@reybarracuda2514]

In the real world putting everybody on equal ground means giving everybody the tools they can use to better themselves, or giving them equal opportunities to reach their goals. This can be done with good education, charity, and teaching good cultural values. Don't think that everybody is a mindless consumer that just wants to satisfy their immediate needs🤣. The real problem is that those people that have gained a comfortable economical stability just want to "chill" in their bubble and don't really want to help the people that are in a worst position than theirs cause it's too much "work"

[@johnl.7754]

The problem we have now is the opposite with the government debt increasing each year tremendously that future generations will pay off. Any borrowed money (for emergencies only) needed to be paid back when times are better.

[@anthonymendoza1327]

Well... as long as the gap between the spending and the amount collected by taxes isn't too great, the government can make the debt disappear by inflating the currency. That is why the Fed aims for a 2% inflation rate and not near zero. If the money is spent on useful investments (education, infrastructure, science), the increase in the economy can also make the debt basically disappear. Of course, if the money is wasted on things like wars, then we have a problem. That is why we almost always run relatively high inflation after a war.

[@adalhaq3960]

the best form of wealth distribution is charity because there will always be people who are rich and poor. If charity was practiced properly people may not have luxuries but will have the basic necessities like water, food, home, clothes.

[@bipinmore6346]

Simply explain an unending answers to the most genuine questions in history gone by and upcoming

[@TheMr77469]

What background music did you use?

[@mampidas-cm7vt]

Very nice and clearing video. Thanks for sharing with us

[@stef1234]

At the end of the video you hinted at the fact that modern societies do some wealth redistribution. But there are large differences in redistribution between countries, the USA for instance does a lot less redistribution than the nordic countries. What amount and what type of redistribution would be optimal do you think?

[@anthonymendoza1327]

Ha! That is the billion-dollar question.

[@gaminggod1508]

@@adamj3977 healthcare and education are both subjective with different quality and level unless ofc there is absolute maintained standard across the board otherwise i would rather go with health insurance and education fund for my children than having govt taking outrageous tax on income although there isn't much choice for common people anyways anywhere

[@gardencity3558]

"ZERO" here in Canada we literally drive out talent and discourage innovation with excessive taxes and handouts for lazy losers.

[@gardencity3558]

@@adamj3977 "The greatest benefits we have from these high taxes are free education and free healthcare." You contradict yourself here. You're paying for these services. If they're efficient it might be worth it. There are no free rides in life. " A lot of people here don’t know how much they actually pay in taxes." You speak truth here.

[@jeevacation]

​@gardencity3558 Yea you're right these people are really delusional tbh. Imagine a 50% tax rate and you earn a billion a year so you pay $500m in taxes all for what? To get the exact same thing as someone who pays $50 in taxes would get but you're the guy footing the bill for the guys who can't pay the break even requirement. Just do the math here $1m will easily get you all the healthcare or travelling or whatever yourself. You could say that for some industries like military and police they might need to be government owned because of the incentives and you pay the cost of the incentive in inefficiency which is fine but when it comes to something private can do (without bad incentives), government which is a monopoly with practically unlimited money is always always going to outcompete based on cost and the bar of efficiency and innovation will be low.

[@ThePsychoExe]

The problem with our current system tho is the lack of opportunity. We have monopolies in every industry, so you cannot join most industries. This is because you cannot compete with these big companies that can lower the prices tremendously for a short period in order to destroy a new business rival just to afterwards increase prices again. Additionally these monopolies can offer a wider spectrum of services which makes them indestructible (too big to fail). So imo most industries are just impossible to get successful in nowadays unless you have huge starting capital or good connections. There need to be better systems in place to guarantee someone can start a business venture in any industry based on their idea.

[@jamesmoy1214]

If everyone can start a corporation then how do they get workers to boss around 😂

[@MoempfLP]

Technological development happens mostly in wealthier regions, but everyone can benefit from it. E.g. a vaccine developed in the US can help Africans. If wealth is equally distributed technological progress will slow down, which is worse in the long run.

[@anthonymendoza1327]

Maybe. There are a lot of talented poor people who are not given opportunities to advance now. If there were a certain amount of redistribution, then those people might bloom.

[@theworld3259]

Watch Video by Kurzegsagt on Egoistic Alutrism !!

[@cek0792]

@@anthonymendoza1327 I think the problem is that, what do you exactly mean by that? I think we're already giving opportunities for geniuses via scholarships (I like to use George Saa as an example) around the world through the sheer amount of staggering genius they have. Efforts have also been made to improve the lives of people from poorer regions of the world like Africa, so more great talents can arise. However over-investing into regions that may not produce the expected results will be inefficient for the global economy and may even be worse than not helping out poorer regions. We all should strive to at least build a stable government (one similar to Botswana's perhaps) and let these poorer regions grow naturally.

[@RaimaKar]

Very informative video. Thank you for sharing with us. Video thought should reach to everyone.

[@NYCbankersforPalestine]

"The world would end without a profit motive"

[@NYCbankersforPalestine]

"I can't imagine humans acting differently than rational and self acting, so it must be impossible because ~some vague biological underpinning~"

[@jeevacation]

You can stand starving in line for bread if you want to, I don't wanna do that.

[@dimitriusjulius497]

Fantastic video! Summarizes so much in one video!

[@UDAYKHAN-yo6zq]

This video is very very wonderful.thank yoy

[@RiaDas-fd9me]

Wonderful video..thank you for making me happy..

[@TinkiBose]

This video is amazing.thanks for sharing this video

[@ShrabaniJana-ct1gq]

Very Informative and amazing video.

[@hyson9395]

I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!! Can you do economy of south korea?

[@anps111]

Amazing video! Thank you

[@koy-mapper6132]

I hope you back again. Your videos are really awesome

[@PalokDas-te3vi]

Very nice video. Thanks for sharing this video.

[@RupaKumari-eg2tf]

Yes I really thought that hardwork is good apart from this tyme external support and wealth is everything.

[@kusumamedika3142]

Well here I thought yall geniuses and always one step ahead

[@PujaDas-ql5ti]

Very informative video..

[@nabilusman9403]

What happens if you keep an upper limit for the wealth one can own like say wealth worth of 25 million dollars. Anything extra has to be distributed to their loved ones or others. Does that help wealth to not being accumulated in few peoples hand. How would that impact the economy? I would like you to do a video on that.

[@whalespecx2]

Not a wealthy person here but I feel like that would kind of kill the point in a lot of people pushing for wealth over 25 million, it’s like a certain tax rule idk the specifics of but the amount of tax paid by someone making 180k/year is way less than someone making 200k. Like that’s only 10% more in income but totally different tax brackets I’d work my ass off to get to 180k then retire the year because if I make it to 200k that last 10% I made was basically for charity. Which isn’t bad ig but yea

[@leojoseph5881]

@@whalespecx2 but wouldn't that be the point of an upper limit for the wealth. Once your at $25M you won, your good, you really don't need more, its simply greed. If they like working they could do it because they love what they or they could be a mentor to others starting businesses. At $6M you retire in a life of luxury, you could give the rest to your family and they could retire too, their is really becomes greed after that.

[@whalespecx2]

@@leojoseph5881 idk wealth growth can be a game to some ppl without even having signs of greed they just simply like to grow and there are tiers of wealth in every regard. $10 can seem like a lot to someone across the world but only buys you like a candy bar somewhere else so in the grand scheme of the world economics which is infinite in growth and retraction all at once who are you to say theoretically 25 million is enough ? What if that family settled at 25 million than 10 years later a new technology rises and another say 2-3 billion more ppl on the planet become millionaires. Just that quick 25 M’s is really nothing now.

[@leojoseph5881]

@@whalespecx2 that's not how economics works... Or if the were millionaires the value of a million would be a lot less. I can safely say that $25M USD would be a great amount anywhere in the world. That's based of the cost of living of a country.

[@whalespecx2]

@@leojoseph5881 you missed my point and that’s exactly how economics work supply and demand

[@hadisian1823]

I believe in minimum livings (if possible for country like usa,sweden,swithzerland) and equal opportunity for everyone with education oppurtunity,resources,book library,internet access, easy loan opportunities,startup investment etc. Suggest me if you have any oponion. And i personally believe there have real inequality. Govt should reform on tax system,stocks tax,wealth tax,inheritance tax,good wages and corporates %of profit to invest in small startup industries.

[@TheoTungsten]

Could you talk about Milei and the economy of Argentina?

[@bbd121]

I miss you, economic Raven.

[@somebodykares1]

The Global Wealth is $530 Trillion the worlds Population is 8 Billion which would equal everyone getting $662,503 as of 2022.

[@jamiebell4604]

Great analysis, thank you . Very informative and clear

[@chrismann]

Keep up all the great content :)

[@cync5349]

Just need to be. Done yearly ever year no tax’s just money all collect equally given

[@BatsiraiMusuka]

12:39 l hate how my country is often cited in economic videos, yet they mostly glaze over the details of what actually took place. Majority of the population actually was against the land grabs by the way. It’s called a dictatorship, the dictator and the few around him dictates what his whim is on the people below with no democratic process. Now Mugabe is gone and we are all left with the legacy of what he created (even though we hated it). And l definitely am no apologist.

[@Justiqeh]

Apparently the earth is worth over 5 Quadrillion so divided by 8 billion people everyone would have £625,000. Not in money as such but as there fair share of wealth and ownership of some form of the things on earth.

[@Noukz37]

Interesting thought experiment, but there are at least 2 billion people worldwide disagreeing with your opinion.

[@mousumisaha4550]

Very nice video

[@Siuuuuu902]

Great video

[@PriyankaPradhan-vs9xn]

I love your video.

[@beactivebehappy9894]

I think that redistribution of resources like Food, generational wealth accumulated by fraud, and the some money of companies having an excess capital above x billion dollars should be redistributed to the poor, sick, those who can't help with food, and education infrastructure, in countries struggling with people to maintain to healthy lifestyle (measured by wealth per capita, mind you- not GDP per capita since it's very misleading eg. Saudi Arabia) Please suggest any changes you can think to this.

[@whalespecx2]

Isn’t this basically what dividend stocks are ? They pay their shareholders a % of their earnings regardless if the stock gains or losses value. I’m not the most knowledgeable when it comes to investing but shouldn’t literally every investment into a country/business have this model. A way single entities can’t manipulate markets by being the complete opposite of transparent to convince people to move their money from one source to another. Most people have no want to create businesses and maybe just do their part to change the world by putting money into companies they agree with but that doesn’t mean our system is perfect.. People rather be guided vs building/investing in change they want and that’s why our system will always be flawed.. I think it’s way past equal distribution that concept doesn’t make sense but when we get a completely transparent system (most likely some digital currency not tied to any specific hierarchy) then a REAL free market can flourish and people won’t even care about equal distribution let the corporations take care of that and when they make bad decisions they get punished not bailed out.. Win win win situation but rn it’s a 1% win others lottery situation

[@hagaginting6175]

it's called tax.

[@anthonymendoza1327]

Gauss, the prince of mathematics, was a peasant's son. If Federick the Great hadn't decided to redistribute a lot of money in the form of a free education for all boys in Prussia, German would have never become the World's greatest scientific and mathematical powerhouse.

[@victorailemen7491]

reshuffle not sell...just asnwering ur q... not that i support redistribution

[@user-fr7py2to4u]

There is no end, what if it keeps on being equal?

[@user-fr7py2to4u]

@@adamj3977 Well less than one percent of people make their money the way you just said, the rest end up stealing, manipulation, getting lucky, working the system...so on

[@leojoseph5881]

@@adamj3977 what if instead of complete equality theirs boundaries, where the minimum is a decent standard of living ($40K annually) and the cap is relatively high luxury at $25M. It's still a huge gap, but you have no poverty and suffering.

[@adamj3977]

@@leojoseph5881 You’re talking like billionaires have taken something in order to get to that level. They have not. You’d have to steal from them in order to accomplish your suggestion. Second of all, there is already enough for everyone. No need to take from someone else in order to bring everyone up. And btw, I lived on like $17K annually for a couple of years back in the day. And it was more than enough to get by and more.

[@leojoseph5881]

@@adamj3977 Based on my ethics I believe CEOs reduce wages for workers and instead reward them themselves and their wealthy stake holders. CEOs wages have increased over time but workers salaries have declined. I believe companies increase in production due to the following should be evenly distributed to workers, executives and stakeholders. Globalization: The rise of global trade and competition has led to a greater supply of labor, which has put downward pressure on wages for workers. At the same time, globalization has created opportunities for corporations to expand their markets, which has led to increased profits and higher pay for CEOs. Technological advancement: The increasing use of automation and technology in the workplace has reduced the need for human labor in some industries, which has contributed to the decline in wages for workers. At the same time, technological advancements have created new opportunities for companies to increase their efficiency and profitability, which has led to higher pay for CEOs. There are a number of factors that contribute to the disparity in wages between CEOs and workers, and globalization and technological advancements are two key factors. However, there is no simple answer to the question of whether workers' salaries should be increased based on ethics. One argument in favor of increasing workers' salaries is that it is the ethical thing to do. Workers are the backbone of a company, and they deserve to be fairly compensated for their contributions. Additionally, it is argued that companies have a moral obligation to ensure that their workers can support themselves and their families. However, there are also arguments against increasing workers' salaries based on ethics. Some argue that companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits, and that increasing workers' salaries would reduce profits and hurt the company's bottom line. Others argue that the market should determine wages, and that if workers are not being paid enough, they should simply find another job that pays more. Ultimately, the decision of whether to increase workers' salaries based on ethics is a complex one that involves balancing a variety of factors, including the needs of workers, the interests of shareholders, and the overall health of the economy. It is important for companies and policymakers to consider all of these factors when making decisions about wages and other labor issues.

[@leojoseph5881]

While globalization and technological advancements have contributed to the increase in profits and higher pay for CEOs, it is not necessarily ethical or fair for workers to be left behind without a fair share of the benefits. The idea of increasing worker salaries based on ethics is a valid argument as it would promote a more equitable distribution of the benefits of technological advancement and globalization. One ethical argument is that workers deserve a fair wage that allows them to meet their basic needs, support their families, and live with dignity. This is especially important when considering the fact that many workers are employed in industries that are essential to the functioning of society, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Another ethical argument is that workers contribute significantly to the success of a company, and they should be rewarded fairly for their contributions. While CEOs may have an important role in setting the direction of the company, they would not be able to achieve their success without the hard work and dedication of their employees. It is important to note that increasing worker salaries based on ethics would not necessarily mean that CEOs should not be well-compensated for their work. Rather, it would mean that the benefits of technological advancement and globalization should be shared more equitably between CEOs and workers. In conclusion, while globalization and technological advancements have contributed to the increase in CEO wages and the decline in worker salaries, it is important to consider the ethical implications of this trend and promote policies that promote a more equitable distribution of benefits. Increasing worker salaries based on ethics would be a step towards creating a more fair and just society.

[@shader23]

So everybody who wants to be Rich is pointless.

[@chrismoore7700]

What about the fact that people with starving families have zero choice but to eat that chicken that night or watch their children die?

[@azizatwar]

Long time no see

[@ishanbhusal0177]

What if we gave equal opportunity to everybody tho?

[@fightthepower4648]

Global Declaration of Independence - Fight the Power (KZbin video) offers a unique and viable global solution to global problems such as this! Fixing Democracy and Capitalism: There's a future app for that.

[@AnanyaRoy-qn7fl]

everyone in the world a free chicken or giving a man a fish, often ignores the fact that many of those who ate the chicken that very night were starving for days

[@sivasubramanianr7528]

Though I've actually got a new notion on this topic, I would rather disagree on the blunt concept of 'wealth redistribution'. I would rather say what this picturized as 'money redistribution'. As its said in the video, communism was never about stealing every one's money & bluntly redistributing it. I would say that an stupid act rather than an economic reform. In the contrary, communism stands for collective ownership of capital (resources) rather than individual/private ownership, by which it harnesses the product from the cooperative labour & distribute within the society so that everyone has their cups filled. Hereby, it prevents accumulation of wealth into the hands of individuals through exploitation. Thus it would not result in economic instability. To add on, the capitalistic soceity is neither a stable economy nor it promotes economic growth. It has always had its ups & downs, it would continue to do so until eventually it would collapse.

[@shaunshort2734]

Well my friend it's called taxes

[@luckypegasusvol7700]

But don't the shops earn money from their buyers? so, wouldn't they be able to buy supplies?

[@snekula5353]

No. Inflation would make the money worthless. Not only does this mean that the money cannot be used to buy supplies, no one would be willing to work in jobs required to harvest raw materials. Even if people were willing to work, our natural resources are finite and cannot supply everyone's desires. Also even if the money still had value, if wealth were to be redistributed equally, shopkeepers earning money from sales contradicts the redistribution and leads right back to wealth inequality. Both points were addressed in the video.

[@luckypegasusvol7700]

@@snekula5353 imagine ur a shop owner and everyone is rushing to ur store to buy stuff wouldn't you earn money

[@juliuscaver]

Thanks!

[@davidaway753]

You know, the problem is not really about wealth distribution, it is systems of aggressive exploitation and extortion of humans. I for instance have been through years of unpaid forced labour in the military and it ruined my life completely. I am sure other people in the world were affected by similar systems of exploitation and extortion. It is not only one case or one person. Also the monopolies in my home country, no where in the world you have this extreme high prices of basic food and living. Here in Israel a McDonalds meal costs $20. Is it fair ? clearly no. This country is only one example of a network of systems of aggressive exploitation and extortion of humans. A sophisticated labour camp. Other countries in the world probably have similar systems to keep people impoverished, powerless and limited. No where in the world is perfect. It is just incredibly sad.

[@PriyankaPradhan-vs9xn]

If everyone has superpowers,no one has super powers.Syndrome

[@Redrum___]

First time on this channel and the opening of the video asks: "What if you give all poker players the same amount of chips in the beginning of the game, would they all end up with the same amount in the end?" Wow...next statement says if you give everyone only 1 chicken to survive their remaining days, the majority would eat the chicken tonight, more logic to struggle with and I'm not even a minute in

[@beactivebehappy9894]

This one looks like a poor attempt made by the oligarch funded side rather than a factual educational video. Just made up theories. No evidence to support the claims

[@physicMaths]

Everyone would get around 52000 dollar

[@kkvino]

This is bad idea. We should disturb to people who are not having access to food and education. Not to all people, this video idea is bad. We should give a chance for people who will not able to standup easily. Please make the content of solving the food and education problem by disturbing the wealth.

[@linky8899]

Most don't get a chicken at all and 1% get 92% of all the chickens and eggs of the totalbto start with.

[@Sam-ip6co]

That's because the chickens weren't distributed Yesterday. They were distributed over 100 years ago. His point still stands exactly as he said

[@zenothemeano4381]

@@Sam-ip6co So you're saying 100 years ago supposedly everyone on the got an equal ammount of eggs all at once? LOL Even if that WAS the case, the way economics works is that there are always a few extremely determined (and likely sociopathic) people whose greed to try to get as many eggs as possible, will lead to them resorting to any means to do whatever they can to get what they want, inevitably causing them to screw with the rights of other people who may threaten their growing egg monopoly, until they are the only ones left who have any real control over the egg production. To then act like its an individual responsibility for a problem that clearly is caused by the way the society is structured, so that such greed and hunger for profit at the expense of everyone else can go unrestricted, is just out of touch with reality.

[@idme23]

Democratizing the work place is a way of redistribution of capital. If all apple workers get an equal slice of profits in relation to the amount of working hours - programmers, cleaners, managers. Workers will have motivation to work hard to make the company better because they earn directly from it. Models of worker owned companies are the best solution to capitalism problems.

[@timpool1404]

Why would I choose to do a job that is more labor intensive if I'm going to receive the same amount as someone doing a less labor intensive job. And why spend 4-8 years in college if I make the same as a janitor. You have literally removed the incentive to work harder.

[@idme23]

@@timpool1404 Many people choose their profession because of interest. Would you really rather be a janitor in such case? Being a programmer is much easier than working in cleaning for example. Cleaning is a difficult physical job. I'd still rather program.

[@idme23]

@@timpool1404 And I'm sorry that the only reason you learned what you did in college was due to money insensitive. It sounds sad to not have a subject matter that genuinely interests you intellectually.

[@MrNetterTyp]

I believe the idea of this video is a bit of a strawman. Specifically, the idea of one big redistribution (or big redistributions on a yearly basis) to even out all the odds. Let's take the chicken example from the beginning: Why would some eat the chicken in the first place? Do they not have other food, can they not afford to forgo a free meal as they might have hungered for a long time? Why does the one group have a roaster if everything is evened out? Would the others not rather eat the roaster instead if they had both? As you mentioned the idea of equality of outcome will not be achieved but we are far from equality of opportunity in the real world. If you had better education for the general public in some countries then you will need at least a generation or two to even out the educational disparities. Also, why would 'most people' be worse off after the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the median income of people is far below the average income. I am not even speaking here about a Jeff Bezos vs another westerner. The income distribution between countries is just enormous. The majority of people are not living in first-world countries. Also, this video just throws out a lot of assumptions. For example, while asking the question of how the redistribution would take place it just assumes in the following arguments that it will be done in such a way that disrupts the supply chain and that 'shelves will be not refilled'. Or that 'as many people would become lazy we see a sharp increase in population'. Why? What is your basis for that? Just ad to a pile of arguments that are not really substantiated. This video's logic kind of reminds me of these videos where you apply video game logic to the real world and then say how this would lead to utter chaos. A lot of assumptions, and it might be a fun thought experiment but not that much substance to it and a lot of missing rigor. Overall I am disappointed by the video as I found your more based videos quite intriguing

[@o.w.7679]

Thank you for these remarks. I share in your disappointment.

[@stef1234]

I would've given this comment 10 thumbs up if it were possible

[@beactivebehappy9894]

This looks like a poor attempt to curb "Eat the Rich" movement. No evidences provided

[@mipouji8432]

Best form of "wealth" distribution is land rent. It is an unearned increment that cuts into the returns to labour and capital. LVT plus UBI would extirpate absolute poverty and ensure all mankind gets their fair share of the free gifts of nature. Land would return to the commons as it should.

[@gtw4546]

Except that not all land is created equal. Access to water, how much sunlight or rain you receive, what kind of soil or access to forests or fishing, etc. If everyone on the planet got an equal portion of land, there would STILL be wealth inequality - and that is assuming that people had the skills needed to make the best possible use of the resources available on their plot of land.

[@mipouji8432]

@@gtw4546 When did I say wealth inequality would disappear? I said it would extirpate absolute poverty. Disparities in wealth would arise only due to individual effort, i.e we would live in a truely meritocratic society. What you also said which I never mentioned was that everyone gets an equal portion of land. It's not the land itself that gets shared but it's RENT that gets "socialised". In that sense all of society becomes a landlord with an LVT. Yes land isn't homogenous in quality(Ricardo's Law and Thunen rings) that's why it's impractical to destroy a market for land. Read progress and poverty.

[@cek0792]

@@mipouji8432 Henry George agrees with you.

[@jeevacation]

Utopic bs

[@cheesecakedoublepeanutbutt6511]

In the end, people who were rich will continue being rich, and people who were poor are still going to be poor, and they'll complain it's "not fair".

[@ceasar8679]

You guys should upload video regularly like monthly

[@gtw4546]

If you take a distribution of intelligence, there will be a bottom 20% and a top 20% with 60% falling somewhere in the middle. Even with equal access to high quality education, some will be better able to make use of whatever wealth/resources they are given. Those who are able to make lives better by their creativity/inventions will rise to the top again.

[@james.sirois]

By the end of 2022: The world GDP will be 104 Trillion. We will reach 8 Billion people in November. Everyone would get 13,000 bucks (can barely afford a cheap car).

[@sourajiitbandyopadhyay8577]

🥲it’s actually a lot for me bro , i just need food and not a car

[@sumanamanna26]

The video also mentions communism and capitalism .

[@shonraycarr2292]

So my theory is correct without the working class the rich would not exist

[@NaderNabilart]

Big families/tribes would unite and use their cumulative wealth to take over whatever they want. Voila

[@shishyathwa]

super

[@theboredbangladeshi9437]

The Raven flies again!

[@tusharpandey858]

I'm disappointed, this video is just a childish analogy of the idea of wealth and capital distribution. The pictorial presentation of fictional character in b/w, shows how the creator never really cared to learn about how economists and intellectuals think about this ideology. Could have taken some references from some published research works. Ideology of this video is not only radical right but pro consumerist and Capitalist. It's has lot of Pre- assumptions about how wealth inequality is created in society and how it is systematically maintained. The pre- conceived notion of how most poor people are lazy and "not smart" enough to contribute productively to the society is preposterous and has its foundation in racist and supremacist white ideology and thus most likely transferred unknowingly through generations. The American pro capitalist government and society also plays a role where government have spend trillions to propagate anti Communist and Socialist ideology for almost a century over the globe. That's the reason I can't blame entire America and It's nieve citizens like the one who created this video essay.

[@MarlyTati]

Completely agree with you. Particularly the pre-assumptions about poverty. Besides he assumes that the incentives society faces nowadays would be the same in a society with a redistributed wealth.

[@o.w.7679]

Pardon me, but I'm disappointed, and not only because I disagree with your position: I already knew from your content we weren't politically aligned, and I do not even have a strong opinion on this idea of wealth distribution. But I subscribed in the hope of hering an educated viewpoint on economy (albeit one I sometimes disagree with), not this tear down of a middle-schooler's idea of wealth distribution. I think you really misrepresent this concept as a one-time, instantaneous event, completely detached from systemic changes, as if something like this could even be envisioned in the current world economy. Of course an event such as you describe would be a trainwreck under our current capitalistic society. People who advocate for wealth distribution and who are not just saying it because they're frustrated with the state of the world do not wish for the world to keep catering to consumerism as before, it would be short-sighted. They want an assortment of systemic changes, in the hope of making the world a better place as a whole, not to make everyone more rich; it's childish. I don't think neither absolute equality nor some form of totalitarianism are the aim of such ideas, as you imply. They come from the belief, and also the observation, that capitalism does not favour quality of life for the many and instead favours the few lucky enough to get an edge and encourages them to keep the benefits to themselves and only let others share in if they themselves can grow bigger. These "leftist" ideas aim for a new state of the economy, who would steer away from consumeristic self-harm, and favour not making people rich, but making people happy. And until one engages the idea of another economy entirely, one cannot scoff at bits & pieces of it's concepts & tear them down as if they were to exist alone and instantaneously.

[@beactivebehappy9894]

Touché

[@jak4596]

Did ussr or north Korea achieved that ? The thick is " capitalist " system is the most fair. But why always this country ? You have to understand that people who tried to build better society has always fail and we have a choice use working system or destroyed and hope that an other systems will work.. This guy is doing a create job by explaining basics

[@homergee3381]

A RIGHT to an even share of the worlds wealth is not an ENTITLEMENT to an even share of the worlds wealth. The poor are required to work for money and rightly so, but the rich who have more than their share just take other peoples rights. You can't just plant a flag and claim what isn't yours, nor can your rights be sold for a handful of beads, rights come with responsibilities and they cannot be separated. If you need a larger corporation then you must partner with other people who will be equally responsible for how the corporation creates its wealth, this is what is wrong with the world today and there is no future for a race that ignores other peoples rights. The narrator of this video is using extremist logic, either we have monopolism with no limits on earnings till someone ends up in control or we have communism with all limits on earnings and let someone be in control. Extremism doesn't care about left or right, it has only one agenda and that is to rule the universe, only extremists feel entitled to other peoples money but don't forget only extremists feel entitled to other peoples rights as well. The best and only real way to run this world is free market capitalism that taxes every income over "the even share" at 100%, either the rich choose who they want to partner with or the government will do it for them, this is how we handle extremists who steal other peoples rights. Only when peoples rights have been restored will the poor stop feeling entitled to other peoples money. This is a complex subject and many details would need to be worked out, this is however the only framework that sets the playing field to an acceptable level where nobody is entitled to be an extremist like our scripture quoting friend narrating this video.

[@pranavpoojary6474]

Why isn't raven not flying so frequently?

[@EconomicRaven]

The Raven is lazy! 👀

[@pranavpoojary6474]

@@EconomicRaven 🤣🤣🤣

[@LoremasterLiberaster]

@@EconomicRaven more videos please

[@ahtheh]

It's been so long

[@imperialmind9264]

What happened to him?

[@sarmientoenricomiguelv.562]

Aka Socialism is a bad idea

[@mathias8627]

Nothing said in this video is backed by any facts, this is just a stream of nonsensical thoughts, we get it dude you got yours and don't care about the well being of your fellow man, spoken like a true capitalist, bravo

[@LowlyThinker]

Dislike for the number of ads in this 15 minute video (4).

[@beactivebehappy9894]

Use adblocker 🍊

[@syednadeem9859]

After a long gap raven returned

[@flash.gordon]

First!!!

[@user-xy6md6we1f]

Mass starvation

[@PriestessOfSlaanesh]

If that would happen, then the people who was rich before would be rich again very fast. And the people who was poor before would be poor again very fast. Poverty is a choice. Yes, i know you may not like that. Its easier to blame the circumstances isnt it? You know... "i was born in a poor family, how is it my fault?" ... but it actually is. It hasnt even to do much with "access to good education" or "gaining a good job". Money isnt made with education or a job. Gaining money in modern world is super easy. Stocks, ETFs, Cryptocurrencies. You dont need much to join in... like literally not much. But..... As long you are "Nooo.... lol... .crypto is dead, i prefer to buy this new airpods, theyre so cool" or "noooooo investing into sp500 needs 20 years to make me rich. I want something for my hard earned money now, i deserve that, im gonna buy those new shoes" you will never get rich... and thats just your fault and your fault only. No excuses. Wealth is NOT produced by hard work. Its produced by smart investing. And if its only 50 bucks per month. And dont give me that "lol i cant afford investing 50 per month" YES you can. YOU CAN. Stop buying useless stuff and do it you cons00mer. Next time before youre like "Hahahah crypto death, magic internet monopoly money, no value , i'll buy airpods" inform yourself about crypto (or any other asset). Learn about it. Learn whats behind it, use time on it... yes... your free time. And then buy Cardano or XRP or Bitcoin for 50 bucks. And then do it again next month. And so on. Think in long therms. Dont count that money back until 2029 or 2030. Poverty is a choice. And if youre poor... you deserve it because its your fault.

[@o.w.7679]

I believe you're looking at this through the same broken lenses as this video. Consider how you're already assuming a kind of middle-class income, and that all people want to be *rich*, and not just to live happy through entertainment, pleasures, education & activities. I advise you to look around in this comment section, as other people have pointed it out already, but in short, I think you're confusing "poverty" with "lack of will to climb the echellons of capitalism".

[@guff9567]

The poor would just squander it an immediately become poor again

[@cheese515]

Not all of them. I think it is unfair to say that all poor people would do this, and it shows that you have a poor understanding of their situation.

[@guff9567]

@@cheese515 if they did not do this, then they could not be classed as poor, could they? Duuuuh

[@snekula5353]

@@guff9567 Now now, there are different reasons why people are poor. I'm sure that some would use their money wisely to get out of poverty for good. That being said, most people if given say a million dollars overnight would probably squander it. This is known as the "lottery winner's curse".

[@guff9567]

@@snekula5353 Well then , they're not poor then, are they? GOOD GRIEF !

[@cheese515]

@@guff9567 What about people who were born into poverty, and cannot invest, or save, or whatever to get richer. What about people who don't know how to do these things due to lacking education, or who is not able to do it due to poor material conditions. People usually aren't poor just because they wasted their money. Duuuuuuuh.

[@charleighblue]

This is not analysis, its uniformed opinion. The suggestion that poor people are just gonna go on huge spending spree's in a mall once they are given money is absurd. DONT even get me started on the topic of addicts buying more drugs. It has been proven a million times over that more personal security and the fulfilment of basic needs literally stops people becoming addicts in the first place. Basic needs that would be immediately met with a radical redistribution of wealth. STOP the misinformation.

[@fakeemail4005]

Instead of getting your information from academics, you should go out into the real world: Homelessness is caused by irresponsible attitudes on the fault of the homeless, that lead them to not want to get a job. Usually this is caused by mental illness or drug addiction, but drug addiction is always caused by a lack of proper upbringing/irresponsible parents, and a lack of local community support. Not government support, COMMUNITY support, like your neighbours; neighbours don't socialize anymore. Have you actually volunteered to help homeless people? Have you talked to them, met with them? I have, and for almost every single homeless person I've fed, I can assure you its their own actions and attitude that causes their homelessness. You give them money, they WILL spend it on more drugs. Many have told me this straight up, to my face; they're not even hiding it anymore! Go outside into the real world, charleigh

[@zenothemeano4381]

@@fakeemail4005 "Homelessness is caused by irresponsible attitudes on the fault of the homeless" First sentence in and its already victim-blaming Most Sane Capitalism Fan

[@timpool1404]

You must've missed a major portion of this video, because what individuals choose to spend their money on is probably the least important part of all of this. The loss of capital is the issue. Farmers now have far less money to plant crops, distributors have less money to distribute goods and so on. This is not an opinion it's an absolute fact.

[@Creees]

This guy is stuck in the rat race and here he is justifying his life that he doesnt enjoy. These old people are holding us back from being happier people. We as humans have everythong we need. Lets enjoy life a bit. Silly to keep working 6 days a week

[@NopeSecret]

Not everyone just on a per country basis.

[@NaniSarkar-nx2cb]

Great analysis, thank you . Very informative and clear