A little hypothetical for all' y'alls.
 

You wake up, have breakfast, get washed and dressed, sacrifice a goat etc. You're about to leave for work/school/college/satanic cult meeting etc., so you check you've got your keys, wallet/purse, phone, bloodied goat horn etc. As your hand goes over your wallet/purse, you notice it feels different. You open it up, and find it's the contents that's changed. Over the course of the night, all the money in the world has been abducted and distributed equally amongst the global population. Big businesses across the world are collapsing and scientific research has ground to a halt, but Third World Debt is reduced considerably and starving people across the world can buy something to eat.

Ignore the practical application of such a feat, just assume that funds that exist only in computers have been converted into their material equivalent, and the currency of the funds is appropriate for the country of the reciever, but all wealth in the form of goods remains in the same ownership.

So in the immediate, no doubt chaotic aftermath, it'll be a hideous sight, but in the long term, is this world a better or worse one than the one we live in today? In a few years, will the balance tip itself back to its old position again or will we get enduring change? Is this occurance a victory for equality or does it favour the poor?

Shaman is Wiccan. Not a Satanist.

Hi everybody!

Wealth is not only measured in exchangeable currency.

I measure it in hugs.

And China still owns our asses.

Damn.

But our lives are constructed based on our expenses. We carve out a niche with cash. You take that away, and the western world falls apart.

Dunno.. I think there would be chaos. That's it.

The primary producers of food would in a very good position, at least until they were murdered or until their supply of chemical fertilisers/pesticides/germination-inducers ran out and their crops, genetically modified not to grow without these chemicals, failed to grow.

What I'm talking about are buildings, infrastructure, resources, skilled people. Currency is just a representation of that worth. Move the cash around and you'll disrupt things, sure, cause economical difficulties, but the rich developed countries are still rich and developed.

Ahem.




Also, would it be made into one universal currency, or the currencies respective to the area?

Currencies only matter as a representative of that region's economic worth. Most markets will trade in US dollars, Sterling, Japanese Yen, Swiss Francs and Euros.

If everybody effectively had the exact same amount of money worldwide, for that moment money would be absolutely useless. To even ponder this as a potential "equality stabilizer" is absolutely preposterous on every economic level.

Personally, I don't think squat would change. All the rich people would just immediately begin endless litigation and lawsuits to get their money back, and by a couple of years later everything would be back to normal. Exchange rates would be pretty screwed up though.

I'm very disappointed in everyone who tried to take the question seriously. Deeply disappointed.

Man, hypotheticals look so easy when other people post them.

UR ON TRANE AND SUM1 PULLS OUT GUN WAT DO?

KILL HIM
RUNA WAY
SAVE SMALL CHILD

How fast is train?

200

Then answer is obvious.

The idiots who keep buying lots of stuff for absolutely no reason will no longer exist.

Nah man coz its like anarchy innit. Yeh there's like this thing wer all de social classes work together in 'armany and like, if u take that away then theres a collapse and like, everyone would have the same money so they'd all buy the shit theys always wanned and then like, its realy borin and people donk care wat they ave no more, in that rite lads?

You guys do realise that with perfect wealth redistribution we'd probably not even have fifty bucks between us?

Bullet Magnet, there is more than 35 Billion Dollars in the world.

Ya dink.


Edit: Goddamn that is not the right number

When you find the number you can calculate the actual collective wealth of the active members.

Even if it was true, it doesn't conflict with BM's statement.


And, frankly, the true number must be in the trillions. The only issue is that a lot of that is owned by corporations and governments; will they lose all their assets too?

I was wondering that too. In addition, money is only valuable when it is moving around, and can increase in worth (at least temporarily) with some smart (or not so smart) investments and book-keeping. That's why the whole world is suddenly much poorer while we still have the same amount of cash and currency.

A better way to imagine redistributed wealth would be to give everyone the global average salary. Probably no more than a pound a day, I'm thinking.

This is where we discover Capitalism doesn't work without a necessarily inpoverished class.

Are you volunteering, Wings?

I am economical Jesus, I died of starvation for your creature comforts.