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.
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.”
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.
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
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.”
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.