would there be chaos if everyone in the world was equal financially?

Question

i heard that we can produce enough food to feed everyone on earth but we dont do it. is this why?

Answer 1

Good question, i thought about this myself and I've came to this conclusion:

This is not necessarily socialism you're talking about. Capitalism will also provide that kind of equality in time.

As an example think of photographic cameras 10 years back. If you bought the best and the worst camera and compare the photos; difference between two would be significant. Whereas now the results between the best, $3000 worth digital cameras and the cheapest $100 ones is very very vague.

Same thing will happen with everything else in the future. And even now I'm sure you can afford the mobile phone which Bill Gates has, whatever it is. Average people in previous centuries couldn't even dream of having any kind of item that royalties had.

And to top that up another fact is that if human kind can manage to survive another few hundred years, we'll even all look the same with the help of the latest technology in plastic surgery and cosmetic items. Think about that! In 200 hundred years there will be machines a 5'6 black guy can walk in; and walk out as a 6'2 blond man with green eyes! It will be possible oneday.

Socialism just didn't have the patience to let this happen in time, capitalism does give results if your willing to wait. So my friend I wouldn't worry about the poverty at the moment in thirsd world countires and just wait few more centuries and your dream will come true anyway :)
cheers
Sarp

Answer 2

Leaving politics out of this entirely (as we can see politicians will never agree with one another).......then looking at this economically, I cannot see how it could possibly work.

If everyone was left to their own devices with an equal amount of resource then, generally speaking most people would produce only enough food to support themselves. There has to be some kind of driving factor to allow people to produce a surplus, which can then be set aside for the benefit of non-producing people.

This driving factor in a capitalist society is profit. In a left-wing society this would be the government driving it forward.

You have to be able to cater for people who cannot support themselves (the sick, the old, children) and those who would not produce anything that generates a surplus (artists, srchitects, salesmen, etc - some would say "good riddance").

Even if you could, in some way, start from day 1 with everyone having an equal share, there would very soon be imbalances.

The only way to overcome the imbalance (which will always be there because of the differences in natural resources between different countries) would be to set up a mechanism that allows the "rich" countries with a surplus to protect their profits and transfer the surplus to the "poor" countries without it costing a fortune to transport it and without putting the "poor" countries into unmanageable debt.

Solve this one and you pretty much solve the problems of the world.

.............and I have absolutely got to agree with your answer above. I want to be rewarded for the hard work I put in, and nothing pisses me off more than seeing lazy people sponging off the state spending the taxes that I have worked hard for to contribute.

Answer 3

There are producers, and there are lazy people.

The lazy people would do as little as possible. The producers who used to enjoy working, would have to take up the slack for the lazy people.

What you are talking about is socialism. It fails every time. It is morally wrong. If you work harder, smarter and better than someone else, then you should be paid accordingly. Under your system, that would not happen.


http://www.libertarianism.com


Many people starve because they refuse to organise and revolt against their oppressive governments. I am certyainly glad and thankful that I am not in their shoes. but the fact is that collectively, they lack courage to do what is necessary to change their governments, even though their living conditions are of such poor quality, that you or I might become suicidal anyway. They have only a tiny bit to lose, but that is enough to keep them scared.

You have asked two separate questions. All I can say is that socialism wasn't a good idea when Hitler did it, and it's not a good idea now.

Answer 4

I don't think there would be chaos. But I see a bigger problem. If all the money in the world was divided equally, we would all have the same amount of money for less than a minute. Most the people who currently have none would have none again. And most the people who currently have most of it would again have most of it. So we'd have to keep dividing it up again weekly.

Yes, I believe we can produce enough food to feed the world, but who's going to pay the growers and manufacturers for it? And who is going to pay for the distribution of it? Should they do it for free and lose everything they have worked for? Its a hard one.

Answer 5

That is called socialism. It has yet to be perfected because of mans greed and capitalism. The USA market can and does produce enough food basics to feed the world, however it is not directed for that purpose and ingredients are used producing other food products. The proteins and grains used in pet foods world wide could do a very good job in feeding the world as well, or the amount of wastes restaurants daily dump in trash.

Answer 6

That's socialism alright. Sometimes I think it's not such a bad concept. We'd have less people going into a line of work just because of the pay and more people going into it just become they have an interest in doing the work. Man, wouldn't that change the rules!!!!

Answer 7

I can't tell whether you're asking about the general concept of "chaos" and whether we could eradicate it by living in a communist society (and somehow relating that to food?)...or if you mean that the rise of a communist state would initiate a series of chaotic events.

either way, the answer is: blah

Answer 8

yes, as chaos is not merely the result of financial inequality, it is more directly the result of mass confusion.