English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

since there are billionairs and people with no money at all around how much money would each person have if it was divided even;y with everyone in the whole world? To figure this question out we have to know how many people there are in the world and how much moeny there is in the world........??????

2007-04-23 15:45:29 · 9 answers · asked by ~*-_~*-_~*-_~*-_~ 2 in Social Science Economics

9 answers

Well, it's all speculation really. And you can depend on people to speculate and give an answer that matches what they think about the world's economic system.
I say that in such an egalitarian world (imbalances would surface again soon enough), nessecity would be the incentive to do things. Unpleasant tasks still need to get done and the price for doing them would go up.
The key to making something like this work is to keep away from orthodoxy. Any new information on how to fine tune the system should be incorporated into what we already know works.
Kind of the opposite of what we do now. Well, those that hold power not us, claim that Free Market Laissez-fair economics solve all the ills of mankind. But they ignore the actual things that Adam Smith said in the original treatise regarding common stock, division of labor, and distrusting corporations ( a new invention in Smith's time)

2007-04-23 16:15:53 · answer #1 · answered by annarkeymagic 3 · 1 0

Well, what we define as rich or poor will not be how the politicians nor the media will report it. However, I believe that LBJ during his War on Poverty --- declared the "poor" to be anyone in the lower 5% of the income distribution. So if you are poor at the lowest 5% then you are rich at the highest 5% n'cest pas? Such a percentage definition implies that there will alway be people who are "poor" and have a wealth class to villipend. I doubt that many computer users with an family income of $150K would consider themselve wealthy --- but The AtlanticMonthly recently had an article on "relative poor". One is poor only in juxtaposition to someone else. It is my opinion that government ought to encourage wealth creation and not income redistribution. We should encourage savings and cottage industry as well as a love of education.

2016-05-17 08:43:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

ok world population as of December 31, 2006

6,676,684,191

As of today

67,065,944,343

Now if you put all the money in a pot and get it divided out there would be enough to give people. There is no amount at all its just a bunch of numbers in a computer that says this person has this much money but there is no amount that can be put into bills EVER the whole system would crash.


I did give you a web site that can give you the rough estimate on how many people are on earth.

2007-04-23 16:06:30 · answer #3 · answered by Arizona Chick 5 · 0 0

Immediately more people would become richer and a few people will become drastically poor cmpared with the past. But asa whole the Worls will not become any richer. Everyone will become equally rich however. But within a year, the entire system will collapse with huge rates of inflation, high rates of shutdowns, unemployment and the World will become considerably poorer very soon and looting and disorder will be of significant magnitude. It will then take few centuries to come back to the situation just before the redistribution of wealth.

2007-04-27 11:57:14 · answer #4 · answered by sensekonomikx 7 · 0 0

If you gave everyone in the world the same amount of money per person, the minute one person gave another one dollar (or etc), their would be an immediate inequality.
And if the money earned by working class people was to be given equally to all, where is their incentive to work or to improve skills or manufacturing processes?

2007-04-23 15:52:30 · answer #5 · answered by nowyouknow 7 · 0 0

If the worlds supply of currency was evenly distributed, it would lose its value entirely. The only real currency that would hold value would be those things that provide sustenance without further trade. If we were to split food supplies up evenly I think that we would all be ok.

2007-04-23 16:42:35 · answer #6 · answered by dodgin_blanks 2 · 0 0

The world would literally stop spinning. None of the crucial (and yes less than glamorous) jobs would be completed because everyone would feel that they were too good to do them or simply would not want to do them (after all, most people don't dig ditches because they want to).

2007-04-23 15:55:00 · answer #7 · answered by Caduceus89 4 · 0 0

I think there is way more money than there are people. Think of Donald Trump and Bill Gates together, just those two individuals. BILLIONS...I think we would all live comfortably wealthy.

2007-04-23 15:50:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

money would be worth nothing and we would fight over bananas...there has to be something everyone cannot be equal the world would stop turning

2007-04-23 15:53:09 · answer #9 · answered by bailie28 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers