If people had money and were able to take care of their needs, they would spend more than the billionaire who just keeps it but doesn’t use it. Money spent would drive the economy creating revenue that can be reinvested into the business to increase efficiency and capacity.
But to address your point, redistributing billionaire wealth directly into workers hands wouldn’t make everyone rich. Yes people would have more money, at least at first. This is why socialists believe in controlling the means of production. Workers should share profits.
Workers should not be so desperate that they can’t afford to go on strike or take time off work to vote, or to have the time to find a good job.
Arguing that everyone can’t be rich isn’t a sincere argument. You’re creating a fictional scenario where everyone has millions of dollars.
I wasn’t arguing against wealth distribution. Im just saying its crazy to believe if everyone were millionaire, everyone could afford what current millionaires can afford. I think the wealth assessment of few individuals is a systematic failure of capitalism. No individual can work enough that they should have a million times that of the average citizen. I think having certain variation in pay grade and wealth can be okay if it serves the best interest of the public and entices people to work hard. The economy would be driven by spending, yes but that spending would devalue money quickly. Also billionaires have most money in company shares, land etc, not liquid cash. Inheritance and wealth tax can do a decent amount to reduce inequality I believe. A good social safety net would also make the US a much better place for the average citizen.
People are just misunderstanding my argument. Although I don’t think violent means like mentioned here are the way to go. But what am I even saying we are in a shitpost community after all.
![[serious]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/5797250b-b6ab-4ec4-aa5f-c41d66a011f0.jpeg){kind=link}
If people had money and were able to take care of their needs, they would spend more than the billionaire who just keeps it but doesn’t use it. Money spent would drive the economy creating revenue that can be reinvested into the business to increase efficiency and capacity.
But to address your point, redistributing billionaire wealth directly into workers hands wouldn’t make everyone rich. Yes people would have more money, at least at first. This is why socialists believe in controlling the means of production. Workers should share profits.
Workers should not be so desperate that they can’t afford to go on strike or take time off work to vote, or to have the time to find a good job.
Arguing that everyone can’t be rich isn’t a sincere argument. You’re creating a fictional scenario where everyone has millions of dollars.
I wasn’t arguing against wealth distribution. Im just saying its crazy to believe if everyone were millionaire, everyone could afford what current millionaires can afford. I think the wealth assessment of few individuals is a systematic failure of capitalism. No individual can work enough that they should have a million times that of the average citizen. I think having certain variation in pay grade and wealth can be okay if it serves the best interest of the public and entices people to work hard. The economy would be driven by spending, yes but that spending would devalue money quickly. Also billionaires have most money in company shares, land etc, not liquid cash. Inheritance and wealth tax can do a decent amount to reduce inequality I believe. A good social safety net would also make the US a much better place for the average citizen.
People are just misunderstanding my argument. Although I don’t think violent means like mentioned here are the way to go. But what am I even saying we are in a shitpost community after all.