1% economic question

If the wealthiest 1% only existed and the other 99% did not, how rich would the 1% be?

In other words, if a only small number of people lived on earth, where would all their money cone from?

If today 99% of the world population dissappeared. What good would the wealth of the 1 % remaining be worth?

Ok, this confirms it. You're a fucking retard.

Thats a stupid question. Seems like you thought it was deep but really... nope.

If we blow up the world the 1% will probably be all thats left in thier bunkers fully stocked. That 1% still worth a shit load with 99% gone then.

If the wealthiest 1% only existed and the other 99% did not, how rich would the 1% be?

In other words, if a only small number of people lived on earth, where would all their money cone from?

If today 99% of the world population dissappeared. What good would the wealth of the 1 % remaining be worth? Originally Posted by grean

Careful there, puke green, you might have an original thought that wasn't given to you by your handlers, puke green. Wealth is ... and always has been ... a "relative" thing, puke green. You party's envy of the rich is ridiculous, puke green, because if even the poorest in this nation are getting clean water and enough food to be obese as they relax in their homes watching their big screen TVs while rapping with their buddies on their Odumbo phone about their latest 'tat' or gold plated grill, then this nation's poor really have nothing to complain about when compared to those in third world countries where clean water is not available and food is in short supply and people sweep their dirt-floor, grass huts with banana leafs, puke green.

"At his death, when J P Morgan’s fortune was revealed to be $80 million, less than many had expected, and considerably less then the hundreds of millions that several of his compatriots had amassed, John D. Rockefeller was reported to have said: ‘And to think he wasn’t even a rich man.’" (Apollo)

Almost everyone in this country lives better than Louie the XIV

if there were no rich people and there were no middle class people, there would be no poor people

if there were no rich people and there were no middle class people, there would be no poor people Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

How does a population reduced to 1% of it previous people even begin to accumate wealth?

They may have their bunkers full. Their bank acounts would be meaningless. Bartering would be the way it worked for some time with items out of those bunkers.

if there were no rich people and there were no middle class people, there would be no poor people Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Not true! If every person in a society were given the same amount of money at the start, invariably, at the end of a given period of time (a year?), wealth -- reflecting the needs, wants, desires, talent and poor decisions of those involved -- would be redistributed insuring that some would be richer than their peers ... a la Mike Tyson.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!"

How does a population reduced to 1% of it previous people even begin to accumate wealth?

They may have their bunkers full. Their bank acounts would be meaningless. Bartering would be the way it worked for some time with items out of those bunkers. Originally Posted by grean

If all of your real needs are met, why are you and your ilk so jealous, puke green?

Not true! If every person in a society were given the same amount of money at the start, invariably, at the end of a given period of time (a year?), wealth -- reflecting the needs, wants, desires, talent and poor decisions of those involved -- would be redistributed insuring that some would be richer than their peers ... a la Mike Tyson.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

it is true that what I posted is the socialists' vision

and in a totalitarian society such as is required to enforce that vision of the dimocrats, the freedoms required to reallocate assets as you speak of, due to individual success and failure, by natural abilities and talents and plain old hard work allowing people to improve their lots and therefore society's lot, the reallocations you allude to wouldn't be allowed

How does a population reduced to 1% of it previous people even begin to accumate wealth?

They may have their bunkers full. Their bank acounts would be meaningless. Bartering would be the way it worked for some time with items out of those bunkers. Originally Posted by grean

the question lacks substance

its the kind of question that would enthrall WTF and he'd convince himself he had the definitive answer and to prove it he'd copy long articles by Paul Krugman as if they were his own that had nothing to do with anything

lonely man, destined to roam the earth with two sawed off double barreled shotguns kept in holsters under each arm pit under a long black duster

be fruitful and multiply

If the wealthiest 1% only existed and the other 99% did not, how rich would the 1% be?

In other words, if a only small number of people lived on earth, where would all their money cone from?

If today 99% of the world population dissappeared. What good would the wealth of the 1 % remaining be worth? Originally Posted by grean

They'll print like they do now, lol.


Jim

it is true that what I posted is the socialists' vision

and in a totalitarian society such as is required to enforce that vision of the dimocrats, the freedoms required to reallocate assets as you speak of, due to individual success and failure, by natural abilities and talents and plain old hard work allowing people to improve their lots and therefore society's lot, the reallocations you allude to wouldn't be allowed Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You silly sob....the political class accumulates wealth in a society that you speak.

There's a wealth distribution no matter the political form of government

You silly sob....the political class accumulates wealth in a society that you speak.

There's a wealth distribution no matter the political form of government Originally Posted by WTF

for once you are right but it had nothing to do with my post

yes

the smart people who care will be equal but more equal than others in the dimocrat vision

If we were smart...we would discourage generational wealth.

We should not encourage all to end up at the finish line together but we should encourage all to start as close a possible.

Toughen the estate tax!

Greenie-weenie is too stupid to know he is part of the global 1%.

Anyone who earns more than $34,000 a year is a member of the world's top 1%, according to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic. Even if you only make $12,000 a year, you are still in the top 10% globally. Nearly ½ of the world's population subsists on less than $2 a day.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/attention...153806044.html