Sunday, April 15, 2012

Is there a limit to wealth inequality?

What would happen if one person in the USA finally owned ALL its wealth?

Not possible, I suppose, because two of the three functions of money would be impossible: there would be nothing to act as a medium of exchange, or as a unit of account, until the omni-owner started to spend. And why would he spend? He would already own everything. Having no property, everyone else would be a slave.

So what is the theoretical maximum degree of financial inequality? And how close are we to that point?


Source: http://aattp.blogspot.co.uk/2012_01_01_archive.html

Is this why the stockmarkets are stalling - there's not much wealth left to transfer to the upper crust, and what there is, the middle class are desperate to hang onto? Is that why, according to Tyler Durden, there's $8.1 trillion in cash holding off from investment - the rich won't put it back in unless they can pull out again at a profit, and the rest don't want to fall for the trick?

3 comments:

  1. The Arthurian15 April 2012 at 18:54

    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paddington16 April 2012 at 14:55

    At some point, the measure of 'wealth' will not be money and stocks - perhaps guns and goats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sackerson16 April 2012 at 15:24

    How do you fire a goat?

    ReplyDelete

Unfortunately, because of a plague of spam comments, you need to be a "registered user", otherwise your observations will be buried in a torrent of multilingual nonsense. Please do comment!

Say what you please, so long as it's phrased politely and is not libellous or legally proscribed. Fact, reason and wit are keenly welcomed.