wednesday rebound, page-80

SB2000

I admire your sentiments and I too would love to see all well off.

Logic, however says it is imposssible.

There must be a difference between wealthy and poor always.

Even Jesus said "the poor will always be with you".

If everyone in this world were given a billion dollars, then they would feel rich for a day. The real consequence is that the price of goods would rise to meet the abundance of money.

Soon a carton of milk would be $1000 and we wouldn't care because it was insignificant.

Wealth is an individual or individuals taking small amounts from a vast number of people.

Those small amounts multiplied make the few rich without impoverishing the multitudes.

The idea that everyone can be invested in a share market and all become wealthy is just illogical.

The biggest con job is that in nominal terms share prices or property values can rise so that holders feel the bigger numbers mean they are wealthy.

If your house cost $100 and when you move you sell it for $1000 but have to pay $1000 in your new area and your children have to pay $1000, then you have gained nothing unless you decide to live in a tent and your house price has exceeded the cost of other goods.

So admit it or not we actually partially operate on socialist principles, where the rich support those worst off.

It is simply a matter of degree.

The US probably has had the biggest divide and so the biggest rewards are possible while many live on the streets.

Scandinavian societies are taxed into a more equal society.

The US would argue that it gives greater opportunity to those willing to take risks and ignoring the destitute is the downside.

The US derides the democratic socialism of Europe as making it less flexible but the other side of the coin is social harmony at the expense of boom/bust cycles.

Which is best?

Choose your own poison.