0
84

[–] satnavtomington 0 points 84 points (+84|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Another possibility is that the 1 guy gives some money to, say, 30 of the others so that they stop the rest attacking them. And thus the army was born.

Edit:spelling

0
5

[–] mrcanard 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Wasn't it about 30% of the citizens that fought on the side of independence during the Revolutionary War?

1
21

[–] drizzle55 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

No it was about 3%

0
1

[–] Wolfspider 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The police as well, they have never helped anyone that I know whom was not rich, tack the on for another five percent.

0
0

[–] Kabuthunk 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is of course assuming that the 30 soldiers are all perfectly fine watching the other 69 around them die of starvation, and be bossed around by that guy that's watching them starve and doing nothing.

0
0

[–] satnavtomington 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Everyone has their price :P

1
42

[–] kittenpoo 1 points 42 points (+43|-1) ago 

Or the other 99 can say; "Fuck that guy, we won't place value on that money any more."

1
14

[–] Servohahn 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

Crypto currencies might be a part of it. I mean crowd-created digital currencies? It still blows my mind.

Another thing that might come in the next few centuries are post-scarcity economies. All that doom and gloom you hear about automation replacing human work (which I think is ill-informed and contradicts the current model of automation) means that people won't need to work, not that everyone will be impoverished.

0
3

[–] Longbow 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

hey, give Mick Farren's "The Long Orbit" a read. You've described a major plot feature from the book.

4
27

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 4 points 27 points (+31|-4) ago 

Or, in other words, it is morally justifiable to murder someone to take something you believe you should have.

1
6

[–] Draconious 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Making the tough statements. I like you, have an upvoat.

2
0

[–] bildramer 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

"X would happen" isn't "X is morally justifiable".

5
23

[–] acheron2012 5 points 23 points (+28|-5) ago 

In your scenario this guy didn't pop into existence. And even if he did, having 99% of the money would not be a useful thing for him. At it's core "Money" is an abstract. It allows trade without each person having to find a barter partner. Thus if I want eggs I don't have to find someone that will trade me the grain the chicken farmer wants for the pork I currently have.

Money is a tool, not an end result. Greece is another example of this sort of thinking. But the problem is not that "one guy has all the money". The problem is that "a bunch of leeches want a free ride in life".

Just "Having" money won't do you any good. Consider how a large percentage of people that win the lottery are homeless in a couple years. You have to have the ethics and drive to generate a desire in people to give you more.

5
9

[–] jeegte12 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago 

a bunch of leeches want a free ride in life

why is this such a taboo idea for so many people, even on this site? it's like i get ridiculed every single time i bring this point up. welfare queens and their ilk make up a massive portion of the population, at least in the US. so why do so many armchair economists want to ignore it?

0
12

[–] xklevin1 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Whats the difference between someone who never works but was left a huge inheritance and a person who was left nothing?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
-1

[–] taco 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

This is a good point. It is human nature for people to find an easy way. Not everyone opts for it, (welfare and the like) but the demographic absolutely exists.

0
4

[–] Longbow 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Also, considering the photos of Germany after WWI during the period of hyperinflation, people had wheelbarrows full of money. It didn't help them very much. Nothing to buy, and that little there was was quite dear.

The single person with all the cash will end up having to eating for dinner because no one would deal with him.

0
0

[–] Torretiger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

this disregards that a billionaire doesn't have a billion dollars lying around, it is invested in stock, real estate and other assets. those assets will be worth a lot independent of the currency

[–] [deleted] 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
-1

[–] dontnation 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Or just be good at not spending more than the capital gains you make. Within capitalism it becomes vastly easier to make money if you have capital. Now, you can be greedy and chase high risk high reward gains, but if you aren't an idiot about it you can live extremely well just off of low-risk investment of $10MM. Ethics and drive won't even factor into it.

1
13

[–] Mathus819 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

Capital is not a zero sum game.

5
9

[–] TheSoaringShite 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago 

With a 100 people there would be no money. Everyone would be preoccupied with surviving.

1
6

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop [S] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

You're missing the point of the "thought experiment". It's just to illustrate how absurd the 1%'s [technically more like 0.1%] existence is. It's just to prove a point. A point you're completely tiptoeing around.

5
7

[–] Lake 5 points 7 points (+12|-5) ago 

You're missing the point. If you have a problem with the 1% money go do something about it. Go build a business that competes with theirs and take their money.

But no. It would be easier to say that they don't deserve that money and should share it with the rest of the population.

That money was earned wether it's the current CEO/owner or their relatives. You have zero right to it and saying they don't deserve it is petty at best.

3
0

[–] TheSoaringShite 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Nope. OP is asking in a roundabout way why people are not rioting. The "thought experiment" is a device for asking that. The more direct answer to the direct question is a lack of pressure on the population. 'Everyone' still gets to eat, so some people having comparatively high wealth is not an issue to most.

Now, if we did examine a group of a hundred people, we would find that property rights get less important as people rely on each other for survival more strongly, and there would be strong group cohesion. Only when populations go up we see monarchs arise, and with them, the tyrants.

1
4

[–] Lootaluck 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Not really, survival is easy when resources are abundant as they would be in that situation

3
1

[–] TheSoaringShite 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

I am assuming a primitive situation where knives are made by banging rocks together.

1
4

[–] ILikeMyDogNotYours 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

... how did this person acquire all this money? If he came by it through voluntary exchange, then it it is rightfully his. Any aggressive acts by the other 99% would be morally bankrupt and inexcusable, as they would be deemed aggression.

1
0

[–] pepepepepe 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Seriously. If a guy provides a service and 99 people start shoveling their wealth right into his face then why are they complaining about him being rich? I feel like the subject is a false metaphor for how economies work. The idea that the one guy is "trying to hoard" the money makes it seem like he's taking it straight out of their pockets, in which case he'd be a thief and it's understandable that the other 99 would kill him.

1
-1

[–] ILikeMyDogNotYours 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

It also implies that the other 99% don't offer any economic value to

0
4

[–] 1981818? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

If there were only one hundred people on Earth there would be no money.

And having is not synonymous with hoarding.

The dragon in The Hobbit hoards gold.

Bill Gates has a lot of money because people give him money because he made things they want.

Anyone who took high school economics should understand this.

2
1

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Anyone who took high school economics should understand this.

You would think so, but so many ignore anything economics (or really anything) says that does not fit with their own views. Like the folks who think that we are at a point where not everyone should have to do something to survive, that a certain group of driven people can do all of the real work and just support the rest of humanity.

Ayn Rand was a terrible writer and person but damn if that doesn't sound like some Atlas Shrugged shit right there, that folks who are driven to work hard or are "born smart" owe it to others to support them even if they are fully capable of working themselves just because robots can do the work of multiple people.

load more comments ▼ (19 remaining)