Is it theoretically possible that everyone could live in prosperity...

Is it theoretically possible that everyone could live in prosperity, according to all goods on Earth if we collect all money in the world and then spread them equally ?

Theoretically, yes. Ironically, we say "If there is a God, then why are there starving people in the world". When the All Mighty has given us the ability to prevent that from happening in the first place.

Yeah that worked our really well in the Soviet Union, let's do it!

"Theoretically possible". Of course.

>theoretically possible
>theoretically
lmfao
yes is the only answer
now ask a meaningful question

It is not "theoretically possible" because the theory must take into account human nature. If we were robots then yes it would be possible. But it is impossible because we are living beings and we are programed in a specific way. Reprogramming is the goal of civilization but it can only go so far when the subject of programming is alive.

You fundamentally don't understand how poor the majority of the world is. If you spread out all the money, everyone would be poor.

OP:
I am not saying that this is a way(communism).
I'm just wondering if it possible. I dont get why the fuck you need golden toilet, when it could be invested in global prosperity, for example it could be given to institutes working on renewable energy. Why why why those people are so greedy and selfish ?

Do you want to be poor as shit? No? Then sit the fuck down. The sad truth about the world is that almost the entire thing is a shithole filled with poor people.

OP:
So tell me why is there so much inequality. I dont mean that everyone should have same amount of wealth, but the discrepancy is too big

/thread

but op what you are suggesting would require a world that has no need for money like star trek.
is it possible? yes
will i ever happen? no. humans will never socially evolve that way no matter what

Because some countries have shitty people and shitty culture that makes their countries shitty places filled with violent poor people.

The world and civilization is almost entirely driven by the western world and East asia

No.

That's why currency based economy doesn't work and only ruins the environment and the living conditions for the species increasingly as time goes on.

We need to move to a resource based economy instead and understand that our species is one organism living as part of a wider biological system comprising the earth and other solar bodies.

Why will we never evolve to this point? Are we too stupid, or maybe we are too naive, maybe we have bad leaders?
Everything what is based on logic has a solution, so this also has, but we just need to figure out what is it

It's not enough that I prosper. I want to be better than everyone else in the process.

OP: Maybe just be happy with yourself, not by being "better" than others?

read gulag archipeligo and try again

This school of thought rests on the assumption that all humans are created equally, we aren't.

What does masonry have to do with the idea you proposed...seems more pagan than anything

Theoretically.

The theory must take into account human nature. And the resources. And the means in which resources would be allocated to all humans who have their particular natures in an isolated model. And many other things that are particular to humans, and human life, and human constructs, imagined or real, and things as they are to human beings. Which would inevitably produce a viable outcome, because it would be idealistic and would be free to make all sorts of assumptions and control all sorts of variables, but not all of the variables can be taken into consideration, or else it would no longer be a theory, but instead, a statement of truth. One that would not be anthropocentric and convenient, but purely factual and broad.

It is not because we are living beings and we are programmed in a specific way. Human beings can be reprogrammed in many ways. Try hitting one in the back of the head with a shovel, that living human being will be modified. There is no viable issue that arises from the quality of being alive with respect to programming.

he's talking about a hypothetical situation where people aren't easily corrupted pieces of shit.
obviously it'll never happen.
but there's more than enough goods to go around.
the resources which can't be divided evenly amongst us have or will have great use in public sector.
>diamonds for electricity
etc

>Why why why those people are so greedy and selfish ?
because power corrupts all.
and people are shit, why would you work to help some piece of shit when they'll bite the hand that feeds them.
think of it this way, people take amazing meals, and turn them into stinky worthless turds.

we don't even need to spread them equally, I'd sooner we still have some play room and at least a semblance of a market, just skim off the top of those with the most by some margin acquired by scaling taxes until everyone has their basic needs and quality of life provided for using basic income or something else

like a social market economy, the drive of capitalism covered by the security of a welfare state, we'll still have conflict and competition and there will still be war because we are human, but things would be much more civil

The point is I'm trying to find out why it will never happen?

kek, you can't even get those in power to agree on government funded neetbux (for food, maybe shelter even)
how the fuck are you going to convince them to completely forgo all power?
and for what purpose?
there's no real goal for humanity.
we all die eventually anyway.

I always liked that everybody lived an uppper middle class life on earth, and their jobs/careers were to whatever, in the Star Trek series universe
(hint, it was income distribution: people got a basic income to survive, and they took jobs according to their skills and desires, to supplement that basic income...)

>why it will never happen?
because working to acquire resources required times, and effort, you'd effectively be stealing from the people who acquired them just to pass them around.
because there isn't enough resources to go around for everyone.
because the powers that be will always want to retain their power

OP:
>because there isn't enough resources to go around for everyone.
That is what I was funking asking about if this possible.

So everybody would have some wrothless papers? Is it equal having equal property for different work?

OP:
The thing is, is there a solution? Not talking about economics more like educating people to be simply aware.
I just dont get it why most of very rich people spend theirs money on shit and baisicly nothing. They must be intelligent so they earned so much money so why they act like bunch of monkeys ?!

If all computers count resources instead of how to sell a fucking tshirt or boots to millennial dumbfuck we would not live in so sick dissection.

No, my point was question if everyone could live worthily with all the goods at this time we have on earth

sounds like communism

Well, there IS enough resources to feed, house and clothe everyone. But there is not enough resources to have everyone in the world live at an American person's standard of living. Employment is obviously an issue, which is made complicated by millions of lazy niggers and pajeets who want an income, but don't want to work for it.

free market still exists. elections still exist. you get to decide your job and career. its called a "base income" in economic theory. not communism. the government collects taxes in a manner that is still capitalist, but rather than giving loopholes and refunds, gives people a base income based on this. its not really welfare, as rich people get it back also: it could work, but just like all interesting ideas, it WILL NEVER HAPPEN (the swiss actually had a referendum on this last year: it lost)

You could cut down the population.
You could redefine happiness, wealth, prosperity, goods.
You could magically imbue the population with your moral inclinations so that every person serves the other and is then also served accordingly.
You could force everyone to live in large complexes with little cubic foot room.

They do both, dumb fuck.

I don't want my tax dollars to pay for some white trash druggie who doesn't feel like working to live a safe and comfortable life. It's like leeching off welfare - lots of people who leech welfare are perfectly capable of working but the they abuse the system. Basic income should only be half an average year's salary, at most, as incentive to fucking work.

For this theory to work there would need to be a substantial overlap of the desired careers of the population and the required careers of the economy.

In case you're wondering...this wouldn't happen lol

Would you consent to slightly higher taxation if it meant helping, say, a family who recently lost their father and doesn't have a steady income? If your taxes were only used in situations like this I mean

>I don't want my tax dollars to pay for some
guess what: that is exactly what is happening now. I do not have children, yet my taxes pay to send your kids to school, their school bus, and there free school lunches. I drive very little, but my taxes pay for the bridge in your neighborhood, and the freeway offramp near your home and job. I am not retired, but my taxes pay for your parents and grandparents to get a monthly government check. remeber that time you got unemployment benefits? my company paid that for you. etc etc etc etc. MY TAXES SUPPORT YOUR and YOUR FAMILIES EXISTENCE, as far as I am concerned.

there is less overlap between the possible careers for the population and the acrual requirements of the capatalist economy every day. “lol”

What do you mean by accrual requirements?
Are you trying to say that a free market is inefficient at allocating resources......"lol"

I'm not even a capitalist btw, communists are just fucking stupid

That would be just like applying for benefits or government aid. Same problem as before; people can abuse the system. But maybe if basic income were $1000 or $1200 a month, people would have incentive to work but also, not lose their apartment when they lose their job. This would prevent homelessness

read up on IQ, how it's measured, what it means, what it's correlated with and what influences it and you'll get your answer.

meant actual. no such thing as a free market on earth and hell yeah they’re inefficient

Okay well I don't have kids. I think a good question would be how much tax do you pay? Is it proportionate to what you earn, or is it a flat tax? Which one is more fair?

We're biologically wired that way. It's the same team we're susceptible to gambling addiction, food addiction, drug addiction, sex addiction, etc. Seratonin and dopamine response. If you live a life of moderation, most people will not have problems with the regulation of those chemicals. Some will, regardless of nurture. As soon as you introduce excess, lots of people crave more because they're not capable of regulation anymore.

What do you mean by requirements of a capitalist system and why don't you think that the available career pool meets these requirements?

No. Take an economics course, for fuck's sake.

wasted my quads on some shitty economics argument

The same reason, not team.

No, the only reason we get closer to prosperity is because of our innate drive to compete with each other. If you remove the economic aspect of competition, then people no longer have a reason to be productive.

You make it useless to put in more effort.

actual, the threory of base income is exactly that. just the bare minimum to keep you from being homeless and starving on the street. but then you get rid of "welfare", food stamps, section 8 vouchers. Everyone is encouraged to work to earn income to improve their life. even the people working long hours and the richest people get this base income.

it costs the government less to do this than to support a welfare ecosystem, food stamps, WIC, and shit like that.

but as everyone rightly points out: it will never happen, its just an interesting theory that actually makes economic sense, gets rid of special interest loopholes, and has the perfect math to prove it would work, by removing the "welfare infrastructure". so that means it will never happen

Yes but only if we kill all sub simian humans such as blacks and those of semetic and mestizo origin.

I know this is always the go-to theory as to why capitalism is a good thing - competition prevents stagnation, it's the way of nature, etc.

And economically, purely economically, this makes sense, but think of it socially. The way it drives corporations to greed, motivates exploitation, promotes dollar over human, etc. It's all incredibly materialist and really cold. Like I get what you're saying, I took my economics courses, but what I've seen more and more is the desire for higher meaning in life, not the soulless pursuit of a higher paycheck. People (men) want to put their competitive nature towards something meaningful, not fluffing some fat boomers pillow.

The term "sub-human" is implicitly egalitarian because it implies there is only one standard for human (Aryan), whereas Darwin correctly identified humans as a species and the various races as sub-species.

in one version of this theory, you pay 10% of your gross income. period. no tax filings, nothing. no sales tax. nothing. no IRS loopholes, nothing.
The tax form would be:
How much did you earn?
OK, your bill is 10%.
the end.

Now here is your monthly minimum check.
When the swiss proposed this last year, it was something like $800 per month to each CITIZEN. And they would've gotten rid of their biggest welfare program, and just done verifications that the people collecting were actual people, not scammers or falsified etc.
it lost, but it still got like 20% of the vote

Hey OP, well there's a few things to consider here first.

In the world it exists a number of families which sit on around 94-97% something of all the money that exists in total.

But the other 3-6% is what the world is having right now as of "total" spread out around the globe.

And to answer your question, modestly yes but prosperity for some depending on how you spend the money you get when all is shared.

They did a show on this question on Swedish tv a couple of years back and they came up with that everyone would have about: 127,000 (SEK) I think it was €13,000 (Euro) $15,600 (DOL) per person. So prosperity depends on you as it does in real life too, glhf!

when people say things are "theoretically" possible they usually just mean "possible if we use a really shitty theory." if your theory is good, and takes into account all constraints on human behavior, then no, it isn't possible.

if by "theoretically" you actually mean "leaving out the obvious constraints on humans and just dividing wealth by population" thennnnnn sort of.

Credit Suisse says current global wealth is 256 trillion. Assuming 7 billion people, that comes out to $36,600 each.

This is actually pretty bad for the median US adult, which is at $44,900, but obviously great for niggers scraping dirt in Africa.

The effects of this influx will obviously leave property and goods markets in Africa significantly different than before - land prices will skyrocket, etc - but still not as expensive as developed first world places that are actually desirable to inhabit.

would you look at that, i’m the smartest person with my job ever by a wide margin. that or the charts meaningless in the context

Its a great idea, but no. Here is why.
People are not created equally. Some aren't as fast, some aren't as strong and some aren't as smart as others.
Some people have an easy time getting addicted to things (from drugs to games) and some people have temper problems that cause issues.
Some people are gay, some don't give a fuck one way or another.
All of these things add up over time and make you YOU. That results in a fairly unique individual. If you aren't terribly bright, you shouldn't be an engineer or surgeon. If you aren't particularly strong, you probably shouldn't do much oudoor work.
Different jobs require different mental and physical actions depending on what they are and not everyone is suited to doing everything. Therefore, a divide is created. If you are willing to do a dangerous job or have a particular skill set, you are likely to get a higher paying job than someone who is a dishwasher or menial laborer and therefore, is worth more to society.
In places like russia and china, your skill set doesn't really matter, because you don't get rewarded for doing a good job, you only get punished for doing a bad one. This has resulted in a lot of mediocre workplaces where status quo is key. Don't work too hard, but work hard enough that you don't get fired or shot.
Now, that is not to say that a tiny percentage of the population should get the majority of the money simply because of luck, skill and/or inheritance, it means that we should start working together and support eachother.
1/2

you’re confusing income and wealth. the average us adult doesn’t have 44k

Wouldn't work. Spend base income on drugs, Xboxes and weaves rather than necessities for survival. Libtard, "Oh we can't let people starve". Nog "System is racist Trying to starve the black man" .

Just another theory that requires everyone to be a responsible person for it to have any chance of working.

I figure it harkens back to our primeval instincts to gather more and more food to ensure survival. This encourages greed, without which one man may give to his neighbor, and starve when winter comes. Those who were greedy and hoarded goods were the ones to survive, and when civilization begun to form they were then considered good examples to follow, since they had goods aplenty.

schools and the job market in china are far more competitive than in the west.

This reads like a childrens book

Nowadays though, we can produce in great abundance the necessary resources to ensure the survival of each human on earth for the length of their natural lifespan, and most likely continue doing so for generations. However the instinct to hoard still exists, and those that do naturally retain more wealth over time resulting in a few families who run basically everything indirectly.

Let's just use Robux from now on.

2/2
Right now, the richest working people in the country are people who do jobs like Surgeons or Nuclear Engineers and shit like that. They typically make under 300k a year. Everyone above them is the "One Percent" where those few people are CEOs of large companies or Inheritors of fortunes. They make as much as the bottom 20-30% of the nation as a whole holds. Redistributing that amount of wealth should give that money to the poor, who suddenly have no idea how to handle a couple tens of thousands more money each year. These are the disadvantaged (whether through bad luck, poor education, genetics or crime) that won't necessarily know how to handle a middle class income. Suddenly, these people may not want to work a menial job cause they have money now. Our society would collapse in the worst case and in the best case would result in a severe lack of workers.

that is because i am phrasing things for stupid people cause they ask stupid questions

>Libtard
> actually, independent moderate. social media and internet comment forums do not feed my beliefs. i even refuse to have a fagbook and twatter account.

>reminds me a joke some faggot wrote to me:
>what do you call a retarded liberal? a Libtard.
>what do you call a retarded republican? a Republican. but just like him/it, you're a faggot

OP is confirmed, socialist fag. go get rekt on Sup Forums.

Hey man, nice estimate I'm the one who wrote the post above yours I think your calculations are correct because the show I saw was like 10 years ago so the economy has changed alot since.

Take care!

That greatly depends upon how you define "prosperity."
Is it possible for all humans to have enough food and shelter that they don't starve or die due to exposure?
>probably

jew detected

>not knowing how to greentext

fucking gay ass android tablet, was a gift, I fucking hate it, just wanted to learn to root it, fucked up keybaord and shit. probably gonna turn it into a magic mirror or some shit, but two way mirrors in the size i want are like $150

I hope your tablet was bought with a 2 year contract.

You spent so much time phrasing things you forgot to make a point

At least if we distributed world's GDP equally, standards of living would be similar to those of Maldives or the Dominican Republic. Wouldn't call that prosperous.

There are too many people.

I like the idea of helping out the poor people in my own country, but trying to help to poor masses of the world would just be like throwing your money into a bottomless pit. Fuck the rest of the world, just focus on your own country. Help yourself before you help others.

I suppose you middle class jewniggers will just have to learn to economize and share.

Clearly this depends on your definition of prosperity. Could we feed everyone on the planet? Without a doubt.

Could we feed and provide everyone with some form of shelter? Probably? Maybe?

Could we feed, provide a reasonable middle class American home, and iPhones for everyone? No. Fuck no. Who is going to build nice houses and put together iPhones in a sweatshop when they have already have a nice home and iPhone with no effort? Not to mention who the fuck is going to mine the materials, dig the sewage lines, run the electrical cable etc...

Or how the fuck you would even end up with an entity capable of manufacturing on a scale capable of producing homes and iPhones for everyone?!? No one would have the capital to create such an entity. It would have to be the government and why would the government ever bother to improve the iPhones or any other technology? They have no competition. No individual can come up with something better and compete... you can take this example as far as you like.

The point is unless you can convince a large percentage of everyone to do shittier work than everyone else for no benefit to themselves you need a system of winners and losers...i.e. Capitalism.. or a 100% automated robotic workforce that does every single job while humans only do what they want to do while their needs are taken care of... hopefully nobody forget something how to maintain the machines...

Not going to happen. I believe in effort, not "equality".

>i'm a jewnigger
then you're a sadomasochist Puritan trying to please an imaginary friend and you should be killed.

Tumblr posts won't kill me, you silly leftists.

Universal basic income, like welfare and minimum wage hikes and what not also has no chance of being effective. You could feed everyone (universal basic lunch) and provide shelter (universal basic apartment) but the second you make it about money it becomes a clusterfuck.

Effectively whatever point was dirt poor before universal basic income is now moved to the point of universal basic income. The ones that were poor on the old system are still just as poor there. No one is making them be responsible with their "free money". They can spend it all on crack and stay homeless just like they were before the free money. And they will.

Millions of niggers, chinks and pajeets depend on jobs that can easily be done by machines. More machines = mass unemployment in third world countries. Mass riots. Mass starvation. Without their shitty jobs that pay a dollar a day, their societies would collapse and they would all die. We can't switch to a robotic workforce, it would be too cruel to the the illiterate masses doing the most menial jobs.
Slavery works awesome when the slaves are dependent on the master for their survival. If anything, we need more slave labor so we can shut down mechanization.

The difference between dirt poor and starving could make the difference between someone getting out of a hostile, abusive, or just plain jewish work situation and not.
UBI needs to be combined with a Jobs Guarantee for maximum effectiveness.

...

What I mean by Robotic workforce means no one, not even chinks and niggers, has to work. This is the ONLY way for everyone to be equally prosperous and society not crumble. Scarcity has to disappear. No one can be a slave or equal prosperity doesn't work. Basically my point was this is a fantasy.

Nonsense. Less work means more time to devote to home and family. What needs to happen is that everyone works and everyone has the same probability of being assigned to toilet-cleaning.
If anything needs to be robotic, it's the planning system.

No. If you give some poor dude 50k you improve his situation. You give everyone 50k and all you do is reduce the value of 50k to shit and make everyone poorer. It's hard to buy an iPhone with your 10k a year budget? Yeah 1k phones are expensive. Is it going to be different when you have 50k and the phones jump up to 5k each because of the demand and scarcity of resources not magically shifting to match the number of people who now have 50k?? You cannot just create wealth out of nothing or steal it from the rich and give it to the undeserving poor with there being no change in its worth.

No. Everyone would starve equally. If not at first, then they'll have way more children, and THEN we'd all starve equally.

The only options are for people to earn their wealth, or create a way to produce infinite food and resources.

>undeserving poor
Kill yourself, liberal.

What happens to the people who refuse to clean toilets? You want the great minds of our time reduced to cleaning toilets? Why would anyone do anything that requires effort but benefits them none? Are they then excluded from universal basic income? Doesn't that just put us where we are now in terms of the poor while simultaneously deincentivising the currently successful in terms of providing anything of value?

The poor are clearly undeserving of wealth. If they deserved it they'd already be wealthy.

>i’m the smartest person

Stopped reading there.

>What happens to the people who refuse to clean toilets?
Gulag, natch. Nobody is too good as to clean toilets.
>You want the great minds of our time reduced to cleaning toilets?
Oh god, the "Great man" horseshit again. The benzene ring structure was visualized during a nap on a train ride. Public-key encryption was imagined (by one of its independent inventors) while house-sitting.
They can think AND clean toilets if their minds are so great.
>Why would anyone do anything that requires effort but benefits them none?
Are you implying that you can't see past direct, exclusive benefit to public benefit? You're the sort of leech that society is going to have to underproduce.
>Are they then excluded from universal basic income?
No, because it's universal. They can still accumulate that while they're doing their alternative rock-breaking exercises in gulag.

2/8