| Blogs > jjun212 |
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
Bill Gates has like what 40+ Billion USD? The world population is estimated to be almost 7 Billion? If he gave 1 Billion USD to each person in the world, wouldn't we all be rich? And he would still have 30+ Billion.. I mean would that technically end world hunger/poverty? .... Wow my math is bad; I just read my shit over, NEVER FREAKIN MIND.. o...m...g    | ||
|
FirstProbe
1206 Posts
| ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
| ||
|
Antifate
United States415 Posts
7 billion is: 7,000,000,000. He would need 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 (not sure, got dizzy) USD to give them all 1 billion USD. | ||
micronesia
United States24793 Posts
you can't create wealth by playing games with pieces of paper that say $ on them. Economies are more complicated than that. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
|
TheFlashyOne
Canada450 Posts
| ||
|
TheFlashyOne
Canada450 Posts
| ||
|
Naib
Hungary4918 Posts
| ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
The top 100 combined on this list have about 850~ billion. That gives about 850,000,000,000 / 7,000,000,000 = 122$ per person. Congrats. | ||
|
Kami
United States127 Posts
| ||
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
| ||
|
naonao
United States847 Posts
| ||
|
paper
13196 Posts
| ||
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
Eti307
Canada3442 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:32 naonao wrote: But if everyone was rich, the everything would be inflated and the money would be worthless, economics wouldn't allow everyone to be rich. well rich is a relative term even the moderately poor live better than the middle class/rich people of 500 years ago | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:32 naonao wrote: But if everyone was rich, the everything would be inflated and the money would be worthless, economics wouldn't allow everyone to be rich. Let's just say somehow, it did work out... I don't think inflation works like that? I could be wrong, I think I am BUT... they're not making any more money or adding any more paper to the system. Just spreading it out more. But ok, what if the top 100 richest people only gave money to people who were making less than 25k/year. Would that be more possible? Sigh whatever, I just get sad when I see the distance from the richest to the poorest. Like someone else said, $122 USD is a lot for a family in a struggling country. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
| ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
|
Bekele
Canada47 Posts
| ||
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:38 KaasZerg wrote: This is kind of what the Weimar Republic tried to do. Printing lots of money. The only result was extra zero's on pricetags. My great grandfather Stored piles of Deutsch Marks on his attic. My grandfather and his siblings were litterally throwing with money and swimming in it lol. TOILET PAPER | ||
|
zOula...
United States898 Posts
| ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:35 jjun212 wrote: Let's just say somehow, it did work out... I don't think inflation works like that? I could be wrong, I think I am BUT... they're not making any more money or adding any more paper to the system. Just spreading it out more. But ok, what if the top 100 richest people only gave money to people who were making less than 25k/year. Would that be more possible? Sigh whatever, I just get sad when I see the distance from the richest to the poorest. Like someone else said, $122 USD is a lot for a family in a struggling country. If everyone in a developing country would get a certain amount of money then it would become pretty useless. Im a bit drunk so im not sure if it makes any sense but w/e | ||
|
naonao
United States847 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:35 jjun212 wrote: Let's just say somehow, it did work out... I don't think inflation works like that? I could be wrong, I think I am BUT... they're not making any more money or adding any more paper to the system. Just spreading it out more. But ok, what if the top 100 richest people only gave money to people who were making less than 25k/year. Would that be more possible? Sigh whatever, I just get sad when I see the distance from the richest to the poorest. Like someone else said, $122 USD is a lot for a family in a struggling country. But much of economics is based off supply and demand, if everyone were to suddenly get money, they would most likely use that money to buy products, which in turn will allow the producer to charge more for everything and in a sense making the money less valuable. | ||
|
koreakool
United States334 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:38 KaasZerg wrote: This is kind of what the Weimar Republic tried to do. Printing lots of money. The only result was extra zero's on pricetags. My great grandfather Stored piles of Deutsch Marks on his attic. My grandfather and his siblings were litterally throwing with money and swimming in it lol. yeah but it's not like he's creating money, the money's already there it would just distribute wealth to the population, but it wouldn't change anything because EVERYONE would recieve the money the only net effect would be bill gates being broke | ||
|
liger13
United States1060 Posts
I demand my $5... hahaha *looks in wallet and spots a 20* HOly S***!!!!!! im like rich * 4 | ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
5/5 for making me lol. | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
koreakool
United States334 Posts
| ||
|
jyhlol
243 Posts
| ||
|
dongfeng
731 Posts
| ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:39 Bekele wrote: Thats like saying is it possible for everyone to be A rank on ICC It's possible lol | ||
|
KH1031
United States862 Posts
By ontological argument, it is not possible for all to be rich. | ||
|
shavingcream66
United States1219 Posts
| ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
| ||
|
renegade_zerg
Korea (South)525 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:47 meegrean wrote: I think everyone in Zimbabwe is a billionaire. AHAHAHA | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
While we can create as much currency as we want, they're only so much out there to buy. You'd just have a lot of people with a lot of money, but nothing to buy with it. | ||
|
sprawlers
Norway439 Posts
I mean 40/7 = 1 billion? | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
| ||
|
theonemephisto
United States409 Posts
Now just wait 100 or 200 years into the future. Assuming that technological innovation continues (and I have a lot of faith in the ability of the human mind), the poorest people from a century in the future will be looking down on Bill Gates and pitying him. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:55 KH1031 wrote: If everyone has the same amount of wealth, "richness" ceases to exist. By ontological argument, it is not possible for all to be rich. I disagree, it is possible to be rich. But only in comparison to a rich person NOW. Since wealth doesn't have to be defined in terms of money. A rich person can merely have alot of, for lack of a better term, stuff. Obviously, this can't be done by redistributing money, since money is only a representation of value of essentially finite ( and overall fairly small) amount of assets. However it is theoretically possible for everyone can have alot of stuff, if there is more stuff to go around. And there is much more than enough 'stuff' in the universe to make everyone rich by todays standards. This just means that to make everyone rich is more dependant on scientists, engineers, labourers etc and not economists. We need to access more of the universe's resources in a meaningful way in order for everyone to have more wealth in the absolute sense. Clearly no amount of playing around with economics is going to achieve this as economics does not produce anything, it merely redistributes and revalues. If however you define rich as being relative to everyone else, then no it's not possible for everyone to be rich, obviously not everyone can have more stuff than everyone else. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
On December 24 2008 10:13 theonemephisto wrote: Yes. I mean, if you look at it in historical terms, we are al incredibly rich right now in America. Compare the poorest American's life right now to the richest person's life 100 or 200 years ago, and you'll see that even the poorest American's have a quality of life that royalty from 200 years ago could only dream of. Even compared to American's 30 or 40 years ago, the bottom 10% of American's have as many or more microwaves, refrigerators, cars, TVs, and other technology than the average person from the past, not to mention new technology that previous generations could only dream of. Now just wait 100 or 200 years into the future. Assuming that technological innovation continues (and I have a lot of faith in the ability of the human mind), the poorest people from a century in the future will be looking down on Bill Gates and pitying him. I really disagree with your logic here. I saw on the evening news today that more Americans are on food stamps today than have been in 20 years, and it's not just America having problems with unemployment and meeting peoples' basic needs. Technology is not some magic cure-all. | ||
|
sqwert
United States781 Posts
| ||
|
shavingcream66
United States1219 Posts
On December 24 2008 10:24 Jonoman92 wrote: I really disagree with your logic here. I saw on the evening news today that more Americans are on food stamps today than have been in 20 years, and it's not just America having problems with unemployment and meeting peoples' basic needs. Technology is not some magic cure-all. you should also account for inflation. I read in a historical paper that the average american living in the 1700's ate higher quality foods at a greater amount compared to americans today. :\ | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
but see, if he distributed his money like that, that amount wouldn't be called rich anymore =D And surely something would happen to take up all ur extra money, or else we would most definitely not be at a Pareto optimal situation. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On December 24 2008 09:51 Supah wrote: Considering he mentionedI still cant understand how you managed to screw up that calculation so badly. I mean 40/7 = 1 billion? On December 24 2008 08:17 jjun212 wrote: I'm assuming his logic wasAnd he would still have 30+ Billion.. 40billion dollars - 7 billion people = 33 billion dollars left over. | ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 24 2008 11:23 Falcynn wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 24 2008 09:51 Supah wrote: Considering he mentionedI still cant understand how you managed to screw up that calculation so badly. I mean 40/7 = 1 billion? On December 24 2008 08:17 jjun212 wrote: I'm assuming his logic wasAnd he would still have 30+ Billion.. 40billion dollars - 7 billion people = 33 billion dollars left over. dollar minus people equals dollars... Looks like slave trade to me! | ||
|
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
On December 24 2008 10:24 sqwert wrote: does failblog accept pics from forums? They'd be overrun. btw LOOOLLLLL | ||
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
| ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
| ||
|
Ra.Xor.2
United States1784 Posts
| ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
|
Roxen000
1226 Posts
| ||
|
SayaSP
Laos5494 Posts
| ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
Paper has no practical value, goods do, so for someone to be rich he or she must posess a big amount fo high quality goods, but this is imposible because resources are simply limited, so even is somehow everyone was rich, that would have no meaning because not everybody would be able to turn that money into useful goods. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Kill the fucking rich is what I see fit. But w/e. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
XDawn
Canada4040 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:22 Shauni wrote: way to make yourself look like a complete retard lol | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
If by rich you mean some fixed standard of living, which I would define as the amount of leisure time you have while being physically healthy, then I believe that it would in fact be possible for all to be rich. | ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On December 24 2008 15:55 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: you know, you have to earn the money. Many people has worked hard for it. I think the OP's question is a very interesting philosophical question. I also think this statement is interesting as well. The assumption that you necessarily have to work hard to make a living, or even work at all. Just because (most) people have historically had to work to survive doesn't necessarily mean it will always be that way. In the future, laborious and time-consuming work may serve only to maintain social hierarchy to eliminate intellectual competition by those who have control. There are a lot of interesting scenarios. | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:32 Raithed wrote: LMAO. maybe if he gave out 1cent or something. That would actually be a dollar from what he's saying | ||
|
poilord
Germany3252 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:22 Shauni wrote: way to make yourself look like a complete retard lol and merry christmas :D | ||
|
Ilikestarcraft
Korea (South)17743 Posts
this belongs next to the blog with the guy in the cannibal corpse t shirt. | ||
KizZBG
u gotta skate8152 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
Elric
United Kingdom1327 Posts
Props to OP for not editing out the original post..hahaha :D | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
Itachii
Poland12466 Posts
| ||
|
uriel-
Singapore1867 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
kdog3683
United States916 Posts
On December 30 2008 18:40 CharlieMurphy wrote: rofl, I had to read the op like 3 times and I knew it was wrong somehow but then I finally understood. He's actually saying to give each person a dollar lol. I don't know who's dumber you or the op... Reasoning: The op thinks if Bill Gates distributes his wealth via 1billion per person, bill gates will still have 33billion and each of the 7mil people will have 1billion. He is not suggesting bill gates give each person 1 dollar. Even the Op knows that +1$ does not make a person potentially rich. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On December 30 2008 19:44 travis wrote: yes | ||
|
Elvin_vn
Vietnam2038 Posts
| ||
|
Person514cs
1004 Posts
On December 24 2008 10:13 theonemephisto wrote: Yes. I mean, if you look at it in historical terms, we are al incredibly rich right now in America. Compare the poorest American's life right now to the richest person's life 100 or 200 years ago, and you'll see that even the poorest American's have a quality of life that royalty from 200 years ago could only dream of. Even compared to American's 30 or 40 years ago, the bottom 10% of American's have as many or more microwaves, refrigerators, cars, TVs, and other technology than the average person from the past, not to mention new technology that previous generations could only dream of. Now just wait 100 or 200 years into the future. Assuming that technological innovation continues (and I have a lot of faith in the ability of the human mind), the poorest people from a century in the future will be looking down on Bill Gates and pitying him. Yeah, we are all born a bit early. I wish I was born in a time where technology can prevent aging. Seriouly, with fully controllable Nano technology, men can become immortals. And would only die at his own wish. | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Paralyze
Jaedong vs Speed
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Replay Cast
Escore
PiG Sty Festival
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
