Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 0:41:45 GMT -5
Mr. Duncan Kelly, who teaches "Political Thought" at the University of Cambridge, has written in to remind us that "were the world's wealth proportionately divided among its population, every one would get an average wage of 760 euros per month.
That is what I have been saying all along. It is a good first step towards the complete elimination of "money". The distribution of these "euros" could be left to incorruptible robots.
It is logical is it not.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 12, 2014 1:58:17 GMT -5
Mr. Duncan Kelly, who teaches "Political Thought" at the University of Cambridge, has written in to remind us that "were the world's wealth proportionately divided among its population, every one would get an average wage of 760 euros per month. That is what I have been saying all along. It is a good first step towards the complete elimination of "money". The distribution of these "euros" could be left to incorruptible robots. It is logical is it not. Since you ask (albeit without the inclusion of a question mark), it is not. Not only will "the world's wealth" never be "proportionately divided among its population" (indeed it could not possibly be so with the best will in that world), it is also the case that, even were such a goal achievable, no one would in any event receive "760 euros per month" once the euro and other currencies had been abolished as you advocate by reference to "the complete elimination of "money"" which, were it to occur, would mean that no one - including robots corruptible and incorruptible (whatever, if anything at all, that might mean in practice) would have any euros to distribute. At the risk of arguing with Mr. Kelly, such equal distribution of "the world's wealth" would not generate a "wage" as such for anyone, a wage being something earned (and nothing's mentioned here about "work" or "earnings") and, in any case, by "the world's wealth" one presumes him to refer to asset values, tangible and otherwise (but not necessarily immediately disposable), as distinct from income (which has to be generated from non-tangible immediately disposable assets), yet his assertion appears to treat them as though somehow synonymous. Not much credit to either of you there, then, I'm afraid! |
|
