Quote from: Betwrong on Today at 09:12:06 AM

if you are saying that we should discover a way of equally distributing all the wealth among all people, no matter what, I disagree. From the economic point of view such a system would be bad for humanity because there would be no incentive to work.

it definitely should not be "no matter what". history shows that expropriation and equal redistribution is (as i mentioned before) a dead end. good example is soviet union. the evolution of human society chewed it up. as you said there were "no incentive to work", there were no point to do your job better if you get practically the same as your less enthusiastic colleague. the exemptions were "stahanovets" (people who do several day norms of production for one worker in one day). it is interesting that the motivation for this hard work was not of economical nature, but rather ideological. it was the first generation of people of a new country. they saw the life before the equality, the era of unjust capitalism of russian empire. but second generation didn't value it as much as they do not have anything to compare to. finally, the third generation was the one to collapse it and goes back to capitalism (we are not talking here about multitude of various factors that leads to collapse of ussr, but more in general, from people's point of view).

Quote from: Betwrong on Today at 09:12:06 AM

the world economy would collapse, and there would be no funds for developing vaccines, for example. So, imo, all people would suffer from such system, the rich and the poor.

"equally distributing all the wealth among all people" (as it was kind of stated in the original post) is not the goal itself and it never was. moreover it is not immutable presupposition. it is kind of one of the ways/mechanism (most likely utopian) to achieve harmony in society. so, let's reverse the logic: it is desired to have harmony in the society. how we can achieve it?
* definitely not through the unjust distribution of the resources through the capitalistic mechanism that leads to segregation and a widening abyss between rich and poor;
* definitely not through the unjust expropriation of wealth and equal redistribution;
so (being realistic) it has to be something in the middle, something that make the middle class dominating in the society. if the middle class makes even 80 percent of the whole world population it can be said there is peace and harmony on Earth. it is inevitable to have poor and rich (as we discussed in this topic before: most lazy people stay lazy and therefore poor no matter what motivation society would provide to them to be valued member of the society; same with rich: some people just have it in their blood. they just can't stay still. they are like bicycles, if they stop, they fall). but as long as 80 % (presumably) of world population more or less equally possessed 80% of wealth and resources (middle class society), the world should be ok.

kind of making accessible and possible for those who want to be part of the middle class society but can't due to various reasons get there (unequal access to education, job market, resources, medical care, governing bodies) have a chance.