What would Earth be like if everyone were millionaires? (NOT VIA INFLATION)

[Rabby]

I have some of those Zimbabwe bills from way back

 

[Rabby]

How did everyone innovate without anyone to do the sheep jobs for them?

Robots...

 

[ChrisV]

How did everyone innovate without anyone to do the sheep jobs for them?

You can easily innovate so that the sheep jobs are no longer necessary. And those innovations will make you millions.

Example:

You can pay a vender to stand on the corner selling chips, soda and candy. Or you can invent a Vending Machine.

Another example: Mc Donald’s is now putting in digital ordering stations. It’s like a huge iPad where you pick out your meal. You plug in your order via the digital menu

Next Example: the printing press. Imagine if every book ever made had to be hand transcribed.

Manufacturing in general.

If everyone innovated on the level I’m talking about.. it would almost be like

Machines would do ALL our dirty work. I mean they already do a good 85% or our dirty work, or at least assist.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Within a short time (months?) everything would adjust, unless everyone was producing at the millionaire level. All this money is just a signal for value exchange. Ultimately, what do you want from the didgeridoo player sleeping it off behind a church in Cambridge, asking for money whenever he wakes up? Or the guy selling tiny palm-frond boxes on the elevated crosswalk over Thanon Ratchawithi? Tihe signal adjusts to the relative value on either side of the transaction.

But this is exactly what I mean. If everyone was producing at a millionaire level.

I mean if we just handed out money, the answer would be obvious: money becomes worthless.

 

[ChrisV]

I see that the title was changed to (not via inflation), but it would inflate prices anyway. Why? Because a new pricing equilibrium must be hit. Job people, a million bucks richer, won't be getting out of bed for a hundred bucks any more. Labor cost will go up. Prices will go upbecause people are willing to pay. Money will change hands and roughly fall into the same peoples hands it's in right now.

Constraints keep the machine running. They keep people showing up for work. A world of retired millionaires wouldn't have anything to buy with their millions because no one is selling anything.

So then why isn’t the price of gas higher in the US than it is in Zimbabwe?

And I didn’t say ‘retired millionaires’... whether or not their retired would make a huge difference though. Most people don’t retire when they become millionaires. Like MJ claims that he retired after Limos.com, but I’d argue he’s doing his most important and impactful work now. I’d argue that the work he’s doing now is adding far more value than ground transportation.

I think to understand the difference between this society and a society of millionaires, you’d have to look at the difference between a country that makes ~700/yr per capita (ethiopia) and a country that makes ~70K/yr per capita

post-719023 - What would Earth be like if everyone were millionaires? (NOT VIA INFLATION)

Assuming no one retired, I think it would be that difference, only on steroids.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

And yea, if everyone just became millionaires then just totally quit... yea it would be some crazy clusterfuck of chaos.

There is a really good introductory-type book on money, and I wish I could remember the name. Now it's buried by all the cryptocurrency books, and I gave my copy to someone. Anyway, it goes into the nature of money as a medium for exchange, and the difference between a store of value (which traditional moneys served as) and a pure currency, like modern fiat currencies. It's been a while since I read the book, but it clarified my thinking on money a lot.

Using fiat currency as a store of value is essentially a bad choice. My takeaway, even though it wasn't a book about assets, was that you really-really need assets that live and breathe currency (if you live in a fiat currency economy), because they will adjust to the value level of the currency.

Another thing about the gold standard that I picked up from economics books/lectures. I think I got the following from Thomas Sowell, who needs to be sainted regardless. The gold standard has its problems. The money supply can only expand at the rate that you can dig gold out of the ground, or move it from private holdings to vaults where the backing for money are stored. As a result, if other forms of trade expand rapidly while gold mining / pilfering do not, you get massive deflation. But the advantage of a backed currency is that it stops governments from issuing money to pay their debts (bonds, salaries, pensions, etc) with less valuable paper than the original debt covenant was based on. This is a very real risk, and not just a cyclic one. There is an incentive for politicians to "fix" money problems with quantitative easing and related strategies (also like Japan, at one time) and pass the buck down the line to the next generation of politicians (now worth 0.75 of a buck). The actual problems -- excessive spending, increased confiscation of wealth, etc, are not improved, but the appearance of a problem is temporarily covered up because the raw numbers look better.

Disclaimer, the above paragraph is not intended to be political. It is just a comment on the nature of money/currency, and an inherent danger to fiat currencies which are influenced by people whose office depends on short-term approval ratings.

Explain further.. I’m intrigued.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Rabby]

Side note: all sorts of things have been used as money. Stone wheels, cacao seeds, beads, shells, etc.

One reason for gold's value is, in all likelihood, chemical stability. It's fairly rare, easily workable and shine-able, which is nice. That gives it some inherent value. But its real feature is that it never tarnishes. You can store it, or wear it, for an entire lifetime without seeing a spot of oxidation or other reaction. So long as you keep it away from strong chlorides, which practically did not exist prior to modern times. Contrast that to iron, which just rusts.

Silver is another one with an interesting value. It is also easily workable, so you can make cups, bowls, etc. Impure silver like sterling will tarnish over time because the zinc or other metal acts as a catalyst for oxidation. This is why sterling silver has to be polished. But it takes a very long time to wear the silver away.

Pure .999 silver, on the other hand, does not tarnish in air. It may very, very slowly tarnish if touched by people. But the main thing that tarnishes it is sulfur compounds. Since a number of accidental and intentional poisoning methods were sulfur-based, this became a lifesaving feature. Add to that the mild anti-microbial nature of pure silver, and its low toxicity in humans (even if ingested or sewn into a wound), and you have a metal that seems miraculous. Why wouldn't it be valuable?

 

[ChrisV]

I dont know where we keep getting the idea that we’re talking about ‘retired’ millionaires. Where did that even come from? I’ve seen it in the thread like 3 times now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bryan James]

If everyone were millionaires, it wouldn't stop people from being greedy (especially governments) and from being stupid with their money and losing it right away. I think it would be how it is today but on a much grander scale. I like to look at that scenario more from a psychological perspective. Also, the subject of this concept is purely hypothetical, so my ultimate answer would have to be: I don't know. Interesting post though.

 

[ChrisV]

no prostitutes so it would suck.

Or super high-quality prostitutes who charge 32K per ‘date.’

But who needs prostitutes anyway. Guys are such suckers

Women love sex. Paying women to have sex is like paying them to eat chocolate. It makes no sense lol

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

It is not as if I am a offended. What I am is disinterested in reading things from you from this point forward.

All 4 of your posts now have been almost record setting level of useless.

you can block ppl on here and it mutes them

i thought that prostitute shit was drivel too

and i dunno how dude looks coming into an community calling their established members “snowflake” and taking about hookers.. not off to a good start


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Anandb]

Let's use the word "rich" instead of "millionare" because it'll distract people less from what you're essentially trying to say.
If everyone were "rich", or super-rich, humanity would be on the fast-track to Godhood (I mean immortality, superstrength, and hyper-intelligence, transhumanism, and the whole science fiction thigmajig).
I believe we still are, in a sense, if we don't become extinct first.

 

[ChrisV]

Its simple supply and demand... More money makes it less valuable. Just like more of anything makes it less valuable. There is still an intrinsic value to money despite fiat. It's the work people associate trading for it. Everyone is different, but the collective perceptions create the stability of the value of money.

It is impossible for everyone to have today's millionaire level buying power all at once on a macro "whole world" scale. Relativity is required to even measure. I suppose it could happen in a single country (maybe due to crazy natural resource exports or something). This is why my answer to the original question is that the buying power would simply erode. It's a known cause and effect relationship.

I already figured out the answer after posting this thread.

What you’re saying is what I thought at first, but I realized I was wrong. Supply and demand is more complex than that. Yes, if you just increased the amount of paper capital, that would happen.

What would happen would be that the quality of EVERYTHING would go up. Because in order for these people to become wealthy in the first place, they would have to produce higher quality stuff.

Building a Ferrari required roughly the same amount of metal and raw materials as a Civic. But by arranging those raw materials in a smarter way, it makes that same hunk of metal worth 390k vs 27k

But if the engineer who was building Civics now learned to build Ferraris. He can now sell them for 390k vs the 27k he was making. Now everyone would make similar quality shifts. Chefs start making higher quality meals, companies start making higher quality furniture.

So for everyone to become millionaires, they would have to stop producing ‘Civic” level work, and start producing “Ferrari” level work.

it’s like lowtek said... “What if everyone were living up to their potential."

Dubai’s current wealth has almost nothing to do with exports. What happened with Dubai was the prince realized ‘umm this oil isn’t going to last forever’ so he built up Dubai as a self-sustaining tourism and business hotspot so they would still have an income when the oil supply finally dried up. It wasn’t just them balling out on oil money.

Although Dubai's economy was initially built on revenues from the oil industry,[4] revenue from petroleum and natural gas currently account for less than 5% of the emirate's gross domestic product[5]. Dubai became important ports of call for Western manufacturers. Most of the new city's banking and financial centres were headquartered in the port area. Dubai maintained its importance as a trade route through the 1970s and 1980s. The city of Dubai has a free trade in gold and until the 1990s was the hub of a "brisk smuggling trade" of gold ingots to India, where gold import was restricted.
​

Economy of Dubai - Wikipedia

Dubai:


If you look at the history of Dubai it’s fascinating. The Sheikh got the worlds best architects and basically told them to go Apeshit. He’s a lot like these other billionaires. People would tell him “sir there’s no possible way we’re going to get enough sand to build entire islands that look like palm trees.. you’re being completely ridiculous”.... Sheikh: “just do it” ... "sir there’e no possible way this project can be done”.. Sheikh: “I want it done in 3 weeks” Engineers “ARE YOU SERIOUS, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE”.... anyway, 3 weeks later it was done.

He build value from nothing.

The world’s greatest architects went in there and build the projects they always dreamed of but couldn’t do anywhere else. Why? NYC had rules. Sheikh Mohammad was just like “Impossible? F*ck that... just draw something and we’ll figure it out.” The result is F*cking insanity. Underwater hotels, ski resorts in the middle of the dessert man-made islands the shape of palm trees that can be seen from space.

Again, they build value from nothing.

The same amount of raw materials can be used so build some useless trinket like a snow globe or it can be used to build an iPhone. The same amount of raw materials can be used to make a Brooklyn ghetto as is needed to build a lavish underwater hotel.

What you’re talking about is when you increase the supply of paper currency without increasing the supply of value of it represents. When you increase the amount of paper without increasing the value, you get just that... more paper lol. When you increase the actual value you get just that... a world with a shitton more value. It’s really simple. Create more paper = a world with more paper. Create more value = a world with more value. More convenience, more technology, better food.

The world has more ‘value’ in 2018 than it did in 307BC. There are roughly the same exact atoms on earth that there were 2500 years ago. Just people use them in smarter ways.

Snd this is why this discussion is important. It helps us understand the essence of money and trade, which is why i posted it. Not some fantasy question.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Really seems like you're moving the goal posts with that Dubai argument.

1) not everyone in Dubai is a millionaire
2) not everyone in Dubai is producing millionaire level work

Of course not everyone in Dubai are millionaires LOL, I already posted their average incomes. They may not be millionaires, but their per capita income is higher than that of the US. And the beautiful city they live in is the result. Or the cause, rather. Or a little of both.

Replace Dubai with any high income city. Paris. London. Osaka. San Jose.

Then compare it to low income areas. The Lower East Side, Southern LA (ie Compton,) anywhere in Alabama. They’re wastelands.

The difference is production.

The Sheikh forces a handful of creative people to come up with great ideas, and then uses slave labor (quite literally) to do the grunt work. I'm guessing you're not really aware of the visa abuses that go on in that country, otherwise you wouldn't have held it up as an example.

I saw a documentary on it and they spoke about the labor situation. I don’t remember much aside from the fact that there was a controversy over the treatment. I’n my previous post I wrote a line “I don’t want to keep the focus on Dubai specifically because it’s going to derail the thread.” and I deleted the sentence, which I shouldn’t have.

 

[ChrisV]

This whole argument also completely ignores the role of monetary creation. While thinking of money as value vouchers is a useful mental construct for getting into the entrepreneurial mindset, it's factually incorrect. They are literally debt vouchers.

One of the first things people (who are living up to their potential) do with a windfall is get rid of their debt. In this hypothetical, if every single person paid off their debt, there would be no money.

I mean I guess that’s one way to look at it. I just see it as reciprocity scorecard. People are compelled to repay favors and keep the giving/taking balance relatively equal. Like in friendships there’s always this mental sense of who’s giving and who is taking. If you’re taking too much, you start to feel guilty in that relationship (assuming you’re not a sociopath.) And if you’re giving too much, you start to feel taken advantage of. Reciprocity is something that evolved because it’s helpful to our species. I think MJ gave the example of the people in hell with 3 foot spoons. Reciprocity evolved as a method of ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine,’ because it’s hard for us to reach our own backs. Money is just a scorecard for our natural sense of reciprocity.

And yea, it ignores the question of monetary creation. Obviously everyone being millionaires wouldn’t even work out mathematically. There’s not enough US currency and if everyone were living up to their potential the goalposts of wealth start to move.

I mean we get that. That money is worth is based on how much is in the supply. It’s basic economics.

It’s a though experiment moreso than literally everyone having millions.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Its simple supply and demand... More money makes it less valuable. Just like more of anything makes it less valuable.

And this may be true, but I never ever ever ever ever said “let’s create more money.”

It’s really cut and dry, black and white. In a world where people are creating more value, you have just that... more value.

There’s really no debating that.

If I have to explain exactly what that means: it would be the difference between the world in 307BC vs 2018. It would be the difference between Kenya and Italy. It would be the difference between Monrovia and Paris. It would be the difference between any poorly educated area vs any highly educated area.

Sure relativity still exists, but comparison is only part of the puzzle. If relative wealth was the only thing that mattered, I might as well just go go retire in Monrovia, Liberia and be the richest person they’ve ever seen. Why don’t I do that? Because it’s objectively a shithole (imo.) The relativity doesn’t matter enough to outweigh the constant smell of goats

You might live in a neighborhood full of millionaires. The guy next door might have the S-Class Maybach edition while you only have the regular S-Class which costs half of the S-Class, but you are still objectively more comfortable than the richest guy in Monrovia. There are two factors, which are absolute wealth and relative wealth.

I mean again, it’s just really black and white... what would the world be like if people created more value? It would be a world with more value.

 

[masterneme]

Dubai has and is being built thanks to an army of thousands of slave workers from Pakistan, Afghanistan and India, take a look at the "Slaves of Dubai" documentary and open your eyes to the tragic reality of that place.

If everyone was a millionaire the situation would be the same as today for many reasons. One being that money wouldn't have the same value and another one is that the world would self-adjust very rapidly because those with no experince managing money and without self-discipline would spend it all in stupid crap and the money would go back again to the hands of those who produce and with good monetary skills.

It's not that we didn't read your post is simply that you can't just make everyone millionaires or rich without consequences.

In order to "ascend" humanity to a "godlike" Society, money is not the way, everyone needs to be transformed into a value provider and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Tommo]

Sigh, if I had a dollar for every time I heard or saw this argument, but..but Sweden...but but..Norway.

My father in law is a Norwegian citizen and his family has been there hundreds of years. The biggest difference between our countries, without getting too political, is cohesion. The majority of Norwegians like the current system and are willing to contribute to it. However, they still have wealthy people and they still have poor people, just like every country on earth.

So yes, I stand my statement which was incorrectly called a blanket statement that “redistribution creates a society where nobody produces” but is “redistribution creates a society where some people STILL produce more and some less”

Which speaks to the heart of the original question. The countries you’ve listed are the closest real world examples of everybody adding value and they still have many pitfalls because at the end of the day, every single person is different with different values and work ethics.

I wish I could express myself as you do Lowtek.
This post ChrisV, is a waste of time. Back to work Gentlemen and Ladies.
Oh wait a minute who would win a fight between Elon and Jeff?
Do not waste your writing talents Chrisv.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Do not waste your writing talents Chrisv.

It’s NOT a waste of time. It’s an important thought experiment. This was actually a major hurdle I had to overcome when dealing with the inner game aspects of wealth and it’s important to understand the dynamics. Why? Because if you take a zero sum view of wealth, you feel unconsciously that by getting wealthy, you are ‘taking’ from others. I personally sabotaged myself for a long time due to this. In others words, there is one pie, and you are taking from that pie. But the reality is that by building wealth, you are actually helping build up the world, making it better for others... which is why understanding what I wrote rather than thinking it would just water down the value of money is so important.

 

[Supercar]

OP, just look back 100 years and extrapolate 100 years forward. We are all millionaires compared to how people lived 100 years ago.

 

[Dan M.]

Edit again: Guys please read the post. We’re not talking about simply printing more money. I mean if the entire world did the things necessary to create wealth (ie creating value.)

This is always something I’ve wondered. There used to be a time that I wouldn’t help others gain an advantage financially because I thought if they were rich it would just dilute thee value of money that it would be as worthless as paper. Now, I don’t believe that at all. So what do I think the world would be like? Better. I think everyone would simply be adding more value. Cars would be better. Books would be better. Art would be better. And those people who created it would be rich, allowing them to purchase Homes/clothes/cuisine of the same improved quality.

Problems would be few becasue people would be coming up with ideas. Don’t know the best place to get chinese? There’s an app for that? Don’t know where to get a limo in another state? There’s an app for that. Maybe a website.

Obviously all the solutions wouldn’t be apps lol but i wanted to use the line.

So what do you guys think? How would the world change if everyone were millionaires?

Edit: Okay, apparently there a little confusion.. i don’t mean ‘if the government printed a bunch of money and just handed it out’... the answer to that would be obvious: money would become worthless. What I mean is if everyone created enough value to become millionaires the legit way.

As much as I'd loved that concept, it's impossible due to the nature of humanity. Everyone has different values and many don't see money as the means to an end.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Rabby]

@jon.M I meant to comment on that too. Sweden seems like a delightful country to me, and one I would like to visit. My mother grew up there during part of her school years. But the English language media seems to have redefined Sweden as a Marxist utopia that proves some theory of wealth redistribution.

My understanding is that the peak of its wealth redistribution efforts came in the 70's. One of the anecdotes from that time (1976) was that Astrid Lindgren, author of the Pippi Longstocking books, owed 102% of her income in taxes. This caused something of a scandal; after all, how can you pay more than 100% of what you make, and why would you produce anything in a system like that? So around that time the trend reversed and the country steered, at least in part, back toward its free market roots. Those roots had driven its impressive economic growth up through the 1950s, when it became one of the top 3 or 4 economies in the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this, as I'm not trying to be the expert on your country. I just think it's nice to have context, especially when you've been reading some of the media we get here.

A year or two ago I met Karin Svanborg-Sjövall of Timbro at an event where she spoke in Naples, Florida, US. My observation was that free markets have at least strong minority support in Sweden, and the country has reversed many of the redistribution programs that had set it back economically. There are still some oddities though - is it still the case that medicine is State controlled, and doctors have a lower income than dock workers? (Another anecdote, I know, but a surprising one.) Apparently that was the case not too long ago; which would make the decision to become a doctor a tough one -- go to university for 8 extra years and intern for several more, only to make less income than someone who didn't need to spend all those years learning their craft?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Chris, a lot of what you're saying in this post is factually incorrect. I live in Sweden. Rent is absolutely not free. I have no idea where you got that from. Don't know if you're trolling or lying but this statement is absurd. We pay rent out of our own pockets.

After some research, there seems to be a subsidy for people under 29 years of age or families with kids. But to qualify for that is rare and only happens if you're a low-income earner renting a ridiculously expensive apartment. And in that case, we're not talking about sums that nearly cover the rent.

Same goes for Denmark. Where did you get this information from?

I’m sorry, you’re correct. The subsidy was referring to Switzerland, and it was probably factually irresponsible to lump them all together in terms of policy. Or I should have structured my sentence differently. Where did I get it from.. i had a few friends who lived over there and that’s how I understood it. I forget the full details since it was a while ago and they were also on the younger side and were college aged at the time. I never really looked up the details fully so you could be correct.

Rent aside, the overall point still remains that those nations are more socialized than the US.

 

[WJK]

Also, I didn’t title this thread ‘what would the world be like if everyone lived up to their potential’ for a reason. I wanted to get people thinking about relative value and how much wealth is absolute and how much is relative. Relative wealth exists, but I would argue that the life of the average peasant on 2018 is almost better than that of royalty in 300AD.

It's much better than the royalty of old in the materialist sense. The real question is IF it is better spiritually and socially. I'd say no to that. We have a much larger database of information, and less human connections.

 

[ChrisV]

It's much better than the royalty of old in the materialist sense. The real question is IF it is better spiritually and socially. I'd say no to that. We have a much larger database of information, and less human connections.

All the research shows that yes, people are indeed getting happier as well.

 

[WJK]

All the research shows that yes, people are indeed getting happier as well.

I'm not so sure about that. It's all relative. I think the people I came from were more content than the people around me today... I'm not sure that people are getting "happier" -- just richer in goods and data.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

I'm not so sure about that. It's all relative. I think the people I came from were more content than the people around me today... I'm not sure that people are getting "happier" -- just richer in goods and data.

Happiness and Life Satisfaction

 

[ChrisV]

How it seems to work is: as life gets easier, people get happier. And as technology gets better, life gets easier.

Anecdotally it may seem as though people are less happy, and it’s a popular meme to say that they’re connecting less due to technology and their smartphones, but actually the data suggests that people just get happier and happier as quality of life increases.

I used to think the same thing, but I wanted to make sure that it was true and when I checked the data I found it wasn’t. People are indeed getting happier.

And it makes sense... more value = more wealth. more value = more happiness. So more wealth = more happiness. Also wealthier nations report greater life satisfaction.

 

[Maxboost]

How it seems to work is: as life gets easier, people get happier. And as technology gets better, life gets easier.

Anecdotally it may seem as though people are less happy, and it’s a popular meme to say that they’re connecting less due to technology and their smartphones, but actually the data suggests that people just get happier and happier as quality of life increases.

I used to think the same thing, but I wanted to make sure that it was true and when I checked the data I found it wasn’t. People are indeed getting happier.

And it makes sense... more value = more wealth. more value = more happiness. So more wealth = more happiness. Also wealthier nations report greater life satisfaction.

If people are soo happy why are they killing themselves? Every study is flawed in some ways and I don't believe for a second that more people are happy. These happiness studies can be deeply flawed including the ones I posted and there are so many variables that may affect someone's happiness during the study and the methodology used.

One study that can't be refuted is the increasing suicide rates and mental illness affecting society. These are objective findings that can't be refuted, in other words numbers don't lie. If more people are killing themselves we can assume that more people are miserable, depressed and unhappy.

Women unhappy

Suicide rates increasing

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

If people are soo happy why are they killing themselves?

Not sure, you would have to study it. It could very well be that the factors that are increasing happiness are rising and separately certain factors related to suicide are rising as well. Suicide generally has to do more with social isolation than depression (for instance areas with low population density have higher suicide rates, but rates of depression don’t particularly correlate)




vs Depression:



I wrote a post on that a while back: What population density can tell us about the importance of socializing.

Also, it’s not one study. There are a number of them. The one I cited used Gallup's World Poll, which is considered to be one of the most respected research firms, but I guess take it for what you will. The idea that happiness has been steadily increasing over time isn't really controversial, but I’d be happy to look at any data suggesting otherwise.