if I understand you correctly, helllllll no.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
So in your analogy you would destroy over half the land of the US to make the country better?
End of conversation
-
-
-
I said no because of a general intuition that hurting one group doesn't inherently help another, so aside from decreasing an abstract idea of inequality this doesn't help anyone. I'm guessing that's true of most people voting No. That said, I'm not entirely sure that logic holds
-
e.g. presumably if the wealthy suddenly became less wealthy, rents would drop. This does help poor people. The full economic implications are way beyond me, but it seems plausible that this really does help in a world where a dollar's value is only relative to how many exist.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How is it accomplished? The devil is in the sausage.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Does the magic button artificially decrease the assessed value of assets held by the wealthy, or does it destroy the wealth in real terms? As in, is Amazon stock now worth much less, or are a bunch of warehouses gone?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you voted YES to this––what gains do you expect?
-
Voted "no", but expected gains for "yes" would probably be something like "increased social stability" (e.g. decreased crime rate etc.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Who's going to trust in commerce & investment if wealth can magically vanish? Great remedy for economic collapse. Tank.the global economy & ultimately erase upwards of a trillion $,all for a meager reduction in inequality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.