Sometimes I stumble upon some discussions which reminds that some things might not be so evident after all. When it comes to issues of wealth people seem to get caught up in the myths and narrative of their culture — not reality. Part of the reason is lack of financial literacy, which is completely alien to schools. The other part is the nonsensical infestation of postmodernism that seems to pollute everything it touches. If one does not learn basic economic by themselves, for themselves, then they are doomed to get caught up in the marxist bullshit their government has supplied for them.

We could theoretically distribute 1 million dollars to everyone. In the same respect we could theoretically raise the minimum wage to 1 million dollars as well. The point is that this act would cause the entire system to collapse. Part of the reason the FIAT system is fucked up is exactly because a random central authority decides to print paper and flood the market with what is essential more debt. If we give everyone 1 dollar is the same as giving everyone 1 million dollars because at the end of the day relative value eliminates the buying power from each individual. An item in the store will end up having (more or less) the exact same value whether everyone is given magically 1 dollar or 1 trillion dollars. The magic word here is "inflation".

We could start playing with the average distribution of wealth but that would not take us anywhere. There is a large range of averages per country and from person to person. There are billionaires and there are people with a zero on their name. There are countries with ~200K net worth on average and others down to ~1K. If everyone was given 1 million then money would get devalued severely. There would be more or less an inflation of 50% or more to everything. (The average is a rough estimate considering the gross average net worth of ~$20.000 per human if we distributed equally all the money in the world).

The poorest zero balance folks that will receive the money would see their net worth increase not by 1 million but by ~20k while the richest that already have more than 1 million will also experience a 50% decrease due to the inflation. Whether we gave everyone 1 dollar or 1 million dollars the transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor doesn't change much since the average net worth would not change almost at all.

The value of things is determined by supply and therefore scarcity. Not everyone can be a millionaire for the long run because if everyone had a million dollars all the time, then being a millionaire would be pointless. The number we give to distribution is not the issue. This is also a mistake many motivational books do. They say that "Everyone can do it". "Anyone can become a millionaire". This is clearly marketing bullshit since for one to be "millionaire tier" most have to have much less for that million to worth really a million. It is mathematically impossible for everyone to be below or above average.

"But, but what about muh Zero Sum Fallacy?"

The zero sum fallacy implies that for one to become rich another has to be poor. This is obviously false because wealth is not fixed hence the fallacy. People who complain that immigrants take their jobs are committing the zero sum fallacy since they believe that there is an X amount of jobs to be distributed and that economies do not grow. What we are talking above though is not a zero sum fallacy.

Even if everyone in theory can gain more and more money, the cost of living will also increase. You can hold a million pesos in Venezuela (much like everyone else) but it won't buy you almost anything. Your millions would be irrelevant. In the same respect, everyone could see 1 million dollars added in their balance sheet in the U.S but the cost of living would end up being like the one in Venezuela.

This is exactly why communism failed. When everyone is treated the same based on the same value then everything is pointless. For an economic activity to flourish major dynamics have to be in place. This is why a car is worth so much more than sliced bread. If the supplier of car parts, the farmer and everyone else they interact with had the same capital then they would have to resort to bartering. One loaf of bread for one car. Money was created to resolve this massive difference in value — hence why not everyone can have the same amount of capital.

People who support this form of free redistribution of wealth commit the same economic fallacy. It is much like playing chess without being able to see 2 or 3 moves into the future. How long do you think it will take until 1% controls everything again? Why do you think a capitalistic tendency prevails in all economic models (even before feudalism)? How do you think the prices of products would be evaluated if everyone was a millionaire in their given currency?

These are easy questions that (hopefully) everyone can digest. I would take the argument even further and say that even satisfying basic needs doesn't cut it anymore for the simple reason that humans evaluate themselves by comparing to others. This is only the rich can understand but the poor can rarely grasp. This is also why the Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is bullshit for our times. With every era and every group there is a new pyramid being created because everyone ends up satisfying most of the "needs" on the basis of the pyramid. This is why you don't see breathing at the very bottom unless you live in an environment where oxygen is not for granted.

People can have food, water, health and shelter covered but still be miserable if they start comparing to someone who lives much more luxurious. If in doubt check the influx of economic immigrants flooding the western world. They want a piece of the larger pie as well even if they are doing "good" — even if most middle eastern and african cultures have traditionally strong family bonds — which according to many romantics, family is what is more important. Over 80% are males, leaving their families for a better future. Again. Money talks. Romantics can argue with reality but they cannot argue with the consequences of reality.

In much the same way, people who live in luxury compare themselves with those that are even richer. Some pieces of research suggest that there is a threshold in happiness in respect to wealth. I am not going to delve on this further because I believe happiness is much of a meme much like religion. A false hope. A carrot in front of the donkey. We all compare to each other. This is how the meme of happiness is created. I hear people say "I only need my family, friends and health" to be happy. Clearly this is bullshit since most people have all 3 most of the time and they are still miserable. What most people are afraid to say is "I am secure in my position and I will avoid comparing myself to others because it will make me said". Having a kid is much an accomplishment as having a fart. It is a default biological function and not something that will make you proud or happy unless you are really obsessed with your own DNA for some reason.

Life is not about balance or averages. Life is about extremes. Even life itself exists as defiance against all cosmological laws. Every single element on the periodic table is different, hence why existence of all around you becomes possible. Some elements are abundant, acting much like millionaires, being invested in every single thing around you. Some do not have any use and remain isolated. Not all elements can be averaged and have an equal amount of protons and electrons because they will stop being who they are. We are part of nature and that periodic table of elements. Our economic endeavours are determined from the laws of nature. Sure, add one proton to each element of the periodic table. Watch what happens.

P.S. (I will give 5SD to the first person that analyzes this ^ possibility on the periodic table of elements)