What were positive consequences of equal distribution of wealth?
610235
-opportunity for new business (and small business)\n-creates culture for new creative ideas, inventions, services, etc\n-health care for those who would have gone w/o\n-better schools
1186657
Pro:Large profits for corporations\nCon:Sets a lower pay standards throughout the world. \nTakes middle paying jobs.\nLeaves us with low paying service jobs.\nWrong Pro: I`ll stuff will be cheaper. Maybe we should have the wages to pay for the US made stuff and turn these billionaires into millionaires again.
208180
no!welcome to the real world,communism is just a theorie..the countries they had communism suffered from hunger and luck of opportunities..their goverments tried to manipulate the people and the ''big heads''were sharing all the wealth while the others had almost nothing.as long as money exists nothing can be shared equal in this world.
578594
depends on if you ask an economist or a sociologist.\n\nthe sociologist will probably say it is bad.\n\nThe economist will probably say it is a good thing.
1138124
:equation when thing equally=0 \nEx:the proportion of negative=positive advantage & disadvantage copensated in its own value of property.anymore question??
162870
positive:\n1)  boost economy\n2) increase technology\n3)  creates a foundation for the future\n\nnegative:\n1) increase chance in corruption/ scandal\n2)  increase chance to lose their roots and values\n3)  the transition from agriculture to markets will cause problems since is difficult, but can be accomplished through time
351669
A trade imbalance does not necessarily imply that there will be a negative effect on a country running either a trade deficit or a trade surplus, as there can be other factors within a nation's economy that allow that trade deficit (or surplus) to be beneficial.  The consequences of that trade imbalance may also be a short term benefit, but with adverse long term consequences.\n\nTaking the US economy as an example, it has been running a trade deficit for many years, as well as a budget deficit, yet it has enjoyed, in the near term, productivity growth, a strong employment market, high consumer confidence, and with the recent exception of gasoline, fairly low consumer prices.  While long term consequences, such as adverse effects from foreign purchasing of US debt, as well as the long term growth of the national debt causing problems in the future, in the short term, the trade deficit has overall  contributed to our economic well being.
380596
Someone else is asking pretty much the same question.  As I replied on the other question, the biggest indicator of what ones economic status will be during their lifetime is to simply look at the economic status of their parents/grandparents.  The majority of the wealthy had a head start due to better education and other opportunities and then simply built upon the vast assets they inherited.  My solution (I know it sounds like communism) was to seize everybodys personal assets when the pass away and redistribute them to pay for the deficit, healthcare, taxes, and better school districts/educational opportunities for everyone.  This would certainly even the playing field and provide for an incentive to compete (which is the basis of capitalism isn't it?).  The capitalist system wouldn't suffer because everyone would still be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor during their lifetime and may actually be enhanced by the the fact that the best/brightest/most ambitious would continually be the ones that prosper each generation.
969719
None.  The consequences and reactions out number any possible benefit.
925742
Income yes except for those that make poverty wages; wealth no, that would be like taxing someones income twice.
311974
Economic inequality refers to disparities in the distribution of economic assets and income. The term typically refers to inequality among individuals and groups within a nation or inequality among nations.
1105044
That is not necessarily true. If you see how the Chinese society now, you'd see for yourself that now have social classes. There are those who are so rich that they even get listed on Forbes.com. Your properties will not get divided and spread across the society. It does not work that way now. I believe what is necessary is that you declare the investments that you'd make here and just make sure that you pay adequate taxes for them.
352178
The negative effect is that no country can produce everything it needs due to lack of natural resources. So, the standard of living will not be as great. Fewer things to buy and enjoy.
873962
Well ok to answer your precise question, the most good would have to be in the areas of eliminating corruption and the progression of women... women gained the right to vote during this period.\n\nNow with that said, I have some arguments with the progressive era that I won't spend 4 hours writing about but suffice to say, I am of the opinion, some of the progressive movements changes caused the Great Depression less than 10 years later.
1164584
No.\n\nI am economically better off than a drug addict or a person who chooses to live off of welfare and never find a job. I am better off than the guy on the street corner in my town who wears a helmet and the same clothes all year long who talks to himself and sleeps on benches. I work harder than all of these people, and creating "economic equality" would mean ignoring the fact that certain people work harder than others, and taking from those who work and give it to those who haven't earned it.\n\nWhat economic equality is: Communism, also known as the death of liberty and freedom. No matter how well you do, you can never get ahead. There is no incentive to work, or work harder. In order to keep the state from collapsing entirely, the government must then force people to work at gunpoint. See: China, Cuba, every communist nation.\n\nYou work hard all year, get overtime, skip vacations, and do excellent work all year, show up on time, and are available if someone calls in to work.\n\nYour friend does none of those things, and skips work, gambles away his money, and comes to work drunk.\n\nAt the end of the year, in a communist nation, you are worth the same amount of money. This is called injustice, because treating a criminal the same as a law abider, treating a hard worker the same as a slacker, treating good the same as bad, is called economic equality.\n\nEquality is a misnomer. You do not get equal treatment in a system where your actions have no consequence. Preferential treatment is given to those who do not work, because wealth is diverted from the hard worker to the slacker, and this is an injustice. Attempting to make the world completely equal would mean getting rid of whites and blacks, because everyone has to be the same. Getting rid of men and women, or sterilizing them, so that they are the same. Getting rid of the young and the old, because they are not the same. Becomming colorblind, so that everything looks the same. Treating criminals the same as law abiders, in order to create equality.\n\nInequality is equality. If I do more work than you, that is an unequal situation. Therefore, I should get an unequal amount of wealth for my effort. Likewise, if you work less or do a shitty job, you should get an unequal amount of money for your work.\n\nTherefore, everyone is treated the same: You do work, you get money proportionate to your job. You don't, then you don't. That is called true equality.\n\nCommunism is subjective equality. You are "equal" in terms of wealth, but the reward for your action is inconsistent, and entirely unequal to your effort or quality.\n\nEnd of story: Communism will never work, it will only create injustice, because it is injustice by definition.
960967
No private property. The government owns everything. \nNo social classes- all people make similar incomes\nFree healthcare and education provided by the government
809621
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."   - Winston Churchill