The total net worth in this country is $87 trillion. That's $370,000 for every adult if we give everyone an equal share...

>jubilee in the old testament

Stop spouting shit, the Jubelee was about resetting debts and freeing slaves not forcibly redistributing wealth.

>muh democracy
So, if 51% of people vote to take the other 49%'s percent stuff its alright.

Man, this lefties cant get more retarded trying to get the moral highground

it's not just about fairness, it's about re-invigorating the economy. There are lots of rich people just sitting on cash and not spending it. At the same time, there are lots of poor people wanting to buy something but they have no money. This would solve both problems and create massive demand and a boom not seen since the 1800s.

solving one problem is better than solving zero.

we have to start somewhere.

Net worth is not a giant pile of money you idiot, it can't be distributed that easily.
Second off, you are basically advocating theft.

it is not tyranny it would be the will of the immense majority through a democratic referendum

>I WANT PAPA'S MONEY WEEEEEE WEEEE

What is fairness? How do you define it?

Will of the majority does not mean it is not tyranny. Anyway, the majority will never support ir though.

It is tyranny because it has no basis on tradition.

You know what would be better?
Why not start now?

I PROPOSE OP KILL HIMSELF AND ALL HIS BELONGINGS BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG US

THOSE IN FAVOR REPLY

No problem with that.

Why even work if not to pass it to your children?

I agree

$370,000 isn't even enough to retire to a middle-class life. It's 10 years of $37k poverty

generally speaking, people starting at the same place in a race is fairer than one person having a 50 yard head start.

that's one important aspect of fairness, though i am not a philosopher.

what is your definition, i am genuinely curious

Of course I agree, a filthy world rank 1% as OP cant be allowed to have more than I do.

I can get behind this. If we're the majority it's not wrong.

>I don't understand these figures or basic economics

seconded

yes, it would mean that fatcats would have to get a real job like the rest of us instead of sitting in their elite offices doing nothing

of course, the other aspect of society would continue so old folks would still have social security and medicare, etc.

ALOHA KEKBAR GOTT MIT UNS

I get op's vote so here's another one. Surely the majority doesn't have any problems with this.

I don't know what fairness is.

Why would it be unfair for a person to have a 50 yard headstart? What if he needed it?

targeting one rich person while ignoring another is the definition of a lynch mob.

i want all rich people to contribute equally and if they did i would be more than happy to hand over my possession.

Suppose your body is worth 87 Trillion. By your logic, we should dissect you and distribute you to every citizen. Everyone would then have $370k.

Would that be right? No. No one in their right mind would say that's ok. Yet, what you propose is the same thing.

You want to forcibly take wealth from those who have it and distribute it to those less fortunate.

You, the dumb fucks, are the reason why there is so much injustice in our world right now.

I agree

Because nobody finishes the race. You only get as far as you can.

But the lynch mob is the majority, and the majority getting it's way isn't tyrannical.

Thank you for your vote, I didnt knew you could be so progresive!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Your money will be well spent on booze, cocaine, coffee and whores!

>People who get paid more than me don't have real jobs, they don't deserve to succeed
Get back to your shift, McShitposter

If everyone had the same money, no one would have any money.

you are right, it is not tyrannical. But just my money alone will not give every person 370K. Thus, there would be no massive increase in the vibrancy of the economy. There would be not major increase in aggregate demand.

Fuck no. I'm not doing all this shit to get an engineering degree just so I can have what everyone else does.

Besides, some retards would instantly go off and spend it all on watches and chains.

> You only get as far as you can.

Says who?

>Besides, some retards would instantly go off and spend it all on watches and chains.
Fine, that happens even in today's society. Under my plan, these people and their kids would be broke for 49 years. But not for eternity, like today's system.

Well then we can just kill and take from all the cucks like you, that'll be enough.

Bill gates didn't start with ten million you fucktard, he ended with it. You don't want everyone to be equal at the start, you want it at the end

Aye

>make an incredible investment
>Oh shit it's the money purge tomorrow today
>Lose everything I worked for
Good system.

i guess i am not driven by hate like you. I am driven by making the whole economy better off through increased demand. This will result in higher birthrates, higher marriage rates, etc.

You're just mad at me for even questioning full capitalism.

>Everyone now has $370,000 dollars
>Government says, "Alright guys, free market again LOL"
>Within a few years all the retards have been fleeced of their money, died of cocaine overdose, or whatever
>Even legitimate voluntary transactions have winners and losers, so that by the end of OP's 50 years we're either back where we started or even worse
>"lol time to try again" says the state

Now tell me,
1. What incentive does ANYONE have to work hard when you know that in 50 years you will be exactly as wealthy as everyone else? Yeah, you might have had a better life, or you might die before then, but between you and your children there will never, ever be a net gain. Why try?
2. Why should everyone be compensated the same amount? You're effectively saying the garbage man should be paid as much as the President. If your stupid reset happened every year it would obviously be ridiculous, so why is every 50 years okay?
3. What about corporations? How can legal entities even exist and provide the necessary functions they do (eg. displacement of shareholder liability) if they get blanked every 50 years?
4. What justifies the state saying "fuck you everyone, I'm taking all of your shit LOL" every 50 years? Because the net worth of the USA isn't just $$$, it's land, manufacturing, etc. To reset it you'd need to redistribute everything. Fuck, you'd probably waste half of it on paperwork trying to figure out what the fuck just happened. Talk about lost potential.

Last question, how is grade 12 and why are you shitposting so hard?

If I was an american, hell no.
Wanting to split up the money from hardworking people to retarded welfare whores that refuses to get a job? Come on now.

Here is your problem. The income of the U.S could be distributed equally, but it wouldn't change anything. It's just changing the number of a person's bank account.

Money only has value, because people perceive it to have value.

>There are lots of rich people just sitting on cash and not spending it.
id rather they not spend it than give it to poorfags who spend it BADLY.

it would take 1-2 years for all the poorfags to spend the 370,000 you give them and the richfags have it again.

>i guess i am not driven by hate
Wah wahh wahh, get ready for the purge.

>I WANT YOUR DADS MONEY WEEE

How about we just kill you and redistribute your wealth to the rest of us?

Saged.

kek.

I chose 50 years as the timeline because it provides enough incentive to work hard but it also guards against hoarding, which strangles the economy.

I also have some historical basis for choosing this timeframe because this was used in ancient israel and mesopotamia. If you have a better timeframe in mind, i am open to being persuaded.

I agree.

>but it also guards against hoarding, which strangles the economy.
is poor people being smart with their money and saving it bad?

how fucking stupid are you?

Being successful is not, greed is. Success is a vague term which can be measured by an infinite number of ways. Greed is pretty clear cut.

>gave perfect fp /thread response
>see that you retards bumped it anyway
This is why your right wing nationalist white supremacy movement is doa. You're all idiots. Saged.

Day two problem:What do you do when 13% of the population spends their share and gold chains and rims then have nothing to eat?

>Don't you think this is the fair thing to do?

no

Why don't try to build a functioning country instead of shitposting ?

I agree, that's why I'm a free market capitalist. Regulations, taxation and money printing only hurt the poor by preventing them from competing against the big dogs.

Lets do this.

Some people are born pretty, others ugly. Some people are born tall, others short. Some healthy, others not.

Boohoo. Life isn't fair, cry me a fucking river. Just make the best of what you were given, don't try to drag others down to your level. You people really need to grow the fuck up and just be happy with what you have. Envy is such an ugly emotion.

Will do once I get my resources from you.

>$87 trillion divided by 335 million people = $259,701.50 per person

Your math is fucking stupid, OP, just like you are.

if you think the money would go right back to the rich people, then this plan would hardly even be noticeable and the rich have nothing to worry about

And what do you think niggers would do with that money? Buy a house? A decent car? Start a business?
No.
They would buy a $500 cutlass put $10000 rims on it, a $30000 system in it. The rest would be blown on Jordans or LeBrons. The white man would have it all back in 12-18 months.

>I chose 50 years as the timeline because it provides enough incentive to work hard

No, it doesn't. I work for my children. I make six figures per year because that is helping my children to have a better life than I did, since I grew up in poverty (eg. parents went bankrupt and got evicted multiple times, lived in the "poor minorities" part of town until I was 5, and all of that fun shit). If it made no difference at all, I would honestly just smoke weed erry day or be an alcoholic or some shit and maybe work as a tour guide in a museum or something like that. This would be the thought process of many people.

Also consider that you wouldn't actually be helping any perma-poorfags for the following reasons
>smart poorfags stop being poor (eg. my parents eventually made it into the upper end of working class/lower end of middle class)
>stupid poorfags will always be poor and would just buy crack
>most homeless are mentally ill anyway
>nobody would be helped by this, at all
>also it would probably hurt a lot of the really dumb poorfags more than helping them; like when you send aid to Africa and they buy guns and use them to oppress their citizens

>If you have a better timeframe in mind, i am open to being persuaded.

Yes, never.

>Hurr why dont u guys /thread me I want 2 b cool SAGE

Bumping this absolute travesty of a thread just 4 u

Fuck you, you don't deserve to be an American.

Why would anyone try to do anything if they know the wealth they accumulated would just be taken from them?

i said every adult not every person you genius

lol no fuck off i like being rich

you're not getting my shekels

>OP just ignores certain arguments

The obvious answer is if you give an authority enough power to strip mine and redistribute wealth in that manner, you're going to get a raging tyranny, not some fairy tale commie utopia. The reason we have the inequality we see today is due to government power and the protection of artificial monopoly through special interests support and regulation, and a commie hippie utopia is always dangled like ballsack and sold to googles and women, since enfranchisement and the beginning of our decline, resulting in a centralized police power that essentially works for a child raping psychopathic corporate cabal, with a fake democratic mask of legitimacy, and ending in wealth inequality, goat masks and the ritual sacrifice of children, and other market distortions.

His math is right

He's still a moron, though

still not true you retard.

it would create an incredibly inefficiency as millions of gold rims are made to try and take the poorfags money.

you literally rape our natural resources the moment this happens because of horrible spending habits by poorfags.

I'm in

why do you believe you can steal money from the rich and give it to the poor people? how is this in any way fair?

i say this as a relatively poor person

How would the fat cats get a "real" job if there weren't any fat cats providing jobs?

Does this example make sense?
>ExxonMobil is stripped of some of its assets.
> Assets are sold and the revenue is redistributed across the nation
>EM's loss of assets causes it to shut down (or reduce budgets) some of its locations world wide, creating job cuts and even more asset loss.
> Lukoil BP, Petrobas and Petronas are now more competitive with EM in international markets.

All wealth ultimately comes from two sources: nature and labor. When a factory owner has made $1 billion selling plastic chairs, you have to understand that the plastic comes from mother earth and the plastic was shaped by workers. By workers i mean everyone who works at the factory, every delivery driver, everyone who made the roads, everyone who works at the power plant that provides electricity to the factory, and so on. So we see that all wealth is actually a social product created by society as a whole but monopolized by the factory owner in the form of private capital.

All wealth comes from nature or labor. Since mother earth doesn't have a personality, it is fair to divide the wealth among the laborers of a society: all adults. Keep in mind that i understand that owners do some work and so they too would get $370K under this plan.

Marxist ethics.

Some people deserve more than others

Actually, leafman is right. Most of that wealth is in value of goods, land, equipment, etc. How do you split a Boeing 777 or an aircraft carrier? Who gets to control the nuclear power plant or the oil refinery? Do you even know the cost of ONE mask used in CPU manufacturing? That's just one piece used in a massive manufacturing effort. How do you distribute that? Harvard is private property. Who gets to control it? And finally, the biggest mistake you've made: the assumption of rational actors. If someone who is a crazy Greenpeace hippie inherits a refinery, that's resources and wealth destroyed. If an antivaxxer inherits a pharmaceutical company, that's less medicine for the rest of us.

It's of little importance anyways.

We'll see 50% unemployment in our lifetimes due to automation. Which is a good milestone for human progress as a species but will be a disaster because economics has become a religion.

by the way, this is not even radical stuff even John locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith believed in the labor theory of value.

don't fall for the "Job creators" meme

What is your view on property rights?

Fucking retarded.

Giving everyone an equal share of everything would be a logistical nightmare, if you do money only then you'd see it relocate to the same places within a few months because people are poor or rich for a reason

Sorry, I didn't know the executives at Ford didn't create jobs. I won't use that meme again. Please forgive me for making a sound economic argument. I shouldn't have bought into the meme.

That is just completely retarded
Wealth comes from investment solely, not labor.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe a person making 15$ an hour will get wealthy compared to the person who compounds 15% a year?

Stop being so delusional please, people wont drink the commie coolaid this time.

I still advocate

property rights have never been absolute and never will. i am simply proposing altering property rights, not abolishing them. i think property rights should have an expiration date.

The old common law of england had some of these aspects. Adverse possession doctrine in modern law is one leftover of this.

btw labor theory of value is proven bullshit.

Here's a thought, what if I kill everyone in favor of this idea, reducing the number of people I need to share with?

I love it when commies get a taste of their own medicine.

Made it to the 3rd sentence.

2/10 made me reply

who had the bright idea to give Kate a arm beacelet that shows off her arm fat? someome should fire their costume directer.

says who, some koch-brothers funded academic?

i'll take John Locke over the koch brothers thank you very much.

They would riot because they ain't gittin dem rims cuz da big man up top lost his cash and quit.

guess you could always try :-)

just remember how it ended for mussolini and hitler

Based Colombian has first-hand knowledge of what shitcucks commies are.

Sorry that they just gave the FARC a free pass :(

They often do. They're only useful idiots until they lose their usefulness.

Carl Menger.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger

That's not how economics works.

If everyone is given the same grade in school no matter what no one will bother to study.

You are truly stupid...

Voting Hillary, undoubtedly...

Better hope she doesn't get elected; you're fucked then

A shame, hopefully we wont go full Marx in the coming decades.
We can always look at the shithole Venezuela turned after they implemented OP's proposal.

There are tens of millions of gun owners in this country. If even just ten percent decide they don't want to play along, you're looking at 8 million people shooting back.

And for the record, Hitler and Mussolini got wrecked because they tried to take land from other nations forcibly, like what you're suggesting here.

>Punish the rich for being rich
>They leave for countries that don't punish them and take their investments with them.
GG

>How do you split a Boeing 777?
the same as today dumb dumb through stocks and other instruments on that Boeing that are given equally to the people.

What exactly is your "fair share" of something someone else earned?

Pro tip: it's zero

Ok. Here's another question. What is the point of having money in a socialistic society if all needs will be met somehow?

Realistically will people have the choice of pursuing their interest?

If so, you might have a shortage of doctors, engineers, scientist, janitors, plumbers, artists, movie actors, musicians, etc.

How do you handle that problem? Would the government decide the career path of an individual?

Just got back from the grocery store got milk, bread and eggs was $1258

Gas $120 a gallon

Seeing a meme you made from 2016

>Priceless

listen man i'm not going to read guy's complete works just because i see his name on an anime board.

if you have a quote from his books or can describe one of his ideas, i am all ears.

you probably don't though because you've never read Carl Menger

not voting hillary actually. I liked trump when he was in favor of universal healthcare and increasing taxes on the rich.

Sadly, it is now clear that he is a bitch of the republican party and is no different than Paul Ryan or Romney.

The thing about money is: it's only worth something if people don't have it.

Venezuela always had private billionaires, they never redistributed all or even a majority of private property.

You can't read a simple wikipedia article? No wonder you can't make a sound economic argument.

So you dislike Hitler and Mussolini?

I mean not disliking them because they lost but actually disliking them.

Except not all private property is owned by a publicly traded corporation. Not all property is even tangible, such as the rights to music and literature. How do you distribute that? What happens when two people who own a share in the same object disagree in how it's monetized? What happens when I get a share of your house, then decide to tear it down and throw it away to get back at you for being a tool for supporting this bullshit? Who can afford to purchase shares when there's no rich fuck to invest in them? And again, what happens when a Greenpeace hippie gets control of a piece of manufacturing and decides to destroy it? What happens when the value of that stock immediately changes as a result of you deciding the physical object could be abstracted as stocks?

You're simply a retard.

>Don't you think this is the fair thing to do?
No. You are a Communist.

under my simple proposal, i am not actually asking for socialism. I am just asking for capitalism with time-outs and restarts.

It's much more practical and has none of the downsides you mention.

They only redistributed SOMETHING and look how they are.
youtube.com/watch?v=jOjvJAfIMSI

So the only response you have is a non sequitur. Figures.

>theft
>bribery
KILL YOURSELF OP.

so you admit you have never read Carl Menger, the guy YOU posted

Heil

Aye.

That's not at all what he said, dumbass.

>net worth = liquid assets

No. He is in many economics textbooks because he solved the water-diamond paradox. He said that value is determined by the importance a person places on a good for the achievement of his desired ends.

>take huge sums of money from every american with over $370,000 in assets
>they all migrate to better countries without such ridiculous taxation

>give $370,000 to poor/stupid people (about 50% of the population)
>they blow it all on drugs, booze, lottery tickets, expensive electronic widgets, overpriced vehicles and clothes, high-class hookers, etc.
>within 2 months they are broke and back on welfare

congratulations, you now have a country where 95%+ of the population is dirt poor, ghetto-nigger tier dumb, and dependent on welfare. if that's what you were going for, great job.

I just wanted to tell you how obvious it is to everyone that you're an idiot. Everyone reading your posts is either laughing or face palming.

I just need to make sure you're aware of how stupid you are

I actually agree with you OP.

Capitalism is arguably the best system we have available to us, but it isn't without its flaws. Namely, after a certain amount of time it invariably leans towards severe wealth accumulation for the top earners.

This, in and of itself isn't necessarily negative, since it's arguably what drives people to work hard in the first place. But it's far from ideal, in the sense that after the wealth becomes more and more condensed in the upper echelons of society, you typically seem to see that capitalism itself starts falling apart.

After a few generations of wealth accumulation, the idea of "working hard, and getting a good job" is no longer enough to make it ahead, and you get generations of apathetic shut-ins who do the bare minimum to survive, since working hard doesn't offer many more benefits than just simply existing.

The toughest part about this issue seems to be that you can't simply redistribute wealth from the upper-class to the lower class. Or else you give the impression of communism, and shatter the idea of complete communism.

holy shit

is this a result of american public education?

Nope. $37k is shit.

>Steal money from people who rightfully possess it
>fair
Strange definition of fairness

>How is it fair that Bill Gates kid starts with ten billion
You're fucking retarded OP, as expected.
washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-the-very-rich-arent-giving-much-of-their-fortunes-to-their-kids/2014/08/10/4a9551b4-1ccc-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html

>Except not all private property is owned by a publicly traded corporation.
the property would be redistributed in whichever form it is in

>Not all property is even tangible, such as the rights to music and literature. How do you distribute that?
you distribute the copyrights

>What happens when two people who own a share in the same object disagree in how it's monetized?
they go to court, just like today

>What happens when I get a share of your house, then decide to tear it down and throw it away to get back at you for being a tool for supporting this bullshit?
you've destroyed your own property and are now broke for the next 49 years

Who can afford to purchase shares when there's no rich fuck to invest in them?
What? everyone would be moderately wealth as opposed to the extremes today but the total wealth of society does not change and so there would be enough to invest

And again, what happens when a Greenpeace hippie gets control of a piece of manufacturing and decides to destroy it?
Same as a rich fuck today using 10000 acres for a garden instead of growing crops. people can use their property how they like, are you against PRIVATE PROPERTY, our lord and saviour?

What happens when the value of that stock immediately changes as a result of you deciding the physical object could be abstracted as stocks?
You distribute the stocks to the company if the company exists already. If the object is standalone, then you have to create shares in it. There would be no need to destroy companies, just redistribute the ownership.

Can you try to think before you speak next time?

More the result of American College education.

I refuse to believe that this dumb motherfucker was college educated. If you still believe in labor theory of value and have taken at least a high school course in economics, you probably slept through the whole thing.

who cares about what impression it gives as long as it works to stimulate the economy and makes most people better off

i really don't care if communists would get mad at me because who cares lol

>Thinking that "wealth" is in cash

You dumb fucker. That is in stocks, buildings, etc.

I see what you are getting at, but the only way your vision of capitalism with periodic restarts is through war.

What you're proposing already exists. Nations rise and fall all the time. It happened to the Romans, British Empire, Aztecs, etc. Given time, it might happen to the United States too.

The point is, you build as much as you can so that your children have more advantages than you had. Then they work real hard, and their kids start out even better. It's called legacy. And capitalism is the only system thus far that can produce the best quality of life and more opportunities to the individual.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Copyrights can't be distributed like that because:
1. The recipient may not know how to monetize it. This means you've doomed a rancher to a lifetime of poverty because he received a share in industrial control software with no connections or knowhow.
2. Conflicts can arise out of joint ownership, such as how you monetize it. These kinds of conflicts also impact the value of the IP.
3. You can't simply go to court over it, because I, as the owner of the court house, decided to turn it into a concert hall. Too bad, joker.

Also, people destroying their property in this case would be a problem since they didn't own it to begin with, meaning your society ends up with a net decrease in total wealth.

Even if there were functioning courthouses, how would they logistically function? Does average Joe know diddly shit about the distribution network of office supplies?

Finally, you fundamentally misunderstand what a stock is. Even if you redistribute companies based on stocks, again impossible without forced corporatization of millions of private companies, he, being a capitalist, can choose to fuck over the stock owners, and they have little to no recourse. After all, if he no longer owns his company, why should he please the stock owners? A stock is merely a piece of paper that says you own something. I can still take a wrench to the machinery in my company to fuck you over. What are you going to do about it?

You haven't been thinking at all, fuckface.

I've tutored a chick who needed a calculator to divide 250 by 2. It's real.

stocks and buildings can be redistributed through stock certificates and deeds, dumb dumb, just like in today's society

I don't want to be conquered by a foreign nation though. I would rather re-invigorate the economy by helping our fellow citizens than through total destruction by foreigners.

I wanna suck on her titties

So what happens when I demand that my share in the company be destroyed? How do you destroy half a machine. Who decides which portion of the company gets destroyed?

Oh, but the memories my friend...

>ALL EDUCATED PEOPLE MUST BECOME LIBERTARIAN!!!!

i know that feel

This is a strawman. All educated people must know that redistributing wealth as you've suggested is foolish if not by history of similar attempts, then by thinking logically for 10 seconds.

I can't believe people are actually responding this retarded shit.

It can happen through a civil war. Another possibility is the U.S. can conquer another country for it's resources.

Regardless, there might be a tipping point in the near future within our life times that will spark a major change.
The cause could be this election, discovery of corruption and overthrowing the government, resources like oil become really scarce causing conflict, or something else.

Either way it's coming. If you want to start the revolution then go ahead.

look ma i posted it again

...

I don't like violence though. I would like to do it through a democratic referendum. I don't think most rich people would even oppose this if we explained to them the benefits to the whole economy. Violence is not the way in this modern day and age we should use online voting, apps, etc. to democratically decide things.

Voting is violence.

no, hitting people is violence.

too much reading can make you stupid.

haha, you think most of that money actually exists?

>it is not tyranny it would be the will of the immense majority through a democratic referendum
If x>50% of the population votes to kill or enslave the other x

What happens if you vote for wealth redistribution and I don't want that? Is somebody going to tell me that I need to give up my money? What is the penalty for not complying?

>. I would like to do it through a democratic referendum
And if even one person refused?
Oh yeah he gets killed or forcibly robbed by the state
Stop posting and watch this instead of wallowing in your own philosophical ignorance
m.youtube.com/watch?v=xkDMVdEci4Q

>That's $370,000 for every adult if we give everyone an equal share.
Who is going to pay the 87 trillion? The whole world? What will happen to all your clay and possessions since they belong to someone else?

>Don't you think this is the fair thing to do?
What is "fair", other than one of your emotional states?

>If capitalism is a race, surely everyone deserves to start in the same place? How is it fair that Bill Gates kid starts with ten billion while you start with five thousand?
Bill Gates wasn't born wealthy. He worked with talented partners and fucked over some and not others, taking the lead in the PC boom.

>Capitalism needs a reset every 50 years or so to make sure the economy stays vibrant.
You're a fucking moron who thinks like I did in highschool. Thankfully if there were a referendum, the overwhelming majority would vote negative.

>How can someone who believes in basic decency oppose this?
What is "basic decency", other than one of your emotional states?

Also fyi the rich will do anything to get around the kind of shit you propose.

60% estate tax? Liquidate everything and give it to your kids as a gift. The state can take 60% of the dregs.

>Also fyi the rich will do anything to get around the kind of shit you propose.

This. If wealth distribution were passed, you can be your ass the upper class is leaving the country. Whose paying everyone now? Nobody, and you just fucked the country doing it.

We don't need a reset of capitalism, we need an elimination of it.

Corporations and banks effectively own or control much of the world. Ownership gives huge control in itself.

We must overthrow the corporations and establish a democratic system of ownership. We must tap all the best minds we can to figure out the optimal form of this with democratic input directing the process.

This won't happen now, it won't happen in 10 years, but it will happen. Corporate capitalism is unsustainable.

user in 10 years: "Let's tap into all the best minds! Oh shit, they left."

you would be charged with trespassing on property that is no longer yours, just like today

that's hardly a violent revolution, unless you think violent is inherent in the current system

They would leave behind every single valuable asset because all value comes from land, buildings, etc. That's what we want anyway.

They can keep the worthless stock certificates that are now unenforceable.

What if I didn't transfer the property?

I don't think you really understand how this works...

Only job creators should get free money?