Economics question

>>2556086
Hey, idk in depth economics but I came from a shit socialist/communist country to the US. All I know is the leaders promised my parents generation they would distribute the wealth and instead they just kept all that shit to themselves, beat my parents, and made them wait in bread lines for mold bread and sometimes cheese. Unless you have a perfect and honest government, wealth distribution is a big pile of bullshit.

Hail Capitalism.

>>2556086
Not necessarily, because contrary to popular myths, the rich don't sit on their moneybags, the invest it or put it in banks who loan it out in multiples. If anything, an extremely evenly distributed society results in over-valued currency, with loans and credit now far tighter since Joe Sixpack only has enough money to buy the necessities from Regular Bob, and neither accumulates much capital.

>>2556086
Monetary Policy doesn't go hand in hand with income distribution. You can see that by looking at how different European currencies behaved prior to the single currency. I doubt China is a good example of communism but their currency was highly regulated and even pegged against the dollar.

>>2556161
I prefer 95% capitalism and 5% socialism. There are some things that just aren't worth making a profit on.

>>2556086
You suffer a massive opportunity cost when the majority of people who could be starting businesses can't because they're stuck wagecucking at McBoner's and don't have any capital. Having most of the world's capital concentrated in a few hands is bad for the economy and bad for business.

The communists took away my grandfather's land in my home country. But that wasn't enough, they lynched him too. They did the same thing to a lot of "bourgeoisie". Most of the private wealth was stolen by the state. What was redistributed was misery. The peasants had to work in slave-like conditions for low pay that was heavily taxed. There was no free market. There was no "community" in any sense of the word. Anyone could be lynched for saying the wrong thing (even if it was accidental). The economy went to tatters and didn't recover until the despot died.

OP here, not a communist, just asking a question about the effects of distribution vs concentration of wealth as a factor in itself.

If all the privately owned wealth in USA were evenly distributed, everyone would have $500,000. Assuming an ideal system (no chaotic societal restructuring, everyone was equally intelligent and competent with their money), would the distribution of this money cause the value to decline (eg. more people have practical access to it, and thus to consumer goods and other markets); or increase (eg. less money concentrated, thus less loans being given out)?

>>2556849
It wouldnt stay equally distributed for very long. In the short term you may see an decrese of loan taking but even an increase is possible (people buying houses or w.e.) since they now can afford the downpayment.

In the longterm everything would revert to normal. (Jamal spending his 500k on a lambo and then needing a loan for food and child payments)