Monday 13 August 2012

redistribución radical de riqueza

según una análisis del Credit Suisse del 2011 la riqueza global del planeta en términos absolutos era en aquel año de US$.
La populación mundial alcanzó en el mismo tiempo una cantidad alrededor de personas.

Eso quiere decir que si quisieramos redistribuir de manera RADICAL, ABSOLUTA y IGUALITARIA la riqueza sobre cualquier ser humano de cualquier nacionalidad, edad, sexo, religión, posición política..... resultaría que cada uno de nosotros debería tener aproximadamente un cantidad de 33.000 dolares (casi unos 27.000 €).

Siguiendo con este socialismo puro, ya que se redistribuye todo, está claro que la redistribución de las casas, terrenos y todo lo demás, garantizaría un lugar donde vivir para todos (probablemente mas que una casa por casa persona) y terreno donde vivir y alimentarse, todo gratis.
Así que los 27.000 € no se irían en alquileres o cosas así.

Otra cosa que decir: si eso se pudiera aplicar de verdad, el hecho de que cada uno tenga 27.000 €, quiere decir que una familia de 4 personas (padres + dos hijos) contaría con 108.000 €.

Y luego los políticos en estos tiempos nos vienen diciendo que hemos vivido por encima de nuestras posibilidades económicas en estos últimos años?
La madre que los parió!

La gran mayoría de la humanidad vive con menos de 5 dolares al día para sobrevivir.

Esta redistribución radical en cambio garantizaría a familias con muchos hijos que desde siempre viven en paises pobres de pasar de una riqueza familiar de casi ZERO euros a una cantidad de más de 200.000 €.

Incluso en Europa mucha gente (si sola) vive con menos de 27.000 € de propriedad y teniendo que gastar por alquileres y otras cosas.
Si hablamos de parejas tendrían el doble (54.000€), está claro.
Eso para decir que incluso aquí en el "primer mundo", una redistribución de este tipo no nos haría mucho mas pobres, colectivamente.
Podría  hasta ser conveniente incluso para la mayor parte de los europeos!

Todo esto está claro es utópico, pero entendemonos es "tecnicamente" posible.
Es así.

Esto solo hace pensar a cuanto dinero van acumulando los poquísimos ricos del planeta con respecto a toda la población mundial que vive en condiciones de pobreza.


  1. La cuestión interesante es que yo, que me considero un privilegiado en el constexto mundial (y lo soy), debería no pensarlo, porqué tener una o dos casas, una tierra y junto con una pareja, un total de unos 55.000 € asi, eso sería mucho mejor de como vivo ahora.
    o sea que en una redistribución paritaria de riquezas yo ganaría!
    eso quiere decir que incluso yo estoy "por debajo de la media" de cierta manera.

    eso quiere decir que los "verdaderos" privilegiados no somos los "europeos normales" sino la elite.
    nuestro estilo de vida no es "por encima de nuestras posibilidades" a lo mejor los europeos normales en general estamos en la media de lo que tocaría.
    los que viven por encima de sus posibilidades son las élites que mantienen el 80% de la humanidad cerca del hambre.

  2. A related idea that would involve a massive redistribution of wealth is climate justice. The difference is that it is an actual debt. Essentially, the richest citizens (and countries) have been able to develop *strong* economies using cheap energy with two very negative and unanticipated results: (1)climate changes threaten disproportionally more the farming, water and forest systems on which the majority of the world depends (but not so much the rich) who did NOT have anything to do with causing the problem and (2)future development of poorer nations is forever more expensive and limited as they will not be able to use cheap energy and emit CO2 from burning coal as Europe and NA did. Essentially, richer countries have used up all of the atmosphere's storage space for greenhouse gases and - based on population - most of the space they took should have been allocated to citizens in other countries. The common sense and fair solution proposed by leaders of the climate justice movement (and anyone who doesn't believe it is right to use what is not yours) is that the richest countries OWE a debt to countries with less developed economies on the basis of population and historical GHG emissions. This is fundamentally different from *helping* or charity. And while it is radical, clearly it is right. I could not go into a cafe and take the dinner paid for by another person and leave them hungry. I would go to jail. yet this is what is happening with climate change.

    This is a great short documentary on the topic:

  3. thank you Dexter for your very interesting comment!

  4. Hello Mr. Massimo,

    While on my lunch break yesterday I ran across this piece on food security in Africa and I was reminded of your interesting blog entry. Now before I start my rant, I should point out that I do not know a lot about this issue - I work as a dolphin trainer in Miami.

    In terms of world hunger, did you know that there is actually no shortage of cereals (maize, rice, wheat, etc) when you consider the energy content of the cereals currently produced with the energy requirements of the global population? No shortage at all. The shortage arises due to the meat and animal product based diet of the wealthy in the Western world (and yes, that includes you and I and the burger I really really enjoyed for lunch yesterday) as well as recent developments in bio-ethanol production. In the article I was reading, M. Sasson acknowledges this point but then continues by saying it will be easier to manage the supply side of the problem - rather than tackling the distribution problem. But the supply side problem is really a mess and will involve lots of people having to abandon traditional farming methods. And you may reasonably respond, but diet is much more than simply supplying energies, it is also a fundamental aspect of culture. True, but we arrive at a huge injustice. It is impossible for everyone in the world to eat like people in my country eat with meat at every meal - regardless of the income level and wealth distribution. Why? Because unlike currency which may no longer have any relation to tangible wealth or resources, food is still very much tied to the earth's capacity (water, soils, nutrients, friendly plants and insects) to provide it. Perhaps the picture you paint in your last comment is even dangerous, as it can lead citizens of Western countries to believe that our lifestyles can continue "as is" without detriment to those who are already hungry – and that somehow the problem lies only with those richer than us. If we believe this, that our lifestyles do not need adjusting, we must get comfortable with (or numb to) the fact that many more will be joining the 1 billion people who already battle with hunger and food insecurity?


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.