Distribution of Wealth

Going by the world's current GDP, if all the world's wealth was divided equally, each person would make roughly $10,000 a year.
So what do you think? Should the wealth be divided now? Should we let the current system continue until the average person would make at least $20,000 a year and then redistribute the wealth? Should we simply not distribute the wealth and let the poor's standard of living increase gradually through the creation of new wealth?

Dassault Papillon: No. Don't distribute wealth. It's liberal propaganda that is ENTIRELY impossible, not even remotely pragmatic.

Dassault Papillon: I have a far more important question.

Why do you think GDP is a good measure of wealth?

admin: GDP is what a country produces in a year. Seems like a decent standard by which to measure wealth.

Dassault Papillon: It's the net value of finished measurable goods and services produced in a year. That's a massive distinction in economic terms.

admin: So what would you say each person's wealth after redistribution would actually be?

Dassault Papillon: I think money is a particular poor unit when it comes to production. Progress is a better indicator, but practically impossible to quantify objectively.

In my view, you can't share stores of value and pretend that you've accurately reflected global output by the store of value provided, no matter what form that value may take.

This has an interesting general reflect on prices in that it's basically impossible to set a price according to an objective measure of the good's value. So, for instance, an orange may be priced according to where a company believes demand will meet supply, but it can never be priced based on the relative utility of oranges to other goods.

It also leads in to several of the commonly cited key drawbacks of GDP. For instance, semi-finished and secondhand goods which economists usually pretend don't exist.