I just finished a series of assignments, so the topic is fresh in my mind. Besides, i enjoy the discourse and comparing my stance and ideas with that of other people.

Of course no person can own 100% of the wealth: that is why I ask not "how would you use it" but "how would you distribute it among the populace?" Thus, you don't "own all the wealth", you simply "own the authority to distribute it". You could say that you award it all for yourself, however that would defeat the merit of the argument, because the question itself is asking what economic models you would use, what rules would be in your economy and how this model compares to "current ideas".

There are 2 considerations.

1. How wealth is distributed up front.

2. What happens when the ball starts rolling.

Number 2 is where problems occur for any theory on any issue using this simple model.

Would there be any rules on how your banking system does business? Do you have policies at work to ensure the banks create wealth for the nation, or is this, like religion, a faith based system where the banks could "go evil" at any moment? What incentives would you give to bring in foreign capital? I find that there is little focus in our current system of making money from imports, and likewise most don't consider foreign capital as an import; I think it would be a most valuable import, because you could "weave" your own economy into the countries you do business with and present a "Morton's Fork" that if your business partner tries to screw you it will cost them more than they could ever gain. The other side of the fork is that being friends is beneficial for itself and of itself, so the one being "forked" is neither party in the agreement, but the notion of treachery itself, regardless where it could come from.

I also agree that government shouldn't operate on a money sink, however I question how you would allow the wealth to slowly work its way into your populace over time. Is there a distribution model of wages and taxation you prefer? How do you envision living in this society once the ball is rolling? What would be the limits of government, and the rights of business? Would you give businesses their own constitution or give them personhood similar to America? I just want to see how your nation would handle the "strain" of the "rolling ball" once it starts moving.

Does, doesn't it?

Probably because it's the sort of postulation you only get from a social retard with leather patches on his elbows who has neither been laid nor had an actual intelligent thought in his sad pathetic life as a.....

....lecturer.

Meanwhile the real world just....

...gets on with it...

....with whatever money they actually have...or have not.

Wealth is created and distributed systemically and there is no single distributor or owner. There was never a moment in time where a person came up with "wealth" and distributed it according to economic and moral principles.

My questions asks what you would do if you if the nations wealth was placed into your hands for the purpose of distribution. How would you allocate it, what would you fund, what rules would you make and what kind of economic system would you desire. How would people advance in your economy, or be held back and what mechanisms are in place surrounding that.

Completely useless mental masturbation, to paraphrase Jafo, but first thing I'd do is hire an army, navy & air force to protect my ass from the distributees.  Sorta like what the Department of Homeland Security is doing now.

One of the major problems with wealth is the idea of what is wealth. For example, would you pay for manure? There are those that need that material, and it is wealth. The idea of wealth distribution that people refer is that everybody wants a particular item, how do you distribute this item to everyone in a fair and impartial way. Oddly enough there is a lot of mathematics here that has already demonstrated that it is impossible to distribute things fairly amongst other people.

Thus, wealth distribution can be a bad idea. If you are to force people to take something they don't want, you will have problems. If you deny people things that they need you will have problems. Thus, to answer your question one needs to identify what your citizens need, and for the government satifying that need there needs to be a payment in service. When the payment of things from the government is not met by the service back to the government, things will result in a bad government in the long run. If you read deeply in the exercise, what is it you are truly distributing? What is the distribution suppose to accomplish. Even in a utopian society where everybody has everything they need and want, there needs to be a service provided for the collective good. So, the idea is then if things are provided, service must be given back. But if you wish to avoid this service to the government, donate some of your wealth, but at some point this can lead to some real problems. Basically as you can have poor that do not contribute service, you can also have those with wealth not contribute service just the same.

It doesn't matter how much wealth you have if something needs to be fixed and nobody around can fix it (or wants to for any price). You need to get off your duff and fix it yourself.

The measure of wealth does not equate to the measure of that persons laziness.

National dividend and annihilation of dynasty wealth is required with apathy towards rent seeking paradigms coupled with a strict separation of government, business and religion on top of a healthy dose of religious rights < science.

*sigh*