That actually sounds like a worthwhile experiment. I doubt the 100 richest would be worse off or at a lack for opportunities to become rich again. And I bet giving $40K to a family of four (since you include children in your 300m count) in poverty would on average go to significant good use and provide excellent returns for many years to come, contrary to your condescending implication that non-rich people would waste the money.
You could also make a similar point as the podcast by looking at the experiences of modern lottery winners. So I would say I'm pretty skeptical that something like this would be effective for the vast majority of people.
My comments were not a serious proposal. I was replying to a comment that lacked intellectual rigor and I proposed the opposite to point out some logical flaws.
That said, cash transfers can help bring people out of poverty. A flat redistribution of wealth is not the right way to get that effect, but some kind of direct cash assistance is not remotely a wasted effort.
Scarcity would immediately arise and that would determine who would end up with it. My predictions would be an immediate price increase of low cost housing and fast food (due to labor shortage.) Saving for education would mean moving downwards in the housing market.
Not the same thing, since most of the wealth of those billionaires would be in stocks and other illiquid investments/assets. Therefore someone would need to buy them in order to have cash to give out, and who would have that kind of cash available?
That depends on how the money is used. If it is just consumed, then sure, but if it's invested then it can be a renewable source of income. For instance, what if that money makes the difference in buying a car to commute to a better job that couldn't be obtained without the car? Or farm equipment that increases productivity? Or training to get a better job?
