Must everyone be rich.

@Entwistle Society would not work that way.... coz there is no incentive to create and build that way, other than a feeling of altruism - and we know that homo sapiens are inherently not altruistic animals.
Your comment is communism in a nutshell - "From each according to capacity, to each according to need". This does not work for humans coz in the end it is based on injustice - the injustice of denying those capable by force the fruits of their capabilities. It's why there is no lastingly successful communist society in history, and if you build one again, it will implode and collapse.

@chilloutab2 There is always the incentive to eat and survive. People would work just like they do today ..perhaps less hours though. Then when you want food just go the shop and take what you need or want..cars ,food,water,clothing etc are made and people just take what they want when they need.

@Entwistle The incentive to eat and survive woudl be the only things that would remain... and nothing innovative beyond that would be done if those needs are met.
If there is no reward for work, labour, innovation or talent - as there isn't in a communist system - few would show these traits and we would all be poorer because of that.

Let's extend your logic further: If people had a mobile phone each to communicate and they are happy with that, and there is no need for innovations like the iphone or the Galaxy.... no Steve Jobs woudl bother coming up with such things as, where is the reward for that in that system?

Communism is the equal redistribution of poverty.... the system we have is the unequal redistribution of profits... The present systme is not the bets, but its better than communism.

@chilloutab2 Why would there be no need for innovation? Just because we have phones wouldn't stop people innovating and creating new,better ones. Same goes for other necessities..cars,heating systems,clothing etc.

@Entwistle Like I said, there would be no incentive... if an innovator came into the system you purport, they woudl ask, why do I put in all the effort to innovate when there is no reward? And they would not innovate seeing that there would be no reward... I know I would not, neither would the people I know - and we are the normal, common, mediocre people.

Only those that think the work itself is the reward for doing it and the result does not matter would innovate, and those people are one in billions and some once in a century or less. So, no Robert Stephenson, no Steve Jobs, no Thomas Edison, no Marconi, no Bill Gates, no Alexander Graham Bell (who all loved the profits their innovations gave them.. .and there are so many more).... but maybe the odd Nocola Tesla or Einstein, who were more about the work being the reward.

@Entwistle
[i]The reward is the better phone. The reward is the bettering of society. [/i]
This is idealism... It does not work IRL. Humans are not altruistic by nature; we need profit to drive us - a "What's in it for me?"
For some, the "What's in it for me?" is simply enjoyment, self-expression or even helping others - but that's a tiny minority. Most people do not operate like that... and I have the courage to admit that I fall in that teeming multitude... I don't know about you.
I'm not that noble and the average person is not either.

If Jobs, Edison, Stephenson and others like them were not interested in financial reward, they would not have created monopolistic business empires with their inventions and products.

People have tried to get out of the monetary mindset and there is no single instance of those attempts being successful.

@chilloutab2 Humans existed for 1000s of years before we created money. We innovated to survive.
Jobs,Stephenson etc were born into a capitalistic society. Their innovation was independent of their needing or wanting to be wealthy.
Was Mozart a genius musician because he wanted money? No...

@Entwistle When humans didn't have money, we had something that we used instead, which was an approximation of money... the barter economy was also based on what had intrinsic value for people involved in transactions... economics has always existed since primitive times.
We innovated to survive because innovators got their due in society.

Would Mozart have been Mozart without Austrian royal patronage? Would art, literature, etc. have flourished without someone footing the bill? Whether Da Vinci or Michelangelo? The answer is no.... the historical precedent is clear - human endeavour has been predicated on economic power

Capitalism is the default position of all living things - demand and supply.
The best way to move forward is not to replace capitalism but refine it... and that can only be done by creating better individuals.... by turning more towards humanism.
Communism is anti-humanistic

@chilloutab2 I've never mentioned communism.
Creating,making and sharing what's required is the way forward.
Letting people starve because that have no paper or metal discs to give in return is pathetic.
You aren't thinking it through.

@Entwistle @Entwistle Creating, making and sharing is already happening... as it has always happened and always will. That is how society has always functioned.

And by what mechanism do we stop people who do not have money from starving? Is it by charity... would that charity be forced in that case... like someone with a gun or stick mandating how much each of us has to shell out from our income in charity?

And then, what happens after we give the starving their 4 square meals? that's like the fish that feeds them for a day... what happens when we no longer have fishes to give and we've not taught them to fish either? Who feeds them for their lifetime, then?

Starvation and poverty is not simply about poor redistribution of resources... it's more often about under-creation of value.
I know exactly what I'm talking about coz I come from a "third-world" country... the problem is way more complex than to simply approach it with feelings and an outraged conscience.

I'm assuming you're from the US... so would you do something that is really required - press for the removal of all import tariffs on goods coming to the US from "third-world" countries? Coz that's a concrete step towards removing poverty.
Would you Americans also make it super easy for qualified people from under-developed countries to access your job markets and bar under-qualified people from entering your land? Coz that's another thing that would help reduce poverty.

But neither of these two important initiatives are happening.. as that would require a huge sacrifice from the "haves" of the world.
Instead, we have arm chair pundits with hurt consciences clamouring for "redistribution" and "sharing" to assuage their guilt.