My Take on Econ

The question sounds more philosophical than economic, yet in macroeconomics, the aim is to make decisions morally and beneficially. Many people accept that socialism is more just than capitalism, because of obvious reasons. One of them is the ability to remove poverty in a nation by distributing all the wealth in the nation equally. I am here to say that this would not be moral or beneficial. Why is socialism not ethical? The way I see it, the conversion from socialism to capitalism requires many of the wealthy people to “give up” their wealth. No matter how hard they have worked, all their profits are now redistributed to the majority of people. This doesn’t seem fair, does it? The richest people in a free market economy are those who provide the largest value to the nation. For example, Bezos, set up amazon, employed 1.3 million people around the world and established the preferred shop for hundreds of millions worldwide. The people who find value in using amazon, use it. Throu

 DISCLAIMER, THIS IS MY VERSION OF AN ECONOMIC THEORY, I AM DOING A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT AND DO NOT TAKE MY WORD IN THIS SCENARIO, I AM JUST A 17-YEAR-OLD MAKING UP A SCENARIO AND USING SOME ECONOMICS AND GENERAL KNOWLEDGE TO SIMULATE WHAT HAPPENS, thank you and enjoy!  Picture yourself in 2522, assume that humans have been able to grow to be a type 1 civilisation on the Kardashev scale: we are able to completely control the Earth, able to harness as much energy as we desire as well as the control over any natural disasters, with the ability to mine asteroids in the asteroid belt for their endless resources, where there are no shortages of food or anything else. What will economics look like? In a world where there are no shortages, the basic economic problem does not apply. As there are no shortages, there is no need to allocate resources efficiently, the issue of scarcity is no longer, and most wants are satiated. Thus, I present the problem of abundance. In a utopian society such