This entry is represents a play on numbers, it assumes that you can get a 5% annual interest for your euro adjusted for inflation, which is quite a reasonable assumption. I also submit to you that you can get a very decent living in Finland for 50.000€ a year.
One billion euros is 1.000.000.000€. With 5% annual interest you are looking 50 million € in interests every year for those billion euros. So, every year your capital grows with 50 million. One million euros carries an interest of 50.000 euros a year, which, as mentioned, secures one person a very decent living in Finland. Every year your billion euros interests interest could provide for 50 people a steady income for the rest of their lives. The next year for another 50 people, and so on.
All this without ever needing to touch your initial capital of one billion euros, or without the fear of it losing its value. The money it would earn wouldn’t be ‘free’ money, it would be only distributing the generated wealth of those billion euros in a manner most would find unfair and surrendering. With one billion dollars you could, every year, for the foreseeable future, turn 50 people financially independent.
That’s exactly what I would do if I had billion euros.
Let’s take this thought experiment a step further.
Suppose that enough money is saved to provide for each person on Earth. Then everyone can live off the interest, yet nobody is working or doing anything? Clearly it’s wealth that is needed, not money.
Dear Sir,
yes? Your point being? The money grows as a function of time and the amount of money since the interest (and other variables such as administrative costs) is frozen. It is entirely possible to do what you are supposing, it would either take a.) money or b.) time.
Being financially independent doesn’t exclude anyone from working or doing something.
I don’t quite understand your last point about needing wealth instead of money? How is the other unlike the other for the purposes of this discussion?