These are very interesting questions! This would clearly affect the decision to have children in one of two ways (that I can think of): 1. Couples would have fewer children if they had to purchase a share for each child they had. 2. Couples would have more children if they were granted a share for each child they had.
I'm sure there are many more consequences, though. >Imagine that a nation like the US were run like a corporation. To >live (and vote) here, you'd have to own a share. You could sell >your share and leave, and foreigners could come if they bought a >share. The corporate management would be given financial incentives >to maximize the market value of these shares. They could issue more >shares if these new shares were handed out to previous share holders >in proportion to the shares they currently hold. > >What would go wrong or right with running the US this way? Would >management focus too much on making immigrants happy, versus people >already here who are reluctant to leave? Would there be too many or >two few people here? Would government spending increase or >decrease? Would we get less desirable immigrants, relative to >picking and choosing among applicants? Would the homeless prefer to >cash out and leave, rather than stay and beg here? Would people >tend to leave when they retire? > > > >Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu >Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University >MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 >703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 -- John A. Viator, Ph.D. Beckman Laser Institute 1002 Health Sciences Road East University of California Irvine, CA 92612 (949)824-3754 (949)824-6969 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
