In order to solve global poverty, what are the cons if united nations...?

In order to solve global poverty, what are the cons if united nations decide to print "new money" and issue to every human being on this planet monthly?

If there are dangerous jobs that nobody wants to do, machines should be used to replace them or let it be. While most people want to be laze around waiting for the money, many are still willing to work hard for a new handphone, a new house, better education for their children etc... Under this system, nobody will die of hunger, nobody will work just to survive, professionals like artists and musicians will not have to give up their dreams, old people will not have to work. One important criteria, the price of goods and must not go up. This might be a bad news for companies and bosses but they should be happy to sacrifice for such a good deed. Just look at the beggars, old folks, disabled, sick, hungry etc... We shouldn't be selfish, right?

Another sum of new money should goes to develop free medical care, biology and astronomy.

The money should related to something else like silver if not it will be worthless. The value of headcount is questionable. While those above do not know how money come from and their fear of uncertainties are groundless, they just might be right because the effect of this new money might lead to very heavy political and economical warfare.

Although it saves LIVES in a short term basis but it does not help the economy at all. Unless robot technology replaces human efforts in time, the companies depending on semi-auto machineries will have to close down. I suggest food vouchers instead of new money. China had done this before and I believe UN can do it better.

Where the food comes from? Hmmm...I think I the soldiers and police etc...who are free, can use farming as a form of exercise or training. Land for agriculture is always available if some countries are willing to volunteer. Those who volunteer can be given the rights to host olympics or world cup etc. I know it can be the UN.if they want.
That system would not work at all. In fact, it would make poverty worse. In well developed countries, this new currency would be a lot less valuable than the current currency. It would hurt their economies, thus it would actually force more people into poverty.

In many poorer countries, the government will often steal from their own people. If a tribal chief is unable to keep up their lifestyle, they will be enticed to steal money from their people or their government to maintain their own lifestyle. This will not help anybody in 3rd world countries.

"the price of goods and must not go up". This alone makes your system impossible. Prices are determined by supply and demand. If we impose price controls, then there will be shortages. In the 1970's, the US government imposed price controls to keep the price of gas from going higher. This kept the price of gas low, but it also lead to gas shortages. Many governments have tried price controls over and over again. It always leads to shortages, so it does not solve any problems.
Simply printing more money doesn't work.

Everything would cost more, since there's more money, but not more to spend it on.

People still wouldn't be able to buy anything with their worthless money.
You obviously do not understand how money gets its value. Because I dont feel like typing I will just point out that the more money you print, the less each is worth at some point it becomes absolutely worthless. The price of goods cannot be kept down as their is only a limited quantity available- look up scarcity.
The UN is not a cure for anything, they are inefficient and corrupt.
Just because you want to help doesnt make your fantasies a possible reality. Things do not work in such simplistic ways, something liberals do not understand.
How exactly would this new UN currency have any value? Printing money does not create wealth.

The UN has no taxing authority, and thus is completely dependent upon the contributions of its member nations. Unless they send real assets to the UN to back the new currency, it's worthless paper. (I'll reserve judgment on the worth of the UN itself.) And if they do send assets to the UN, those assets are no longer available to the countries themselves.

At best, a UN currency is redistributive. But since there would be overhead costs -- even if the UN were efficient, someone would still have to manage this -- there would be fewer resources available worldwide.

The dangerous jobs are often the highest-paying jobs available, particularly in less developed economies, as a way of compensating for the inherent risk. Machines are already supplanting many such jobs; think how many people work in mines now vs. 100 years ago.

If people are given handouts and "nobody will work just to survive", what's the incentive to work? This is the biggest failing of statist economics (communism, socialism, etc.); once the people figure out that they don't gain much from working hard, they stop doing so. Remember the old Soviet-era maxim: "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."
Its very very very dangerous to have governments or any agency for that matter being given the power to print their own money which is why in most developed countries the central bank is independent from the government. In Zimbabwe where its not the government has tried to pay off its debt by printing money and has led its citisens into conditions with 2000% monthly inflation.
Prices have to go up the problem is they are going up by too much with no inflation there is no profit for businesses no ability to adapt to new situations and no insentive to create new products. Sure i dissagree with inflation going above a certain limit by 2% price rise on average in the economy is not a bad thing. Besides companies know there are poor ppl out there which is why you have clothes shops like primark that sell shirts for 1 pound or something. I agree more provisions should be made in terms of health care because thats a necessity but if a businessman knows any profit is banned whats the point of having a capitalist economy if you take away the sole benefit of it?
The cons are simple. Companies will close down and many people will be permanently jobless even if they want to work. Unless they group together to form companies with all their savings, since they don't have to worried about livelihood. MNCs will be in trouble getting people to slog for them.
if i gave you 1 million dollars a day, would you go work necessarily if i dont require anything of you.

The answers post by the user, for information only, does not guarantee the right.

More Questions and Answers:
  • Why do we need economic growth?
  • Which of the following is a determinant of supply in the market for car rentals?
  • Social Security?
  • Multiple..CHOICE!!?
  • Can old US stamps still be used?
  • Shouldn't I be investing in GOLD and SILVER since the government is causing so much inflation of the dollar?
  • Does having a strong economy do any good in battling terrorism?
  • Help Plz!!?
  • Macroeconomics help?