If every single people’s private property first to be counted as money and then share it back equally to everyone. How much money everybody would get?
Depends on if Stalin was feeling generous.
It is actually an impossible question to answer. Once you take everyones cars, land, paintings etc. they aren’t worth what they were anymore. There isn’t much of a market for mansions, fine paintings, and luxury cars if everyone now has the same amount of money and can’t afford to buy those things at previous prices. The market for such things would crash instantly making the former value just a curiosity.
Any type of massive redistribution of wealth will have a similar effect so the questioned can’t be answered.
If I’m reading this right (PDF), about $85-90k. (Page 42).
My answer was originally going to be somewhere between Shagnasty’s and Intelsoldier’s.
I doubt there is a “real” answer to this.
please tell me you did not read the first 42 pages of that, let alone all 70 pages.
The simple answer is: take all of the available cash, divide it by the population, and there’s your answer. All of it is worthless. With everybody having the exact same amount of money and nothing else, the money is worthless. There’s no property to exchange it for. Using any quantifier of wealth you wish, wealth can be viewed is the value of that quantifier that separates you from the poorest person on earth. If everybody has the same, that value is zero, so there is no wealth.
This is somewhat like asking how far above sea level the new Atlantic shoreline would be if you took all the water in the world and dumped it into the ocean. The answer is of course zero since the location of the shoreline changes with the sea level.
Yeah, yeah. I think people are (deliberately?) misunderstanding the intent of the question.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the OP is asking “What’s the mean net worth per person worldwide?”
It is still a meaningless question.
Dude, you’re taking this Paris Hilton thing way too hard. Go lie down and in the morning Bolshevism won’t seem like half as good an idea.
It’s not a deliberate misunderstanding. The mean net worth per person worldwide is zero.
Net worth is the value of all assets minus the value of all liabilities of an entity. Net worth of a composite entity (say a business) is the sum of the net worth of each of its components (for example, departments). For value to be positive, there must be more than one such entity in the world (in other words, last man on earth loses the concept of economic value, since economic trade is not possible). If there is only one entity, the value is zero. Mean net worth per person worldwide times the population would be the total net worth of the world (which has to be zero, since in this model it makes it a single economic entity in the universe). Since we know the population of earth is not zero, the mean net worth per person must be.
No, it’s more like asking what the land elevation above sea level would be if you leveled all the mountains and valleys to a uniform height. Which is a perfectly sensible question, though we may lack the data to calculate it.
To say that the situation would result in zero net worth introduces some arcane gobbledegooky philosophy of economics. Let’s pursue a question that is answerable.
Let’s reinterpret the OP, if I may be so bold. Every person in the world has a net worth which can be measured in equivalent US dollars, or the currency of your choice. (May be somewhat challenging for soft currencies, but you can estimate anyway.) This is not all cash; it includes property, which has some estimated value at a point in time, and is subject to economic trade. Economic philosophy aside, these are hard numbers that can be averaged.
I have a book net worth that can confirmed by a CPA. A homeless man in Manhatten might have the net worth of a couple of bucks. The Sultan of Brunei is worth $11B. You can average those. Just a few more billion left 
Except there’s a problem that measuring net worth makes assumptions. People who have nothing and no debts will have near-zero net worth on most measurement scales, but compared to each other they will have vastly different net worths – this is where the system breaks down. Should you consider being a homeless guy in Manhattan an asset or should you consider being a homeless guy in Romania a liability, because if you don’t do one or the other they’re both going to have roughly the same net worth of about $0 which is simply incorrect.
Basically if you declare your $0 to be homeless guy in Manhattan who has nothing, then a large number of people with no assets and no liabilities in much worse places than Manhattan would have negative net worths by the virtue of being in a shitty place. Net worth is a concept used for comparison of two entities. Comparing net worth of the Sultan of Brunei to net worth of anybody else requires an implicit or explicit explanation of why you think those net worths are comparable. Another middle eastern leader, perhaps, but a businessman from Oregon who has a net worth of $1B will not automatically have 11 times less than the Sultan of Brunei unless you explain how you are comparing and what you’re counting as assets and what you’re not.
Here is my response the last time this question was asked.
I didn’t read all of it, but more then enough to realize that it might be the answer the OP was looking for. Looking again at the document, it’s not that big - hell, the wordiest page has only 250± words on it (not counting footnotes).