In 2018, 26 billionaires owned the same amount of wealth as
the poorest 3.8 billion people, worldwide, according to a study by Oxfam, an
anti-poverty non-profit organization. In 2017, the number of billionaires was
43, so the trajectory of wealth distribution was one of continued
concentration.[1]
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the number of billionaires doubled by 2019
whereas the poorest half of the world saw its wealth decline by 11 percent. The
trajectory being clear, the questions can be said to be why? and how will it turn out?
The Oxfam report points to enabling tax systems whereby the
very rich along with corporations were paying lower taxes than they had in
decades while 3.4 billion people were living on less than $5.5 a day. To say
the tax regimes were unfair would be the conclusion of an ethical argument,
whereas the report’s strongest point is simply that the structure of the
regimes was contributing to the increasing disparity of global wealth. For
example, the 2017 tax cut in the U.S. benefitted primarily the wealthiest 1
percent even though it was sold to the American people as a tax break for the
middle class.
Accordingly, the monied interests, such as billionaires and
large corporations, being able to manipulate voters via “their” representatives
is another part of the answer. It could even be said that as governments—even democracies—become
increasingly influenced by the wealthy, these de facto plutocracies also explain why the trajectory toward
increasing economic inequality has occurred. In a plutocracy, the close
legislative fights are between different corporate segments, which have spent
roughly the same on campaign contributions and lobbying, whereas the no-contest
battles are between a beguiled public and an industry or the business sector
itself. Hence, the Obama Administration refused to prosecute those who engaged
in fraud in the sub-prime mortgage business that came to a head in the
financial crisis of 2008. Once sufficiently concentrated, wealth can manipulate
and even rule even a de jure democratic
government. So even though economic inequalities between people, such as effort
at school and at work, can explain some economic inequality, the concentrating
itself can take on a life of its own, with government-laid tracks to ease the
way toward greater concentration. Perhaps the underlying mentality or
value-system is that more is never enough, to invoke the film, Wall Street.
In short, there is human nature, which naturally develops social systems (including economic and political). The latter can gain a traction that can intensify the effects of human nature and individual differences between individuals. The part of the whole that is invested in those effects has the wherewithal and motivation to eclipse the good of the whole by distorting or manipulating the systems in ways that disproportionately benefit that part while the welfare of the other parts are not considered. Those other parts must put up with rigged, or tilted, systems as if the northern hemisphere in the winter season. Meanwhile, the part that benefits disproportionately from the tilt has no intent to use its power to redesign the system so that the Sun is directly above any part of the Earth for at least part of the year. Of course, the ice would melt so we would have that catastrophe to worry about, but where wealth is highly concentrated, the powers have little incentive to deal with rising oceans (and climate change) anyway because the 26 billionaires would have to pay disproportionately to fix the problem. The people without air-conditioning would suffer disproportionately should the wealthiest preempt governments from getting the money needed to obviate the problem. So the underlying culprits may not only be greed, but also a lack of consideration for others, Both can be stitched into political and economic systems, and even social systems whose values and norms are enabling.
[1]
Laura Paddison, “26
Billionaires Own the Same Wealth as the Poorest 3.8 Billion People,” The
Huffington Post, January 20, 2019.
