--------------
MEDIA BRIEFING
18 January 2013 Ref: 02/2012
The world must urgently set goals to tackle extreme inequality and extreme wealth. (First thing to note: an appeal to the world, but there is no "world power" with the authority to do any of this. However, the use of the word gives us insight into the mindset of this organization, that they intend a redistribution of wealth on a world wide scale.)
It is now widely accepted that rapidly growing extreme wealth and inequality are harmful to human progress (Hmmm. Widely accepted is not the same thing as factually demonstrated. There are certainly many Leftists, statists, and socialists who believe this, but that doesn't mean it's true. If anything, "widely accepted" is nothing more than the effectiveness of their propaganda initiatives, the promulgation of marxist rhetoric and dogma.),
and that something needs to be done ("Something." As in the things they are about to suggest, which we suspect will be absent any appeal to free market forces, which have been the only thing proven successful in raising people out of poverty.).
Already this year, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report rated inequality as one of the top global risks of 2013(1). The IMF and the Economist(2) agree. Around the world, the Occupy protests demonstrated the increasing public anger and feeling that inequality has gone too far(3). (So we have an appeal to four authorities here. The World Economic Forum is a leftist think thank composed of democratic socialists bent on forming a one world government. The supplied link brings you to an 80 page report filled with charts and graphs. The bottom line is nothing but speculation wrapped up in a quasi-scientific format.
The IMF link is to their blog, which is just an opinion piece. The Economist link is also an opinion piece analyzing various factors from a Left wing viewpoint. As such, it offers no real information or data that supports the OXFAM position. And as far as Occupy, well, listing them as a sober reference is very nearly comical.
We should note the somber, quasi scientific nature of this report upon on which we are commenting. It also is replete with footnotes, providing a veneer of scholarly burnish to it, but when we start looking at the various references we find like-minded organizations rubbing each others' backs. We're sure if we took the time and dug deep enough, we would find many of the same people populating the membership of these organizations.
This is a clever strategy, designed to lend credence to their position by appealing to what appears to be a broad and diverse base of support. Some supporters have allowed themselves to be co-opted into this, perhaps unawares, which bolsters even more the appearance of credibility. The grand achievement is to enlist corporate support, and now the image is complete.)
In the last decade, the focus has been exclusively on one half of the inequality equation - ending extreme poverty. (This is not true. Ever since the communist revolution the focus has been on the struggle against the bourgeois. The wealthy have been targets for more than a century, if not via rhetoric and revolution, certainly by progressive taxation. If anything, the poor have been the excuse for large-scale wealth distribution schemes that seek only to bring the wealthy down a notch, regardless of any benefit to the poor.)
Inequality and the extreme wealth that contributes to it (Strange sentence construction. By definition, wealth inequality must include "extreme wealth" as one of the characteristics. This sentence is a tautology.)
were seen as either not relevant, or a prerequisite for the growth that would also help the poorest, as the wealth created trickled down to the benefit of everyone. (They leave this assertion alone, as if simply by repeating it is sufficient to prove its absurdity. However, "trickledown" is simply another name for capitalism, which is really the target of their hate. But either we have trickle-down wealth or trickle-down government, and there is no evidence whatsoever that wealth in the hands of government trickles down.)
There has been great progress in the fight against extreme poverty. Hundreds of millions of people have seen their lives improve dramatically – an historically unprecedented achievement of which the world should be proud(4). (The reference is yet another blog.)
But as we look to the next decade, and new development goals we need to define progress, we must demonstrate that we are also tackling inequality - and that means looking at not just the poorest but the richest(5). Oxfam believes that reducing inequality is a key part of fighting poverty and securing a sustainable future for all. In a world of finite resources, we cannot end poverty unless we reduce inequality rapidly. (Translation: Taxing the rich has failed, so now we need to tax the rich even more. The thing is, the stated goal of "equality" is unachievable, even if it were desirable. There is no way to confiscate the "excess" wealth of people without destroying property rights, and the desire to invest, innovate, create, and advance. We have ample evidence that redistributing wealth destroys families, enforces poverty, and contributes to crime, illegitimacy, and racism.
Our present economic and social environment has been directly caused by government intervention. But as is typical of the Left, failure is not a deterrent, it is only something to misdiagnose, explain away, or reinterpret so as to retain one's political world view. The end result is that they want more of what caused the problems in the first place.)
That is why we are calling for a new global goal to end extreme wealth by 2025, (Now that is an astounding statement. Read it again. They want to end extreme wealth. Wow. They want to be be the judge of who has too much and simply take away the excess from them. Can you imagine? If any organization or government had this kind of power, no one would be safe. Because if they have the power to decide if you have too much wealth, they also have the power to tell you what to eat, how to live, and what to believe. Who in their right mind would grant that kind of power to anyone?
And what guarantee do we have that such a power would remain benevolent? History is replete with governments with too much power killing millions. If there is anyone to blame for the sorry state of world affairs, it is government.)
and reverse the rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last twenty years, taking inequality back to 1990 levels(6)(7). (Does anyone really believe that these people would stop there? If they are granted the power to roll back wealth disparity to 1990 levels, then what's to stop them from going farther? These marxists are relatively harmless now, because they really don't have the ability to carry out their desire for worldwide domination due to the checks in power on them as provided for in the Constitution. No wonder they hate it! But as they push their ideas farther into government via sympathetic officials, into society via low-information voters, and into academia via sympathetic professors, we may yet see the basic building blocks of society get destroyed by the hand of would be utopianists.)
Extreme wealth and inequality are reaching levels never before seen and are getting worse
Over the last thirty years inequality has grown dramatically in many countries. In the US the share of national income going to the top 1% has doubled since 1980 from 10 to 20%. For the top 0.01% it has quadrupled(8) to levels never seen before. At a global level, the top 1% (60 million people)(9), and particularly the even more select few in the top 0.01% (600,000 individuals - there are around 1200 billionaires in the world), the last thirty years has been an incredible feeding frenzy(10). (Notice the pejorative language. The wealthy are not successful, resourceful, hard working, or innovative. No, they are engaged in a feeding frenzy. And we need to mention that there is more than one perspective on if the rich are really getting richer.)
This is not confined to the US, or indeed to rich countries. In the UK inequality is rapidly returning to levels not seen since the time of Charles Dickens(11). In China the top 10% now take home nearly 60% of the income. (Term-switching. Income is not the same as wealth. And China? That paragon of a socialist utopia?)
Chinese inequality levels are now similar to those in South Africa,(12) which are [sic] now the most unequal country on earth and significantly more unequal than at the end of apartheid(13). Even in many of the poorest countries, inequality has rapidly grown(14). (The problem with the chronically poor is and always has been their inability to manage their money, engage in productive labor, and complete their education, thereby allowing them to access the opportunities of society. It apparently has never dawned on these marxists that many of the poor are poor for a reason. By and large they are not oppressed or victims of forces they can't control.
In actual fact, most people are poor because they not good with money and will not do what it takes to make a life for themselves. There is no virtue in being poor. It's a sign of failure. It's a failure to access the opportunities that society offers to anyone driven enough to take hold of them.
This is not to say that every poor person is like this. There are some poor who are genuinely unable to prosper, due to physical or mental disability. Some are stuck in the ghettos of major cities [generally speaking, these are cities dominated by democrats and leftists who have been redistributing wealth for generations], and lack the ability to simply pick up and leave. We are not talking about these people.)
The growth in income for the 0.01% has been even greater(16). Following the financial crisis, the process has accelerated, with the top 1% further (17) increasing their share of income(18). (Of course. The wealthy are not hurt by economic downturns, because, surprise, they are wealthy!
But really, can we talk? Why did the economic downturn happen? It was because of stupid, overbearing government in conjunction with crony capitalists conspiring together to make a buck. These same officials now purport to provide the solution to the problems they caused by doing even more of what got us here.
And OXFAM is right on board with this nonsense. People should have went to jail, but got government bailouts instead. Bankers helped themselves to billions. Unions suddenly became owners of major corporations. Government handed out trillions of dollars to their cronies.
So, does anyone wonder what a global wealth redistribution will look like? Just look at what we have right now.)
The luxury goods market has registered double digit growth every year since the crisis hit(19). (Manufactured by factories filled with well paid workers, right?)
Whether it is a sports car or a super-yacht, caviar or champagne, there has never been a bigger demand for the most expensive luxuries. (Wait a darned minute. We thought the wealthy were hoarding their money, and trickle-down wasn't happening. Now we discover that the wealthy are spending like crazy, and their wealth is circulating all through the economy! So which is it, OXFAM?)
The IMF has said that inequality is dangerous and divisive and could lead to civil unrest(20). (Indeed, crowds whipped up into a frenzy by marxists promulgating their poisonous rhetoric is bound to have an effect like this. Indeed, this is the goal, to have civil unrest, disruption of institutions, and mayhem everywhere. Then they can waltz right in and take over, because "the people want it.")
Polling shows the public is increasingly concerned about growing inequality in many countries, and by people across the political spectrum(21)(22). (In other words, their incessant propaganda is working.)
Extreme wealth and inequality is economically inefficient
A growing chorus of voices is pointing to the fact that whilst a certain level of inequality may benefit growth by rewarding risk takers and innovation, the levels of inequality now being seen are in fact economically damaging and inefficient(23). ("A certain level?" These people presume to know that delineation point? In world economy of trillions upon trillions of dollars and many billions of transactions occurring every day? This is the hubris of these people, the same hubris that took hold of dictators and tyrants throughout history. Because they're more compassionate, more intelligent, and have the whole thing figured out, they're entitled to impose their vision of the world, setting themselves as arbitrators of all that is good and holy. Talk about delusional!)
They limit the overall amount of growth, and at the same time mean that growth fails to benefit the majority. (It just isn't fair, they say, as they stomp their feet like 4 year olds. Children obsess over fairness. Immature minds are concerned with fairness. Fairness and equality is the pursuit of the developmentally arrested mind.)
Consolidation of so much wealth and capital in so few hands is inefficient because it depresses demand, a point made famous by Henry Ford(24) and more recently billionaire Nick Hanauer in his much-discussed TED talk(25). (Well, how about that. A couple of rich people who think they're too rich? Dude, get out you checkbook and write some checks. What's stopping you?)
There quite simply is a limit to how many luxury yachts a person could want or own. (Um, what? A couple of paragraphs ago the authors were bemoaning the fact that the rich were buying luxury items at an unprecedented level. Now they are unhappy that there is a limit to those purchases. So which is it, good or bad? Does trickle down work or not?)
Wages in many countries have barely risen in real terms for many years, with the majority of the gains being to capital instead(26). If this money were instead more evenly spread across the population then it would give more people more spending power, which in turn would drive growth and drive down inequality(27). (Don't you love the theoreticians prognosticating about what would happen if everyone was equally wealthy? So if everyone magically was given $50,000 per year, and everyone started exactly equal, in five years the rich would be rich and the poor would still be fat, dumb, and lazy.
And OXFAM is right on board with this nonsense. People should have went to jail, but got government bailouts instead. Bankers helped themselves to billions. Unions suddenly became owners of major corporations. Government handed out trillions of dollars to their cronies.
So, does anyone wonder what a global wealth redistribution will look like? Just look at what we have right now.)
The luxury goods market has registered double digit growth every year since the crisis hit(19). (Manufactured by factories filled with well paid workers, right?)
Whether it is a sports car or a super-yacht, caviar or champagne, there has never been a bigger demand for the most expensive luxuries. (Wait a darned minute. We thought the wealthy were hoarding their money, and trickle-down wasn't happening. Now we discover that the wealthy are spending like crazy, and their wealth is circulating all through the economy! So which is it, OXFAM?)
The IMF has said that inequality is dangerous and divisive and could lead to civil unrest(20). (Indeed, crowds whipped up into a frenzy by marxists promulgating their poisonous rhetoric is bound to have an effect like this. Indeed, this is the goal, to have civil unrest, disruption of institutions, and mayhem everywhere. Then they can waltz right in and take over, because "the people want it.")
Polling shows the public is increasingly concerned about growing inequality in many countries, and by people across the political spectrum(21)(22). (In other words, their incessant propaganda is working.)
Extreme wealth and inequality is economically inefficient
A growing chorus of voices is pointing to the fact that whilst a certain level of inequality may benefit growth by rewarding risk takers and innovation, the levels of inequality now being seen are in fact economically damaging and inefficient(23). ("A certain level?" These people presume to know that delineation point? In world economy of trillions upon trillions of dollars and many billions of transactions occurring every day? This is the hubris of these people, the same hubris that took hold of dictators and tyrants throughout history. Because they're more compassionate, more intelligent, and have the whole thing figured out, they're entitled to impose their vision of the world, setting themselves as arbitrators of all that is good and holy. Talk about delusional!)
They limit the overall amount of growth, and at the same time mean that growth fails to benefit the majority. (It just isn't fair, they say, as they stomp their feet like 4 year olds. Children obsess over fairness. Immature minds are concerned with fairness. Fairness and equality is the pursuit of the developmentally arrested mind.)
Consolidation of so much wealth and capital in so few hands is inefficient because it depresses demand, a point made famous by Henry Ford(24) and more recently billionaire Nick Hanauer in his much-discussed TED talk(25). (Well, how about that. A couple of rich people who think they're too rich? Dude, get out you checkbook and write some checks. What's stopping you?)
There quite simply is a limit to how many luxury yachts a person could want or own. (Um, what? A couple of paragraphs ago the authors were bemoaning the fact that the rich were buying luxury items at an unprecedented level. Now they are unhappy that there is a limit to those purchases. So which is it, good or bad? Does trickle down work or not?)
Wages in many countries have barely risen in real terms for many years, with the majority of the gains being to capital instead(26). If this money were instead more evenly spread across the population then it would give more people more spending power, which in turn would drive growth and drive down inequality(27). (Don't you love the theoreticians prognosticating about what would happen if everyone was equally wealthy? So if everyone magically was given $50,000 per year, and everyone started exactly equal, in five years the rich would be rich and the poor would still be fat, dumb, and lazy.
But beyond that, note the presumption. "If this money were instead more evenly spread...," as if this is simply a matter of moving it around like putting butter on a piece of bread.)
The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012- enough to end world poverty four times over.(28) (In other words, they're good at what they do, finding a product that people want to buy and making it affordable and useful. Marxists hate that.
The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012- enough to end world poverty four times over.(28) (In other words, they're good at what they do, finding a product that people want to buy and making it affordable and useful. Marxists hate that.
But according to Global issues.org, "almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day."
So let's do the math. $240 billion divided by 3 billion poor equals $80, divided by the $2.50 per day equals 32 days at their present income. This does not improve their status, let alone end world poverty "four times over.")
As a result growth in more equal countries is much more effective at reducing poverty. Oxfam research has shown that because it is so unequal, in South Africa even with sustained economic growth a million more people will be pushed into poverty by 2020 unless action is taken(29). (Hmmm. Why is there no mention of the countries that are more "equal?" I wonder if they mean "more equally poor.")
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Politically Corrosive
If, in the words of the old adage ‘money equals power’ then more unequal societies represent a threat to meaningful democracy. This power can be exercised legally, with hundreds of millions spent each year in many countries on lobbying politicians, or illegitimately with money used to corrupt the political process and purchase democratic decision making. (Well yeah, of course money buys influence. Government is corruptible. So the answer is to reduce the government's ability to cause damage by eliminating its power to redistribute wealth. This is done by returning it to its constitutional limits.
So let's do the math. $240 billion divided by 3 billion poor equals $80, divided by the $2.50 per day equals 32 days at their present income. This does not improve their status, let alone end world poverty "four times over.")
As a result growth in more equal countries is much more effective at reducing poverty. Oxfam research has shown that because it is so unequal, in South Africa even with sustained economic growth a million more people will be pushed into poverty by 2020 unless action is taken(29). (Hmmm. Why is there no mention of the countries that are more "equal?" I wonder if they mean "more equally poor.")
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Politically Corrosive
If, in the words of the old adage ‘money equals power’ then more unequal societies represent a threat to meaningful democracy. This power can be exercised legally, with hundreds of millions spent each year in many countries on lobbying politicians, or illegitimately with money used to corrupt the political process and purchase democratic decision making. (Well yeah, of course money buys influence. Government is corruptible. So the answer is to reduce the government's ability to cause damage by eliminating its power to redistribute wealth. This is done by returning it to its constitutional limits.
You will note that this is exactly opposite of what OXFAM advocates. Can you imagine the magnitude of corruption, crony capitalism, and political buyoffs if OXFAM gets its way and government is empowered to unilaterally determine when someone is too wealthy?)
Joseph Stiglitz(30) and others(31) have pointed out the way in which financial liberalisation led to huge power for the financial industry, which in turn has led to further liberalisation. In the UK the governing Conservative party receives over half its donations from the financial services industry(32). Capture of politics by elites is also very prevalent in developing countries, leading to policies that benefit the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies. (33)
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Socially Divisive
Extreme wealth and inequality undermines societies. It leads to far less social mobility. If you are born poor in a very unequal society you are much more likely to end your life in poverty. (We wonder what the statistics were for poverty in the old Soviet Union? Pol Pot's regime? In those societies the rich were non-existent, having been put to death. So how did everyone else fare? Do we really need to ask?)
As Richard Wilkinson, co-author of the Spirit Level(34), has said, the American dream is more real in Sweden than it ever has been in the United States(35). Social mobility has fallen rapidly in many countries as inequality has grown(36). (Apparently these folks don't even know what the American dream is. The American dream is that if you work hard, do the right thing, and follow the rules, you should be able to make a nice life for yourself. For those who had higher ambitions, they might even get rich, or even be president someday.
It is interesting that OXFAM focuses on mobility, as if the American dream is a process of ascending up through the classes. But America is not class-based. unless a class structure is imposed by organizations like OXFAM in order to foster class warfare and societal discord.)
If rich elites use their money to buy services, whether it is private schooling or private healthcare, they have less interest in public services or paying the taxes to support them. (This statement is offered as if it were self-evident. But once again, OXFAM is inconsistent. If the rich are spending their money, they are not hoarding it. Their money is out in circulation, trickling down.
Joseph Stiglitz(30) and others(31) have pointed out the way in which financial liberalisation led to huge power for the financial industry, which in turn has led to further liberalisation. In the UK the governing Conservative party receives over half its donations from the financial services industry(32). Capture of politics by elites is also very prevalent in developing countries, leading to policies that benefit the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies. (33)
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Socially Divisive
Extreme wealth and inequality undermines societies. It leads to far less social mobility. If you are born poor in a very unequal society you are much more likely to end your life in poverty. (We wonder what the statistics were for poverty in the old Soviet Union? Pol Pot's regime? In those societies the rich were non-existent, having been put to death. So how did everyone else fare? Do we really need to ask?)
As Richard Wilkinson, co-author of the Spirit Level(34), has said, the American dream is more real in Sweden than it ever has been in the United States(35). Social mobility has fallen rapidly in many countries as inequality has grown(36). (Apparently these folks don't even know what the American dream is. The American dream is that if you work hard, do the right thing, and follow the rules, you should be able to make a nice life for yourself. For those who had higher ambitions, they might even get rich, or even be president someday.
It is interesting that OXFAM focuses on mobility, as if the American dream is a process of ascending up through the classes. But America is not class-based. unless a class structure is imposed by organizations like OXFAM in order to foster class warfare and societal discord.)
If rich elites use their money to buy services, whether it is private schooling or private healthcare, they have less interest in public services or paying the taxes to support them. (This statement is offered as if it were self-evident. But once again, OXFAM is inconsistent. If the rich are spending their money, they are not hoarding it. Their money is out in circulation, trickling down.
And whether or not they have less interest in public services or paying taxes is irrelevant. The presumption here is that OXFAM should have some sort of say in the financial choices people make. Apparently people cannot be trusted to make the "right" choices themselves, so money mast be taken from them so that it can be spent properly.)
Those from elites are much more likely to end up in political office or other positions of power, further entrenching inequality. (This is a manifestation of the implementation of the agenda OXFAM is advocating! Government controls so much money that people interested in power run for office for a chance to control some of that money. Because there is a lot of money up for grabs, special interests have a stake in channeling where that money is allocated.
Those from elites are much more likely to end up in political office or other positions of power, further entrenching inequality. (This is a manifestation of the implementation of the agenda OXFAM is advocating! Government controls so much money that people interested in power run for office for a chance to control some of that money. Because there is a lot of money up for grabs, special interests have a stake in channeling where that money is allocated.
So they want their guy to run for office to get a piece of the pie. Which means very expensive political campaigns. Again, this is the direct result of government possessing so much power, power which OXFAM wants to increase.)
Their children are likely to be as rich, if not richer, than their parents, with inter-generational inequality increasing(37). (Here we thought it was a good thing for our children to prosper, that they might have it better than we did.)
Inequality has been linked to many different social ills, including violence, mental health, crime and obesity(38). (Correlation is not causation. This is the old "poverty causes crime" meme that is based on the idea that the poor are oppressed by the rich and as such are justified in rising up in violence against them. It is also designed to excuse people from personal responsibility for their actions. "Society made me do it" is simply blaming something or someone else for the things you are responsible for.)
Crucially inequality has been shown to be not only bad for the poor in unequal societies but also the rich. Richer people are happier and healthier if they live in more equal societies(39). (The state has no power to act based on what will increase happiness. The idea of happiness is personal. Poor people are not automatically unhappy. However, if they are continually bombarded with ideas about class envy, hatred for the rich, and rise up against the Man, they will be very unhappy indeed.)
As the world is rapidly entering a new and unprecedented age of scarcity and volatility, extreme inequality is increasingly environmentally unaffordable and destructive. (It is interesting that the funding for environmental initiatives comes from the wealthy countries. Where the real environmental degradation is happening is in the third world, where people are barely managing to survive day to day, let alone spend trillions on environmental issues.)
The World Bank has shown that countries with more equal distribution of land are more equitable and more efficient, and grow faster(40). Those in the 1% have been estimated to use as much as 10,000 times more carbon than the average US citizen(41). (Like Al Gore, for example? It is amazing how many leftists live without regard for their carbon footprint but are quick to hold everyone else to a standard they do not keep themselves.)
Increasing scarcity of resources like land and water mean that assets being monopolised by the few cannot continue if we are to have a sustainable future. ("Monopolized" is not an accurate characterization. There are not enough rich to monopolize anything. And in America at least, their use of electricity or water is not a monopolization, since many others have and can use as much as they want.)
Poverty reduction in the face of extreme wealth will become harder as resources become more scarce. More equal societies are better able to cope with disasters and extreme weather events. Studies show that more equal countries are also better able to reduce carbon emissions(42).
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is un ethical
Gandhi famously said “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.” From an ethical point of view, it is extremely difficult to justify excessive wealth and inequality.(Wealth does not equal greed. And why is OXFAM's ethic superior to someone else's? What ethical code is OXFAM embracing, and why should we agree with it? And why should OXFAM be able to impose its morality on others?)
In fact, most philosophers and all of the major religions caution against the pursuit of excessive wealth at all cost and prescribe sharing of income with less fortunate members of the community. (Oh, so since the world's major religions have a moral code about greed, we can legislate morality and enforce religious precepts via government?)
For instance, the Koran bans usury and says that the rich should give away a portion of their money. (No word on the plight of women in Muslim countries or what the levels of inequality might be.)
Their children are likely to be as rich, if not richer, than their parents, with inter-generational inequality increasing(37). (Here we thought it was a good thing for our children to prosper, that they might have it better than we did.)
Inequality has been linked to many different social ills, including violence, mental health, crime and obesity(38). (Correlation is not causation. This is the old "poverty causes crime" meme that is based on the idea that the poor are oppressed by the rich and as such are justified in rising up in violence against them. It is also designed to excuse people from personal responsibility for their actions. "Society made me do it" is simply blaming something or someone else for the things you are responsible for.)
Crucially inequality has been shown to be not only bad for the poor in unequal societies but also the rich. Richer people are happier and healthier if they live in more equal societies(39). (The state has no power to act based on what will increase happiness. The idea of happiness is personal. Poor people are not automatically unhappy. However, if they are continually bombarded with ideas about class envy, hatred for the rich, and rise up against the Man, they will be very unhappy indeed.)
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Environmentally Destructive
As the world is rapidly entering a new and unprecedented age of scarcity and volatility, extreme inequality is increasingly environmentally unaffordable and destructive. (It is interesting that the funding for environmental initiatives comes from the wealthy countries. Where the real environmental degradation is happening is in the third world, where people are barely managing to survive day to day, let alone spend trillions on environmental issues.)
The World Bank has shown that countries with more equal distribution of land are more equitable and more efficient, and grow faster(40). Those in the 1% have been estimated to use as much as 10,000 times more carbon than the average US citizen(41). (Like Al Gore, for example? It is amazing how many leftists live without regard for their carbon footprint but are quick to hold everyone else to a standard they do not keep themselves.)
Increasing scarcity of resources like land and water mean that assets being monopolised by the few cannot continue if we are to have a sustainable future. ("Monopolized" is not an accurate characterization. There are not enough rich to monopolize anything. And in America at least, their use of electricity or water is not a monopolization, since many others have and can use as much as they want.)
Poverty reduction in the face of extreme wealth will become harder as resources become more scarce. More equal societies are better able to cope with disasters and extreme weather events. Studies show that more equal countries are also better able to reduce carbon emissions(42).
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is un ethical
Gandhi famously said “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.” From an ethical point of view, it is extremely difficult to justify excessive wealth and inequality.(Wealth does not equal greed. And why is OXFAM's ethic superior to someone else's? What ethical code is OXFAM embracing, and why should we agree with it? And why should OXFAM be able to impose its morality on others?)
In fact, most philosophers and all of the major religions caution against the pursuit of excessive wealth at all cost and prescribe sharing of income with less fortunate members of the community. (Oh, so since the world's major religions have a moral code about greed, we can legislate morality and enforce religious precepts via government?)
For instance, the Koran bans usury and says that the rich should give away a portion of their money. (No word on the plight of women in Muslim countries or what the levels of inequality might be.)
The decision of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to give away their fortunes or to call for greater taxation of excess wealth is an example to the rest of the world’s billionaires. (The operative phrase is "give away." Free choice, uncoerced and a function of generosity, means that wealth is voluntarily given to parties as determined by the giver, in amounts chosen by the giver. See the difference?)
Extreme wealth and inequality is not inevitable
After the Great Depression in the US in the 1930s, huge steps were taken to tackle inequality and vested interests. President Roosevelt said that the ‘political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality’(43). (Some 80 years later, and we still have a problem? In fact, the problem is worse, caused by the very initiatives installed by FDR.)
These steps were echoed in Europe after World War Two, leading to three decades of increasing prosperity and reduced inequality. Similarly the growth of the Asian tiger economies like Korea was achieved whilst reducing inequality and meant the benefits were widely spread across their societies(44). More recently, countries like Brazil(45), once a poster child for extreme inequality, have managed to buck the global trend and prosper whilst reducing inequality. (Now a poster child for prosperity, social justice, and utopian ideals realized, right? It's all over the news how wonderful it is in Brazil, isn't it? What, it's not? Oh, sorry.)
The policies required to reduce inequality are also well known. (Dating back to the rise of communism. tens of millions dead.)
Decent work for decent wages has had a huge impact. The rise in the power of capital over labour has been identified by Paul Krugman(46) among many others as a key cause of the recent crisis(47) and one that means that assets are not being used productively, in turn reducing demand.
After the Great Depression in the US in the 1930s, huge steps were taken to tackle inequality and vested interests. President Roosevelt said that the ‘political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality’(43). (Some 80 years later, and we still have a problem? In fact, the problem is worse, caused by the very initiatives installed by FDR.)
These steps were echoed in Europe after World War Two, leading to three decades of increasing prosperity and reduced inequality. Similarly the growth of the Asian tiger economies like Korea was achieved whilst reducing inequality and meant the benefits were widely spread across their societies(44). More recently, countries like Brazil(45), once a poster child for extreme inequality, have managed to buck the global trend and prosper whilst reducing inequality. (Now a poster child for prosperity, social justice, and utopian ideals realized, right? It's all over the news how wonderful it is in Brazil, isn't it? What, it's not? Oh, sorry.)
The policies required to reduce inequality are also well known. (Dating back to the rise of communism. tens of millions dead.)
Decent work for decent wages has had a huge impact. The rise in the power of capital over labour has been identified by Paul Krugman(46) among many others as a key cause of the recent crisis(47) and one that means that assets are not being used productively, in turn reducing demand.
Free public services are crucial to levelling the playing field.
(Free? Oh how wonderful! It's all free!)
In countries like Sweden, knowing that if you get sick or that you will receive good treatment regardless of your income, is one of the greatest achievements and the greatest equalisers of the modern world. Knowing that if you lose your job, or fall on hard times, there is a safety net to help you and your family, is also key to tackling inequality. Similarly, access to good quality education for all is a huge weapon against inequality. (Can the authors name a single important achievement in industry or science from the Swedes in the last 50 years? What are the Swedes known for in terms of commerce? What do they produce that is in demand all over the world?
In countries like Sweden, knowing that if you get sick or that you will receive good treatment regardless of your income, is one of the greatest achievements and the greatest equalisers of the modern world. Knowing that if you lose your job, or fall on hard times, there is a safety net to help you and your family, is also key to tackling inequality. Similarly, access to good quality education for all is a huge weapon against inequality. (Can the authors name a single important achievement in industry or science from the Swedes in the last 50 years? What are the Swedes known for in terms of commerce? What do they produce that is in demand all over the world?
Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped. In 2003, Sweden’s rape statistics were higher than average at 9.24, but in 2005 they shot up to 36.8 and by 2008 were up to 53.2.
But of course, they're more equal.)
Finally, regulation and taxation play a critical role in reining in extreme wealth and inequality. Limits to bonuses, or to how much people can earn as a multiple of the earnings of the lowest paid, limits to interest rates, limits to capital accumulation are all only recently-abandoned policy instruments that can be revived. Progressive taxation that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor is essential, but currently the opposite is the case – taxation is increasingly regressive and the poor pay higher effective tax rates than the rich, a point recently highlighted by Warren Buffet among others, who has called for greater taxes on the rich(48). (In other words, government coercion is necessary to achieve utopian goals. The fact that America has had a very progressive tax system for decades while the rich are still "too rich" has not only not reduced inequality, it has resulted in a massive increase in the size and power of government, which gobbles up the resources of the country.
The principles OXFAM advocates are already in operation, and have been for 80+ years. Yet the problem is worse than ever. And they want even more!)
Cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion goes hand in hand with more progressive taxation. Closing tax havens and ending the global race to the bottom on taxation, for example with a globally agreed minimum rate of corporation tax would make a huge difference It is estimated that up to a quarter of all global wealth – as much as $32 trillion - is held offshore(49). If these assets were taxed according to capital gains taxes in different countries, they could yield at least $189 billion in additional tax revenues(50). (Absolute malarkey. The reason there is offshore money is because people with money react against government confiscation of wealth by finding other places to keep their money. The more government tightens its authoritarian grip, the more it slips through their fingers. These are dynamic equations. People will not just stand by and let government steal their money from them.)
End extreme wealth and inequality
Whatever the combination of policies pursued, the first step is for the world to recognise this as the goal. (It's not the goal, nor should it be. You know, it's become increasingly clear that Leftists are the ones with the greed problem. They envy other peoples' money. I wonder what the world's religions have to say about envy?
Leftists see a problem, i.e., poverty, and they react not with compassion and generosity with their own money, but instead by eyeing someone else's wealth. They begin scheming on how they can cause the rich man to part with his ill-gotten gains. You see, no one deserves to be rich. They're just lucky. So it's only right that someone comes and takes their ill-gotten gains.)
There are many steps that can be taken to reverse inequality. The benefits are huge, for the poorest – but also for the richest. We cannot afford to have a world of extreme wealth and extreme inequality. We cannot afford to have a world where inequality continues to grow in the majority of countries. In a world of increasingly scarce resources, reducing inequality is more important than ever. It needs to be reduced and quickly. An end to extreme wealth by 2025. Reversing increasing extreme inequality and aim to return inequality to 1990 levels.
Finally, regulation and taxation play a critical role in reining in extreme wealth and inequality. Limits to bonuses, or to how much people can earn as a multiple of the earnings of the lowest paid, limits to interest rates, limits to capital accumulation are all only recently-abandoned policy instruments that can be revived. Progressive taxation that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor is essential, but currently the opposite is the case – taxation is increasingly regressive and the poor pay higher effective tax rates than the rich, a point recently highlighted by Warren Buffet among others, who has called for greater taxes on the rich(48). (In other words, government coercion is necessary to achieve utopian goals. The fact that America has had a very progressive tax system for decades while the rich are still "too rich" has not only not reduced inequality, it has resulted in a massive increase in the size and power of government, which gobbles up the resources of the country.
The principles OXFAM advocates are already in operation, and have been for 80+ years. Yet the problem is worse than ever. And they want even more!)
Cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion goes hand in hand with more progressive taxation. Closing tax havens and ending the global race to the bottom on taxation, for example with a globally agreed minimum rate of corporation tax would make a huge difference It is estimated that up to a quarter of all global wealth – as much as $32 trillion - is held offshore(49). If these assets were taxed according to capital gains taxes in different countries, they could yield at least $189 billion in additional tax revenues(50). (Absolute malarkey. The reason there is offshore money is because people with money react against government confiscation of wealth by finding other places to keep their money. The more government tightens its authoritarian grip, the more it slips through their fingers. These are dynamic equations. People will not just stand by and let government steal their money from them.)
End extreme wealth and inequality
Whatever the combination of policies pursued, the first step is for the world to recognise this as the goal. (It's not the goal, nor should it be. You know, it's become increasingly clear that Leftists are the ones with the greed problem. They envy other peoples' money. I wonder what the world's religions have to say about envy?
Leftists see a problem, i.e., poverty, and they react not with compassion and generosity with their own money, but instead by eyeing someone else's wealth. They begin scheming on how they can cause the rich man to part with his ill-gotten gains. You see, no one deserves to be rich. They're just lucky. So it's only right that someone comes and takes their ill-gotten gains.)
There are many steps that can be taken to reverse inequality. The benefits are huge, for the poorest – but also for the richest. We cannot afford to have a world of extreme wealth and extreme inequality. We cannot afford to have a world where inequality continues to grow in the majority of countries. In a world of increasingly scarce resources, reducing inequality is more important than ever. It needs to be reduced and quickly. An end to extreme wealth by 2025. Reversing increasing extreme inequality and aim to return inequality to 1990 levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment