Inequality

====

 

“I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with 24 feet.

 

Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor.

 

Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good.”

 

 —-

 

Marx discussing how the super-wealthy take on the properties of the money they possessed

====

 

“Sure there is class war, and it is my class, the rich, who are making it and we are winning.”

 

 

—-

 

Warren Buffett

 

 

====

 

 

So.

 

 

Another year and another global report stating that some obscenely small group of people <62 this year> have such obscene wealth that their wealth equals 50% of the wealth of … gulp … the entire population of the world.

 

wealth global inequality

NOW … only 62 people own 50% of wealth

 

According to Oxfam, the wealth of those richest 62 people grew by more than half a trillion dollars since 2010, even as the wealth of the bottom half of the world dropped by 41%. That, mind you, took place in the period after the global financial crisis, during the years of supposed recovery.

 

 

 

Permit me to skip the material luxuries they can afford that everyday schmucks like you & I will never brush against except on TV.
Instead I will point out the trickle down effect of inequality.
The wealthier you are you get, or gain access to:

 

better healthcare.

 

better education <and opportunities>.

 

better start.

 

better everything.

 

 

You live longer, are healthier, are better educated, have better jobs and, ultimately, have better opportunities.

 

hunger games odds

The odds are forever in your favor.

 

 

This is not to suggest that just because someone has a shitload of money that everything in their life is happy shiny people just that their floor of life resides on the 15th floor of life so that when flood waters arrive they have other things to worry about than the poor suckers on the 1st floor trying to keep their heads above the water.

 

 

Simplistically, less money means being deprived of opportunities <and some improved degrees of essentials>.

 

 

That is the whole foundation on the discussion of inequality <or what I call the trickle down effect>.

 

 

The challenge with having an unemotional rational conversation about inequality is that everyone <okay … 90%> below the unimaginable wealth people feel deprived of something.

 

 

All the while it is the actually a life in poverty <not just extreme poverty> where you find such a massive depiction of deprivation as compared to the wealthy that it becomes a little difficult to decide where to go ‘up’ in solving it.

 

 

I tend to believe no one, morally, can justify a distribution of resources <not just redistributed money> that allocates so very little to so many and gives a so much, in fact … more than they can actually consume, to so few.

 

 

I also tend to believe the overall angst felt among the masses is less about the money and more about changing social norms <in term of expectations>. We have actually changed expectations about equality <not just wealth … with everything> in the relatively recent past.

 

 

Here is a historical truth.

 

Few truly believed “everyone is created equal” in the early years of America. It was a concept and not truly a reality. It has only been in the relatively recent past that we, as a country <and many other countries by the way>, have taken some concrete steps toward ‘everyone is created equal. In doing so we have planted the seed in everyone’s head that extremism, in any form, should be viewed with a critical eye to insure that ‘everyone is created equal’ has an opportunity to come to life.

 

 

Be clear.

 

I am not speaking about wealth redistribution.

 

I am fairly sure everyone understands that ‘everyone equal’ does not pertain to income and wealth <which is outcome> but rather opportunity to gain ‘something better.’

 

 

inequality gap stepInequality is addressed not by attempting to level outcome but rather by focusing on the concept that everyone, on day one, starts as close as possible at a similar starting line and given the best opportunity to be prepared to run the race as well as everyone else at the starting line <therefore it becomes a fair race of best talent & best potential combined with personal drive>.

 

 

I believe it was John Steinbeck who referred to the poor as the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

 

 

While we have successful lotteries with huge pots f money <which suggests that there are millions of aspirational millionaires out there> I would rather suggest that when 62 people have 50% of the total global wealth we are no longer ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires’ but rather believe the only way we can get closer to the wealth stratosphere is by betting.

 

 

Philosophical people posit over the minds & attitudes associated with extreme inequality and maybe we should instead focus on finding ways to have everyday schmucks like me start re-believing that if I work my ass off and I am as smart as some asshole who already has a boatload of money that I may just have a chance of showing the world I deserve more of the global wealth … and get it.

 

 

But you know what?

 

I think most of these obscenely wealthy people are relatively oblivious to most everything you and I, the everyday schmucks, experience … and worry about … and do.

 

 

Therefore, in an odd way I just feel sorry for them and their obscene wealth as they are most likely people living some hollow Life gilded in entitlement.

That said … that means I is I really don’t believe turning our focus on them to resolve what I would consider an ‘inequality challenge’ that needs to be resolved.

 

 

I would focus on the 10% <I made that number up> bottom feeder/opportunistic suckholes who enable the super wealthy elite.

 

 

Let’s call these the demi-gods.

 

These are the money experts, the consultants, the think-tanks, the bank speculators, the political establishment and the global CEO-types. These are the assholes I kind of point my finger at that have created a slightly morally corrupt world … well … at least a world that can hardly be defined as nice.

 

 

Look.

 

 

Solving extreme inequality is not necessarily about ‘direct redistribution’ or giving a lot of shit away for free.

 

 

Its more about siphoning away some of the obscene wealth and funneling it into “training for the race” services and products.

 

 

Let me be clear.

 

This is not about envy or entitlement but rather about opportunity fairness. I could argue that the majority of the 62 people on the list made their money by not playing fair, such as tax avoidance, insider information, political bribes, using minimum wage labor in production and being maniacally litigious to seek insuring the environment in which their businesses reside maintained their leverage.

 

 

I imagine my point is that someone, someones, enables the 62 people. There are morally challenged wealth enablers all over the place making money off of making money … not ‘labor economic growth.’ While the 62 obscene wealth holders aggravate me … the enablers anger me.

 

 

They anger me because their actions suggest that the ends <accumulating wealth> justify the means. I would suggest the wealth ethically gained is more valuable than wealth unethically gained. But these people don’t see it that way. inequality money spend world you want

It is all just numbers.

 

 

Well.

 

I am not naïve enough to suggest we should seek ways to eliminate poverty.

 

But maybe I am naïve enough to suggest the way to start addressing extreme inequality isn’t by breaking up banks or high taxes on the extreme wealthy <although that one wouldn’t hurt … as long as the funds were used properly rather than simply go into some big government pot ‘o money> but rather by going after the enablers. They are the ones who actually enable and create the trickle down inequality and they should learn a better way of conducting business or pay a price themselves.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Written by Bruce