(Ten-minute read)
Looking at the world right in front of our eyes it would be fair to say that it is currently falling asunder while we all turn inwards in the fourth technological revolution that is not just undermining world institutions but creating social inequality that is linked to racial inequality, gender inequality, and wealth inequality, not to mention world conflicts.
This is a ringing indictment of our global economic system and there is no justifying it.
So the question is as it has been for the last couple of decades is there enough being done to bring about a more equitable distribution of income on a global scale.
The answer is a resounding No. To the extent that it is now hard to imagine any kind of economic miracle that could shrink the worldwide income gap.
Where is global inequality going?
By 2030 the richest 1% will own two-thirds of global wealth.
World lottos, created new billionaire every two days.
The world’s 10 richest billionaires, according to Forbes, own $745 billion in combined wealth, a sum greater than the total goods and services most nations produce on an annual basis.
Between 2009 and 2017, the number of billionaires it took to equal the wealth of the world’s poorest 50 per cent fell from 380 to 42.
But more than 65 per cent of the world’s millionaires continue to reside in Europe or North America.
WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH – OR RATHER THE LACK OF IT.
It’s true that wealth inequality has always existed, no matter what the design of the society. Whether capitalist or communist, democratic, autocratic, or plutocratic, it will exist.
Yet many of the extremes we see today are avoidable.
Income disparities have become so pronounced poor health and poverty go hand-in-hand.
It is tempting to see the rising concentration of incomes as some sort of unstoppable force of nature, an economic inevitability driven by globalization and technology.
There is nothing inevitable about untrammelled inequality.
It is the result of an unlevel playing field, the direct consequence of certain government policies.
There is no longer any simple solution.
Nowhere has the distribution of the pie become more equitable.
Increasing the incomes of low-wage workers produces stronger beneficial economic ripple effects than boosting bonuses for the rich.
Excluding Quantitative easing, 97% of money has been created through lending. When somebody borrows money – even just by spending on a credit card – new money is created. No wonder our economy is so geared around finance.
Yet we penalise labour and subsidise both debt and the ownership of assets.
The question is, how fast can developing countries grow in the future? The answer, unfortunately, is not fast enough.
The richest 1 per cent of humanity reaped 27 per cent of the world’s income between 1980 and 2016. The bottom 50 per cent, by contrast, got only 12 per cent.
If you ever wanted to understand where climate change came from, why there are so many wars and the unrest we are witnessing the above figures say it all.
This will only get worse in the near future with the most powerful force driving the distribution of income on a worldwide scale will be raw economic growth:
Will poor countries make sufficient progress relative to their rich peers to bring more balance to the distribution of global income?
Or will rising inequality within countries dominate?
It depends on three forces: countries’ economic and population growth, as well as the evolution of inequality within them.
This is no longer true. The forth Industrial technological revolution is going to require more aggressive redistribution through taxes and transfers.
Why because social inequality is now very different from economic inequality, though the two are linked.
Areas of social inequality include access to voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, the extent of property rights and access to education, health care, quality housing, travelling, transportation, vacationing and other social goods and services. In the quality of family and neighbourhood life, occupation, job satisfaction, and access to credit.
All of these areas are now been data mined for profit by you know who with us supplying the data scot free.
We all know that more inequality means less wealth for everyone. .. but are we seeing countries deciding to push vigorously back against inequality. No
Ballooning wealth inequality is a threat to society.
globalization has also upended the agricultural and manufacturing sectors in many countries.
“In every country, just about, the disproportionate economic clout of those at the top has provided these individuals with wildly disproportionate influence on their countries’ political life and on its media; on what policies are pursued and whose interests end up being ignored,” Obama said.
He is right!
Wealthy must contribute or be forced to the larger benefits of society.
Inequality is not inevitable – it is a political choice.
It represents social and political issues that no party or government can afford to neglect.
Foot Note: To us Europeans.
Europe, unfortunately, has not been at the forefront of this battle, at least not EU institutions.
On the contrary, it has for long remained complacent, as EU treaties require unanimity on tax matters and as the bloc includes countries such as Luxembourg that have benefitted massively from corporate and individual tax avoidance.
For decades, the EU was dominated by an unholy alliance among three types of governments: those that rejected the very principle of international tax coordination as an infringement on sovereignty; those that benefitted from tax competition; and those that used it as a way to overcome domestic reluctance to the reduction of redistribution.
For an institution that is supposed to be based on values and that hails the European social model, this is humbling, and the EU is now paying a political price for its long inertia.
Social inequality can also be established through discriminatory legislation.
Things have started to change.
Thanks to Yellow Jacks and Brexit we may witness only if we truly want it some improvements.
In the battle for fairer globalisation, with more and more Foodbanks and homeless people, it is far too early to claim victory.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
Francois Gerard Georges Hollande. Age 53. Married divorced. 4 children. First Socialist president since Francois Mitterrand left office in 1995. Taught economics at the elite Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris, or Sciences Po.Receives 28.6% of the vote in France’s presidential election in April 2012. Won in runoff election for the presidency of France by 51.62% of the vote. Enjoys a wide range of holiday residences. Commander-in-Chief of the French Armed Forces and may order the use of nuclear weapons. At the forefront of securing a global climate deal and after the Paris attacks he persuaded Europe and the US to step up the fight against Isis. One of the very last European leaders to believe in Europe. Represents 65 million.
Dilma Rousseff. (suspended) Age 70. Married,divorced twice. One child. Democratized Brazil’s electricity sector through the “Luz Para Todos” (Light for All) program, which made electricity widely available, even in rural areas. Her chairmanship of the state oil company Petrobras and misuse of election funds, all of which she denies, soon plunged her presidency into crisis. Impeach. Petrobras are accused of illegally “diverting” billions from the company’s accounts for their personal use or to pay off officials. Rousseff served as chair of Petrobras during many of the years when the alleged corruption took place. Did Represent 211 million people. 
Muhammadu Buhari. Age 73. Married Divorced. 10 Children. A farmer, cattle rearer. Retired Major General in the Nigerian Army Latest in a family of 23 children. He contested four times (2003,2007,2011 and 2015) under the platform of CPC, ANPP and APC. The first man to overthrow (by the poll) a sitting Nigerian president. He was one of the two African “not in government ” individuals invited to President Barack Obama’s inauguration. Represent 175 million people.
I have previously posted blogs putting the case that all technology (whether it be atomic energy or nanotechnology, bioengineering or DNA mutilation, or Artificial Intelligence) should be subject to examinations by a New World Organisation, that is totally independent and transparent.
