Wealth inequality is a global crisis

Nothing new it’s always been like this, the western world has improved incomes for the workers, the rest of the world struggles. The only way that they can be helped is if we in the west reduce our lifestyle and pay them more for the goods we import.

Would the OP like to be first to do that

Hasn’t the world always been so? As David49 says, less so in the Western world worse elsewhere.

No! It hasn't always been so and that is a myth used as a deflection tactic to make us accept that we can never be like the rich!

Mixed economies where the welfare state runs alongside private enterprise are the most successful models for sharing wealth more fairly.

It was so called austerity measures which stripped the social safety net bare and people began to think this was normal.

It isn't.

Look how the idea of increasing taxes is looked at by the majority now. Who benefits from low taxation? (not that we have it, another myth perpertrated by the media) only the rich, obviously. They pay as a proportion a much lower amount than the poor.

Look at what is happening in the US with Trump's big beautiful bill. It is benefitting the wealthy far more than those who voted for him. Just like Brexit.

The super-rich don't hang around on inter-net forums debating these things- they just carry on getting richer whilst we silly plebs just let them get on with it.

The biggest myth we are sold is that it has always been this way- well it hasn't!! You are being sold a lie and seem willing to believe it...

Did you actually watch the video, David, Oreo?

Thanks for postingDaisy interesting and should spark some decent discussion. Tbh it might be worth listing some points of interest as most won't bother to watch the video. Warren Buffet's comment about the distribution of wealth post 2008 was something I'd not considered before and explains a good deal about the rise of populism, not just in the US but here and in Europe!

David49

Nothing new it’s always been like this, the western world has improved incomes for the workers, the rest of the world struggles. The only way that they can be helped is if we in the west reduce our lifestyle and pay them more for the goods we import.

Would the OP like to be first to do that

Yours and my level of wealth are unlikely to be the problem David49.

I guess you didn't watch thd video

foxie48

Did you actually watch the video, David, Oreo?

Thanks for postingDaisy interesting and should spark some decent discussion. Tbh it might be worth listing some points of interest as most won't bother to watch the video. Warren Buffet's comment about the distribution of wealth post 2008 was something I'd not considered before and explains a good deal about the rise of populism, not just in the US but here and in Europe!

Thank you foxie. I thought it was an easy watch with stats and graphs aplenty which helps.

I agree our generation still get most of their information offline, but it is changing and new Grandparents will be used to getting their information from a cross section of online sources. So it's worth encouraging those who will watch these videos. Change may be slow but it always happens

Daisy I also think our generation think we know it all and have seen it all before but of course, we haven't! We've had very wealthy people in the past who had power and political influence but not on this present global scale, which present new challenges to the democratic process.

The Protestant work ethic/Calvinism present in the Industrial revolution fuelled the economy and to some extent created a more paternalistic society, drove a move for more mass education and over time improved the living conditions of many in the population. It also led to putting more political power in the hands of the masses.
The technological revolution or post industrial revolution is not doing that. Huge wealth is being accumulated by a small group of people giving them huge political power and their wealth is not being used to fuel the economy for everyone to benefit.
fwiw, I'm not idolising the industrial revolution, it was grim for most workers but it eventually changed society in a way that spread the benefits more, I don't think our post industrial revolution is going to necessarily do that.

It certainly has always been so. In fact it used to be much,much worse and people who were poor could starve and die. In some countries they still do. There used to be little children working many hours just so they could be fed. Some of them hardly saw daylight. The wages were almost non existent and the factory owners ,mostly, couldn’t care less.

But that, sadly, seems to be the direction of travel nanna. Not just in those countries where we sadly expect extreme poverty (the first comments in the video are about what's happening in Nepal) but in the so called rich countries too as the gap widens.

If you do manage to watch it I'd be interested to know if you think he gets across the point that taxing what we sometimes see as the "middle-class" is exactly the wrong thing to do.

One statistics he mentions is that "the 26 richest people on earth own as much as wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion. So that's 26 individuals versus half the planet".

I often see people trying to justify this. That these people bring money to the country, that talent must be rewarded, that they move us forward. In my view that is talking about the wrong people. The reason why government should not use the middle-income/middle-class as their first call on tax is that these are the very group that do the things attributed to the very rich. The extremely wealthy do not have to move a muscle to a) make yet more money, and b) make it impossible for other people and governments to do so.

Is this what the video (and its fact finding) is saying to you or have I misunderstood it? I need you guys to watch (if you can) and let me know if what you take from it, where you feel I may be wrong, etc.

While we have a global financial system where companies are allowed to grow without limit and the consumers in the west demand ever cheaper prices it’s not going to change. We will. continue to exploit workers in other countries, I don’t include workers in the west because our governments taxation systems provide welfare

It’s nothing new for the top 1% or even the top 0.1% of the population controlling all the wealth in the 18th and 19th century the aristocracy the slave owners and industrial moguls did exactly the same. Musk or Gates or Jobs with vast fortunes because their companies have expanded because we buy their products we don’t have to we buy the because we want them but in most cases we don’t need them.

I agree with many of the points in the video but until we have a global financial system that mandates fair distribution of wealth nothing is going to happen. If it ever did come into being our standard of living would fall considerably and honestly I don’t foresee a government backing that policy being elected

Well done, Phil Moorhouse!

I like that he makes the point that it is only money which circulates in the economy which is beneficial. His example of £1million being handed to a wealthy person will just get stashed somewhere (to make more money for them) whereas if given to 100 poor people it would be spent and generate economic activity (and tax revenues) is something I've been trying to point out for a long time. Money unspent by the super rich is dead money, it contributes to nothing but an increase in their bank balance.

He points out the narrowing of the inequality gap in the post WW2 period and the widening of it since the 1980s (as Thomas Piketty did in his 2011 study of 'Capital', a book which few non economists have read?) What he doesn't touch on is the fact that in the 1980s economic strategy changed radically in many countries (notably the US and the UK) to one which favoured the wealthy and unrestrained acquisition of wealth from one which curbed the acquisition of wealth and implemented or supported social measures to improve the lives and financial status of the rest of society.

I would argue that it wasn't the accumulation of wealth generated by the Industrial revolution that helped to improve the conditions of 'the poor' but the growth of trade unions and the work of middle class (and sometimes upper class) campaigners for improved conditions. Without public support and strong campaigns by social reformers the wealthy industrialists would have done little to ameliorate the pay and conditions of their workers. Improvements didn't just appear out of thin air.

While we can see that extreme wealth and inequality is a global problem there is nothing to stop us supporting efforts to curb the acquisition of excessive wealth in our own countries.

I would also say that repeating that trite saying 'The poor are always with us' isn't a get out. There will always be a hierarchy of relative incomes/ wealth, but that is no reason why those at the bottom, the relatively poor, should live precarious and disadvantaged lives.

Finally. The money that the wealthy are accumulating and hoarding so fast is our (i.e the nation's) money. It is issued by the government (the only body able to issue our money) and as it is spent it flows upward to the wealthy.

What doesn't come back to the government in taxation, the 'deficit' is the money still circulating in the economy or kept in savings, and the wealthy has most of it,

P.S Excellent post at 9.06 keeping quiet 👍

It was good, wasn't it Maizie. Clear and well supported by facts.

While we can see that extreme wealth and inequality is a global problem there is nothing to stop us supporting efforts to curb the acquisition of excessive wealth in our own countries.

Totally agree. Could Europe take the lead on this? I have a feeling we could (while noticing that I am mentally now including Canada in our number).

What doesn't come back to the government in taxation, the 'deficit' is the money still circulating in the economy or kept in savings, and the wealthy has most of it.

That's just it, isn't it. It's being kept out of the circulation. The opposite of the post war to the 1970s/80s period and that was when people could see the improvements in their lives.

(Phil Moorhouse seems to have changed his style slightly so I'm hoping for more in depth (but understandable) explainers. What I believe was the first of these was titled ^How To Survive Toxic Politics Without Losing Your Mind^ )

MaizieD

P.S Excellent post at 9.06 keeping quiet 👍

Thankyou- I've read some additional excellent comments too.

I might add that many industrial magnates of the 19th and early 20th centuries made legacies founded on Christian moral principles which led to libraries, museums, art galleries etc as well as educational and health care establishments. This also happened in the US.

Whilst these institutions may be considered paternalistic it was a model subsequent billionaires- the likes of Bezos and Musk come to mind, do not follow. They just want to throw their money into personal vanity projects which benefit no one or nothing but their own egos.

This is the problem for me.

Read your history people. Yes, that history some flag wavers seem so keen on but know next to nothing about!

Sorry Maisie disagree, those on modest incomes might let spare money sit in deposit accounts for a rainy day, the wealthy do not, they invest it, maybe shares, pensions, property, or expanding their own business, all of which finances growth in whichever economy. Elon Musks fortune is not dead money it’s the total value of his company shares they are generating more wealth, that applies to all of the billionaires.

In the 20th century unions and governments did improve conditions for workers, there was precious little before apart from ending slavery.

The UK through IHT has done a lot to reduce wealth of private individuals and still does, but now we have a class of wealthy business owners who are much more difficult to tax effectively

Yes we always have the poor, most of the global population don’t have a welfare system to step in and help them, in all western nations there is welfare to help them.

Yes money is flowing upward, because we are buying goods and services from global companies, we buy from Tesco, Starbucks, McDonalds, Apple, Amazon, most of our spending flows upward thats the way the finance system works. Any individual government has no influence it has to comply because the finance market is far more powerful even than the US. Even China has to comply because it needs outside investment, ironically we welcome the investment of £150billion by US companies in the UK, the profit will inevitably travel upwards to the US.

I agree the system should be changed but until there is a global taxation system nothing is going to happen

But that isn't what is happening David49 (Did you watch the video? - it's easier to discuss it if you have.) The money is not going back into the economy to pay for services, etc., it is buying more assets and power. Phil Moorhouse points out (with stats) that extreme wealth buys extremism (left or right). He comments that in the USA, "by 2022, just 100 ultra-rich households were supplying nearly 40% of all individual donations to political parties. That is not "growing the economy" it is buying power over the law, the economy as it affects the population generally, and its buying the right to govern however you like.

You contend that all of which finances growth in whichever economy. Where is that happening? Are people getting higher wages for services? Are manufactured goods making bigger profits? Are more houses, roads, waste collections being financed by this huge growth in a minorities wealth? It's the countries economy. How many in that country are benefiting from your supposed growth in that countries economy?

But what galls me is the example of that extremely wealthy Indian family recently who spent ££s millions on a wedding. And yet poverty in India (and living conditions) are absolutely appalling.

Plus India has a space programme. 🤷‍♀️

Surely ‘charity begins at home’ must come to mind? Why do extremely rich people trample so on their fellow countryman? They must have no heart. Nor social conscience.

Why don’t the rich think ‘hmm would my son in law (for example) be able to live on the wages I pay my workers?’. Doubtless not but the circle continues.

And percentages don’t help either when it comes to wage rises. 3% (say) of a manager’s wage is far higher than the 3% afforded to the worker bees. Hence the differentials just grow exponentially.

nanna8

It certainly has always been so. In fact it used to be much,much worse and people who were poor could starve and die. In some countries they still do. There used to be little children working many hours just so they could be fed. Some of them hardly saw daylight. The wages were almost non existent and the factory owners ,mostly, couldn’t care less.

No, it wasn't always like that.

Read your history people. Yes, that history some flag wavers seem so keen on but know next to nothing about!

For one reason or other, I was in in Keighley Library at the beginning of the week. I was very impressed by the building, which I discovered had been funded by Andrew Carnegie, who became one of the richest Americans in history. I then amused myself by Googling him and discovering all the buildings worldwide that he funded, many of which still exist. I can't see Musk or Bezos doing anything similar.

Sorry, I know that was off-topic, but it was kind of relevant.

growstuff

*Read your history people. Yes, that history some flag wavers seem so keen on but know next to nothing about!*

For one reason or other, I was in in Keighley Library at the beginning of the week. I was very impressed by the building, which I discovered had been funded by Andrew Carnegie, who became one of the richest Americans in history. I then amused myself by Googling him and discovering all the buildings worldwide that he funded, many of which still exist. I can't see Musk or Bezos doing anything similar.

Sorry, I know that was off-topic, but it was kind of relevant.

Yes, this is what I meant.

Of course children were sent down mines- but thankfully the laws were changed by right-thinking people who cared about these things, and of course by the rise of Unions which also made working conditions better until Blair finally disempowered them.

I am not suggestion a return to Victorian patrimony, but maybe we shouldbecome increasingly aware that in a democracy (while it still lasts) we do have the power to change things.

There is no trickle down benefit in the present rampant capitalist system- there is only the worship of the God profit.

Look what happened to the public utility companies...

Carnegie, was, of course, Scottish. There is a Carnegie Hall in Dunfermline, where he was born.

He was, though, unusual in the extent of his philanthropy.

Sorry Maisie disagree,

That was inevitable😂

^ those on modest incomes might let spare money sit in deposit accounts for a rainy day, the wealthy do not, they invest it, maybe shares, pensions, property, or expanding their own business, all of which finances growth in whichever economy.^

I asked Chatgtp to advise me where I could put my money if I were a billionaire.

It was noticeable that there was very little direct investment in research and development. Mostly it was in already developed projects such as AI.

There was also a lot of 'investing' in assets, the ownership of which doesn't offer productive employment, it's rentier stuff; they own it and collect the income from leases etc. Or 'assets' sech as high end property, art and wine, which are reckoned to appreciate in value, but provide little or no employment.

Commodities, not a fruitful employment source...

Also hedge funds, which merely exist to make money for their investors, private equity, which is notorious for asset stripping existing businesses, though I will grant that some private equity is involved with business startups and development.

Stocks and shares in companies highly likely to declare high dividends on the secondary market. The secondary market doesn't return any money to the company, it exists solely for speculation.

Most of the list was low risk, high returns to capital.

So I'm not impressed with the argument that their money is 'working' to benefit others' it mostly benefits them.

Elon Musks fortune is not dead money it’s the total value of his company shares they are generating more wealth, that applies to all of the billionaires.

Elon Musk's 'wealth' in company shares is paper wealth only. Shares can lose value, thus lowering the valuation of the company. What do you think caused the stock market crash in the 1920s?

DaisyAnneReturns

But that isn't what is happening David49 (Did you watch the video? - it's easier to discuss it if you have.) The money is not going back into the economy to pay for services, etc., it is buying more assets and power. Phil Moorhouse points out (with stats) that extreme wealth buys extremism (left or right). He comments that in the USA, "by 2022, just 100 ultra-rich households were supplying nearly 40% of all individual donations to political parties. That is not "growing the economy" it is buying power over the law, the economy as it affects the population generally, and its buying the right to govern however you like.

You contend that all of which finances growth in whichever economy. Where is that happening? Are people getting higher wages for services? Are manufactured goods making bigger profits? Are more houses, roads, waste collections being financed by this huge growth in a minorities wealth? It's the countries economy. How many in that country are benefiting from your supposed growth in that countries economy?

No that is the point I made the “capitalist” system is not designed to benefit the worker, it’s the governments job to benefit them using the taxation system. We now have massive self serving global corporations using computer algorithms and AI to amass wealth, they are multi national and out of control.

The wealth isn’t invested in developed countries where growth is low, many developing industrial countries have high growth rates, India, China and many others, that also have very attractive tax breaks for investors. Whether the benefit trickles down to the population is another matter, many have very corrupt governments. Post industrial countries like the UK and most of Europe are not great investment prospects because we borrow to fund social programmes not increase growth.

In the case of the UK a great deal of revenue is lost because many companies choose to use low tax Ireland to trade in the UK. Governments are reluctant to increase corporation tax because it would deter investment.

“So I'm not impressed with the argument that their money is 'working' to benefit others' it mostly benefits them.”

All investment is not designed to benefit others it may as a consequence provide jobs or enable more revenue but the investor aims to enrich himself you do not put your spare cash into an ISA to benefit others you do it to make a tax free profit for yourself

Of course Musks share are paper value all shares are paper value in fact all currencies are paper value it’s only what others are prepared to buy at any specific time There are of course some investors that have ethic principles, most don’t care if people starve or even die