The Devastating Unequal Distribution of Wealth - Research Paper Example

of the The devastating unequal distribution of wealth Introduction The outrageous inequality in the distribution of wealth around the world is not new. All of us have grown to a greater or lesser extent, with this awareness. But though this statement seems only the echo of a speech, as constant as static, the fact is that this phenomenon cannot help but be reported much less when, over the decades, rather than qualified intensifies (Norton, and Dan Ariely, p. 12). Beyond abstract indicators that confirm that those who have more, increasing accumulate wealth, while the poorest seem doomed to never migrate out of this condition, the consequences of this dynamic eventually permeate the daily life of millions of people. Apparently there is a model, which currently governs the finance and markets, designed to dilute any possibility of transforming as suggested by the tens of failed revolutions, philanthropic oriented systems lighten the consequences but not to change the bases, etc (Hoch, and Sumaria Mohan-Neill, p. 31). The unstoppable growth of inequality The study of Oxfam indicates that, despite multiple complaints for campaigns and seen little or no effect in determining the currently reality, levels of inequality have grown in the last twenty years (Saez, Emmanuel, and Gabriel Zucman, p. 2014). To size the harmfulness of the economic model that governs us, we could enlist dozens of examples, here are some: According to Oxfam, with only a quarter of the official fortunes accumulated by the hundred richest men on the planet, about 240 billion dollars, enough to lift out of poverty the worlds population living in these conditions. Currently food for 12,000 million people produce enough to feed nearly two world populations. 15% of the population (nearly one billion), but today suffer from hunger. The three billion more people punished, ie just over 40% of the population, have only 1% of wealth circulating in the planet. According to a UN report, published in 2005, in countries like United States, 1% of the most affluent population, control over resources that 95% of disadvantaged people (while, according to recently learned, in Mexico 1.2% have 43% of wealth ) (Fredriksen, p.929). Barbara Stocking, Oxfam executive, said  that the current scenario of inequality is: “Economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive. We cannot continue to pretend that creating wealth for a few inevitably end up benefiting the many -of done the opposite usually happens “ The situation is even worse than official figures show An interesting factor, the huge sums of money that the wealthy kept outside the official margin suggests that in fact the numbers are much cruder. A year ago James Henry, a former economist at McKinsey, published a report on tax havens. According to the document, it is estimated that between $ 21,000 million dollars and $ 32 billion (trillion) safe fiscal monitoring, and owned precisely the main billionaires. The reason is simple: do not want their fortunes overflowing shaved by tax requirements imposed by the governments of the countries in which they operate. Something that is even more damaging if the model allegedly pursued by the rulers is that the wealth of the better-off eventually spill to the lower strata of the population through taxes (Saez, Emmanuel, and Gabriel Zucman, p. 2014): “Inequality is bigger, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians still seem confident that the wealth will trickle to the poor. This information shows that it has exactly the opposite occurred: during the last three decades an enormous amount of money has been poured outside tax obligations in accounts owned by a tiny portion of super-rich “. If this “unofficial” wealth is considered in the calculations, then we would notice that half of wealth in the world is controlled not by the 1% of the population, but by 0001%. But if the problem lies not only in the unequal distribution of wealth, too, and perhaps even more harmful in the distribution of power. In his book”Superclass: the Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making”, David Rothkopf located six thousand characters within a group called the “super-class”. The common denominator among these individuals is the remarkable influence on the most important areas of social reality: both in finance and in culture, politics and the military, arts and media, etc. In short, this small group largely defines the course of life of more than seven billion people (Saez, Emmanuel, and Gabriel Zucman, p. 2014). According to the above, we see a board game in which corporations and individuals behind them, still outweigh the governments themselves, institutions that are supposedly they should be bidding to redesign the model we has in the current situation. In fact, many corporations have greater resources than the vast majority of nations (Hoch, and Sumaria Mohan-Neill, p. 31). A report called ”aired Distributed Corporate Clout: The Influence of the Worlds Largest 100 Economic Entities “from which we can determine which of the 150 most economically powerful entities, 58% are corporations and other governments for example Wal-Mart is ranked 25, exceeding the GDP of 171 countries (Norton, and Dan Ariely, p. 12). A solution? After a brief review of the voracious steppes of inequality, we conclude the tour before a bleak scenario: inequality grows perhaps is more intense than ever in history, and the power to reverse or re-program the model that encourages This situation is now in the hands precisely those who most benefits obtained from the current situation. As exit routes could imagine an unlikely awareness of the elite that at some point relatively soon, is to realize that even without threatening its infinite comfort, the wealth could be better distributed. Another option would be for governments, which currently seem to be quietly submitted to the elite interests, exercise their role as a force that balances the game board option which, incidentally, does not seem at least in the short term, feasible. Finally comes at the third path, one that depends on us, the people, who obviously are not included in the 1% and least 0.001%. The problem is that to influence decisively on stage, we have to synchronize efforts around an initiative that has little to do with traditional activism, or the revolutions of the twentieth century, the majority of which were eventually accommodated in the original system . I guess the challenge is even much deeper and demand individually rethinks the way in which we self-perceived, and we process our reality: the habits, relationships, principles, and reasoning that govern it. From this transformation whose characteristics are still vague to us, and later, then I think we could give life to a level sufficient to disrupt the current structure pulse.  Work Cited Fredriksen, Kaja Bonesmo. Less income inequality and more growth–are they compatible? Part 6. The distribution of wealth. No. 929. OECD Publishing, 2012. Hoch, Indira Neill, and Sumaria Mohan-Neill. “CAN FINANCIAL LITERACY HELP ALLEVIATE WEALTH AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE US?.” InAcademy of Marketing Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 31. 2013. Norton, Michael I., and Dan Ariely. “Building a better America-One wealth quintile at a time.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, no. 1 (2011): 9-12. Saez, Emmanuel, and Gabriel Zucman. “DP10227 Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data.” (2014). Read More