4 ms·
The growth of the wealth of the super rich, and the increasing gap with the less rich, is a manifestation of exponential math. Two investors put money into the
by 11thEarlOfMar 5y ago
The growth of the wealth of the super rich, and the increasing gap with the less rich, is a manifestation of exponential math. Two investors put money into the same investment that grows at 10%. One invests $1,000, the other $10,000. Each year, the gap will increase.
There is nothing immoral about this.
Where super wealth becomes a problem is when that wealth is used to influence policy. Effectively, the super-wealthy can choose to behave as unelected politicians. This is a problem.
Soros and the Open Society Foundations is an example of where this is manifest. He contributed $32 billion to fund the organization. His Open Society Foundation employs 1,150 professionals who promote his political agenda[1]. Whether you agree with his political agenda or not, Soros and I are both American citizens. We both have one vote. My influence in US politics should equal his. It does not. The only Americans who should have more political influence than I are those who have been elected or appointed to government positions.
Carlos Slim has owned 9-17% of the New York Times. Lauren Powell Jobs foundation owns the majority of The Atlantic. Bezos himself purchased the Washington Post. Perhaps these simply seemed like good investments, and I am certain that wealthy persons have owned media for centuries. But the unprecedented wealth of this century increases the potential influence the super wealthy can wield. This is a concern.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/billionaires-are-buying-media-companies-new-york-times-not-for-sale.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/billionaires-are-buying-medi...
[1] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/past?page=2 https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/past?page=2
- cowvin 5y agoIs there a reason you don't cover right-wing billionaires in your examples? For example the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch are extremely influential on politics. In any case, money has always been able to buy political power. That's a big reason why wealth inequality leads to political instability.
- 11thEarlOfMar 5y agoThanks for pointing that out. Yes, the issue transcends political leanings.