SU: Re-distribution of Wealth

Preliminary Discussion: The Natural Flow of Economic Wealth to a Social Elite

The notion of economic wealth is to my mind a social construction and as such is subject to the vagaries of human fluctuation.  Just as there is no precise one-to-one relationship between mathematical formulations, such as the square root of three, and physical dimensions, so there is no constant value of  wealth to the actual worth of goods and services by which economic wealth is amassed by some social entity, e.g., a government.  A recent book by Philip Coggan, discussed on CNN's program Fareed Zamarian with its author, takes up the various methods governments have used, since the Roman Empire up to the very moment in history in which we are living, to rid themselves of debt they have incurred and are owed to their creditors.  These methods are ways available to debtor governments to adjust their accounting books, so as to make it possible for them to continue to exist, and thereby, to avoid political upheaval and radical social change. 

Now, I believe, the same point can be made with respect to any specified social entity's economic wealth.  It is natural, I contend, that a social entity's wealth will ultimately be concentrated and controlled by a few prominent individuals or group of individuals within it.  These elite make up the powerful members of the society, its oligarchy, and are at the top of the pecking order of persons comprising it.  In the Nineteenth Century America, for instance, the so-called robber barons including the Rockefeller clan, Ford, J. P. Morgan, were part of the ruling oligarchy comprising the United States leadership.

Democracy is important in the States in that the people, through the exercise of their vote, can voice their approval or disdain the direction forcefully provided by its ruling elite.  Traditionally in the US, the voting electorate has been conservative--meaning they go along without complaint with the policies advocated and established for the country by its leaders (whether or not occupying governmental positions).  So, how these leaders of the US decide the government get rid of its debt burden will be likely accepted by the citizenry.  Conversely, voter feed-back through the ballot is a vital way for the leadership to know whether its policies meet with widespread approval.

As in the Roman days, leaders tend to seek peaceful popular complaince.  The Roman government would "entertain" the people with sports and games and provide gratis food and drink.  Today, the American leadership can boast of cheap goods from China and other Asian countries available in American markets and many inexpensive computer devices and entertainment diversions at low cost for Americans to play with.  Put bluntly, US leadership is satisfying the appetites of the American citizenry and finding even more ways to make them happy!  Meantime, the ruling elite are amassing vast sums of money and exercising enormous power.  This state of affairs withstands the ever-present danger of the ruling elite's being toppled from its social high status.

Re-distribution of Wealth as a Project in Globalization

Where does the project of re-distributing wealth come into play in the dynamics of a social entity's amassing economic wealth for itself?  You may recall that one major impetus toward globalization is to transform a country's citizenry into "citizens of the world."  This homogenization of humanity wherein everybody becomes treated as equals is being achieved tangibly by raising the standards of living in emerging countries and by lowering the standards of living in advanced coutries.

In the late 1980's, when I first heard of this worldwide re-distribution of wealth project (as I understand it), I wondered whether the citizenry in the advanced countries would go along with it.  Particularly, I did not think the ruling elite in these countries would accept it.  Well, I did not know that these wealthy oligarchies would exclude themselves from participating in the downing of wealth that equalization of the citizenry, no matter what country they are from, would imply.  We see now, today, that in the US, for instance, the wealthy are preempting themselves from the general trend toward a lower living standard.  Indeed, there are many spokesmen for the rich who argue the wealthy are entitled to amass huge fortunes on the grounds they are making the middle class and the poor beneficiaries of transfer sums through governmetal action that has established a safety net and other programs for the poor and aged and disadvantaged to sustain them; and, for the middle class, has granted generous tax advantages to lessen the tax burden, such as the income earned tax credit allowance!

But, while it seems indisputable that wages of the middle class workers in the US have steadily lost ground so as no longer to keep pace with inflation, it also seems readily acknowledged, e.g., according to the IMF, that the standard of living in the underdeveloped countries has significantly risen, improving the lot of formerly impoverished populations.  Look how China has blossomed, giving rise to a prosperous middle class.

The Goals of Business and Industry Not Necessarily Those of Society

Business is organized to make a profit.  It makes use of technological innovations and automative processes to minimize its expenses and costs and thereby to maximize its return on investments. Its CEOs and others in a societal ruling elite are dedicated to achieving business aims.  I think it obvious that their goals are not those of the society whose members they influence, even seek to control, through the mass media and their own representatives in government and industry.

The goals of society include: 1) freedom and liberty to pursue individual projects that don't harm or infringe upon the freedom and liberty of others to pursue their individual projects.  (Here, the mandate for the individual to take out insurance protection is relevant, since were some individual refuse to participate in his own healthcare monetarily, he would be infringing on others who must be in line to bear his costs for medical treatment.);  2) full employment of its societal members; 3) protection of the societal individuals and to an extent deemed reasonable, to oversee their property preservation; 4) maintenance of the governmental infrastructure to assure the maintenance of roads and bridges and the free-flow of goods and services throughout its social system; and 5) the maintenance of programs which preserve and enhance social living within its bounds.

Let's look at social goal #2: full employment.  By substituting machines and automation for worker effort, business and its leaders are certainly not committed to goal #2.  It may be a social, common good, but it certainly can jeopardize business' goal to maximize profit.  Indeed, one could argue that business is concomitantly aimed to displace as many workers as possible with cheaper methods of doing business.

Overall Evaluation of the Ruling Elite upon Achieving Social Goals

I have argued that the social ruling elite are not dedicated to the aims of society, as I have presented some of these.  They may embrace, however, the goals of business, since from the Middle Ages they have engaged in banking and high finance that has brought them, as a social class, untold wealth and power in the many societies of power-starved individuals.  Indeed, in the 17th Century, they used the Dutch to advantage in carrying forth their endeavors to claim wealth from around the world; and in the 19th Century they turned to the English navy for protectors of their world-wide fortunes.  Now, it's the many, many US military bases around the world (some 741 installations) in some 170 foreign countries to bring peace and relative US corporate dominance in the world, making these financiers multi-billionaires!  But, I believe they are not taking allegiance to any one country nor to any particular form of government.  Theirs is to retain their high prestige and social influence among all peoples the world over. Hence, their compulsive drive toward globalization!

Nevertheless, in that they are striving toward equalities of all peoples and races and have brought about through the project of re-distribution of wealth a significant upturn in the standard of living of previously impoverished peoples, I think these ruling elite have contributed remarkably to social uplift.                

Meta-Elements in Re-distributing Wealth

1.  The promise.  It is promised through globalization that by levelling the standard of living in the advanced countries and by raising the standard of living in the poorest of countries, equality of peoples will be accomplished.

2.  The acceptance.  In those countries where social compliance has been wrought, e.g., through outsourcing of jobs and wage lowering in the advanced countries and through a vast movement of peoples from the poorer countries to the advanced, whole societies have worked to cooperated to bring about equality of peoples.

3.  Areas of social advancement.  It seems evident that the social elite have successfully resisted participating in the re-distribution of its own wealth, yet nevertheless, by re-distributing wealth one society to that of another, a modicum of social integration has clearly emerged among all peoples.

4.  Provisions for breakdown in the re-distribution project.  It has been delegated to the several national governments to oversee the re-distribution efforts, in order that no one society dominate over any other.

5.  Utopian vision.  Globalization envisions no particular society or people shall establish its rules and regulations over any other, and all peoples shall be treated equally--with justice and fairness for all, quite independently of a social elite's background and societal preferences.