More on global wealth inequality, Davos and the Chinese princelings

Much has been made of the headline from the recent Oxfam report on global wealth inequality (bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-summ-en.) that revealed that the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion.wealth pyramid

The Oxfam data are actually taken from Credit Suisse’s 2013 global wealth report (global_wealth_report_2013.)  But again this report comes from the earlier study by UN economists Tony Shorrocks (a former university colleague of mine) and Jim Davies using the UN wealth database.  I reported on this study back in October (see post, (https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/global-wealth-inequality-10-own-86-1-own-41-half-own-just-1/).

It’s funny that it takes a report by  Oxfam, the anti-poverty charity, to cause a stir about data that have been available for months. Ezra Klein has pointed out some of the key facts in the Credit Suisse/UN study taken up by Oxfam (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/22/10-startling-facts-about-global-wealth-inequality/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein&clsrd). Klein notes that Switzerland leads in average wealth, with each adult worth, on average, $513,000. Australia is in second place, at $403,000. The US is in the $250,000-300,000 range.  But when you consider median wealth (the level that most people in a country are on), then Australia leads with $220,000, followed by Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Italy, the UK, and Japan. The US is way back on this measure, with a median wealth of just $45,000, so that most Americans are worth less than most Italians, Belgians and Japanese.

The reason for the difference between the mean average wealth level and the median average is the extent of inequality in the ownership of assets in a country.  And as the UN global study showed, after accounting for debts, assets of more than $4,000 put a person in the wealthiest half of world citizens. Assets of more than $75,000 put them in the top 10 percent. Assets of more than $753,000 put them in the top 1%.  That brings us to my original headline in my previous post, “Global wealth inequality: top 1% own 41%; top 10% own 86% and bottom half own just 1%”.

All this talk of inequality of wealth and growing inequalities of income before and after the Great Recession is getting the ‘great and good’ and the ‘masters of the universe’ worried.  At their annual gathering in the luxury ski resort of Davos, starting with the heads of the IMF and the OECD and going through leading bankers and CEOs of global multinational companies, there is always a mention of the dangers of extreme inequality in the world. And President Obama apparently plans to make inequality the theme of his annual address to Congress.  Our rulers are concerned that these inequalities could lead to political and social upheaval.

And there is continual talk about offshore evasion of tax and the hoarding of secret bank accounts by the super-rich, yet again revealed in the leaked reports about the ‘Chinese princelings’ among others. More than a dozen family members of China’s top political and military leaders are making use of offshore companies based in the British Virgin Islands, leaked financial documents reveal.  The brother-in-law of China’s current president, Xi Jinping, as well as the son and son-in-law of former premier Wen Jiabao are among the political relations making use of the offshore havens.

This is the latest revelation from “Offshore Secrets”, a two-year reporting effort led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which obtained more than 200 gigabytes of leaked financial data from two companies in the British Virgin Islands, and shared the information with the Guardian and other international news outlets. The documents also disclose the central role of major Western banks and accountancy firms, including PricewaterhouseCoopers, Credit Suisse (yes, them again!) and UBS in the offshore world, acting as middlemen in the establishing of companies. Between $1tn and $4tn in untraced assets have left China since 2000, according to estimates (http://www.icij.org/offshore/leaked-records-reveal-offshore-holdings-chinas-elite).

But nothing will be done – and not just in autocratic, one-party state China. The OECD, for example, has virtually dropped its original aim of coming up with an international agreement on dealing with these hidden assets and accounts. See Richard Murphy’s brilliant blog for this (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/01/21/is-the-oecd-about-to-cave-in-to-google-and-amazon/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FlWWh+%28Tax+Research+UK+2%29).

When just a few hundred people have more wealth (and with it) more political power than everybody else combined, you cannot expect our current politicians to do anything.

7 Responses to “More on global wealth inequality, Davos and the Chinese princelings”

  1. Charles Says:

    “Nothing will be done – and not just in autocratic, one-party state China.” The point is what class rules, not the formal bodies of government. China has been a one-party state since the Kuomingtang consolidated power in the late 1920s. Yet from liberation in 1949 until the 1980s, no government family had millions, let alone billions, in capitalist property holdings as they do today.

  2. Henry Says:

    Can I repeat the pernicious, third wordlist ‘crap’ (according to Choppa Morph anyway) that I repeated in the previous article, i.e. that this report shows workers in the West belong to the ‘global elite’ and that this may help explain why workers in the West are not storming the barricades to bring an end to these iniquities.

    This presents a theoretical problem for the left, how do we present this data to western workers, which informs them how relatively well they are doing out of the current world order, in a way which advances socialism? Especially as they alreadyrecognise this fact anyway.

    I will be interested in any ideas.

  3. Tony Says:

    Reply to Henry
    What’s required is to show simultaneously the huge differentials between the wealth of the Western ruling class and the workers in Western countries

  4. maja Says:

    Hi Michael! I wonder if you can point me directly to the source of the 85 vs. 3.5 billion number, I can’t seem to find it in the Credit Suisse report? Also, do you know of any reports/data on trends in global wealth inequality?

  5. maja Says:

    Also, how exactly is debt accounted for in these wealth pyramids? I’m assuming the net worth of a lot of the poorest 3.5 billion is negative, is that subtracted?

    If I assume (completely making this up) that about 1 billion of the world population has zero or negative net worth, and let’s say my estate is worth 1 dollar, can I then update my facebook status to say “I am worth more than the poorest 1 billion”?

  6. Matt Says:

    Henry, you are correct that this is a problem, both theoretical and practical, for the left, who usually doesn’t face it squarely. Keep in mind though,

    1) Workers logically make comparisons relative to their own national conditions and standards, not in absolute comparison to the world as a whole, as there is no world state. In this workers are “theoretically correct”, as standard of living is relative to the level of the development of the productive forces in a given country, and given higher development in the “advanced” countries – that is what makes them “advanced” – and uneven distribution of productive force across countries, it should be expected that workers in such countries would have high, even “elite” standards of living. But it is just as politically silly to declare these “elitists” tout court as it would be to see then as the “most exploited” workers in the world because of higher unit labor productivity in these countries.

    2) Following from and atop the relative comparison above, workers standard of living in these “developed” countries have been and are subject to a relentless downward pressure for a generation now, to the point that we should really start calling these “undeveloping countries”. This is the most critical point, and signifies an important historical conjuncture: it marks the end of the capitalist road for these countries. Capitalism no longer has anything better in the future to offer these workers.

  7. vallebaeza Says:

    Reblogueó esto en Alejandro Valle Baeza.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: