Real news and a fake scandal

Why the fuss over Oxfam's claim that the 8 richest people own as much as the world's bottom half?

Michael Kirke | Jan 18 2017 | comment

A great deal of fuss – shock-horror fuss – is being made of the revelation this week that the combined wealth of the eight richest people in the world is as much as the assets of the poorest 3.6 billion people in the world. This is according to the charity Oxfam.

What does this mean in real terms ? Probably relatively little of moral consequence. In moral terms what really matters is what way any or all of those eight are living their lives, what they do with their wealth – good, bad or indifferent. When someone gives us that information we will then be able to point or wag our fingers at these plutocrats – if that is want we feel obliged to do.

Who owns what is of relative importance. Surely what is of moral or even serious economic significance is what use we make of what we own. We have, hopefully, got over the silly worry of who buys into what industry and whether ownership of British-based car manufacturing is in the hands of Indians, Germans or Chinese.

It has proved far more beneficial to workers in Britain that the industry in which they work is run and managed efficiently and that they have good jobs as a result. With globalization there is obviously a certain loss of local political control and a certain taint of colonization. But by and large the benefits which have accrued to ordinary people through global competition far outweigh the disadvantages.

The reality is that the number of people living on less than $1.25 per day has decreased dramatically in the past three decades, from half the citizens in the developing world in 1981 to 21 percent in 2010, despite a 59 percent increase in the developing world’s population.

This does not deny the fact, as a recent World Bank analysis has pointed out, that extreme poverty is still the lot of 1.2 billion people on the planet. Despite all the progress made, Sub-Saharan Africa still accounts for more than one-third of the world’s extreme poor. But beware of false or pseudo scandal. A silly response to this real scandal would be to point the finger at these eight billionaires or trillionaires.

Equally silly would be the response which patronizingly wags the finger at the populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and tell them that they can solve their poverty by having fewer children. We have yet to see the consequences which that kind of a solution to poverty is going to have in China. The signs are not good.

Five years ago Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital, took the world by storm. But really it was a storm in a teacup. It is not much talked about now. It was in fact little more that a reworking of Karl Marx, the original disaster-economist, who can probably blamed for bringing more misery to the world than anyone in history – even Genghis Kahn.

After the initial ‘excitement’, criticism of the book began to bite and it was suspected that Piketty’s policy recommendations were more ideologically than economically driven and could do more harm than good. Mr Piketty’s focus on soaking the rich smacks of socialist ideology, not scholarship. That may explain why “Capital” is a bestseller. But it is a poor blueprint for action. That was a verdict in The Economist.

Hopefully the shock and awe of the current ‘scandal’ of the super-rich will not give his theory a new lease of life.

Michael Kirke writes from Dublin.

A Presidential commutation for Bradley/Chelsea Manning has created a storm of controversy. From a political point of view, it’s a complicated case. Manning pleaded guilty and accepted full responsibility for his/her actions. The documents endangered American lives – so he/she is a traitor. But they also revealed abuses of prisoners, showed a helicopter gunship killing innocent civilians in Bagdad and gave information on Guantanamo detainees – so he/she is a whistleblower.

In prison Manning tried to transition to a woman. Only after years of legal battles and two suicide attempts did authorities permit it. So pardoning him/her is smart transgender politics. But his/her 35-year sentence was far more severe than other whistleblowers received – so there is a case for mercy.

The shortened sentence sends two clear messages to the public. It trivialises the oath of secrecy and the importance of protecting national security. And it is a big fillip for the cause of transgenderism. Instead of languishing in prison as a traitor, Chelsea/Bradley will become a transgender celebrity.

But nearly all presidential pardons and commutations have been controversial and they always will be. The lucky recipients are, by definition, criminals. Releasing them from jail always risks trivialising the offence.

Richard Nixon pardoned the notorious gangster Jimmy Hoffa and William Calley, who had been convicted of murdering 22 unarmed Vietnamese civilians in cold blood. And then Gerald Ford pardoned President Nixon – which was probably the most controversial pardon of all.

And Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother, who had been jailed for possession of cocaine – sending a terrific message about the war on drugs.

So, while it’s tempting to wag the finger at President Obama for being soft on espionage and military discipline and coddling transgenders, it’s all part of American politics. The only Presidents who took a hard line on crime and pardoned no one were William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, both of whom died soon after their inauguration. Under the Constitution, the President almost has to pardon someone. And that someone will always be controversial.