by Michael Roberts
The global elites are meeting today for their annual jamboree at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Some of the world’s top political leaders, banking chiefs and corporate
moguls will discuss the key issues, ideas and strategies for how to
rule the world.
This year’s main theme is the impact that ‘disruptive technologies’, robots and artificial intelligence will have the future of capitalism. But the rising risk of new global economic recession, just eight years from the last, will also occupy minds.
Last year, the WEF debated the issue of rising inequality of income and wealth. But nothing came of that. So this year, Oxfam issued another report on the grotesque inequality of the ownership of wealth globally.
The headline was that just the 62 richest billionaires own as much as
the poor half of the world’s population. And the top 1% of wealth
holders own more wealth than the other 99% combined!
Oxfam’s data suggest that inequality of wealth globally has got worse
since the end of the Great Recession. The wealth of the poorest 50% in
the world dropped by 41% between 2010 and 2015, despite an increase in
the global population of 400m. In the same period, the wealth of these
richest 62 people increased by $500bn (£350bn) to $1.76tn. Back in
2010, it took 388 people to have as much personal wealth as the bottom
50%. By 2014, that number had fallen to 80 people. Now it’s just 62.
Oxfam’s prediction that the richest 1% would own the same wealth as the
poorest 50% by 2016 had come true a year earlier than expected. Last
year, the average wealth of each of the 72 million adults belonging to
the richest 1% was $1.7 million, compared with about $5,000 for the 648
million people in the bottom 90%.
And Oxfam’s measures do not account for the estimated $7.6tn in hidden offshore tax havens that inequality expert Gabriel Zucman has identified in a recent book. The
charity said as much as 30% of all African financial wealth was thought
to be held offshore. The estimated loss of $14bn in tax revenues would
be enough to pay for healthcare for mothers and children that
could save 4 million children’s lives a year and employ enough teachers
to get every African child into school. Oxfam said nine out of 10 WEF
corporate partners had a presence in at least one tax haven and it was
estimated that tax dodging by multinational corporations costs
developing countries at least $100bn every year. Corporate investment in
tax havens almost quadrupled between 2000 and 2014.
To get its headline results, Oxfam used the data for the wealth of
1%, 50%, and 99% from Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook (2013 and
2014) https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/news-and-expertise/research/credit-suisse-research-institute/publications.html. The wealth of the richest 62 was calculated using Forbes’ billionaires list, http://www.forbes.com/ with annual data taken from list published in March. And calculations were after deducting debt.
Oxfam’s methods have come under severe criticism. When Thomas Piketty published his tome, Capital in the 21st century, which argued that inequality of wealth was rising in most major economies, Chris Giles, the FT’s economics editor was quick to find holes in Piketty’s data and methods. Piketty did an effective job of riposting Giles’ critique.
But Giles is now back having a go at Oxfam’s report. First, Giles
argues that actually the world is getting less unequal in income, and
poverty is declining globally. This is a hoary old argument from the
mainstream. Yes, inequality of income and wealth between countries has narrowed a little and poverty has fallen, as measured.
But this is for one main reason: the tremendous growth in real GDP and
living standards for hundreds of millions living in China. Take China out of the equation and there is no improvement in either inequality or poverty. And within countries, inequality is rising as the gini coefficient of income and wealth in China and India shows.
Giles wants us to dismiss Oxfam’s numbers because they “splice together data on the richest individuals from Forbes, designed to sell magazines, with data on the rest of the world from Credit Suisse, which itself is compiled from a host of incompatible sources.” I
don’t think that the authors of the Credit Suisse report on global
wealth would appreciate this attack on their integrity and methods.
I have reported before on the Credit Suisse report in this blog. The
co-author of that report is my friend Professor Anthony Shorrocks, who
was head of the United Nations global wealth survey and is probably the
world’s leading expert on global wealth. He recently sent me an update
on his data. From this, he reckons that “the situation is even worse”
than Oxfam indicates in its report. He concludes that since 2000, the
bottom 90% of the world’s population have seen a fall in their wealth,
so that all the gain in personal wealth in the last 15 years globally
has gone to the top 10%, with the lion’s share for the top 1%.
Giles also criticises the Credit Suisse measure of wealth as one of
net worth (assets minus liabilities), so it treats a recent US graduate
on a huge income, but with student debt, as poorer than a subsistence
farmer in China. According to Giles, this explains why North America
appears so unequal in this chart from the Credit Suisse report.
Actually, as a robustness check, Oxfam recalculated the share of wealth
held by the richest 1 percent once negative wealth is excluded. It did
not change significantly (falling from 50.1 percent to 49.8 percent).
Negative wealth as a share of total wealth has remained constant over
time, such that wealth distribution trends over time are not affected.
Giles makes much of the point that it does not take much wealth to end up in the top 1% globally: “most
people owning a London property will have more than $760,000 wealth and
put you in the supposed plutocrat zone of the global top 1 per cent.”
Yes, this is true. But what this shows is how poor in personal
wealth nearly everybody is: ownership of property is the province of the
very few. And even in London, most property owners do so through huge
mortgages for which they must work to service. That does not apply to
the billionaires.
Giles’ last critique is to complain that Oxfam and Credit Suisse
measure wealth in dollars rather than in purchasing power parity. The
latter supposedly measures what your wealth can buy in local currency.
Local currency goes further in Indonesia or Somalia but may not be worth
much in dollars, particularly as the US dollar has been rising against
most other currencies, making dollar wealth more than it is. Giles
claims that the change in national wealth in 2015 “is almost entirely linked to the size of last year’s depreciation against the US dollar.” Maybe
so, but PPP measures of wealth are just as biased as dollar measures.
You need dollars to buy imported goods like cars, i-phones, computers.
That form of durable goods or wealth is affected by your dollar wealth,
along with land and buildings too in many countries.
The Giles critique does not really dent the Oxfam report or the work
of authors of the Credit Suisse wealth report, just as he failed to do
with Piketty’s data. There is no getting away from the conclusion that
the world is grotesquely unequal in the ownership of cash, bonds,
stocks, land, buildings and means of production and in the incomes
‘earned’ by people globally. It is unequal to the extreme between countries and within countries. And the evidence suggests that inequality is not being reduced, at the very least, and probably is worsening.
But don’t expect the Davos elite to do anything about it.
If you have opinions about the subject matter of posts on this blog please share them. Do you have a story about how the system affects you at work school or home, or just in general? This is a place to share it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I research this stuff too. I was curious about the growth of financial assets vs the U.S. economic growth rate from 1986 to 2015.
Financial assets increased 194% (almost tripled), the U.S. GDP/capita grew by 56%,
and we know that the top 1% received 54% of that gain.
Financial assets have grown from $24 trillion in 1986 (inflation adjusted) to $72 trillion. Net worth is $90 trillion.
The national debt is about $20 trillion, the public part is $14 trillion. Six times the public debt is the national savings.
We could easily pay off that debt, or pay it down, with a tax on financial assets. A direct tax would be best,
but a FTT, financial transaction tax, the Robin Hood Tax, would sort of do the job slowly.
Since 2008 financial assets have increased their value by 60%, and also the median family savings has decreased by 40%
(both these are FRB reported figures).
Also, I should stress, I find the writings of Lawrence Mitchell, former professor of economics, very compelling. He labels our problem "Financialism" as says that it is a parasite that will destroy the host. I recommend readers to his page http://www.lawrencemitchell.net/category/the-economy/
I write a blog too, Economics Without Greed, http://benL8.blogspot.com
Post a Comment