It never fails. Each time I write a piece about the horrific, and worsening, concentration of wealth or income in America, I get at least one snide comment from an inequality denialist about my jealousy. In this respect, our old friend Thucky has plenty of company. Indeed, I believe just about every troll who’s haunted the pages of this blog has gone down that road.
On the last such occasion, I had pointed out the preposterous (at least to me) reality that the compensation of our highest paid hedge fund manager now rivals that of the entire population of a mid-size American city. Didn’t matter. It still was about my jealousy.
So I wonder: What have I said about my own situation that makes inequality denialists so sure my writing is jealousy driven?
I actually was dealt a fantastic hand of cards in life. It would be insane for me to be jealous of any individual because that individual is wealthier than I. If I drew a vertical line down the middle of a page and listed the good or great things in my life on one side, and the not so good on the other, the first list would dwarf the second. And almost all the items on the second list would be self-induced. I can’t think of an insurmountable hurdle that was placed in my path by forces beyond my control.
What about the larger picture? Do all those who write on inequality share my perspective or are they largely just jealous of the wealthy in America? I haven’t taken a poll, but it’s doubtful the main driver here is jealousy. We’re talking about a group that includes Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Nick Hanauer and Bill Gross. Hanauer and Gross are billionaires themselves, so it’s inconceivable that they are jealous of anyone else’s wealth. The group also includes the Pope, by the way.
And I also wonder: How bad will it have to get for it to stop being about my jealousy, in the minds of inequality denialists?
Unbelievably bad, I guess. I’ve written about the potential to see trillionaires within our lifetime. I wrote about the Forbes 400 controlling as much wealth as the entire African-American population. I just wrote about one man having the income of an entire mid-size city. Yet in the minds of the inequality denialists, it’s still about my jealousy.
In the past generation, the Forbes 400 has tripled its share of our wealth. That doesn’t concern the inequality denialists. Nor does the prospect of another tripling in the next generation concern them. A group that could squeeze into a movie theatre controlling fully ten percent of our wealth? No problem, they seem to believe. After all, that still would leave 90% for the other 300 million of us, and those on the Forbes list would be only 100,000 or so times as wealthy as the rest of us. What’s to worry, right?
By most accounts, the wealthiest person ever was Mansa Musa, the king of the Malian empire, circa 1300. The modern day equivalent of his wealth would be in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars. But in terms of wealth concentration, an American would have to control tens of trillions of wealth today to equal his share of total wealth. We would need to approach a level of wealth concentration depicted in a cartoon I wrote on a while back, One Rich Guy, by Tom Tomorrow. In that cartoon, one guy controls fully half the wealth.
When our modern-day Mansa Musa arrives, will the inequality denialists then question the policies that allowed for that level of wealth concentration? Or will they attribute the writings of those who do to jealousy? In his cartoon, Tom Tomorrow predicts the latter. Based on the reactions I’ve had to my writings so far, I can’t disagree.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Conservatives generally lack empathy, and they assume the same is true of others. The motto of a well-off conservative is “I’ve got mine, the rest of you — especially those of you I’ve never met — can go to hell.” So anyone who’s concerned about income inequality, in their eyes, must think he/she has too little, not that the inequity is bad for the country or grossly unfair.
The whole push to talk about Hillary’s money is to imply she’s a hypocrite talking about populist issues. Anyone who has money and cares about the poor is called a “limousine liberal,” which is a way of saying that person is a hypocrite.
Bingo. This is the all-time classic example of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
Classic.
You aren’t wrong about growing inequality damaging our country and unity – but in a sense the claim of jealousy is not wrong either – at least in their minds.
I’ve often thought that the most potent emothion in the American voter’s psyche is Resentment – the fear that someone else might get something more than you do. And the Repubs have realized and used this to their advantage far more than Dems.
When you ask “What’s the Matter with Kansas” and how so many voters vote against their own interest, the answer is Resentment. The aid that they receive means much less emotionally than the idea that black urban citizens are receiving food stamps,.
They resent anyone receiving help getting healthcare, even though they also benefit, because of the moochers and 47% who might be getting more help than they, they resent gays wanting equal treatment even though it costs them nothing, they resent immigrants wanting humane treatment because they made a poor choice in where to be born unlike themselves.
“Jealosy” is a very powerful political force and they know it and have used it for decades, so it’s natural that they project it upon you.
I think it is a very smart move for the Dems to campaign against inequality – it motivates the Resenters to join our side. It is a good start, and we need to use voter’s natural Resentment as a weapon much more, in the way that Repubs have learned to do.