Persuading people as to the merits of socialism due to its effect on those worse off in society is all well and good. It may touch some empathic part of of us and sound reasonable in practice, all the while the wealth gap widens. This is because the power to change things resides with those who have most power economically. We often like to call this group of people the one percent and think on it no further than that they are the wealthiest people in the world. It is far more complicated than that as the one percent includes people who have control in much more powerful financial institutions such as banks, oil companies and governments which are all in competition with each other in different ways. Companies are in direct competition with each other and governments have to appease both companies and their citizens. The system is set up so that if an institution fails to perform sufficiently well in economic terms, another will come along that can. This means that even though many of the one percent would like to see a better deal for the ninety nine percent their hands are tied by the system, should they ignore this restraint they will jeopardize not only themselves but their institution and all those that depend on it be they employees or citizens.
Our economic system has very little in the way of moral safeguard or moral incentives. Appealing to the empathy or morality of the one percent to enact change is futile and not because they are any more lacking in these areas that the ninety nine. It is because the economy works on profit and capital alone. Morality is only relevant in so far as it effects profits, it relies on many separate individuals changing their spending patterns to reflect their morality. This is happening more and more but is still mostly superficial in effect and inconsequential in volume.
In humans the urge to act with self interest is paramount, I am not suggesting we are all immoral and greedy. Think of it more like this, when you give to charity have you ever given so much that you can no longer yourself eat? Or course not, that would be insane and very few persons can claim to have acted that way. Every single action an individual takes they must sensibly consider themselves, in far less of their actions will they need to think of others. The whole economic system is founded on the trait in humanity for self interest. A mechanism borrowed from evolution which has been using it fruitfully for a very long time.
Regardless of the fact we may feel sympathy for those who suffer most from the machinations of the global economy our overriding self interest will be directed by the economic systems to keep the wealth gap widening. I can propose new economic systems that might solve the problem all I like however I predict that only obtaining the sympathy vote is not enough to change things. While I think that things will have to get a lot worse before they can start to get better regarding the global economy it is not worth giving up trying to avoid the need of a decline in society.
A more pragmatic form of persuasion would be directed at the self interest of those with the power to make changes and not at their sympathies. I shall first attempt to illustrate my argument quantitatively before exploring the social side of it. The old adage of not being able to place a value on human life is nonsense as it is exactly what our economic system does. If you take a persons life expectancy and see how many working hours they are statistically likely to have left and multiply that by the amount they are paid per hour you have the value that the economy places on that person. Ultimately this creates scenarios where groups of people know they are worth less than other people and also relative to goods and commodities. Rational decisions are made based on a risk and return basis. Sensible people don't do risky things with low chances of return. As the relative value of a life decreases their sensible risks are allowed to increase. Put in other terms the greater the relative poverty of a person the more things they will do that others would not. This works the same way in reverse to a certain extent but is less relevant to this point. A wealthy person may be able to throw a million at a high risk venture that is overall a low risk to them based on their overall worth. Rich people can afford to take some bigger risks in economic terms however in social terms this is not the case. Rich people have more security, more insurance, more health care and more all round protective measures than the poor because they have more to lose rather than simply because they can afford it. There must be some point at which a critical difference in wealth gap is reached where events such as the French revolution occur. Or a point at which people are willing to sacrifice their lives.
If those who have risen to wealth and power wish to continue to rely on the security of society to be able to enjoy their wealth and power they must ensure they are passing enough down the wealth chain to keep values within society aligned. Examples of tensions based on expanding wealth gaps exists all over the world today such as The Arab Spring, the London Riots, “the game” in many US cities and an increase in terrorist attacks from a variety of rogue individuals and organizations. The incentive for those in power to prevent social revolts is strong but it is hard to predict exactly how and when they would be detrimental. Not only is it unclear exactly what we should be trying to prevent but also how to go about doing so is very tricky. Obviously the overriding aim is to reduce the wealth gap however there are good and bad ways of doing this, both economically and socially. For the most part these will be topics of other essays however I can say for certain that the solution is not giving handouts to the poor nor is it denying the rewards for excellence. You stifle the industry of a nation by having too much in the way of welfare as there becomes little incentive to work. Similarly you stifle innovation by making the returns for success not worth the effort. At least as people begin to realise the effects of an increasing wealth gap the incentive to change and the power to make those change will reside in the same people. Let us hope collectively that the one percent are able to each do enough independently to remedy the problem as a whole. A master plan to solve the global economic ills seems so unlikely due to the competition between the one percent.
