Is money the root of all evil? Hell if I know, but it sure can pose a danger to society especially if existing resources are not shared in a reasonable or equitable fashion. Let’s explore this thesis for a bit, shall we?

The world’s economy is doing very well. We know that the ranks of the desperately poor, have declined substantially in the past couple of decades. From another perspective, global equity markets recently have been valued at some $109 trillion dollars. As the saying goes, a trillion here and a trillion there and soon you are talking real money.

Moreover, the size of this pie has tripled since the turn of the century. That is, there has been an explosion of wealth as evidenced by the mushrooming of yachts, private planes, and displays of egregious wealth. In short, while some of this newfound lucre has drifted down to the needy, the vast majority has gone in the other direction … toward the economic elite.

Of course, not every part of the globe has shared equally in this bonanza. The U.S. and Europe enjoy over 55 percent of these goodies with the States appropriating the lion’s share. Still, so-called emerging markets are catching up. China has seen a 12- fold increase in market equities over the past two decades. Moreover, while China used to send its best and brightest to the West to be educated, they now are investing substantially in home-grown research and education. Two Chinese universities now compete with the best Western institutions. India, on the other hand, is projected to enjoy the fastest growth over the next two decades. These emerging markets are projected to dominate the traditional winners in the West by 2050.

The other key factor is who, within individual countries, has benefitted from all this economic expansion. This is a complex topic, so we will keep it simple. In the U.S., the top 1 percent take at least 20 percent of the national income (some estimates have put it closer to 24 percent until Covid disrupted things) … a figure that has more than doubled since Reagan assumed office in 1980. The bottom half of the population must make do with 10 percent of the pie. Wealth, or accumulated income, is even more unevenly distributed.

Now, you might say that the distribution of income is determined by market forces and is beyond the scope of human intervention. Neo-classical economic thought treats these outcomes as the product of natural laws, like gravity, and should not be messed with. Any public interference would distort market operations and lead to inefficiencies and distortions. Worse, such interventions would inconvenience the filthy rich.

Then again, if that were the case, I would expect to see a good deal of homogeneity in distributional patterns across countries, especially across more or less peer nations. But, in fact, there is considerable variation when the standard measure of inequality, the GINI coefficient, is examined.

For example, I suggested earlier that the U.S. has a comparatively high level of income and wealth inequality. Some 80 countries are measurably more equal in how income and wealth are distributed across their populations. These include the U.K., Canada, Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, all the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, and most Eastern European nations. Oh, and I might throw in Russia and China. Within the European community as a whole, the top 1 percent garner 12 % of the pie (not 20 plus percent like the U.S.) while the bottom half access 22% of what is available (more than twice what the less fortunate in America get).

So what, you might wonder. Well, I often wonder why Americans so blithely put up with the few taking such a huge portion of their resource pie. Why don’t they see this as unfair. Again, this is a complex issue. I recall an old observation about a basic difference in how Americans and Europeans respond to wealth. When a Rolls Royce passes poorer folk on the continent, they often respond with anger. In America, those looking on sigh with admiration and believe that such blessings can one day be theirs. After all, there is always the lottery.

No matter the difference in how people respond to displays of great advantage, there is one outstanding danger. As income and wealth become increasingly concentrated at the top, so does power. Money can buy media exposure and can help leverage the mechanisms through which social control is maintained. The more money at the top, the more likely the rules will reflect the interests and preferences of the elite. That is why hedge fund managers pay less proportionally in taxes than working stiffs. Money is power, and those with the most gold get to shape the rules.

Most politicians would rather eschew the employment of raw power to retain control … Trump may be the exception. No, most prefer a subtler approach … the classic bait and switch tactic. Keep people obsessing on irrelevant issues while you rob them blind. Keep them afraid, divided, and focused on marginal questions like abortion, transgender and gay politics, barbarians at our borders, guns, books that are grooming our kids, and all sorts of emotional topics that deflect attention from more substantive concerns. Conservatives realize that common folk respond to emotional narratives that strike their hearts while liberals keep making rational arguments, which is why the libs usually do so badly.

With people distracted, those that occupy the top spots in our economic pyramid can continue to gather more and more for themselves. At some point, we may reach the point at which there may be no possibility of addressing the rules which, if revamped, might create a more equitable and integrated society. The imbalance may be permanent, self- sustaining, and self-perpetuating. Perhaps we are already there.

So, is money the root of all evil? Not sure about that. But concentrated wealth does permit all kinds of evil to flourish. Of that, I am without any doubt.