Piketty points out that at the beginning of the 19th century, during the Restoration, the inequalities in France were greater than before the Enlightenment period. This illustrates that the desire to create a more egalitarian society is not enough but there is a need for active participation of the society, the elite and fiscal policy to go in that direction. Private property was too sacred; even some revolutionaries were against redistributive policies. This approach to property is still the same in today’s society and is legitimized by the capitalism ideology.
Where economic policies are dictated by an ideology justifying inequalities
The case of South Africa : racism or capitalism?
Mmusi Maimane, the first black speaker of South Africa’s largest opposition party the Democratic Alliance (DA), has resigned three days ago. He implied that a white minority in the party was blocking his attempts to reach out to more black voters and address their concerns about racial injustice. Adding that despite his best efforts, the traditionally white party was not the « best vehicle » to create a united South Africa[1].
The end of apartheid and the democracies allowed the promotion of black Africans in the politico-economic elite where the share of black in the top 1% percent rose from 1% to 15% between 1985 and the end of the 20th century. However, in 2010 among the whites who represented 10% of the population in 2010, 85% where in the top one percent and 70% in the top decile.
Piketty points out that no ambitious agrarian or fiscal reform (as it has been the case in many countries during the 20th century) had been done after the apartheid which could explain why inequalities remain.
The ANC and the government have been conservative about the issue of property redistributions or tax escalation. When there is mention of land redistribution the strong white minority contest it, as they did last year in 2018 when an agrarian reform was mentioned. Governments seem to still be reluctant to correct disparities and the support that Donald Trump expressed to the white farmer can confirm this argument.
The concentration of the bedrock property on absolute racial linearity remains despite a legality of rights is still a major issue. But no one wants to open the Pandora Box arguing that if it starts There are still violence’s , tensions between the races, a minority only of blacks have access to high level job and the gap between the top 10 percent and the rest of the population keeps growing.
Where capitalism do not see color
In season 2, episode 2 of the American political series: Designated survivor, the country is facing a national health crisis and there is only one remedy that can cure the victims: exstasis. This medicine is sold by one pharmaceutical company. They are solicited by the government to hand over their stock of products so they can cure the patients, who are a predominantly black community. The CEO refuses stating that he invested a lot of money in R&D for exstasis stock so he can’t afford to give his medicines as much as he would like to do so. The president ask him if he is that heartless because of the fact that the community touched is a minority groups he answers: “I am not a racist I am a capitalist.” This answer I thought was interesting, because it shows how far the right to be individualist, profit driven even in the most tragic moment can be justified by the ideology. Then, it also would argue that despite knowing that
the minority groups affected experience relative disadvantage compared to the dominant group, and have to overcome discrimination in terms of income, access to better health service, their races he has no incentive to try to correct these. The spokesperson for the victim will later state that “of course only the rich should benefit from the power of medicine the rest of us can suffer and die”. As sad and dramatic as it is, it illustrates a reality of capitalism.
We could compare it to the case of South Africa and argue that despite the race factor that is at the root of the disparities since apartheid, the fact that whites who are the wealthiest group refuses to even think about redistributive measures might be only motivated by profits and not racism. The biases keeping them in the same condition will remain as it is already the case. So excluded groups, here the blacks, would not really have the same chance to the social mobility the capitalism often prone as an advantage of its ideology.
Globalization or capitalism?
Should these growing disparities be attributed to globalization? Not really. As much as it does play a role, we would look at the local and national measures that are at the roots of most economic issues.
The ongoing protests, show several things: the anger of the people when they are under the impression that the ‘wealthier’ do not contribute to the economy as much as them. They feel the tax burden more than the top 10 percent and suffer the most from austerity measures, with the example of Ecuador and the cutting of fuel subsidies. The indigenous population protests and under the pressure, president Moreno proposed a new series of reforms that target now the revenues of the richer households and companies instead. We can notice that the initial recommendations from the IMF asking to cut subsidies could have been (under pressure) replaced by other measures.
Frustrations : Needing money and seeing people in position of power getting prosperous makes the people questioning the establishment and the economic system, in Lebanon for example. The frustrations, the lack or failures of effective government policies to target inequalities are materializing in riots.
In a world where now millionaires own half the world wealth, while half the world still own less than 1% of all wealth (WEF) it is indeed important to ask ourselves how does that happen. As Thomas Piketty argues, is it the ideology of capitalism that legitimizes inequalities, and its policies that promote capital accumulation? How did Scandinavian countries, like Sweden which was one with the highest level of inequality in the 17th century have done to correct its imperfections?
In part 3, with Thomas Piketty we will explore and analyze Sweden’s journey, India’s effort to correct their large inequalities gaps, France’s odd method to evaluate people’s wealth in the 17th century. Then, we will compare it to the new ways government found to collect as much taxes and money from the wealthier to redistribute the money and increase government expenditures. As technology is becoming one of the principal tools to solve problems, social medias and web transactions are now use for ‘Data Mining’. Finally, we will talk about the ‘Wealthy’s contribution, impact and role in ideology and capital.
Overbooked by Moss 
Laisser un commentaire