When do Income and Wealth = Inequality ^3 by E D Phillips
Rated "G" by the Author.
Last
edited: Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Posted: Tuesday, November 11, 2014
When do Income and Wealth = Inequality^3
(Immensely Immoral Inequality)
In a recent issue of TooMuchOnLine, editor Sam Pizzigati made an astute observation. He noted that Bill Clinton referred to income and wealth inequality as “the defining challenge of our time.” He also noted that in nearly 3 million political ads during the 2014 campaigns, no one mentioned inequality at all—neither those who favor it nor those who oppose it. I suspect the main reason for this inattentiveness is because the term “inequality” is much too benign a word to convey the immensity of the issue it is intended to portray. Let’s see if we can change that word to something that is much more notable, accurate, and comprehensible.
First, here is what wealth inequality means today in America. It means that the bottom 75 million Americans have an average net worth of zero, while the top 22.5 million have a total of $75 trillion, or $3.3 million each. If we were to look at the two stacks in a graph, we could not fit the numbers to the data without using logarithms or other ways to crunch and compact. Here’s why:
If we converted $75 trillion to $100 dollar bills, and laid them flat against each other, then $10,000 would equal just 0.75 inches. And $75 trillion dollars stacked flat would equal 87,000 miles, or 3 and ½ times around the world at the equator. Change that stack to one dollar bills, and the total would extend to 3,500 times around the world. Want to go end-to-end with the money? Just multiply each stack by 33.75.
How do you fit those immense numbers into a single graph and depict the magnitude of the differences? You can’t and expect the observer to comprehend the differences. Nor can you refer to the differences as “inequality” and expect the enormity to register in any meaningful way. And so I suggest that we use Inequality^3 (to the third power) when describing wealth inequality in America. It suggests that the magnitude of the difference between the low and high ends is at least 1,000 times greater than almost anyone can comprehend. And that magnitude sums up to a circumstance that is immensely immoral inequality.
Linguists, logicians, and mathematicians are open (or should be) to other, more descriptive terms. AD readers: Yours are welcome. Log them below.
Thank you for writing this article. The topic got my attention a few years ago with the protests. About 15 months ago I was in a course on American History from the 16th – 19th centuries and saw how that inequality mentality developed. In late spring 2014 I took up a renewed interest in quantum science-quantum communication and saw something that shot my interest in the topic to the steroid level. The thing that concerns me is that some people deluded by their own sense of power decided to program the entire society into the belief that it was okay for some to have power and wealth and others to be powerless and without wealth. I won’t go into the politics of it right now. Last spring while listening to a series of talks on quantum communication I heard the most profound illustration of “immensely immoral inequality”.
Back in the 1940s when the so-called elite and prestigious universities in Europe and the USA had conducted research but decided they would not release the results of their studies showing that each human being has within himself/herself infinite possibilities because of the power of consciousness. While the speakers did not disclose how the government became aware of their research, they reported that when the US Congress learned of this power in every person, they took legislative action to make sure this information was suppressed. Along with suppression was the extent to which various institutions engaged themselves to discredit any persons who promoted the information and/or practiced the powers.
I found it reasonable to link the suppression of information about the power each person has over his/her life and the programming for financial disparity. After getting over my hissy-fit over this information, I rededicated myself to take whatever action I could to make sure as many persons as possible become consciously aware of their innate power over their lives. I was already fairly proficient in numerous of the skills and then amplified my practices, moving beyond long-held beliefs and programming in limitation of any type. And of course that includes the financial area. Your paper added to my impetus for moving forward in this work. Again, thank you!
You're right about the mention of inequality. It seems that everyone leaves that up to the Constitution, where I believe, slaves have worth, to their owners. As you pointed out before, the idea that everyone can get rich is absurd. Most wealth is a result of tightly held wealth that is generally passed on through inheritance. Only a very few are resourceful enough, or lucky enough to get rich. Most of those that make quick riches like sports heroes, pop stars, and lottery winners, do not know how to manage their quick riches and often end up with nothing for their children to inherit.
Stacking bills either flat or end to end is a nice exercise, but rather meaningless. I think it's better to describe it as an hourly or daily wage because most people either work by the hour, the day, the week, or month.
Something that's missing is empowerment. Those with money have power. Those without money tend to be powerless and unable to navigate ordinary problems that come up daily because they have no assistance in dealing with them. You're right about revolution. When it becomes unbearable for those 75 million on the bottom, they will rebel. The day I left Cairo back in the late 1970s, Sadat raised the price of bread, and the people rioted.
The trickle-down rich have been soothing the masses with their crumbs for some time and have even convinced many that their vote does not count. Revolt is waiting in the wings and it will not be nice.
If you've read history, our situation now is very similar to the one that existed in the late 1800's. Safety nets keep it from getting quite as dire, but there are those in the moneyed minority who would as soon see safety nets taken away so they can control even that money.
One of the funny (not) things is that most folks who are dead set against Darwin's theory of evolution are the same ones who support social Darwinism the strongest.
Back in the 1940s when the so-called elite and prestigious universities in Europe and the USA had conducted research but decided they would not release the results of their studies showing that each human being has within himself/herself infinite possibilities because of the power of consciousness. While the speakers did not disclose how the government became aware of their research, they reported that when the US Congress learned of this power in every person, they took legislative action to make sure this information was suppressed. Along with suppression was the extent to which various institutions engaged themselves to discredit any persons who promoted the information and/or practiced the powers.
I found it reasonable to link the suppression of information about the power each person has over his/her life and the programming for financial disparity. After getting over my hissy-fit over this information, I rededicated myself to take whatever action I could to make sure as many persons as possible become consciously aware of their innate power over their lives. I was already fairly proficient in numerous of the skills and then amplified my practices, moving beyond long-held beliefs and programming in limitation of any type. And of course that includes the financial area. Your paper added to my impetus for moving forward in this work. Again, thank you!
Stacking bills either flat or end to end is a nice exercise, but rather meaningless. I think it's better to describe it as an hourly or daily wage because most people either work by the hour, the day, the week, or month.
Something that's missing is empowerment. Those with money have power. Those without money tend to be powerless and unable to navigate ordinary problems that come up daily because they have no assistance in dealing with them. You're right about revolution. When it becomes unbearable for those 75 million on the bottom, they will rebel. The day I left Cairo back in the late 1970s, Sadat raised the price of bread, and the people rioted.
The trickle-down rich have been soothing the masses with their crumbs for some time and have even convinced many that their vote does not count. Revolt is waiting in the wings and it will not be nice.
Ron
One of the funny (not) things is that most folks who are dead set against Darwin's theory of evolution are the same ones who support social Darwinism the strongest.
Take csre,
ChipB.