Introduction. This series of papers addresses three of the most urgent issues of our time: the cause, consequences, and solution to wealth and income inequality in America. It identifies unconscionable greed as the fundamental cause, regal opulence v squalor as its consequence, and a humane change in monetary policy as its solution. The urgency to installing the solution cannot be overstated. A Gini coefficient of 0.90 of wealth inequality on the Lorenz curve (1.0 is complete inequality where one person has it all) informs us with undeniable certainty that immediate change is needed; the fact that one-half our population must live below a fair Living Wage in order to support untaxed and unearned wealth at the top informs us that a fundamental change is overdue in the way money is allocated among our residents; and a simple change in how we implement a new allocation of money is the solution to how we must fix a system that is teetering on collapse.

This paper needs to be read by everyone—not for my sake, but for our sake. Those in other countries can benefit from reading it also. It’s that important. That is not because it’s brilliant, but because this subject affects everyone. It encompasses our incomes, our health, our homes, our transportation needs, our educational pursuits, the clothes we wear, our entertainment costs, when and where we can travel, our leisure pursuits, our retirement, even if we can afford a respectful burial. It also includes a discussion of poverty, its causes, and its cures. Poverty is the flip side of excessive wealth. The cause/effect relationship is undeniable. Take away income and wealth and the void that is left foments squalor. And the elements of squalor include hunger, drug usage, crime, incarcerations, suicides, mental health issues, teen pregnancies, illiteracy, lower life expectancies, and social immobility. Moreover, there is a small number of people among us who are plotting their futures that do not include us in it, at least not as equals before God and the law. All those who are being excluded from wealth accumulation must by definition take up residence where squalor and poverty co-exist.

This text is not written to occupy space on some dusty shelf bearing the title “scholarly papers.” The author is too humble for such purposes. It has been reduced to an understandable level so that at least one-half of our residents can read and understand it. So it is within the understanding of at least 165 million Americans. Around the world, another 3.5 billion others can read it, grasp its contents, and learn what they can do to bring unconscionable wealth inequality it to a halt, while they can help reverse the devastating results that are now taking place here and around the world.

Beyond its stated purpose, it reveals why you can’t get ahead in life. That is because there is no more wealth out there to be got. Yes, wealth grows every day, but it also flows every day. And 90 percent of it flows into the hands of the already wealthy. That division stays the same, or even grows slightly more with time in favor of the rich. The top 10 percent get 90 percent of the wealth, while the bottom 90 percent get just 10 percent of it. That combines into a 100:1 ratio. It is constructive in that it directs us to what a Living Wage means. That wage is not a minimum wage, nor a poverty-level wage. It is one that allows a family of four to survive independently on their own while meeting their food, fuel, transportation, health care, and educational needs. The Living Wage does not include money for dining out or for taking vacations. It’s average needed level in America is $75,000 for a family of four. That is not some imaginary number. Rather, it is a well-thought out set of numbers that are different for every county in America--all 3006 of them. It is also do-able. We have enough wealth and income to make it a reality without taking one dime from the rich. Professor Amy Glasmeier and her colleagues at MIT constructed a magnificent set of scales that delivers the numbers for all households. The averages are lower in Mississippi and higher in New York as you might expect. Save the website. You will refer back to it again and again.

Let’s inject an example of what is meant by wealth inequality and why it is so obviously wrong by any standard of fairness one cares to make about it.

The following is a matter of public records. It has appeared in many sources. Back in 1993, Sam Walton—founder of the Wal-Mart chain of stores—died, and left his children $23 billion worth of stocks in Wal-Mart. They received it untaxed and unearned. Today, some 28 years later, those same stocks are worth between $175 and $215 billion, still untaxed and unearned. They grew passively via dividends and capital appreciation. You may think “Is this a great country, or what?” An economist, however, might think “Inheritances are the gifts that keep on giving and compounding, passively, without effort or IQ, quite different from how it was earned.” In this case, it has returned 673 percent, a return far in excess of what accrued to their father. At the same growth rate it will be worth $1.5 trillion in just 30 more years. A lot is wrong with this picture.

Have I cherry-picked a remote case, never to be repeated, as the decisive case against the present inheritance laws? Not on your life. Today, the US has $134 trillion worth of wealth. Just 40 years ago, we had $8.4 trillion. Yet 90 percent of that growth is in the hands of inheritors. Moreover, inheriting wealth is not the same as earning wealth. Indeed, 155 million Americans are out and about working to produce that wealth. At least one-half of them have almost no wealth, while the next 40 percent have only about $12 trillion. Even more importantly, when looking ahead just 50 years, wealth inequality in America will be 32 times worse than it is today. Now do I have your attention?

Summary. None of this happened by accident, nor will it change without intervention. What is more, it can be done fairly, honestly, and without causing a burden on anyone. I have been telling this account for the last 20 years. I know how the system works, and how to fix it. But I don’t have another 20 years in which to keep telling others how to do it. This is my last attempt. I need to hear more than an indifferent silence before I continue. What’s in it for you? Part of it is here now: The Living Wage scales. That means $60,000 to $90,000 average household income. That is an achievable goal.

The second part is an understanding of who the neo-conservatives are, what they want, and how they are going about getting it. And the third part is how to make a key change in monetary policy that (unimpeded) would bring about a new prosperity that would lift up the bottom one-half of our population, while opening new opportunities for everyone at all levels of income.