Summary and Response to Oxfam Media Briefing: The Cost of Inequality: How Wealth and Income Extremes Hurt Us All
It is widely accepted that economic inequality has reached unacceptable levels and that something must be done to eradicate such extreme inequality (Oxfam, 2013). There is ongoing debate, however, as to how best to tackle this issue. The OECD, IMF and World Bank argue that economic growth is the answer. Granted, they appear to have abandoned the notion that wealth will trickle down from the top to benefit those at the bottom, and have now put forth the idea of "inclusive growth"; however there does not seem to be a clear plan as to how this idea could be realized, and furthermore this idea …show more content…
It also states that it is not inevitable. Oxfam argues that when wealth and capital is concentrated in the hands of a small minority it stunts economic growth and claims that if wealth was distributed more equally it would facilitate growth and reduce inequality. Oxfam also claims that economic inequality threatens democracy. This argument is supported by an illustration of how money can buy political policies. Oxfam points out that the possibility for people to change their class or social status is far less likely in unequal societies. The reasons Oxfam puts forward to explain this are well founded. Oxfam outlines the ways in which extreme wealth and inequality are destructive to the environment. The argument here is a little uncertain: While they do mention the growing scarcity of resources, and they do point to studies that show countries are better at reducing carbon emissions when they are more equal, their argument falls short because they neglect to mention that in fact one of the biggest threats the environment is facing is growth itself. Oxfam claims that extreme wealth and inequality are not inevitable and uses Sweden as an example to back up this claim. They also point to progressive taxation and imposing limits on …show more content…
This makes sense if we are looking at putting an end to inequality, and it raises the philosophical question of whether equality is a more important human value than individual freedom. It is particularly startling to read that: "The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012 – enough to end world poverty four times over" (Oxfam, 2013). Considering the extreme hardships suffered by the middle and lower classes, in particular since 2007, this accumulation of wealth by the very rich seems impossible to justify. Oxfam makes reference to The Spirit Level (Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K in Oxfam, 2013) which claims that not only the poor, but also the rich are better off in more equal societies. It claims that health outcomes are better and peoples' overall wellbeing is improved when inequality is reduced. This suggests that the socialist view of human nature and the ideology that equality trumps individual freedom may be more plausible than the liberalist view that human beings are motivated by self interest. Oxfam's goal to end extreme wealth by 2025 is a worthwhile goal that will benefit the entire human race and the world in which we
It is widely accepted that economic inequality has reached unacceptable levels and that something must be done to eradicate such extreme inequality (Oxfam, 2013). There is ongoing debate, however, as to how best to tackle this issue. The OECD, IMF and World Bank argue that economic growth is the answer. Granted, they appear to have abandoned the notion that wealth will trickle down from the top to benefit those at the bottom, and have now put forth the idea of "inclusive growth"; however there does not seem to be a clear plan as to how this idea could be realized, and furthermore this idea …show more content…
It also states that it is not inevitable. Oxfam argues that when wealth and capital is concentrated in the hands of a small minority it stunts economic growth and claims that if wealth was distributed more equally it would facilitate growth and reduce inequality. Oxfam also claims that economic inequality threatens democracy. This argument is supported by an illustration of how money can buy political policies. Oxfam points out that the possibility for people to change their class or social status is far less likely in unequal societies. The reasons Oxfam puts forward to explain this are well founded. Oxfam outlines the ways in which extreme wealth and inequality are destructive to the environment. The argument here is a little uncertain: While they do mention the growing scarcity of resources, and they do point to studies that show countries are better at reducing carbon emissions when they are more equal, their argument falls short because they neglect to mention that in fact one of the biggest threats the environment is facing is growth itself. Oxfam claims that extreme wealth and inequality are not inevitable and uses Sweden as an example to back up this claim. They also point to progressive taxation and imposing limits on …show more content…
This makes sense if we are looking at putting an end to inequality, and it raises the philosophical question of whether equality is a more important human value than individual freedom. It is particularly startling to read that: "The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012 – enough to end world poverty four times over" (Oxfam, 2013). Considering the extreme hardships suffered by the middle and lower classes, in particular since 2007, this accumulation of wealth by the very rich seems impossible to justify. Oxfam makes reference to The Spirit Level (Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K in Oxfam, 2013) which claims that not only the poor, but also the rich are better off in more equal societies. It claims that health outcomes are better and peoples' overall wellbeing is improved when inequality is reduced. This suggests that the socialist view of human nature and the ideology that equality trumps individual freedom may be more plausible than the liberalist view that human beings are motivated by self interest. Oxfam's goal to end extreme wealth by 2025 is a worthwhile goal that will benefit the entire human race and the world in which we