A very real and an unjust phenomenon in the world today is wealth inequality, and
particularly, as a form of classism. This
structural paradigm does not seemingly produce very many cultural sub-groups in and of itself. On an economic scale, there are the rich, the
middle class, and then, the poor and every in between. However, the purpose of this paper is to
clearly identify, compare, and contrast how groups
are involved in situations of wealth inequality, to provide some historical
perspectives that brought about the situation, and to analyze the contributing
factors amounting to the current state of these variations of social classism. The author
will write of the specific reasons why he has personally chosen to write about this
cultural situation. Finally, we will also explore some social activists’ group responses to the matter, more of which are appearing each day
with aims to correct the flaw of and erase the harm associated with this artificial social construct.
It might also be that the real issue here is the very existence of classism and of deficit theory—which are beliefs that people are defined by their weaknesses instead of their strengths and to suggesting that poor people are poor because of their own moral and intellectual deficiencies. If we hold to this view, we are less likely to see poverty and social inequity for being structural violations of human rights (Gorski, 2008, p. 3). Every single person having equal access to abundant resources and opportunities might seem like an absurd notion to the general-minded classists. Since it has long been a rule of the status quo that some people will be born having more potential than others have, it may seem like natural selection or a common occurrence to unlearned eyes.
This topic is of particular interest here, because this student’s work, for quite some time, has been a relentless effort to systematically remove the artificial social constructs which are working to condition the minds of the people more towards cognitive dissonance and complacency. Wealth inequality is the most obvious example of real-value investments put into fake, legal fictions. The online dictionary Britannica.com defines a legal fiction as “a rule assuming something as true that is clearly false,” and it includes such as abstract legal concepts like “nationality, citizenship, legal personality, and residence” (Picciotto, 1999, p. 4). In the modern-day ongoing, globalization-type development of a single world economy (Kahn, 2015, p. 5.3), virtually all peoples are simultaneously being deceived and divided by contrived, inherited, legal fictions. Wealth inequality and classism may be the effects of social capital having been spent on legal fictions.
There is a growing awareness as to the cultural identity of the indignant perpetrators who are guilty of propagating social stratifications like people having unequal opportunities and communities that are in conflict. Disdain, mistrust, and intolerance are growing for the 1% of the world’s population who, together, own 40% of humanity’s total private, household wealth (Docksai, 2012, par. 2). Much of the remaining 99% of the population are demanding justice be served to these corrupt, orchestrated schemes of domination and control. They continue to organize and make their voices heard, and they are calling for sometimes, radical change in a myriad array of social movements.
Besides the facts about immense qualitative gaps that exists between the lives expressed by the world’s wealthiest people and those of the rest of us, another social handicap is that many corrupt government officials to whom we own much of the blame for many debilitating effects of social-classism. People often are unwittingly judged for their level of political influence. Monetary and power today might even purchase government elections and legislations being won or written to suit the buyers’ own favor.
The well-known, Swiss-born philosopher, writer and political theorist, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau has argued in favor of an equal society, saying that “no citizen should be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself,” which might could become a true fact, “if only society were arranged so that people’s choices to buy and sell things were truly voluntary, rather than tainted by unfair bargaining conditions” (Sandel, 2000, p. 119, 122). However, in a world overrun with for-profit markets, desperation and depravity too often do become viable motivation for making a bargain out of necessity.
Of the populations who are the most affected by unfair but legal bargaining conditions are those of ethnic minorities and of indigenous peoples. “Due to the historical practice of slavery, the persistence of prejudice and discrimination, and to a legacy of Black social and economic disadvantage, Blacks and Whites were assigned to different positions in the social order” (Kahn, 2015, p. 8.2). “Much of the public in the United States has for quite a long time, linked welfare and race. This association has played a major role in attitudes toward the welfare system and in the politics of welfare reform” (Moffitt, Gottschalk, 2001, p. 152, par. 2). Welfare is also called an “entitlement issue,” and there are different degrees to the stigmas associated with those whom might be receiving entitlement benefits. “Negative feelings about welfare are related to the perception of welfare as a program for African Americans and the media has misrepresented most welfare recipients as Black and an undeserving poor” (Gilens, 2009, par. 1). On the other hand, White populations are known to be more apt to vote in favor of political candidates that will call for entitlement reform policies, and this is perhaps due partly to these popular, socio-cultural stereotypes. When we look at the concept of inequality, we may wonder how exactly such gross injustices as have been discussed here came to be so readily accepted in the first place. One could say that it began long ago with the classifying of the literate and the illiterate. According to Max Roser and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina for Our World Data, “while only 12% of the people in the world could read and write in 1820, today the share has reversed: only 17% of the world population remains illiterate” (2018). There have been stories since the dawn of mankind about power-struggles that subject people to slavery, colonialism and rulership over foreign lands and people, and there have been other forms of human rights injustices. For this very reason, it is not such a simple task to locate a single, precise event when wealth inequality indeed began. There are many devious schemes that are involved. Throughout history, “injunctions against unequal divisions of property, wealth, and power have been found, from the scrolls of ancient Greece to the political philosophy of the mid-twentieth century” (Thompson, 2007, p. 1, par. 1).
There have been several notable events which have occurred that help to better clarify what social inequities represent. It was not long after the “discovery” of the Americas in 1492, European immigrants would amaze the Natives with their precious cargos. Those same Europeans would later slaughter the Natives, using their advanced weapons technology. Before the United States was formed, many different civilizations existed on the American continent (CivilWar.org, 2018). Hundreds of years in the future, a Civil War was declared and fought between the new settlers in a homegrown, economic struggle between states that also evoked the human rights issue for the African slaves. More recently, in the 21st Century, we see millions of social-activists who organize to protest wealth inequality and corruption. We see cryptocurrencies being created in attempts to usurp the long-since dominant, fiat exchange systems that safeguard the status quo. These are just a few well-known events to highlight a history of wealth inequality.
A term that can be used to describe those who have most of the money and the power are groups of ‘elites.’ PilosophyTerms.com says that elitism consists of relatively small groups of people with the highest status in society who have more privileges or power than other people do due to their status. ‘Elite’ can have an either a positive or a negative connotation, depending on the context clues surrounding the word’s usage. “The idea that every society has by necessity a political elite is the oldest ingredient of democratic elitism,” that the “iron law of oligarchy” entails a paradox of democracy, the more open democratic competition between organizations becomes, the more internally hierarchical those organizations become” (Higly, Best, 2010, p. 26, 27). Hierarchy is, by design, juxtaposed to any egalitarian principles of pluralism or altruism. There is however at least one proponent for giving a naturalists’ context to hierarchy—not of the corrupt kind, but as the anticipated erosion of social cohesion by social mobility (Hull, et al, 2015, p. 5, par. 1). Some privileges that members of the elite may expect to experience are an overall better quality of life and fewer health disparities (Syme, 1998, p.493, par. 2)
We might also say that the poor and the middle class also have some privilege. They have the comfort of easily occupying their minds with fixed routines, and they are generally less isolated than the super-rich and famous celebrities are. There is a relevant, popular, hip-hop song from the artist called ‘The Notorious B.I.G.’ It is from his album Life After Death (1996). The song is called “Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems.” In this song, the hook/chorus echoes sentiments sung as if straight from the lifestyles of the rich and famous,
“I don’t know what they want from me.
It’s like the more money we come across
The more problems we see.”
So, while the poorer classes may exhibit some “adaptive forms of self-deception that facilitate coping with environmental stress and uncertainty,” the psychological urge to deny injustice and vulnerability is a universally shared feeling (Bartels, 2008, p. 49, par. 3, 4). An infamous but counterhegemonic, political sound bite states that the strength of economy is built on the backs of the middle class, stating how it is a “fundamental law of capitalism that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers. This makes middle-class consumers —not rich businesspeople—-the true job creators” (Hanauer, 2014, par. 1). However, the monetary-exchange system itself may only be being supported by a different sort of legal fictions, just so to see that private peoples’ time must be purchased with wages for them somehow serving commerce in the public domain, thus, employment becomes the fuel needed to keep the engines of fate rolling.
It might also be that the real issue here is the very existence of classism and of deficit theory—which are beliefs that people are defined by their weaknesses instead of their strengths and to suggesting that poor people are poor because of their own moral and intellectual deficiencies. If we hold to this view, we are less likely to see poverty and social inequity for being structural violations of human rights (Gorski, 2008, p. 3). Every single person having equal access to abundant resources and opportunities might seem like an absurd notion to the general-minded classists. Since it has long been a rule of the status quo that some people will be born having more potential than others have, it may seem like natural selection or a common occurrence to unlearned eyes.
This topic is of particular interest here, because this student’s work, for quite some time, has been a relentless effort to systematically remove the artificial social constructs which are working to condition the minds of the people more towards cognitive dissonance and complacency. Wealth inequality is the most obvious example of real-value investments put into fake, legal fictions. The online dictionary Britannica.com defines a legal fiction as “a rule assuming something as true that is clearly false,” and it includes such as abstract legal concepts like “nationality, citizenship, legal personality, and residence” (Picciotto, 1999, p. 4). In the modern-day ongoing, globalization-type development of a single world economy (Kahn, 2015, p. 5.3), virtually all peoples are simultaneously being deceived and divided by contrived, inherited, legal fictions. Wealth inequality and classism may be the effects of social capital having been spent on legal fictions.
There is a growing awareness as to the cultural identity of the indignant perpetrators who are guilty of propagating social stratifications like people having unequal opportunities and communities that are in conflict. Disdain, mistrust, and intolerance are growing for the 1% of the world’s population who, together, own 40% of humanity’s total private, household wealth (Docksai, 2012, par. 2). Much of the remaining 99% of the population are demanding justice be served to these corrupt, orchestrated schemes of domination and control. They continue to organize and make their voices heard, and they are calling for sometimes, radical change in a myriad array of social movements.
Besides the facts about immense qualitative gaps that exists between the lives expressed by the world’s wealthiest people and those of the rest of us, another social handicap is that many corrupt government officials to whom we own much of the blame for many debilitating effects of social-classism. People often are unwittingly judged for their level of political influence. Monetary and power today might even purchase government elections and legislations being won or written to suit the buyers’ own favor.
The well-known, Swiss-born philosopher, writer and political theorist, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau has argued in favor of an equal society, saying that “no citizen should be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself,” which might could become a true fact, “if only society were arranged so that people’s choices to buy and sell things were truly voluntary, rather than tainted by unfair bargaining conditions” (Sandel, 2000, p. 119, 122). However, in a world overrun with for-profit markets, desperation and depravity too often do become viable motivation for making a bargain out of necessity.
Of the populations who are the most affected by unfair but legal bargaining conditions are those of ethnic minorities and of indigenous peoples. “Due to the historical practice of slavery, the persistence of prejudice and discrimination, and to a legacy of Black social and economic disadvantage, Blacks and Whites were assigned to different positions in the social order” (Kahn, 2015, p. 8.2). “Much of the public in the United States has for quite a long time, linked welfare and race. This association has played a major role in attitudes toward the welfare system and in the politics of welfare reform” (Moffitt, Gottschalk, 2001, p. 152, par. 2). Welfare is also called an “entitlement issue,” and there are different degrees to the stigmas associated with those whom might be receiving entitlement benefits. “Negative feelings about welfare are related to the perception of welfare as a program for African Americans and the media has misrepresented most welfare recipients as Black and an undeserving poor” (Gilens, 2009, par. 1). On the other hand, White populations are known to be more apt to vote in favor of political candidates that will call for entitlement reform policies, and this is perhaps due partly to these popular, socio-cultural stereotypes. When we look at the concept of inequality, we may wonder how exactly such gross injustices as have been discussed here came to be so readily accepted in the first place. One could say that it began long ago with the classifying of the literate and the illiterate. According to Max Roser and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina for Our World Data, “while only 12% of the people in the world could read and write in 1820, today the share has reversed: only 17% of the world population remains illiterate” (2018). There have been stories since the dawn of mankind about power-struggles that subject people to slavery, colonialism and rulership over foreign lands and people, and there have been other forms of human rights injustices. For this very reason, it is not such a simple task to locate a single, precise event when wealth inequality indeed began. There are many devious schemes that are involved. Throughout history, “injunctions against unequal divisions of property, wealth, and power have been found, from the scrolls of ancient Greece to the political philosophy of the mid-twentieth century” (Thompson, 2007, p. 1, par. 1).
There have been several notable events which have occurred that help to better clarify what social inequities represent. It was not long after the “discovery” of the Americas in 1492, European immigrants would amaze the Natives with their precious cargos. Those same Europeans would later slaughter the Natives, using their advanced weapons technology. Before the United States was formed, many different civilizations existed on the American continent (CivilWar.org, 2018). Hundreds of years in the future, a Civil War was declared and fought between the new settlers in a homegrown, economic struggle between states that also evoked the human rights issue for the African slaves. More recently, in the 21st Century, we see millions of social-activists who organize to protest wealth inequality and corruption. We see cryptocurrencies being created in attempts to usurp the long-since dominant, fiat exchange systems that safeguard the status quo. These are just a few well-known events to highlight a history of wealth inequality.
A term that can be used to describe those who have most of the money and the power are groups of ‘elites.’ PilosophyTerms.com says that elitism consists of relatively small groups of people with the highest status in society who have more privileges or power than other people do due to their status. ‘Elite’ can have an either a positive or a negative connotation, depending on the context clues surrounding the word’s usage. “The idea that every society has by necessity a political elite is the oldest ingredient of democratic elitism,” that the “iron law of oligarchy” entails a paradox of democracy, the more open democratic competition between organizations becomes, the more internally hierarchical those organizations become” (Higly, Best, 2010, p. 26, 27). Hierarchy is, by design, juxtaposed to any egalitarian principles of pluralism or altruism. There is however at least one proponent for giving a naturalists’ context to hierarchy—not of the corrupt kind, but as the anticipated erosion of social cohesion by social mobility (Hull, et al, 2015, p. 5, par. 1). Some privileges that members of the elite may expect to experience are an overall better quality of life and fewer health disparities (Syme, 1998, p.493, par. 2)
We might also say that the poor and the middle class also have some privilege. They have the comfort of easily occupying their minds with fixed routines, and they are generally less isolated than the super-rich and famous celebrities are. There is a relevant, popular, hip-hop song from the artist called ‘The Notorious B.I.G.’ It is from his album Life After Death (1996). The song is called “Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems.” In this song, the hook/chorus echoes sentiments sung as if straight from the lifestyles of the rich and famous,
“I don’t know what they want from me.
It’s like the more money we come across
The more problems we see.”
So, while the poorer classes may exhibit some “adaptive forms of self-deception that facilitate coping with environmental stress and uncertainty,” the psychological urge to deny injustice and vulnerability is a universally shared feeling (Bartels, 2008, p. 49, par. 3, 4). An infamous but counterhegemonic, political sound bite states that the strength of economy is built on the backs of the middle class, stating how it is a “fundamental law of capitalism that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers. This makes middle-class consumers —not rich businesspeople—-the true job creators” (Hanauer, 2014, par. 1). However, the monetary-exchange system itself may only be being supported by a different sort of legal fictions, just so to see that private peoples’ time must be purchased with wages for them somehow serving commerce in the public domain, thus, employment becomes the fuel needed to keep the engines of fate rolling.
Wages themselves have remained fairly
stagnate in lower and middle-class
employment. It is estimated that “by |the year| 2040, 48 percent of all
American jobs will be low-wage service jobs.
We need to reckon with this” (Haunauer, 2014, p. 2). Whereas some tasks and some jobs will always be
valued more than others, so they will
likewise have greater benefits and more pay, but, with regards to a due disingenuousness,
“the unequal distributions of resources
can result in |an| inefficient allocation of resources at the societal level,
which, in turn, reduces productivity” (Perkins, 2016, p. 13, par. 1).
Jobs
are steadily being lost due to technological automations or to artificial intelligence, because in for-profit/ for-hire businesses, the
lowest required costs will be the normative
decision-maker when choosing how much
to allocate.
Were scarcity, conceiving of any unnecessary or avoidable instances of lack, to be considered as more than a deliberately contrived illusion, but, instead, some unfortunate ‘fact of life,’ it is yet another perpetration of structural violence. The theory states how structural violations of human rights provide a useful framework for understanding the structural inequalities that systematically deny marginalized communities (Kahn, 2014, Abstract). So, to define the attributes of ‘systematic marginalization’ is key here in connection with the concept of scarcity.
We need only to observe the availability of many, abundant resources that fill the earth –alongside cultivate our potential for greater abundance--and to recognize that the state of lack is merely but a manufactured, structural schism. Lacking or not has very little, if anything at all, to do with being either fortunate or unfortunate. Gainfully, capital systems being used to distribute goods and services will disproportionately hinder the acquisition of certain things while other things may rot or go to waste. Indigent individuals might look at the vast amounts of foodstuff and consumer goods that are discarded each day and accumulate as trash-heaps. They could really be taken aback.
As the popular adage states, ‘One person’s trash could be another person’s treasure,’ and on the opposite side of the classic spectrum, there is a well-known comment from Victor Hugo, a famous French poet and novelist who explains, “The paradise of the rich is made out of the hell of the poor.” At its best, poverty is an unnecessary burden, at worst, it could be an intentional subjugation of a poorer person. It is a real form of oppression that happens to persons who happened to have been born into that type of cultural predisposition. The Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory gives a broad definition for poverty. It is written, “Poverty is an oppressive, macro-level social force that impairs children’s physical health status at birth and provides less access to resources that may moderate the negative consequences of those problems” (Wilcox, Cullen, 2010, p. 782).
These truths point to a conclusion, that the condition of being destitute is only one of many residual effects being the probable culprits at the root cause of most mental and behavioral problems that we see occurring in people. ‘Behavioral Poverty’ is a term referring to a breakdown in values and conduct that leads to the formation of healthy families, stable personalities, and self-sufficient persons. So, as a result, family instability and its attendant problems are passed on to future generations (Rector, 1992, par. 8, 26). These kinds of heritage-seeds give us maleficent data about structural-level assaults coming as observable deficits appearing in the world of vulnerability and, nigh-powerlessness held in the most underprivileged parts of society.
There are a couple of alternative outcomes currently being proposed that could mutually benefit everyone who may be involved in or affected by classism and wealth inequality. One of these outcomes is in the advent of political policies favoring the global redistribution of wealth. This possible solution has been discussed somewhat, even within certain governments, but it is said to have a potentially malign influence on capitalism and agendas for keeping labor as a profitable commodity. “Embodied in these controversies are deeply varying ideologies about the economic effects of wage rates, governmental intervention into labor markets, the widening income disparity between wealthy and poor, and the proper scope of |a| local government (Gillette, 2011, p. 6, par. 1). No matter who should get what for their services; public opinion polls tell us that future generations seem to be planning to make strategic moves towards more a Socialist, “umbrella” economy. This kind of utilitarian incentive is serving to generate structured equality measures, and it tells us that, perhaps, “sociological insights and research |can be| crucial and relevant in the discussion of the economic and political sustainability of |giving| an unconditional basic income” (Van Parijs, 2013, p. 1, par. 1).
However, beyond the exasperating environments of any market-exchange system is what the author of this academic paper believes could be even more of an ideal solution. It has been established with verifiable statistics that wealth concentration is a fundamental inevitability of market-trading and ownership. This is because any system that operates on scarcity will always incentivize greedy, self-interested behavior (Turner, 2016, p. 12, par 1, 2). It would be wise then to learn how to sooner, better and more fairly and freely share equal access to all the Earth’s abundant resources, potential and opportunities. This is being referred to in a few socio-ecological renewal initiatives known as a Resource-based-economy, also called an Open-Source economy for collaborative consumption and acts of kindness, the sort of “peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services” (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2016).
Surely, the evidence shown about the many detrimental effects of wealth inequality shows us that "we as a society need to agree that every person matters, that the economy should be organized to support human and natural life, that we should consider our actions in light of their impacts on future generations, and that we all do better when everyone does better" (Docksai, 2012). Humankind is becoming truly interconnected and interdependent with all life on the planet, whether we are aware of it or not. We fit together like cogwheels, like a butterfly effect.
The cultural subgroup who will stand with the most to lose in an impending global, economic reset being ushered in are certainly the merchant classes who openly commit usury against us peoples and disturb the algorithms generated in social capital networks. Although, it would be safe to say that these persons too would have much to gain from willfully adapting to a more reciprocal, egalitarian, cultural and societal renewal that is happening on the structural levels. Transitioning into this much-needed, societal-balance could be deemed as a kind-of “Judgement Day,” but there should only be genuine loss experienced by those who serve selfish gratifications who will have an excuse to say, “Woe is me.” Those who serve themselves alone were always destined to be woeful anyhow. Most other people, though, ought to simply revel in humanity’s ultimate victory and thankfully celebrate our accelerating the pace of the healing and transformation of all that we are, all we know, and all that we can be.
Were scarcity, conceiving of any unnecessary or avoidable instances of lack, to be considered as more than a deliberately contrived illusion, but, instead, some unfortunate ‘fact of life,’ it is yet another perpetration of structural violence. The theory states how structural violations of human rights provide a useful framework for understanding the structural inequalities that systematically deny marginalized communities (Kahn, 2014, Abstract). So, to define the attributes of ‘systematic marginalization’ is key here in connection with the concept of scarcity.
We need only to observe the availability of many, abundant resources that fill the earth –alongside cultivate our potential for greater abundance--and to recognize that the state of lack is merely but a manufactured, structural schism. Lacking or not has very little, if anything at all, to do with being either fortunate or unfortunate. Gainfully, capital systems being used to distribute goods and services will disproportionately hinder the acquisition of certain things while other things may rot or go to waste. Indigent individuals might look at the vast amounts of foodstuff and consumer goods that are discarded each day and accumulate as trash-heaps. They could really be taken aback.
As the popular adage states, ‘One person’s trash could be another person’s treasure,’ and on the opposite side of the classic spectrum, there is a well-known comment from Victor Hugo, a famous French poet and novelist who explains, “The paradise of the rich is made out of the hell of the poor.” At its best, poverty is an unnecessary burden, at worst, it could be an intentional subjugation of a poorer person. It is a real form of oppression that happens to persons who happened to have been born into that type of cultural predisposition. The Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory gives a broad definition for poverty. It is written, “Poverty is an oppressive, macro-level social force that impairs children’s physical health status at birth and provides less access to resources that may moderate the negative consequences of those problems” (Wilcox, Cullen, 2010, p. 782).
These truths point to a conclusion, that the condition of being destitute is only one of many residual effects being the probable culprits at the root cause of most mental and behavioral problems that we see occurring in people. ‘Behavioral Poverty’ is a term referring to a breakdown in values and conduct that leads to the formation of healthy families, stable personalities, and self-sufficient persons. So, as a result, family instability and its attendant problems are passed on to future generations (Rector, 1992, par. 8, 26). These kinds of heritage-seeds give us maleficent data about structural-level assaults coming as observable deficits appearing in the world of vulnerability and, nigh-powerlessness held in the most underprivileged parts of society.
There are a couple of alternative outcomes currently being proposed that could mutually benefit everyone who may be involved in or affected by classism and wealth inequality. One of these outcomes is in the advent of political policies favoring the global redistribution of wealth. This possible solution has been discussed somewhat, even within certain governments, but it is said to have a potentially malign influence on capitalism and agendas for keeping labor as a profitable commodity. “Embodied in these controversies are deeply varying ideologies about the economic effects of wage rates, governmental intervention into labor markets, the widening income disparity between wealthy and poor, and the proper scope of |a| local government (Gillette, 2011, p. 6, par. 1). No matter who should get what for their services; public opinion polls tell us that future generations seem to be planning to make strategic moves towards more a Socialist, “umbrella” economy. This kind of utilitarian incentive is serving to generate structured equality measures, and it tells us that, perhaps, “sociological insights and research |can be| crucial and relevant in the discussion of the economic and political sustainability of |giving| an unconditional basic income” (Van Parijs, 2013, p. 1, par. 1).
However, beyond the exasperating environments of any market-exchange system is what the author of this academic paper believes could be even more of an ideal solution. It has been established with verifiable statistics that wealth concentration is a fundamental inevitability of market-trading and ownership. This is because any system that operates on scarcity will always incentivize greedy, self-interested behavior (Turner, 2016, p. 12, par 1, 2). It would be wise then to learn how to sooner, better and more fairly and freely share equal access to all the Earth’s abundant resources, potential and opportunities. This is being referred to in a few socio-ecological renewal initiatives known as a Resource-based-economy, also called an Open-Source economy for collaborative consumption and acts of kindness, the sort of “peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services” (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2016).
Surely, the evidence shown about the many detrimental effects of wealth inequality shows us that "we as a society need to agree that every person matters, that the economy should be organized to support human and natural life, that we should consider our actions in light of their impacts on future generations, and that we all do better when everyone does better" (Docksai, 2012). Humankind is becoming truly interconnected and interdependent with all life on the planet, whether we are aware of it or not. We fit together like cogwheels, like a butterfly effect.
The cultural subgroup who will stand with the most to lose in an impending global, economic reset being ushered in are certainly the merchant classes who openly commit usury against us peoples and disturb the algorithms generated in social capital networks. Although, it would be safe to say that these persons too would have much to gain from willfully adapting to a more reciprocal, egalitarian, cultural and societal renewal that is happening on the structural levels. Transitioning into this much-needed, societal-balance could be deemed as a kind-of “Judgement Day,” but there should only be genuine loss experienced by those who serve selfish gratifications who will have an excuse to say, “Woe is me.” Those who serve themselves alone were always destined to be woeful anyhow. Most other people, though, ought to simply revel in humanity’s ultimate victory and thankfully celebrate our accelerating the pace of the healing and transformation of all that we are, all we know, and all that we can be.
References
Bartels, L. M. (2008). The New Gilded Age: From 'Unequal Democracy'. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Civil War Facts | Civil War Trust [Online Resource]. Retrieved by Joshua Haltom. April 04, 2018 from https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts
Docksai, R. (2012). 99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do About It. World Future Review (World Future Society), 4(3), 106-108. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Gilens, M. (2009). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Gillette, C. P. (2011). Local Redistribution and Local Democracy: Interest Groups and the Courts. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Gorski, P. (2008). The Myth of the “Culture of Poverty''. Educational leadership, 65(7), 32. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Hanauer, N. (2014). What Rich Capitalists Know. Yes! Magazine, (71), 23. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Higley, J., & Best, H. (2010). Democratic Elitism: New Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. Leiden: Brill NV. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(9), 2047-2059. doi:10.1002/asi.23552. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hull, G., Allais, L., Angier, T., Wolff, J., Metz, T., Fricker, M., & ... Putnam, D. (2015). The Equal Society: Essays on Equality in Theory and Practice. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Kahn, A. (2014). Structural Violence: A Tale of Three Women from Marginalized Communities in Bangladesh. International Journal on Minority & Group Rights, 2014, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p547, 10p. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Kahn, A. (2015). The ecology of diversity. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.
Legal fiction | Britannica.com. Retrieved March 29, 2018 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/legal-fiction
Moffitt, R. A., Gottschalk, P. T. (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume II. The National Academic Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/read/9719/chapter/8
Notorious B.I.G., The, feat. Mase, & Puff Daddy (1996). Producers: Stevie, J, Diddy, Nashiem Myrick, & 6 July. “Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems.” Life After Death. Bad Boy Records.
Bartels, L. M. (2008). The New Gilded Age: From 'Unequal Democracy'. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Civil War Facts | Civil War Trust [Online Resource]. Retrieved by Joshua Haltom. April 04, 2018 from https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts
Docksai, R. (2012). 99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do About It. World Future Review (World Future Society), 4(3), 106-108. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Gilens, M. (2009). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Gillette, C. P. (2011). Local Redistribution and Local Democracy: Interest Groups and the Courts. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Gorski, P. (2008). The Myth of the “Culture of Poverty''. Educational leadership, 65(7), 32. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Hanauer, N. (2014). What Rich Capitalists Know. Yes! Magazine, (71), 23. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Higley, J., & Best, H. (2010). Democratic Elitism: New Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. Leiden: Brill NV. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(9), 2047-2059. doi:10.1002/asi.23552. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hull, G., Allais, L., Angier, T., Wolff, J., Metz, T., Fricker, M., & ... Putnam, D. (2015). The Equal Society: Essays on Equality in Theory and Practice. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Kahn, A. (2014). Structural Violence: A Tale of Three Women from Marginalized Communities in Bangladesh. International Journal on Minority & Group Rights, 2014, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p547, 10p. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Kahn, A. (2015). The ecology of diversity. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.
Legal fiction | Britannica.com. Retrieved March 29, 2018 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/legal-fiction
Moffitt, R. A., Gottschalk, P. T. (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume II. The National Academic Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/read/9719/chapter/8
Notorious B.I.G., The, feat. Mase, & Puff Daddy (1996). Producers: Stevie, J, Diddy, Nashiem Myrick, & 6 July. “Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems.” Life After Death. Bad Boy Records.
Perkins, G.
(2016). Socioeconomic Status: Influences,
Disparities and Current Issues. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Picciotto, S. (1999). Offshore: The state as legal fiction. In Offshore finance centres and tax havens (pp. 43-79). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Rector, R. (1992). Requiem for the war on poverty. Policy Review, (61), 30. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Roser, M., Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2018) - "Literacy". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/literacy [Online Resource]
Sandel, M. J. (2000). What money can't buy: the moral limits of markets. Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 21, 87-122.
Syme, S. L. (1998). Social and economic disparities in health: thoughts about intervention. The Milbank Quarterly, 76(3), 493-505. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Thompson, M. (2007). The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America. New York: Columbia University Press.
Turner, C. R. (2016). Into the Open Economy: How everything you know about the world is about to change. Applied Image. Retrieved from Amazon Kindle.
Van Parijs, P. (2013). The universal basic income: Why utopian thinking matters, and how sociologists can contribute to it. Politics & Society, 41(2), 171-182. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Picciotto, S. (1999). Offshore: The state as legal fiction. In Offshore finance centres and tax havens (pp. 43-79). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Rector, R. (1992). Requiem for the war on poverty. Policy Review, (61), 30. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Roser, M., Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2018) - "Literacy". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/literacy [Online Resource]
Sandel, M. J. (2000). What money can't buy: the moral limits of markets. Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 21, 87-122.
Syme, S. L. (1998). Social and economic disparities in health: thoughts about intervention. The Milbank Quarterly, 76(3), 493-505. Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Thompson, M. (2007). The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America. New York: Columbia University Press.
Turner, C. R. (2016). Into the Open Economy: How everything you know about the world is about to change. Applied Image. Retrieved from Amazon Kindle.
Van Parijs, P. (2013). The universal basic income: Why utopian thinking matters, and how sociologists can contribute to it. Politics & Society, 41(2), 171-182. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
