Consequences of Wealth Inequality in History - Research Paper Example

 Consequences of Wealth Inequality in History Wealth inequality is one of the dominant themes of the entire recorded human history and this is mainly because of the natural human desire towards acquisitiveness. Wealth inequality has existed since human beings chose to move away from communal, agriculture based societies into ones which were based in cities and governed by a priestly hierarchy. Because of the need to retain power and dominance, the ruling priestly class came to demand donations in the name of the gods that they served and this led to the ever increasing wealth and dominance that they had over the society. Moreover, there were instances where rulers had to retain a lot of wealth so that they could be able to buy off their potential rivals to power as well as maintain the ability to perform acts of benevolence towards their subjects. However, with the increasing amount of wealth among a few individuals in the society at the expense of others, there was inevitably the possibility that there would be conflicts between the wealthy and the poor. Cagetti and Nardi (2006) state that “in the United States wealth is highly concentrated and very unequally distributed.” While this may have been the case, the possibility of any form of full blown wars between these individuals were relatively few until slightly over two hundred years ago as seen during the occurrence of the French Revolution. Despite the occurrence of various forms of conflict over wealth inequality in the society, there have also been diverse consequences of the same throughout history and these will be considered in the discussion that follows. One of the consequences of wealth inequality throughout history has been increase in social tensions between the very wealthy individuals in the society and the less wealthy. This has been mainly because the wealthy have often worked towards increasing their wealth at the expense of the poor and has led to a situation where the poor have felt disenfranchised (Bardhan, Bowles & Gintis, 2000). There are certain circumstances, such as the French Revolution of 1792, where the poorer members of the society have sought to correct the injustices that they have suffered under the dominance of the wealthy in their society. In these situations, the poor, being the majority, have worked towards the overthrow of the wealthy so that the latter’s wealth could be “more evenly distributed within the society” (Yunker, 2010). The feudal system that existed in Europe for centuries was based on the need to ensure that only kings and the nobility retained all the wealth in their respective states and this was done in such a manner that it was declared that the king owned all the land and that he could dispense with it as he saw fit. In this way, those individuals who were either related to the monarch or were highly favored by him tended to get the choicest lands in the state and these often has peasant to work for them. The feudal system was one of the biggest promoters of wealth inequality in Europe as the nobility became wealthier at the expense of the peasants and this created a situation where there was the potential for violent conflict. In addition to the labor that the peasants were supposed to provide for the feudal nobility, they were also required to provide taxes for the upkeep of the monarchs as well as to fund the constant wars that were fought between various European states. These circumstances more often than not bred resentment among the peasants and it only took charismatic individuals to lead them into revolt. Throughout history, a consequence of wealth inequality is that society has come to be divided into classes so that those individuals who have a certain amount of wealth only associate with those who have wealth at the same level. Under such circumstances, there develops a lack of social cohesiveness which is detrimental to the proper development of the society as the different classes in society struggle against one another to achieve what they consider to be rightfully theirs (Norton & Ariely, 2013). These societal divisions have had a tendency of erupting into violence as the people who feel oppressed have revolted and worked towards ensuring the downfall of their oppressors. An example of such a circumstance is that which happened during the rise of the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan. The latter united all the Mongol tribes in a bid to break the Chinese dominance over them and this led to a bloody conflict that resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives as the Mongols attacked the Chinese empires and subdued them. The wealth of the Chinese is one of the reasons why the relatively poor Mongols were very zealous in the invasion of China and ensuring its defeat. Throughout history, the trend has been that justice favors the wealthy and discriminates against the poor. Most legal systems in the world have been developed to provide justice for all of the people over whom they have jurisdiction. However, this has not often been the case because despite their being designed to provide equal treatment and to give justice to aggrieved parties equally, it has become common for the justice systems to give preferential treatment for those individuals who are wealthy. There have been instances where judges and magistrates have been bribed by the wealthy in society to ensure that they pass judgments in the favor of the wealthy. One would even go as far as to suggest that the corruption that has been rampant in some judicial systems throughout their history has developed as a result of the actions of the wealthy in the society. The result has been that there have been many instances of miscarriage of justice as those who can afford it have been able to buy themselves out of trouble while the poor have come to receive harsh sentences for actions which they did not commit. There has over the centuries developed a saying that “justice is for the rich” and the poor are often the victims of the judicial system that have been virtually bought out by the wealthy (Rahman, 2012). Because of this, many individuals who have been aggrieved by the wealthy no longer have faith that they will receive justice and this is the reason why the wealthy have come to absolutely dominate society because it is rare for them to be prosecuted for any offenses that they commit. Wealth inequality leads to a reduction in the spending power of the poorer members of the society and this more often than not creates a situation where the wealthy live in conditions where they have all their wants while the poor barely make ends meet. Such conditions have tended to bring about conflict in the society as it has led to individuals wanting to acquire wealth by any means necessary (Lysandrou, 2011; Wolff, 2013). The result has been that some people from the poorer sections of the society have gotten into intense competition to be able to access the meager resources that are available to them so that they can also be able to create a base upon which they can have wealth of their own. In history, one will find a number of neighboring communities, some of which were wealthy while the others relatively poor and the wealth differences between them often created a lot of tension between them. The ability of the wealthier community to gain dominance over the less wealthy ones was guaranteed because of the former’s wealth and this created a lot of resentment from the latter community (Wei-Bin, 2013). An example of such a circumstance is that which existed between the Roman Empire and the Barbarian tribes that occupied the land across its northern borders. The Romans had attempted and in many cases succeeded in incorporating these tribes into their empire but while this may have been the case, the barbarians hardly ever achieved the wealth and power that was enjoyed by the people from Rome and its environs. It is this circumstance, more than anything else that encouraged the Barbarian invasions on the Roman Empire when they sensed that the latter had weakened considerably and could be defeated. Criminal activities have long been associated with wealth inequality and this has been mainly because many poor individuals have found no other recourse other than to get involved in crime in order to make ends meet (Keister, 2000). Such activities have come to be associated with urban areas where crime is more rampant in the poorer areas than in the wealthier parts. With the development of the agrarian and industrial revolutions, the feudal system that had dominated Europe for many centuries fell apart and in its place came factories. The development of the latter encouraged the former peasants to go to the towns and cities where they believed that they had a better chance of making a better living. This, however, turned out not to be the case for many because they ended up living in worse conditions than the ones they had left behind. In fact, many found the conditions in the cities so appalling that they felt sorry ever leaving their rural homes in the first place. Therefore, in order to survive, some of these individuals indulged in theft, robbery, and other crimes so that they could make a living in the new and hostile environment. The poverty that affected a majority of population in the urban areas led to the development of slums because these were the only accommodations which they could afford. These slums became notorious for the crime and other social vices which occurred within them and they were places which were avoided by the wealthy members of the society. Instead, the wealthy developed their own living areas isolated from the crime of the slums where they lived completely different lives from the rest of the society. Wealth inequality has tended to have the undesired effect of encouraging the formation of autocratic governments which have been dominated by those who hold the most wealth in the society. Autocratic leaders are often among the wealthiest members of their societies and they use their wealth as a means of ensuring that they secure their power against any potential rivals (Kraus & Callaghan, 2014). Under such regimes, it is possible for the leaders to secure themselves through putting members of their families and friends in strategic positions so that they can not only control the economy, but also the politics of the state. This scenario has been seen throughout the history of the Middle Eastern states where autocratic governments have developed because of the oil wealth that these countries possess. The royal family of Saudi Arabia, because of the wealth that it has gained over the years from the extensive oil resources of the country, has come to treat the country as its property. This has created a situation where there is little chance of there being any form of democratic development as long as the Saud family continues to have and control most of the wealth in the country. As has been discussed above, wealth inequality is one of the dominant themes in the entire recorded human history mainly because of the natural human desire towards acquisitiveness. Among the consequences of wealth inequality throughout history has been increase in social tensions between the very wealthy individuals in the society and the less wealthy. In addition, it has encouraged the development of class divisions so that those individuals who have a certain amount of wealth only associate with those who have wealth at the same level. Moreover, it has created a trend where justice has tended to favor the wealthy and discriminate against the poor. Furthermore, it has led to a reduction in the spending power of the poorer members of the society, creating a situation where the wealthy live in conditions abundance while the poor barely make ends meet. Similarly, criminal activities have long been associated with wealth inequality because many poor individuals have found no other recourse other than to get involved in crime in order to make ends meet. Finally, wealth inequality has tended to have the undesired effect of encouraging the formation of autocratic governments which have been dominated by those who hold the most wealth in the society. References Bardhan, P., Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2000). Chapter 10 Wealth inequality, wealth constraints and economic performance. Handbook of Income Distribution, 1, 541-603. Cagetti, M., & Nardi, M. D. (2006). Wealth Inequality: Data and Models. Macroeconomics Dynamics, 12(2), 285-313. Keister, L. A. (2000). Race and Wealth Inequality: The Impact of Racial Differences in Asset Ownership on the Distribution of Household Wealth. Social Science Research, 29(4), 477-502. Kraus, M. W., & Callaghan, B. (2014). Noblesse Oblige? Social Status and Economic Inequality Maintenance among Politicians. Plos ONE, 9(1), 1-6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085293 Lysandrou, P. (2011). Global Inequality, Wealth Concentration and the Subprime Crisis: A Marxian Commodity Theory Analysis. Development & Change, 42(1), 183-208. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01680.x Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2013). American's desire for less wealth inequality does not depend on how you ask them. Judgment & Decision Making, 8(3), 393-394.  Rahman, K. (2012). Democracy and Productivity: The Glass-Steagall Act and the Shifting Discourse of Financial Regulation. Journal Of Policy History, 24(4), 612-643. doi:10.1017/S089803061200022X Wei-Bin, Z. (2013). A Synthesis of the Uzawa-Lucas Model with the Walrasian-General- Equilibrium and Neoclassical-Growth Theories. Ekonomski Anali / Economic Annals, 58(199), 7-38. doi:10.2298/EKA1399007Z Wolff, E. N. (2013). The Asset Price Meltdown, Rising Leverage, and the Wealth of the Middle Class. Journal of Economic Issues (M.E. Sharpe Inc.), 47(2), 333-342. Doi: 10.2753/JEI0021-3624470205 Yunker, J. A. (2010). Capital wealth taxation as a potential remedy for excessive capital wealth inequality. Journal Of Post Keynesian Economics, 33(1), 83-104.  Read More