In 2008, Bishop Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, released a list of “Seven Social Sins,” including three economic social sins: excessive wealth, creating poverty, and contributing to the widening gap between rich and poor. Each of these three social sins names and highlights particular aspects of economic structures and culture in contemporary society. In my opinion, inequality is perhaps THE moral question we, as a society, cannot ignore any longer.
To expose both the reality and dangers posed by inequality in the United States, I recommend the new Vanity Fair article, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” by the 2x Nobel Prize winner and Columbia economics professor, Joseph Stiglitz.
The upper 1% of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40% . . . While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.”
Throughout the article, Stiglitz examines the reasons for this growing inequality and argues why the current levels of inequality in the United States are profoundly dangerous.
America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real.”
I highly recommend Dr. Stiglitz’s exposé.
I recommend the book “Unjust Desserts” by Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly’s. I assigned the intro and first chapter to my class last semester and it made an impact on the students. It argues that 90% or more of what we earn is due to technological advancements and investments of the past (many of which come from the government), for which we have no direct responsibility, and we received for free. Another book to look at is James Bailey’s “Rethinking Poverty,” which shows how historically the government has helped some people gain assets (and restricted others), which continues to have effects today.
The caution against “excessive wealth” is derived from the biblical tradition of the jubilee year. See, for example, “Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace.” Paragraph 16 of that document is particularly enlightening.
>>Here I would like to invite economists and financial professionals, as well as political leaders, to recognize the urgency of the need to ensure that economic practices and related political policies have as their aim the good of every person and of the whole person. This is not only a demand of ethics but also of a sound economy. Experience seems to confirm that economic success is increasingly dependent on a more genuine appreciation of individuals and their abilities, on their fuller participation, on their increased and improved knowledge and information, on a stronger solidarity.
These are values which, far from being foreign to economics and business, help to make them a fully “human” science and activity. An economy which takes no account of the ethical dimension and does not seek to serve the good of the person – of every person and the whole person – cannot really call itself an “economy” , understood in the sense of a rational and constructive use of material wealth.<<
The way out, however, does not involve changing from a so-called capitalist system to any form of socialist system. Rather, the way out involves a general recognition of the fundamental dignity of the human person and of natural human associations, along with fostering a sense of solidarity with those who are inadvertently victimized by poorly designed social or economic policies.
The specific evils which contribute to the imbalances we are deploring here include government/capitalist cronyism, welfarism and too-rigid centralization, both in government and in private corporate structures, that robs people of dignity as well as of an opportunity to contribute creatively to the general welfare. The tendency of corporate boards to award what some may see as excessive bonuses to upper level management is a symptom, rather than a root cause, of these evils.