Economist Vilfredo Pareto announced a discovery in 1897: about 20% of the families in Italy owned 80% of the land.
He went on to study the distribution of wealth in other Western European nations. The same distribution held true. Subsequent studies of national economies have revealed the same distribution, no matter what their politics are. Economists have yet to explain this phenomenon. Politicians have yet to thwart it. But some famous ones have taken advantage of it. Doubt me? Click this link.
Rev. Jim Wallis never mentions Pareto's rule. Welfare state promoters never do. It stands as a testimony against their attempts to use state coercion to make things more equal. The welfare state merely changes the groups that enjoy 80% of the income. But this fact never fazes the promoters. They deal with this ideologically inconvenient fact by a strategy of silence.
Rev. Wallis (income: $200,000 a year) wrote recently of his speech at the Parliament of the World's Religions. I direct some questions to him about his speech.
You praised the organization for this reason: "its ability not just to celebrate religious diversity, but also to provide the opportunity to get to the heart of urgent matters that people of faith must address."
As you are aware, Jesus also spoke of religious diversity: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad: (Matthew 12:30).
You went on to write this:
The banner on the stage read, "Reclaiming the Heart of our Humanity." And one might wonder, at an interfaith gathering like this one, why the organizers devoted a major plenary session to the issue of income inequality.
You then answered your own question:
Surely it's an economic issue, as our systems structure wealth towards the wealthy at the top. Clearly it's a political issue, as wealth and the wealthy shape and control our politics.
It is indeed a political issue. In our time, political issues constitute the chief religion of the world's religions. That is why the Parliament of the World's Religions calls itself a parliament. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines parliament as follows: "the group of people who are responsible for making the laws in some kinds of government." It's all about power. Power is all about state coercion. So, that is why "the organizers devoted a major plenary session to the issue of income inequality." They want the state to coerce people with money to hand the money over to officers of the state, who in turn promise -- "cross their hearts and hope to die" -- to set up numerous state-run bureaucracies to administer the funds in the name of the poor.
You continued:
But if you believe that every human being is made in the image of God -- imago dei; if you believe that every individual person represented in economic statistics is a child of God; if you believe that in nearly all religious traditions, loving your neighbor as you love yourself follows directly after loving God; and if you believe, regardless of your conception of God, that human beings are all brothers and sisters tied together, then income inequality is a spiritual issue, a moral issue, and a religious test of our belief.
We indeed are all brothers. Some are sons of Cain. Some are sons of Abel. Some are sons of Seth. You can read about this in Genesis 4.
Ultimately, we are all sons either of fallen Adam or of Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice on Calvary is the basis of God's adoption of us into His family. So, we are all sons of God. Some are disinherited for all eternity. Others are adopted for all eternity. The dividing line is the grace of God: justification by grace through faith. So, while it is legitimate to speak of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, there are permanent differences between the disinherited sons and the adopted sons.
I doubt that you mentioned this in your speech at the Parliament of World Religions.
In your article, you got right to the point.
A great example of this from my own Christian religious tradition is the story of the Good Samaritan. Here's a man robbed and mugged, left by the side of the road -- just as so many today are "mugged" and left behind by the global economy.
You equate being robbed and being "left behind by the global economy." You are apparently unfamiliar with the remarkable presentation on TED by Hans Rosling. Over ten million people have seen it. I am sorry you missed it. It showed how the whole world has gotten richer -- astoundingly richer -- since 1960. The transcript is here. But in this case you really do have to see it to believe it. So, please see it.
You went on:
Various religious leaders pass him by on the other side of the road, refusing to lend their aid. But then a person from a different culture, ethnicity, and race does stop and does help. He risks his security, his resources, and his time to lift this beaten man up to a new life. That Samaritan exemplifies what a neighbor does, says Jesus.
You used the words "his resources." This is the heart of the matter -- morally, judicially, and -- dare I say it? -- religiously. He did not use someone else's resources. He did not use tax money.
We can address inequality through three issues central to all faith traditions: human dignity, stewardship, and the common good.However, there is some good news regarding global inequality. A few weeks ago, writer Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a New York Times column that extreme global poverty has been cut in half in the last twenty years. This is one of the greatest stories that does not get told nearly enough.
Excuse me? Are you saying that the poor have not, in fact, been "mugged" and left behind by the global economy, as you so felicitously put it? It is not easy for me to follow your train of thought.
What bothers me is your identification of the cause of this remarkable transformation. You said that the United Nations Organization did this -- an agency with no power of any kind, hardly any money, and without any identifiable programs that could have produced this miracle.
The dramatic decline in extreme poverty reflects the UN commitment to cutting poverty in half by 2015 in its Millennium Development Goals, as well as global markets and movements involving people of all religious traditions, that have helped raise many families out of poverty. Religious participation has been critical to progress on key issues of human dignity, like debt transformation, HIV/AIDS and malaria prevention, global agriculture development, medical care, and reducing hunger and poverty.
The UNO has goals. It has had goals since its creation in 1945, naming itself after the United Nations: the military allies of World War II. The UN began in 1942. The UNO began in 1945. This was a case of trademark infringement. But I digress. The issue is goals. Goals are not the same as achievements. With respect to the UNO, it is mostly goals and hardly any achievements.
In a world economy of over $100 trillion, the annual budget of the UNO is around $5 billion. It is a stretch for me to understand how an organization with a budget this small has any measurable impact at all.
Now, nations at the UN have just pledged to finish the job -- making a commitment to Sustainable Development Goals that focus on ending extreme poverty worldwide by 2030. For the first time in history, experts in this field are now saying that ending extreme poverty is finally possible. And when we reduce poverty, inequality can be reduced as well.
Excuse me? Which nations? That is, which governments? Who made this pledge? I do not recall President Obama sitting down with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell (or even Harry Reid) to make a specific pledge. I do not recall any vote in Congress to this effect. I recall no such votes in any other legislatures.
Such pledges have been made for fifty years. But there are always discrepancies between pledges made and checks written.
But economic growth, by itself, is not enough to end extreme poverty. That growth must be directly aimed at ending poverty, as World Bank President Jim Kim said in his video address to the Parliament.
If Mr. Kim (or is it Jim?) did not bother to show up at the Parliament, it must not have been high on his agenda.
Strikingly, both the World Bank and the UN are saying they now have the "evidence" of what works and doesn't work to end extreme poverty, but they don't have the moral authority or the constituencies to generate the political will to make this crucial and moral goal happen -- and faith communities do.
So, at this late date -- 2015 -- the high-salary, non-taxable bureaucrats of these agencies have at long last figured out the causes of poverty. We have waited for seven decades for them to come up with an explanation.
You then announced: "And that's why these institutions are seeking alliances with us. There is a great opportunity here for religious communities." But exactly what is this opportunity? You did not say.
INCOME INEQUALITY
At long last, you got to the point of your article. "Income inequality is a spiritual issue, a moral issue, and a religious test of our belief."
Really? I recall Jesus' words: "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always" (Matthew 26:11). So, how is it that this is a spiritual issue?
Yes, I can see one possible application. Anyone who proclaims economic equality as a goal is an enemy of Jesus. But I do not think this is what you had in mind.
Of course, some inequality will always be part of the human condition and our societies. But as inequality has become so stark, it is time for people of all faiths to exercise our prophetic mission and energy, calling for the kind of equity, fairness, and justice that our faiths require of us. It is time for us to require serious political accountability from our public leaders.
So, exactly how much economic inequality is too much? Second, how did you get this figure? Third, how did it come to be? Fourth, what is to be done about it?
I believe we can address inequality through three core issues central to all faith traditions: human dignity, stewardship, and the common good.
We do not need more slogans. We need a theory of economic inequality. Then we need data. You know: numbers. Dr. Rosling offered numbers.
You went on:
A commitment to interfaith dialogue is important, but not simply for its own sake or to admire each other's diversity. Interfaith dialogue should be in service of these three goals, especially for the sake of those who are the most vulnerable in our society and around the world -- exactly who our faith traditions agree we should be most concerned about.
"Interfaith dialogue." I get it! "Let them eat chatter."
This will be the true test of a moral global economy. We convene our religions to celebrate diversity. Can we also convene our religions to help end extreme poverty by 2030 -- and end shameful poverty in the United States? That would certainly be a goal worthy of a Parliament of World Religions.
We need programs to match goals. We need programs based on a theory that establishes cause and effect.
We have such programs. They are called businesses.
You did not mention businesses.
You need to do some research on businesses, profits, losses, and voluntary exchange.
You give an annual speech at Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum, where about 1,500 of the richest people in the world show up. You are no doubt well aware that Davos attendee David Rothkopf has reported the following: "The richest 1,100 people in the world today have a net worth that's almost double that of the 2.5 billion people earning the least." That seems to be inequality. Apparently your message is not getting through to them. Perhaps this is because this is not your message to them.
Here is my problem. It is difficult for me to know whether you represent the World Economic Forum to the World Parliament of Religions, or whether you represent the World Parliament of Religions to the World Economic Forum.
You should consider writing an article on this.
Meanwhile, you have yet to answer any of these questions. It has been years.
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.