For instance, it is disclosed in connection to the 2007/2008 global financial crisis that "The US Congress and agencies such as the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and in Britain HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority (FSA), presided over a series of deregulatory reforms excessively favourable to the biggest banks." How can these agencies be expected to help stabilize the global economy when they are in part responsible for widening global inequality?
It is time to reduce high global inequality but this cannot be done by simply increasing aid to the poor. While that would be laudable, it would be nonsensical to do that while maintaining an opaque global financial system which takes more out of poor nations than it puts in--hence the need for international reform encompassing international banking, trade, tax and transparency regulation.
The rules need re-vision-ing to better redistribute global wealth. Resisting reform is simply postponing the inevitable. If the poor do not resort to more violent means of correcting the excessive imbalance of wealth, a potential reset of the global economy arising from the collapse of major currencies of richer nations, namely the dollar and euro, could trigger this. Why wait for either possibility or their implications for global inequality when we can simply CHANGE our direction by rewriting the rules to be more favorable to the poorest of the globe? Albert Einstein is credited with defining insanity as, "...doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." If the globe wants narrowing of global inequality, it should be willing to do things differently than it has in the past. Global leaders and the rich should consider sharing with the poor some of the 86% of global wealth that only 10% of the world's richest controls.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
