Excessive Concentration Of Wealth In A Society Is Destructive

One of the laws of history is that wealth tends to concentrate upward in the hands of the privileged few, rather than gently trickle down to the households of the many.  Over time, this gravitational process ensures that political power remains in the hands of the few, thwarting the stated purposes of democracy.  It is the responsibility of the national leadership to ensure that these imbalances do not become too great; unchecked, they will eventually give rise to social unrest.

The French economist Thomas Piketty’s recent book Capital in the Twenty-First Century offers empirical evidence to support this theme.  Piketty analyzes a large amount of economic data–including tax returns for vast segments of the population–to support his conclusions.  Economic inequality has been increasing dramatically in the past twenty years; after the Great Recession of 2009, it actually accelerated.  Wealth and resources are being hoarded at an astounding rate.  This situation has been permitted to persist by the policies of Western governments (specifically, the United States) which allow the unfettered concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few.

Piketty’s Views

Current tax laws permit the passing down of vast inheritances from one generation to another, thereby creating hereditary aristocracies; the wealthy are allowed to take advantage of “free speech” laws to contribute uncontrolled amounts to political campaigns, thereby effectively purchasing candidates.  Political elections in the United States are now approaching the level of farce, with both parties essentially controlled by the same forces of concentrated wealth.  The pantomime is played out, but the results are already preordained.

A key factor here is something that Piketty notices with regard to investment return and economic growth: when the returns of investments significantly exceed the growth rate of the economy, the rich get more rich, and consolidate their grip on the political process.  Laws and policies are then pursued that favor them, rather than the good of the wider public.  Pauperization and disenfranchisement follow.  He states this principle in this way:

Whenever the rate of return on capital is significantly and durably higher than the growth rate of the economy, it is all but inevitable that inheritance predominates over saving.

And when inheritance predominates over saving, the average person is crushed by the forces of concentrated wealth that stack the political deck in their favor.  I have discussed this problem before, using the historical examples of the Gracchi brothers in Republican Rome, and the reforms of Solon, the archon of Athens, as well as the reformist policies of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt in the United States in the twentieth century. This process has been underway in America for some time.  It began in the early 1980s with the policies of Ronald Reagan, but gained unstoppable momentum under the administrations of Clinton and Bush in the 1990s and 2000s, respectively.  The actual data supporting this statement is disturbing, but worth a close look.

Enlightened rulers must periodically prevent undue concentrations of wealth and power; failure to do so ensures the collapse of republican institutions, the advent of authoritarianism, and the onset of social upheaval.

Byzantine Precedents

Another historical example supporting this idea can be found in the history of the Byzantine Empire in the tenth century.  I recently came across this example while reviewing some materials on the early history of the Eastern Empire.

By 900 A.D. it had become clear that the holdings of the landed aristocracy in the Greek empire had become uncomfortably concentrated.  Rich landowners called dynatoi controlled vast estates worked by landed serfs called coloni.  Some emperors of the era tried to step in and halt this process of concentration.

In the years 927 and 928, there was a severe famine in the Greek east.  Peasants were desperate, and many of them were forced to sell their parcels of land at rock-bottom prices simply in order to eat.  The emperor Romanus issued an edict in 934 denouncing the practice of taking advantage of rural misfortune in order to increase one’s holdings.  Landlords were attacked as being more avaricious “than famine or plague.”  Romanus ordered the conveyance of properties bought for less than half of fair market value back to the peasant who had sold them.  His edict also permitted any peasant seller to buy back (within three years) a parcel of land he had sold to a landlord, at the original sale price.

These laws reminded me, in some way, to the “redemption statutes” of several American states (i.e., Kansas, Texas, Florida) that allow the owner of a property to buy it back (at the sale price) for a certain period of time after a foreclosure sale.  Many of these statutes were put into place during the period of the Depression in the 1930s.

The edict of Romanus was at least an attempt to level the playing field and ensure some modicum of economic justice.  By various artifices, the rich were able to evade the spirit of his reforms, but at least it was a step in the right direction.  Basil II issued a similar decree in 996.  A seller could redeem his land at any time for the price of its sale.  His edict also nullified title to lands acquired in violation of Romanus’s earlier edicts.  Here, finally was an honest attempt to reduce or prevent the spread of a destructive and destabilizing feudalism.

The Byzantine Empire, although much criticized, was actually much more efficient and organized than it is credited with being.  It would not have lasted as long as it did, had it been otherwise.  Thus, while Western Europe sank into ignorance, destitution, and feudalism for centuries, the Byzantine East was able to preserve a flourishing economic climate, and resist powerful external attacks from its Islamic neighbors.  Commerce and trade flourished, encouraged by the state maintenance of ports, weights and measures, roads, and maritime laws.

The forces of wealth concentration are natural and inevitable, but that does not mean that governments should sit by helplessly as these forces run their course.  It is quite plausible–to me at least–that the rise of socially destructive ideologies (feminism, uncontrolled personal license, etc.) is in some way the result of the vast level of economic disparity in Western societies.

Those who control the reins of power advance ideologies that assist them in their quest for more power and control.  These effects of this are felt by the masses.

Governments can, and must, keep a close eye on their domains, and ensure the basic concepts of economic justice are not offended by the obscene concentrations of wealth in the hands of an idle and unproductive few.

Read More:  Celsus’s General Directives For Good Health


16 thoughts on “Excessive Concentration Of Wealth In A Society Is Destructive

    • That seems a strange thing to say.
      I’ve got some friends who were hit hard by personal circumstances. One of them went from a 50-60k a year job to being hugely in debt and working as a shift-manager at a call center. When he’s not working 10+ hour shifts at the call center, he works as a waiter at a local Applebees. Because of this:
      He’s obese, because he works all day and has no time to cook, so he makes do with fast food. He has zero time to exercise, also.
      He has very few friends, and his personality has soured a good bit from having to manage the morons who work at his call center.
      I don’t think he’s read a book in 3-4 years, with the exception of the Hunger Games.
      He has no girlfriend, and no time to find one. I doubt he’s gotten laid in ages. He’ll occasionally find a spare moment to go out on dates, but again, since he’s an obese, poverty-striken call center worker, the caliber of women he attracts is not high. Listening to the stories he tells me makes me think that I’d rather cut off my balls and join a monastery than date an American woman. (I’m fortunate enough to be able to date foreign girls, and while they have their own sets of problems, at least they generally weigh less than I do.) The girls either dump him shortly afterwards, or he’s so put off by them that he decides to remain single.

      If he had some wealth, he would have time. He could work out. He could eat better. He could read. He could think. He could improve himself instead of struggling desperately just to keep his head above water. Wealth would help his efforts at self-improvement a lot.

      In response to Quintus’s point, I don’t think that wealth is necessarily a corrupter. It acts as a force multiplier for whatever’s already there. If you’re a Rockefeller, you use your millions to wipe out hookworm in the American south. If you’re Gates, you use it to fight Malaria in Africa. If you’re a Dubai Oil Sheik, you… well, this isn’t really the type of blog to discuss such things. Suffice to say you use it to make interesting advances in the art of waste processing. I think money might be a tool like any other that simply amplifies the power of its wielder. It’s just like how a gun doesn’t corrupt the person holding it, it just makes them able to do things they wanted to, that they otherwise couldn’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Wealth is fine, but under certain circumstances it can be a corruptor. When too much is held by too few, serious structural problems in society can result. Inequalities in society are compounded when too much is controlled by too few, and this means that the powerful exploit the defenseless.


  1. Actually the extreme concentration of wealth is an indicator of a system gone wrong. It’s either a sign of feudalism and no upward mobility or in our case a sign of the final phases of usury.
    Even in past times it was rather the latter. Few people know that the likely real reasons for the death of Julius Caesar were his plans of going against the monetary power of his times and implementing a currency based on the Roman empire.

    With usury sooner or later all wealth is concentrated at the very top and since the 0,001% have such an inordinate amount of power, they control the government and tweak the tax system to serve only them. Finally even upward mobility is completely destroyed and you are left in a system that stops advancing – civilizational rot sets in.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. No qcurtius, nooooo. Save yourself. 🙂 Some reads you might like:

    http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/land-prices-evolution-capitals-share ->

    “Capital income is not growing unboundedly at the expense of labor, and further accumulation of capital in fact most likely means a fall in capital’s share of total income – refuting one of the main theories of economist Thomas Piketty’s popular book Capital in the 21st Century.”


    George Reisman, a brilliant economist and thinker, bitch slapped (for the lack of a better term) Piketty:

    The same book is posted for free on his blog:


    Upward mobility for every one was steadily trending up until the year 2000 (when the economy started showing signs of over leverage). Upward mobility also improves dramatically when controlled for things like age and education. So, at least in some sense, it’s probably the poor/uneducated vs every one else and not everyone vs the 1%. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html?abt=0002&abg=0


    • Thanks for the input, Lucas. I don’t find these other studies to be the best guides. Piketty’s book–or any book–is not perfect, but it has been pointed out time and time again that wealth concentrations in the West are at all-time highs. To ignore this, or to try to deny this, to me seems almost unconscionable. And I’ll go you one step further. I am really starting to believe that much of the social rot that we talk about in these parts is linked to this reality. Feminism, SJWism, moral relativism, and the like are all rooted in a desire–conscious or unconscious–by the top elites to retain their hold on power.


  3. I felt a twinge of fear and some pity when I read about the gentleman working in a call center. That sounds like a horrific fate. However, I’ve got a story that beats that. I’m 40 lbs overweight currently and I’m a cancer patient. I’ve lost 50 lbs so far and will be at a normal weight by winter. So it can be done. A simple kettle bell and 20 minutes of hard metabolic conditioning is all that is required. And fast food doesn’t have to be unhealthy. Simple choices…I can empathize with this overweight gentleman but his present condition doesn’t have to be permanent. Easier said than done I understand but I must emphasize that circumstances can be overcome.

    Regarding the concentration of wealth, I agree with Quintius. There is a rot in our culture and much of it has to do with a lack of upward mobility for 90 percent of the population. I’ve made drastic changes in my lifestyle so that I can accumulate enough wealth to expatriate. That doesn’t have to be an obscenely large amount if one works a part time job. 400K is enough to expatriate to Asia or central Europe. Aaron Clarey, author of Bachelor Pad Economics, argues that even 200k is enough. 750 k seems to be the magic number. This seems to be a reasonable solution for most middle class professionals who are childless.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.