Home | About | Donate

Here’s What the Millionaires at Davos Can Do About Global Inequality


Here’s What the Millionaires at Davos Can Do About Global Inequality

Sam Pizzigati

Every winter the world’s political and business elite retreat to the Swiss mountain resort of Davos to think deep thoughts and sup at five-star eateries. The corporate execs, bankers, and finance ministers who frequent this annual Davos World Economic Forum have of late devoted considerable time to the topic of inequality. Last year’s forum, for instance, identified income inequality as 2015’s “most significant trend.”


How disconnected can one be? It boggles my mind!


Ya gotta love these kinds of junkets, invitation only, where the bubble people meet, in a bubble of course, to discuss how the world works and how it shall be governed for the rest of humanity. On a less global scale, are the series of elite ponderings each year called Renaissance Weekends, also by invitation only, where the parameters of acceptable political discussion for the following year are set. Bill Clinton, in the past at least, was one of the mavens behind such cotillions.


The would not dare to meet in Flint Michigan. No, it has to be a great Swiss resort town with the best food, entertainment, sightseeing and the required bullshit sessions.


"Here’s What the Millionaires at Davos Can Do About Global Inequality"

They can bequeath their wealth to the world's poor, then commit suicide. That's what they can do...

And aren't they all billionaires?


"Here's What the Millionaires at Davos Can Do About Global Inequality"

But here's what the billionaires in Davos are actually working on: Global Redesign Initiative, to bypass that clumsy ineffective system of nation states, and implement a more agile new "stakeholders group" of movers and shakers who can "fix the world's problems" on behalf of all us powerless twerps.


Here's what the millionaires can do about global inequality - write a will leaving all their assets to pro democracy groups, then, commit mass suicide. Sorry - I couldn't resist lol.


less concerned about what they can do than about what they actually WILL DO


Amy Goodman has a very interesting interview on today's program: Democracy Now that's based on how the Koch Brothers put their Influence Network together and pulled the entire Republican party and much of the national agenda (policy-wise) to the extreme right (to totally favor its pro-big business interests).

Definitely worth a listen.


Yes, that m is a typo.


Tragically, in the US we decided to redefine "inequality," limiting it to the gap between the middle class and rich. This is like trying to solve an problem when you have only half of the equation. It's impossible to reverse the deterioration of the middle class without legitimately addressing poverty -- and we haven't even begun that discussion. Those who think we don't have extreme poverty here are merely unaware of the conditions of our jobless/homeless poor.

It's more comfortable to talk about broad international extremes in inequality that we're powerless to change, than to address the poverty we have (and could change) right here in the US.


Please consider the effects of requiring sovereign debt to be backed with Commons shares.

Commons shares may be claimed by each adult human, one only, that will cease to exist on the humans death, shall be deposited in trust with local financial institutions along with execution of a social contract.

In this way each human will receive equal interest payments from sovereign debt.

This establishes the sovereignty of each human.

As a sovereign entity, each individual would have access to sovereign debt for home, farm, or secure interest in employment.

In round numbers, a share with a value of $1 million would return about $1 thousand/month, if it all was borrowed, at a growth sustainable rate.

Current sovereign debt would return about $10/month, $20 if corporate government debt is included, (observing that corporations are governments subordinate to their charters) which would be significant in many parts of the world. Individuals could borrow a significant fraction, but maximum return would likely require states to borrow all remaining shares.

I suspect that a nation with 1 million residents could borrow the entire $1 trillion (equivalent) of resident shares as reserve cash and devise a plan to increase revenue by the $12 billion/yr (equivalent) required to pay the interest. The U.S. example of a $268 trillion debt, a $250 trillion treasury, and $3 trillion annual interest payment seems equally optimistic.

With all currencies tied to the Commons, and the proportional increase in wealth flow in all states, exchange rates and trade can stabilize.

The increased spending on basic needs will necessarily reduce the cost of providing them.

Since the spending of money is restricted by the availability of materials and labor, and “full employment” is restricted by the availability of money, recognizing and distributing the value of the Commons in this way would simply “fill the reservoir” so the world economic system may act more like a “Free Market.” This restriction, and most familiar others, would promote an orderly increase in money supply, with most new money in reserves and increased valuation.

Please consider the notion, and as you view the worlds problems, and crises, imagine how this would alter those conditions. The perspective change for each individual so enfranchised is critically needed.

Thanks so much for your kind indulgence,





See we really need to have a 90% tax on the very wealthy, as we did when Ike was in office. At the very least we need luxury taxes. Nobody should be allowed to personally own so much money as to have so much power over everyone else. That is a real injustice. The government is obligated to protect us from this kind of oligarchy.