There have been numerous reports and op-eds recently blaming profiteering and the wealthiest individuals for the economic crisis and global inequality. The latest report, titled "Survival of the Richest" by Oxfam, attempts to advocate for combating inequality by reducing the numbers and wealth of the richest individuals and redistributing these resources. The report emphasizes that the richest 1% possess nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world combined in the past two years. However, this narrative is wholly misguided, oversimplified, and flawed on multiple levels. 

Focusing solely on wealth inequality is a misguided approach when addressing societal issues. While it is important to acknowledge and address disparities, obsessing over wealth redistribution as the sole solution overlooks the complexities of economic growth and individual incentives. Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game; it generates opportunities, employment, and innovation that benefit society. Instead of fixating on wealth redistribution, emphasis should be placed on creating an environment that fosters economic mobility, encourages entrepreneurship, and provides equal access to quality education and opportunities. By promoting individual growth and merit-based advancement, we can strive for a more prosperous and inclusive society, rather than stifling progress with an exclusive focus on wealth redistribution.

However, that would mean successful people would accumulate more wealth than others. Therefore, should we discourage people from pursuing success or impose penalties on their achievements? There is nothing glamorous about the concept of equality of outcome. Every individual ultimately reaches the same depth in the grave, and they are perfectly equal when they are six feet under. If there are any doubts, consider the tragic events that unfolded in Ukraine during the 1930s when the Soviets deemed it justifiable to attribute class guilt to successful farmers, eliminating them and resulting in the starvation and death of six million Ukrainians, thus establishing a certain equality.

The exponential advancement in the tech industry, which is often overlooked but undeniably evident, acts as the primary catalyst for inclusivity. Services such as Uber, Amazon, YouTube, TikTok, and many others have empowered low-skilled and uneducated workers to secure livelihoods at an unprecedented pace and scale. Moreover, technology has opened doors for millions of women who would otherwise be unable to work, providing them the opportunity to contribute from the comfort of their homes with flexible schedules. All these remarkable achievements have been made possible by the audacity of visionary individuals who dared to pursue extraordinary dreams. The unequal distribution of rewards serves as an incentive for individuals to strive, work hard, and undertake risks in their pursuit of greater prosperity and success. It is important to acknowledge that inequality does not always imply discrimination.  

While poor government spending and the political influence exerted by certain people are indeed the actual issues, these are not typically what studies, such as the one from Oxfam, specifically highlight when placing blame on the rich. We are currently in an era where many individuals are deeply concerned about concepts such as "fairness" and "social justice." The idea behind progressive taxation, which is often advocated for, is to increase tax rates on the wealthy to ensure they contribute their fair share. The focus lies more on achieving a sense of fairness and social justice. As Thomas Sowell once questioned, "What constitutes your 'fair share' of something someone else has worked for?"

As quoted earlier, according to Oxfam, the richest 1% has accumulated nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world in the past two years. However, this alone is not evidence of a problem. Wealth is not a zero-sum game, and the rich do not become wealthy at the expense of the poor. Rather, the creation of wealth benefits society by generating employment opportunities, increasing productivity, and driving innovation.    

Let's take the example of Amazon. During the pandemic, Amazon's market capitalization has soared by approximately 95%, equivalent to a staggering $920 billion increase. As a result, Jeff Bezos, the CEO, and founder of Amazon, witnessed his fortune rise by $89 billion, owning 9.7% of the company. However, the remaining $831 billion of wealth creation was shared among the public, including both large and small investors.     

It is crucial to note that individuals like Jeff Bezos cannot simply realize the gain in market capitalization as personal profit. In fact, they may never be able to fully actualize the wealth indicated on the charts. Furthermore, the total value generated by Amazon extends beyond market capitalization, encompassing the 1.9 million sellers and millions of buyers who benefitted from the platform during the extensive global lockdowns. Unfortunately, studies like the one conducted by Oxfam often overlook these important aspects. 

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, emphasized that there is a positive benefit to the inequality of outcome for everybody. While some individuals become millionaires and other billionaires, it is precisely because they have succeeded in satisfying their customers. That's the economic system that has transformed societies in the past century, and that's what gave people like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates the incentive to produce the miracles that have benefited us all. If we didn't allow them to become incredibly rich, we would be more equal, but the question is whether we would be better off?