There is something intrinsically corrupt and rotten to the core with a socioeconomic and political system that rather creates one billionaire instead of one thousand millionaires. It appears, therefore, that its own survival depends on such inequality, which may explain why it happens. It doesn’t need one to be an economist to understand the economic advantages of an economy with a thousand millionaires instead of one billionaire. This is a structural economic distribution anomaly that, with political will and proper economic and political policy, could be corrected.
Equally, there’s something morally reprehensible and quite worrying in a culture that celebrates and, perhaps unwittingly, promotes such inequality by the way it admires and glorifies billionaires and their lives. Not that there is something intrinsically wrong in becoming a billionaire. But how and under what circumstances and at what cost, socially, is as more important as what one billionaire in a population of one hundred (100) million with a per capita income of, for example, 850 USD, does with their billions.
Not only is this a worrying structural economic distribution anomaly; but it’s also equally a worrying socioeconomic and political power concentration matter and problem. It is obvious the billionaire wields unchallenged enormous socioeconomic power; and what they choose to do with their billions – how and on what they decide and choose to spend their billions – is of socioeconomic importance and will, no doubt, have significant impact on the population.
But any socioeconomic and political system that allows, through various means whether by design or default, the creation of a few billionaire individuals at the great expense of the many, and allows hundreds of thousands to be homeless, cannot and should not be considered a “developed” system. No society, with homelessness (homeless people), should be considered wealthy. The same way, no society with swathes of slums, irrespective of its impressive economic performance, should be considered wealthy and/or developed because these are terrible failures in society.
Homelessness, as are slums, should be considered an indicator and a measure of socioeconomic underdevelopment in any society irrespective of its high per capita income. In fact, these should raise serious questions on the measure and veracity of per capita income. Homelessness should also be considered a crime against humanity on the logic and basis that, like slums, it is dehumanising and condemns people – large numbers of people – to suffering; causing both mental and physical damage, more likely to result in slow and painful death.