All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 27, 2021 - Skeptoid
18:03
Skeptoid #790: Is the Existence of Billionaires Inherently Harmful?

Pop culture tells us that the existence of billionaires is harmful to the economy. Is that so? Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Are Billionaires Actually Harmful 00:01:34
You can hardly turn around these days without hearing someone lecture about how immoral it is that billionaires exist.
It's a popular view, but is this just an emotional or ideological reaction?
Or does economic theory also show that the existence of billionaires is actually harmful to a nation's economy or its people?
That's coming right up on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
The Real Cost of Inequality 00:14:08
Is the existence of billionaires inherently harmful?
As the world's billionaires fly into space, disrupt crypto markets with their tweets, and buy comically ridiculous mega-yachts, the rest of us often roll our eyes and grumble.
And it seems that more and more often we see little meme graphics shared on social media saying how evil billionaires are, or making fun of them or their habits, or of how disconnected from reality they are.
I've never seen a positive one.
Clearly, most people don't seem to think very much of the ultra-wealthy.
And just as ubiquitous as these memes is the popular belief that the existence of billionaires is not just fodder for the comedians, but it's actually harmful to economies, to social justice, to world health, to the environment, and to just about everything else.
Today, we're going to dive into the research and find out just what impact billionaires truly do have on the rest of us, if any.
A quick internet search for headlines gives us a temperature reading of what readers are hungry for.
From The New Republic.
Billionaires are eating the economy.
From inequality.org.
Billionaires are a sign of economic failure.
From The Washington Post.
Young Americans say billionaires do more harm than good.
Study shows.
From the New York Times, Abolish Billionaires.
And from The Atlantic, Cancel Billionaires.
Clearly, many people are not fans.
When we seek to understand why, it's the subtitle under this last headline that tells a lot.
Wealth Inequality Hurts Society.
Billionaires are the icons of inequality, and many people place the blame for inequality, or at least some of the blame, squarely on the shoulders of billionaires.
So really what we're asking when we wonder if the existence of billionaires is inherently good or bad is whether income inequality is good or bad.
Economists usually refer to it as economic inequality, and it's not all that easy to define.
There is inequality of income, of wealth, consumption, health, education, opportunity, income mobility, and lots of other metrics.
These are often represented with a metric called the Gini coefficient, named for an Italian statistician.
Countries with very high economic inequality, like South Africa or Namibia, have a higher Gi coefficient for wealth of around 60.
And countries with low inequality, like Slovenia and Czechia, are around 25.
The United States is on the high end of the middle at 41.
Australia and the United Kingdom are lower at around 34.
Decades ago, economic theory held that inequality was actually good for a nation, as a standout wealthy class had lots to invest and drive growth.
And it's true that the great barons of yore built huge factories and railroads and industries, employed hundreds of thousands, created cities, and drove growth and opportunity where none had existed before.
And today that's still the case, though on a less monumental scale.
Think of Elon Musk with his PayPal fortune, and now see how many people work for Tesla Motors and SpaceX.
However, over the course of the 20th century, economists' perspectives gradually flipped as more impactful factors began to take over.
Today we see economic inequality correlated with all the bad things.
Crime, poor health, starvation, social and racial problems, poverty, lower life expectancy, etc.
The reasons and causes are not always clear, and it's an active area of research among economists.
One reason for the 20th century shift seems to be the transition from reliance on physical capital, like machines, to human capital, like skilled professionals.
Regardless, suffice it to say that in the 21st century, lower inequality does absolutely correlate with the good things we all want our society to achieve.
Nations need to get low Gini coefficients, according to all the data, in order to be most successful.
Economic inequality is definitely undesirable.
No need for a skeptoid episode on this one.
So, with that established, we can then move on to our main question of interest.
Are billionaires the drivers of economic inequality?
Clearly, they're symbolic of it.
But are they a cause?
If we got rid of billionaires, would that be what it takes to fix all the correlated problems throughout society?
This is a question that a lot of economists have studied.
The most influential and often cited paper on this topic from recent years comes from Sutita Bogchi and Jens Fina and was published in the Journal of Comparative Economics in 2015.
What they found was the same thing all the other economists before them had found, and it's that there simply weren't any clear consistent links between a nation's billionaires and its Gini coefficients.
So Bogchi and Sveina did a type of analysis that hadn't really been published before, which was to divide the billionaires into two groups.
Now, they had to do this manually, billionaire by billionaire, using the Forbes list of billionaires in every country.
The groups were, number one, those who acquired their wealth due to political connections, and number two, everyone else.
To some degree, practically every billionaire benefits from political connections.
If Jeff Bezos wants to build a new Amazon warehouse somewhere, he snaps his fingers, and politicians from every state trip over each other, offering Amazon the best tax incentives or whatever.
However, political connections are not how Bezos acquired his wealth to begin with, which was by selling books online.
And at the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the huge crowd of Russian oligarch billionaires.
Their typical story is that of some modest state employee who worked in the oil sector, upon whom fortune smiled in the 1990s when Russia privatized state assets, turning civil servants and friends of the Kremlin into CEOs of oil companies.
Presto, lots of billionaires who did no work to get to where they are, but had the right political connections.
Bogchi and Sveina placed billionaires who acquired their wealth politically into one group, and the other group was people who built businesses, inherited their wealth, or obtained it by any other legitimate way.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding together.
Get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
And once they did this, they got a result, a very clear result.
When they looked at each country's billionaires as a whole, they found that the more billionaires, the worse was that country's economic growth.
But once they separated those billionaires into the two groups, it was only the politically connected wealth inequality that was correlated with lower growth.
Politically unconnected wealth inequality had no correlation at all.
In plain language, billionaires who owe their wealth to their government connections hurt economies.
Billionaires who obtained their wealth on their own do not.
They don't help, they don't hurt, they just don't have any clear impact.
In a country like the United States that has all kinds of securities laws and oversight, the president can't simply anoint a crony, a billionaire, by gifting him some state asset.
So the U.S. has very few billionaires who obtained their wealth through political connections.
As a result, Bogchi and Svina found that U.S. billionaires have no harmful impact on the economy.
But in countries rife with political corruption like Russia, Indonesia, or India, billionaires have a pronounced detrimental effect.
Working billionaires tend to hold their wealth in investments.
Corrupt billionaires tend to try and cash it out.
Nevertheless, articles with headlines like those listed earlier remain popular, and the memes continue to be shared, claiming that billionaires hurt everyone else.
If the data shows that they don't, non-politically connected ones anyway, where's the disconnect?
One common misconception is that when one person gets richer, everyone else gets correspondingly poorer.
Billionaires are often blamed for having stolen and hoarded the wealth that might otherwise be nicely distributed among the poor.
This is not true at all.
A nation's economy is not a zero-sum game, which is a system in which there's no net gain among participants.
Think of three cavemen gambling with 10 rocks.
At the end of the game, there's still going to be 10 rocks.
One guy would have them all and the other guys would have nothing.
That's a zero-sum game.
But national economies aren't zero-sum games.
They don't have only a fixed amount of wealth that people have to scrabble over.
Let's say I start a small business making bedazzled ukuleles, and you think it's such a great idea that you invest $10,000 in it in exchange for 10% ownership.
That gives the company a valuation on paper of $100,000.
Since I own the rest of it, I am now worth $90,000 in stock.
Literally, my net worth is $90,000 more than it was yesterday.
But the government didn't print $90,000 in new cash.
So does that mean that everyone else in town must have just collectively lost $90,000?
No, we created new wealth.
It's not in cash that I'm spending all over town causing inflation, so it doesn't impact anyone else's wealth.
This is a key concept that's frequently misunderstood.
Other people creating and accumulating wealth does not reduce the value of your wealth.
And when it's virtual wealth, like shares of a company, it doesn't alter the money supply and doesn't contribute to inflation.
The vast majority of the wealth owned by most billionaires is on paper.
Very little of it is in tangible assets like cash or property.
Unequivocally, a billionaire being rich does not mean that his wealth would otherwise be in the pockets of the needy.
Another reason that billionaires might not be the problem comes from another recent and influential finding from World Bank economist Martin Rivalian and published in 2012 in the American Economic Review.
Revalian studied 90 developing nations to find out why they weren't undergoing poverty convergence, a prediction that countries will see converging levels of poverty due to a number of effects that are beyond the scope of this episode.
Revalion's findings were complex, but among them was a robust conclusion that it is a country's poverty rate that is the primary driver of its wealth inequality's impact on its economic growth.
So again, doing my best to put it into plain language, wealth inequality does hurt a nation's economy, but the problem is the number of poor people, not the number of rich people.
To extrapolate from that, stop worrying about the billionaires who don't really have any impact and start worrying more about those at the poverty level.
Improving a nation's economy will not be done by canceling billionaires, as The Atlantic so eloquently put it, but by vigorous implementation of programs to give the poorest citizens better opportunities and a better start.
Punishing billionaires might seem emotionally satisfying to some, but the data shows it wouldn't help the people who need help, and it wouldn't help the economy.
But then we have those politically connected billionaires who don't do anything much except personally cannibalize their state-gifted companies, leave their employees jobless and worse off than before, and then find janky overseas investments to launder their money out of the country.
Supporting Skeptoid's Mission 00:02:17
That particular class could indeed stand a good canceling.
And it's nice to know that that's a robust finding from the latest in economic theory and not just a meme.
A great big Skeptoid shout-out to premium members Bill Campbell, G4, Ya Boy Ethan, Christopher St. Clair, and the Lehigh Valley Humanists.
Let me give you a shout out too.
It's easy.
Just log into the members portal at skeptoid.com and click shout outs and stories to tell me what you want me to say.
Sustainability is a popular theme in science, and the support from these premium members is what pays the bills of our nonprofit and makes Skeptoid sustainable.
Please join them by becoming a member for just $5 a month at skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookam Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double-doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection