This is an intriguing book, which seeks to investigate (from an economic, political, ethical and public policy perspectives) whether there is such a thing a having too much money? And if the answer is "yes", what should be done about that?

Whilst recognising that people will have (widely) different views on teh questions, Robeyns quickly makes clear that her answer to the first question is a resounding "yes" and proposes a limits (or caps) on wealth. The first is a political limit of 10M (US dollars/Euros/ Uk Pounds), which Robeyns believes should be enforced by our societal structures and fiscal systems.

The second cap is a personal ethical cap which Robeyns believes should not be enforced as such but willingly adopted by individuals.

Both of these caps are referred as being person, though Robeyns does not make clear how that equates to children, the elderly etc. That detail is implicitly beyond Robeyns thesis, though she admits there is a lot of work to do in relation to that question and many other topics.

Three important caveats to these proposals:

1. They are put forward by Robeyns for the purposes of discussion ie a starting point. The actual caps are not as important as the notion that there should be a cap.

2 Robeyns' assumptions include the the society in which these caps apply include that the relevant societies provide a universal education, health and social system (much as as enjoyed by Robeyns in her native Netherlands). Where relevant societies do not display these characteristics, different caps may apply (at least until those societies move in that direction).

3 Robeyns believes it is for each society (country? nation?) needs to make their own determinations as to caps and how to move towards them. It must not be a matter for one society (or the UN) to impose its views on others.

What is extreme wealth? Some of the (modest) billionaires in the world today have a total wealth of approx &23 billion. Such equates to a worker, who works full time 50 hours a week over a career between 20 and 65, earning &196,581 per hour every hour over that career!

And such is a modest billionaire!

Robeyns puts for a number of reasons as to why extreme wealth is not to be supported:
- it is keeping the poor in poverty while inequality grows
- it is 'dirty money'. In this sense, it covers both out and out tax evasion, skirting labor and environmental laws ect as well as complying with existing laws but only by exploiting loopholes in such laws in somewhat dubious ways.
- it is undermining democracy. Here, Robeyns asserts that wealthy people are more inclined to lobby (and are more likely to be listened to by) politicians, particularly so as to keep such loopholes open, if not to introduce more, to relax labor/environmental, WHS laws
- it's setting the world on fire. This is the now familiar cry that big business drives actions which are not doing enough to address climate change
- nobody deserves to be a multimillionaire.This is an interesting one, as there is a perception that the Elon Musks of the world must be more energetic, smarter, work harder, take greater risks etc etc (creating their own luck)han the average bear, and hence deserve the rewards that flow from that. But Robeyns (and others) argue whether someone who is naturally endowed with intelligence (work ethic, energy, risk appetite) who does not do anything to be so endowed (after all they were naturally so endowed) is deserving to be rewarded for those natural endowments. Robeyns does not go so far as to suggest that it follows that the CEO is not to earn the same as to most junior of employees and accepts that some variation is warranted, but not at the levels often currently seen.
- there's so much we can do with the money. This is the argument that if wealth was more evenly distributed, some many issues could be addressed ...climate change, environmental issues more generally, education, health, poverty more generally etc etc
- philanthropy is not the answer. There are some wealthy people who have pledged to divest themselves of their wealth over their lifetimes. Robeyns accepts that this is better than doing the opposite, but is concerned whether such will actually occur (though there are good examples of it actually occurring), whether the gifts will go to good causes (rather than just to Ivy League Universities, political movements or to Family Foundations which may provide financial/tax breaks or political or similar influence).
- the rich will benefit benefit too. The thought here is that the rich increasingly are isolated from society as a whole by virtue of their wealth, to their (and others disbenefit)

I have not in this brief summary given a full articulation of Robeyns insights and arguments.

Which brings us to the final chapter which deals with 'The road ahead' ie how to get from here to there. This, not unexpectedly, is the least developed and least successful chapter. Robeyns suggests that neoliberalism is largely to blame for the status quo. As such, its breakdown, and individuals and societies playing a more engaged role in society is key to answers.

It will be a big change if it were to occur!

Big Ship

12 June 2024 ( )

This is a well meaning book with some interesting ideas.

Ingrid Robeyns is honest enough to say tat Limitarianism isn't a silver bullet; it won't make the world a perfect place but, it is a tool to improve the disastrous position that we currently find ourselves. This is true, but there are some real problems with the implementation of Limitarianism; firstly, to try to add limits to a system whose main raison d'etre is to unleash the greed of the 0.01% is unlikely to be an idea that those in power will allow to be seriously considered and secondly, for this to work, we would need some form of world government. I know that we have a world bank and the UN, but neither have the ability, or probably the desire, to stand up to the United States.

If we are to defeat Neoliberalism, we must take the long view: Neoliberalism was thought up in 1947 and didn't take hold until the 1980's. ( )