Blame, Responsibility, and Wealth Preservation.

One thing I've been wondering recently is if preservation, or even growth, of financial capital of the 1% is mutually exclusive with decreasing wealth inequality and lifting people out of poverty.

I'm not sure it is, despite the common rhetoric.

It's definitely easier not to empathise with those that are publicly demonised, but perhaps solutions are better found when compassion is the foundation of our thought.

Challenging, I know.

I'm open to consider challenging ideas, especially if they're practically useful.

This thought comes from two main points:

1. Inherent Bias

A) Endowment effect / Divestiture aversion / Loss aversion

B) Anti-authoritarianism / Innate rebellion

Having the finger pointed at another, even if by every measure they "should" have the finger pointed at them, often isn't the best.

It creates an enemy. An opposition.

That's why the good cop bad cop routine works.

Because there is a cop on the side of the suspect.

If it was just bad cop, they'd stone wall and shut down.

Now imagine if it's set up differently - where the ones with fingers pointed at them don't even have to go to the police station for questioning unless they want to.

Shaming and guilt imposition I've found to be the stories of only a few financial wealth holders.

A lot of them feel they've solved some of the most difficult challenges and helped many people achieve the most ambitious dreams through the solutions they've created.

They've exchanged things with people, providing value to those they interact with, and always left something on the table.

They've taken risks and led in ways that other didn't want to do, but were happy to follow.

They took the responsibility of the security of their team, their clients, and stakeholders.

Yes that includes generating finance for shareholders that gave them the money to actually build the thing in the first place.

If we are not to return the favour to those that help us, how could we endeavour to solve larger problems, more often, to a higher quality, and more consistently in the long term?

It is rare that we will have all of the resources we require to solve the problems we'd like it. Sometimes problems are bigger than one person. On a select few occasions.

In those very infrequent cases, if we do not thank those who help us by generously reciprocating, then the chances are they won't be willing to help again in the future.

Undoubtedly there will be negative externalities which happen along the way, but as Solzhenitsyn discussed (if my memory serves me correctly) there is a responsibility of the individual not to follow the leader if they are doing something wrong.

We can out source that responsibility by saying that the leader has more resources and should know more; effectively deifying them - converting them in our minds to an omniscient being which decides to tend on the side of malevolence.

This is tricky for a few reasons:

1. It means we disagree with MLK, and assume the arch of morality is not good. That makes it a hard world to live in.

2. We also create an impossibly powerful enemy which we have to contend against which we can never defeat. This can lead to self fulfilling prophecies that validate the held world view.

3. We dis-empower ourselves by passing the responsibility to a projection which perhaps only exists in our mind.

4. It allows us to justify our malicious actions do by blaming the enemy 'the only way we can destroy the bad is to be worse'

But it's also true that they have responsibility.

100% responsibility to solve the problem, just like everyone else does. Let's not get into tragedy of the commons here!

Bridges weren't built with by burning things, but with bricks.

Perhaps the best way for us to inspire action from others is not to tell them to act in a certain way, but rather demonstrate the benefits of doing so by becoming a visible role model for acting in that way.

Becoming part of the solution and building a social movement around it encourages others to get involved.

2. Proportions

If the wealth of the rich stays the same (or grows), while the wealth of the poor increases (or grows quicker), then surely that is positive.

For example:

Rich : Poor

100 : 1

110: 2 = 55 : 1

That's almost halving the inequality ratio, while the financial wealthy has what they care about preserved, protected, and grown.

Sometimes it can be painful to see them retaining when there are so many problems still existing.

Of course it can be.

But for me, that painful emotion is an indication pointing out that I'm attaching to something.

The 'something' then isn't the focus, but rather the attachment.

Unclog the pipe and the water can flow easy.

Yes there will still be poverty (which isn't ideal, just like the world can never really stay ideal as things always change) as the poor get richer at a faster rate than the rich, but if we consider the practicalities of it, it might be interesting.

It might not be news to most that large financial capital holders generally allocate more money in profit making assets, rather than giving the money away.

So what if instead of pointing fingers we took 100% responsibility and created solutions which work for everyone. And I mean everyone.

What if we created solutions which could help shift power and resources, without taking it from others.

What if we created win-wins: rather than the typical win-loss.

What if we stopped making others enemies, and came together to solve some of the largest problems our species has ever seen.

What if we started with empathy.