Research suggests that large divisions of income and wealth weaken demand and generate economic imbalances that create instability and undermine growth.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
One of the great political and economic challenges of our time is figuring out the balance between wealth that benefits society and wealth that distorts.
The difference between rich and poor is becoming more extreme, and as income inequality widens the wealth gap in major nations, education, health and social mobility are all threatened.
Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle.
When inequality gets too extreme, then it becomes useless for growth, and it can even become bad because it tends to lead to high perpetuation of inequality over time and low mobility.
Inequalities of wealth lead to a dispersion in wealth for all.
There are many countries in the world that when they reached the middle-income stage, they witnessed serious structural problems such as growth stagnation, a widening wealth gap and increasing social unrest.
In financial terms, my sense is that the distribution of wealth, unequal as it is, is self-perpetuating, and, especially in a linked and accelerating world, the rich get ever more quickly richer while the poor get ever more speedily poorer.
Does inequality in the distribution of income increase or decrease in the course of a country's economic growth?
Income inequality is troubling because, among other things, it means that many people in our society don't have the opportunities to advance themselves.
Having a decent share of the national wealth for the middle class is not bad for growth. It is actually useful both for equity and efficiency reasons.
No opposing quotes found.