It’s a dumb question and an impossible one since it already exists. Yet it is a necessary one. A trillion is a difficult sum to fathom, it means a 1000 billion, just as a billion is a 1000 million. Still, it is necessary because it speaks of and to income inequality. It reveals and aggravates it. The World bank estimates that worldwide one in ten of us live in extreme poverty, that is on less than $2.15 a day, that means scrounging for food and maybe not getting it. And as the presence of trillionaires emphasizes vast inequalities, it also emphasizes opportunities that are out of balance.
If we want to live in a democracy then we can’t dictate, “thou shall not be a trillionaire”, but we can frame the acquisition of wealth and underline the responsibilities that ought to come with it, whether they include taxes, philanthropy or anything else that might redress the necessary balance required of a desired economy. Mostly we can, each of us, be aware of what it means, be aware of the implications. Then we would better be able to support measures and vote for people who will not enable great wealth disparities. Even more relevant we can voice our concern and let it be known that the making of trillionaires is not something we believe constructive to a better future.
Besides individuals, some corporations such as Apple and Amazon are trillionaires too. The same applies to them, perhaps even more so when we remember what happens when we allow them to be too big to fail.
There’s nothing new in saying that a society with too many rich people leads to too many poor ones; that it is morally, ethically, spiritually wrong; and that it stands for something that will hinder humanity’s progress toward all that social justice means. But it does seem necessary.
Leave a Reply