American Culture and Social Inequalities

One of the most important ideas in sociology is the idea of global economic inequality, which is covered in the course materials. Thomas Pieketty attempts to infer some causes for the wealth inequality between diverse people from the capital in the 21st-century essay. He categorically employs Malthus, Young, and the French revolution when discussing the political economy in England and France. “Whenever we discuss wealth distribution, politics is almost always mentioned as well” (Thomas, 2014). The supporting arguments for the position are that aristocratic regimes like France showed greater levels of economic disparity as well as a lack of peace and harmony necessary for mutual progress that would support an equitable distribution of money. In support, Karl Max also argued in almost a similar manner when he mentioned on the status privileges. Through stratification by status, he reiterated that those who are in top position might enjoy the monopolization of critical material goods and opportunities (Marx, 2008). Such rights may either directly or indirectly bring an inequality in wealth distribution in a society.

Apparently, Karl Max’s and Thomas Pieketty’s attempts to explain the causes of wealth disparities have drawn my attention as a concerned sociologist. In the first instance, income disparities is currently a rising phenomenon both in the US and more so in the developing countries (Marx, 2008). Amidst the economic variabilities, politics has a crucial role to play. While the government is supposed to provide an equal opportunity for mutual development and earning to be realized uniformly by all the citizens, however, the same system is to blame for the instances of fiscal imbalances. Notably, both the scholars have discussed the impact that lack of development oriented mind for the states would have towards the income distribution.

The Connection between the Readings and the Current Event

Undoubtedly, the issue of income disparity is a common problem that is witnessed in every state. Nevertheless, politics play a central part in either worsening or mitigating the situation. As Karl Marx puts it that there are a greater monopolization and opportunities for the front-runners, indeed it is a typical instance in the present society (Marx, 2008). Whenever we talk about issues like tenders, top job opportunities, owning of companies and large scale businesses, and many other aspects, individuals with a political stake are usually better placed to get the opportunities. Therefore, such people continually become rich in the society while their counterparts capsize economically. In practical essence, you can hardly find politicians’ homes among the economically challenged.

On the other hand, Thomas Pieketty’s contribution that politics shape the disparity in income equity is very paramount. By mentioning peace and harmony as the essential tools for realizing impartiality in the income distribution, this is vital since the states that are dominated with progressive strife have always slugged behind economically with many poor residents (Thomas, 2014). Though not necessarily found in the US due to the ever available peacetime, some states have recorded a serious decline the wealth dissemination that is emanating from the series of warfare.

From both the two readings of Karl Max and Thomas Pieketty, the capitalism aspect that is contained in the cases made me make the connection. For instance, it is a common case that politicians and those allied to them are the known owners of key firms and holders of the top opportunities (Marx, 2008). The privileges accruing to some section of individuals while neglecting the large group has destabilized the economic balance where only a few group controls the economy.

The Insights that we can gain from the Class into the Current Event

The insight that we may obtain from the class to the current event which unequal distribution of income is that as the future leaders, we are expected to be cautious having known that politics is one of the parameters that has a serious stake in the wealth disparities. Since less allocation of capital to support development ultimately leads to financial disparities, as students, we would be psychologically prepared that someday, while we ascend to power, we would ensure that there is an equivalent allocation of resources so as to support the development in a similar manner.Also, Thomas (2014) adds that aristocratic states with aristocratic leadership and disharmony thwart the income equality, the concept would enable us to internalize the importance of peace towards mutual economic attainment.

Interests and Reading Questions

By reading Thomas Pieketty’s article, my attention was captured in part calling for the distribution aspect at the back of economic analysis (Thomas, 2014). Notably, the point greatly interested me since the realization of equitable economic development and wealth distribution scopes with the fairness in the allocation of either material good or finances to the citizens. However, the notion brought some unanswered concerns that I would like to raise like, How would there be an impartial distribution of resources to realize uniform wealth status? What transparency strategies would be adopted? On the other hand, taking a scenario where the poor continually take a low profile in education attainment, how could a uniform distribution assist them? Could they not continue being behind due to lack of awareness and poverty? For us to learn more in class, it would be more prudent for us to form a group and sign different individuals tasks to research more how different authors argue causes of income disparity over time. Henceforth, we would hold a joint discussion.

References

Marx, K. (2008). Classes in capitalism and pre-capitalism. na.

Thomas. P. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. London-England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.