Speaker 1: Kiota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by.
Speaker 1: The New Zealand Herald. While the world ponders whether.
Speaker 2: Being a billionaire is ethical in these challenging times, another
Speaker 2: potential dilemma has arisen trillionaires. Tesla founder Elon Musk is
Speaker 2: on track to becoming the world's first trillion dollar man,
Speaker 2: and it comes at a time when billionaire wealth has
Speaker 2: surged three times faster last year than the year before,
Speaker 2: while the number of people living in poverty has barely
Speaker 2: changed since nineteen ninety. Today on the front page, ox
Speaker 2: vam Altieroa's Climate Justice League, Nick Henry is with.
Speaker 1: Us to discuss whether ethical billionaires are even a thing and.
Speaker 2: How we might be able to address wealth inequality. Right next,
Speaker 2: So let's talk money. What are oxfam's latest figures on
Speaker 2: billionaire wealth.
Speaker 3: Yeah? Well, OXFAM International producers a report Global Inequality Report
Speaker 3: every January, and that coincides with the global meeting at
Speaker 3: Davos in Switzerland out of the World Economic Forum, where
Speaker 3: a lot of billionaires are in attendance and the focus
Speaker 3: is on the megawealthy at that ski resort in Switzerland.
Speaker 3: And so we really try to draw attention to the
Speaker 3: excesses of wealth and the inequality that that's creating in
Speaker 3: the world, compared to really the stagnation of progress for
Speaker 3: not just the poorest, but the majority of people in
Speaker 3: the world who have not seen their wealth substantially increase.
Speaker 3: While the wealth of billionaires is trending upwards at times
Speaker 3: it seems like an exponential increase.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, billionaire wealth surged by two trillion dollars
Speaker 2: last year.
Speaker 1: According to this report. How does that compare to us?
Speaker 2: Suppose the rest of us, the majority of the world,
Speaker 2: have not seen an increase in their wealth.
Speaker 3: And the only reason that we're not going backwards entirely
Speaker 3: is the progress made by countries like China in reducing
Speaker 3: absolute poverty. But even in China you have growing inequality.
Speaker 3: In India you have growing inequality as the majority of
Speaker 3: the wealth is captured by a growing number of billionaires,
Speaker 3: and wealth inequality is growing even faster than income inequality.
Speaker 3: The majority of people, and I think the majority of
Speaker 3: New Zealanders could relate to this, find it pretty hard
Speaker 3: to save more than a small buffer week to week,
Speaker 3: So the majority of people, it's a bit of an
Speaker 3: American expression, But you'd say a living paycheck to paycheck.
Speaker 3: While the billionaires are really stacking cash at a faster
Speaker 3: rate that they can, then they can spend it at
Speaker 3: a faster rate that they are willing to give it away.
Speaker 3: Their wealth is growing faster than they even seem to
Speaker 3: know what to do with it. I think the rest
Speaker 3: of us would have some pretty good ideas about what
Speaker 3: to do with some of that wealth. Collectively, and bearing
Speaker 3: in mind that if billionaires paid their fair share of
Speaker 3: taxes like there, like what an ordinary person reading the
Speaker 3: tax code would think that they should be paying, they
Speaker 3: would still be living an unimaginable luxury. As multi billionaires
Speaker 3: or as you know, multi multi millionaires, their lifestyles are
Speaker 3: not really a threat. What needs to be rained in
Speaker 3: is the level of power and influence, disproportionate influence over
Speaker 3: the economy and the political system, This accumulation of essentially
Speaker 3: useless wealth.
Speaker 2: You mentioned billionaires, and do it having more money than
Speaker 2: what they know what to do with. I was just
Speaker 2: having a conversation in the newsroom that a million dollars
Speaker 2: used to be an aspiration, you know, becoming a millionaire.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean.
Speaker 2: But you'd be hard pressed to find an apartment or
Speaker 2: even a two bedroom home in Auckland for undred a
Speaker 2: million dollars these days. How many more billionaires are we
Speaker 2: looking at?
Speaker 3: Well, just on that first point, I think in New
Speaker 3: Zealand dollars, to be a millionaire is basically to maybe
Speaker 3: own your own house in a major city or have
Speaker 3: saved for a retirement a million dollars. I was just
Speaker 3: looking at the figures on a household median income, So
Speaker 3: that's the middle New Zealand household. A million dollars is
Speaker 3: about fourteen years of income, and of course no one
Speaker 3: saves their entire income, but it is fourteen years of
Speaker 3: about the middle household income. But of course a billion
Speaker 3: dollars is a thousand times that, So that's fourteen thousand
Speaker 3: years of the middle household income. And when you put
Speaker 3: that in perspective, it's possible to earn a million dollars
Speaker 3: just by having you know, maybe two people working sort
Speaker 3: of middle income jobs for most of their working lives.
Speaker 3: You could earn a million dollars. But it's impossible for
Speaker 3: anyone to earn a billion dollars. You're talking at that
Speaker 3: point about wealth generated by wealth, wealth generated by a
Speaker 3: qum relating the benefits of work that other people are
Speaker 3: doing and really disproportionately. So you asked how many new
Speaker 3: billionaires we're seeing? So and the last time Oxford produced
Speaker 3: our report in January this year, we looked at the
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four figures up until November twenty twenty four
Speaker 3: and found two thousand, seven hundred and sixty nine billionaires
Speaker 3: in the world. So that was two hundred and four
Speaker 3: more than the previous year twenty twenty three, and we
Speaker 3: said that that meant nearly four a week new billionaires.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: And I just looked this morning at the latest figures
Speaker 3: because it is November twenty twenty five, and with the
Speaker 3: caveat that this will all be checked by the oxfand
Speaker 3: Global team and the methodology will be applied as diligently
Speaker 3: as always do for the January report. So without holding
Speaker 3: me to that level of scrudiny brutany on my methodology,
Speaker 3: just looking at the Forbes Rich List, which is what
Speaker 3: we use each year to to find those figures, I
Speaker 3: see three twenty two billionaires currently on that Forbes Rich
Speaker 3: List as of today, and that's an increase of three
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty three from this time last year, which
Speaker 3: means more than six new billionaires every week, So that
Speaker 3: shows an escalation on the on the previous year.
Speaker 4: Well, forty two million Americans are facing the risk of
Speaker 4: going hungry amid the longest government shutdown in American history
Speaker 4: because of food stamps being put on hold. Tesla's shareholders
Speaker 4: just voted to give Elon Musk potential trillion dollar paypack.
Speaker 4: That's two hundred and seventy five million dollars per day
Speaker 4: over the next ten years. How would you even spend that?
Speaker 4: This comes after Musk reportedly threatened to walk away from
Speaker 4: the company if they refused his raise. The payment will
Speaker 4: be in the form of more than four hundred and
Speaker 4: twenty million shares of Tesla stock. There is a big
Speaker 4: caveat here. Tesla has to reach an eight point five
Speaker 4: trillion dollar market value that's almost five times higher than
Speaker 4: it is today.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're talking about this at a time when
Speaker 2: Elon Musk is in fact on track to becoming the
Speaker 2: world's first trillionaire, with a one trillion dollar Tesla compensation
Speaker 2: plan approved recently. What implications do you think does this
Speaker 2: potential trillionaire.
Speaker 1: Status have for that global wealth distribution.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, Elon Musk would be about halfway there on
Speaker 3: the current figures, which show him on the Forbes list
Speaker 3: as four hundred and sixty six billion dollars net worth today,
Speaker 3: and that fluctuates today and it might be different again
Speaker 3: by the time this podcast goes to air. But Forbes
Speaker 3: says that he lost seventeen billion dollars yesterday and it
Speaker 3: will go up again tomorrow and maybe down next week
Speaker 3: and up again, because this is bouncing around with the
Speaker 3: value of the Tesla stock price and whatever crypto assets
Speaker 3: and other things are involved in that net worth. And
Speaker 3: to put that in perspective, the like the national deficit
Speaker 3: of the New Zealand government as six point seven billion
Speaker 3: New Zealand dollars, which would be less than four billion US,
Speaker 3: which means that Elon Musk lost about four times more
Speaker 3: than that just yesterday on the stock market. And we'll
Speaker 3: make it again next week and then it will be
Speaker 3: bouncing around. But the long term trend is yeah, going
Speaker 3: up by hundreds of billions of dollars. And in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four we estimated that there would be a trillionaire
Speaker 3: within ten years looking at the figures from twenty twenty three,
Speaker 3: and the latest report from this year is estimating five
Speaker 3: trillionaires within a decade. So that's the trend that we're on.
Speaker 3: We're on track for an ever smaller number of people
Speaker 3: to control an ever larger proportion of the world's wealth,
Speaker 3: comparable to half of humanity. And the consequences for that
Speaker 3: for our economy are ever greater instability, and for our
Speaker 3: political system is an ever greater concentration of power and influence.
Speaker 3: And you see that especially in the United States, but
Speaker 3: also in other countries. And one of the reasons I
Speaker 3: pick on the United States is not just the levels
Speaker 3: of inequality and the number of billionaires there, but it's
Speaker 3: also a sign of how we can make a difference
Speaker 3: to the influence of billionaires. Because you know, anyone who
Speaker 3: follows US political news will know that the Citizens United
Speaker 3: decision that removed caps on donations to political candidates and
Speaker 3: political action committees was and calling that donation a kind
Speaker 3: of free speech, that removed the limits that had been
Speaker 3: in place on billionaire in corporate power to influence elections.
Speaker 3: You see some hopeful signs of candidates who pleedged not
Speaker 3: to take money from those kinds of big donors. Or packs.
Speaker 3: But here in A and zelland we do have limits
Speaker 3: on political donations, and we need to keep up that
Speaker 3: kind of scrutiny. So it's not a foregone conclusion that
Speaker 3: billionaires and corporations should control our political system. We can
Speaker 3: regulate that and rain that in. And I'd actually go
Speaker 3: a bit further and say, it's not a foregone conclusion
Speaker 3: that these extremes of wealth, these individuals and increasingly monopolistic
Speaker 3: corporations should control our economy.
Speaker 5: Either.
Speaker 3: We can and should make democratic decisions about the structure
Speaker 3: and the incentives of our economy so that everyone has
Speaker 3: the chance for success in their own lives, and that
Speaker 3: that's success, that that's not sacrificed to the really useless
Speaker 3: measures of success of this vast accumulation of wealth.
Speaker 5: I'd say, if you have money, it would be great
Speaker 5: to use it for good things and maybe give it
Speaker 5: to some people that need it. And love you all,
Speaker 5: but there's a few people in here that have a
Speaker 5: lot more money than me. And uh, if you're a billionaire,
Speaker 5: why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give
Speaker 5: your money away. Shortie's love you guys, thank you so much.
Speaker 6: This extraordinary Billie Eilish will be donating proceeds from her
Speaker 6: Hit Me Hard and Soft tour to support organizations, projects
Speaker 6: and voices dedicated food equity, climate justice, reducing carbon pollution,
Speaker 6: and combating the climate crisis. That donation, ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 6: will be eleven point five million dollars.
Speaker 2: Looking into billionaire wealth and the wealth inequality around the world,
Speaker 2: I've heard this term ethical billionaire, but I suppose that'll
Speaker 2: become ethical trillionaire in a decade's time. But what is
Speaker 2: this idea of an ethical billionaire?
Speaker 3: Well, I'd be tempted to say it's an oxymoron, but
Speaker 3: that's a bit too easy because it's it's not really
Speaker 3: fair or particularly useful to blame the individuals for winning
Speaker 3: a rigged game. And so I'd say, what's really unethical
Speaker 3: is the economic system that we've allowed to create these
Speaker 3: extremes of wealth. And so if we're looking for ethics,
Speaker 3: then I think that's the first question is what kinds
Speaker 3: of regulations do we want to put in place to
Speaker 3: spread the wealth more evenly and to avoid the extremes
Speaker 3: that we're seeing. But to answer the question, I think
Speaker 3: that the really the only way to be if one
Speaker 3: found oneself in the position of being a billionaire. The
Speaker 3: only ethical way to cope with that situation, I think
Speaker 3: would be to put in place a plan to not
Speaker 3: be a billionaire anymore and more. Billionaires could start by
Speaker 3: paying their fair share of taxes. You could simply give
Speaker 3: that instruction to your accountant to comply with the regulations,
Speaker 3: but also to support as as many wealthy individuals do,
Speaker 3: actually support a tightening of loopholes so that they do
Speaker 3: pay their fair share. And then there's the question of philanthropy,
Speaker 3: and so someone who does have more money than they
Speaker 3: need and after paying their fair share of taxes can
Speaker 3: and should look to do good with that money and
Speaker 3: distribute to causes that have a broader social benefit. But
Speaker 3: there's no compulsion on billionaires to do that, and I
Speaker 3: think we have to be a bit skeptical about where
Speaker 3: any billionaire today is fulfilling their ethical obligations to society.
Speaker 3: The one example that's sometimes used of a billionaire who
Speaker 3: did do what I'm saying of giving up a large
Speaker 3: share of their wealth was the late Chuck Feenie, an
Speaker 3: Irish American billionaire who made his money on duty free stores.
Speaker 3: I think, and without publicizing or trumpeting. This actually confidentially
Speaker 3: transferred his wealth into a charitable trust, but which over
Speaker 3: the course of the next decade gave away the majority
Speaker 3: of his wealth. And what was important about that is
Speaker 3: that that was the mission of the charitable trust, and
Speaker 3: it was wound up in twenty twenty having given away
Speaker 3: billions of dollars. And when Chuck Feenie he died, he
Speaker 3: was no longer a billionaire. He was very comfortable as
Speaker 3: a multi millionaire living his best life, but he had
Speaker 3: given away enough money to no longer be a billionaire.
Speaker 3: And there are examples of other billionaires today who seemed
Speaker 3: to be on that track. Mackenzie Scott, who's a successful author,
Speaker 3: co founder of Amazon, and was married for a long
Speaker 3: time to Jeff Bezos, helping raise their children and contributing
Speaker 3: to the wealth that they generated as a family. But
Speaker 3: since they divorced, Mackenzie Scott has been on quite a
Speaker 3: different track from Jeff Bezos and has been giving away
Speaker 3: a substantial portion of her wealth through no strings attached,
Speaker 3: direct grants to working charities. And that's a big difference
Speaker 3: from the billionaires that you see putting money into their
Speaker 3: own directly or family controlled foundations. Which is really another
Speaker 3: way of holding wealth, and they do trickle that money
Speaker 3: out to other nonprofits and charities, but in the meantime
Speaker 3: they are using their foundations to prop up their reputations
Speaker 3: and their influence and their lifestyles as well.
Speaker 2: Well, that was going to be my question actually about
Speaker 2: how you know, because philanthropic ventures tend to be something
Speaker 2: that only very very rich people do. The rest of
Speaker 2: us call it donations or you know, monthly sign up
Speaker 2: to you know, give to a donotion.
Speaker 1: But in terms of I mean, what do you think defines.
Speaker 2: What is actually philanthropic or what is a money making
Speaker 2: venture or a public PPR move Basically, I mean, I'm,
Speaker 2: for one, I'm skeptical of whenever I see a massive
Speaker 2: one of those novelty checks.
Speaker 3: Well, I work for ox Van, which is one of
Speaker 3: the non profits who benefit from philanthropic donations, and we're
Speaker 3: certainly grateful to everyone who gives, whether that's a small
Speaker 3: regular donation which is most of our income, up to
Speaker 3: those wealthy individuals and families who have done well and
Speaker 3: want to give something back. The criticism that I was
Speaker 3: making earlier of the typical billionaire style is very different
Speaker 3: to any of that it's establishing one's own private you know,
Speaker 3: closely held foundations to concentrate wealth and call it charity.
Speaker 3: And I'm referencing there really a recent report by the
Speaker 3: Institute of Policy Studies in the US that looked at
Speaker 3: the Giving Pledge, which was a philanthropic initiative in two
Speaker 3: thousand ten by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and others
Speaker 3: where they pledged to give away the majority of their
Speaker 3: wealth during their lifetimes or by the time of their death.
Speaker 3: And looking at that, criticism of the closely held foundation
Speaker 3: is one of the main ones of that report. The
Speaker 3: story of Chuck Feenie I also got from that report,
Speaker 3: and the criticism being that no other billionaire, with the
Speaker 3: exception perhaps of Mackenzie Scott and others who seemed to
Speaker 3: be on that track, no other billionaire is making that
Speaker 3: commitment to no longer be a billionaire. And they even
Speaker 3: looked at the twenty two pledgers who had died since
Speaker 3: twenty ten and found that only eight of those had
Speaker 3: fulfilled their pledge to give away the majority of their wealth.
Speaker 3: And of course, for many billionaires giving the majority of
Speaker 3: their wealth, they would still be billionaires. There are recommendations
Speaker 3: in the report, including that the tax system be revised
Speaker 3: to capture more effectively the public share of this large
Speaker 3: accumulated wealth, including to look again at the tax exemptions
Speaker 3: that are given for these privately held foundations. And then
Speaker 3: there are recommendations for billionaires who do want to fulfill
Speaker 3: their pledge, who do want to try to be an
Speaker 3: ethical billionaire. But from Oxfad, I think we would put
Speaker 3: the emphasis on the tax system, on the democratic ways
Speaker 3: in which we need to reign in excessive wealth and
Speaker 3: really take back the public share that we have all
Speaker 3: contributed to this wealth, you know, through our work, through
Speaker 3: our work not just working for billionaires, but working all
Speaker 3: their corporations, but working to maintain the economy and the
Speaker 3: infrastructure that allows them to generate wealth. And it's great
Speaker 3: that wealth is being generated, but let's share it more
Speaker 3: fairly among everyone who contributes to it. And really that's
Speaker 3: all of us. So billionaires can be billionaires, I suppose,
Speaker 3: but we should all be benefiting from the accumulation of wealth.
Speaker 3: The society gets richer, we should be seeing those benefits
Speaker 3: spread more evenly as well.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Nick, Thanks thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
Speaker 2: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 2: at enzadherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
Speaker 2: produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 2: our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
Speaker 2: on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
Speaker 2: in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.