In world news, events follow one another at an extremely rapid speed, so much so that one current subject very quickly chases the other. For several days, with the memorandum of understanding announced and then signed by the United States and Iran, in order to put a lasting end to the war in the Middle East, the world has lived to the rhythm of the hope of a rapid restoration of freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz and of a resumption of hydrocarbon production in this area. On this occasion, debates are multiplying on the difficulty of the United States of Donald Trump in achieving their strategic objectives, despite an economic and military power incommensurate with that of Iran.
John D. Rockefeller ostracized by Elon Musk
But these facts should not lead to false interpretation. It is not American power that is to blame, but the incompetence of its narcissistic president who spends more time writing laudatory tweets about his marvelous policies than studying his files. At the same time, we were able to witness, on Friday June 12, the incredible IPO of SpaceX, which immediately propelled itself to sixth place (and even momentarily to fifth place) of the largest stock market capitalizations in the world, behind five other companies Americans.
As for the fortune of its main shareholder, Elon Musk, it has reached a level never before reached in modern history, at more than 1,000 billion dollars. Even John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937), the most symbolic figure of capitalism in the United States and the first dollar billionaire in history, had comparatively not reached such a level of fortune.
But, beyond the figures, we must see what this reality covers. For many people, especially among those who calculate their spending to the nearest euro, such wealth can be a dream: it is the possibility of being able to buy everything you want, without having to count. If indeed having such an enormous fortune only meant having unlimited purchasing power and being able to satisfy all one’s whims, this would be entirely tolerable: only the envious and the jealous could rebel.
But the reality is much more worrying. These figures show that a single man can afford to control entire sections of economic activity and possibly buy out other companies. More generally, the rise in prices on the American stock markets and the enrichment of the shareholders of these firms give a handful of entrepreneurs and investors decisive power over the direction of the world economy.
The “global justice report” faces a mixed reception
It is in this context that, on June 4, the Laboratory on Global Inequalities (World Inequality Lab) published its “global justice report” (“Global Justice Report”), which offers “thinking and building a XXIe century more just, democratic and sustainable ».
In the small world of economists, this report received a mixed reception. For many, the team of around forty researchers gathered around the Frenchman Thomas Piketty simply signs a mediocre socio-economic analysis, intended to promote its egalitarian ideology which would have the main effect of leading to decline the countries which would have the disastrous idea of embarking on this path.
“Global Justice Report Now Available,” World Inequality Lab, June 4, 2026.
This reductive vision must, however, be nuanced. The small French team Thomas Piketty-Gabriel Zucman is not alone in advocating higher taxes on higher incomes or large fortunes. It is worth remembering that the marginal income tax rate was still 70% in 1980 before being lowered to 28% at the end of the Ronald Reagan era, President of the United States between 1981 and 1989.
Was the United States of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1961-1963) or Richard Nixon (1969-1974) led by unrealistic leftists leading their countries towards impoverishment? Can we not, on the contrary, note that the reduction in tax rates on the wealthiest individuals or businesses, carried out throughout the world since the 1980s, has led States to levels of debt which weaken them?
Inequalities of income, wealth and power
Likewise, it is possible to ask questions when we see, as a study published in May 2025 in the journal Nature Climate Change showed, that the wealthiest 10% of the world’s population were responsible for almost half of greenhouse gas emissions. The most ridiculous thing would be to draw the conclusion that generalized impoverishment would be a benefit for humanity. But it would be regrettable not to question our methods of producing wealth and the way in which this wealth is distributed.
The report on global justice starts from an observation: inequalities relate to income, wealth and power. This triple perspective is important, especially if we push the analysis to the third point: inequalities can go so far as to distort the functioning of democracy. Even if they do not clearly formulate this idea, our fellow citizens have the feeling that they are not all equal and that their voices are not all heard in the same way: the continued decline in participation in the various elections and the success of conspiracy theories are the expression of this unease.
An immense ambition
To achieve their objectives, the authors of the report do not beat around the bush. The ambition displayed is immense, since it involves both combating inequalities between countries and within countries. The goal is a convergence of income at the end of the 21st centurye century by bringing the level of poor countries towards that of today’s rich countries, which would imply that the incomes of rich countries would no longer increase, or at a very low rate.
This would lead to a very modest annual growth rate of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in North America or Europe of around 0 to 0.5% compared to 3 to 4% in the poorest countries. In all countries, production would be carried out by rapidly moving towards carbon-free energies and by favoring activities that consume little energy, the reforestation of territories and changes in agricultural production and eating habits, with in particular a lesser place given to meat.
To ensure that necessary investments are made where they would be most useful to the community, in particular climate, health and education, a “Global Justice Fund” would be created, which would be primarily financed initially by a global wealth tax (with a rate ranging up to 20%) and a global income tax (with a rate of up to 90%), in addition to national taxes. The funds thus collected would be invested by a “Global Sovereign Fund”; the product of the investments of this fund would gradually become the main resource, while the highest fortunes and incomes would be reduced.
A leveling that would be brutal
At the end of this process, the objective would be to have within each country an income scale ranging from 1 to 5 and a wealth scale from 1 to 10. The least we can say is that the leveling would be brutal…
If we add to this that the functioning of the economy on such bases would require an overhaul of international monetary institutions as they were defined by the Bretton Woods agreements in 1944, with the creation of an international currency which would be managed by a Central Bank of the United Nations, we immediately understand that this draft of global justice has a very good chance of remaining at the project stage throughout this 21st centurye century that he intends to build. In any case, we hope that its authors do not have too many illusions and that they do not imagine the greats of this world devouring the 136 pages of their document by saying to themselves that this is what must be done and immediately…
It is frequently observed that French economists and sociologists are more interested than others in this question of inequalities, but we should not believe that this is an exclusively French passion.
The interest of this report is to show that the increase in inequalities is not inevitable and that there are ways to counter it, while ensuring a decent standard of living for the entire world population and making the necessary energy and ecological transition.
It is frequently observed that French economists and sociologists are more interested than others in this question of inequalities, but we should not believe that this is an exclusively French passion. In other countries and in circles which are not necessarily on the left of the political spectrum, this question has been raised quite frequently in recent years, for a simple reason: the question arises of knowing whether excessively marked inequalities do not risk slowing down the economic growth.
Les inégalités, frein à la croissance
Already in 2008, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was interested in this phenomenon in a long report entitled “Growth and Inequality: Income Distribution and Poverty in Countries of OECD”. In 2012, its economists returned to the charge with another report, “Always more inequality: why income gaps are widening”. We find confirmation of this concern in another study published by the OECD in 2018 (“Income inequality: the gap between the rich and the poor”).
“Inequalities are serious and getting worseexposes this latest report signed by Brian Keeley. In the 1980s, the richest 10% in OECD countries earned seven times more than the poorest 10%: today they earn almost ten times as much. If we add heritage and other forms of wealth, it’s even worse: in 2012, the richest 10% owned half of the total household wealth and the richest 1% held 18%, compared to only 3% for the poorest 40%.”
This is a problem for the poorest, who are directly affected by this development, but it is also a problem for the entire economy. As the author noted: “The increase in inequality observed between 1985 and 2005 in nineteen OECD countries cost 4.7 percentage points of cumulative growth between 1990 and 2010.”
Since that date, the situation has not improved, quite the contrary. As a result of the growth of China and other Southeast Asian countries, the gaps between countries have been partially reduced (although the Covid-19 crisis has interrupted this process), but within countries the gap has continued to widen. In its 2025 social report, which uses figures from the Laboratory on Global Inequalities, the UN recalled that, in 2021, half of the population held only 2% of the world’s wealth, while the richest 10% held 76% and that that of billionaires had jumped since 2019.
“Is it true that the gap between rich and poor is at its peak?”, Arte, May 24, 2026.
More and more ultra-rich people
According to a study published on May 27 by the consulting firm Boston Consulting Group, global net wealth increased by more than 9% in 2025, to reach $550,000 billion due to an increase in financial assets, which can be explained in particular by the rise in stock markets. Result: there are nearly 97,000 ultra-rich people in the world, in other words people who own more than $100 million in financial assets. The majority of them live in the United States (37,000), there are also more than 11,000 in China, but history does not say how many of them are members of the Chinese Communist Party…
The symbol of this race towards the wealth of a minority is obviously the figure reached by Elon Musk’s fortune. What we see is the power that this fortune gives. The multibillionaire entrepreneur was quick to provide confirmation: SpaceX is preparing to absorb a company specializing in artificial intelligence (AI), Cursor, for $60 billion, through an exchange of shares. And this is where we measure the importance of the Stock Exchange: the higher the share price of your company, the more easily you can get your hands on other companies by paying in shares. The very high valuation of American high-tech companies allows them to constantly expand their scope of activity.
By prohibiting the American firm Anthropic from selling the most efficient versions of its AI models to foreign companies, Donald Trump has shown very clearly that too great a concentration of financial and technological power risks being very dangerous when a leader of State puts it at the service of political power. The multiple declarations of American technology gurus on their vision of social organization also raise a lot of concern about the future of our democracies.
Now is the time for confrontation rather than cooperation
For all these reasons, it is important for economists to think about what a more just, democratic and sustainable world could be. But we should not be fooled: the impact of this work is likely to be low. Voices along these lines are sometimes heard, even in the United States. Regarding Elon Musk, we saw Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren assert that a wealth tax would be necessary.
Elon Musk just became the world’s first trillionaire.
The typical American household would have to work more than 11 MILLION years to make Elon Musk’s level of wealth.
We need a wealth tax.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 12, 2026
“Elon Musk has just become the world’s first billionaire. The average American household would have to work more than 11 MILLION years to reach Elon Musk’s level of wealth. We need a wealth tax.”
While remaining very classic and liberal, the American economist Edmund Phelps, Nobel Prize winner in economics in 2006, who died on May 15, 2026, was worried about the risk of confiscation of the freedom to undertake in the face of large financial and industrial establishments and defended the idea of taxing the richest. But these ideas are far from being shared and, at the international level, the atmosphere is more one of confrontation than of cooperation.
The positive comments on the last G7 meeting in Évian-les-Bains (Haute-Savoie), in particular on the evolution of Donald Trump’s position regarding the war in Ukraine, should not make us forget that this superficial unanimity could only be obtained by brushing the most thorny issues under the rug, like climate change. And the question of the fight against macroeconomic imbalances is very far from being able to find a solution, as the positions of the large blocs – the United States, China and Europe – remain divergent (including within the European Union itself). So, the construction of a new world for the end of the 21ste centuries…
