——《各国权力在民主与集中的循环上升中》 的有关重点摘录和扩展 

 

Gini ’s Serious Misleading and New Suggestion，the Gap between Rich /Poor and Democracy 

——The Extracts and the Expansion of < Countries' Powers in Rising Circulation of Democracy and Centralization>

(English translation follows)

 

习近平2017年1月在达沃斯的发言中指出: “全球最富有的1%人口拥有的财富量超过其余99%人口财富的总和，收入分配不平等、发展空间不平衡令人担忧。”。这等不公平是当今世界各种不稳定和各种战争的根源，一切祸乱均来自贫穷与绝对的不均，连恐怖问题也在于此。中东的恐怖问题不是个别人，个别势力要求地区独立问题，而发展为地区生存问题。不能光靠军事打击，光靠“杀人”，要靠经援，帮助当地建立稳定的生存家园，早日摆脱生存与贫穷问题，使恐怖失去群众基础，失去存在理由，要靠“助人”。 这贫富问题一天不解决，世界一天不得安宁，而且会积累大乱。G20首脑又在汉堡开会了。经济是要发展，可当今这贫富问题在撕裂世界，撕裂人群，亟待解决。这不解决，经济的发展也只能加剧贫富分化，从财富的累积看，主要也是给富有人做嫁妆。

 

我们的世界一方面有各种文明和科技的日益巨大进步，但也有财富占有的极大不均并日益加剧。贫富分化到了如此的地步，这绝不是民主应看到的结果，绝不是民主社会所追求的目标。

 

一谈到贫富问题就想到基尼系数。世界基尼系数2013年为0.65，大大超过0.40警戒线。但哪里的基尼系数最高，这也是表明哪里的不公平最大? 根据基尼系数对各国的计算结果亚非拉发展较快的地区最高，表明最不公平，因此问题在亚非拉，这简直是荒谬。

 

《福布斯》公布的世界500强里面的欧美日公司占了大部份,说明了全球财富向欧美日大量聚集。这还不是问题的全部面貌：第一，因为《福布斯》的名单排名只是根据公司的利润而不是净资产计算。如根据净资产计算我们估计私人财富的集中情况还要大的多。第二，这只反映了公布了财富的公司，私下没有公布财富的公司还不少。中国公司在名单中也占了不少，但绝大部分都是国营企业，这与欧美日的公司绝大部分为私人企业形成鲜明对比（我们后面再谈这一问题）。世界富豪排名表中又有多少欧美日的人，又有多少亚非拉的人？答案是清楚的，所以对此问题不是一目了然了吗？

 

一个成功的系数应有助于对问题主要原因的揭示, 最好能直接表达出问题的原因,至少不能误导发现问题的原因。但基尼系数却表明亚非拉的该系数远大于欧美日的。我们不能糊里糊涂就相信这系数。而事实正好相反，据联合国大学世界经济发展研究所在2006年发布的《全球家庭财富分布情况报告》及大量的资料显示，欧美日的公司和个人占据了人类至今所创造的绝大多数财富。瑞信银行所发布的《2014年度全球财富报告》则是对这一状况做出了更加细致的描述：从区域分布看，欧洲、北美和亚太国家（不含中国和印度）依次拥有世界总财富的32.8%、31.7%和20%，共计84.5%。相比之下，拉丁美洲拥有3.8%，而非洲和印度仅拥有2.5%，最不发达的国家和地区仅仅拥有全球财富的16%。（见红旗文稿《全球财富分配失衡的现状与解析》）【1】。2016年这情形变得更为严重，全球1%人的财富竟已超过 99%人的财富总和。这1%的人主要在哪里？瑞士信贷的报告给了明示。我们在基尼系数中能丝毫看到这些现实吗？如果看了世界基尼系数，再看各国的基尼系数，就会有严重的误导。财富如此聚集和不公平的分配，已到了如此惊人的地步，可基尼系数不但没有反映，却给出了相反的结论。

   

进一步讲，基尼系数最多也只能是反映贫富差别的历史横截面，也就是说它只反应一定时期，一般一年，但缺乏反映财富历史累积的结果，它也是只反映相对差别的水平，而缺乏反映重要的绝对值。结果我们看到的是越是相对贫穷落后的发展中的国家如在南美洲，在非洲南部的国家基尼系数越高。而财富拥有的数量和集中程度越高的国家如欧美日，他们的基尼数反倒越低，好像社会更公平。但实际情况绝非如此。习近平讲的财富的惊人集中还不够说明问题吗？这相对差别绝不能说明绝对差别。就像蚂蚁和大象比举重，蚂蚁可以举起自己体重几倍的东西，大象不能，但能因此,我们说蚂蚁比大象更有力气吗？两个相比的概念不同，等级不同。可能有人会说相对问题也是问题，可这基尼系数主要不是一个国家自己和自己比，而主要是全球各国进行比较。基尼系数只能是造成这样的混乱与误导。像洛克菲勒、摩根、微软，苹果，脸书，第一花旗银行、杜邦、波士顿等,以及安田，三菱， 三井，住友等财团，罗斯柴尔德家族，奥纳西斯家族等等世界大财团多数云集在欧美日。不错，在亚非拉多数发展较快的国家的贫富差别相对比较大，但这只是相对自己和自己比，是相对问题一个较小的方面 (后面我们要讲到这点)。第一位的问题是绝对数字，绝对财富数量的比较，是发展中国家和发达国家在财富上的巨大差距。即便一国内进行这种比较，该系数也有问题。我们知道较多聚集于欧美日的超级巨富都有超常的巨大私人财富，拥有人类创造的绝大多数的财富，像比尔·盖茨，巴菲特，贝索斯，高纳，扎克伯格，埃卢，埃里森，查尔斯·科赫，大卫·科赫，布隆伯格等超级富豪拥有的财富要远远大于本国普通人民的财富。这些国家贫富的差别怎能相对很小呢？如基尼系数正确反映这些现实，这些国家的基尼系数怎么能普遍比较低呢？习近平指出的问题表明人类的财富集中程度已到了如此不可容忍的地步，我们一些人却还在粉饰太平，把人类的不公平推给相对贫穷的发展中国家。这一切我们能从基尼系数看到任何的迹象吗？相反我们被误导为欧美日国家更公平，而贫穷与发展中的第三世界更不公平。那我们怎能信任这系数呢？最起码，基尼系数没有任何显示全球1%人的财富超过99%人财富的惊人现实。

 

现代资本主义的文明比较原始野蛮的资本主义有很多改进，比封建社会将民主向前推进了很大一步。但这一切都停留在财产私有制前。私有制一方面给于生产强大的动力，另一方面也造成财富分配结果的极大不平等和财富的高度集中。显然这远不是彻底民主所表现的真正平等的精神，需把民主与平等更推向前。不仅要注重分配权力的民主与平等，而且要注重分配结果的大致平等，不能只讲权力的平等，而不管结果是否平等。权力的平等原则和分配结果的平等是两回事。真正分配结果的大致平等是人类追求平等的真正和根本的目的。你不能嘴上喊半天平等，却对贫富如此之大的不平等视而不见，那只能是虚伪。任何完善的民主制度不应由于过度竞争而使人与人之间的财富有如此大的差距，要设法控制在一定的范围内并逐步缩小，以能达到鼓励人们积极进行所承认的体力与脑力的劳动为限。这种鼓励根据劳动条件的改进而在缩小。任何超出这一鼓励的范围，即为不公平的财富分配。正像企业家被超额支付了工资, 当他们也被认为不过是给人类打工那样。因此，要削峰填谷，中外政府可考虑向超级巨富征收合适的特别扶贫税。

 

民主深刻意味着人与人在经济上和政治上的平等，因为民主就是无论什么大事，政治的和经济的事情上，一人一票，权力平等。不能政治上平等，而经济上不平等，反之亦然。而经济上平等是人类在改善自己生存条件的努力中，在财富总是相对有限时，最能使多数人都得到相对基本满足的方式，因而是最基本的和最实质的平等，是人类最后的诉求，这经济上的平等也就是指财富拥有的平等。换句话说民主的最终目的是每个人可根据他的需要得到平等而丰富的财富。而财富包括各种生活与生产的资料等。每个人有了财富上的全面平等就不可能没有政治上的平等，而有了政治上的一定平等与民主并不意味着财富享有的平等与民主。当然有了政治上彻底的平等与民主就必然意味着财富享有的平等。如连财富都能平等享用，还有什么能不平等享用？反过来说，财富所有的不平等就意味着政治上的不平等和不民主。财富是人类改善自己生存条件的中心和最后的诉求。这种人与人在财富上的巨大的差距并仍在不断加剧就是远离民主，而且离真正的民主越来越远。并因此，在财富的所有上有如此大的不平等，难道不是人类社会最大的不平等和不民主吗？所以要实现真正的民主就要付出代价，要付出财富，并使之逐步达到大致的平等。搞民主不是不需用代价，不是只搞些政治的民主那样简单。

 

当我们明白财富所有的平等和民主之间的关系，我们就会明白有些国家政治上的民主搞得快一些，有的国家财富均等方面搞得快一些，谁也不要看不起谁，谁也不应认为谁的制度已最好，不需改进，已达终点。其实离终点相差甚远。资本主义在几百年前，还在使用蒸汽机的较原始的年代，由于坚持财富的私有制而形成贫富差别。这在开始的阶段有它的巨大优势。生产在为个人利润的驱使下得到了飞速发展。但也因此累积起了人与人贫富的差别。这差别经过几百年的累积，已非常巨大，已发展到了习近平指出的程度。这财富所有的巨大差别也映照了政治上极大的不平等和不民主。因此，那些使人拥有财富差距如此之大的国家绝不能称为完好的民主国家。考虑到它们在财富上的绝对高度集中，我们说事实上它们是经济上实行专制与独裁的国家。我们已知道了这财富集中的结果。这就是经济上绝对民主经过财富的集中所必然走向它的反面。这不仅不公平，而且严重影响了经济发展。

 

我们认为社会总的生产积极性和财富集中程度的坐标图形大致如一个正态分布形状。就是说，一般来讲，当财富集中和贫富差别逐步加大时，在生产条件比较艰苦的环境下，当多数人的劳动强度超越人类愉快工作的感觉时，社会总的生产投资的积极性会得到提高。这是资本积累的强大动能。没有相对生产条件适当大的贫富差别，生产的动能往往会不足，这也是发展中的国家难以避免的艰辛道路。但这也增加了并累积了社会的不公平, 因此人类社会或主动或被动要争取它们适当的平衡。中国的富豪在积极发展自己的业务时，也不应忘记拿出自己一部分适当的财富扶贫。当社会财富集中或扩大到一定程度后，扩大到顶点时，社会总的生产与投资的积极性不升反降，而且财富越集中，社会总的生产积极性下跌的越快。因为极少数人掌握了绝对多的财富，并剥夺了大多数人的财富因而剥夺了他们的发展生产的机会，因而这极端的少数人掌握了绝对多的生产与投资的决定权，因他们人数极少，从而大大减低了社会总的生产与投资的动能和积极性。我们从欧美日的情况可见它的端倪。

 

总之，极少人们拥有财富的大多数是人类现实需要做出改变的重大课题。因为贫富如此大的差别是全球人类最不稳定最易引发战争和恐怖的根源，减低了这种差别，就是减低了不稳定，战争和恐怖的可能，就不会越反恐越恐。消灭贫穷也是促进人类发展的现实强大动力。大国在中东形成争相进行经济援助的比赛，而不是进行军事控制的比赛，用民主的方式表达意愿，而不是用武力军事优势表达意愿。同样要花那么钱，但方向不同，结果也会不同。各国政府都要为此做出不懈的努力，早日实现本地区也是世界的和平。

 

比较贫富这本不需要很复杂的数学计算，唯一需要的是分开贫富两级，直接比较两级就可以了。比较有两种直接的方法，一是用减法，二是用除法。减法表示了绝对差额，而除法表明的是相对差别，因减法得到的结果是绝对值并真实而直观的差别，所以我们选用。基尼系数的计算甚至超过许多复杂的金融计算。但计算的结果就是我们上面所看到的那种荒谬，没有丝毫揭示习近平所指出的问题。财富分配极端不均是当今世界头等大的问题。要度量这不均，本是极好的事，应予肯定。但基尼系数本身计算起来过于复杂，而这单一的指标显示又过于简单且不真实，不够胜任此目的，因此需要给予更周全的考虑。

 

基尼系数是100年前提出的，以许多假设为基础。当时计算的能力和今日的电脑可直接轻易的对大量繁杂数字进行计算的能力不可同日而语。 电脑的应用使我们可更直接利用大量原始的数字进行比较。100年前原始的方法给我们造成了许多误导并实际上对此不公平做了不公正的隐盖。需要创造新的系数，准确反映这历史累积的结果，把收入和财富集中的绝对值准确反应出来。因我们需要清楚地了解人类有史以来所创造的财富集中的真实情况，数量和程度，究竟这些财富集中在何人手里，而不是对这些要点讳莫如深。我们认为一个社会不但要看一定时期收入的差别，同样要看财富拥有绝对数量上的差别。知道了拥有财富总数量上的差别才更为重要地知道这不公平的程度。

 

为此我们进行了初步的设想。社会贫富差别总的情况以一个社会人口平均财富为基准线，分高于和低于平均基准线的贫富两个组别。为避免用相对值，我们用富裕组总额减去贫困组总额而得两组的差额。因我们在实际比较中，仅用前3 至4位数字，为简化数字，我们可将贫富的差额除以1百万（M）或10亿(B)或一万亿(T)，以得前3至4位整数为准。为清楚，数字后分别用M，B或T表示该数是1百万或10亿或1万亿的倍数。这样计算所得数字不再是零点几，把这么多国家，这么重要的事挤在这么小的数值范围内，必然会忽略许多重要环节。这差额至少是百万级以上的倍数。这才可直观而真实地比较各国或世界财富与贫富的等级和差别。对此差额乘以“贫困组人口总和”除以“富有组人口总和”所得的“商”进行加权。因为我们认为这个“加权”数字的大小，可根据两组人数的多少的差别而清楚反映财富集中的程度，因此可以看出问题的严重性。我们也用“最富裕人的财富值”除以“最贫穷人的财富值”去反映一个社会贫富差别的尖锐程度。这对反映贫富差别很重要。尽量直接利用原始数字比较，而少做数学假设或用相对值。因为假设毕竟不够可靠，相对值容易掩盖问题的严重性。中国公司多次出现在《福布斯》世界500强公司的名单中，但它们大都是国营企业。而我们认为国有经济会减少财富对少数人的集中。中国的国有企业在正常情况下并不是在计划经济基础中运行，相反是在市场基础中运行，而且更为高效。除非在民营经济中有经济危机要出现，从而要威胁到整个社会。经济体制分国经济与民营经济，它和以在什么基础上运作完全是两回事。 因而我们把国有经济的财富平均分给每组，如一国家没有国有经济即为零。至于在实际中该国国有经济的财富多少用于每人，这是社会问题，这要具体分析。

 

我们向有关部门指出这系数的严重问题，让他们改正。如果不听，我们可以继续建立我们自己的系数。我们相信只要我们的系数正确，加上我们的经济体足够大，不愁最后大家会跟随而改正过来的。这也正像国际机构评级，一个国家根据自己的意愿不通过联合国，对另一国家实行经济与金融制裁，这就影响了发起国的主权评级，因为别的国家也会担心会随发起国的自己的意愿而遭制裁，因此此风不可长，必须对发起国予以降级。随意制裁不是没有代价的。这事情我们的评级机构要主动去做有信心去做。做了并有道理，不怕别人不从，要有自己的主见和主动。

 

整个社会贫富两极的差别正是由这两组数值的差额所直接比较和反映。差额上不封顶，于是我们得到下列的公式：

 

这是初步设想，有考虑不周的地方，望讨论。当然财富贫富的差额只能是社会贫富差别的近似值，用不同国家的财富差额比较，就可得出结论，重要的得到财富差额的方法。比较差额时还需要参考“贫富尖锐”程度的数字，以了解社会贫富差别的全貌。另外可以不分组，直接用个人财富的总数代替组别小计，进行计算与比较。

 

计算例子：

   

 

 

Gini ’s Serious Misleading and New Suggestion，the Gap between Rich /Poor and Democracy 

——The Extracts and the Expansion of < Countries' Powers in Rising Circulation of Democracy and Centralization>

 

Xi Jinping in January 2017 in Davos pointed out that: "The richest of 1% world's population owns more wealth than that of the rest of 99% population. Inequality of income distributions and the imbalance of development space is worried. ". Such inequity is the root cause of all the instability and all kinds of wars in the world today, and all disasters come from poverty and absolutely unequal shares, and even including the problem of terrorism. The problem of terrorism in the Middle East is neither individual problem nor individual powers who demand regional independence. And they have developed into the problem of regional survival. Neither military strikes nor " killing" alone will work. The ways that should be relied are economic aid and assistance to build steady homes in local areas for survival, including helping local people get rid of the problems for survival and poverty as soon as possible in order to make terrorists lost the mass base and the existence reason. "Help" is the word relied. These gaps between the rich and the poor are not narrowed one day, the world will not be peaceful one day, and these troubles will be accumulated. The leaders of the G20 countries met in Hamburg again. The economy has to develop, but today the gap between rich and poor is tearing the world apart and tearing the human beings apart. If this gap problem is not gradually solved, the economic development will only worsen the polarization between rich and poor, and mainly make dowry for absolute wealthy minority from the point of views of wealth accumulations. On the one hand, our world has the big advances in civilizations and technologies day by day, but on the other hand, the world has also worsen this great inequality in wealth possession day by day. Wealth distribution between the rich and poor has come to such the point as it, this is neither the result that democracy should have and absolutely nor the goal that a democratic society pursue for. 

 

Whenever people talks about the problem of the rich and the poor, the Gini Coefficient comes to the mind. The world's Gini Coefficient was 0.65 in 2013, well over the cordon of 0.40. But where have the higher the Coefficient, that is the higher inequality? According to the calculation results of Gini Coefficient for particular countries, the most unfair problem lies in most developing areas in Asia, Africa and South America because of the higher Gini in these areas than that in Europe, USA and Japan. It is no less than ridiculous. 

 

In the list of “the World Top 500” published by “Forbes”, the huge companies in Europe, USA and Japan have accounted for the most parts. It has no doubt the global wealth has been concentrated there. This is not the whole problem, because 1) the Forbes List gave and ranked those companies according to their annual profits rather than the net worth. So we estimated that the concentration of private wealth is much big in term of net assets. 2) This list also just disclosed about the companies that published their financials. And many private companies have not disclosed their financials. Many big Chinese companies also appear in the list, but most are state-owned enterprises (SOE). They contrasted with the most and big companies privately owned by Europe, USA and Japan. (We will talk about this issue later). In the list of the world's richest people, we can see how many people are Europeans, American and Japanese in it? And how many are Africans and South Americans in it? The answer is quite clear. So are we also very clear about it with a glance?

 

A successful coefficient should help to reveal the truth and is best directly to show the authenticated cause of the problem. At least it does not mislead the research. But the Gini Coefficient gave the opposite conclusion showing the coefficients for countries in Asia, Africa and South America are higher than the countries in Europe, USA and Japan. We will be confused by the coefficient. The fact is just opposite to the coefficient. According to the report of the World Economic Development Institution at the University of the UN in 2006 “The Global Wealth Distribution”, and other information, the companies and individuals in Europe, USA and Japan have collected large amounts of wealth of mankind. Credit Suisse’s report “ The Annual Global Wealth Report 2014” gave more detailed data: As the regional distribution, Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific countries (excluding China and India) own 32.8%, 31.7% and 20% respectively with a total of 84.5% of the world's wealth. While Latin America, by contrast, has 3.8% global wealth, Africa and India have just 2.5%. The least developed countries and regions have only 16% of global wealth. (see “Hongqi” manuscripts " Imbalance Status and Analysis in Global Wealth Distribution "). The Data became even worse in 2016. The global total wealth owned by 1% population is more than that of 99% of populations. Where are mainly these 1% populations? Credit Suisse’s report already gave the answer. Can we see this fact a bit in Gini? If you read the world Gini and then read the countries' Gini, you were totally misled and confuses seriously. The concentration and unequal distribution of wealth have reached to such astonishing extent, but the Gini Coefficient has not only failed to tell us, but has given the contrary conclusion.

 

Furthermore, Gini Coefficient only reflects the historical cross-section of the difference between rich and poor, which means it only reflects that for a period of time, usually one year, but is lack of the accumulative difference of wealth in whole history. It also only gives the relative values, and not the absolute values, which are much more important. And what we can see is that the more poor and backward developing countries in South America and in Southern part of Africa, the higher the Gini Coefficient they have. The higher the amounts of wealth owned and the higher the concentration of wealth in Europe and the USA and Japan, the lower their Gini are on the contrary, as if their societies were even fairer. But it is absolutely not the case. Is the extraordinary concentration of wealth that Mr. Xi talked about not enough to proved it? The relative differences can never tell the absolute difference. Like ants and elephants in competition of weightlifting. The ant can raise the weight a few times of its body, however the elephant can't. But can we say that ants are more powerful than elephants? The two concepts and grades to compare are different. Some people might say that the relative problem is a problem, but the Gini Coefficient are not used mainly to compare one country with itself, but it mainly compares country with country in the world. Therefore this can only lead to confusions and misleading. Consortiums like the Rockefeller, Morgan, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, First Citigroup, Dupont and Boston, and Yasuda, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Sumitomo, and the Rothschild Family, Onassis Family and so on, most of them, these huge companies have gathered in Europe, USA and Japan. Right, the most of faster developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America have relatively big differences between the rich and the poor, however it’s comparison of their counties with themselves only and that is the one side of relatively smaller problem (We will talk about it later). The first question is absolute data, the comparison of absolute values of wealth, the huge gap of wealth owned between developing countries and developed countries. Even if this comparison is made within one country internally, the coefficient has a problem. We have all known that there are many super wealthy people in Europe, USA and Japan. They have extraordinarily huge private wealth and got the extremely most part of all wealth of mankind. These super wealthy tycoons like Bill Gates, Warrant Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Helu, Larry Ellison, Charles Koch, David Koch and Michael Bloomberg etc. have owned wealth that extremely more than that of ordinary people of their own countries. How can their gaps between people be relatively small? If the Gini Coefficients correctly tell the truth, how can these countries' Gini Coefficients be generally lower? The concentration of human wealth has reached to such intolerable level and some of us are still trying to whitewash the world and blame this injustice to the poorer developing countries. Can we see any of these signs from Gini? Instead we have been misled to think of countries in Europe, USA and Japan fairer, and inequalities in the third world of poverty and developments are even worse. How can we trust this coefficient? At the least, the Gini Coefficient does not tell us anything about this staggering fact that wealth owned by 1% global population is more than the sum of wealth owned by 99% population of the world.

 

Civilized and modern capitalism has made a lot of improvements when compared with a primitive and savage capitalism and has pushed big democracy forward than feudalism. But it all has stopped in front of the private ownership. On one hand it has given the production a great momentum; on the other hand it has led to the huge inequality of wealth distributions and extremely large wealth concentrations. Obviously this is not a complete democracy by far and does not show any spirit of true equality. It is necessary for us to greatly push this democracy forward, i.e. not only to pay attentions to democratic and equal rights of distribution, but also to the approximately equal outcomes of distribution. You can't just talk about the powers of equality and democracy and totally regardless of the outcomes whether they are equal or not. The equal rights and equal outcomes of distribution are two different things. Equal outcomes of wealth distribution are the real and fundamental goal which mankind pursues equality for. You can't pay lip service for the equality and democracy, but while you totally ignore the economic inequality that has become so much big. It can only be hypocritical. Any good democratic systems should not allow such a large gap between people's wealth at result of excessive competitions. It is necessary to try to control it within a certain range and gradually narrow it down. The range should not exceed a limit to encourage people to actively use the physical and mental labors recognized. This range is also being narrowed according to the improvements of working conditions. Anything beyond this range is an unfair distribution of wealth, as it is overpaid when considering capitalists of the world over as to do works for the human beings. So, chipping peak off and filling valley up，Chinese and foreign governments should impose proper rates of taxes special for the poverty alleviation on super wealthy people.

 

Democracy profoundly means economic and political equality for everyone. As the democracy is one person has one vote, and is equal rights for each one for whatever important things definitely including political or economical matters. It cannot be equal politically but unequal economically or vice versa.          And during people’s efforts to improve their living conditions, when wealth is always relatively limited, thus economic equality is the only way to enable majority to meet their relatively basic demands, and therefore it is essential,  fundamental and therefore the final requirements of human beings. This equality is equality in wealth possession. In other words, the ultimate goal of democracy is that everyone can get equal and abundant wealth according to his needs. And wealth includes all kinds of materials for life and production etc. If every person has full equality in wealth, it is impossible for him to have no political equality. But if he has a certain political equality and democracy only, it does not necessarily mean they can have same equality in wealth and democracy at all as now in the USA. Of course, full political equality and democracy inevitably means equal wealth possession he can enjoyed. If even wealth can be equal to share, what else cannot equally give others? In contrary wording, inequality in wealth possession will mean that political inequality and undemocracy due to losing essential part i.e. wealth equality. So wealth is essential for human beings to improve their lives and is also the central part of the democracy and equality. The current huge and growing differences in wealth between people are far away from good democracy and equality and are being further wider day by day from the basic and true democracy as the wealth is being concentrated day by day. Are these big gaps the biggest inequalities and undemocracy in human society? So to achieve a true democracy requires paying a price, the wealth, and making the gap of wealth possession gradually shrink. To do this is not costless, democracy is not as simple as doing political democracy alone. 

 

When we understand the relations between the equality in wealth possession and democracy, we will know some countries are doing political democracy faster and some are doing equal wealth faster. No one should look down upon the other, no one should think one’s system has been the best, and think that their systems do not need to be improved, which have been ultimate. It's a long way from the final goal in fact. A few hundred years ago when the steam engines were still in use, when the capitalism was still in the primitive times, because capitalism had insisted to private ownership of wealth and therefore it had also formed the a kind of gap between the rich and the poor, this had a great advantage at the beginning on one hand, driving productions had developed fast by personal profits. But it also accumulated the wealth difference between the rich and the poor on the other hand. Over a few hundred, the difference has already accumulated very huge, has grown to the extent as Xi Jinping talked. The vast differences in wealth owned also reflect great political inequality and undemocracy. Therefore, those have so big wealth gap are not good democratic countries at all. Considering their extremely high concentrations in wealth, we may say in fact they are authoritarian and dictatorial countries on economy. We have been aware of these consequences. It is investable for the absolute democracy in economy to be going to its opposite side via wealth concentration. They are not only unfair, but also gave a seriously negative impact on the overall initiatives for the economic development. 

 

We think that the coordinate graphics between the overall initiatives for production and the level of wealth centralization is roughly like the shape of normal distributions. That is to say, in general, when the extent of wealth concentration itself and the wealth difference between the poor and the rich are gradually increasing, and when the current production conditions are relatively tough, labor intensity is hard for most of workers, the total enthusiasm and initiatives for productions will be increasing. This is a strong momentum for capital accumulation. If a difference of distribution of wealth between people is not properly big enough, productive momentum will be likely insufficient. This is also a hard road for the most developing countries and it is difficult for them to avoid going along as aforesaid about the topic. But it has also increased and accumulated wealth inequity. Developing countries either actively or passively fight for their proper balance between faster developments and wealth inequalities. When China's super riches have actively developed their own businesses, they should not forget to take out some of their proper amount of wealth to alleviate poverty. After the levels of the social wealth concentrations are expanded to a certain degree, to the top, the overall enthusiasm and initiatives for the social productions will fall and not rise instead. After the top, the more the wealth is concentrated, the faster the overall enthusiasm and initiatives of productions are falling. Because the extreme minority has owned a large amount of wealth and has derived of most wealth from people, mainly the middle classes and the possibilities for their production developments, and therefore the riches possess a large decision making powers for productions and investments and because the riches are very few, therefore this has greatly reduced the total momentums and initiatives for productions and investments of a society. These signs can be seen from the economical situations in Europe, USA and Japan.

 

In sum, we believe the extreme inequality in wealth distribution is today’s first crucial problem that all countries have to solve. Because the big wealth difference between the rich and the poor is the most causes of instabilities for mankind, and the most root causes for all wars and terrorisms. So to reduce the wealth difference is to reduce this instability and the possibilities of all wars and terrorisms. Therefore it is also not likely to happen that the more to fight against terrorism and the more terrorism will come about. To exterminate poverty is also the powerful impetus and momentums for the economic developments of all countries. If the big countries compete to do more economic aids to the Middle East, and not the military controls there, and expressing the wills in democratic ways rather than the military advantages, and this will cost same money, but they are used in different directions. To do all of these, the results are definitely completely different. Governments of big countries need to make unremitting efforts to realize peace earlier for the area and for the world as well.

 

To compare the rich and the poor, it doesn't need a very complicated mathematical calculation by its nature. The only need is to divide two parts i.e. the rich and the poor according to their wealth they owned to compare. And comparison has basically two ways, one is subtraction, the second is division. Subtraction represents the absolute difference, and division is relative difference. Because of the result of subtraction is the real and intuitive and absolute difference, so we choose to use. And the calculation of the Gini Coefficient even exceeds many financial problems in complexity. The result of the calculation is as ridicules as aforesaid, and does not tell a bit that Xi Jinping pointed out. Trying to measure this inequality is a good thing, and should be affirmed. But the calculation for Gini is too complicated; however this single coefficient for comparison is too simple and inauthentic instead. And therefore it is not competent for the purpose, so it is necessary to give better and more thorough considerations. 

 

 The Gini coefficient was presented to us 100 years ago and based on the many assumptions. The calculating powers at that time cannot compare with today’s calculating powers by computer, which is so easy to calculate a large amount of complex figures. Computer applications have enable us to deal with the large original data directly and easily. The methods used 100 year ago to calculate this Gini Coefficient for the comparison and the countries’ wages have got many misleading and have actually unfairly covered up the truth of wealth concentration. So we need to create a new coefficient to accurately reflect the historical accumulation and the absolute value of wealth and income. Because we need clear pictures and understandings about the truth of historical accumulations: the numbers, the extent and whose hands the wealth have been concentrated to. Do not try to closely guard as a secret about this question. We believe that a society does not only want to see differences of wealth concentration and income for a certain period of time alone, but also that accumulated in its absolute numbers and understand the important gaps of the total amounts of wealth owned by the rich and the poor, and so that clearly understand to what extent this inequality is. 

  

So we have a preliminary idea. The general social wealth difference is based on the average wealth according to a social population as the baseline. And it is divided by the group above the average baseline or the group below. In order to avoid the relative values, we use the total wealth amount of the rich group minus the that of the poor group. In practical comparisons, because we only use the first 3 or 4 digits, so to simplify this data, we can divide the differences by 1 million (M) or 1 billion (B) or one trillion (T) subject to the first 3 or 4 integers we got. To make it clear, the numbers are denoted in M, B, or T in rear, which means that the numbers are  multiples of 1 million, 1 billion or 1 trillion. In this way, the results of the calculation is no longer one or two figures after null points, which is so small range that is inevitable to neglect many important links for so many countries for so much important things. The difference is a multiple of a million at least. This can compare the levels and differences between the rich and the poor in each country or the world intuitively and authentically. The difference will be weighted by the quotient of the populations of the poor group divided by that of the rich groups. Because we think we can know the extent of the wealth concentration according to the weights being big or small, and know how serious the inequality is.For the sharp ratio of inequality, we divide the wealth value of the richest by that of the poorest. This ratio is very important to understand how wide the gap between the richest and the poorest is. Instead of the mathematical assumptions and less to use relative values, we use the original number directly. Because the assumption is not so reliable after all, the relative value can conceal the seriousness of the problem. Chinese companies have appeared in the “ Forbes List of “the World's Top 500 ” many times, but most of them are state-owned enterprises (SOE), which we think the SOE can cut down the wealth concentrated to the minority. And China’s SOE is not operating on the central planned conditions in the normal situations, instead on the market conditions as it is now for more efficiency, except for the economic crisis, that has just begun in the private sectors and therefore threatens the whole society. The economical system is divided into SOE and private economy; it is totally two different things from what kind of the foundations on which they have operated, i.e. on the market or central plan conditions. So we average the wealth value of the SOE equally to each one group within one country. If a country does not have any SOE, then make it as zero. As to how much of the country's SOE is actually used for everyone, it is a social problem. This should be analyzed concretely.

 

We can point out the serious problems of Gini Coefficient to the relevant authorities and let them correct it. If they do not, we would continue to build our own coefficients. We believe that as long as our coefficients are correct, and our economy is big enough, we will be eventually followed. This is also like international agencies for rating., Being discretionary to his own wills not through the United Nations, country A carry out economic and/or financial sanctions on another country B, it has to be affected sovereign ratings of the country A, because other countries will also worry about sanctions against their own being discretionary according to the wills of the countries A and therefore affecting other’s investments to country A. The discretionary sanctions should not be encouraged. Therefore, country A should be downgraded. Country A must pay a proper price for discretionary sanctions. Our rating agencies have to take such actions initially with a confidence. So long as these actions are reasonable, do not worry about other people who will not follow us. Be insistent of your own opinions and be initiate.   

 

The wealth difference between the rich and the poor of a society is directly compared and reflected by the difference between the two group numbers. There is no ceiling for the difference. So we can come to the following formula:

 

This is a preliminary assumption, which hopefully can be further considered and discussed. Of course, the difference of wealth inequality can only be an approximation of social wealth inequality. In addition, the individual wealth values can be directly used and can replace the sums of each group without need to separate the groups of the riches or the poor according to their amounts of wealth.

Example: 

【1】https://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en/about-us/research/research-institute/global-wealth-report.html