Billionaires have been allowed to amass massive wealth, says a reader. But if they were stockpiling all the food and water, would governments still just sit back and do nothing, like they do now?
Billionaires must share
Lately I’ve become very aware of the massive inequality here in the UK and the rest of the world. I believe it is the issue at the heart of problems globally.
I support the idea that all governments must start discussing ways in which obscene, excessive wealth can be redistributed. I am an advocate for hard work and becoming rich, but wealth that can finance space programmes that governments can no longer afford illustrates the destructive transfer of wealth that has occurred over these last two decades.
If the amount of wealth the super-rich stockpile were instead food and water, would governments stand idly by and allow their populations to starve? Money and essential assets such as housing are vital, and yet governments sit passively by becoming impoverished, even bankrupting themselves like ordinary people. Reducing wealth disparity in the world would make it a far better place for everyone and the super-rich could still live luxurious lifestyles.
Paul Belcher, Basildon
Nerves of steel
The straightforward renationalisation of British Steel is an inevitability that is being delayed. The case for nationalisation has always been strategic necessity. That argument continues to apply to water, energy, rail (which is not really being renationalised), the Royal Mail and much else besides. Which of those has been improved by privatisation? We have seen just how quickly the restoration of democratic political
control can be achieved.