[rboyd]

Strange to see a Rothschild speak out against inequality.

(FTA) Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild [...] said: “Oxfam’s report is just the latest evidence that inequality has reached shocking extremes, and continues to grow. It is time for the global leaders of modern capitalism, in addition to our politicians, to work to change the system to make it more inclusive, more equitable and more sustainable."

[dredmorbius]

You may have heard of Amartya Sen, welfare economist specialising especially in inequality and poverty.

His wife, I learned recently, is Emma Georgina Rothschild.

So: not all that improbable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen

[rorykoehler]

The smart ones can sense the pitchforks coming. The only way they can retain their position of wealth and power is to ensure the rest of us are well fed, housed, clothed and generally satisfied in life.

[binarray2000]

A few more questions regarding your point:

- Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Chief Executive Officer of E.L. Rothschild has what interest in fighting inequallity? A look at the list of investments of E.L. Rothschild http://www.elrothschild.com/investments paints a picture of an investment fund. So, the very 1% that is getting richer by moving money around while working population earns the dividends. Funny thing, one of the companies listed is The Economist Group. It would be interesting to know, how favourable/critical of Oxfam is The Economist.

- Oxfam had a budget of €947.1 million for the period 1st April 2013 - 31th March 2014. Almost a billion euros! And who has given them that much money? https://www.oxfam.org/en/annual-and-financial-reports has that data. Or, at least, that is what I have hoped for. The list of donors om page 68 of the annual report for 2013 - 2014 is just a birds-eye view.

- In its report, Oxfam says very little about growing inequallity in developed countries. Does that mean, that only developing world has inequallity problems?

[iofj]

Not really. The rich are far more invested than anyone else in "the system" (that made and keeps them rich) being "inclusive, equitable and sustainable". Especially the sustainable part. That effectively means "keeping themselves rich".

The poor are not very invested in the system (they should be, of course, since without an economy their fate would be far worse, but human nature means you're not going to be happy having less than everyone else, even if destroying the system would make sure you have much less). This is the basis of Marxism, and of course it's true. In a way jealousy gets in the way of rational thought.

This is one of the really good parts of capitalism. It concentrates power with people who want and need the system to succeed and who have very little power to use force to secure specific outcomes.

You may agree to this to varying extents, but just compare China's attempts to stabilize it's currency with the US ones. China : 208 people in the financial industry (and counting) "disappeared", a lot of them with reports of the police asking for them right before their disappearance. US: so far 1 person arrested, and a lot of people agree that it's for a good reason, not just the government. You might say "but the US gave boatloads of money to the banks/rich !". Well, yes. But there's no difference there, so did Europe, so did China ... [1]

[1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4568598e-8731-11e2-9dd7-00144...