Let them eat cake for a day ... or buy some shares in Truth Social

The super rich are getting super richer, keeping the poor, poor, but Trump has given hope to the man in the street with his loss-making listing

It’s polite of Forbes to publish their “List” on the 2nd of April every year. If they published it on the 1st, the average reader would think they were caught up in an elaborate April Fools stunt. This isn’t the case. The publication of this year’s Forbes’ annual rich list is aggressively accurate and, I’m sorry to report, it’s no laughing matter. There are now 141 newly minted dollar billionaires swelling the ranks of the insanely wealthy to 2,781 in total. When they started this list 38 years ago, they were hard pressed to find two.

Those two would now rank somewhere in the middle to lower section if their earnings where adjusted to current values. In the intervening years, the rich got richer.

$14.2-trillion richer — $2-trillion richer than last year. This is Zuma territory when it comes to descriptive zeros. I wouldn’t know how to break these kinds of fantastical numbers down into actual rands and cents.

Inflation, interminable wars without end, and some surprising political developments may have put a damper on the fiscal spirits further down the food chain, but have signified next to nothing at these heady heights where the high rollers have been “pimping”.

According to Forbes, who spend time cross-referencing and checking for accuracy, two-thirds of Team Midas are worth more than a year ago, and one-fourth are a smidgen poorer.

Obviously this is happening in the legitimate markets where there’s transparency in asset portfolios. I can’t imagine what’s happening in the darker reaches of the markets — places where guys like Vladimir Putin lurk. Regardless, in the Forbes List the top 20 predictably made the biggest gains, adding a combined $700m to their bottom line.

The richest of the rich and winner of the Croesus Cup this year is Bernard Arnault (and family), coming in at $233bn. If you need a reference point for this gentleman’s line of business I refer you to the line of customers outside the Louis Vuitton store in Sandton City patiently waiting their turn to boost his coffers. I’d pop a bottle of Moët & Chandon in his honour but for the fact that my sabrage technique is off these days, especially while I’m consuming information about the top 0.0001 % and their taxation habits.

Second in line is our Elon, whose fortunes have dwindled to $195bn at last count (our other entrant is Johann Rupert and family coming in at a respectable 162).

Forbes helpfully discounted 50% of Elon’s shares in Tesla because of some pesky litigation woes. But who cares about litigation, right? Just look at The Donald, who won’t let a trial or two stand in the way of his presidential rerun and who, last week, listed an actual loss-making entity (as in losing money hand over fist) and still manifested comfortably on the list at number 1,438 with a healthy $6.4bn to his name.

To which Trump has said of his financial wizardry: “I took a lot of finance courses at Wharton. First they taught you all the rules and regulations. Then they taught you that those rules and regulations are really meant to be broken.”

I like that about Trump — he gives hope to the man in the street, especially all the guys who bought shares in the Truth Social listing. Most of the takers in Trump Media are small timers who, according to Time magazine, “Are either trying to support Trump or are aiming to cash in on the mania,” despite the fact that the company lost $49m last year and stated it will lose money “for the foreseeable future”.

Sitting pretty at number 3, with $194bn in his pocket, is Jeff Bezos, who, you’ll be pleased to note has recently left the inclement weather of Seattle to settle in the sunnier climes of Texas where there’s less rain and less tax.

Apparently, countries of the world are uniting in the contemplation of global legislative collaboration so they can extract a bit of revenue from these players. But until then, we have Mark Zuckerberg at number 4 — whose culling of great herds of staff at Facebook and some smart betting on AI and Meta has ensured his fortunes are on the up and up.

In terms of countries, top of the pops with billionaires is the US, with 813, China follows with 473 and India is third with 200. The Guptas on the list are no relation.

It’s the kind of list that tells you something, but I’m not sure what, precisely. That the economic system is skewed in favour of the rich? Hasn’t it always been so? Look at the palaces of the Maharajas, the great houses of the British nobles and the emperors of Rome in relation to the hovels of the huddled masses and consider if anything has altered.

I don’t know what the global statistic is, but in South Africa, 62% of people’s salaries go to servicing their personal debt (that’s of the people who have jobs).

Dutch philosopher Ingrid Robeyns, who’s spent a decade studying the impact of extreme wealth, argues we should put a cap on personal wealth. Her research shows that extreme wealth keeps the poor, poor, and radically expands inequality.

The super rich undermine democracy by paying for votes, candidates, parties and ideologies. They have the means to pursue their personal agendas, which skew the public discourse and have outsized effects on people’s lives.

Think about how much money funded the anti-abortion campaign in the US, now affecting reproductive rights in the developing world. They also wreak havoc on the planet with their luxury lifestyles.

Private jets aren’t very eco-friendly. And the manner in which they made their money, even these legitimate candidates on the Forbes list, doesn’t bear scrutiny when you start unpicking the questionable and exploitative business practices, the tax dodging and outright grand theft and larceny that sits beneath the comforting and protective façade of unimaginable wealth.

Robeyns calls this approach limitarianism, and stresses that the super rich are rich because of society — they don’t make money in isolation. Even the most well-intentioned givers of charity in the ranks of the super wealthy cost society more than they could ever give back.

But, we have a better chance of reinstating the annual Roman Festival of Saturnalia than getting the super rich to cap their wealth. Once a year in Ancient Rome, they’d play at role reversal in the festival of the Saturnalia. Masters would serve their slaves at the table and the super rich would mingle with the poor in the streets.

A king for the the day would be elected, who’d preside over the madness. I presume the festival acted like a pressure valve — releasing the tensions building up between the “haves” and the “have nots”. Let them eat cake. For a day. Alternatively, they can buy a share in Truth Social.