In the Economist debate over the presence and legitimacy of the ‘global elite,’ Jamie Whyte and Daniel Ben-Ami argued both for and against, respectively, the right of the global elite to have the majority of wealth in the world. They also discussed whether or not they subjectively ‘deserved’ to be there, and whether their status on the top was beneficial for the whole of humanity – whether they ‘served the masses’. Jamie Whyte argued for the legitimacy of the elite, as they are providing services and purposes that are proportional in importance to their income and level of power. Conversely, Daniel Ben-Ami claimed that the nature of being a part of the elite was doing whatever it took to withhold needed resources and progress from the masses, so that they can keep it for themselves. For the purposes of this analytical essay, I chose to analyze Ben-Ami’s argument. It is my finding that, while Ben-Ami is indeed critical of the global elite and their fear of progress, the problems run deeper than that, and that some of the stances that he attributes to the elite, particularly in regards to global warming, are misinformed.
