What the bull is really angry about

I must admit, perhaps I am a contrarian by nature. My late mother used to tell a story. When I was just three or four years old, a fire broke out in the wooden house where we lived, and they carried me off to a neighbor's house while I was still on my potty. My dear mother would continue with a laugh. After scanning my surroundings for a while, I apparently blurted out: “I don't like you people, you forced me to move here!” Perhaps it is because of this contrarian nature that one of my favorite jokes is about why a bull gets angry at the color red. According to the joke, it is actually the cow, not the bull, that gets angry at red. What really drives the bull crazy and makes it aggressive is being treated like a cow.  

Having said that, let me continue. Perhaps it is this innate trait that drives me to read opposition newspapers first thing in the morning. The undoubtedly experienced writer of the leading economic column in the one with the highest circulation among them recently said exactly this: 

UBS, a Swiss bank, has been publishing a report called the “Global Wealth Report” for 16 years. The 2025 report, which includes the 2024 results, was published last month. The report covers 56 countries that represent 92% of the total personal wealth in the world. Global GDP (annual national income) is roughly 110 trillion dollars. The global total of personal wealth is 470 trillion dollars. Roughly half of this is owned by 1% of the world's population.  The report does not contain a “cause-and-effect” analysis. In this respect, it is not scientific. It is more of a market research study. Nevertheless, it provides information that is difficult to compile for economists studying income and wealth distribution.  The “wealth” included in this report, which shows the distribution of wealth by country and per capita, is the personal assets of real persons (a classification by family would have been more meaningful). The wealth owned by the public (the state) is not included in this total.  The wealth in this report was calculated by subtracting debts from the total value of individuals' movable and immovable assets, calculated at market prices. In other words, it is net wealth. Of course, these calculations are not made name by name. There is no possibility for that anyway. Publicly available information is used. Wealth calculated in national currencies has been converted to US dollars so that it can be compared between countries. This conversion is also done at the current exchange rate.  This makes accurate comparisons difficult.

I must confess. When I read what was written, I felt as if I had been carried off to the neighbor's house again after many, many years. Why, you ask? 

1. The Global Wealth Report, which the author harshly criticizes, says that half of all wealth in the world is in the hands of one percent of the world's population. In other words, it highlights the extent of wealth inequality in this world that has come off its hinges.                                   Our author turns up his nose at this and declares, “The report does not contain a “cause-and-effect” analysis. In this respect, it is not scientific.” I beg his pardon. Being scientific and causality do not go hand in hand in many, many examples.                                                         

Beyond that, I cannot help but wonder if our author is at least consoling himself by thinking that the world came off its hinges for other reasons and this damn income inequality is just a result of that. Then I get angry at myself and say, “Don't be ridiculous, Hasan!” 

2. Our author says, “The “wealth” included in this report, which shows the distribution of wealth by country and per capita, is the personal assets of real persons (a classification by family would have been more meaningful).” I think he is right in one respect. Perhaps knowing how many families this wealth is concentrated in would give us even more detailed information about the inequality of the distribution.   

3. But then, what's this? The article continues by saying, while calculating the wealth, “Of course, these calculations are not made name by name. There is no possibility for that anyway. Publicly available information is used.” After all, what is it to the public which family earns what? It reminds me of our tiny, tiny, tiny governor saying years ago, “The public has stormed the beaches, citizens cannot enter the sea.”  

As I come to the end of my article, I think I need to recover from my moment of being carried off to the neighbor's and return to some seriousness. 

a. Every human being, every society wants to live more prosperously. However, there is a way and a method to this. While Hasan wants to live in greater prosperity, he must be meticulously respectful of nature, the environment, and above all, as a human being, of his fellow human beings who are also striving and desiring to live in prosperity, and of their rights to life.

b. In the UBS Global Wealth Report, there are two more pieces of data that the economic writer I am criticizing never mentions. Among the 56 countries that are the subject of the report, only Turkey has experienced a decline in total wealth compared to a year ago. However, in the same year, there was an 8.4% increase (7,000 new dollar millionaires) among dollar-based millionaires in our country. As the report highlights, this is a world record, and as the report does not highlight, it is an indicator of how brazen Hasan has become in his quest to increase his own prosperity. 

c. Is it necessary to look for cause and effect? This is what the capitalism of a region looks like where justice is a tangle of problems, where proper taxes are not collected on wealth, where the unionization rate of workers is barely over 10%, and where anti-trust laws are as loose as possible.

Finally, let me remind you. The creed of capitalists, the title of Adam Smith's famous work, is the wealth of nations, not individuals. Let me add: extreme brazenness ruins a country.