One of the most striking successes of the Occupy Wall Street movement has been the “We are the 99 per cent” idea, and more specifically in the identification of the top 1 per cent as the primary source of economic problems.
Thanks to #OWS, the fact that households the top 1 per cent of the income distribution now receive around 25 per cent of all income (up from 12 per cent a few decades ago) has been widely disseminated. The empirical work on tax data that produced this evidence, done most notably by Piketty and Saez, has been slowly percolating into the mainstream consciousness, but “We are the 99 per cent” has hammered it home with surprising speed.
Even more surprisingly, the analysis as it relates to the 1 per cent has been almost unchallenged by the organized right. Having spent decades denying the obvious growth in inequality, and of the wealth and power of the super-rich, the right has implicitly conceded to reality on this point.
Their response to ‘We are the 99 per cent’ has been the snarky claim that ‘We are the 53 per cent’. This line is based on the lame and long-refuted WSJ ‘lucky duckies’ talking point, that low-wage workers ‘pay no income tax’. It is, of course, true that many workers don’t pay the tax called the Federal Income Tax’ , but they do pay the Social Security payroll tax, which is a tax on wage incomes, not to mention sales taxes and many others. By contrast, capital gains, the preferred income source of the ultra-wealthy, are not subject to payroll tax and attract only half the standard rate of the Federal Income Tax.
What’s more interesting to me is the 53 per cent number, redolent of the Buchanan-Nixon plan to ‘tear the country in half and take the bigger half’. It stands in stark contrast to the hypocritical complaints of Republican politicians about class warfare and turning Americans against each other. The fact that anyone could see this slogan as clever politics is an indication of the costs that are eventually incurred in the creation of a hermetically sealed thought bubble like that of the US right.
Coming back to reality, I’d like to think a bit about the relationship between the 1 per cent and the remaining 19 per cent of the population in the top quintile (that is 20 per cent). Most if not all of the bloggers here at CT fall into the latter group. Given our lamentable lack of market research, I can’t say much about readers, but a reading of the comment section suggests that most of our readers also belong to this group.The top quintile as a whole commands the great majority of US income, and virtually all financial wealth – few households outside this group own much beyond their homes and perhaps some money in a pension fund. It follows that any significant improvement in public services, or in the position of the unemployed and poor, must be funded by higher taxes on the 1 per cent, the 19 per cent or both.
The 19 per cent also have a disproportionate political weight, since they are much more likely than Americans in general to register, vote and engage in political activity. So, it makes a big difference whether, as as implied by ‘We are the 99 per cent’ their interests are aligned with the mass of the population or with the top 1 per cent.
Until quite recently, I would have (and did) argued against this view. The top quintile as a whole has done very well over the past few decades, and (despite some silly claims to the contrary), high-income earners have mostly voted Republican, in line with their economic interests. Certainly there are plenty who don’t vote their interests, but that is also true of many people in the top 1 per cent, not to mention bona fide billionaires like Buffett and Soros.
There was always an argument in terms of enlightened self-interest or class-interest, that it was better to give up a bit of (pre-tax and post-tax) income to maintain a stable and relatively egalitarian society. But in an individualistic society like that of the US such arguments don’t go very far.As far as policy is concerned, my implicit assumption, formed in a relatively egalitarian society, was that taxes imposed only on the very rich might be satisfying but couldn’t raise a lot of money. So, for example, I dismissed Obama’s focus on ending the Bush tax cuts for incomes above $250k (roughly, the top 2 per cent). In the ‘Trickle Down’ chapter of Zombie Economics, I looked mainly at the top 20 per cent (or sometimes 10 per cent) of the income distribution rather than the top 1 per cent.
I’m now much more sympathetic to the ‘99 per cent’ analysis. First, a closer look at income growth figures suggests that, while the 19 per cent have enjoyed rising incomes, they’ve only barely maintained their share of national income. The redistribution of the past three decades has gone from the bottom 80 per cent to the top 1 per cent.
That suggests the possibility of a policy response in which the main redistributive thrust would be to reverse this process. This would almost certainly involve higher tax payments, but this would be offset by the restoration of public services, which are in economic terms a ‘superior good’, valued more as income rises. The top 1 per cent can buy their own services, and are largely unaffected by public sector cutbacks, but that’s not true of the 19 per cent.
Another important factor is the growth of economic insecurity. The myth of the US as a land of opportunity for upward mobility has been replaced by Barbara Ehrenreich’s Fear of Falling (another good source on this is High Wire by Peter Gosselin). Even if people in the top 19 per cent are doing well, they are less secure than at any time since the 1930s, and their children face even more uncertain prospects.
Finally, there is the alliance of the 1 per cent with the forces of rightwing cultural tribalism. The 1 per cent can only rule by persuading lots of people to vote against their interests, and that requires a reactionary and anti-intellectual agenda on social, cultural and scientific issues. As a result, educated voters have increasingly turned against the Republican Party.
I don’t want to make too much of this last point. As Allan Grayson said during his memorable takedown of PJ O’Rourke recently, the 1 per cent own the Republican Party outright, but they also own much of the Democratic Party, and can rule satisfactorily through either. Also, having a college degree isn’t the same as being educated – Tea Party supporters are more likely than the average American to have a degree, and college-graduate Republicans are even more prone to various delusional beliefs on issues such as climate change.
Nevertheless, taking account of all the factors listed above, even the most comfortably affluent members of the professional class, looking at the alliance of plutocrats and theocrats arrayed to defend Wall Street could reasonably conclude that it was in their own interests to support the 99 per cent and not the 1 per cent.
We are therefore (surprisingly to me) suddenly back in a situation where a progressive movement can reasonably claim to act in the interests of a group that is (I’m quoting Erik Olin Wright from memory on the Marxist conception of the working class0
(a) the overwhelming majority of the population
(b) responsible for nearly all the productive activity (as against the 1 per cent’s incomes drawn from a parasitic financial sector)
© economically desperate or at risk of becoming so.
Can all of this be sustained? I don’t know, any more than anyone else. But #OWS has already achieved things that most people would have regarded as impossible a month ago, and for the moment at least, the momentum is still growing.
(Hopefully links to come when I get a bit more time)
John Quiggin 
@The Peak Oil Poet
@Chris Warren
Stop arguing guys, both of you agree on the fact that pure capitalism will inevitably fail but your arguing and accusing each other over little things. What POP said is actually true, not all of the business owners are greedy capitalist (although a majority of them are and POP admitted it himself).
I do agree with what POP said small private sector business do operate more efficiently than government agencies due to smaller work environment that makes it much easier to operate; and the fact that government jobs are underpaid compare to private sector industry average that gives no incentive for people to be innovative and improve their efficiency. However large “top tier” corporations are pretty much as inefficient as government as well if not worse.
Both of you have extensive economic knowledges (more than myself I believe), but if you guys can just be a little bit “lower tone” in your comments it would make other blog readers easier to be convinced by your comments. For Chris, some of your comments are great but it makes people hard to accept because it is a little bit extreme. I hope you can change the style of your comments.
Jarrah – sorry, didn’t see #38.
Yes, I should have said libertarians.
Is there any strong empirical evidence for diseconomies of scale?
Google is your friend.
Thanks – I’ll read up, but based on a quick look there there doesn’t seem to be a particularly strong claim that diseconomies of scale (or their causes) *more than offset* economies of scale.
Remember it was just *one* of the built-in problems with government decision-making.
Yeah, well, markets – especially real-world markets – have their problems too – so I think as far as we’re willing to grant that we’re both reasonably non-ideological representatives of our respective “stripes”, we’ll probably just have to agree that how much emphasis one places on various manifestations of market and government failure, and what needs to be done to mitigate against them remains a matter open for debate, one on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, etc.
Back on topic, though: I maintain that the wealth disparities produced by the present economic system are unconscionable. They would be less so if everyone was doing okay. But they’re not.
I’m not the only one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/16/occupy-protests-europe-london-assange
@Freelander
yerse.
see the bottom of the back page of todays fin.
zombie ooze.
Yes there are both economies and diseconomies in scale but increasingly for most things except maybe restaurants, economies tend to outweigh diseconomies which is why there is a tendency toward larger organisations. But larger organisations have other benefits when compared with smaller ones. The most important is power. A lot of advantages flow from power. Or at least flow to those who have power.
@Dan There has been a lot of conclusions drawn from studies similar to this one. Most of it boils down to tobacco use, those that use it are more sick and die earlier and their group suffers because of the effects.
Okay, but tobacco use correlates with low levels of education and high levels of mental illness. So you can see how we still have a tangle of disadvantage, and if some aspects could be addressed, other aspects would be addressed as a matter of course.
thank you all for this thread and as a small comment on a comment
the current situation happening at qantas ,to me, illustrates this in spades.
the eighties mantra of
“brand uber alles”
has been brought to it’s logical conclusion where the fact that qantas IS the people who actually,with their skills, dedication, and justifiable pride in standards of excellence has been pushed into a tiny irrelevant corner and the “brand” qantas means more than the reality.
the amazing quality of service and safety is now just an image to be protected and virilently defended by public relations and large (expensive)meaningless advertisments in the face of a hollowing out of that same safety and service in the name of cost cutting.
while “executive officers”which is just a fancy name for managerial servants claim outrageous pecuniary benefits in the name of indispensability.
qantas never had safety problems.
qantas mean’t worlds best safety standards.
the reality of globalisation does not mean Australian or any other country has to dissolve into an undifferentated amorphous mess of lowest common denominator.
and.
the turgid has also a place.
i would never have imagined the how bloody vile the ideology of libertarian “take care of the rapacity”actaully was unless it had been so carelessly spelled out in this forum.
@The Peak Oil Poet
Yea – a capo-anarchist with a lot of demons in its head.
The antithesis of social democracy. The anti-Christ of government.
Narcissism writ large, defacing civilisation. Economic piranhas feasting on the commons.
Capo-anarchy – where the bottom of the barrel meets the bottom of the well.
Capo-anarchy – declamation, desperation – no explanation.
@Chris Warren
maybe
but i don’t actually think killing capitalists simply because of their ideology is that great a platform
or communists (though in your case it’s tempting)
or killing Muslims
or Christians
or Homosexuals
i’m more for getting rid of systems that focus power in the hands of a few and that force the many into servitude under a legal system controlled by elites – whatever the ideology of those elites
i realise that elites will always emerge and will ultimately have disproportional power – and that periodically they piss people off so much that they get hammered down
but i’d rather that their ability to gain such power is not built on taxing the population and channelling those taxes to where they think the money should be spent – which is always on weapons, cronies, supporting corporations or government offices (CIA, KGB, etc) etc
you want to replace one set of scum bags with a different set of scum bags (with you in a prominent position of power, wearing a uniform with a red star on it and ordering the interrogation and water boarding of people like me)
i’d like to get rid of the way scum bags get to have power
pop
@The Peak Oil Poet
I suggest you step outside of your cartoon world and enter reality.
You are the scum bag.
@Chris Warren
nah nah n nah nah
commie pinko comment Chris
has no wiser words than this:
“you’re are scumbag” (nah n nah)
“i’m a pinko” (blah blah blah)
yes we know you pinko sort
grab your share of what we wrought
claim you’re fair and claim you’re good
but i see just a violent hood
cowards cry that “life’s not fair”
thieves and liars steal their “share”
thieves and liars dressed in red
you Pol Pot sorts are better dead.
pop
Good exposure of capo-anarchy here.
It is quite willing to label everyone else as “scum bags” etc (see above) but go into indecipherable apoplexy when they get paid in the same coin.
“Back on topic, though: I maintain that the wealth disparities produced by the present economic system are unconscionable. They would be less so if everyone was doing okay. But they’re not.”
Implicit in your statement above is what I have been arguing since the beginning – inequality, in and of itself, is not a problem. I’m glad we’re making some progress here.
That’s like saying bleeding to death isn’t, in and of itself, a problem; it’s the stab wounds you’ve really got to look out for 😛
@Jarrah
The reason why inequality itself is not a problem is because it is a consequence not a cause. Inequality always exist but it will not be a problem as long as that inequality is generated through proper means such as increase work hours, innovation and technology improvement etc and not through exploits on the general public/workers. I believe blaming the problem on inequality is not valid as well, because inequality isn’t a cause but a consequence.
No, it’s more pernicious than that. Limited opportunities beget limited opportunities. See Myrdal’s work on circular and cumulative causation. That’s why it demands a policy response.
@Dan
I’m not saying that it should not be acted on, because I know that inequality in US isn’t generated through proper means. Almost all inequalities generated in US are through exploiting on the weaker (worker). But if you are going to sue someone you have to sue them for the right reason, like if you got robbed you should sue them for robbery not theft.
@Chris Warren
there’s a difference between not understanding and not wanting to understand
as for apoplexy – i hardly think i’m likely to get emotional over someone as lowly as you
it’s more like, ya know, slugs and other icky things that people are repulsed by
i’d not expect a slug to have a clue why i’m repulsed by it
then again, slugs are not nearly as repulsive so i guess if i was to get emotional about such a slimy creature then you’d be the best bet that i’d find for us to try it out
what is it with you anyway – are you retarded or something? Bitter old fogey in a wheelchair or what? You certainly are vitriolic and your violent streak is something else.
No wonder people are scared of commies if you are their flag waver – i’d expect a more successful approach might be sound reasoning and an even temperament but i guess you are just one of many
you know the funniest thing is that the only other people i meet who are as whacko as you are the right wing sorts that hoard gold and stop their kids getting vaccinated
same behavior – exactly – just different slogans
don’t ya think that’s kinda telling?
pop
pop
@The Peak Oil Poet
Ahhh, anarchy – don’t you just love it.
More plop than pop.
@Tom
This seems to be saying the same thing.
Inequality is not the problem – the cause of some inequality is, and the existence of huge inequalities indicates there is a huge economic and social problem.
There are two sorts of inequality – a natural inequality due to normal differences in human attributes, but the extra inequality based on exploitation.
Its the exploitation that is hard to understand.
Peak Oil Poet & Chris Warren – please stop.
Off topic but… The crazies are at it again. The Heartland Institute has ‘published’ a ‘highly authoritive’ ‘interum’ report by the nongovernmental international panel on climate change.
Click to access 2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
“With its emphasis on natural variability as a cause for the recent climate changes, it is a must-have for serious climate scientists who should not just rely on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report alone to get the full picture of our current state of knowledge (and what is not known) about climate and climate change.”
Are you a ‘serious’ climate scientist?
The answer (the miraculous ‘spontaneous remission’ that is now our only hope) to humanity’s terminal predicament, caused as it is by capitalists acting as they are programed so to do, is certainly not to kill the capitalists. In doing so you become like them, so they win anyway. Murder and violence are two of their preferred modus operandi (or should that be modi?), No, capitalists must be disempowered. They will remain human-ish, and some may even become quite decent specimens. I’m all for markets-I love a good farmers’ market or city markets and weekly country markets. But they only work properly, in my opinion, when there is a fairly approximate equivalence of economic power between producer, vendor and purchaser. Capitalist markets, on the other hand, are predicated on grotesque imbalances of power and the exploitation of the powerless by the powerful, and this tendency is now more marked than at any time in modern history. Even worse, the beneficiaries of this unjust imbalance of power, having converted their money power into political, indoctrination and coercive power, are plainly determined to make the situation even more iniquitous and exploitative, and are even unconcerned that in doing so they are rapidly undermining the life-sustaining systems of the planet.
Chris Warren, the answer to exploitation, which makes it perfectly understandable, is that some people hate and fear other people. They are known, colloquially, as the Right. Why they hate and fear others is a complex problem, but the type is best kept away from power, and humanity’s complete failure to do so explains our terminal predicament, in my opinion at least.
“That’s like saying bleeding to death isn’t, in and of itself, a problem; it’s the stab wounds you’ve really got to look out for”
Actually no, that’s a terrible analogy. We’ve already established that inequality by itself does nothing to anyone, unlike bleeding to death or stab wounds. It’s more like saying the colour of the sky isn’t a problem, it’s the composition of the atmosphere you’ve got to look out for.
“The reason why inequality itself is not a problem is because it is a consequence not a cause.”
That’s right. I would have said – a symptom, not a disease.
The sky colour analogy isn’t working for me. Sorry.
@Mulga Mumblebrain
Yes, but then another issue arises – why do some people act this way. One point is that the expectation of wealth, beyond ones own capabilities, requires mistreatment of others. You cannot enslave an African until you cast him or her as a lesser or something to be controlled (to be used for the accumulation of wealth).
But the alienation needed to mistreat others for economic reasons cannot be contained just to that purpose. It flows into culture generally, and has done so from the first occasion of exploitation.
If society can regulate exploitation and associated stresses and motives, a lot of hate and fear will evaporate. If you cannot regulate exploitation and it ratchets up, hate and fear will escalate and a Right wing reaction such as KKK in America and One Nation in Australia, will emerge. Andrew Bolt recent attack on aboriginals was an expression of his fears that Aboriginal Rights may interfere in the present pattern of economic exploitation in Australia although he was probably channeling the fears of corporate Australia.
The interests of corporate Australia are at the base of hatred against anything that inconveniences corporate exploitation of resources, or accumulation of profits. So you will see that most rightwingers particularly hate trade unions and activists surrounding Wall Street denouncing corporate wealth.
By why shouldn’t someone hate the loan shark or banker that drives their family from their job, home, family farm and future. You just have to make sure you learn to hate the exploitation ahead of the alienated cartoon character supporting or effecting the exploitation.
Jarrah: name me a highly unequal country where everyone’s basic needs are met.
Too high a bar? Well, this is the standard to which I hold societies, and what I hope for in Australia.
Yes, Terje’s right – your analogy was limp. Inequality *does* cause problems – not least fomenting social unrest even in wealthy societies.
“Yes, Terje’s right”
I think you’ll find you disagree from different angles. Anyway, whatever problems my analogy has, at least it’s better than yours.
“Inequality *does* cause problems – not least fomenting social unrest even in wealthy societies.”
When it offends people’s sense of justice, then it causes problems. But simple inequality isn’t enough to give rise to those feelings – it has to be, as Tom has alluded to, inequality which is non-meritorious. That is, there has to be something else going on. I would argue that it is patently obvious that recent social unrest in wealthy countries is because people feel the inequality is based on unjust actions, like bailouts for investors and cutbacks for pensioners.
Think of it this way. When something bad happens, unless there is intent (or recklessness, etc), there hasn’t been a crime, merely an accident. ‘Accidental’ inequality – ie the inevitable result of the vagaries of human existence – is morally neutral and harmless. Inequality from exploitation (the genuine kind, not the Marxian re-definition) or corruption or preferential treatment of private interests by institutions meant to serve the public interest, this is what makes people mad, and rightly so.
mulga mb”this tendency is now more marked than at any time in modern history”
I noticed the graphs in the finance report on Monday’s ABC news. The last time there was the disparity of 23+% of income going to just 1% of population in USA was 1928.
Jarrah: name me a highly unequal country where everyone’s basic needs are met.
Name me a highly unequal country which has a liberal economy.
I’d say that’s about right. The more ‘liberal’ an economy (which means the more free are the rich to exploit the rest) the more inequality, injustice and disempowerment. That is the object in ‘liberal’ economies-to exploit the rest and accumulate wealth. The USA for example, has a highly ‘liberal’ economy, and a highly predatory, violent and determined capitalist elite ruling it as a crony capitalist kleptocracy and international stand-over thug.
@TerjeP
The trouble with your challenge Terje, is that you don’t specify what criteria meet your test of “a highly liberal economy”, so any example can be waved away with the “no true Scotsman” defence. If you simply mean an economy where expenditure by the state is a tiny proportion of GDP, Somalia is a good example. For all practical purposes, there is no state there.
I’d say the US is a highly unequal country with a highly liberal economy.
The specification of highly unequal countries where everyone’s basic needs are not met is obviously silly. If it’s highly unequal, then at least some people’s basic needs and then some are plainly being met. There’d be no point to inequality if at least someone wasn’t benefiting.
The better questions are — considering only those countries where the basic needs of the poorest three quintiles are persistentlly being met,
a) how ‘liberal’ are their economies?
b) how inegalitarian sn their distribution of wealth?
Posed this way we can begin to identify a correlation, if there is one, between liberal economy, inequality and basic needs provision without NTS DQs.
OK … now I’m in moderation despite not having mentioned the term social|sm or any rude words. …
@Jarrah
So what is this “inequality from exploitation” that is “the genuine kind”.
Terje: yes, I’ll go with the US too. But you can have Hong Kong or Chile under Pinochet to boot.
Jarrah – we may have to agree to disagree on the limpness or otherwise of our metaphors too 🙂
Chris Warren’s right – in the *real world* there is no, but *no*, inequality without the patronage, nepotism, exploitation, beginning from an unlevel playing field… this goes all the way back to geography if you accept Jared Diamond’s (quite compelling, I thought) thesis.
It’s not harmless. It is the result of deep iniquity and the cause of further iniquity.
As for “when it offends people’s sense of justice…”: what you’re basically saying here is that as long as the (paid-for) conventional wisdom about *not* having been shafted persists…
In this context, the poll result that Americans radically underestimate the share of wealth held by the top tiers of their society, and when they are presented with the true figures they are in favour of radical redistribution, *regardless of their political allegiance*, should either worry you or, I hope, inspire you.
@Dan
actually, in the real world there is no such thing as equality – period
equality is a mathematical abstraction and for people to think you can carry a mathematical abstraction across to life is, when you really start to dig into it, silly
life is about ebb and flow – back and forth – push and pull – ying and yang and not just of simple variables but of complex interplays of variables
ideological beliefs are very “Christian” in that they are essentially faith based and often ingrained from early upbringing – the very value systems of people are built on assumptions concreted into the personality
such beliefs lead to people fighting over just about anything (though it’s ALWAYS attached to resources one way or another)
i picture two carnivores standing facing each other over a carcass
they both growl a lot and may even fight – and sometimes even fight to the death
and other than being “at one with the moment” in every way they have no higher understanding of their predicament – and like ideologues – don’t care
Communism always arises from times that are tough on the masses – someone gets up and yells “lets level the playing field” and everyone follows (eventually to mass killings and terrible destruction and then eventually to imbalance again)
and always it’s the so called intellectuals who tease out all the issues such that in the end all of the death and destruction is validated (they don’t believe in God so lets kill them and steal their oil)
the fact is we are all nasty predators and we are all on the blood scent of our prey
with the commies it’s the nasty bad horrid rich
with the neocons its the nasty bad horrid people trying to control their own resources
fact is, that identifying anyone as “evil” is inherently predatory and a sign of conflict for resources
it’s just then a case of which side you think will lead you personally to getting your bit of the carcass
on this blog most commentors appear to be communists
on others i visit they are extreme Aynn Rand types
yet others they are radical religious nuts
and if you deconstruct the flow of feelings and words you come to realise that they are all much the same – they just wave different flags and use different formulae and incantations to weave their spells
very very few people stand back and try to grok the whole picture
but then
neither do the two predators i mention above
pop
Bunkum. If you took the Gini number for each country and plotted it against economic freedom (eg Heritage Index of Economic Freedom) you would find that the tendency is for liberal economies to be more equal. And the tendency is for more liberal economies to have better outcomes in terms of crime rate, life expectancy etc. They also tend to have more political freedom.
That’s a cheap caricature. I haven’t said anyone is evil, and I’m open to new evidence.
I’m a social democrat because I think the best societies to live in – and, in the context of modern economies, the most macroeconomically and environmentally stustainable – are social democracies. Yes, to a great extent, that comes back to values – everyone’s vision of the good society does, hence what I said before about reasonable disagreement.
I’m not blind to the fact that humans are imbued with different levels of ability – I’m doing just fine myself thank you – and some value material wealth more than others, etc. etc. I’m arguing for *more* equity, not some complete equity that shrill student leftists would regard as normative.
I like your implicit implication that you’ve got it all figured out. You haven’t.
Jarrah – I might be more inclined to agree with you if, in the real world, disadvantage was evenly distributed.
It’s not.
Again if I can draw on Myrdal and Diamond, it correlates with being in a systematically disadvantaged social group, often a minority. Indeed, much of Myrdal’s work was on the persistence of the disparity of advantage and disadvantage in the US between black and non-black citizens.
So, while I am at pains to point out that I don’t think your position is prima facie racist, nor that you are racist, I encourage you to carefully consider the actual distribution of all sorts of resources you are defending.
@The Peak Oil Poet
Hardly. To the best of my knowledge, I’m the only person here who accepts that title. While he is almost certainly arguing from the left, I’m not sure what Chris Warren claims to be. As to the other regulars here, while there would certainly be many claiming to be liberal or Green or social democratic I’d be astonished if any of them claimed to be commun|sts.
@TerjeP
Terje I am genuinely interested in your POV here (and am halfway through your video – it is very long). However what you have said doesn’t appear to be correct. I did this using Ginis and the Heritage Freedom Scores (28 obs – I dropped a few observations that had missing values) on Wiki (not great data I know) but the correlation is 0.48 and has a p-value less that 1%.
It is true that the data available probably focuses on richer countries and that a different pattern may emerge if we compared richer countries with poorer countries. However for the richer countries listed, the opposite appears to be true.
Of course this doesn’t form a compelling argument either way due to the obvious endogeneity bias.