Hot air in Davos will not warm the poor

'The poor you will always have with you." That is only half the story. It also seems that you will always have the rich with you.

'The poor you will always have with you." That is only half the story. It also seems that you will always have the rich with you.

Indeed, given that all things are relative, you can't really have one without the other. Consider, also, that many of those deemed poor now are considerably wealthier than those who were deemed rich hundreds of years ago.

The definition of "living in poverty" in Europe includes owning a car, a colour TV, a washing machine and being able to take a holiday "away from home".

Even in Africa, where many of the globe's poorest people eke out an existence, most of the poor have access to lifesaving health facilities that were not available to Mali's wealthiest-ever citizen, 14th-century emperor Mansa Musa.

And although there's little evidence that the sort of Gini coefficient - a common measure of inequality - that now prevails in South Africa (around 0.71) was common through history, it seems that the income gap that is the source of much indignation in the US is nothing new.

According to John Kampfner, author of The Rich, "the Gini coefficient in the Roman Republic of Crassus's time (around 115 BC) is estimated at 0.42-0.44, a figure that is almost identical to the US calculation for 2013".

So much for all the fuss at the recent World Economic Forum gathering at Davos, as though this inequality was a relatively new development. This year again, the world's rich and powerful agonised over the latest Oxfam report, which showed that the top wealthiest 1% owned as much as the bottom 50%.

This display of concern every year is not unlike that of the contestants in the annual Miss Universe competition. It is, of course, a little disconcerting that the rich and powerful are as ineffectual in their determination to do something about the income gap as the scantily clad contestants in a beauty pageant.

A key issue is whether there is a causal link between the rich and the poor. Do the rich cause the poor? In the generation of their own wealth, have they usurped wealth that is attributable to others? Have they personally banked more money than the value they have generated?

This certainly seems to be the case in relation to the Russian oligarchs who became enormously wealthy when they took control of the country's assets, particularly oil and gas, after the collapse of the USSR.

And of Crassus himself, whose enormous wealth accumulation was aided by the violent theft of property.

The behaviour of many global bankers in the past 15 or so years, although far more sophisticated than Crassus's, must also be considered tantamount to theft. They have accumulated far more value than they have generated.

Executive remuneration practices of the past two decades have ensured that the vast majority of our corporate executives are pocketing more wealth than they create. Things become a little fuzzier when considering the riches of the IT fraternity. There is little sign of theft, and the consequent creation of entire new industries and the realignment of existing ones suggest that those who benefited outnumbered those who lost out.

But the reason the generally over-rewarded attendees at Davos should try to achieve a little more than the Miss Universe contestants is that although the gap between the rich and poor is as old as humanity, what is new is democracy. It is only since after World War 2 that even the poorest across the globe have had the right to vote. This right has come at a time of dramatically increased forms of communication.

This new political landscape explained why levels of inequality went against the long-term historical trend between 1945 and 1976. But it quickly proved to be an aberration. By the early '90s , despite widespread democracy, the old trend had firmly re-established itself.

And now the poor occasionally whinge but seem mainly distracted by the latest gimmick and the latest media story about the lives of the super-rich.