The Coronavirus shock shows how vulnerable our society is. Seen from the outside and from a historical distance, we live in the richest society of all time. The sum of our resources is tremendous and we have previously untrained of technical and organizational possibilities. The world is connected through dense logistical networks and we actually live in a globalized world. But wealth in our world is primarily of private nature. It serves individual wealthy people and companies, but it is hardly useful in the event of a pandemic. In this way, society is not rich, but pure and vulnerable. In most countries, the required infrastructure is more or less in place, The required infrastructure is more or less in place, but there is no stock of supplies available for a pandemic, neither physical nor financial, that the general public could fall back on it in an emergency. It is legitimate to ask why in this rich world a break of two or three months cannot be managed without major problems. It is not possible, let's say, to work and therefore earn 20% less in a year and thereby to survive and manage the necessary physical distance well with restrictions. Consideration of this kind will certainly be made about the coronavirus pandemic in a few decades or centuries, and this is how society can be judged from the outside. Within our usual framework for making judgement, this seems strange to many, because it contradicts the prevailing mentality and the effective processives under capitalism. Taking an overall view of wealth appears as a criticism of capitalism, at least of important characteristics of the economic systems, because the organization of wealth is here both a purely economic question and the expression of a form of economic activity based on private property. In this system, money is a means for private purposes, but hardly a resource for social goals. The situation is made even more difficult today by the huge wealth gap that has increased in many countries in recent years. The next figure shows the pyramid of wealth and people on a global level. Figures of this kind are subject to great uncertainty because there are no reliable wealth statistics. The illustration serves only to give a qualitative impression. At the top are the famous 1%, shown here as the richest 0.8% of all people. These people have a net wealth of over 1 million US dollars each. In 2018, according to this chart, 42 million people were in this segment. This small group owns a total of $142 trillion, which is almost 54% of the world's total wealth. The next group is made of 436 million people with a net worth of between $,000 and 1 million dollars. This amounts to 8.7% of all people and they have nearly 64% of people have almost no net wealth. Their total wealth added together amounts to less than 2% of global wealth. In terms of wealth, therefore, there is no middle class at all. class at all. In many countries it does not exist, although the majority of the population usually believes that they belong to the middle class. Such an imbalance is the result of decades of development of income as wealth. The following chart gives an insight into how economic inequality came about. It shows the income situation from 1918 onwards. The horizontal axis divides the global population from two to 99 into 10 income groups, starting at 10 with the purest 10%. The axis is then stretched out three times. The top 1% is divided into 10 groups. The rigid of these groups is also divided into 10 groups. And the very top group is again divided into 10 groups of equal population size. The chart shows that the purest half of the world's population has seen its income grow significantly thanks to the high growth in Asia, particularly in China and India, showing the rise of the emerging nations. However, because of high and rising inequality in many countries, the richest 1% saw their income grow twice as much as the bottom 50% since 1980, by 72% as opposed to 12%. The global middle class, which contains all of the purest 19% of income groups in the United States and the Europe states, has been squeezed. A pandemic exacerbates this inequality, not in terms of disease, because the virus does not care about status, but in terms of the possibilities people have to protect themselves against infection and organize care and medical assistance if needed. A pandemic affects the pure in a particular way. This applies to the pure in every country and to the pure countries in particular. The abundance of money and excess of wealth do not provide the majority of people with what they need for a good life, but the minority which calculated advantages. which calculated advantages. Business and household are constantly living on the edge and most of them can no longer cope with loss of income for a few weeks. This applies to the pure in rich nations and in particular to pure people in the third world, which are accustomed to a life of constant stress. The pandemic is hitting the poorest the hardest. For an Indian day laborer, a lockdown equals the threat of starvation. The World Bank fears that the coronavirus crisis could lead to an additional 100 million people falling into extreme poverty, which means having to live on just $1.90 a day. They will choice the 746 million people already living on such meager resources. while already living on such meagre resources. These people are found in particular in Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Congo and Bangladesh. We therefore have a cause and effect chain of pure and rich as follows. The carriers of the first wave were managers, politicians, businessmen and women and tourists simply put the rich of the world. And the main victims of the pandemic will be the poor. The growing wealth gap over the last decades is also an expression of transformation of social politics and the economic system itself. Politicians in many countries have lowered taxes for the rich and corporations and have little done to stop the booming system of tax havens that allows the rich and corporations to avoid paying taxes. At the same time, the economic system itself has transformed. In the wake of globalization, which was propagated from the 1990s onwards after the collapse of state socialism, subsystems of the economy have become increasingly rational and efficient. In comparison, cost awareness has increased significantly over the last decades. Any kind of waste, such as of working time, has been reduced and the wave of privatization and deregulation, including in labor markets, has contributed to this. Many people have had to experience more astringent performances, requirements and greater stress at work. Stalls and breaks have been increasingly abolished and standards for the provisions of services have been tightened in most sectors. The global value chains of many products are also an expression of a rationalization of production. The end product bundles together a network of upstream suppliers under the guiding principle of the lowest possible costs. The rationalization of the economy can also be described as economization. It is primarily a matter of fulfilling given parameters, which to a large extent follow the specification of the rich investors. As a result, large parts of the economy are constantly operating at the limit without reserves and buffers. Dwelling away time and exaggeratingly paying attention to health and work is considered inefficient and must be stopped. Personal reserves that are not used continuously are a waste. Financially, there are no buffers. Every cent must be used optimally, according to the guidelines given by investors. This applies to many areas. Every last scrap of land must be accountably exploited, as we can see if we look at how landscapes have changed in recent history. Above all, however, social relationships are primarily thought as of market relationships, and consequently they must be established as market relationships. In this way, the whole world, both nature and the social aspect of life, becomes a huge base of calculation and costing permitted by money. Such a global system apparently becomes increasingly racial and deficient, as many indicators show. What is forgotten, however, is that simultaneously becomes more and more vulnerable and more and more unstable. In 2008, we learned how unstable the financial system has become. The coronavirus shock shows how vulnerable our entire economic system has become on a global scale. Additionally, individual groups are particularly at risk during a pandemic. One example, which also happens in the world's wealthiest nations comes from those people whose working and living conditions are such that they are unable to comply with hygiene standards at all, such as workers in meat factories or harvest workers, which are often housed in wretched quarters. Other occupational address groups are healthcare workers, not only doctors and nurses, but also low-paid nursing home workers, most of them are women. Worldwide, 70% of all healthcare workers are women, if all professions in the field are taken into account. During the coronavirus crisis, the public discovered which people are essential to the maintenance of our health infrastructure and the functioning community. Suddenly, there was a talk of systematically important people and professions. This expression was previously reserved for banks. Systematically important or systematically relevant banks have to comply with certain regulations such as higher capital environments and enjoy privileges. Since the events of 2008, a country's central bank and ministry of finance will take all measures possible to prevent the bankruptcy of a systemically relevant bank. In March and April of this year, people working in systemically important professions were publicly applauded, and many understood that their health depends on the services provided by these people. seems to have forgotten again. It is not expected that the population groups in question will receive pay rises, for example. In a major economic crisis, the opposite can also happen. The debates about restriction in public sphere also demonstrate the vulnerability of the economy. There are suggestions that a choice must be made between the economy and life. Should there are more deaths to happen so that companies can once again operate as normal or must health concerns be given priority with the consequent worsening of the economic crisis? Economists have even made calculations of this. consequent worsening of the economic crisis. Economists have even made calculations of this. The next video asks what policies have made this transformation of the economy possible and what thinking underpins this.