Mohammad Javad Zarif Quotes

The issue of wealth inequality is ... the great moral issue of our time.

So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings, goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury, and make sharper the contest between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent.

This country is very good at creating wealth, but not very good at distributing it.

No matter how we name and dissect inequality, we must keep explaining the larger downside of such concentrated extreme wealth.

The world is richer than ever, and the gaps between rich and poor are wider.

In a world of global dependencies with no corresponding global polity and few tools of global justice, the rich of the world are free to pursue their own interests while paying no attention to the rest.

There's no question that how Johannesburg operates is what made me interested in the idea of wealth discrepancy. 'Elysium' could be a metaphor for just Jo'burg, but it's also a metaphor for the Third World and the First World. And in science fiction, separation of wealth is a really interesting idea to mess with.

Pope Francis emphatically does not buy the argument that poverty can be alleviated by the 'trickle down' effects of wealth creation. He is deaf to arguments that the global economy has brought a billion people out of poverty. He is convinced, in short, that the best and only way to expel poverty is fairer distribution of the world's goods.

For the good of Spain, I should like there to be rather fewer rich people and rather fewer poor.

Unequal wealth distribution is a risk factor for inequality that must be attacked by policies.

Inequality of income is bad for everyone, not just the poor and the middle class.

To be concerned about inequality is not engaging in class warfare.

… perceptions of poverty have gone up because there’s been rising inequality.

Liberty is impossible if 36 thousand families at the top of the economic pyramid get as much income as 12 million families at the bottom.

No harm is done by the possession of Luxury by some people if only at the same time EVERYBODY HAS ENOUGH. The wrong incurred by the rich toward the poor lies solely in the fact that while they revel, the poor starve

Labour ministers often look puzzled when reports show that Britain has one of the lowest levels of social mobility in the developed world. They just don't get it. They see poverty, inequality, fairness, as all about income. For the past 12 years, they have relied on tax credits to solve this. But tax credits do not solve poverty: they mask it.

We should be uncomfortable with the growing gaps in our society, and we cannot allow ourselves to become desensitized to these injustices.

One of the great conundrums in philanthropy globally is that the way wealth creation happens itself often creates the inequities in society.

I think, unfortunately, we've always lived in a world of massive inequality: inequality between the haves and the have-nots, inequality between men and women that not only exists temporally but geographically as well.

Elvis Presley's estate is making 30 million a year, and they say that Marley shouldn't be, but he is from a much poorer part of the world, and a lot more people need the money.

I've often said that far more sensible than a 'make poverty history' campaign would be a 'make wealth history' campaign. It is, after all, the wealthy people who do all the damage. The less money you earn, the fewer resources you use up.

Britain has no divine right to be one of the richest countries in the world.

The greatest difficulty with the world is not its ability to produce, but the unwillingness to share.

Income inequity has to be addressed.

The only way to have a better world and end poverty is by closing the gap between the top and the bottom.