The evolution of central banking and currencies to the system of globalized Neoliberal capital is predicated on what came before in terms of eliminating multiple local currencies to induce scarcity (See Pt. I). The worth and fluctuation of the selected central currency could then be determined by assorted manipulations, e.g. such as in the present Federal Reserve era in the U.S. with the Fed’s quantitative easing program that has ‘juiced’ the stock market to unheard of highs – while depriving savers of income. In this way the Fed deliberately super-charged the financial landscape in favor of speculation over safe saving.
Conversely, the Fed has been able to create scarcity when it wants to – say by implementation of deflationary policies. Much of the Fed’s basis and purpose has been discussed at length by James Livingstone in his monograph 'Origins of the Federal Reserve System- Money, Class and Corporate Capitalism’, 1890-1913. As he observes on, p. 233:
"...the creation of the Federal Reserve is an episode in, or evidence for, the emergence of a modern ruling class.. "
As Rushkoff points out (op. cit., p. 171):
“To this day, the bias of centralized currency is toward scarcity and hoarding. This slows down the rate at which money circulates, while concentrating wealth at the top.”
"The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative. In times of crisis, however, that premise cannot be sustained politically. In times of trouble it is human nature to seek security and protection and to be drawn toward those who promise to provide it. That is how men such as Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin came to power, with disastrous consequences."
Since this difference exists, Vilfredo Pareto argued more power must be given to those higher util dollars. Today this would mean dispensing with government subsidies like food stamps, unemployment insurance or welfare. It also would also mean cuts to Social Security since by Pareto Optimality it wasn’t right for old codgers to simply collect money for breathing every day – as opposed to investing or working for it.
Of course, once the Neolibs can get rid of all “entitlements” that all might be changed. These so-called entitlements are the main bulwark now standing between a barely surviving Middle Class in the U.S. (which has already been overtaken by Canada's Middle Class, not surprisingly) and one that goes under. In that future all seniors will only receive a "welfare" pittance, and will have to work in some manner if they want to live at a decent level.
The bottom line is that the Neoliberal imperative as I’ve described it is what’s responsible for generating massive income inequality. While Thomas Piketty’s factors (i.e. inherited wealth) do enter, they are not as historically cogent as the ones Douglas Rushkoff points out that preceded them – especially the original move to centralized currencies and banking.