Irene Montero: Is She a Thief?

The idea that wealth concentrates because it is taken from those who work, defended by Irene Montero, sparks a debate on value creation and economic inequality.

The **wealth** is not a fixed pie that a few divide at the expense of others. That, in essence, is the premise that appears to underpin **Irene Montero** when she states that wealth concentration occurs because it is stolen from those who create it. It is, undoubtedly, a simple idea that resonates with part of the electorate seeking direct explanations for inequality. However, this simplified view clashes head-on with the complexity of economics and value creation dynamics.

## The Left's Paradox and Luxury

If we accept the premise that all accumulated wealth implies theft, then anyone enjoying luxuries—from a high-end car to a certain sized home—would, by definition, be unjustly appropriating what belongs to others. This presents an interesting paradox for the left. When public figures from this political spectrum are criticized for possessing luxury goods, the response is often that there is no reason only the right has enjoyed them. But if wealth is generated solely through expropriation, as the theory suggests, then a left-wing politician holding considerable assets would find themselves in an unsustainable position. They would essentially be hypocritical, accumulating wealth through methods they preach combating.

The recent statement by **Irene Montero**, pointing to the 'super-rich' as the fundamental problem, rather than women or migrants, is part of a political context where anti-inequality rhetoric serves as a mobilization tool. However, this strategy can turn against itself if her own economic situation conflicts with her discourse. The need to maintain a certain standard of living, which includes housing and education for her children, clashes with the idea that wealth is acquired through theft. If Podemos, as an organization, faces resource and position reductions, the struggle to maintain a privileged position within the party becomes crucial. The alternative, for someone accustomed to political life, could be a return to a less comfortable reality—something party politics, especially in formations with radical ideology, often promises to avoid.

## Wealth: Creation or Appropriation?

The idea that wealth concentrates because it is stolen from those who work implies that all the rich are, by default, thieves. This assertion, taken to the extreme, should include all wealthy individuals, regardless of their political ideology. The matter becomes complicated when trying to define who is 'rich.' If we trinc **Montero's** logic, and considering that her salary as an MEP is around **€135,000 annually** (a figure far above average), her own economic position would classify her as a 'thief' under her own criteria. The difference between her and other wealthy individuals would then be a matter of scale: a 'mid-level thief' versus those with greater assets.

However, economic reality is more nuanced. Wealth accumulation is rarely explained solely by a willingness to commit corruption or theft. Other factors contribute significantly to wealth generation, such as innovation, investment, productive efficiency, and calculated risk-taking. The left often presents a dualistic view: poverty breeds crime, but wealth is the product of theft. This dichotomy overly simplifies the complex causes of inequality and economic success. The class struggle, a central concept in Marxism, should it be considered hate crime? **Montero's** rhetoric, which seems to label a wide spectrum of the population as 'enemies,' raises questions about how many groups fall outside her critique.

## The Myth of the Zero-Sum Game and Prosperity

One fundamental error in the discourse demonizing wealth is the assumption that the economy operates under a zero-sum system. In this model, total wealth is fixed, and what some gain, others necessarily lose. This would imply that current wealth is no greater than it was centuries ago—an easily refutable idea. History demonstrates that the economy is dynamic and expansive. Socialism, in its various forms, has often shown the capacity to impoverish a population, although its leaders do not always amass fortunes comparable to those of the most successful capitalists.

Conversely, countries with higher living standards and general prosperity are consistently those where wealthy people abound. There is no prosperous country without a significant affluent class. Countries like the **United States**, as well as Scandinavian nations such as **Sweden**, **Norway**, **Denmark**, or the **Netherlands**, which rank among those with the highest percentage of millionaires per capita, are also places where the quality of life is notably high. The correlation between the presence of wealth and general well-being is an empirical fact that cannot be ignored.

The recent distinction that appears to be made by **Irene Montero** between 'rich' and 'super-rich' suggests a possible adaptation of her discourse. If she herself falls into the category of 'rich,' she may be seeking a new dividing line to avoid being targeted. The strategy of demonizing one group, only to perhaps ascend to a new category of 'enemy' (ultra-rich, turbo-rich), is a recurring tactic in certain political discourses. The important thing is that while the rhetoric focuses on demonization and division, the understanding of the real mechanisms of wealth creation and prosperity remains secondary.