There are strong forces around the globe decrying massive and growing wealth disparity with solutions that may not be as effective as the promises being made. Elevated inflation and stagnating wages have hurt many, at all levels, but especially the poor. Today, the world will anoint a new mascot for this and I will call this person Marie Antoinette II.

Anytime there is chatter about extreme wealth disparity, Marie Antoinette's name inevitably emerges. However, historians generally don't consider Marie Antoinette a bad person. Her biggest downfall was being profoundly out of touch and politically naive. She was heavily scapegoated by revolutionary propaganda. Did you know she didn't say "Let them eat cake"?  It was a well worn folklore trope attributed to a generic princess by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau years before she even arrived in France.

Contrary to the caricature of a cruel aristocrat, she frequently donated to the poor, established a home for unwed mothers, paid off the debts of struggling families on royal estates and adopted orphaned children. Even her spending was exaggerated: Pamphleteers dubbed her "Madame Déficit" and blamed her wardrobe and gambling habits for France's financial collapse. Her personal expenses actually accounted for a very small fraction of France's massive national debt. Good intentions and perceptions are often not aligned.  She was a teenager thrust into a foreign court and isolated herself by ignoring traditional French etiquette, engaged in reckless gambling to cope with her unhappy marriage and remained completely oblivious to the dire poverty of the masses outside the palace gates.

Do the ultra-wealthy have a similar problem today? Really lousy PR and a machine determined to scapegoat them for all the world's ails? Of course, there are some who have genuinely bad intentions and abuse the system. Are tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy the sole cause of wealth disparity or is this a much more complex issue, mostly around corrupt lawmakers and accelerated rising costs versus decades old stagnating wages? Are elections decided by a few of the rich when millions vote or are too many voters lazy about doing their own research and too easily influenced? Are the politicians who promise the government as the solution for all, naive, and/or corrupt?

Perceptions matter. Scapegoats are powerful forces and red meat for politicians. When John Rockefeller lived, he too was decried as a monopolistic, tax-avoiding monster. Since his death about 90 years ago, his $900 million estate has grown to over $10 billion and continues to donate millions every year for multiple causes.

For those who believe in learning from history, how did Marie Antoinette's demise improve the lives of the poor? After she was beheaded in October 1793, France plunged into a chaotic period of the French Revolution characterized by state terror, hyperinflation, and ongoing starvation. Yup, often scapegoats are merely a token of much more complex, nuanced issues and challenges that require honest, complete inventory if we wish to seek real solutions. There is rarely just one cause of big problems.