From Eton to life on Earth, how power and wealth harm society

Musa Okwonga makes no reference to the economic inequality that the existence of Eton and similar private schools has created and continues to create in this country (There’s a side to Eton you won’t read about in David Cameron’s memoirs, 21 September). Suggesting that Eton should inculcate compassion is downright patronising to the growing numbers of poor whose lives are destroyed and ambitions stifled by the privately educated. Wealthy families send their children to Eton to ensure they keep and increase their astonishing wealth by holding on to the levers of power in society. Government by former school chums ensures no one can know how wealthy they are, where that wealth came from, where it is stashed, and that fiscal policy is more than favourable.

Britain did not become one of the most economically unequal societies in Europe by accident. A privileged group of people want it that way, and it is no accident that they are involved in leaving the EU, because it is a direct threat to their wealth.
Dr Robin C Richmond
Bromyard, Herefordshire

• Leaving aside the issue of whether any “charity” boss should earn £270,000, the speech by Cheryl Giovannoni illustrates just why the Labour party should strip independent schools of their charitable status (Teach girls how to ask for a pay rise, says charity boss, 20 September). As you state, the Girls’ Day School Trust administers 23 private schools. Even its most ardent defender could not argue that this organisation does anything to encourage social mobility, never mind social justice. Of course women should “accept nothing less than salary equality”, but achieving this involves a lot more than teaching girls how to ask for a rise. Ending the gig economy and ensuring all workers have collectively negotiated contracts would be a better start.
Declan O’Neill
Oldham

• Once again, George Monbiot was essential reading (For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth, 19 September). However, I feel a caveat needs to be made on one point: “The assumption on which governments and economists operate is that everyone strives to maximise their wealth.”

No, the assumption for economists is that everyone strives to maximise their utility, ie their overall satisfaction. The problem comes from too many people forgetting or ignoring this fundamental principle of the subject, and giving wealth too much weight in the utility function. While it is probably true to say that some economists are guilty of this mistake, it is made by far more non-economists – and, regrettably, by far too many policymakers.
Dominic Rice
Sheffield

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition