So, the U.S. government has by now dumped all or most of the files—emails, photos, the usual sordid fare—linked to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier, sex offender, and all-round parasite. At the time of his death in 2019, Epstein was worth somewhere between $500 and $700 million. That kind of money doesn’t just buy you private jets and island retreats; it buys you immunity—or at least the illusion of it. And judging by the guest lists, you’d be forgiven for wondering who in the upper echelons of business, politics, and showbiz wasn’t clinking glasses with him.

Now, rubbing shoulders with Epstein wasn’t a crime in itself. But let’s not kid ourselves: how many of these glittering acquaintances were blissfully ignorant of his extracurricular activities? Ghislaine Maxwell certainly wasn’t. The former socialite—daughter of Robert Maxwell, who himself was hardly a paragon of virtue—is currently serving 20 years in a cushy Florida prison for supplying Epstein with underage girls. A family tradition of moral bankruptcy, you might say.

The spotlight on Epstein drags an old, uncomfortable question back into view: does obscene wealth rot the soul, or does it simply give people the means to act on impulses they’ve always had? The easy answer is to howl with moral outrage—“the rich are worse!”—but reality is messier. Money doesn’t conjure depravity out of thin air; it just turbocharges it and wraps it in a bulletproof vest.

Research tells us what common sense already knows: power breeds entitlement, erodes empathy, and makes rules feel optional. There’s even a term for it—“moral licensing”—the smug belief that success equals superiority, or that past achievements excuse present sins. When your life is a parade of deference and exemption, ethics become negotiable. And why wouldn’t they? If every door opens for you, why bother knocking?

Let’s be clear: the rich aren’t uniquely wicked. Corruption and exploitation are democratically distributed across all income brackets. The difference is that the wealthy can indulge their worst instincts with near-zero risk. Ordinary mortals face consequences; billionaires outsource them—to lawyers, PR flacks, hush money, and political cronies. Wealth isn’t a moral toxin—it’s a moral anaesthetic. It numbs the sting of accountability.

And Epstein didn’t operate in isolation. His crimes were a team sport. A whole ecosystem of enablers—motivated by greed, fear, or the desperate hope of basking in borrowed glamour—kept the machine running. Institutions that should have slammed the brakes—law enforcement, media, even the so-called “elite” social circles—chose complicity over confrontation. In these rarefied worlds, silence is rebranded as discretion, and scepticism dismissed as envy.

But let’s not pretend every millionaire is a monster. Plenty of wealthy people behave decently. The real issue isn’t the size of the bank account—it’s the absence of checks and balances. Ethics thrive where power is constrained, not where virtue is assumed. A billionaire under scrutiny may act better than a mid-level crook in a rotten system. Accountability, not income, is the dividing line.

What Epstein’s saga really exposes is our cultural worship of wealth. We’ve built a society that equates money with intelligence, trustworthiness, even moral worth. That deference creates blind spots big enough to fly a private jet through. When the rich are treated as exceptions, they start believing they are—above rules, above scrutiny, above basic decency.

The takeaway? Stop pretending wealth equals virtue. Tear down the illusion. Demand transparency, enforce laws without fear or favour, and keep institutions independent. Because without those guardrails, money becomes a distortion field—bending norms, shielding abuses, and turning scandals into inevitabilities.

Epstein doesn’t prove the rich are inherently worse. He proves something far more chilling: when wealth collides with power and accountability collapses, ordinary human failings metastasise into extraordinary harm. The problem isn’t money—it’s a system that lets money masquerade as morality. And until we fix that, expect more Epsteins. Different names, same story.

2 Comments

  1. I think you also need to think of the popular story that Epstein was a totally evil human being.
    I mean, he’d have had to have risen up the ranks in his work, which displays competence and which doesn’t happen if you alienate people. And some notable “friends” maintained their friendship with him long after it would have been prudent to break off contact.
    He may have done some nasty things but I think he also must have had a good side, just to elicit those reactions.

    Like

  2. He may have had a good side, that’s true, but if you read up on his career and how he got his fortune, there are a great deal of unanswered questions, starting with his never fully explained departure from Bear Stearns in 1981 and the origins of his astonishingly large fortune afterwards for what was basically a one-man money management firm. There also are unanswered questions regarding his relationship with Les Wexner…

    I think the truth is much simpler: Power and wealth attract and equally blind people ands maybe provide them with a false certainty that standard conventions and possibly laws do not apply to them. Therefore the fact that they stuck with him may say more about the morals of his ‘friends’ who stuck with him even knowing of his antics.

    Like

Leave a reply to Grumpy Old Man Cancel reply