Giridharadas uses the term “elite” in two ways within Winners Take All. First, “elite” points to the top economic strata of humanity, which includes those relatively few individuals who possess most of the wealth and power. Second, “elite” evokes a worldview that has grown because of this concentration of power: the belief of many individuals belonging to or connected to this wealthy, powerful minority that the same institutions and practices that allow their wealth and power to grow exponentially can be used to promote good for non-elites—without endangering elites’ status and control.

Inequality is the primary consequence of the enormous gap between wealthy, powerful elites and everyone else. Giridharadas notes that because of factors including but not limited to neoliberalism, free market policies, and political connections, “the fortunes of the world’s billionaires now grow at more than double the pace of everyone else’s, and the top 10 percent of humanity have come to hold 90 percent of the planet’s wealth” (5). The remaining 10% of the world’s wealth is distributed over 90% of the world’s population, meaning that vast differences exist between the fortunes of elites and non-elites. Throughout Winners Take All, Giridharadas suggests some of the consequences of this inequality for non-elites, which include stagnated wages, shrinking possibilities for improving socioeconomic status, increasing difficulty accessing resources, feelings of disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction, and much more.