The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Wealth Inequality.
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9729
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Müs [ Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Wealth Inequality.

I'm... not sure how I feel about this.

http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'd have a lot more respect for that video if it wouldn't swap back and forth between wealth and income.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Only thing about it that would bother me is if anyone is in their position for better or worse because wealth was directed there by coercive force.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:43 am ]
Post subject: 

Can we see the global one please? Also most of us would be in the "top 20%" on the global chart.

Here Mus, maybe this will make you feel better.

Image

source

not actually income inequity, but perhaps a better measure of how poor people actually are. I feel its not a zero sum game. I don't feel bad that someone has a million dollars and I don't either so I might not have the proper thinking on this.

Author:  Talya [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Rorinthas wrote:
not actually income inequity, but perhaps a better measure of how poor people actually are. I feel its not a zero sum game. I don't feel bad that someone has a million dollars and I don't either so I might not have the proper thinking on this.

Exactly. Wealth inequality is irrelevant.

It is better off if one person has a billion dollars, and the other 9 have between $20,000 and $100,000, than if ten people have $10.

Author:  RangerDave [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Talya wrote:
Wealth inequality is irrelevant.

Indeed. For example, I'm sure the concentration of wealth among people in the finance industry was totally irrelevant to the policy decisions regarding TARP and the rest of the financial bailouts. /sarcasm

I agree that absolute wealth matters more than relative wealth, at least up to a certain threshold of comfort. Nevertheless, the reality is that concentration of wealth = concentration of power, and that has both economic and political effects. Wealth inequality is not irrelevant to economic development or policy outcomes.

Author:  DFK! [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Wealth inequality is not irrelevant to economic development or policy outcomes.


Presuming your presence is correct, I ask: "so?"

Author:  Müs [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Talya wrote:
Rorinthas wrote:
not actually income inequity, but perhaps a better measure of how poor people actually are. I feel its not a zero sum game. I don't feel bad that someone has a million dollars and I don't either so I might not have the proper thinking on this.

Exactly. Wealth inequality is irrelevant.

It is better off if one person has a billion dollars, and the other 9 have between $20,000 and $100,000, than if ten people have $10.


How about if one person has half a billion dollars, and the other 9 have $250,000.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

It is an unsustainable situation.

Regardless, it seems to indicate substantial room for "taxing the rich" in terms of what they will be able to absorb before fleeing the country.

Author:  Aizle [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Talya wrote:
Rorinthas wrote:
not actually income inequity, but perhaps a better measure of how poor people actually are. I feel its not a zero sum game. I don't feel bad that someone has a million dollars and I don't either so I might not have the proper thinking on this.

Exactly. Wealth inequality is irrelevant.


Actually, no it's not.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Author:  Diamondeye [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wealth Inequality.

We discussed his ideas before.

Regarding his book:
Quote:
Richard Reeves in The Guardian called the book "a thorough-going attempt to demonstrate scientifically the benefits of a smaller gap between rich and poor", but said there were problems with the book's approach. "Drawing a line through a series of data points signals nothing concrete about statistical significance [...] since they do not provide any statistical analyses, this can't be verified."


Quote:
In 2010, Tino Sanandaji and others wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which they said, "when we attempted to duplicate their findings with data from the U.N. and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we found no such correlation".[21] The same group of researchers published a report for the Taxpayer's Alliance providing details of their data analysis and coming to the conclusion that "the most straightforward measure of health simply has no robust correlation to income inequality when comparing industrialized countries using standard OECD and UN statistics".


There's further questions as to why he excludes certain countries such as South Korea and the Czech Republic from his data, and in any case, he is one expert in the field and there is far from consensus.

The "wealth inequality" argument inevitably falls afoul of the simple fact that absolute wealth is far more important than relative wealth. Even the very poor in this country are far better off than the vast majority of truly poor on a world scale.

Author:  Taskiss [ Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Talya wrote:
Wealth inequality is irrelevant.

Indeed. For example, I'm sure the concentration of wealth among people in the finance industry was totally irrelevant to the policy decisions regarding TARP and the rest of the financial bailouts. /sarcasm

I agree that absolute wealth matters more than relative wealth, at least up to a certain threshold of comfort. Nevertheless, the reality is that concentration of wealth = concentration of power, and that has both economic and political effects. Wealth inequality is not irrelevant to economic development or policy outcomes.

Seems your theory would play out that if each citizen had equal wealth then each would have equal power and influence.

Seems I've heard that theory before...and I don't think the reality matched the outcome you seem to suggest it should.

Author:  Talya [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:32 am ]
Post subject: 

In almost every attempt to artificially reduce wealth inequality that forms naturally in capitalism, you reduce the prosperity of all, including the poorest of society.

Author:  Khross [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Wealth Inequality.

Rule #1: Resources are finite.

Rule #2: As long as resources are finite, scarcity is an economic factor.

Rule #3: The Law of Supply and Demand is not merely a political inconvenience.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/