Screw 'em if they hate us
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 09:13
VIEWED: 19860
PAGE 28 of 30
Quote:Geezer, Geezer. You wouldn't be deliberately using crap stats, would you?
This is interesting. The poorest 30% of the Danish population pays 14.1% of taxes collected(US 6.3%). The middle 40% pays 37.2% (US 28.4%). The top 30% pays just 48.7% (US 65.3%, #3 in the world behind France and Ireland.)
These are botched statistics. The reason WHY the top 30% of the USA pays more taxes in because our underlying income distribution is so much more uneven than any other developed nation. The Gini index, which is one measure of income inequality, has increased in the USA from 0.394 in 970 to 0.462 in 2000 (and is prolly even higer now) while the Gini index in Denamrk is only 0.247.
In fact, nations that "do well" tend to have lower Gini indexes (more even income distribution) altho not inevitably so.
Hungary: 0.244
Denmark: 0.247
Japan: 0.249
Sweden: 0.250
Germany: 0.283
India: 0.325
France: 0.327
Canada: 0.331
Australia: 0.352
UK: 0.360
http://people.stfx.ca/mgerriet/econ241/Gini% 20coefficient%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.htm
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As good a place as any, I think.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142115.htm
The Economics Of Nice Folks
ScienceDaily (June 19, 2008) — A basic tenet of economics is that people always behave selfishly, or as the 18th century philosopher economist David Hume put it, "every man ought to be supposed to be a knave."
But what if some people aren't always knaves?
Sam Bowles argues in Science June 20 that economics will get it wrong then, sometimes badly so. He points to new experimental evidence that people do often act against their own personal self-interest in favor of the common good, and they do so in predictable, understandable ways. Poorly-designed economic institutions fail to take advantage of intrinsic moral behavior and often undermine it.
Take this example: Six day care centers imposed a fine on parents who picked their children up late. The effect? Tardiness doubled, and it stayed high even when the fine was removed. Parents, it seems, stopped seeing lateness as an imposition on teachers, and instead saw it as something that could be purchased with no moral failing.
Another example is a study this year which showed that women donated blood less frequently when they were paid for it than when it was an act of charity.
These examples show that economists ignore human altruism at their peril. Standard economic theory assumes that incentives that appeal to self-interest won't affect any natural altruism that may exist, but that assumption is clearly wrong. Bowles discusses the research to date that helps to explain when and why that assumption breaks down.
As the world becomes more interconnected and the resulting challenges to humanity increase, learning to harness these altruistic impulses becomes even more important, Bowles says. So the economists' "holy grail," to learn to design institutions and policies to direct the selfish impulses of individuals to public ends, "will be necessary but insufficient," Bowles says. "The moral nature of humans must also be recognized, cultivated, and empowered."
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You wouldn't be deliberately using crap stats, would you?
These are botched statistics.
Take that up with Nationmaster. It's their numbers.
And yes, the richest are a bit richer and the poorest a bit poorer in the US. The government doesn't take quite as much money from everyone and give it to the poor here. That's government, not economy. Has nothing to do with capitalist economy versus socialist economy.
Edit to add: You left out a few countries with low GINI indexes. The Czech Republic at 25.4, Slovakia at 25.81, Bosnia and Herzegovina at 26.15, Ukraine at 28.06. Not sure if these qualify as success stories. SignyM, SIgnyM. Could you be cherry-picking your stats?
Edited again to add:
Lets not forget Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ethiopia, Kyrgystan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Albania, Mongolia, Moldova, Bangladesh, Yemen, and Armenia. Maybe GINI index isn't the best measure of countries which are "doing well"?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
To me, your economic philosophy boils down to this:
If I have the skill, drive, or just good luck to make a lot of money, and you don't, you want the government to take my money and give it to you until we both have the same.
I can see why you'd like that, but why should I?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh yeah Geezer, you're justing using someone else's stats. You have no responsibility for which one you choose.
Take that up with Nationmaster. It's their numbers.
Quote:A bit???
And yes, the richest are a bit richer and the poorest a bit poorer in the US
That's like saying the dead are a bit sicker than the living! Okay Geezer, you tell me... HOW MUCH is that? Show me, in numbers, what percentage of the economy the upper upper centile has here as opposed to there (the EU).
Quote:And YOU left out the countries with high Ginis: Sierra Leone 62.9; Central African Republic 61.3; Brazil 60.7; Nicaragua 60.3; South Africa 59.3; Bolivia 58.9; Paraguay 57.7; Colombia 57.1; Chile 56.7;Honduras 56.3; Lesotho 56.0; Guatemala 55.8; Mexico 53.1; Zambia 52.6; El Salvador 52.2; Papua New Guinea 50.9; Nigeria 50.6' Mali 50.5; Niger 50.5; Zimbabwe 50.1.
You left out a few countries with low GINI indexes: the Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ethiopia, Kyrgystan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Albania, Mongolia, Moldova, Bangladesh, Yemen, and Armenia.
All things considered, I'd rather live in the Czech Republic than in Sierra Leone. So, yeah... in general nations with low Ginis tend to do better than nations with high Ginis, altho not inevitably so. There have been many detailed, honest and thoughtful studies on this point, more than I can post about here. Feel free to research the topic.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
your economic philosophy boils down to this: If I have the skill, drive, or just good luck to make a lot of money, and you don't, you want the government to take my money and give it to you until we both have the same.
Geezer, you failed to understand a jot of what I said.
Capitalism runs on the flow of money. Think of it as a turbine in a stream. If money stops flowing the turbine stops turning.
But the thing that's hard for people to understand is that, under capitalism, money doesn't "run downhill".... it runs upwards. It flows to the wealthy as profit. That allows the already wealthy to take control of more and more of the economy... fewer and fewer become richer and richer. So when "the lower classes" run out of spendable money consumption drops and people get laid off. Consumption drops further, and more people get laid off and that dynamic leads to a crash.
Henry Ford... a successful capitalist... recognized this dynamic at the beginning of the Great Depression. He tried to turn the tide by keeping his factory running and continuing to pay good wages because he knew that the economy depended on people going out and buying things. If HE could recognize, you should be able to wrap you pro-capitalist brain around it too. The problem was, Ford by himself wasn't enough to turn the tide.
Keynes also recognized this dynamic. Although he wasn't Roosevelt's advisor, Roosevelt heard of Keynes' theory and realized that the only way to get the economy going again was "pump priming" ... putting enough $$$ back into the hands of the average person so that they would once again go out and shop. What he didn't realize was how much $$$ needed to be injected into the economy. Eventually a full-flown war effort ignited a boom.
If you were to look at our Gini index, you would see a sharp rise in the 1920s peaking at 1929, and a significant flattening in the 30;s, 40,s and 50's. We have been creeping up the Gini index since then, until last year, when we were right back at 1929 levels.
But there are major differences between then and now. One of them is that our current deficit is HUGE, the other is that with China breathing down our neck the dollar is set to transition away from being "the" world currency.
I'm trying to point to an economic transition of historic proportions, and all you can think is that I'm jealous???
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Show me, in numbers, what percentage of the economy the upper upper centile has here as opposed to there (the EU).
Why bother? If I do show that there's not much difference between the US and your favorite country of the week in some particular area, you'll just say those aren't valid statistics, just like you did above.
Percent of income received by the richest 10% could mean inequality, or it could mean nobody's making any money. The country with the lowest % is Slovakia, with not great economic figures otherwise. Same with poorest 10%, with Slovakia again showing up with the highest percent of income. So is Slovakia the best place to be?
Quote:
And YOU left out the countries with high Ginis: Sierra Leone 62.9; Central African Republic 61.3; Brazil 60.7; Nicaragua 60.3; South Africa 59.3; Bolivia 58.9; Paraguay 57.7; Colombia 57.1; Chile 56.7;Honduras 56.3; Lesotho 56.0; Guatemala 55.8; Mexico 53.1; Zambia 52.6; El Salvador 52.2; Papua New Guinea 50.9; Nigeria 50.6' Mali 50.5; Niger 50.5; Zimbabwe 50.1.
All quite a bit higher than the US. Most 'doing well' countries have GINI indexes between mid 20s and low 40s.
Quote:
All things considered, I'd rather live in the Czech Republic than in Sierra Leone.
But this thread's about the US. Would you rather live in the Czech Republic than the US?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Why bother? If I do show that there's not much difference between the US and your favorite country of the week in some particular area, you'll just say those aren't valid statistics, just like you did above.
Why bother? How about... to prove your point? (Which BTW you can't). But hey... whenever you're interested in having an honest discussion let me know.
The reason WHY so many governments have instituted high minimum wages and social welfare reforms is to create a kind of "capital recirculation pump"... putting $$ back into the hands of people who will go out and spend.
Fletch used to argue that profit seamlessly filtered its way back down into the economy. It doesn't and all one has to do is point to our Gini to see that. (And I haven't heard Fletch claim that lately either.)
Money can be put back into the hands of the consumer thru several means: high wages and active income redistribution, credit, or speculation. What speculation does is allow people to spend money they don't actually have... in the 1920's it was their stock value in the 2000's it was their home value. Speculation creates, in essence an alternate currency... funny money. But because there is no backing to this alternate currency it can collapse overnight. Any boom fueled by speculation will also fizzle.
Economists... even well-respected institutional economists... are talking about "the worst
I'm trying to point to an economic transition of historic proportions and all you can say is that I'm jealous???.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, you failed to understand a jot of what I said.
Maybe you need to work on your presentation?
Quote:
Capitalism runs on the flow of money. Think of it as a turbine in a stream. If money stops flowing the turbine stops turning.
All economies run on the flow of money, or of a money analogue. Big deal.
Quote:
But the thing that's hard for people to understand is that, under capitalism, money doesn't "run downhill".... it runs upwards. It flows to the wealthy as profit.
And they stuff it in their matress and don't do anything with it.
Or... they invest it in other businesses which pay wages to people. Or they build libraries. Or they donate large chunks of it to charity. Or all three. Or lots of other stuff. Wealthy people got nothing in common with each other except they're wealthy. You see them as a unified bloc of clones, from Ben & Jerry to the Waltons to Bill Gates.
Quote:
putting enough $$$ back into the hands of the average person so that they would once again go out and shop.
By taking that money from the more successful people, yep.
Quote:
I'm trying to point to an economic transition of historic proportions, and all you can think is that I'm jealous???
No. I think you consider your motives to be of the highest. That still doesn't change the fact that you want to penalize the people who are able to make money so you can subsidize the spending of those who aren't.
What's strange to me is that you don't realize that you can do this within a capitalist economic system just as effectively (or even more effectively, since there's more money moving around). Sweden is actually a pretty good example. Just tax the hell out of the rich corporations and capitalists and upper-middle class, and send the money down the line to the poor in the form of subsidized services or government jobs. If you don't make it too onerous to the rich folk, you can milk them for enough to keep your social welfare government cranking.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or they speculate with it, which is what just happened with the housing boom. Because seeing no place to invest in production (wages) they hitched their money to the fastest-growing segment they could find. Same with gold.
And they stuff it in their matress and don't do anything with it. Or... they invest it in other businesses which pay wages to people. Or they build libraries. Or they donate large chunks of it to charity. Or all three.
You have such an profound assumption that capitalism is perfectly self-regulating and always leads to a "happy ending" that you just can't see the essential conundrum at its base... a conundrum we meet with every economic collapse.
Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around. W/o it, capitalism collapses. Our older generations learned that lesson from Herbet Hoover (who BTW was a profound tax cutter and a great believer in "trickle down" policy). And thanks to GWB- who did a fine job of kicking apart the system that kept the economy from collapsing- we get a chance to learn that lesson all over again.
But yanno what? I'm not going to convince you. Events will speak for themselves, and if you're smart you'll learn from them.
---------------------------------
WOOOO HOOOO!!! Let's party like it's 1929!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME