Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

cbpp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#111

Post by dragonwriter »

commandlinefan wrote: post #106
dragonwriter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there an inherent problem with income inequality? Yes, because once you get past the truly abject absolute poverty (which isn't an issue for most of the developed world), there's a lot of indication that experienced utility or disutility is driven more by relative material position than absolute position. So, yes, outside of very poor economies (where absolute gains that increase inequality may still improve uti…

Well, I think what he's saying (which I don't necessarily disagree with) is that if I have everything I need, what difference does it make to me - besides jealousy - if the guy down the street has more than he needs?

It's a common a priori moral argument about how many people think people should derive utility from material circumstances, sure, but “stop feeling pain from relative deprivation” is about as effective as “stop feeling pain from me twisting your arm”, even if you think it is morally obligatory for people to disregard having their arm twisted.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#112

Post by 0181109 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #54
0181109 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because the implementations tried have failed so badly. If people distanced themselves from the hammer and sickle, communism could possibly be given another chance but in the meantime it looks like people showing that icon either don't know about history or they have explained it away quite callously.

> Probably because the implementations tried have failed so badly Implementations of Leninism did, sure, but (deliberate mislabeling aside), I'm not sure what that has to do with Marc, since Leninism rejected the preconditions Marx laid out and altered the approach to address the changed preconditions. Leninism is farther from Marxism than the near-universal abandonment of the system Marx named “capitalism” for moder…

Well could people who do understand Marx (by your interpretation, at least) do more in distancing themselves from Leninism and the hammer and sickle?

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#113

Post by merlincorey »

beat wrote: post #92
fixermark wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, attempts have been made to translate the revolution part of his ideas into functional policy at least twice now and both events have included massive violence (and one has followed up that massive violence with a general mismanagement of public resources to the detriment of the "unconnected," not unlike the pain inflicted upon them by the previous ruling class). At this point, the burden of proof is on t…

I've done XP. It was awesome. As for the two attempts to implement Marxism (assuming you're speaking of Russia and China here)... in Russia, you can't separate it from Leninism and Stalinism. Is Marxism the problem, or the authoritarian government? China is more interesting. China is still ostensibly a Marxist nation, right? Per World Bank data I just looked up, China's per capita GDP (in constant US dollars) was low…

> There hasn't been large-scale political violence in China since the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. That ten-year period killed 5-10 million on the high end. Which is, of course, quite bad, but in comparison to the 50-80M that died in ostensibly capitalist Europe during WWII, it doesn't seem that outsized.

> So for burden of proof, I think you need to argue that an alternative model would have resulted in less political violence and more economic prosperity than that for China. Good luck.

The Communist China's Great Famine[0] is said to have caused the deaths of tens of millions of people, as much as 30-40M, depending on who is guesstimating.

I am not sure I would call that a triumph of economic prosperity for China.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2012/11/10/164732497/a-grim-chronicle-of...

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#114

Post by enraged_camel »

darawk wrote: post #94
enraged_camel wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>As a proposition it is as naive as trickle-up, which is what the other spectrum usually sells. ('if you give poor people more resources, its good for everyone') Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the economy.

> Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the economy. It has been well documented that when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society. Everyone's got a narra…

>>when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society.

You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as opposed to (or at least independent of) other factors, such as luck, inheritance, etc. You also need to prove that the way the rich allocate resources, even when "efficient" (i.e. provides the most return) is actually good for society as a whole, and not just the rich.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#115

Post by jahaja »

beat wrote: post #97
thanatropism wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a past life I went to film school at a very very left-leaning university and distinctly remember learning about Lukács, Gramsci and Althusser as a "Cultural Marxist" wave that was all about correcting the excessive emphasis on economics of previous orthodox marxism. So there -- not only the phrase makes perfect sense if you do read Gramsci like I have, it's been uttered by Marxist professors somewhere in the world…

The Frankfurt School, which coined the term "cultural Marxism", were German Marxists who survived WWI, saw the revolution fail in Germany and turn to Leninist/Stalinist horror in Russia, and tried to understand what went wrong. They were seeking a route to revolution that was not wracked with violence and dictatorship. Fascinating stuff, actually.

It doesn't seem helpful to say that the Frankfurt school coined the term when their academic use is so vastly different from the bullshit we see today.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#116

Post by Aunche »

jjoonathan wrote: post #9
WhompingWindows wrote: post #2

What's the best solution to this - if wealthy and high-income individuals get more power via political lobbying, they can then gain more wealth and higher incomes, gaining even more lobbying power. They can also flood the media with advertising money and propagandist messaging to convince voters to care more about less impactful issues. It feels like an endless cycle to me. Other than war or complete societal upheava…

I'm still amazed at how effectively we have collectively shunned thought along these lines by turning the founding father of the relevant branch of economical philosophy into a real life he-who-shall-not-be-named. Anyone who wants to talk about these problems either has to either re-invent the wheel or mention the unmentionable name and doom themselves to immediate dismissal as a kook.

The problem with Marxism is that there's always a way to game a system. The people who are opportunistic CEOs right now would find a way to be opportunistic as an official in a socialist government, except now they wouldn't be producing as much economic surplus. Marxists tend to hand wave this problem by claiming that a strong democracy would keep this in check. However, the world is too complicated, and people have neither the intelligence nor patience to make sure everyone is a good actor.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#117

Post by 0181109 »

beat wrote: post #92
fixermark wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, attempts have been made to translate the revolution part of his ideas into functional policy at least twice now and both events have included massive violence (and one has followed up that massive violence with a general mismanagement of public resources to the detriment of the "unconnected," not unlike the pain inflicted upon them by the previous ruling class). At this point, the burden of proof is on t…

I've done XP. It was awesome. As for the two attempts to implement Marxism (assuming you're speaking of Russia and China here)... in Russia, you can't separate it from Leninism and Stalinism. Is Marxism the problem, or the authoritarian government? China is more interesting. China is still ostensibly a Marxist nation, right? Per World Bank data I just looked up, China's per capita GDP (in constant US dollars) was low…

It is much closer to state capitalism. The economy boomed when Mao died and Deng Xiaoping brought about economic reforms.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#118

Post by AcerbicZero »

maxxxxx wrote: post #93
will_brown wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is the right holds Reagan as a shining example of fiscal conservatism. However, Reagan ultimately tripled the debt while in office. The right loved saying Obama spent more than all other presidents before him combined (which he did, which Bush did...but Reagan the model of fiscal conservatism spent 2x as all presidents who served before him).

Seems Trump is on the way to top that. That's one thing I never get about modern Republicans. When in opposition they throw a fit about deficits but as soon as they have power they forget these concerns but drive deficits up a lot. Reagan did it, Bush did it and now Trump is doing it too.

Its almost as if forcing (rational) people to select D or R via a number of single issue pivot points creates a situation where everyone is guilty of some level of hypocrisy.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#119

Post by wuliwong »

maneesh wrote: post #89

I posted my take on this recently on Facebook. (And I recently gave a TedX talk on the same concept entitled "Money: The Greatest Story Ever Told" [1]) Here is an image of the entire world's Money supply [2]. In my eyes, the majority shift occurred due to two things: 1) Ending the gold standard peg 2) Creation of the derivative market 1 --- Ending the Gold Standard Peg In 1971, Nixon severed the connection between Go…

Glad to see someone mention the "temporary" cessation of the dollar's convertibility to gold. From my perspective that would mark the most important event for this topic but it is hardly discussed.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#120

Post by darawk »

enraged_camel wrote: post #114
darawk wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Incorrect. It has been well-documented that when people have more disposable income, their spending increases. This increase in economic activity grows the economy. It has been well documented that when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society. Everyone's got a narra…

>>when you give people who have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital (i.e. the rich) more capital, they continue to allocate it to its best and most productive use for society. You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as oppo…

> You are making some wild assumptions that require evidence. Specifically, you need to prove that the reason rich people are rich is because they "have proven themselves capable of efficiently allocating capital", as opposed to (or at least independent of) other factors, such as luck, inheritance, etc.

I'm not making any assumptions. In aggregate, by definition, wealthy people are better at allocating capital than non-wealthy people. Yes, not all wealthy people are good at it. But in general, they are. That's why they're wealthy. The fact that exceptions exist is irrelevant to my point.

> You also need to prove that the way the rich allocate resources, even when "efficient" (i.e. provides the most return) is actually good for society as a whole, and not just the rich.

Do you have evidence that the way the poor allocate additional capital is more socially useful?

Post reply on HN