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

151–160 of 196 posts

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

#151

Post by boomboomsubban »

JoshuaDavid wrote: post #149
boomboomsubban wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Given that you don’t know what would occur without reagonimics, even that much isn’t safe to say. Yes, I can. The current situation seems undesirable. While it's possible that the situation would be worse without Reaganomics, the actual situation is still undesirable. Looking towards the future, it seems unwise to continue a plan that led to undesirable results.

Your argument proves too much. Consider the following example: > You are diagnosed with Type II Diabetes. Your doctor tells you to monitor your blood sugar and take insulin. This situation seems undesirable. While it is possible that the situation would be worse without monitoring your blood sugar and taking insulin, the actual situation is still undesirable. Looking towards the future, it seems unwise to continue a…

If Reaganomics came from a trained professional who were basing their recommendations on the best theory science had developed through experimentation, I would not advocate changing the policy. That is not the case though, as we both agree that reliable evidence is scant.

Going forward, there isn't a great theory showing that Reaganomics is worth continuing, and the hypothesis that different policies would provide a better outcome seems worthy of testing.

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

#152

Post by darawk »

enraged_camel wrote: post #150
darawk wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That can be achieved by being born with the right parents, not necessarily by doing intelligent things. Again, exceptions are irrelevant. We're talking about the aggregate here.

You have yet to prove that those are exceptions.

That's because it's self-evident. People get rich by allocating capital effectively. QED.

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

#153

Post by darawk »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #147
darawk wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its a generally well documented trend that once rich it becomes difficult to actually fall out of wealth. I'd definitely love some unbiased research in how much better these purported rich people are better at allocating capital. Huh? The fact that they're rich is proof. > Because I can easily start naming microeconomically selfish ways of managing capital that the wealthy practice on the regular that it is no way…

> Huh? The fact that they're rich is proof. A certain popular politician/business owner has filed bankruptcy 6 times. > Sure, but they had to get rich in the first place. That's easy, just be born that way.

Again...the fact that some people are born that way does not preclude the fact that the aggregate group has better capital allocation capabilities than the average person.

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

#154

Post by danharaj »

merlincorey wrote: post #113
beat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

There were never famines under capitalist rule.

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

#155

Post by enraged_camel »

darawk wrote: post #152
enraged_camel wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have yet to prove that those are exceptions.

That's because it's self-evident. People get rich by allocating capital effectively. QED.

What is self-evident is that you're just trolling, and have no interest in actual discourse. QED.

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

#156

Post by conanbatt »

claudiawerner wrote: post #91
GabrielBen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Karl Marx was wrong, really wrong. About almost everything he modeled. Labor theory value did not stand academic or practical scrutiny. The reserve army idea is frankly, plain off the mark. He contributed a great challenge to economics with his ideas, having to work towards rebuttal and debunking of his simple, yet appealing models.

>Labor theory value did not stand academic or practical scrutiny. It seems to be standing academic scrutiny today, at least, it is debated to be. Kliman's[0] Temporal Single System Interpretation of Marx, upheld by Alan Freeman, David Laibman and Guglielmo Carchedi is one example which also attempts to solve for the transformation problem. On the other hand, Paul Cockshott has written on the empirical validity from t…

I've saved the references and plan to take a solid look at them. I stand by my criticism at the moment, even as an avid and interested reader in Das Kapital.

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

#157

Post by conanbatt »

beat wrote: post #107
conanbatt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This mad-max painting of economics is not really true. Since the 80's, global wealth exploded like nothing else. Extreme poverty face an erradication unlike any other period. Recently it was published that for the first time, the majority of the world is middle class. Ever.

Globally, not locally. I've read Factfulness and felt profoundly inspired by Hans Rosling's insights, but he's talking about the nations who are catching up, not the nations at the top. I suspect what happens is that nations climb out of the steady-state of poverty, and into the steady-state of fully modern economies, and the growth rate ceases. At that point, the powers in control of the flow of money become ever mo…

It's one way to look at it, and you will find multiple macro-models that will sustain some ideas, for example the increasing weight of government or how captured economies become. But globalization has definitely been a huge cause of stagnant wages in developed countries and sky-rocketing poverty reduction in the rest of the world.

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

#158

Post by conanbatt »

RobertoG wrote: post #74
conanbatt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trickle down economics is a pejorative term from the 30's. 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') Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither.

>>'if you give poor people more resources, its good for everyone') It's not 'poor people' vs. 'rich people' but the majority vs. a minority. >>"Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither." Economics? what do you mean? There are theories that, in a less simplistic way, come to propose one and the other.

> It's not 'poor people' vs. 'rich people' but the majority vs. a minority.

As silly a proposition as any other.

> Economics? what do you mean? There are theories that, in a less simplistic way, come to propose one and the other.

Mostly politicians and pundits. Economics, neither the mathematically inclined microeconomics nor the formulaic and macroeconomics have such thought or principles behind them.

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

#159

Post by conanbatt »

djrobstep wrote: post #72
conanbatt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trickle down economics is a pejorative term from the 30's. 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') Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither.

> Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither. I will never understand how adults can believe that things like economics, journalism, central banking, and (especially) the US constitution can be non-political.

I am surprised on people that believe politics shape reality, as if a political will could bend laws of nature.

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

#160

Post by conanbatt »

enraged_camel wrote: post #80
conanbatt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trickle down economics is a pejorative term from the 30's. 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') Economics, as the expression of human beings exchanging with each other, accepts neither.

>>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.

If they have more disposable income, their spending decreases. If you have no disposable income, your spending 100% of your income.

Moreover even if that proposition were somehow true, spending is not a measure of progress of any kind, not nominally and not in real terms. Inflation is a good exercise on this topic.

It's a funny thing that trickle-up is never ridiculed in the public eye.

Post reply on HN