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

161–170 of 196 posts

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

#161

Post by conanbatt »

ryandrake wrote: post #99
GabrielBen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something that economists have debated over for decades since. Stiglitz specifically attacks Reagan on that front. Milton Friedman defends it. Reagan was the last president to make a deep impact change in how economics and politics relate. He was unique in the way he self-deprecated government, something that is truly rare for presidents. He would actively advocate the government was the problem not the solut…

I’m an 80’s kid, and don’t remember the specific rhetoric, but my question has always been: if you dont believe in an organization, why join it and try to ruin it for everyone? Why be president if you think government is bad? I mean, I think the KKK is bad and should go away, but I’m not going to go try to be it’s leader.

OTOH, there is the adage that says that nobody that wants power should hold it - that the best leader is the reluctant one.

He has some magnificent quotes: contrary to the president "with the best words" he was actually a great public orator.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Government_Re...

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

#162

Post by conanbatt »

dragonwriter wrote: post #82
GabrielBen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something that economists have debated over for decades since. Stiglitz specifically attacks Reagan on that front. Milton Friedman defends it. Reagan was the last president to make a deep impact change in how economics and politics relate. He was unique in the way he self-deprecated government, something that is truly rare for presidents. He would actively advocate the government was the problem not the solut…

> He was unique in the way he self-deprecated government, This is false on two levels: First, Reagan was not a monarch who shared personality with the State, so any deprecation of government he did was not self-deprecation Second, he is not at all unique in that. Bush (43 more than 41) and Trump have done much the same, and even Clinton did it off and on.

What's 43 more than 41?

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

#163

Post by djrobstep »

conanbatt wrote: post #159
djrobstep wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you think economics is about "laws of nature", then you have a lot to learn about economics.

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

#164

Post by djrobstep »

darkerside wrote: post #34

Is there an inherent problem with income inequality? Would you rather live in: * World 1, where everybody has x, except one person has 100x * World 2, where everybody has .5x and is thus totally equal (I realize assets and income are not equal, but I think the point stands)

What is it that motivates you to be a bootlicker for the rich?

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

#165

Post by dragonwriter »

conanbatt wrote: post #162
dragonwriter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was unique in the way he self-deprecated government, This is false on two levels: First, Reagan was not a monarch who shared personality with the State, so any deprecation of government he did was not self-deprecation Second, he is not at all unique in that. Bush (43 more than 41) and Trump have done much the same, and even Clinton did it off and on.

What's 43 more than 41?

The Bush that, like Reagan, talked down the (non-national-security, non-law-enforcement parts of) government.

That is, George W. Bush (the 43rd President) more than George H. W. Bush (the 41st).

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

#166

Post by GabrielBen »

will_brown wrote: post #61
digitalmaster wrote: post #8

So looks like the 80s is when things start going south (increased income inequality) so I looked up who was president during that time, then looked at their wiki page to see their economic policy and found this gem of a quote: "Soon after taking office, Reagan began implementing sweeping new political and economic initiatives. His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics", advocated tax rate reduction to sp…

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).

Reagan's deficit increase comes mostly due to military spending, something that was regarded as extremely strategically important in an era of potential nuclear holocaust.

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

#167

Post by conanbatt »

RobertoG wrote: post #83
djrobstep wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because that idea (about economics) has been heavily, and successfully, pushed by interested parties: 'The economy' and 'the market' are sacred things that are disconnected from the dirty world, and work perfectly in their own if you don't bother them. No need for 'political economy' anymore, only 'economics'.

Gotta answer that last sentence. Free market advocates are the exact opposite of disconnected with the dirty world: they advocate for allowing the dirtyness of reality sort itself out, without a neat central order. The most significant advocate for free markets, Milton Friedman, literally wrote the book on the application of Positive Economics: seeing things how they really are, use empiric data, make falsifiable predictions, etc.

Free markets are pro-reality, pro-dirty world.

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

#168

Post by conanbatt »

jahaja wrote: post #110
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.

I'm seeing this sentiment often. Some people seem to think that the storming of the Bastille would never have happened if the people would just have known how much better France's trading partners had progressed over the last decade or so.

I understand the interests as a nation and as a globe are different and sometimes antagonistic, but it pokes a massive hole in the idea that the rich are stealing and from the poor: if the rich are richer, and the poorer richer, the ones complaining are the ones in the middle. It would change the rhetoric from "poor vs rich" to "middle vs rich and poor".

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

#169

Post by FabHK »

GabrielBen wrote: post #63
simias wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Karl Marx. And I see the point the parent is making, although that's probably more of an issue in the USA than in Europe for instance. And I do agree that it's a shame because the writings of Marx are extremely interesting and deserve to be studied and discussed even if you don't believe in socialism and communism, it's really about economy in general first and foremost. Dismissing this important ground-breaking work…

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.

^ this. Furthermore, one can really make progressive, social-democratic policy within the confines of fairly traditional economics, certainly without much reference to Marx.

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

#170

Post by FabHK »

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?

Lots.

1. We are social creatures, not homines oeconomici whose utility function only includes our own consumption. (In fact, I feel that the argument you (and others) make comes from this mistaken Econ 101 idea that the simplifying economics assumption of a utility function only including own consumption is has normative character (ie we should only look at that). But it has neither positive (descriptive) nor normative character for actual humans.)

2. Extreme inequality jeopardises the democratic project, and corrodes the political process.

3. In the real world, higher inequality is linked to more crime. (Too lazy to find the reference now, but there's a recent book out on it.)

4. The jostling for status arguably leads to enormously wasteful spending (ie conspicuous consumption, ostentatious waste, etc.)

5. Life expectancy, health, happiness seem higher in more equal societies.

You can't just dismiss these facts (some empirical, some philosophical) by "why should you care about what someone else has?".

(Note: none of the above objections are dependent on a false "zero-sum" or "fixed-pie" argument.)

In addition to Nozick, I recommend reading Rawls (or even better, somebody writing about Rawls - his "Theory of Justice" is very heavy reading, taking way too long to get to the points).

Post reply on HN