21–30 of 628 posts
Of course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level of existing wealth.
Absolutely - and that's a good thing. Those who produce more should earn more as well.
Have there been any efforts to quantify what level of inequality is reasonable? For instance, the GINI coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 means everyone has the same amount, and 1 means one person at the top has everything. Depending on how it's measured, the US is somewhere between 0.4 and 0.5. You don't want to be at either extreme, so some level of inequality is desirable. Is there an appropriate amount o…
Have there been any efforts to quantify what level of inequality is reasonable? For instance, the GINI coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 means everyone has the same amount, and 1 means one person at the top has everything. Depending on how it's measured, the US is somewhere between 0.4 and 0.5. You don't want to be at either extreme, so some level of inequality is desirable. Is there an appropriate amount o…
Of course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level of existing wealth.
If course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level OF EFFORT. Even a wealthy person can lose their money if they don't make an effort investing it properly. How do people build wealth from the ground up? They work hard each and every day and that effort COMPOUNDS. They get smarter, more opportunities present themselves…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level OF EFFORT. Even a wealthy person can lose their money if they don't make an effort investing it properly. How do people build wealth from the ground up? They work hard each and every day and that effort COMPOUNDS. They get smarter, more opportunities present themselves…
Classic. Poor people just aren't working hard enough!
Of course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level of existing wealth.
If course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level OF EFFORT. Even a wealthy person can lose their money if they don't make an effort investing it properly. How do people build wealth from the ground up? They work hard each and every day and that effort COMPOUNDS. They get smarter, more opportunities present themselves…
Of course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level of existing wealth.
for sure, but you're missing the tax avoidance bit. Without tax avoidance, compound interest does nothing at most reasonable levels of r and t.
Have there been any efforts to quantify what level of inequality is reasonable? For instance, the GINI coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 means everyone has the same amount, and 1 means one person at the top has everything. Depending on how it's measured, the US is somewhere between 0.4 and 0.5. You don't want to be at either extreme, so some level of inequality is desirable. Is there an appropriate amount o…
Why shouldn't the coefficient be zero? I'm curious what your reasoning is.
Have there been any efforts to quantify what level of inequality is reasonable? For instance, the GINI coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 means everyone has the same amount, and 1 means one person at the top has everything. Depending on how it's measured, the US is somewhere between 0.4 and 0.5. You don't want to be at either extreme, so some level of inequality is desirable. Is there an appropriate amount o…
So the natural stable distribution of that dynamic system is certainly some type of power law, aka Pareto Distribution. It will almost certainly always trend towards such a distribution given its historical efficacy. The question then is, at what alpha value do we achieve some desired outcome?
I like this line of thinking, and I'd like to see GINI index or the Pareto distribution alpha value tested as a predictive economic indicator for things like growth.