Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

Post by buran77 » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:02 PM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #54

buran77 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it? In the end this is a people problem, not a tech problem. And both Silicon Valley and Bangladesh have some form of "local" meritocracy. Meritocracy applied and working within your stratum but not across the boundaries. Whether you're poor or in a lower caste you still get some form of meritocracy within your group to keep you content and motivated. But crossing the boundary to the next level, while no…

The paper identifies one threshold at ~500 USD. That is, in Bangladesh, those with more than 500 USD assets tend to accumulate more assets, while those with less than 500 USD assets don't. As people in Silicon Valley have more than 500 USD assets (citation needed), I don't see how this paper applies to Silicon Valley at all. There can be another such threshold, but the paper doesn't provide any experimental support f…

Post by fractionalhare » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:02 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #33

solatic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unequal distribution of rewards (i.e. according to merit) is fine and desirable (as a motivating force). The problem's roots are when the distribution of rewards becomes hereditary , that the children of the wealthy have near-guaranteed access to the best educational and social institutions, have near-guaranteed access to startup capital (i.e. from their parents), are usually provided with necessities (food, housing,…

Do you have any sources on what percentage of wealthy that inherit their wealth? From what I've gathered it's quite small and doesn't necessarily last more than a few generations.

Post by thundergolfer » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

dexterdog wrote: post #39

Dumbdo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting strawman. There are a lot of other ways to control inheritance than separating children from their parents.

Name one way that does not involve theft of property.

Post by RobertoG » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #38

solatic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unequal distribution of rewards (i.e. according to merit) is fine and desirable (as a motivating force). The problem's roots are when the distribution of rewards becomes hereditary , that the children of the wealthy have near-guaranteed access to the best educational and social institutions, have near-guaranteed access to startup capital (i.e. from their parents), are usually provided with necessities (food, housing,…

Practically the only reason I accumulate any resources or am productive at all is for the benefit of my child. I wouldn't think twice about committing violence against anyone who tried to stop me.

Post by sul_tasto » Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

postingpals wrote: post #49

sul_tasto wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there were great policies established under the new deal. I would caution advocating for blanket rescuing of the economy from market failures, though. The recent stimulus provided by the US congress to the airline industry is a perfect example of executives taking advantage of taxpayers. I would also push back against the idea that the last 50 years have been destructive economically.

An example of a market failure is climate change, or at least many market failures are contained within this problem. Are you suggesting the government take a hands off approach to that? At the end of the day the government is necessary to the functioning of capitalism, we need to help people out of poverty so that among other things the economy can actually improve. That's all I'm arguing for, and I think there is u…