Why Is Europe More Equal Than the United States?

The caveat to my caveat is of course the winning a major tournament also significantly increases all those other sources of income.

It matters, but only to some extent. I agree that ideally everyone should meet some basic level of subsistence, and that Africa-like Gini values are undesirable in the long term. Neither, however, are Nordic/Eastern European-like levels, either.[1] Some amount of inequality, it seems, is necessary to drive long-term economic dynamism.

Botswana's Gini is among the highest in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...>, while Iraq and Egypt's are as low as the Netherlands. Botswana is probably a better near- and mid-term bet than Egypt (and perhaps a better long-term bet than the Netherlands), though, while Iraq might be better than both in the long term; such conclusions imply that Gini just doesn't say anything useful for economic potential, and that absolute figures measuring tangible things are the right way to judge a nation's growth.

The US's Gini is high among OECD countries but closer to the middle when measured worldwide. If that's the "price" we Americans pay for having Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix (and Hollywood), Intel, Nvidia, Exxon, Boeing, Tesla, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, eBay, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Levi's, SpaceX, Disney, Pixar, General Electric, Gap, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks, I'm glad to pay it.

[1] Norway's per capita income adjusted by cost of living https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)...> is much higher than the US's because of its oil—it's basically a Persian Gulf petrostate relocated to northern Europe—but the US's is ~18% higher than Denmark's and Sweden's, and ~30% higher than Finland's. (And, before you ask, when measured by median net income, the gap between America and other developed nations shrinks but the US still does quite well, at #6 worldwide.) At $41,071 the US has the highest household net disposable income per capita in the OECD http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/>, where "disposable income" http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=46> accounts for healthcare and government benefits.

I mean in Europe jews are the model minority, it's obviously true now, it was not the case before as we all know.

And thank you. It's a pleasure to have an actual dialog rather than just being accused of being a nazi when asking a question or putting forward an opinion (The with us or against us war cry of BLM I referred to earlier)

> Martin Luther King didn't talk all his life about race because he wanted to but because he had to : it's the structural problem #1 of the USA.

I would argue racism is a symptom of a deeper issue. If I would have to name "structural problem #1" in the western world I would say access to a quality education. I referenced an appropriate MLK quote in a previous reply: "I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other." A quality education should fix people not knowing each other and give them the ability to communicate to one another, and racism might be a solved issue in a single generation.

> Obviously things are better than in his days, and in his days there were better than before the civil war. That doesn't mean there are right today.

100% - there is lots of room for improvement.

> Again why the powerful hatred against Obamacare? It makes zero sense on economic grounds.

I agree with you, it makes no sense on economic grounds. Nor in my opinion on humanitarian grounds, or any grounds for that matter. I am very much in favour of public healthcare and wouldn't stop there but include education, transport, essential services etc etc etc but there are issues there too. (Just ask anyone who works in the NHS in the UK or a public health service in Australia)

It's not a racial issue tho. MLK again: "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane." - once again no mention of race, but a mention of inequality - the topic of this original post.

Republicans tend to be opposed to public services and it was primarily republicans who reduced Obamacare to the shadow of its former self. But being a republican or believing in privatisation doesn't make somebody a racist. Believe it or not, there are people who genuinely believe privatisation is in the best interest of the public. As I mentioned above, spend some time talking to workers in public health in Australia and England. It won't take you long to find one who believes they should privitise everything, even if they're life-long left-leaning party voters.

> Just before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King was leading the "Poor People's Campaign" As you can imagine it was not focused on race but on poverty.

MLK was a true hero.

> And people who love the skin of color quote usually don't want to talk about poverty.

This doesn't follow logically for me. If someone is quoting MLK and talking about being judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, surely they'd much prefer to talk about poverty rather than race? Certainly it is that way for me.

Reducing every difference to race and every issue to racism is not productive. If it's productive and useful I could talk about solving poverty all day, but the minute someone suggests their opinion holds more weight because of the colour of their skin I turn off and immediately lose all respect for them. Why? Because I'd prefer to be judged by the content of my character (and my life experiences) and not the colour of my skin. If we all did that there would be no race debate.

--

Anyway I'm turning off for the day but thank you for the chat. People always have more in common than they think, if only they'd take the time to listen (reminds me of that MLK quote!) You've helped renew my faith in people.