The Economist: For richer, for poorer

The Economist, "For richer, for poorer" (Nov., 2016)

Excerpt:

Not so? Tell me how ...

 

Find me any country that's as close or closer to the equator that has a more equal distribution of income than the U.S.

It's no coincidence. White people mostly settled the temperate zones. Since the U.S. is further South towards the equator than Canada or any countries in Europe, it got more diversity. That shouldn't be surprising.


(Australia doesn't really count since most of it's people live in the far South, so it's effective latitude is further away from the equator than it's Northernmost point)

 

The reasons for cultural diversity in terms of colour are varied geographically. I doubt geography has much to do with it. Most entries to Europe are from Africa and the Middle-east. Whereas most migrants into America are from central and South America. (I think but I am not sure.)

The US continued slavery well into the latter half of the 19th century, whilst most of Europe had banned it long before. See here: CHRONOLOGY - Who banned slavery when?

So, Europe has far less indigenous black families with a long history of residence.

 

I don't think it's right to take one person's money in order to give to another person. It smells kind of like stealing.

 

good point not to mention it discourages both the person stolen from and given to from working in the future.

 

When comparing between different countries and wishing America could be more like others, here's just one perspective to consider:
For those on the Progressive Left who hate America...

 

what is point or article??

 

Point was that the selection of OECD countries to try to illustrate a point may be inherently biased.

If you're trying to demonstrate a connection between two data points, you want to be sure one of those data points isn't actually just correlated to something else.
Just a quick example: There was one study that showed a certain medication seemed to be more effective for African American patients, but when the data was examined in closer detail it turned out that the median age of the African American patients was substantially lower than the other patients. African Americans (for some other reason) were developing heart disease earlier than other races. Removing all the younger African American patients from the data analysis made the correlation based on race disappear. The medication wasn't more effective on African Americans because they were African Americans.

Another example: There was a medical researcher in a nursing home who noticed the prevalence of blue eyes was much higher among older people than in the general population. He initially thought there could be a correlation between having blue eyes and longer life. Further investigation, however, dispelled his theory because it turned out there were simply fewer babies being born with blue eyes. It turned out old age was correlated to eye color simply because old age was inherently correlated to another variable: when the person was born. People weren't living to an old age just because they had blue eyes.

While LafayetteBis was trying to demonstrate a correlation between tax levels and equality, what he neglected to do was think about the most basic outside variables that would cause certain countries to have higher tax rates or greater levels of equality in the first place.
Or outside factors that would have caused a country to be on the OECD list in the first place.

I could even make a reverse argument and argue that higher levels of equality may be what leads to society in a given country being politically more willing to have higher tax levels, rather than vice versa.

 

Then we are headed back in the right direction. Right back to PRE-Roosevelt years. Where 10 barons own every corp. and every worker can work 70 hours a week for a minimum waged based upon their need to eat.

This is where it will end, or another revolution. This would have happened if both Roosevelt had not stepped in. We forced a depression and guys like JP Morgan said, fuk um all. He and other Very wealthy people did the same. FDR forced them to share, then, after WWII we had a great country from 1945 - 1984. This coincides with the massive tax cuts many JEWISH business leaders, bankers, the FED forced Reagan to partake in doing. Cuts for the rich that were to be temporary. They never went away and only got to be more for the rich.
This is why today wage of 25$ an hour for my old skill is exactly what I made doing the same thing in 1993. Only then, all my benefits were paid. People can try to pass off today's world in the USA as everyone else's fault, the worker, the Chinese, the Dems, the Republican's, blah blah... It is guys like CARL ICAHN who set policy thru puppet politicians to benefit only the rich.
They use token BS to fool the obtuse public that it isn't the govt. fault, dems blame repubs, visa versa. Lets blame....
Facts are facts, yield curve, increased wage for rich with no tax, while worker struggles and then you read BS on here about some guy making an obtuse statement...

Hey, if you want to hand over your kids life, and your grandchildren to the rich peoples kids, go ahead... I am preparing mine and making sure I steal back from the rich..... It will be a mess for a long time. Not until statements like yours are reversed. I am guessing here, but back in the 1930s, I dont think people said the same thing you do when starving. It is amazing how people will stand with a person, or a guru rich guy that is raping their paycheck thru deregulation and call that very people a GREAT GUY because he is RICH.
2030s DEPRESSION ? You betcha !

 

I disagree with your analysis and prediction. And I'm still not convinced to support taking one person's money and giving it to another person. How is that any different than stealing.

 

Sounds like you need to teach yourself the Welfare Theorems. Ask the teaching centrist!

 

If you want to be part of the club, you have to pay the club dues. It's not like stealing at all.

 

So one person's dues get handed right over to someone else. Nice club.

 

Didn't Pythagoras come up with that?

 

The dues are used for lots of things. But no one says you have to stay in the club.

 

Taking one person's dues and handing them right over to someone else. Yeah, that's not stealing at all.

 

Great. In that case, I quit.

 

Good for you. I couldn't care less.

 

So no more dues, right?

 

Sure, but you can no longer use the club facilities or be on club property.

 

So you were just fibbing about one being able to quit. Which means it really is stealing, contrary to your earlier claim.

 

Absolutely wrong. I wasn't "fibbing" at all.

You can't use the club's facilities or be on club property if you don't agree to pay its dues. But no one is requiring you to be a member of the club. You can quit club membership and then you don't have to pay the dues.

 

But your statist club owns all the property on Earth, so I can't very well quit the club now, can I?

Hence, it is stealing because it's done without my consent.

 

That you're not aware of the basics is decidedly revealing! Do any of the herd know any basic economics?

 

No it doesn't. What a nonsensical thing to say. There are scores of other clubs.

The fact that you don't like the other clubs' rules either doesn't make it "stealing" to require you to pay club dues.

It's not "stealing" at all to require you to pay club dues to be on club property and use club facilities. If you don't like it quit the club and join another club.

People do it all the time.