Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktGiven various recent conversations:
How income inequality harms societies. At no point is there any demonstration (unless I’m missing something) of causation over correlation. I think the scatter charts are a little misleading, as well. But, interesting . . . as a conversation starter.
Heh. Heh. Heh.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
First, what are we talking about? Economic theory? Game theory? Social "fabric"? A preference for a democratic republic over a dictatorship or oligarchy?In classical capitalist theory, a financially sound and large middle class optimizes trade possibilities compared with having a wealthy few and a poor many.In the development of democratic republics, a literate and gainfully employed body politic is more stable than an illiterate an idle one.Aside from general statements like these, that can be supported by historical analogs or theoretical models, wherever you go with this is a value judgment. All I have said is essentially that it is better to be healthy and happy than sick and sad. Let us say that based on these two generalities, we capitalist Rs and Ds all agree that in the best of all possible worlds we would have a financially healthy, large middle class, and literate citizens working at full and gainful employment.Assuming, arguendo, we get that far, we then go our separate ways about how to get there, I am sure. The approaches run from the libertarian to the planned, even within the spectrum of only capitalists who are American Rs and Ds.And I do not suggest that my two innocuous postulates are not open for debate. I won't debate them, of course, because I think they are innocuous.
LikeLike
Let us say that based on these two generalities, we capitalist Rs and Ds all agree that in the best of all possible worlds we would have a financially healthy, large middle class, and literate citizens working at full and gainful employment.If we can't agree on at least that much Mark, I think we're doomed. My problem is, we don't have that now and the short term future isn't looking much better, but I've given up on that. I am hoping some long term scenarios will play out to change this dynamic, I wish I knew what they were. Brent seems to believe we will become a net energy exporter, we'll see.
LikeLike
I'm just not going to take 16 minutes to listen to someone flogging inequality again. I am already tired of linking refutations.
LikeLike
Let us say that based on these two generalities, we capitalist Rs and Ds all agree that in the best of all possible worlds we would have a financially healthy, large middle class, and literate citizens working at full and gainful employment.It might depend on what you mean the best of all possible worlds. I could argue that a better world than you posit would be one in which everyone was wealthy. Or one in which everyone was free to enjoy the fruits of his own efforts.
LikeLike
"One in which everyone was free to enjoy the fruits of his own efforts."Isn't that the same thing Mark described?
LikeLike
They could be consistent, but I don't think they are the same thing by any means.
LikeLike
good evening. rather than get into income inequality, I've decided to gently refute Chris Cillizza in a new blogpost.
LikeLike
At no point is there any demonstration (unless I'm missing something) of causation over correlation.He does address this just a little at the end. And his lifespan chart uses the false-zero on the y-axis, covering only ages 70-80 to make the disparity look greater than it is.It just becomes too hard to quantify intangibles in the rigorous way he is trying to.
LikeLike
"They could be consistent, but I don't think they are the same thing by any means."How are they different?
LikeLike
"How are they different?"For one thing, one is a matter of results, and the other isn't. What I described (albeit in one line) was a libertarian ideal unconcerned with individual or demographical results. What Mark described was a state of prosperity with a distributional (a term I do not like) condition. Unless you believe that the result Mark described is inseparably linked with the libertarian ideal, I don't understand why you would dispute that they are not the same thing.
LikeLike