I keep seeing, here and elsewhere, that redistribution of wealth is unhealthy or unwise for any economy. I am wondering, does anyone believe there is an economic model anywhere that does not distribute wealth? How can there be a discussion on wealth redistribution without acknowledging that wealth is distributed in the first place?
No, economist use the Gini Index and it is not arbitrary, because it is based on a statistical measurement - as seen in this definition of Gini index, "a statistical measure of the degree of variation or inequality represented in a set of values, used especially in analyzing income inequality."
And "inequality" is about income! It is not about "educational attainment, culture, personal attitude", or anything else.
Worse, this comment by Frijole is, IMHO, anti-intellectual, "I couldn't care less about the GINI index." This is saying data should be ignored. Probably, because Frijole does not like what it is saying.
Next Frijole wrote, "So you admit the rules can be poorly designed but insist they have to stay because Salmonella."
Yes, there are always rules that can be improved. However, that is not the issue with the anti-regulation advocates. They want rules that allow more pollution, more fraud, more bubbles to occur in our economy. In all of these it is corporations dumping their costs on the taxpayers - and the deregulation people think this is just fine.
And lastly, this comment, "We don't live in a hunter-gatherer society. Nice attempt at deflection."
The point here is, we spent more of human evolution, thousands of years, as hunter-gatherers. It is no surprise that anthropologists look to these cultures in an attempt to figure out the true nature of humans. They fined we are sharing creatures who do more cooperation than competition, which is not to say we are devoid of a competitive attitude. This is consistent with our brain physiology - as in the discovery of "mirror neurons."
About "Regarding regulations, you repeated yourself", only because you do not get it!
About, "You just can't comprehend the idea that big gov't isn't necessarily good gov't." Oh yes, big government Republicans want to control abortion, teach creationism and more. Yes, I oppose that. However, no government at all or a government to weak to stop corporations from screwing over the average American is bad.
About, "We produce more than enough food to give the less fortunate enough to eat." Yes, and that is technology. The problem is capitalism still leaves millions to go hungry. This is similar to capitalism's current biggest failure. That is, we have millions who need work, and we have 20% of our tools, factories, and resources sitting idle, and this system cannot put them together to make the things we need.
About "pick up some dinner and when we consider the vast array of choices", that works for me, because I am quite well off. Try going to the grocery store when you have no money and see what good it does you to admire that vast array of choices.
The shooter was a member of the Facebook group "Terminate the Rephblican Party". Kathy griffin holds up a bloody head. Mad Maxine Waters rails against the president.
Obviously, this hate speech drove the shooter to commit this vile crime. When will it end? When will people on the left tell their own supporters this isn't okay?
England's Bernie Sanders party is the Labor Party, and they just had a stunning win in the British elections.
The British Conservative Party normally does not have to take in the crazies. Instead, the crazies are in the DUP party - you know, the climate change deniers, the 10,000 year old earth people, and the anti-abortion and LGBT voters.
Yet, to keep Theresa May as Prime Minister and to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from being PM, it seems that Conservatives have formed a coalition with the DUP.
Want to know how much of a socialist Jeremy Corbyn is? Corbyn supports worker buyout of businesses. This means a company can continue as is. However, if a company wants to close, be sold or whatever, they must give "right of first refusal" to their workers. Simply put, the workers get the first chance to buy the company.
Corbyn was asked, where will the workers get the money? Corbyn's response, "The government will lend them the money!"
Such a plan could radically change capitalism as we know it!
Back to basic economics - in a healthy economy, you want money being exchange for goods and services in a win-win situation. In a casino economy, just the opposite is happening. Worse, in America, bankers are allowed to place risky bets on nonexistent risks with government insured money. That is, bankers can make bets in which they win or the tax payers lose. Worse, doing so can create economic bubbles, and the transfer of billions of dollars in wealth in exchange for nothing! And this is just one example. There are thousands!
This comment reveals the error in Frijole's thinking, "prove inequality is unnatural. It occurs in nature. Its Darwinism."
News flash! The economy is not part of nature. It is something humans have created for our purposes. You can go back to the first markets in Babylon or others, before Christ, and rules were set up to insure people were treated and disputes were settled fairly.
I have no interest in running an economy in which the strong can brutalize the weak, and, if you want an economy that mimics nature, that is what you will get. Unfortunately, such a market would soon destroy itself.
Next Frijole wrote, "Stiglitz said welfare destroys the economy." I have read a lot by Stiglitz and he said no such thing. The following is from "The Welfare State in the Twenty First Century" which was written by Stiglitz.
(Quote)
One of the tenets of the Reagan‐Thatcher revolution was questioning the welfare state. Some worried that the financial burdens of the welfare state would drag down growth. Some worried . . . (snip).
This paper argues that these arguments are for the most part fallacious, and that changes in our economy have even increased the importance of the welfare state. It then describes some of the key elements of a 21st century welfare state.
(End quote)
See the paper if you want to know more!
The next comment by Frijole is also not true, "A free-market means that anyone can enter it not that its not regulated or taxed."
No one defines a "free market" this way. Yet, this makes the point the markets are not free. Try being a dentist, a doctor, or some other specialty that the state, for the sake of a well running economy, requires you to have a license. Without the education and license, entering these markets will land you in jail!
Next Frijole writes, "you clearly don't understand that inequality IS natural. All social animals have castes, there are alphas and followers. Its common across the world."
Europe tried the cast system. They called it the feudal system. You were born to your station with no chance of bettering yourself. Historically, America's greatest asset was that the brightest and most ambitious could rise to the top. But no more! Measures of "social mobility" in America show that is, in the broader sense, no longer true.
And finally, in reference to monopolies, Frijole wrote, " Its (monopolies) about reducing it (costs). It makes goods available at low cost so that all members of society can partake of its benefits."
OMG, someone needs to read on the history of monopolies and why the Sherman Anti-trust Act was passed. In Frijole's mind, if the company that owned everything east of the Mississippi River decided to merge with the company that owned everything west of the Mississippi River and said they were merging for "The Good of America", Frijole would cheer them on!
The real point, if you want to know what it is like working for a monopoly, click the link and listen. Remember, culture reflects reality!
The government always controls the economy. If not fraud and more take over. Yet, the problem is not the government. The US government has been bought and paid for by the corporations of this country and they are writing the laws to their advantage. The enemy is not the government. The enemy is the economic system that fosters the subversion of the democratic process in favor of rule by corporations.
Next Frijole wrote, "tec is still trying to deny the existence on inequality in nature while he admits over and over that it exists and isn't a product of capitalism."
No, there is inequality in nature. It is just that your economy system is not a product of nature. It is a human creation, and, as such, humans decide the level of suffering it will produce. This is why we have minimum wage laws, worker safety laws, and more. Your economy is a choice!
Frijole wrote, "You don't run economies, period." Well, I don't, but the government does. That is there job. That is why we have laws making certain economic activities illegal. Those laws shape the economy!
About free markets, Frijole wrote, "Its about limited resources and competition for those resources. Your ignorance of history is surpassed by your ignorance of science and economics."
Hey, I am the one quoting Nobel Laureates in economics, not you! Our current system uses competition up to a point. Then competition stops and we use other mechanisms such as rationing, subsidies, government ownership, and more to ensure people's basic needs are met.
For example, if the government stopped being involved in the health care industry, millions would be without insurance and would receive little or no health care. That is a problem for the whole country, so the government steps in. Sadly, our government is controlled by the insurance industry and more.
And finally this comment, "I'm not discussing the history of social mobility, I'm talking about the nature of inequality."
Well, you cannot talk about one without the other, because they are correlated. Have a look at the graph below. The horizontal axis is the Gini Coefficient and the vertical axis is the probability that a child's income will be similar to their parents.
No surprise that Germany, Sweden, and others have more social mobility. They offer basically free education.
A whopping 23% of voters turned out. Some say that the lack of turnout was a protest for the non-binding referendum. But, one can see why PR would want full statehood since they are still suffering economically. I never thought that I would see a new state in my lifetime. It just might happen ... good luck in becoming #58 PR!
No, economist use the Gini Index and it is not arbitrary, because it is based on a statistical measurement - as seen in this definition of Gini index, "a statistical measure of the degree of...See More