Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

[spoonitnow]

I thought we needed a dedicated thread for how capitalism is awesome and how much socialism and communism suck.

[spoonitnow]

[BananaStand]

[BananaStand]

[spoonitnow]

Fuck Bernie Sanders

Fucking cuck

[wufwugy]

Wanna hear a nifty argument for why government power should be increasingly limited?

Because most people generally trust the government and generally (often vehemently) distrust private interests. Point out that the government is a monopoly and most people hem and haw about why that's okay. But propose anything that gets people to think there is even the slightest bit of possibility of increasing the ability for private enterprise to monopolize and those same people lock and load.

Since we know that monopolies fuck people over, this tells us that if we want to be less fucked over, go with the one that people are looking for any and every reason to fight, since that behavior would significantly stem the negative impact of its existene. Of course, the only way this logic could yield a decrease in government power is if the logic is not relevant. So, it's like a paradox.

But for the thinker. For the person who finds that they tend to rationalize why government monopolies are a-okay while the mere whiff of a possibility of a private monopoly elicits distrust. For that person, this is worth considering.

[spoonitnow]

Wanna hear a nifty argument for why government power should be increasingly limited?

Because most people generally trust the government and generally (often vehemently) distrust private interests. Point out that the government is a monopoly and most people hem and haw about why that's okay. But propose anything that gets people to think there is even the slightest bit of possibility of increasing the ability for private enterprise to monopolize and those same people lock and load.

Since we know that monopolies fuck people over, this tells us that if we want to be less fucked over, go with the one that people are looking for any and every reason to fight, since that behavior would significantly stem the negative impact of its existene. Of course, the only way this logic could yield a decrease in government power is if the logic is not relevant. So, it's like a paradox.

But for the thinker. For the person who finds that they tend to rationalize why government monopolies are a-okay while the mere whiff of a possibility of a private monopoly elicits distrust. For that person, this is worth considering.

MAGA

#draintheswamp

#lockherup

#deepstate

[wufwugy]

D'Souza explains fascism's roots (Marxist roots). Give it a watch. It's very good.




Something I've been trying to combat for a while is the notion that fascism is somehow different than communism. They're really just two sides of the same coin. The cool thing about this (for me) is that I triangulated upon this from my study of history personally and in textbooks. I didn't get it from anybody. Yet since then I have been seeing people much smarter than me and with more historical knowledge affirm that's how it is.

[Jack Sawyer]

D'Souza explains fascism's roots (Marxist roots). Give it a watch. It's very good.




Something I've been trying to combat for a while is the notion that fascism is somehow different than communism. They're really just two sides of the same coin. The cool thing about this (for me) is that I triangulated upon this from my study of history personally and in textbooks. I didn't get it from anybody. Yet since then I have been seeing people much smarter than me and with more historical knowledge affirm that's how it is.

Without clicking I knew it was pragerU, the blog that thinks it's a university



Also LOL Dinesh, the dude who thinks he's an authority on something

[wufwugy]

Without clicking I knew it was pragerU, the blog that thinks it's a university



Also LOL Dinesh, the dude who thinks he's an authority on something

I recommend not failing before even attempting to challenge your prejudices.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I recommend not failing before even attempting to challenge your prejudices.

To think of the mean things I once said about you after a WW game.... I'm so glad I was so wrong. I mean, not glad that I said those ridiculous things, but glad about the wrongness of the things.

[spoonitnow]

To think of the mean things I once said about you after a WW game.... I'm so glad I was so wrong. I mean, not glad that I said those ridiculous things, but glad about the wrongness of the things.

Take it to the cuck thread.

[BananaStand]

this thread will be alot more fun once Poop comes in here and tells us how bad corporations are.

[spoonitnow]

I've been watching videos of stupid Antifa fucks getting hit by cars on YouTube. It's the shit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wuf is legit. I once said otherwise. That quote of his just throws it in my face how wrong I was.
Real men aren't afraid to be honest about their mistakes, spoon.

***
Economic models excel on different scales.
Capitalism is the best on the largest scales, but socialism makes more sense for a household economy.

[spoonitnow]

Wuf is legit. I once said otherwise. That quote of his just throws it in my face how wrong I was.
Real men aren't afraid to be honest about their mistakes, spoon.

***
Economic models excel on different scales.
Capitalism is the best on the largest scales, but socialism makes more sense for a household economy.

Socialism's great until you end up in a fucking gulag and find out all that free shit you were supposed to get doesn't exist anymore because people stopped giving a shit about making it.

[wufwugy]

Wuf is legit. I once said otherwise. That quote of his just throws it in my face how wrong I was.
Real men aren't afraid to be honest about their mistakes, spoon.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

Economic models excel on different scales.
Capitalism is the best on the largest scales, but socialism makes more sense for a household economy.

Could you expound on the "socialism for households" thing? On the economics by scale thing, the breakdown in the field is micro and macro. Micro consists of the smallest economic thing you can think of, like how a person choosing Thing A over Thing B means that the opportunity cost of choosing Thing A is the value lost by not choosing Thing B. Micro goes all the way up to firms and markets for specific goods and services. By contrast, macro is the very large scale stuff and is typically very different than micro. It's so different that my favorite living macroeconomist claims that he doesn't even think macro should be taught at the undergraduate level. Anyways, macro is stuff like monetary policy and nationwide aggregate demand/supply, where the aggregate isn't just addition of all the demand/supply but something else. I'd say the difference between micro and macro are not too far off from the differences between the small and large extremes in physics, where they essentially appear to be governed by different rules (though that characterization might not be exactly correct, you can let me know).

With this in mind, I think that economics is relevant for the household as well as the country. I suspect you're not saying it's not, and I am interested in what you mean by socialism for the household.

[Jack Sawyer]

[spoonitnow]

Great demonstration of communism in action.

[Jack Sawyer]

Great demonstration of communism in action.

Great demonstration of mental density

[wufwugy]

Is there something about this that you think characterizes something economists think?

[BananaStand]

Is there something about this that you think characterizes something economists think?

Guys in ties are exploitative greedy ass holes

[wufwugy]

Guys in ties are exploitative greedy ass holes

Ah yes I remember that in Labor Economics 321

[Jack Sawyer]

Is there something about this that you think characterizes something economists think?

Keep in mind that economics is not an exact science

Any economist you quote saying something, I can conjure one up of the same exact renown who says the exact opposite thing. I have linked to multiple articles explaining my stance on this in depth already, no need to do it again.

Now is there something about this that you think can, right now, explain how the poor are being held as scapegoats for a non-functioning economy? People are constantly angry at each other, yet I mostly see how poor people claim they "took our jerbs" "herpaderp" about mostly poorer people and also immigrants. Increase of xenophobia being the surefire byproduct. All the while, the wealthy keep getting wealtheir setting historical record after historical record. Or do you have a lady law approach to this occurence?

[wufwugy]

Keep in mind that economics is not an exact science

That is quite true. I'd be wary of any position that emerges (subtly) from the fact that economics is not hard science means that one can essentially discard or adopt what they want.

Any economist you quote saying something, I can conjure one up of the same exact renown who says the exact opposite thing.

You can? Please show me what you can on this. I really do want to see it.

I have linked to multiple articles explaining my stance on this in depth already, no need to do it again.

I would like you to explain in your own words.

[Jack Sawyer]

That is quite true. I'd be wary of any position that emerges (subtly) from the fact that economics is not hard science means that one can essentially discard or adopt what they want.



You can? Please show me what you can on this. I really do want to see it.



I would like you to explain in your own words.

No need to, those articles explain it much nicer than I could

I have outsourced that explanation for you

[OngBonga]

They're not cookies, they'ye fucking Oreos.

[wufwugy]

I'm seriously serious. I want to see everything you like that PhD economists have to say about economics.

[spoonitnow]

Hit me with that Price's Law.

[Poopadoop]

There's no point talking to them Jack. They're not interested in having an open discussion (well at least the two T.I.'s aren't), they just want to turn every thread into a right-wing circle jerk where anyone who doesn't share their views gets heaped with scorn until they decide life's too short. At that point they feel good because it makes them think they've somehow 'won' the argument.

See, the problem isn't only that they think they invariably know what's right and you don't. Everyone is guilty of that to some extent. The problem is they lack any willingness to appreciate the shades of grey in any complicated topic (again just speaking about the 2/3 T.I. population here). It's just so much easier to view the world in black/white, right/wrong terms. Because when they do that they can immediately dismiss any alternative views as [insert derogatory words here], and take out their inner frustrations at being part of a marginalised minority of reactionary thinkers on people who have too much dignity to stoop to their level of toxic discourse.

You can have a solid point or a solid argument, it doesn't matter. They're not here to listen and discuss things in an open manner that shows any respect for anyone else's viewpoint, they're here to do just the opposite - not listen, not discuss things openly, and not respect people.

[BananaStand]

There's no point talking to them Jack. They're not interested in having an open discussion .......You can have a solid point or a solid argument,

False. You just don't realize it because you don't have any solid points or arguments. At least not in the last week or so. All you've been spouting is partisan, tinfoil induced drivel about an enormously credentialed doctor being a liar based on absolutely no evidence other than the fact that he didn't shit all over your most hated politician.

Surely you can't expect to be respected for so staunchly advocating such a position. And if you truly feel that you've made valid points, cogent arguments, and provided compelling data as to why the doctor shouldn't be trusted.....then not only are you a partisan whine-bag, but you're also hopelessly delusional.

[CoccoBill]

As an example, in the nordic countries where education is free, there quite effectively is nothing resembling a class system. Literally everyone with the mental and physical capacity is able to become e.g. a surgeon if they so choose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US that's not really the case. You basically need either wealthy parents, a scholarship, or have to take massive risks by ending up with massive debt before you graduate, which means that if you don't immediately get a suitable job you're screwed. Also it's been said here that being born to a minority family in a poor neighborhood in effect blocks you from ever having a proper career.

I would think the former demonstrates income mobility better than the latter.

[BananaStand]

Bill, I don't think you know what income mobility is. But even if we assume you're understanding of the concept....how do you explain this contradiction...

the nordic countries where education is free, there quite effectively is nothing resembling a class system.

I would think [these nordic countries] demonstrates income mobility better than the [America].

If there are no classes, discernible by income, then how is it possible to move from one class to another?????????

[CoccoBill]

Bill, I don't think you know what income mobility is. But even if we assume you're understanding of the concept....how do you explain this contradiction...

If there are no classes, discernible by income, then how is it possible to move from one class to another?????????

I don't get why you keep throwing around these inane comments, if you're trolling just pls gtfo.

They're not moving from one socioeconomic class to another, they're moving from an economic level to another.

[BananaStand]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US that's not really the case.

You are wrong.

Two thirds of the people born into the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile. Income Mobility!!

11 percent of them rise all the way to the top quintile. Income Mobility!!

8 percent of the folks born into the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom, and even more fall to the quintiles in between. Income mobility!!

Also...this "rich get richer" argument ignores the fact that the rich aren't the same people from one generation to another. That's because of income mobility. Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.

[spoonitnow]

You are wrong.

Two thirds of the people born into the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile. Income Mobility!!

11 percent of them rise all the way to the top quintile. Income Mobility!!

8 percent of the folks born into the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom, and even more fall to the quintiles in between. Income mobility!!

Also...this "rich get richer" argument ignores the fact that the rich aren't the same people from one generation to another. That's because of income mobility. Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.

You better stop with all of this logic and shit before someone comes along and calls you a Russian shill.

[CoccoBill]

You are wrong.

Two thirds of the people born into the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile. Income Mobility!!

11 percent of them rise all the way to the top quintile. Income Mobility!!

8 percent of the folks born into the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom, and even more fall to the quintiles in between. Income mobility!!

Also...this "rich get richer" argument ignores the fact that the rich aren't the same people from one generation to another. That's because of income mobility. Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

Edit: Just to be sure you understand the significance and purpose of the link. What you posted is like really cool and impressive. The numbers you quoted just happen to be worse than in many other countries, such as the nordic countries which I used as an example.

[Poopadoop]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

Damn. Socialist (i mean communist) Canada has waay more social mobility than the US.

[BananaStand]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

Edit: Just to be sure you understand the significance and purpose of the link. What you posted is like really cool and impressive. The numbers you quoted just happen to be worse than in many other countries, such as the nordic countries which I used as an example.

Seems cloudy. It definitely doesn't show anything that compares to the numbers I posted in a way that would allow you to say that X country is Better/worse than the USA. Two totally different analyses.

The first murky thing I see, is that the Y axis shows "the likelihood that you inherit your parent's relative position of income level"

It doesn't show "the likelihood that you exceed your parent's relative position of income level", or "the likelihood that you achieve less than your parent's relative position of income level".

Second, the part about "rungs being farther apart" is HUGE. If everyone's relative income is clustered at a certain level, then it really doesn't take much to move up many percentiles. In other words, this chart could be telling me [hypothetical numbers] that 90% of Danish kids will achieve a relative income level that is 10 percentile higher than their parents, and that 65% of US kids will achieve a relative income level that is 30 percentile higher than their parents. Can you really tell me which is better?

It would be interesting if the they showed how large the increase/decrease is likely to be by country. 80% chance of a 20% increase, or a 60% chance of of a 50% increase. Which would you rather have poker players??

So I'm not convinced that this chart shows "superior" income mobility in Nordic countries. It just shows that it's more likely to occur. But we don't know by how much, or in which direction the mobility will take place. I kinda think that's important.

In the end though, the income-inequality drumbeat fails because you simply can't get around this fact...

In a healthy economy, investments grow faster than wages....so the rich will ALWAYS get richer.

Add to that the fact that most income inequality stats are bullshit to begin with because, as wuf pointed out, they tend to lump capital gains income along with labor income, and that really fucks things up. I'm pretty sure the Dow is crushing whatever Scandanavian exchanges exist out there. So I wonder what happens to the Gatsby Curve if we strip that part out of it??? Seems unfair to penalize the USA just because our companies are more innovative, efficient and profitable.

[Poopadoop]

Seems cloudy. It definitely doesn't show anything that compares to the numbers I posted in a way that would allow you to say that X country is Better/worse than the USA. Two totally different analyses.

It absolutely does. There is a very strong correlation between income disparity and income mobility shown by how the data tend to cluster around a diagonal line going up and to the right.

The first murky thing I see, is that the Y axis shows "the likelihood that you inherit your parent's relative position of income level"

It doesn't show "the likelihood that you exceed your parent's relative position of income level", or "the likelihood that you achieve less than your parent's relative position of income level".

For one person to go up a step, another person has to come down. So how many go up and how many go down will be roughly equal. I say 'roughly' because if one person goes up three steps, this can be offset by three people each going down one step. But the overall net change will be the same. The measure is of income variability as a function of income inequality.

Second, the part about "rungs being farther apart" is HUGE. If everyone's relative income is clustered at a certain level, then it really doesn't take much to move up many percentiles. In other words, this chart could be telling me [hypothetical numbers] that 90% of Danish kids will achieve a relative income level that is 10 percentile higher than their parents, and that 65% of US kids will achieve a relative income level that is 30 percentile higher than their parents. Can you really tell me which is better?

It would be interesting if the they showed how large the increase/decrease is likely to be by country. 80% chance of a 20% increase, or a 60% chance of of a 50% increase. Which would you rather have poker players??

The first thing you say about the rungs being further apart would be a reasonable argument if you didn't have countries like Brazil and Chile near the top of the line with the USA. It's difficult to argue you have further to go in those relatively poor countries than you do in Denmark or Sweden. Moreover, in most countries upward mobility comes through access to education and other opportunities. Where there's more of that, there's more income mobility; where's there's less, there's less.

As the rest of the above is based on your initial misinterpretation of what income mobility means, it's similarly wrong to what you said earlier.

So I'm not convinced that this chart shows "superior" income mobility in Nordic countries. It just shows that it's more likely to occur. But we don't know by how much, or in which direction the mobility will take place. I kinda think that's important.

Also based on a misinterpretation of the graph and therefore also irrelevant.

In the end though, the income-inequality drumbeat fails because you simply can't get around this fact...

In a healthy economy, investments grow faster than wages....so the rich will ALWAYS get richer.

Add to that the fact that most income inequality stats are bullshit to begin with because, as wuf pointed out, they tend to lump capital gains income along with labor income, and that really fucks things up. I'm pretty sure the Dow is crushing whatever Scandanavian exchanges exist out there. So I wonder what happens to the Gatsby Curve if we strip that part out of it??? Seems unfair to penalize the USA just because our companies are more innovative, efficient and profitable.

I don't see the question of HOW the rich maintain their position being relevant. Nor does having a strong or weak overall economy or stock market change the relationship (or Brazil would not be close to the US). Nor does it change the overall conclusion about the clear relationship between income mobility and income disparity.

[wufwugy]

As an example, in the nordic countries where education is free, there quite effectively is nothing resembling a class system. Literally everyone with the mental and physical capacity is able to become e.g. a surgeon if they so choose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US that's not really the case. You basically need either wealthy parents, a scholarship, or have to take massive risks by ending up with massive debt before you graduate, which means that if you don't immediately get a suitable job you're screwed. Also it's been said here that being born to a minority family in a poor neighborhood in effect blocks you from ever having a proper career.

I would think the former demonstrates income mobility better than the latter.

Merit in education was always strong in America. Growing up, I always remembered that people who showed aptitude and work ethic earned quite a lot of stuff, from closer relationships with faculty to scholarships. There's a great deal of love and pride for things like providing scholarships to students who demonstrate that they will likely use them productively. The system I just described still remains but it is undergoing change, probably due to government grants and loans effecting reduced merit in order to succeed in the system.

The US university system grew to be what it is because of how well it organized people according to merit, aptitude, and ethic. That doesn't mean a system like what Finland uses can't also function on merit. It probably does. Though there are likely costs associated with inefficiencies and distorted incentives that manifest elsewhere.

[OngBonga]

Fuck man don't you sleep? It's still am here in UK ffs.

[BananaStand]

Fuck man don't you sleep? It's still am here in UK ffs.

I really don't know what's happened to me over the last six months or so. It's like my 'old man' clock kicked in when I turned 37. Now I'm in bed before 10 and up at 5.

[OngBonga]

I like being up at 5am if it's light, which is like for one month of the year.

[OngBonga]

Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.

Are you suggesting that you don't get on Norwegian tv by sucking dick?

[a500lbgorilla]

What capitalism really needs right now is HIGH ENERGY memes to really bump it up a notch.

[wufwugy]

What capitalism really needs right now is HIGH ENERGY memes to really bump it up a notch.

You're not wrong.

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh I totally am.

[wufwugy]

j

[a500lbgorilla]

One could probably do a publishable research paper on the relationship between high energy internet memes and capitalism.

Hell I was really close to addressing internet memes in relation to the discussion about efficiency created by automation. It was along the lines of how internet memes probably emerge from sufficient efficiency, that productive resources are put into them, that they provide value, and that it's probably in part by their free-ness that they provide as much value as they do.

I think capitalism is a close parallel to the parasitic nature of the embryo in utero; driving relentlessly toward blood and nutrients through the uterine wall.

What works, works.

I've an immunity to HIGH ENERGY memes, though.

I don't like being led by the feelings.

[wufwugy]

I think capitalism is a close parallel to the parasitic nature of the embryo in utero; driving relentlessly toward blood and nutrients through the uterine wall.

Could it be that that describes humans well and that capitalism functions as a way to protect from this base human nature?

[a500lbgorilla]

Could it be that that describes humans well and that capitalism functions as a way to protect from this base human nature?

Well, I've got a lot more examples.

I think Capitalism is humanising the nature of competitive life.

[spoonitnow]

Communism sucks unless you want to end up in a labor camp or a fucking ditch after you starved to death.

[BananaStand]

BTW....wanna guess during what periods of time income inequality actually decreased??

Spoiler: Show

During the depression
and...

Spoiler: Show

during world wars

Spoiler: Show

Spoiler: Show

You want more of that??

[Poopadoop]

BTW....wanna guess during what periods of time income inequality actually decreased??

Spoiler: Show

During the depression
and...

Spoiler: Show

during world wars

Spoiler: Show

Spoiler: Show

You want more of that??

And...?

[BananaStand]

If one variable changes over time, and the other doesn't......what do you stats-geeks call that??

I'm pretty sure it's NOT "correlation"

[Poopadoop]

If one variable changes over time, and the other doesn't......what do you stats-geeks call that??

I'm pretty sure it's NOT "correlation"

If you made $4k as a teacher in 1920 and that put you in Q3, or you make $40k as a teacher today and are in Q3, then yes the rungs are further apart. But it's also true that if you improve your education and become a professor instead, you might make $8k in 1920 and $80k today, either of which would put you in Q2. In both cases you've gone up one quintile even though the absolute difference in income between a teacher and professor is $4k in 1920 and $40k today. This accounts for inflation and the fact that $40k now is closer in terms of real income to $4k in 1920 than it is to $40k in 1920.

The rungs scale with overall income, which is why they use quintiles not overall income.

[BananaStand]

If you made $4k as a teacher in 1920 and that put you in Q3, or you make $40k as a teacher today and are in Q3, then yes the rungs are further apart. But it's also true that if you improve your education and become a professor instead, you might make $8k in 1920 and $80k today, either of which would put you in Q2. In both cases you've gone up one quintile even though the absolute difference in income between a teacher and professor is $4k in 1920 and $40k today. This accounts for inflation and the fact that $40k now is closer in terms of real income to $4k in 1920 than it is to $40k in 1920.

The rungs scale with overall income, which is why they use quintiles not overall income.

You don't understand the data.

I would explain why, but apparently it's sufficient to just call you an idiot and move on.

[OngBonga]

It's banana's butthurt day today.

[BananaStand]

If the US is such a shithole, and Capitalism is so bad.....

And if Scandanavia is such a paradise and socialism is so great....


Then shouldn't it follow that Scandanavia, and not the US, would be the most desirable place for immigrants to move to??

Got any studies on that Poop? Which country do people desire to immigrate to the most??

[OngBonga]

Scandanvia is pretty high up in the list of places people want to go to. Considering they are small countries with no fucking sunlight, they must be doing something right.

[wufwugy]

Scandanvia is pretty high up in the list of places people want to go to. Considering they are small countries with no fucking sunlight, they must be doing something right.

Indeed. They are among the most business friendly nations on the planet.

It's cool to look at what Scandinavia is doing and evaluate what is good and what is not. It's not cool to look at results in Scandinavia and infer that one's preferred policy is causing it.

[OngBonga]

This is a poor argument. Most people who want to go to USA are sold a dream that doesn't exist. People who choose Scandanavia have done their homework.

[BananaStand]

Also....we've gotten away from this elephant in the room, but I want to re-direct your attention to the fact that the income inequality measures cited by liberal pussies are LOADED with BS data related to investment income.

[spoonitnow]

Go back to your shithole.

You wouldn't have the Internet without capitalism.

[wufwugy]

What I've gathered from the economists I read and that I've spoken with, nobody knows what causes inequality or what can change it, and income is a meaningless concept.

[spoonitnow]

What I've gathered from the economists I read and that I've spoken with, nobody knows what causes inequality or what can change it, and income is a meaningless concept.

Chance + inherent difference in skill.

[Poopadoop]

What I've gathered from the economists I read and that I've spoken with, nobody knows what causes inequality or what can change it, and income is a meaningless concept.

This article seems to have some ideas garnered from people in authority.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/...ity-in-the-us/

[wufwugy]

This article seems to have some ideas garnered from people in authority.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/...ity-in-the-us/

Yes they have ideas, and they're trying to figure it out.


Full disclosure, I have essentially three different experiences with economists on this.

(1) One of my macro professors held the preferred explanation of the "traumatized worker". That is that workers are more fearful of negotiating their wages up due to the threat of being replaced by cheaper outsourced labor. I think this explanation is decent even though I don't know if it shows up in the data. It is an idea some serious economists have taken seriously. An existential problem with this explanation, though, is that it only looks bad when you look at certain data (like only US instead of global) and data in a certain way (like conflating income levels in different countries).

She was also a fan of blaming lack of labor regulations. Lucky for us, she wasn't a labor economist, and wasn't very good and was not kept on by the university.

(2) One of my micro professors, who specializes in the topic of inequality, said that while people have ideas about what causes it and what to do, nobody knows.

(3) Popular economist blogger Scott Sumner argues that the data is wrong and misleading. I already covered the misleading part, but the "wrong" part includes things like the data that say inequality has been growing are flat out wrong. Once all forms of compensation are adjusted for, the change since the 70s disappears. I've seen these data in the past but I don't have them handy.



Something else that might be the most important part of all this is that methods economists use to measure value changes in goods and services are, for a lack of a better word, abysmal. For example, computers are continually improving and adopting new services. Economists don't know quite how to measure those changes in terms that accurately compare to previous states. According to blogger at econlog David Henderson, when he began researching how other economists do it, he was surprised at how bad the methods are. It's not the the economists are making mistakes, but that nobody even knows how to do it.

In a way, this shows us how it may be that poor people can own refrigerators and televisions and smart phones and people still call them poor. They go from being poor to being incredibly wealthy based on the method of measurement. Furthermore, the measuring is getting even harder because of how much is becoming digital. My go-to example that encapsulates all this is in music. How much time and energy and money did people spend CDs back in the 90s compared to how little people spend today for a far superior product? My personal costs decreased by >90%/month while the quality and quantity of my consumed products and services increased by some unquantifiable (but probably large) amount.

[Poopadoop]

Food for thought:

http://www.demos.org/blog/10/20/15/u...mark-17-charts

[wufwugy]

Well yeah that about covers it in the abstract.

The funny thing is that the concrete ideas for how to make income distribution less inequal are already in wide use. An example is like how most companies give fixed currency raises instead of percentage raises. This has the effect of costing the company the same while appearing to operate fairly while the proportion increases for the lower wages are greater than for the higher wages. But ultimately, this strategy is not used to address some elusive idea of inequality (because that doesn't matter), but to make the company more efficient.

There are other payment strategies used in different parts of the economy, like winner-take-all for CEOs, that probably increase inequality yet are used because they still provide the most efficient results.

[spoonitnow]

Capitalism is the reason that "poor people" have fucking cell phones.

[wufwugy]

It's not even that I like capitalism. I don't. I wish things were different. But the facts are the facts.

I do think biases come from emotion. Like you said before, some people would rather get a slice of bread if the person next to him has a slice of bread than a whole loaf if the person next to him gets ten loaves.

It's almost like humans are animals.

[wufwugy]

Amazing isn't it.

[spoonitnow]

Amazing isn't it.

So oppressed. Much inequality.