3 ms·

Remember, that much of the developing world has a legacy of socialism/communism (India included), and much of the progress that has been made, can be attributed

by Mikeb85 11y ago

Remember, that much of the developing world has a legacy of socialism/communism (India included), and much of the progress that has been made, can be attributed to various political movements. You're right that globalization has helped reduce inequality between various countries, it's not always for the obvious reasons (my wife's country of origin subsists almost entirely on money sent from the US and Canada back to family members - there are more migrants abroad than people left in her country). And while India has certainly become richer as a whole, it's still one of the most unequal countries in the world. Last but not least, Piketty chose to focus on France especially, not only because he's French and writing for that audience, but because they have BY FAR the best data accumulated from the 19th century to the present day.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The drop in inequality has been after liberalization (in china and India, at least), not during communism. Read milanovic's work. India is a more equal country than the US. I have no idea why people think it is unequal - its as if people conflate poverty and inequality or something. You are correct that free trade - including remittances - can reduce inequality. Weren't you just disputing this?
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > The drop in inequality has been after liberalization (in china and India, at least), not during communism. Data (which is widely reported and easy to find) shows China has far more inequality today than before reforms. It's a bit more difficult to find data on India, but the OECD says that inequality has doubled in India during the last 20 years as well: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-16064321 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-16064321 > You are correct that free trade - including remittances - can reduce inequality. Weren't you just disputing this? Free trade doesn't reduce overall inequality, it just shifts it. It transfers wealth from rich countries to poor countries, although it provides the poor country with far less wealth than it transfers from the rich country, with the difference becoming profit for the industrialist. Transfer payments are something different altogether in that they are a direct transfer of wealth, but it's a planned action (on the part of those sending the money), not necessarily a market force. If you look at data, inequality is increasing in most western countries, indeed in most developed and developing countries. https://www.quandl.com/collections/demography/gini-index-by-country https://www.quandl.com/collections/demography/gini-index-by-...
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Your stats on within India inequality do not refute or contradict my stats on global inequality. It transfers wealth from rich countries to poor countries, although it provides the poor country with far less wealth than it transfers from the rich country, with the difference becoming profit for the industrialist. This is the very mechanism of inequality reduction. You are sounding a bit right wing, suggesting that the main mechanism of inequality reduction is destroying wealth. Is that your intent? You are wrong about the total quantity being negative in this case, however - look at Milanovic's graph to see that everyone has become richer, it's just that the poor got richer faster. Apart from this one point you seem to be agreeing with me about everything I've said.

by Mikeb85 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

The drop in inequality has been after liberalization (in china and India, at least), not during communism. Read milanovic's work. India is a more equal country than the US. I have no idea why people think it is unequal - its as if people conflate poverty and inequality or something. You are correct that free trade - including remittances - can reduce inequality. Weren't you just disputing this?

Mikeb85 11y ago
> The drop in inequality has been after liberalization (in china and India, at least), not during communism. Data (which is widely reported and easy to find) shows China has far more inequality today than before reforms. It's a bit more difficult to find data on India, but the OECD says that inequality has doubled in India during the last 20 years as well: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-16064321 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-16064321 > You are correct that free trade - including remittances - can reduce inequality. Weren't you just disputing this? Free trade doesn't reduce overall inequality, it just shifts it. It transfers wealth from rich countries to poor countries, although it provides the poor country with far less wealth than it transfers from the rich country, with the difference becoming profit for the industrialist. Transfer payments are something different altogether in that they are a direct transfer of wealth, but it's a planned action (on the part of those sending the money), not necessarily a market force. If you look at data, inequality is increasing in most western countries, indeed in most developed and developing countries. https://www.quandl.com/collections/demography/gini-index-by-country https://www.quandl.com/collections/demography/gini-index-by-...
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Your stats on within India inequality do not refute or contradict my stats on global inequality. It transfers wealth from rich countries to poor countries, although it provides the poor country with far less wealth than it transfers from the rich country, with the difference becoming profit for the industrialist. This is the very mechanism of inequality reduction. You are sounding a bit right wing, suggesting that the main mechanism of inequality reduction is destroying wealth. Is that your intent? You are wrong about the total quantity being negative in this case, however - look at Milanovic's graph to see that everyone has become richer, it's just that the poor got richer faster. Apart from this one point you seem to be agreeing with me about everything I've said.