4 ms·
But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Also many of these wars wer
by openasocket 10y ago
But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Also many of these wars were pretty localized, so we should see the drops and inequality in the immediate area and a reduced effect elsewhere.
- munificent 10y ago> But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Many of these are not short term events. You have a several years-long war, with a rise in conflict before it and a gradual repair and rebuild afterwards. There are enough of them that I wouldn't be surprised if the overall graph was smooth. > Also many of these wars were pretty localized, so we should see the drops and inequality in the immediate area and a reduced effect elsewhere. In the modern world, few things are truly localized.
- openasocket 10y agoThat's a valid explanation for how wars could cause the trends in inequality, but without further evidence this is a specious argument. It also doesn't explain regional variations in income inequality. Look at the list of countries by income inequality: there isn't really a correlation between income inequality and "war-iness". I think wars can increase equality, but they are far from the only cause.
- munificent 10y agoSure, I'm not arguing that all of the inequality changes are due to wars, just that there have been enough of them to potentially explain it.