4 ms·

Outcomes for the median person in places where rules do not allow or encourage such individual wealth are almost universally poorer than places that do. The ver

Outcomes for the median person in places where rules do not allow or encourage such individual wealth are almost universally poorer than places that do. The very system that allows billionaires to exist also incentivizes the creation of wealth that benefits everyone.

jacknews 4y ago
Source please. The research I've seen on this shows the opposite, eg the scandinavian model. Once you get past a certain level, the money itself no longer has any meaning, it's more about keeping score. We should look for ways to satisfy that drive without sucking wealth out of the rest of society.
- Aunche 4y ago
  All Scandinavian countries have billionaires. Sweden and Norway even have more billionaires per capita than the US. Scandinavian countries don't treat billionaires as policy failures. They merely have higher taxes across the board. In fact, the US tax system is actually more progressive because we don't have a VAT and much lower low and middle income tax brackets.
  - majani 4y ago
    Moreover, the Scandinavian system locks in economic stratification much more than the American one
    - stolsvik 4y ago
      Hæ? How is that? Kind regards, bewildered Norwegian.
bee_rider 4y ago
I tried "gini coefficient vs per capita GDP" and "gini coefficient vs per capita GDP" in wolfram alpha, but it just looks like a random scattering (other than the notable absence of high gini coefficient, high per capita income countries). Clearly I've missed something, would you mind elaborating?
- sxg 4y ago
  Taking a look at the raw data on Wolfram Alpha, it seems like a lot of the super low income countries are muddying the data. There are many low income countries with Gini coefficients all across the spectrum. I don't have the time to do it now, but you might find a pattern in the data if you filter out countries with GDP/capita <$5000 or <$10000.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    For some reason, the plot defaulted to log for me. If you put it in linear mode, you can probably eyeball it. I mean we're looking for an obvious trend and it appears to just be completely random.
- prottog 4y ago
  The socio-legal conditions that permit the building of wealth, like strong property rights and free markets, are necessary but not sufficient; so you wouldn't expect to see a correlation between them. There are only a few countries that have a low Gini coefficient (more income equality) along with a high per capita GDP (more overall wealth) in north or western Europe such as Finland, Norway, or Belgium, which are very much the exceptions; for the most part, they all have a strong cultural background of being industrious, and in the case of Norway have a lot of oil. According to the Wikipedia page on the Gini coefficient, the top 20 lowest Gini (highest income equality) countries are: Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Finland, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, the Netherlands, Denmark, East Timor, Sweden, Kosova, Malta, and Iraq. You'll notice that besides the northwestern European exceptions, they largely fall more on the "everyone is equally poor" side of the spectrum. The US is in the bottom half of income equality, yet has one of the highest GDP per capita and the highest median household disposable income, which many agree is a very good way of measuring how wealthy ordinary people are. To summarize, obviously having high income inequality does not cause a wealthy nation; but instead (going back to my original thesis) the factors that permit the building of a wealthy nation can cause high income inequality, which isn't a problem as long as the rising tide is lifting all boats. The few countries that are both wealthy and have low income inequality are virtually exclusively monoethnic societies that have a strong cultural emphasis on both the factors that are conducive to wealth-creation (like education and delayed gratification) as well as factors that forbid egregious displays of income inequality (like the Scandinavian Law of Jante). I may go one step further and theorize that the same global factors that led to the rapid increase in wealth around the world in the past half-century or so did much to hide the failings of more egalitarian, "socialist" economic policies, much like the period of very low real interest rates of the last twenty years hid the failings of unprofitable VC-backed startups; and now that it looks like we are entering a more turbulent period with geopolitical instability and energy shortages, we may very well end up seeing a sharp reduction in the standard of living in countries like France or Spain as the ever-increasing redistribution of wealth in response to one crisis after another make it harder and harder to actually produce wealth.

jacknews 4y ago

Source please. The research I've seen on this shows the opposite, eg the scandinavian model. Once you get past a certain level, the money itself no longer has any meaning, it's more about keeping score. We should look for ways to satisfy that drive without sucking wealth out of the rest of society.

Aunche 4y ago
All Scandinavian countries have billionaires. Sweden and Norway even have more billionaires per capita than the US. Scandinavian countries don't treat billionaires as policy failures. They merely have higher taxes across the board. In fact, the US tax system is actually more progressive because we don't have a VAT and much lower low and middle income tax brackets.
- majani 4y ago
  Moreover, the Scandinavian system locks in economic stratification much more than the American one
  - stolsvik 4y ago
    Hæ? How is that? Kind regards, bewildered Norwegian.

bee_rider 4y ago

I tried "gini coefficient vs per capita GDP" and "gini coefficient vs per capita GDP" in wolfram alpha, but it just looks like a random scattering (other than the notable absence of high gini coefficient, high per capita income countries). Clearly I've missed something, would you mind elaborating?

sxg 4y ago
Taking a look at the raw data on Wolfram Alpha, it seems like a lot of the super low income countries are muddying the data. There are many low income countries with Gini coefficients all across the spectrum. I don't have the time to do it now, but you might find a pattern in the data if you filter out countries with GDP/capita <$5000 or <$10000.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  For some reason, the plot defaulted to log for me. If you put it in linear mode, you can probably eyeball it. I mean we're looking for an obvious trend and it appears to just be completely random.
prottog 4y ago
The socio-legal conditions that permit the building of wealth, like strong property rights and free markets, are necessary but not sufficient; so you wouldn't expect to see a correlation between them. There are only a few countries that have a low Gini coefficient (more income equality) along with a high per capita GDP (more overall wealth) in north or western Europe such as Finland, Norway, or Belgium, which are very much the exceptions; for the most part, they all have a strong cultural background of being industrious, and in the case of Norway have a lot of oil. According to the Wikipedia page on the Gini coefficient, the top 20 lowest Gini (highest income equality) countries are: Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Finland, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, the Netherlands, Denmark, East Timor, Sweden, Kosova, Malta, and Iraq. You'll notice that besides the northwestern European exceptions, they largely fall more on the "everyone is equally poor" side of the spectrum. The US is in the bottom half of income equality, yet has one of the highest GDP per capita and the highest median household disposable income, which many agree is a very good way of measuring how wealthy ordinary people are. To summarize, obviously having high income inequality does not cause a wealthy nation; but instead (going back to my original thesis) the factors that permit the building of a wealthy nation can cause high income inequality, which isn't a problem as long as the rising tide is lifting all boats. The few countries that are both wealthy and have low income inequality are virtually exclusively monoethnic societies that have a strong cultural emphasis on both the factors that are conducive to wealth-creation (like education and delayed gratification) as well as factors that forbid egregious displays of income inequality (like the Scandinavian Law of Jante). I may go one step further and theorize that the same global factors that led to the rapid increase in wealth around the world in the past half-century or so did much to hide the failings of more egalitarian, "socialist" economic policies, much like the period of very low real interest rates of the last twenty years hid the failings of unprofitable VC-backed startups; and now that it looks like we are entering a more turbulent period with geopolitical instability and energy shortages, we may very well end up seeing a sharp reduction in the standard of living in countries like France or Spain as the ever-increasing redistribution of wealth in response to one crisis after another make it harder and harder to actually produce wealth.