3 ms·

As I said, my use of the term "equal" was poetic exaggeration. India is a perfectly good example, since it illustrates that a relatively smooth wealth distribu

As I said, my use of the term "equal" was poetic exaggeration. India is a perfectly good example, since it illustrates that a relatively smooth wealth distribution doesn't mean you get a flush toilet. The caste system is still here, though nowadays it's more a social problem than an economic one. Your discussion of harmonization sounds like countries need to harmonize to avoid competing with each other. What's wrong with competition, and allowing the better countries to get more workers?

anigbrowl 12y ago
India is a perfectly good example, since it illustrates that a relatively smooth wealth distribution doesn't mean you get a flush toilet. This is obtuse even by your standards, Chris. You could equally well argue that South Africa with a Gini of 63 is enormously economically empowered, but you're not guaranteed a flush toilet there either. What's wrong with competition, and allowing the better countries to get more workers? Try being a politician explaining that to economically dislocated domestic voters. Hell, look how bent out of shape people here get about immigration and the US only ranks 180th out of the world in population density. I don't think it's it's an economic necessity, but it's a political reality, unfortunately.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  You could equally well argue that South Africa with a Gini of 63 is enormously economically empowered... I'm arguing only that inequality is orthogonal to what we really care about: standard of living. But discussing standard of living is a political loser - poor Americans have a very high standard of living, and the historical story is one of more or less consistent improvements. (If you disagree, try this thought experiment: name a good or service people at the bottom lack.) As for political reality you are correct. The fact that a few million rich Americans are jealous of their richer neighbors will always seem more important to politicians than hundreds of millions of truly poor people who can't vote for them.

anigbrowl 12y ago

India is a perfectly good example, since it illustrates that a relatively smooth wealth distribution doesn't mean you get a flush toilet. This is obtuse even by your standards, Chris. You could equally well argue that South Africa with a Gini of 63 is enormously economically empowered, but you're not guaranteed a flush toilet there either. What's wrong with competition, and allowing the better countries to get more workers? Try being a politician explaining that to economically dislocated domestic voters. Hell, look how bent out of shape people here get about immigration and the US only ranks 180th out of the world in population density. I don't think it's it's an economic necessity, but it's a political reality, unfortunately.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
You could equally well argue that South Africa with a Gini of 63 is enormously economically empowered... I'm arguing only that inequality is orthogonal to what we really care about: standard of living. But discussing standard of living is a political loser - poor Americans have a very high standard of living, and the historical story is one of more or less consistent improvements. (If you disagree, try this thought experiment: name a good or service people at the bottom lack.) As for political reality you are correct. The fact that a few million rich Americans are jealous of their richer neighbors will always seem more important to politicians than hundreds of millions of truly poor people who can't vote for them.