14 ms·

Both methods seem pretty far from ideal, however, if US has more "economic power", but that economic power is largely because of a few (hundred) rich people get

Both methods seem pretty far from ideal, however, if US has more "economic power", but that economic power is largely because of a few (hundred) rich people getting ever wealthier, while everyone else in the country feels increasingly poorer, is it really "better"? I think this gap will only widen in the future, thanks to technology, with few "stars" becoming billionaires overnight, while millions lose their jobs to automation. There is however another factor that should be counted, and that is living conditions, which obviously favors US. So maybe something close to an ideal index for how rich a country is should include total economic power + price purchasing parity + living conditions level.

alexeisadeski3 12y ago
1. Automation would hit Chinese workers harder than Americans. 2. PPP incorporates living conditions already. GDP@PPP is already standard.
byerley 12y ago
It's interesting to note that people always leave off the other end of the wealth inequality figures. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1_percent.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1_percent.jpg The top 1% share is roughly the same now as it was in the 1930's. The "Great Compression" afterwards was largely fueled by government regulation (as best as I can understand it - not being an economics guy) so I'm not convinced that the gap will continue to grow.
- waps 12y ago
  Keep in mind that the wealth inequality in historical norms is spectacularly low. Yes, it was lower for a while due to WWI and, especially, WWII. The situation, in relative terms, is still much better (20-30% more equal compared to the beginning of the 20th century, hundreds of percents compared to before) for the poor than it ever was before. In absolute terms the situation for the poor is so much better it's not funny. Not saying we can't do better, but we're actually not doing all that bad at all. Of course, it's moving in the wrong direction. I disagree with the government regulation thing. It's true, yet it's so wrong as to mislead. The government did institute draconian regulation on businesses which lead to decades of limited profits or even losses, but it did so because of the wars. So the government is responsible for inequality reduction in the same way that an engine is responsible for a car's acceleration. The decision for the acceleration was made by the driver, and the driver for these policies was war. Without a doubt, no sane person, poor or rich, wants a return of these policies, no matter how much they'll reduce inequality.
  - byerley 12y ago
    I think you'd have trouble arguing that US involvement in WWII wasn't dictated by government regulation (Lend-Lease and the Japanese Oil Embargo), but the point was more that it's not an irreversible trend. Presumably if there's some optimal wealth inequality based on our technology level/social structure/ect. we'll naturally trend towards it on a long enough timeline.

alexeisadeski3 12y ago

1. Automation would hit Chinese workers harder than Americans. 2. PPP incorporates living conditions already. GDP@PPP is already standard.

byerley 12y ago

It's interesting to note that people always leave off the other end of the wealth inequality figures. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1_percent.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1_percent.jpg The top 1% share is roughly the same now as it was in the 1930's. The "Great Compression" afterwards was largely fueled by government regulation (as best as I can understand it - not being an economics guy) so I'm not convinced that the gap will continue to grow.

waps 12y ago
Keep in mind that the wealth inequality in historical norms is spectacularly low. Yes, it was lower for a while due to WWI and, especially, WWII. The situation, in relative terms, is still much better (20-30% more equal compared to the beginning of the 20th century, hundreds of percents compared to before) for the poor than it ever was before. In absolute terms the situation for the poor is so much better it's not funny. Not saying we can't do better, but we're actually not doing all that bad at all. Of course, it's moving in the wrong direction. I disagree with the government regulation thing. It's true, yet it's so wrong as to mislead. The government did institute draconian regulation on businesses which lead to decades of limited profits or even losses, but it did so because of the wars. So the government is responsible for inequality reduction in the same way that an engine is responsible for a car's acceleration. The decision for the acceleration was made by the driver, and the driver for these policies was war. Without a doubt, no sane person, poor or rich, wants a return of these policies, no matter how much they'll reduce inequality.
- byerley 12y ago
  I think you'd have trouble arguing that US involvement in WWII wasn't dictated by government regulation (Lend-Lease and the Japanese Oil Embargo), but the point was more that it's not an irreversible trend. Presumably if there's some optimal wealth inequality based on our technology level/social structure/ect. we'll naturally trend towards it on a long enough timeline.