World's richest 85 people = same wealth as 3.5 billion of poorest

Income inequality has risen and fallen in countries with very similar economic models. Hence, I do not believe that the economic model per se is the main contribution factor. There are some country specific factors that play an big part in global stats – Russian being a good example – and it is difficult to extrapolate what happens there to let’s say Denmark. * Equally, there are specific factors in BZ where income inequality has been falling.

In most studies there a number of common themes/factors that have reasonably broad applicability and I have hinted at the source. Easy to google. Equally the other book I linked to (from a World Bank economist) takes a more radical approach and argues (1) there is nothing new about income inequality (true), (2) until (relatively) recently it had been declining (in economic history terms) and (3) there are only two factors that are important – I will let you read what those are. BTW his analysis is not completely accepted by his colleagues.

* but rising inequality in Russia and China, partly offset by Bz, has an important impact on global income inequality stats due the relative size of the population and the economy. Conversely what happens in Luxembourg hardly shows up.

Labelling the cause as simply a particular economic model is inaccurate and unhelpful.

How can capitalism work and not lead to income inequality? Ar eyou really claiming it is not part of the problem of that it somehow reduces inequality?
I mean this is a thread where the richest 85 people have the same wealth as half the population. Whatever system we are using for the spreading or accumulation of the wealth you dont need to be a rabid socialist to realise the current model is not working very well an to think it may actually be a cause and part of the problem

How much more unfair does it need to be for you to think it may be part of the problem?

Income inequality has risen and fallen in countries with very similar economic models. Hence, I do not believe that the economic model per se is the main contribution factor

I suspect the factor was state intervention to regulate and redistribute form the market you claim has no impact is the critical factor here.

until (relatively) recently it had been declining (in economic history terms)

What are you comparing us with feudal times?
Its not really declined country v country
Its not really declined in terms of real poverty or number affected
People die because % some folk hoard so much wealth its morally repulsive IMHO

Its a long slow walk to equality but capitalism is nto part fo the ultimate solution to this but it is not as bad as the King owning everything and us working for tokens to spend in their shops.

Income inequality has risen and fallen in countries with very similar economic models

I suppose this needs a timescale, and the countries involved. Also, I suspect it’s risen between too inequal, very inequal, inequal-but-everyone-spending-on-a-credit-boom-so-nobody-gives-a-shit, horribly inequal, and lots of other varying degrees of inequality.

I ask again, not just at thm, has there been a post-industrial revolution model which has led to low inequality across the population of any given state?

Its a long slow walk

Kinda like a Long March doncha mean JY? 😆

deadly, Income inequality fell broadly from the mid to late 19C/early 20C to the mid 70s globally. During that period there were a range of economic models of various degrees of success and longevity.

As highlighted above there have been different trends more recently with the same economic models and the same trends with different models.

Hence, the need to focus on more relevant factors. Ever wondered why I get involved in education threads for example.

So deadly by now I assume that you have looked at US inequality trends, when they peaked (late 20s), when they stayed broadly similar (late 40s-mid/late70s) and when they rose again (70s-08)

Ditto Latin America with it’s very different economic models. Income inequality fell across LatAm since 2000. Is that precise enough?

You will of course be aware that income inequality in the UK has narrowed fortunately since 2007. Of course, it would be churlish and inaccurate to draw any correlation between that fact and the party in power. Mere coincidence.

income inequality

I’ll be honest here and say that I don’t trust the income figures, especially those of the highest earners. I’m more interested in wealth inequality – at least the wealth that the wealthy are willing to tell the rest of us plebs that they have anyway. 🙂

Income inequality within a country is a bit different to global inequality though, surely.
How many of those 3.5 billion live in the same country as those 85 I wonder.

You would be sensible in that respect deadly. Capturing the “real income” at either end of the spectrum presents it’s challenges.

But the standard measure – gini coefficient – is broader than just what we (might normally) think of as income.

AS, I think the analysis of income inequality between countries is arguably more interesting than within. The book I highlighted concludes that “where you live” explains 80% of the difference but that figure is the subject of some considerable debate.

gini coefficient

I’m just reading an OECD report where they talk about the gini coefficient. It’s riveting stuff. 😀

Interesting to see where Brazil lies though and that the Nordic countries are still in the bottom ten (could be wrong where Norway is concerned…perhaps eleventh). And sad to see how high the USA is. It’s not news but it shouldn’t be so.

Kinda like a Long March doncha mean JY?

😀
Chapeau DD but i am slightly more libertarian than that

the need to focus on more relevant factors

What are these ? No matter how well you educate me the monarch and the Duke of Westminster are still very rich Under capitalism only so many of us can win. Having 50% of our population educated to degree level has not achieved a great deal so education, alone, is no answer to income iniquity.

it would be churlish and inaccurate to draw any correlation between that fact and the party in power. Mere coincidence.

It would be a downright lie, and you know it,to suggest Tory policies have led to this by design
IIRC the two main factors were [ ignoring the slump]
1. Increased rate of income tax – implemented by labour and reduced by Tories
2.The Lib Dem threshold increase for tax rates

Yes labour were appalling for this.
The slump is also interesting as well as it also means poverty has reduced despite people being less well off – its due to it being calculated as % of mean income and if this falls then poverty falls even if no one in poverty has any more money. Statistics eh.

INRAT

Can someone offer a synopsis?

Deadly, glad you are enjoying it!!! Of course, the absolute level of income inequality in Brazil remains too high. There is no denying that. If you are genuinely interesting in it, there is a lot of work done on the role and impact of education (have I mentioned that before) in BZ*. On a slightly more contentious point, the impact of family structure gets a lot of air-time on this topic, but to introduce that here, would really be asking for trouble!!!!!

Don’t you just love a misread!!! 😉

* google the wonderfully named Nora Lustig.

Fro whoppit
Capitalims is bad
Not its not – look it made us all wealthy
yes it is – look it made us all unequal
DD and THM actually debate with stats and stuff

Are the current levels of industrial plunder of the planet on which we live (and the only accessible habitable planet that we are aware of) sustainable, without detriment to future generations and other species?

All profit is derived from resource, be it natural, human, creative or otherwise;

Pick a P…

In terms of priority, what comes 1st:

Profit, People or Planet

85 people = same wealth as 3.5 billion is FANTASTIC news!

piedi di formaggio – let’s celebrate!
I quite enjoyed her initial stunned silence

I particularly liked the “I just have to pull up my socks, Oh!! I don’t have any socks”

and “Let me tell you later what you should say to this”

I thought this was funny on another news piece related to this.

“When we asked Americans if they were part of the nation’s top one-percent of money-makers, 13% said yes.”

But it also goes to further illustrate just how hard it is for the human brain to perceive these amounts.

We have missed the one obvious and current elephant in the room/factor leading to increased inequality:

On 8 January, the European Commission published 2012 report on employment and social analysis, indicating that EU’s social inequality gap among Member States deepened.

European Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs László Andor said to reporters that, “peripheral states appear to be caught in a downward spiral of falling economic output, rapidly rising unemployment and eroding individual incomes…2012 was another bad year for Europe, as it worsened the social divisions even further.”

According to the 2012 edition of the Employment and Social Developments in Europe Review, after five years of economic crisis and the return of a recession in 2012, unemployment is hitting new peaks not seen for almost twenty years, household incomes have declined and the risk of poverty or exclusion is on the rise, especially in Member States in Southern and Eastern Europe.

Fix exchange rates (in non-optimal currency areas) and the only way to adjust is through increased UN and/or falling wages. We have a desperate example of this going on before our very eyes….

Its an argument with some merit but they would clearly have taken a large hit however their currency was delivered.
We could debate which was worse but not whether they would have been hit

I am not sure the EU can take the blame for boom bust and countries borrowing to much and the financial markets closing in on them when they cannot pay. Whether they made it better [ bailing them out] or exacerbated it [ fixed exchange rate as you term it] it is difficult to be certain