the recent papers by Kawachi and Backland et al do not directly rebut Deaton's paper on inequality and mortality in the USA. they use different data and methods, and do not attempt to demonstrate any errors in the Deaton and Lubotsky's paper, so it is really quite lazy of Pickett to imply they make previous research irrelevant. Also, the Kawachi paper actually finds that inequality affects the wealthier more, which is a rather perverse result and is not evidence for the psychosocial mechanism.
most of this debate is silly. cross country regressions with one independent variable don't give you good robust results -- they are pretty much worthless. can't really believe pickett spends so much time defending their shit presentation or wants us to believe that regression analysis (in the case of mobility and inequality) is meaningful with 5 data points.
It's always fascinating to see what lengths apologists for inequality will go to to try and make it seem that its the natural way, and that equality isn't when I'd surmise that most folks begin to understand that inequality is a deviation from what's more natural usually beginning around age 5-7. It's usually at about this level of intellectual development which folks like Ayn Rand, and the poor right-libertarian lemmings who look up to her, stop in their development.
You seem to have absolutely no respect for people who are different than you. Claiming that people who like Ayn Rand stop their intellectual development at age 5-7 is retarded.
@atafto Huh? I respect people who are different than me. Nothing I said even hints that I don't. And, yes, claiming that people who Rand appeals to have stopped intellectual development at around 5-7 when the psychological development is that expressed in most of Rand's babbling isn't "retarded". That people's intellectual development has stopped at this age of development is most definitely retarded though, literally. Has nothing to do with respecting anything. I feel sorry for these people.
How can you claim that you respect that people are different when you want to get rid of differences? Your claim about Ayn Rand fans mental capabilities is so stupid that no further commenting is necessary.
@atafto Uhh...Never even hinted at wanting to get rid of differences. I recommend learning to read before trying to engage someone. It's VERY simple. There are various levels of development which people pass through during maturation. There are specific thinking processes which are typical for each of these levels. Those types of thinking which Rand promotes are more or less the same as the psychological maturity level of a 5-7 year old. I also recommend studying a little psychology.
The Spirit Level is scientific; proves inequality, historically known to exist, still exists; is increasing. While the privilaged may think they are immune from the consequences and repercussions of inequality, inequality is universal in its impact on society, and The Spirit Level becomes the carrot of change before the donkey of privilage.
@voiceofreason467 Value is not something that 'should be applied', value is a reality, with HD&S giving that reality. If value does not come from labor production--lol, which obviously it does not--then ET and CC--what you are promoting--make no logical sense. You are ignorantly and amateurishly confusing value with production, a beginner's mistake in the extreme. Goods produced get value the same way natural goods get value, that is the point (which apparently flew right over your head).
Value comes from HD&S. If a baseball size pearl washes up in front of me and a pineapple falls down next to me, their value--and difference thereof--comes from HD&S, nothing else. As I said, a good's longevity quality value is a HD&S issue, how it is used is a subjective HD&S issue, and production waste is a production issue unrelated to value itself. If 1% or 10% of society were coercive that is a morality issue and has no relevance to the outcome of value or the pearl-pineapple analogy above.
@voiceofreason467 Human Demand is subjective, which is why it is called the subjectivist theory of value. You are giving LTV commodity fetish incoherent ramblings on advertising. If you see an advertisement for $100 plastic bottles of air, that will not create any Human Demand, unless you are subjectively dumb enough to buy it. Then, of course, you go back to fallacious LTV ET; If oil or diamond companies charge above scarcity--just as if a grocery store did--the competition would ruin
their production return, ending their business. Selling fake diamonds or initiating coercive fraction-reserve banking is fraud, a coercive act that should be charged as such and is unrelated to value. Demand and scarcity are, in reality, actual points of value.
How a good is used is part of human demand; the longevity of a good is production quality and scarcity issue; the waste a good produces, as in externalities, is a production/morality issue unrelated to value. The subjectivist theory of value is reality, not your incoherent, unnamed rambling.
@voiceofreason467 It is known as the subjectivist theory of value; also known as reality. Value comes from human demand and scarcity, period; there are no exceptions. Air has no value because there is no scarcity, digging holes in the middle of the sahara desert has no value because there is no human demand for that.
@voiceofreason467 The fantasy LTV is the view that value comes from labor, when in reality value comes from human demand and scarcity. There is no equivocation or incorrect logical deduction, that is reality. Economics is a formal science, not a natural science like astronomy, idiot. You use logic and logical deduction, which is exactly what explains the fallacy CC is since it is based off of ET, which is based off of the fallacious LTV, therefore making it logically false. Understand?
@voiceofreason467 Isolating and committing robbery (you use the cover-term 'taxation') against individuals with higher incomes is CC, which is based off of ET which is based off of the unicorn LTV. The difference between deductive and inductive is certain and probable, which is irrelevant; you do not understand the terms you are using, you just keep howling incoherent ramblings that prove you can not refute the facts I am spoon-feeding to you. LTV, CC theft is a thug, self-refuting fallacy.
@voiceofreason467 LTV=ET=CC=isolating and committing robbery against individuals with higher incomes. Why do you think they refer to 'progressive' theft as 'robin hood' theft (even though the origional robin hood stole from the State and not the rich)? Isolating and committing robbery against individuals with higher incomes is CC. CC is a subsector of ET, which is a subsector of the unicorn LTV. I know you are stomping your feet about this fact, but that does not make it any less true.
@voiceofreason467 They are manipulating statistics because they want to promote LTV class conflict criminal theft. That is why they are tripping over themselves to lie about the data, they believe in fallacious LTV fantasies. You can not refute that fact because it is correct.
@voiceofreason467 That is logical proof, logical deduction. LTV=ET=CC=isolating and committing robbery against the upper income class. If LTV does not lead to ET, and ET does not lead to CC then logically prove it.
@voiceofreason467 Attacking higher income individuals, saying to isolate and commit robbery against them, is class conflict. Class conflict is a subsector of exploitation theory. Exploitation theory is a subsector of the labor theory of value. For an overview: LTV=ET=CC=isolating and committing robbery against the upper income class, which is exactly what you are promoting. You are, therefore, promoting fallacious LTV nonsense.
The LTOV is a fantasy, human demand and scarcity gives things value, not labor; that is a pure, self-serving fallacy. This confusion makes fallacious LTOV proponents not understand the value of entrepreneurial capital to production, which they use to ramble off the incoherent ET nonsense. LTV is not a 'purist form of' anything, it is a fantasy. I am logically deducting every statement and you just wave them off without any evidence, that is the false substitute for responding to arguments.
@voiceofreason467 If you disprove the fallacious LTOV denying human demand and scarcity give things value you refute the anti-capital, anti-entrepreneur ET, which basis it's anti-capital, anti-entrepreneur belief's on the confusion of labor giving things value. Since you refute the anti-capital, anti-entrepreneur ET you refute the ET extension of CC which basis itself in the confusion of capital and interest of ET. If B is an extension of A and C is an extension of B, refuting A refutes B and C.
@voiceofreason467 We are talking about class conflict--coercive attacks on upper income individuals by income groups lower than that upper income. Class conflict is a subsector of exploitation theory. Exploitation theory is a subsector of the LTOV. LTOV is a unicorn theory that denies the reality of demand and scarcity giving value for self-serving purposes of one part of the production process. The class conflict theft crime you promote is a complete subsector of the fallacious, unicorn LTOV.
Ridiculous Class Conflict--the whole point of this steal from higher income discussion--is a subsection of exploitation theory which is wholly based off of the fallacious LTOV. Everything should be voluntary, anyone that commits coercion should be charged as such. All goods, services and actions should be voluntary, from services like arbitration, air traffic control, roads, and insurance to goods like food and drugs.
The fallacious exploitation theory is wholly based off of the fallacious LTOV fantasy. '[T]he end all be all' is everything being voluntary, anyone that commits coercion should be charged as such. If you do not want to exchange for goods and services in the voluntary sector you could voluntarily do any other thing you would like. All goods, services and actions should be voluntary, from services like arbitration, air traffic control, roads, and insurance to goods like food and drugs.
@voiceofreason467 If a robber or the mafia steal money and then give away food and candy with it they would no longer being committing robbery? That is pure nonsense, when you commit coercion (murder/robbery) it is coercion and you should be charged as such. All goods, services and actions should be voluntary, from services like arbitration, air traffic control, roads, and insurance to goods like food and drugs.
You never consent to being coercively robbed. Only an intellectually confused idiot would say if I am born in a neighborhood controlled by the mafia I therefore consent to the coercive mafia and they are therefore acting voluntarily. The top 1% (which are there because people voluntarily give them money for supplying demand making society richer) account for 40% of income stolen at the federal level. That is the latest federal theft data. This is straight-out LTOV exploitation theory nonsense.
@voiceofreason467 You can not say robbery is not theft because you went and bought some goods and services with the money you stole, threatening to murder the victims if they did not comply.
For the facts you in the same sentence state are false and also that you do not know what they are, look at table 6 on total percentage shares of income stolen by income group here:
taxfoundation [.] org [/] news [/] show [/] 250 [.] html
Just another fallacious labor theory of value idiot.
Kate and Richard seem to attack Peter and Christopher on emotional grounds sometimes. The racist slur does nothing for their analysis, and nor does Kate's appeal to emotion at 38:00. Having said that, I think this was a good debate and quite well-rounded. In future, could the camera show all the graphs while they cite them?
The one thing people need to consider is this... You notice that countries who are "more equal" seem to have similar races than countries who have many races in one country..ex: The United States...
In Denmark theres lowest Gini-level (UN estimate), highest tax rate in the world, lowest unemployment in EU and second highest capital gains tax (which is also progressive). If we look at old industrialized country a better example cannot be find.
@cakeatsnake68 They show trends. Trends are clear. Obviously culture plays a major role, but culture is something that you can't just catch and change. Alot of the problems in Finland come from our culture around violence and alcohol. I wasn't surprised to see Finland break the trend in homicide because i knew we are like that. We have to work right here, right now to build a better future for our children.
Here in the U.S. , the top 1% owns more than 90% of us combined.
400 people have as much wealth as half of our population.
The level of inequality is as bad as we've ever seen.
As far as inequality, we are worse than Egypt, yet we are blind to anything but the myth created for us. Most citizens don't know how desperate the situation really is b/c of our extreme media consolidation. B/c when the wealthy control the means of information. The information can be whatever they want it to be.
@mburger93 I feel sorry for America, reading the Spirit Level really opened my eyes to how appalling a country America is to 90%+ citizens, the attacks on it from Conservative right-wing think tanks are as shallow and empty as they are predictable and despicable, it should be handed out for free and read by all.
@mburger93 lol, that is a lie. The top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxation theft in the US. Should the bottom 1% pay 40% of all federal taxation theft? Would that be fair?
@mburger93 I understand your concern, but your comments are an argument against your own point. If Egypt has more "equality" than the United States then "equality" is not necessarily what we want because by every measure our way of life is better than Egypt's. If you disagree try living there. Also, your chances of going from poor to rich are greater in America depending on your ability and work ethic.
Also, equality in terms of society is quantifiable. You can measure the gap between the wealthiest and poorest citizens of a society. More equal means that there is a smaller gap between wealthiest and poorest citizens.
If I were you I'd check the punctuation of your comments whenever making a statement about another persons intellect. Good day sir.
Anyone here seen Zeitgeist Moving Forward,they did use SPL and funny enough people make money on Wallstreet upon how many prison have prisoners.So money get generated upon how inequality effects people and where they get placed in, as on top still effecting the person in Wallstreet with some stress of security ie either for their lives in personal level or for what they think they own.Would suggest that documentary and do like the people input in this comment section peace.
Excellent debate! Both sides have useful things to say.
This is only correlations of data sets which does not give cause-effect realtionships so Im not sure why everyones getting so hot about it all. Except that its more about the ethics of social stratifcation by size of personal bank balance than if these variables are connected. And no debate or correlation will solve that; furthermore Im not sure that even an highly controlled experiment would either.
But again it would be wrong, in this instance, to remove that population imho. Firstly, as each data point is actually a person and the measurements are of general well being etc (as opposed to e.g. a specific behaviour) the popu excluded affect (in reality) the pop left in. So the points are too interrelated imo to be able to exclude any (i.e. excluding for afro data, doesn't control for ACTUAL afro behaviours in reality affecting the remaining pops rating indirectly)
so they are saying the authors of the book showed unreliable statistics by not putting in the graphics the countries that didn't show their desired trend. but they try to prove them wrong by eliminating very important countries if not the most.
Furthermore, removing the USA as an outlier, then saying that the original authors ignore culture and history seems a double standard. The USA is the leading cultural and monetary ideology of our times and it is broadcast worldwide. And even removing it the trends were in the right direction because (at least in the UK) we#re becoming more like the US all the time.
Surely if you control for ethnicity in the american data you'll hide what you're looking for anyway because sure among the afro-american population the inequality would be greater?
@Iamthenoi Yes I can imagine a lot of people are wondering this too, but it's still a fair critique. It is only if African-Americans made up the vast majority of one group or the other would it actually skew the relationship the authors are proposing. In fact, African-Americans only make up about 13% of the total american population, so that simply isn't even possible. Removing them should not skew the income-inequality to homicide rate, but it does, so the relationship they propose is'nt there.
@kaupaxup And secondly, and perhaps more arguable: Afro-americans will consist a large proportion of the lower end of the economic gradient. And the authors argue the greater the inequality the greater the dysfunction to both ends (rich and poor). As black people are *generally* (stress: not being racist) poorer they will be subject to greater dysfunctional pressure created by the inequality because it is more obvious to them.
@Iamthenoi No, I agree on that point, but it's still a fair critique of the presentation in TSL because one must face the fact that they only make up a very small percentage of all of the poor people in the US. What I qould critique both sides on though is that they don't discuss geography. Culture is tied mostly to geography, so *where* these people are poor is probably a substantially stronger indicator than either I-I or ethnicity. But culture is not well grasped in the positivist paradigm.
@kaupaxup Maybe the increased rates of homicide among afro-americans might be the tail end of behaviours occurring today, as a result of the CIVIL inequalities they suffered for so long. They have only looked and income inequality afterall. I can even imagine the uneven distribution of health problems could even feedback in: the inequality of health adding more pressure to exacerbate the whole set of circumstances. I'm just musing now really. Thanks for discussing with me.
@Iamthenoi They analyze trends and they clearly go hand in hand. But yes, of course, but because of these civil inequalities they end up much lower on the payscale, which doesn't exactly help. If you want people to behave, give them a future. It takes a whole generation to fix things and that's why it's so important something is done as soon as possible.
Considering the content of the RSA, I'm surprised by Christopher Snowdon's conclusions, considering the evidence does not correlate with ethnicity, but cultural identity.
the recent papers by Kawachi and Backland et al do not directly rebut Deaton's paper on inequality and mortality in the USA. they use different data and methods, and do not attempt to demonstrate any errors in the Deaton and Lubotsky's paper, so it is really quite lazy of Pickett to imply they make previous research irrelevant. Also, the Kawachi paper actually finds that inequality affects the wealthier more, which is a rather perverse result and is not evidence for the psychosocial mechanism.
abrereton14 1 month ago
most of this debate is silly. cross country regressions with one independent variable don't give you good robust results -- they are pretty much worthless. can't really believe pickett spends so much time defending their shit presentation or wants us to believe that regression analysis (in the case of mobility and inequality) is meaningful with 5 data points.
abrereton14 1 month ago
"Those types of thinking which Rand promotes are more or less the same as the psychological maturity level of a 5-7 year old."
Sure... So they are mentally retarded. I guess there is no reason trying to discuss with someone who is on your level of seriousness.
atafto 1 month ago
It's always fascinating to see what lengths apologists for inequality will go to to try and make it seem that its the natural way, and that equality isn't when I'd surmise that most folks begin to understand that inequality is a deviation from what's more natural usually beginning around age 5-7. It's usually at about this level of intellectual development which folks like Ayn Rand, and the poor right-libertarian lemmings who look up to her, stop in their development.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
You seem to have absolutely no respect for people who are different than you. Claiming that people who like Ayn Rand stop their intellectual development at age 5-7 is retarded.
atafto 2 months ago
@atafto Huh? I respect people who are different than me. Nothing I said even hints that I don't. And, yes, claiming that people who Rand appeals to have stopped intellectual development at around 5-7 when the psychological development is that expressed in most of Rand's babbling isn't "retarded". That people's intellectual development has stopped at this age of development is most definitely retarded though, literally. Has nothing to do with respecting anything. I feel sorry for these people.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1
How can you claim that you respect that people are different when you want to get rid of differences? Your claim about Ayn Rand fans mental capabilities is so stupid that no further commenting is necessary.
atafto 1 month ago
@atafto Uhh...Never even hinted at wanting to get rid of differences. I recommend learning to read before trying to engage someone. It's VERY simple. There are various levels of development which people pass through during maturation. There are specific thinking processes which are typical for each of these levels. Those types of thinking which Rand promotes are more or less the same as the psychological maturity level of a 5-7 year old. I also recommend studying a little psychology.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
The Spirit Level is scientific; proves inequality, historically known to exist, still exists; is increasing. While the privilaged may think they are immune from the consequences and repercussions of inequality, inequality is universal in its impact on society, and The Spirit Level becomes the carrot of change before the donkey of privilage.
wynn2u 3 months ago
@wynn2u
They at best show correlation, but there is no causation.
atafto 2 months ago
@wynn2u
They haven't proven that inequlity has an impact on society. They only show correlation, not causation.
atafto 1 month ago
Kate Pickett destroyed Saunders
xRA1D32x 3 months ago
Comment removed
fraser003 3 months ago
Go Kate Pickett. Fight on.
celainea 6 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Value is not something that 'should be applied', value is a reality, with HD&S giving that reality. If value does not come from labor production--lol, which obviously it does not--then ET and CC--what you are promoting--make no logical sense. You are ignorantly and amateurishly confusing value with production, a beginner's mistake in the extreme. Goods produced get value the same way natural goods get value, that is the point (which apparently flew right over your head).
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
Value comes from HD&S. If a baseball size pearl washes up in front of me and a pineapple falls down next to me, their value--and difference thereof--comes from HD&S, nothing else. As I said, a good's longevity quality value is a HD&S issue, how it is used is a subjective HD&S issue, and production waste is a production issue unrelated to value itself. If 1% or 10% of society were coercive that is a morality issue and has no relevance to the outcome of value or the pearl-pineapple analogy above.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Human Demand is subjective, which is why it is called the subjectivist theory of value. You are giving LTV commodity fetish incoherent ramblings on advertising. If you see an advertisement for $100 plastic bottles of air, that will not create any Human Demand, unless you are subjectively dumb enough to buy it. Then, of course, you go back to fallacious LTV ET; If oil or diamond companies charge above scarcity--just as if a grocery store did--the competition would ruin
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
their production return, ending their business. Selling fake diamonds or initiating coercive fraction-reserve banking is fraud, a coercive act that should be charged as such and is unrelated to value. Demand and scarcity are, in reality, actual points of value.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
How a good is used is part of human demand; the longevity of a good is production quality and scarcity issue; the waste a good produces, as in externalities, is a production/morality issue unrelated to value. The subjectivist theory of value is reality, not your incoherent, unnamed rambling.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
Comment removed
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 It is known as the subjectivist theory of value; also known as reality. Value comes from human demand and scarcity, period; there are no exceptions. Air has no value because there is no scarcity, digging holes in the middle of the sahara desert has no value because there is no human demand for that.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 The fantasy LTV is the view that value comes from labor, when in reality value comes from human demand and scarcity. There is no equivocation or incorrect logical deduction, that is reality. Economics is a formal science, not a natural science like astronomy, idiot. You use logic and logical deduction, which is exactly what explains the fallacy CC is since it is based off of ET, which is based off of the fallacious LTV, therefore making it logically false. Understand?
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Isolating and committing robbery (you use the cover-term 'taxation') against individuals with higher incomes is CC, which is based off of ET which is based off of the unicorn LTV. The difference between deductive and inductive is certain and probable, which is irrelevant; you do not understand the terms you are using, you just keep howling incoherent ramblings that prove you can not refute the facts I am spoon-feeding to you. LTV, CC theft is a thug, self-refuting fallacy.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 LTV=ET=CC=isolating and committing robbery against individuals with higher incomes. Why do you think they refer to 'progressive' theft as 'robin hood' theft (even though the origional robin hood stole from the State and not the rich)? Isolating and committing robbery against individuals with higher incomes is CC. CC is a subsector of ET, which is a subsector of the unicorn LTV. I know you are stomping your feet about this fact, but that does not make it any less true.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 They are manipulating statistics because they want to promote LTV class conflict criminal theft. That is why they are tripping over themselves to lie about the data, they believe in fallacious LTV fantasies. You can not refute that fact because it is correct.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 That is logical proof, logical deduction. LTV=ET=CC=isolating and committing robbery against the upper income class. If LTV does not lead to ET, and ET does not lead to CC then logically prove it.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467 Attacking higher income individuals, saying to isolate and commit robbery against them, is class conflict. Class conflict is a subsector of exploitation theory. Exploitation theory is a subsector of the labor theory of value. For an overview: LTV=ET=CC=isolating and committing robbery against the upper income class, which is exactly what you are promoting. You are, therefore, promoting fallacious LTV nonsense.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
The LTOV is a fantasy, human demand and scarcity gives things value, not labor; that is a pure, self-serving fallacy. This confusion makes fallacious LTOV proponents not understand the value of entrepreneurial capital to production, which they use to ramble off the incoherent ET nonsense. LTV is not a 'purist form of' anything, it is a fantasy. I am logically deducting every statement and you just wave them off without any evidence, that is the false substitute for responding to arguments.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
@voiceofreason467 If you disprove the fallacious LTOV denying human demand and scarcity give things value you refute the anti-capital, anti-entrepreneur ET, which basis it's anti-capital, anti-entrepreneur belief's on the confusion of labor giving things value. Since you refute the anti-capital, anti-entrepreneur ET you refute the ET extension of CC which basis itself in the confusion of capital and interest of ET. If B is an extension of A and C is an extension of B, refuting A refutes B and C.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
@voiceofreason467 We are talking about class conflict--coercive attacks on upper income individuals by income groups lower than that upper income. Class conflict is a subsector of exploitation theory. Exploitation theory is a subsector of the LTOV. LTOV is a unicorn theory that denies the reality of demand and scarcity giving value for self-serving purposes of one part of the production process. The class conflict theft crime you promote is a complete subsector of the fallacious, unicorn LTOV.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
Ridiculous Class Conflict--the whole point of this steal from higher income discussion--is a subsection of exploitation theory which is wholly based off of the fallacious LTOV. Everything should be voluntary, anyone that commits coercion should be charged as such. All goods, services and actions should be voluntary, from services like arbitration, air traffic control, roads, and insurance to goods like food and drugs.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
The fallacious exploitation theory is wholly based off of the fallacious LTOV fantasy. '[T]he end all be all' is everything being voluntary, anyone that commits coercion should be charged as such. If you do not want to exchange for goods and services in the voluntary sector you could voluntarily do any other thing you would like. All goods, services and actions should be voluntary, from services like arbitration, air traffic control, roads, and insurance to goods like food and drugs.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
@voiceofreason467 If a robber or the mafia steal money and then give away food and candy with it they would no longer being committing robbery? That is pure nonsense, when you commit coercion (murder/robbery) it is coercion and you should be charged as such. All goods, services and actions should be voluntary, from services like arbitration, air traffic control, roads, and insurance to goods like food and drugs.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
You never consent to being coercively robbed. Only an intellectually confused idiot would say if I am born in a neighborhood controlled by the mafia I therefore consent to the coercive mafia and they are therefore acting voluntarily. The top 1% (which are there because people voluntarily give them money for supplying demand making society richer) account for 40% of income stolen at the federal level. That is the latest federal theft data. This is straight-out LTOV exploitation theory nonsense.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
@voiceofreason467 You can not say robbery is not theft because you went and bought some goods and services with the money you stole, threatening to murder the victims if they did not comply.
For the facts you in the same sentence state are false and also that you do not know what they are, look at table 6 on total percentage shares of income stolen by income group here:
taxfoundation [.] org [/] news [/] show [/] 250 [.] html
Just another fallacious labor theory of value idiot.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
Kate and Richard seem to attack Peter and Christopher on emotional grounds sometimes. The racist slur does nothing for their analysis, and nor does Kate's appeal to emotion at 38:00. Having said that, I think this was a good debate and quite well-rounded. In future, could the camera show all the graphs while they cite them?
msugda 9 months ago
The one thing people need to consider is this... You notice that countries who are "more equal" seem to have similar races than countries who have many races in one country..ex: The United States...
benandreas369 9 months ago
bravo! the only delusion here is the level of denial. Christopher Snowdon take a hike.
GalinorGustave 10 months ago
In Denmark theres lowest Gini-level (UN estimate), highest tax rate in the world, lowest unemployment in EU and second highest capital gains tax (which is also progressive). If we look at old industrialized country a better example cannot be find.
kaiserblazer 11 months ago
Boy I like Kate. Funny and intelligent...
StunnedByStupidity 1 year ago
@cakeatsnake68 They show trends. Trends are clear. Obviously culture plays a major role, but culture is something that you can't just catch and change. Alot of the problems in Finland come from our culture around violence and alcohol. I wasn't surprised to see Finland break the trend in homicide because i knew we are like that. We have to work right here, right now to build a better future for our children.
freedomthrough 1 year ago
Want to make America a better place? Go to every major city. Find anyone with the letters "M.B.A." next to their name. Shoot them.
Svperstarr 1 year ago
Here in the U.S. , the top 1% owns more than 90% of us combined.
400 people have as much wealth as half of our population.
The level of inequality is as bad as we've ever seen.
As far as inequality, we are worse than Egypt, yet we are blind to anything but the myth created for us. Most citizens don't know how desperate the situation really is b/c of our extreme media consolidation. B/c when the wealthy control the means of information. The information can be whatever they want it to be.
mburger93 1 year ago 14
@mburger93 I feel sorry for America, reading the Spirit Level really opened my eyes to how appalling a country America is to 90%+ citizens, the attacks on it from Conservative right-wing think tanks are as shallow and empty as they are predictable and despicable, it should be handed out for free and read by all.
seanankerr 10 months ago
@mburger93 lol, that is a lie. The top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxation theft in the US. Should the bottom 1% pay 40% of all federal taxation theft? Would that be fair?
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
@mburger93 I understand your concern, but your comments are an argument against your own point. If Egypt has more "equality" than the United States then "equality" is not necessarily what we want because by every measure our way of life is better than Egypt's. If you disagree try living there. Also, your chances of going from poor to rich are greater in America depending on your ability and work ethic.
amabo187 2 months ago
show the graphs while he's talking about them please! :(
Happypast 1 year ago 2
More equal is a double negitive...
walkertongdee 1 year ago
@walkertongdee no it's not.
xRA1D32x 3 months ago
@xRA1D32x Are you a simpleton, more is more, equal is the same amount.
walkertongdee 3 months ago
@walkertongdee Niether of which are a form of negation.
Also, equality in terms of society is quantifiable. You can measure the gap between the wealthiest and poorest citizens of a society. More equal means that there is a smaller gap between wealthiest and poorest citizens.
If I were you I'd check the punctuation of your comments whenever making a statement about another persons intellect. Good day sir.
xRA1D32x 3 months ago
Good debate and Kate Pickett gave the best rebuttal. Im glad she did it the way she did. Saunders seemed a bit brash with his presentation.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago 7
@Neanderthalcouzin Saunders wrote the book unequal but fair, he worked for thatcher back in the day.
Mikeofdundee1987 11 months ago
Anyone here seen Zeitgeist Moving Forward,they did use SPL and funny enough people make money on Wallstreet upon how many prison have prisoners.So money get generated upon how inequality effects people and where they get placed in, as on top still effecting the person in Wallstreet with some stress of security ie either for their lives in personal level or for what they think they own.Would suggest that documentary and do like the people input in this comment section peace.
Katharsis540 1 year ago 2
Excellent debate! Both sides have useful things to say.
This is only correlations of data sets which does not give cause-effect realtionships so Im not sure why everyones getting so hot about it all. Except that its more about the ethics of social stratifcation by size of personal bank balance than if these variables are connected. And no debate or correlation will solve that; furthermore Im not sure that even an highly controlled experiment would either.
Its emotional not intellectual.
krustyegg 1 year ago
But again it would be wrong, in this instance, to remove that population imho. Firstly, as each data point is actually a person and the measurements are of general well being etc (as opposed to e.g. a specific behaviour) the popu excluded affect (in reality) the pop left in. So the points are too interrelated imo to be able to exclude any (i.e. excluding for afro data, doesn't control for ACTUAL afro behaviours in reality affecting the remaining pops rating indirectly)
What do you think?
Iamthenoi 1 year ago
so they are saying the authors of the book showed unreliable statistics by not putting in the graphics the countries that didn't show their desired trend. but they try to prove them wrong by eliminating very important countries if not the most.
ricardocantu85 1 year ago
Lol @ the bitchy comments they make at each other.. although really there's no place for it :X
Iamthenoi 1 year ago
Furthermore, removing the USA as an outlier, then saying that the original authors ignore culture and history seems a double standard. The USA is the leading cultural and monetary ideology of our times and it is broadcast worldwide. And even removing it the trends were in the right direction because (at least in the UK) we#re becoming more like the US all the time.
Iamthenoi 1 year ago
Surely if you control for ethnicity in the american data you'll hide what you're looking for anyway because sure among the afro-american population the inequality would be greater?
Iamthenoi 1 year ago
@Iamthenoi Yes I can imagine a lot of people are wondering this too, but it's still a fair critique. It is only if African-Americans made up the vast majority of one group or the other would it actually skew the relationship the authors are proposing. In fact, African-Americans only make up about 13% of the total american population, so that simply isn't even possible. Removing them should not skew the income-inequality to homicide rate, but it does, so the relationship they propose is'nt there.
kaupaxup 1 year ago
@kaupaxup And secondly, and perhaps more arguable: Afro-americans will consist a large proportion of the lower end of the economic gradient. And the authors argue the greater the inequality the greater the dysfunction to both ends (rich and poor). As black people are *generally* (stress: not being racist) poorer they will be subject to greater dysfunctional pressure created by the inequality because it is more obvious to them.
Iamthenoi 1 year ago
@Iamthenoi No, I agree on that point, but it's still a fair critique of the presentation in TSL because one must face the fact that they only make up a very small percentage of all of the poor people in the US. What I qould critique both sides on though is that they don't discuss geography. Culture is tied mostly to geography, so *where* these people are poor is probably a substantially stronger indicator than either I-I or ethnicity. But culture is not well grasped in the positivist paradigm.
kaupaxup 1 year ago
@kaupaxup Maybe the increased rates of homicide among afro-americans might be the tail end of behaviours occurring today, as a result of the CIVIL inequalities they suffered for so long. They have only looked and income inequality afterall. I can even imagine the uneven distribution of health problems could even feedback in: the inequality of health adding more pressure to exacerbate the whole set of circumstances. I'm just musing now really. Thanks for discussing with me.
Iamthenoi 1 year ago
@Iamthenoi They analyze trends and they clearly go hand in hand. But yes, of course, but because of these civil inequalities they end up much lower on the payscale, which doesn't exactly help. If you want people to behave, give them a future. It takes a whole generation to fix things and that's why it's so important something is done as soon as possible.
freedomthrough 1 year ago
Considering the content of the RSA, I'm surprised by Christopher Snowdon's conclusions, considering the evidence does not correlate with ethnicity, but cultural identity.
LifeinaRaindrop 1 year ago
i'd have liked to see the last 2+ minutes of questions and stuff too. Still, interesting talk, and very interesting studies
selvmordspilot 1 year ago
I got the book, and it's revealing!
SCPF 1 year ago