admin wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:31 am
somewhere i read the averge income in russia is less than india, but you sure would not know it plus or minus 5 blocks from red square where they parade 2 dozen lamborginias up down the street.
but, that gets back to my origianal point. a vast amount of wealth from russia, and the people that owns it, leaks out of russia and other emerging markets. often it is not even the ultra rich, but the middle. as soon as someone has sufgicient money, they leave.
i suspect in particularly corrupt or unstable countries, they may never be able to close the gap. why would anyone risk what little they got hanging around?
i have more than a few logical bones to pick with the whole idea of "income inequality".
bill gates and i have a crazy income inequality gap, and i realy dont care. i was never even jelious, until i read the story about him having a tundra bus airlifted on to the ice of antartica so his family could drive around for a few hours.
but tundra busses aside, for the most part i have everything i need for the moment, and most everything i want is at least ahypotheticaly a possibility; even if some are more remote.
where we differ is not so much our income, but our opertunities. income inequality implies that gap, if closed between groups with sufficent income, will make for equal opertunities. sorry the world does not work that way, nor is that very helpful.
there are many better messures, but what we should be driving at is equality of opertunity. especialy basic opertunities. do you have the opertunity to eat every day? see a doctor? education? retirment? travel? etc.
hell, how about just the opertunity to work in some field you like? or, not work at all, even just for a little while?
how do you measure the gap in life opertunities?
something perhaps like. given certain basic opertunities in life, could the person fullfill their potential as a person?
did the poor kid from the streets of mumbai, get a chance to find out if he was a great doctor, writer, mechanic, etc?
here is where we start crossing in to more subjective measures, and things like the recent life satisfaction surveys probably are more useful.
so, i get why they like the gini numbers as a imperfect tool, but i am also suspicious of the tendency of the leftist politicians to want to use them as an excuse to smuggle in old school marxist policies under the cover of fixing income inequality. we dont need to equalize bill gates and my income. i think we will both be fine. likewise, i believe most of the poor would be just fine with a bit more income, although i am sure they would not turn down a billion dollars.
my point is, that talking about income inequality, does not get us any closer to solving the real problems of poverty, especialy extreme poverty.