 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Question re: inequality |
|
Page 4 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jim Blair |
 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5e57n1lccdfokuodkqhreb2f9154h2fijh@4ax.com...
[quote:c7170ebac8]On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:00:01 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lh82n15iq1hqao53sbjf2hh33m79k14pq8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:58:02 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
. See the
research on wealth distribution that has found inverse exponential
distributions with different exponents in different societies (more
capitalist ones generally being associated with a lower exponent and
hence greater inequality).
-- Roy L
Hi,
For example:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/ineq3.txt
And it is often argued that the fitting of a mathematical function
shows
that the inequality is *natural* unavoidable and morally correct.
I can't bring to mind a viler, less logical, more repugnant idea.
Mason C
Mason, fitting observed data to a curve is not vile, repugnant or "less
logical".
You did not read the sentence on which you commented.
[/quote:c7170ebac8]
Hi,
I read it, but you are unclear about which "idea" you find "vile" and
"repugnant": fitting the data to a functon, or using the fit to argue that
the result is "morally correct".
I suppose that one could not "argue" the result unless the "curve fit" had
first been determined.
[quote:c7170ebac8]
It is just a way of finding an empirical relationship if one
exists.
A fit or correlation says nothing about morality or predestination. It
does show something about reality, which I suppose is related to what is
"natural" in that nature IS *real*.
Even if you find reality to be offensive or immoral.
Indeed. It often is. Was. Will be. But the recognition of
what is offensive or immoral is increasing -- globally.
There is a *trend* toward increasing condemnation of
genocide, ethnic cleansing (e.g. Am.Indians), cutting off
hands of thieves, beating wives, burning heretics at the
stake, hanging witches, etc etc.
[/quote:c7170ebac8]
Hmmm. So if I consider Stalin's USSR in the 1930's, Nazi occupied Europe in
the 40's, Red China in the 60's, Cambodia in the 70's, Rwanda, Sudan and
Bosnia/Yugoslavia in the 90's I am suposed to see your "trend"?
Perhaps your trend spotting skills are better than mine.
But that is all a digression from the original thread title: is "inequally"
increasing? Or are you claiming that "we" are getting nicer to each other
because we are getting "less equal"?
[quote:c7170ebac8]
Making a science of the statistics of immorality to show
it is reality does not make immorality moral.
Mason C
[/quote:c7170ebac8]
I agree that statistics can show what is "real" but not what is "moral".
And I claim that morality is much more subjective than reality.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:05:38 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:fb28dd7bcc]
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5e57n1lccdfokuodkqhreb2f9154h2fijh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:00:01 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lh82n15iq1hqao53sbjf2hh33m79k14pq8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:58:02 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
. See the
research on wealth distribution that has found inverse exponential
distributions with different exponents in different societies (more
capitalist ones generally being associated with a lower exponent and
hence greater inequality).
-- Roy L
Hi,
For example:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/ineq3.txt
And it is often argued that the fitting of a mathematical function
shows that the inequality is *natural* unavoidable and morally correct.
I can't bring to mind a viler, less logical, more repugnant idea.
Mason C
Mason, fitting observed data to a curve is not vile, repugnant or "less
logical".
You did not read the sentence on which you commented.
Hi,
I read it, but you are unclear about which "idea" you find "vile" and
"repugnant": fitting the data to a functon, or using the fit to argue that
the result is "morally correct".
[/quote:fb28dd7bcc]
I'll try to parse the sentence for you.
"... the fitting shows ... the inequality is 'natural' ... and morally
correct."
"... the fitting shows ... inequality ... morally correct."
New sentence:
" Whatever fits some mathematical function is obviously natural
and morally correct." Is that 'logic' stupid or is it malicious?
Note: the path of an assassin's bullet follows a mathematical function.
[quote:fb28dd7bcc]
I suppose that one could not "argue" the result unless the "curve fit" had
first been determined.
It is just a way of finding an empirical relationship if one
exists.
A fit or correlation says nothing about morality or predestination. It
does show something about reality, which I suppose is related to what is
"natural" in that nature IS *real*.
Even if you find reality to be offensive or immoral.
Indeed. It often is. Was. Will be. But the recognition of
what is offensive or immoral is increasing -- globally.
There is a *trend* toward increasing condemnation of
genocide, ethnic cleansing (e.g. Am.Indians), cutting off
hands of thieves, beating wives, burning heretics at the
stake, hanging witches, etc etc.
Hmmm. So if I consider Stalin's USSR in the 1930's, Nazi occupied Europe in
the 40's, Red China in the 60's, Cambodia in the 70's, Rwanda, Sudan and
Bosnia/Yugoslavia in the 90's I am suposed to see your "trend"?
Perhaps your trend spotting skills are better than mine.
But that is all a digression from the original thread title: is "inequally"
increasing? Or are you claiming that "we" are getting nicer to each other
because we are getting "less equal"?
Making a science of the statistics of immorality to show
it is reality does not make immorality moral.
Mason C
I agree that statistics can show what is "real" but not what is "moral".
And I claim that morality is much more subjective than reality.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post
[/quote:fb28dd7bcc] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lc1in11r4vagokri3g1vo9kfom9n0o2gpl@4ax.com...
[quote:65eff83179]You did not read the sentence on which you commented.
Hi,
I read it, but you are unclear about which "idea" you find "vile" and
"repugnant": fitting the data to a functon, or using the fit to argue
that
the result is "morally correct".
I'll try to parse the sentence for you.
"... the fitting shows ... the inequality is 'natural' ... and morally
correct."
[/quote:65eff83179]
Hi,
That still does not clear up just what you think is immoral. Data from
observations that fit an equation IS "natural", if you believe that Nature
follows rules that humans can understand. Cosmos, not Chaos and all that.
That is not to say that Nature (Reality) is moral--according to your concept
of morality. And of course, Reality changes and can be changed. Humans
have done that all through history.
....
[quote:65eff83179]
I agree that statistics can show what is "real" but not what is "moral".
And I claim that morality is much more subjective than reality.
[/quote:65eff83179]
But a question for you. Earlier I recall a claim that "inequality promotes
instability". The USA has a lot more inequality than France doesn't it? So
why are thousands of cars being burned in France but not in the US?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:27:13 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:7f7be818e5]
But a question for you. Earlier I recall a claim that "inequality promotes
instability". The USA has a lot more inequality than France doesn't it? So
why are thousands of cars being burned in France but not in the US?
We burned ours a few years ago. Remember Watts?[/quote:7f7be818e5]
Clearly the matter is not simple. A "diffuse" inequality and a
"concentrated" inequality are different.
We had (have?) a black inequality and we had the Watts riot, not
to mention others -- Detroit etc.
The French have a specific, concentrated equality in the Muslim
fringes of the cities.
Obviously "inequality promotes instability" is a fact. "Promotes"
does not mean "causes." The causes are multiple and the
inequality is complex, as is the instability.
Do you deny that inequality promotes instability?
Mason C |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:18 am |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:09:52 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:eaf6e8770f]But the question is: is this unrest because of "inequality"? Or because of
Islam? Or because of "race"?
[/quote:eaf6e8770f]
IMO it's largely demographics. The Muslim immigrants have had a much
higher birthrate than the French, with the result that there are now a
large number of young Muslim males hanging around with nothing to do.
That is always dynamite. As you point out, it was during the more
equal but baby-boomer-saturated 60s that most US race rioting
occurred.
[quote:eaf6e8770f]Which is my explanation of why so many of the "poor" oppose high taxes on
the "rich": they think that they have a good shot of being rich some day and
they know that such taxes would make that harder.
[/quote:eaf6e8770f]
Maybe they are just smarter and/or more honest than you, and
understand that high taxes on _earned_income_, which liars like to
claim are high taxes on the rich, are in fact low taxes on the rich
and high taxes on the ablest of the poor.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andy F. |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dm7uj2$qaa$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
[quote:3fac602541]
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9tv2o19fs1lhrkjvkk5n3fven75csjheel@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:32:16 GMT, Mason C <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:27:13 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
But a question for you. Earlier I recall a claim that "inequality
promotes
instability". The USA has a lot more inequality than France doesn't
it?
So
why are thousands of cars being burned in France but not in the US?
We burned ours a few years ago. Remember Watts?
Clearly the matter is not simple. A "diffuse" inequality and a
"concentrated" inequality are different.
We had (have?) a black inequality and we had the Watts riot, not
to mention others -- Detroit etc.
Hi,
Watts, Dertoit, Kansas City etc, were long ago when inequality in the US
was
less than it is today. As I recall, the 1960s were the Golden Age of
rising wealth on an equal- for - all basis. That was when they burned
Detriot and Kansas City.
Siince then, we have become "less equal", and we were always "less equal"
than the French. Yet they have the most rioting.
[/quote:3fac602541]
One reason why there is less rioting in the US is because the potential
rioters are all in jail. America has a much higher proportion of its
population in prison than France. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Andy F." <never.mind@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:3utt7cF132rpfU1@individual.net...
......
[quote:661b9bdabb]
One reason why there is less rioting in the US is because the potential
rioters are all in jail. America has a much higher proportion of its
population in prison than France.
[/quote:661b9bdabb]
Hi,
Interesting comment. I am always reading about how BAD it is that the US
has such a high percent of its population in prisons.
But I don't read that this could have an "up-side" and could be related to
our low and falling crime rate.
Lock up the crooks and the crime rate falls? What a novel concept.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43887b61.11771949@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
[quote:d47cca3773]On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:09:52 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
......
Which is my explanation of why so many of the "poor" oppose high taxes on
the "rich": they think that they have a good shot of being rich some day
and
they know that such taxes would make that harder.
Maybe they are just smarter and/or more honest than you, and
understand that high taxes on _earned_income_, which liars like to
claim are high taxes on the rich, are in fact low taxes on the rich
and high taxes on the ablest of the poor.
-- Roy L
[/quote:d47cca3773]
Hi,
When the topic is "taxing the rich" the context is almost always the income
tax, and especially those top brackets.
Bush (and before him, especially Reagan), are acccused of reducing the taxes
of the "rich" by reducting the top income tax rate--from 92% after WWII down
to 28% under Reagan. Clinton is praised for getting it back up to 38% (or
whatever). Somehow JFK ususally gets off the hook on this even though he
dropped that top rate to 75% from the WW II level.
Sometimes the estate tax reductions are cited, but mostly it is the income
tax.
I know that "income" is not "wealth", and a high income does not mean
"rich", but you know that people use (better, they mis-use) words that way.
And that anyone who is rich enough to pay the estate tax can avoid it by
paying a good lawyer.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:06 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:41:28 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:c4a5981d8d]royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43887b61.11771949@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:09:52 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
Which is my explanation of why so many of the "poor" oppose high taxes on
the "rich": they think that they have a good shot of being rich some day
and
they know that such taxes would make that harder.
Maybe they are just smarter and/or more honest than you, and
understand that high taxes on _earned_income_, which liars like to
claim are high taxes on the rich, are in fact low taxes on the rich
and high taxes on the ablest of the poor.
When the topic is "taxing the rich" the context is almost always the income
tax, and especially those top brackets.
[/quote:c4a5981d8d]
Right. Because the intent is to deceive, usually in at least three
ways, by falsely claiming that: the rich earn their incomes; the rich
already pay taxes more than in proportion to their wealth; taxing the
rich more would dramatically reduce their incentive to produce.
[quote:c4a5981d8d]I know that "income" is not "wealth", and a high income does not mean
"rich", but you know that people use (better, they mis-use) words that way.
[/quote:c4a5981d8d]
Indeed I do.
[quote:c4a5981d8d]And that anyone who is rich enough to pay the estate tax can avoid it by
paying a good lawyer.
[/quote:c4a5981d8d]
Right.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Trucker |
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:438bd1fc.56642924@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
[quote:bbe2e706a6]On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:41:28 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43887b61.11771949@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:09:52 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
Which is my explanation of why so many of the "poor" oppose high taxes on
the "rich": they think that they have a good shot of being rich some day
and
they know that such taxes would make that harder.
Maybe they are just smarter and/or more honest than you, and
understand that high taxes on _earned_income_, which liars like to
claim are high taxes on the rich, are in fact low taxes on the rich
and high taxes on the ablest of the poor.
When the topic is "taxing the rich" the context is almost always the income
tax, and especially those top brackets.
Right. Because the intent is to deceive, usually in at least three
ways, by falsely claiming that: the rich earn their incomes; the rich
already pay taxes more than in proportion to their wealth; taxing the
rich more would dramatically reduce their incentive to produce.
I know that "income" is not "wealth", and a high income does not mean
"rich", but you know that people use (better, they mis-use) words that way.
Indeed I do.
And that anyone who is rich enough to pay the estate tax can avoid it by
paying a good lawyer.
Right.
[/quote:bbe2e706a6]
IMHO this is incorrect at the actual root of the mechanism of
avoidance but that is just a guess. Can you explian how
a lawyer does this avoidance??? Does he bribe an official
or what?
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 05:35:15 -0800, "The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon.net>
wrote:
[quote:86789a5668]royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:438bd1fc.56642924@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:41:28 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:43887b61.11771949@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:09:52 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
Which is my explanation of why so many of the "poor" oppose high taxes on
the "rich": they think that they have a good shot of being rich some day
and
they know that such taxes would make that harder.
Maybe they are just smarter and/or more honest than you, and
understand that high taxes on _earned_income_, which liars like to
claim are high taxes on the rich, are in fact low taxes on the rich
and high taxes on the ablest of the poor.
When the topic is "taxing the rich" the context is almost always the income
tax, and especially those top brackets.
Right. Because the intent is to deceive, usually in at least three
ways, by falsely claiming that: the rich earn their incomes; the rich
already pay taxes more than in proportion to their wealth; taxing the
rich more would dramatically reduce their incentive to produce.
I know that "income" is not "wealth", and a high income does not mean
"rich", but you know that people use (better, they mis-use) words that way.
Indeed I do.
And that anyone who is rich enough to pay the estate tax can avoid it by
paying a good lawyer.
Right.
IMHO this is incorrect at the actual root of the mechanism of
avoidance but that is just a guess. Can you explian how
a lawyer does this avoidance??? Does he bribe an official
or what?
[/quote:86789a5668]
No, he just helps set up trusts, foundations, annuities, life
insurance policies, offshore holding companies owned through numbered
Hong Kong companies officially owned by a dead lawyer in Barbados,
etc., etc.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:54 am
|
|