Quote: (01-02-2013 10:39 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:
That's right -- when your average leftist politician and activist is talking about income inequality, he/she has in mind the Gini coefficient. They all have a deep deep understanding of statistical methods applied macroeconomically.
Yeah, right, sure. Of course.
The Gini coefficient provides a mathematical orgasm to macroeconomists. It's various mathematical permutations work with just one variable. Its use is equivalent to saying "I'm going to compare apples to oranges, but I am going to pretend that everything is apples." It's classic.
Its use in measuring income dispersion doesn't account for many many other factors -- most specifically the nominal levels of income at either end of the scale. Poor countries can have a much lower Gini coefficient that rich countries, though anybody in their right mind would much rather live in a rich country. It doesn't take into account net worth (again, it can only deal with one variable) or pricing differences for goods, or even goods availability.
My man, you're inventing a strawman "leftist" who doesn't exist in this thread or conversation, and you're directing your arguments at this imaginary fellow. This alone is cause for disagreement, since you immediately frame your argument against a nonexistent opponent.
According to the World Bank
[link], the Gini coefficient
is in fact the most commonly used measure of inequality. Let that sink in...ok.
It doesn't take a deep understanding. Hell, I learned about this type of measurement in an introductory econ class in college. You seem to understand it just fine. So let's not pretend that this is a fancy concept. If you want to say that you're right because only an educated person would disagree with you, be my guest, but you'd be appealing to ignorance.
Whether or not the Gini coefficient is accurate or useful in all cases is irrelevant, since that's a different argument entirely. As I see it, you cooked up some imaginary leftists who use a totally bogus method for measuring inequality, then chided them for a lack of basic mathematical knowledge.
Do you know who the "leftists" even are? Many of them are scholars and professors, some have won the Nobel prize (Paul Krugman for example is a self-described liberal who argues that inequality is bad for society). That doesn't make them right, certainly, but it means they're probably not morons. You're dismissing their ideas based on a made-up version of what you think they may be saying.
In any case, Machiavelli wrote precisely about oppression and inequitable society in the part of The Prince where he wrote about civil principalities, from which we can draw some parallels to our own society.
In that chapter, he talked about two energies in politics. One energy comes from the people, normal folks who don't sit at the top of the heap in terms of money and influence. The other energy comes from the nobles, whom we might consider to be CEOs who try to buy elections, or Congresspeople who sometimes sell votes to the lobbyist with the fattest checks, etc.
Machiavelli's basic idea was that the nobles want to gain advantages in society, like money and power, and will oppress the people if necessary (for example, by sending young people to war in oil-rich countries, or allowing big businesses to sell questionable goods to unsuspecting paying customers, etc). On the other hand, the people are fighting simply to resist oppression. They do not want to oppress the nobles, they just want to be treated fairly.
This links directly to our argument. If there is a bigger divide between rich folks and poor folks, then the poor folks will have less strength to resist oppression, and as a result the rich folks will have more leeway to manipulate government such that they are treated favorably even if it means that the poor folks get the shaft.
This is why inequality matters. In a more equal society, all groups of people have a fighting chance to protect their freedoms and pocketbooks. In an unequal society, the folks at the bottom can't do much. Perhaps they should hope that some rich powerful person will take up the mantle for them.