CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[Ecofarm]

That's why the Gini coefficient can be pure and utter nonsense.

There are a few other major reasons. A glaring one is "infant mortality", as each nation sets their own parameters. In Switzerland and other Euro countries, a baby born less than 12 inches doesn't count (of course, the reg is in cm). In some countries, weight matters. Some, like Cuba, have a long period before the death counts. In the US, born living = living, no qualifications. The stat is useless, from a most basic understanding of unequal standards.


Hmm... that might be a big part of HDI, not Gini...

 

[aelf]

There will ALWAYS be poor people Aelf. Always. It doesn't matter whether they make 100,000 dollars per year or 400. There will still be poor people. That's why the Gini coefficient can be pure and utter nonsense. People in America can earn $25,000 dollars and be classified as poor, and the Gini coefficient makes us look bad because of Bill Gates. But an average median Frenchperson can make $32-34,000 (whatever the average income is) and France looks so great to you simply because the Gini is lower. The poor still have a lower standard of living, but the rich aren't so rich. So that makes it better. It's such an infantile position to take.

The bottom line is that the poor are infinitely better off in Singapore than they are than the poor in Malaysia. Using the Gini as a metric of how awful capitalism is infantile at best.

Forget about costs of living. It's such an incredibly moot point. I am talking quality of life. The American poor, in terms of disposable income, luxury items, home ownership, auto ownership unequivocally have a better quality of life than a poor person in Europe. Poor people in Malaysia live in currogated tin shacks with no clean water and no electric. The poor in Singapore do not. The poor in South Korea do not. The breadth of abject poverty is Singapore is almost non-existant. The HDI in these places is remarkably higher than Malaysia or China.

Singapore - .944 (23rd)
Hong Kong - .944
Malaysia - .829 (66th)
China - .772 (92nd)
India - .612 (134th)

You're still missing the point. If one is to claim that capitalism creates better income equality, one cannot, when presented with evidence to the contrary, claim that the disparity is justified by relatively higher living standards. That's clearly backpedaling, moving the goalposts, or whatever you prefer to have it called.

I'm not the one who started using the "infantile" measurement of the GINI coefficient to make a point. What I did was to point out that the point made was false. If you aren't going to defend the point, then you don't really have much that is relevant to say by way of a direct response to my response.

Besides, you have simply brushed away costs of living. I'm sure that many people in Singapore wish they could take such a cavalier attitude towards them. The fact of the matter is costs of living are very relevant in the economic realities faced by people daily, especially in the case of lower and lower-middle income groups, and they have perpetually been the subject of public discussion. Again, the reality contradicts the theorising.

Moreover, there are very real social costs to income disparity, whether or not the living conditions of the poor have improved, as the Chinese leadership has realised. Like it or not, the guy who can now enjoy three sufficient meals of potatoes isn't going to be very happy that another person is having caviar for breakfast. He's going to wonder whether that is a fair arrangement, and the fact that he didn't even enjoy three meals of potatoes before doesn't stop him from questioning whether that is the best possible outcome.

So, to sum it up, we're talking about whether capitalism decreases income disparity, and the answer is that it doesn't. And income disparity is evidently not a subject that is irrelevant to the economic realities of the world, so attempts to render the discussion completely moot are disingenuous.

In short, the unruly capitalism that you are so quick to besmirch provides a better standard of living for everyone than stifling socialist leaning economic policies that stifled much of the rest of Asia and have brought economic stagnation to Japan.

The economic stagnation of Japan is simply due to "socialist leaning" economic policies? I guess you aren't an economist.

You're always going to have poor people. Aways have, always will.

How much do you want to sell your magic crystal ball for?

Or if it's poor arguments that you're relying on, then no thanks.

 

[Merkinball]

You're still missing the point. If one is to claim that capitalism creates better income equality, one cannot, when presented with evidence to the contrary, claim that the disparity is justified by relatively higher living standards. That's clearly backpedaling, moving the goalposts, or whatever you prefer to have it called. - aelf

Now before you throw stones, I want you to know that I do not believe that capitalism creates better income equality. I have personally never suggested such a thing. But I wouldn't doubt that someone else has in this thread, but I didn't read it. Your post is what caught my eye.

I am not backpedaling, moving goalposts, etc, etc because I don't think that capitalism creates equality. I think capitalism creates wealth. And I know that that wealth trickles down to the poor BETTER than socialist models forcibly redistribute it to them over time. I would continue to use Singapore, South Korea, and Hong Kong as examples of why this is true.

I believe that income disparity can be a very tragic thing. I lived that for a few years of my life. I saw...what is probably the most wide income disparty anywhere on the planet. Filthy, filthy, rich Arabs and Somali's surrounded by a never ending slum where the average person earns less than $500 a day, lives in hunger, shares a water outlet with 500 other people, has no electricity, no trash pick up, and not even the common courtesy of a public bathhouse.

But income disparity doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. Such as with the US. Our income disparity is ridiculous because we have mega-billionaires. We have a lot of millionaires. And on the flip side we have three million that are chronically on welfare. Our poverty line sits at about $20,000 PER YEAR! I don't see what the big deal is. That kind of money pays plenty for people to take care of themselves if they live responsible lives.

I will take our people living in poverty and living with great income disparity in a capitalist system versus a socialist system like Cuba any day of a the freakin' week.

Besides, you have simply brushed away costs of living. I'm sure that many people in Singapore wish they could take such a cavalier attitude towards them. The fact of the matter is costs of living are very relevant in the economic realities faced by people daily, especially in the case of lower and lower-middle income groups, and they have perpetually been the subject of public discussion. Again, the reality contradicts the theorising. - Aelf

HDI takes this all into account. Hong Kong is better than China. Singapore is better than Malaysia. It doesn't matter what metric you want to use. Cost of living may be more, but all socio-economic brackets in Singapore and Hong Kong are better off than their mainland counterparts.

Moreover, there are very real social costs to income disparity, whether or not the living conditions of the poor have improved, as the Chinese leadership has realised. - Aelf

Social costs associated with income disparity result from politiking and political hacks using class warfare to garner votes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Like it or not, the guy who can now enjoy three sufficient meals of potatoes isn't going to be very happy that another person is having caviar for breakfast. He's going to wonder whether that is a fair arrangement, and the fact that he didn't even enjoy three meals of potatoes before doesn't stop him from questioning whether that is the best possible outcome. - Aelf

Oh yeah? Delve into the manefestation of this a bit for me.

The economic stagnation of Japan is simply due to "socialist leaning" economic policies? I guess you aren't an economist. - Aelf

That's funny, I could have sworn that irresponsible fiscal policy, bailouts, and public works projects were socialist leaning. I guess you're not with the times.

 

[Princeps]

That's funny, I could have sworn that irresponsible fiscal policy, bailouts, and public works projects were socialist leaning. I guess you're not with the times.

These policies did not cause the Japanese slump.

 

[BasketCase]

Over the years I have become more and more right wing and CFC has hardened my views. I've also discovered a new appreciation for the fascist parties of the 30;s

As far as I know, there were no genuinely fascist groups back then.

The prime tenet of Fascism is this: the Nation Above All. You, as a person, are only important in terms of how you contribute to the welfare of the nation. In that respect, most fascist movements of the 30's (and Hitler in particular) were flaming idiots. They, just like all the other radical morons in this world, did what was best for themselves, not what was best for the nation.

Whatever you believe, make sure it's for the right reasons.

 

[Yeekim]

False. Some developed countries have high Gini coefficients.

Amongst them, Singapore has the 2nd worst income disparity (ranked 78th out of 127 countries according to a UNDP report) after Hong Kong, with the USA at #3. All of them are very capitalistic. In fact, I'd say that Singapore (and probably Hong Kong as well) is a very good demonstration of the negative effects of a capitalistic economy run by a corporate-like body. Capitalists like to think themselves as libertarians, but here is a demonstration of what happens when you let them run away with the management of the state - freedoms are curtailed and income inequality increases.

A term like "the rising tide" misrepresents the reality. It's more like that "the three-metre wave that crashes down on and drowns the swimmers".

Your article starts with Hong Kong and its Gini score of 43. My map suggests there is a bunch of countries where it is some 20 points higher still.
Anyway, I agree to stand corrected - some advanced capitalist societies have moderately high Gini coefficients. All I need to show anyway is that it does not necessarily have to be so, as there are examples to the contrary (Scandinavia, Germany etc).

 

[Yeekim]

surrounded by a never ending slum where the average person earns less than $500 a day

Where can I sign up for that slum?

 

[Yeekim]

The problem is that it is 1. horribly unequal and 2. unsustainable.

First isn't really problem in itself. Equality per se has no intrinsic value whatsoever. I believe everyome is completely equal in death, but that does not make me look forward to it.
As for unsustainability, I am not at all certain about it. It has sustained itself pretty well thus far, with just a few socialist policies implemented.

The problem is that this measurement does not include the entirely of those capitalist nations' systems. Economic imperialism (which has manifested itself most "popularly" in outsourcing) has seen that the lowest rung of the pyramid are far, far away, outside the country. So if you were examining the US, for example, you would have to include not just US citizens, but also all the people employed by US companies in the Phillipines, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, et. al because it is that exportation of the proletarian worker class that has skewed the numbers of the "mother countries" up so high. So yes, it has "raised the boats" of Americans, but not everyone in the system as you try to make it seem. That American workers make multiple times what those Filipino workers do (and thus one of the justifications for such exportation of industry in the first place) is because of socialist labor laws which demand a minimum wage and maximum hours worked per week, among other things. Even the least-paid in the US make $6-7/h, so of course the gini coefficient will be smaller.

Fair point. However:
1) As these societies advance, so will they gradually catch up with First World. Workers in all those countris you listed are probably better off (in both absolute and relative terms) than workers in countries where US companies are not outsourcing production (to such big extent, at least). Example sub-Sahara.
2) US going socialist would do nothing to help those Filipino workers get income disparity with US.

As I said, the capitalist system is good for many things, the greatest of which is annihilation of all past systems and the empowerment of more people than ever before in history. But socialism can do much better, and instead of empowering some a lot and most only a little, it can empower everyone to be equal.

As I said, I see no intrinsic value in equality. What matters is quality of life.

 

[BasketCase]

Omigod, I looked right at this thread and completely missed a chance to bag on socialism.

I must be getting old.

As I said, the capitalist system is good for many things, the greatest of which is annihilation of all past systems and the empowerment of more people than ever before in history. But socialism can do much better, and instead of empowering some a lot and most only a little, it can empower everyone to be equal.

Making everyone equal is not possible. Read on for the reason why.

And lastly, the government is the most efficient collector of capital possible, it would be quite possible to direct such investment where it needs to go, either in a method planned beforehand (which is different than a planned economy, since there would be no need for that) or upon demand from individuals, where the government acts as an enormous bank. Which would work nicely, IMO, since the banking system should be nationalized anyway.

This method makes everybody inherently UNequal, because it puts all economic power in the hands of the people running the government. And the government cannot EVER possibly represent the will of all the people, because the people always disagree on where the above-mentioned investment needs to go. So, no matter how hard you try to do it right, the above system merely ends up creating yet another system of social classes.

And even if you did somehow manage to abolish all current social classes, equality would still be impossible. Abolish money, abolish government power--and the dominant form of power becomes the fist. At which point the upper class consists of the physically strong.

There's a reason we Humans invented society to begin with: to get away from rule by the physically strong, because that system sucked ass.

True equality is impossible.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

There's a reason we Humans invented society to begin with: to get away from rule by the physically strong, because that system sucked ass.

OMG I agree with Mr. Basket on something.

Of course, Fascism is partially defined as rule by the strong

 

[Dachs]

Of course, Fascism is partially defined as rule by the strong

Insofar as fascism is defined at all.