Wealth inequality grows.
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
LucreLout said:
The wealth concentration IS the gini coefficient but there is NO relationship implied it in fact between that and the velocity of money. They are to wholly unrelated measures with no causal relationship.
Not an epic fail on your part yet, but you're getting warmer.
Well, technically, if you want to nit-pick semantics it measures income distribution. Regardless, it is an indicator of inequality, and there are studies that show that where inequality is great, money velocity is slow.Not an epic fail on your part yet, but you're getting warmer.
scherzkeks said:
Well, technically, if you want to nit-pick semantics it measures income distribution. Regardless, it is an indicator of inequality, and there are studies that show that where inequality is great, money velocity is slow.
Or in simple terms: when the majority of the pop. is living hand-to-mouth, they can't spend much. In the same vein, if your well-heeled neighbor earns 10x more money than you, this does not automatically mean that he spends 10x more than you, as studies have shown a positive correlation between high income and savings. Regardless, when wealth is too highly concentrated at the top the result is slow economic growth. So there is most defnitely a relationship between gini and velocity.
So is that epic fail on your part or are you getting warmer?
There's two uses for, measuring income or measuring wealth. It's not one or the other.Or in simple terms: when the majority of the pop. is living hand-to-mouth, they can't spend much. In the same vein, if your well-heeled neighbor earns 10x more money than you, this does not automatically mean that he spends 10x more than you, as studies have shown a positive correlation between high income and savings. Regardless, when wealth is too highly concentrated at the top the result is slow economic growth. So there is most defnitely a relationship between gini and velocity.
So is that epic fail on your part or are you getting warmer?
My earning 10x my neighbour neither requires nor implies he is living hand to mouth. He might just have a smaller palace, fewer yachts, and less money. Your trying to mix pejorative emotional nonsense with economics ro achieve a political outcome you'd like to see or to justify your own lack of wealth/income. I can see your chips too.
ETA: There are studies that show driving will kill the planet, that phones cause cancer, or that Jesus was pucca per the bible - it doesn't make it true just because someone's thesis states that it is.
Edited by LucreLout on Friday 23 January 13:42
An inconvenient fact is generational wealth distribution.
The baby boomers, in most western economies, have had a bonanza - a f
king huge binge party - and many of their children and certainly most of their grandchildren are not only having to go round clearing the party up, but are also having the hangover passed on to them.
There are also great cultural differences between nations and furthermore there are huge shifts taking in place within them -immigration foremost - which IMHO are going to impact on the figures. They are merely a snapshot and even then do not supply the full picture.
The baby boomers, in most western economies, have had a bonanza - a f
king huge binge party - and many of their children and certainly most of their grandchildren are not only having to go round clearing the party up, but are also having the hangover passed on to them.There are also great cultural differences between nations and furthermore there are huge shifts taking in place within them -immigration foremost - which IMHO are going to impact on the figures. They are merely a snapshot and even then do not supply the full picture.
Martin4x4 said:
This is ignorance of the highest order. It is well document economic fact (c.f. Gini coefficient) that concentration of wealth slow the velocity of money, reduces economic activity and does limit everybody else's opportunities and global wealth.
Utter twaddle. One TED talk and everyone's a expert. You'd do better going back to school to get a Maths GCSE. It's a stupid economic measure that numpties cling to for comfort that their egalitarian beliefs are 'fact'. Being called ignorant by Martin4x4... priceless.
It's conclusive! Not.
data source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
You perhaps need to understand that it is a subject under discussion by a wide extreme of leading Global leaders, not just me 
You perhaps need to understand the difference between talking and delivering.
Pretty well every poster in this and any other economics/wealth thread tries their best to educate you, and still you actively refuse it. Your chips are showing.
No chip on my shoulders that count for much, in this debate it seems I share a platform with those in here of a higher Societal and monetary knowledge than myself and you. At least President Obama and I share the common POV on the subject, along with many other Global leaders
crankedup said:
Well if it's going to turn into pit'a pat try this : the educators are just fine and I'm happy to learn, as I have frequently acknowledged many times. However, you are wide of the mark with this accusation regarding this particular thread. The examples I have offered have been ignored in the main, this illustrates to me a disengagement to debate, I assume owing to a lack of open -mind and broader thought. Moving on the exception to those who offer education appears to be you, I have yet to read anything in you're posts that could vaguely resemble common sense yet alone educational.
No chip on my shoulders that count for much, in this debate it seems I share a platform with those in here of a higher Societal and monetary knowledge than myself and you. At least President Obama and I share the common POV on the subject, along with many other Global leaders
No chip on my shoulders that count for much, in this debate it seems I share a platform with those in here of a higher Societal and monetary knowledge than myself and you. At least President Obama and I share the common POV on the subject, along with many other Global leaders
Billionaires have marginal affect on food prices for they consume no greater quantity than you or I. They influence not the price of mud huts in Africa or semi's in Luton, for they have interest in neither. They might use a little more gas and electric, but then, so do we compared to most of the world.
You've yet to post a coherent explanation of why their amassing vast wealth has even the least impact upon the rest of us.
As regards to power. Murdoch et al aren't powerful because they are rich. They got uber rich because of being well connected, and knowing everything about those with power, thus co-opting that power for themselves. I'll agree there's a start up cost here, but the vast wealth differential comes from the power, the power doesn't come from the wealth.
See Tony Blair for evidence of the above. A few million and he gets access to more powerful people. Networking, negotiation, and whatever other unsavoury behaviours later, and his exit from power allowed him to accrue significant wealth far beyond the reaches of his previous power.
Edited by LucreLout on Friday 23 January 14:38
fblm said:
Utter twaddle. One TED talk and everyone's a expert. You'd do better going back to school to get a Maths GCSE. It's a stupid economic measure that numpties cling to for comfort that their egalitarian beliefs are 'fact'. Being called ignorant by Martin4x4... priceless.
It's conclusive! Not.
data source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
Full marks for once again busting out the crayons and bringing light to those misrepresenting basic statistics. It's almost like they were intentionally doing so.....It's conclusive! Not.
data source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
eccles said:
Wealth and power go hand in hand. Try being 'powerful' without wealth.
Mother Theresa rich was she?ETA: Probably should have picked a better example.... Malala the wee lass that got shot; very powerful person compared to her level of wealth, and about to use that influence to make millions. Doesn't make her a bad person or mean she'll force her neighbours into a hand to mouth subsistence life.
Edited by LucreLout on Friday 23 January 14:43
Martin4x4 said:
ps the next time you watch your TED talk you might wonder which countries are not included. Do you think, say Yemen, with the same Gini wealth coefficient as Finland might not make the graphs look quite so pretty? Is Bangladesh on there? No? It has the same wealth Gini as Germany.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 23 January 16:25
LucreLout said:
Full marks for once again busting out the crayons and bringing light to those misrepresenting basic statistics. It's almost like they were intentionally doing so.....
I doubt it somehow. Open mouthed, uncritical repetition of anything they interpret as supporting their beliefs.Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 23 January 15:02
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
Well if it's going to turn into pit'a pat try this : the educators are just fine and I'm happy to learn, as I have frequently acknowledged many times. However, you are wide of the mark with this accusation regarding this particular thread. The examples I have offered have been ignored in the main, this illustrates to me a disengagement to debate, I assume owing to a lack of open -mind and broader thought. Moving on the exception to those who offer education appears to be you, I have yet to read anything in you're posts that could vaguely resemble common sense yet alone educational.
No chip on my shoulders that count for much, in this debate it seems I share a platform with those in here of a higher Societal and monetary knowledge than myself and you. At least President Obama and I share the common POV on the subject, along with many other Global leaders
No chip on my shoulders that count for much, in this debate it seems I share a platform with those in here of a higher Societal and monetary knowledge than myself and you. At least President Obama and I share the common POV on the subject, along with many other Global leaders
Billionaires have marginal affect on food prices for they consume no greater quantity than you or I. They influence not the price of mud huts in Africa or semi's in Luton, for they have interest in neither. They might use a little more gas and electric, but then, so do we compared to most of the world.
You've yet to post a coherent explanation of why their amassing vast wealth has even the least impact upon the rest of us.
As regards to power. Murdoch et al aren't powerful because they are rich. They got uber rich because of being well connected, and knowing everything about those with power, thus co-opting that power for themselves. I'll agree there's a start up cost here, but the vast wealth differential comes from the power, the power doesn't come from the wealth.
See Tony Blair for evidence of the above. A few million and he gets access to more powerful people. Networking, negotiation, and whatever other unsavoury behaviours later, and his exit from power allowed him to accrue significant wealth far beyond the reaches of his previous power.
Edited by LucreLout on Friday 23 January 14:38
Yes of course the extremely wealthy are well connected, and they use that to their own advantage not to the advantage of the general population. With you're example of Blair you seem to be agreeing with me that wealth brings power, it is how this power is used that either brings forth change of a beneficial nature or otherwise. For example Richard Branson airline, he had the money which brought him the knowledge and skills to fight other airlines regarding routing and costs. Thanks to him we, the general public have enjoyed a benefit in terms of more choice, lower cost flights. The same can be said of other operators going back decades.
Equally I will continue my stance that extreme wealth within small numbers of holders can bring about negativity to the general population. Two examples I have already offered, another example I offered at the start of the thread was the elimination of competition which in the short term can be of benefit to the G.P. but ultimately is a bad thing. This is why the U.K. has a Competitions Authority, currently investing the big 6 power suppliers. This Authority is in being for the reason that I am advocating that wealth = power (no pun) An uber rich individual, should they so wish and likely do hold massive shareholdings within these types of businesses, please don't come back and tell me that this is not wealth = power.
The Competition and Markets Authority looks at amassed wealth and inter-company inequality? Is Apple safe?! What happened to looking at mergers, cartels, compliance with consumer regs, all independent of market capitalisation or total asset figures. As stated previously, access is sold as influence/power, these are different. If the access involves lobbying for what the really powerful entity was going to do anyway, it looks like the access delivered power; if not, then it looks like there was a higher 'bid', that's wrong in both instances. If wealth was automatic power, it wouldn't need access (to where the power really is).
turbobloke said:
The Competition and Markets Authority looks at amassed wealth and inter-company inequality? Is Apple safe?! What happened to looking at mergers, cartels, compliance with consumer regs, all independent of market capitalisation or total asset figures. As stated previously, access is sold as influence/power, these are different. If the access involves lobbying for what the really powerful entity was going to do anyway, it looks like the access delivered power; if not, then it looks like there was a higher 'bid', that's wrong in both instances. If wealth was automatic power, it wouldn't need access (to where the power really is).
Its all about how an individual wishes to use or abuse the power that wealth brings. Yup mention competition authorities, but how long is it taking for these people to act in my example of the big 6 power suppliers. The BIG shareholder will soon jump ship onto a more lucrative boat knowing that time lags are his friend. Edited by crankedup on Friday 23 January 16:21
crankedup said:
As a Lib-Dem I am of course in favour of a higher degree of financial equilibration, that is not to say taking from the wealthy bring them to the financial level of the poor. For example, years ago the extremely wealthy would spend some of the wealth by provision of housing for workers. Cadbury being a good example of that, how often do we hear or see the uber wealthy contribute to Society, they seem more interested in amassing more wealth for themselves.
Not sure if serious.crankedup said:
That is of course entirely their prerogative, but they shouldn't be surprised to witness the growing disdain from those in much less fortunate financial situations (Greece).
When it went titsup I thought straight away, damn all those billionaires in Greece no doubt they also slowed the velocity of money out of spite.
crankedup said:
Personally, some of my pals are very wealthy individuals, by that I mean many times multi-millionaires, they own assets without debt.
Do they let you look at their wad?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff