We're not number one

[Tom Joad]

More on how we're well on the way to becoming a Banana Republic

http://www.alternet.org/economy/were...age=1#bookmark

After taxes, the Canadian middle class now has a higher income than its American counterpart. And many European countries are closing in on us. Median incomes in Western European countries are still a bit lower than those of the U.S., but the gap in several countries, including the Netherlands, Sweden and Britain, is significantly smaller than it was a decade ago. However, if you take into account the cost of things like education, retirement and healthcare in America, those European countries’ middle classes are in much better shape than ours because the U.S. government does not provide as much for its citizens in these areas. So the income you get has to be saved for these items.

[Oerets]

What struck me on hearing this yesterday, is the comment about the (unwarranted or deserved) enrichment of the upper earners causing the disparity between the top and bottom in the USA.

Barney

[finnbow]

Not only are we not number 1, we're number 16.

http://www.socialprogressimperative....dim1,dim2,dim3

[4-2-7]

Some of you might want a more in-depth analysis, a 30 page pdf report. This report was put out by the International Monetary Fund.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

Research Department

Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth
Prepared by Jonathan D. Ostry, Andrew Berg, Charalambos G. Tsangarides1


Authorized for distribution by Olivier Blanchard


February 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Economists are increasingly focusing on the links between rising inequality and the fragility of
growth. Narratives include the relationship between inequality, leverage and the financial
cycle, which sowed the seeds for crisis; and the role of political-economy factors (especially
the influence of the rich) in allowing financial excess to balloon ahead of the crisis. In earlier
work, we documented a multi-decade cross-country relationship between inequality and the
fragility of economic growth. Our work built on the tentative consensus in the literature that
inequality can undermine progress in health and education, cause investment-reducing political
and economic instability, and undercut the social consensus required to adjust in the face of
shocks, and thus that it tends to reduce the pace and durability of growth.


That equality seems to drive higher and more sustainable growth does not in itself support
efforts to redistribute. In particular, inequality may impede growth at least in part because it
calls forth efforts to redistribute that themselves undercut growth. In such a situation, even if
inequality is bad for growth, taxes and transfers may be precisely the wrong remedy.

While considerable controversy surrounds these issues, we should not jump to the conclusion
that the treatment for inequality may be worse for growth than the disease itself. Equality-enhancing interventions could actually help growth: think of taxes on activities with negative externalities paid mostly by the rich (perhaps excessive risk-taking in the financial sector) or
cash transfers aimed at encouraging better attendance at primary schools in developing countries, as examples. The macroeconomic effects of redistributive policies will reflect a
balance between the components of the fiscal package, and it is an empirical question whether
redistribution in practice is pro- or anti-growth.


So what does the historical evidence say? This paper is the first to take advantage of a recently-compiled cross-country dataset that distinguishes market (before taxes and transfers) inequality from net (after taxes and transfers) inequality and allows us to calculate redistributive transfers
for a large number of country-year observations. Our main findings are:


First, more unequal societies tend to redistribute more. It is thus important in understanding
the growth-inequality relationship to distinguish between market and net inequality.

Second, lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth, for a
given level of redistribution. These results are highly supportive of our earlier work.

And third, redistribution appears generally benign in terms of its impact on growth; only in
extreme cases is there some evidence that it may have direct negative effects on growth. Thus
the combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution—including the growth effects of the
resulting lower inequality—are on average pro-growth.

While we should be cognizant of the inherent limitations of the data set and of cross-country
regression analysis more generally, we should be careful not to assume that there is a big tradeoff between redistribution and growth. The best available macroeconomic data do not support
that conclusion.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...14/sdn1402.pdf

[BlueStreak]

Blah, Blah, Blah.............

We are the poster child nation for inadequate redistribution.

Dave

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Blah, Blah, Blah.............

We are the poster child nation for inadequate redistribution.

Dave

Dave the IMF has been pushing the redistribution and inequality agenda.

If you can read the report will validate your opinion. Although you will not have the benefit of an opinion columnist to tell you what to believe or give you talking points.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Dave the IMF has been pushing the redistribution and inequality agenda.

If you can read the report will validate your opinion. Although you will not have the benefit of an opinion columnist to tell you what to believe or give you talking points.

Eat shit and die you thread crapping Troll.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Eat shit and die you thread crapping Troll.

Tom put him on ignore, he is a noisy dim-witted sycophant ass kissing every 1% he comes across.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Eat shit and die you thread crapping Troll.

No thanks.

Don't forget your meds this morning you seem a bit off balanced.

Oh I contributed to your post far more information than you did. Is that thread crapping? Or projection of your own inadequacies.

Stay on topic please.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not only are we not number 1, we're number 16.

http://www.socialprogressimperative....dim1,dim2,dim3

Yeah, but we beat the snot outa them Ruskies!

John