On Thursday, September 5, 2013 4:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote


And his other stupid example is Albania, which has 1/8 the per-capita

income of the USA.



Ed Huntress

You assert that Albania is a stupid example, but do not give any reason why other than that their per capita income is much lower than that of the United States. WHy do you think that is relevant? It seems to me that if an uneven distribution of income is good or bad , it would be true regardless of what the per capita income is. Sounds as if you want to cherry pick what is relevant.

Dan

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 4:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote


And his other stupid example is Albania, which has 1/8 the per-capita

income of the USA.



Ed Huntress

You assert that Albania is a stupid example, but do not give any reason why other than that their per capita income is much lower than that of the United States. WHy do you think that is relevant? It seems to me that if an uneven distribution of income is good or bad , it would be true regardless of what the per capita income is. Sounds as if you want to cherry pick what is relevant.

Dan

Over 50% of Albania's employment is in agriculture -- small family
farms. Foreign investment and domestic investment are very low.

The dynamics of Albania's economy have virtually no relationship to
that of the United States.

If you read Birnbaum's blog post, which is what I'm referring to, the
false dichotomy that he made was between living in the USA or living
with a GINI coefficient of 0.27 -- Albania's.

But he made no effort to show any causative relationship. So it's a
silly example.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 6:12:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


Over 50% of Albania's employment is in agriculture -- small family

farms. Foreign investment and domestic investment are very low.



The dynamics of Albania's economy have virtually no relationship to

that of the United States.



If you read Birnbaum's blog post, which is what I'm referring to, the

false dichotomy that he made was between living in the USA or living

with a GINI coefficient of 0.27 -- Albania's.



But he made no effort to show any causative relationship. So it's a

silly example.



--

Ed Huntress

So I thought the topic was about whether a hgh or low Gini number made a difference. And yet you seem not to be concerned with the general case, but instead only want to discuss the U.S. economy.

So you are trying to restrict the discussion to a single country instead of discussing the general case. So cherry picking the data.

Now on to discussing metalworking. Today I welded in some sheet metal to stiffen up the stand for the Drill/Mill. The welds looked really bad. Strong enough,but ugly looking. I was welding some material about .040 thick to the legs which are square tubing with a .250 wall thickness. That was not the problem. The problem is that I could not see where I was welding. So I clamped a strip of aluminium along side where I wanted to weld, and that helped. But it was not enough. So the next step would be to rig a halogen light so it illuminates the weld area and connect it to the MIG welder so it turns on when the wire starts feeding. Or maybe I should skip that and just rig a simple track system and advance along the path using a stepper motor and maybe a second stepper to weave the torch back and forth orthogonal to the first stepper. Which of course ties into the automation of labor and doing work that is not being done. Well sure there are welding robots already, but I am thinking of something in the range of $50. Almost nothing to it except a microcontroler and a couple of stepper motors. It would only do straight welds , although the same parts could rotate a weld positioner for circular welds.

Dan

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 18:19:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 6:12:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


Over 50% of Albania's employment is in agriculture -- small family

farms. Foreign investment and domestic investment are very low.



The dynamics of Albania's economy have virtually no relationship to

that of the United States.



If you read Birnbaum's blog post, which is what I'm referring to, the

false dichotomy that he made was between living in the USA or living

with a GINI coefficient of 0.27 -- Albania's.



But he made no effort to show any causative relationship. So it's a

silly example.



--

Ed Huntress

So I thought the topic was about whether a hgh or low Gini number made a difference.

It is. But you can read what he said either way. Here's what he said:

"Albania has a Gini of 0.27, but a per-capita income only one-eighth
of the USA. Would you be willing to sacrifice 87% of your pay in order
to be more equal to everyone else?"

So, is he suggesting that the consequence of having such a low GINI
coefficient is low absolute incomes?

It's ambiguous.

And yet you seem not to be concerned with the general case, but instead only want to discuss the U.S. economy.

That's what we were talking about -- the rising income disparities in
the US, and the implications of IMF and other research from other
countries for the US economy.

There isn't much to be applied to the US, from the experience of a
relatively poor economy where over 50% of the workers are involved in
farming.


So you are trying to restrict the discussion to a single country instead of discussing the general case. So cherry picking the data.

I'm not tryint to "restrict" anything. I'm talking about the subject
we were discussing.


Now on to discussing metalworking. Today I welded in some sheet metal to stiffen up the stand for the Drill/Mill. The welds looked really bad. Strong enough,but ugly looking. I was welding some material about .040 thick to the legs which are square tubing with a .250 wall thickness. That was not the problem. The problem is that I could not see where I was welding. So I clamped a strip of aluminium along side where I wanted to weld, and that helped. But it was not enough. So the next step would be to rig a halogen light so it illuminates the weld area and connect it to the MIG welder so it turns on when the wire starts feeding. Or maybe I should skip that and just rig a simple track system and advance along the path using a stepper motor and maybe a second stepper to weave the torch back and forth orthogonal to the first stepper. Which of course ties into the automation of labor and doing work that is not being done. Well sure there are welding robots already, but I am
thinking of something in the range of $50. Almost nothing to it except a microcontroler and a couple of stepper motors. It would only do straight welds , although the same parts could rotate a weld positioner for circular welds.

Dan

On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:47:00 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


So I thought the topic was about whether a hgh or low Gini number made a difference.



It is. But you can read what he said either way. Here's what he said:


And yet you seem not to be concerned with the general case, but instead only want to discuss the U.S. economy.



That's what we were talking about -- the rising income disparities in

the US, and the implications of IMF and other research from other

countries for the US economy.



There isn't much to be applied to the US, from the experience of a

relatively poor economy where over 50% of the workers are involved in

farming.





So you are trying to restrict the discussion to a single country instead of discussing the general case. So cherry picking the data.



I'm not tryint to "restrict" anything. I'm talking about the subject

we were discussing.



Now I am really confused. First you say the subject is about whether a hgh or low Gini number made a difference. And then you say it is only about the U.S. economy related to the Gini number. You need to be less parochial. If the Gini number makes a difference it ought to make a difference regardless of the country. If it is country dependent then there must be other factors involved.

Dan

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:07:50 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:47:00 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


So I thought the topic was about whether a hgh or low Gini number made a difference.



It is. But you can read what he said either way. Here's what he said:


And yet you seem not to be concerned with the general case, but instead only want to discuss the U.S. economy.



That's what we were talking about -- the rising income disparities in

the US, and the implications of IMF and other research from other

countries for the US economy.



There isn't much to be applied to the US, from the experience of a

relatively poor economy where over 50% of the workers are involved in

farming.





So you are trying to restrict the discussion to a single country instead of discussing the general case. So cherry picking the data.



I'm not tryint to "restrict" anything. I'm talking about the subject

we were discussing.



Now I am really confused. First you say the subject is about whether a hgh or low Gini number made a difference. And then you say it is only about the U.S. economy related to the Gini number. You need to be less parochial. If the Gini number makes a difference it ought to make a difference regardless of the country. If it is country dependent then there must be other factors involved.

Dan

Let's try to clarify it, then. A GINI coefficient, by itself, doesn't
tell you much. I agreed to that point several messages ago in this
thread. As a raw number, divorced from historical trends and the
structure of particular economies, its implications are ambiguous.

But a rising GINI coefficient can be an indicator of an economy's and
a society's decling functionality and potential for growth.

It's a complex and nuanced subject. For the current thinking among
economists and some of the latest research, that Special Report I
linked to tells the broad picture and where the current agreements and
disagreements lie:

http://www.economist.com/node/21564414

If you don't want to go look at that, here's the part that George and
I have been talking about:

=============================================

And in today’s sluggish economies, more inequality often means that
people at the bottom and even in the middle of the income distribution
are falling behind not just in relative but also in absolute terms...

....The mainstream consensus has long been that a growing economy
raises all boats, to much better effect than incentive-dulling
redistribution. Robert Lucas, a Nobel prize-winner, epitomised the
orthodoxy when he wrote in 2003 that “of the tendencies that are
harmful to sound economics, the most seductive and…poisonous is to
focus on questions of distribution.”

But now the economics establishment has become concerned about who
gets what. Research by economists at the IMF suggests that income
inequality slows growth, causes financial crises and weakens demand.
In a recent report the Asian Development Bank argued that if emerging
Asia’s income distribution had not worsened over the past 20 years,
the region’s rapid growth would have lifted an extra 240m people out
of extreme poverty. More controversial studies purport to link
widening income gaps with all manner of ills, from obesity to suicide.

The widening gaps within many countries are beginning to worry even
the plutocrats. A survey for the World Economic Forum meeting at Davos
pointed to inequality as the most pressing problem of the coming
decade (alongside fiscal imbalances). In all sections of society,
there is growing agreement that the world is becoming more unequal,
and that today’s disparities and their likely trajectory are
dangerous.

=============================================

There are a few ways in which a rising GINI can be good. There are
more ways that it can be bad. In our case, it reflects a hollowing out
of the middle class.

Comparing our GINI to that of a country where 50% of the workers are
engaged in farming, like Albania, tells you nothing much, except that
GINI numbers are only useful indicators in terms of trends, and of
comparisons between countries at similar stages of development.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:07:50 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:47:00 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


So I thought the topic was about whether a hgh or low Gini number made a difference.



It is. But you can read what he said either way. Here's what he said:


And yet you seem not to be concerned with the general case, but instead only want to discuss the U.S. economy.



That's what we were talking about -- the rising income disparities in

the US, and the implications of IMF and other research from other

countries for the US economy.



There isn't much to be applied to the US, from the experience of a

relatively poor economy where over 50% of the workers are involved in

farming.





So you are trying to restrict the discussion to a single country instead of discussing the general case. So cherry picking the data.



I'm not tryint to "restrict" anything. I'm talking about the subject

we were discussing.



Now I am really confused. First you say the subject is about whether a hgh or low Gini number made a difference. And then you say it is only about the U.S. economy related to the Gini number. You need to be less parochial. If the Gini number makes a difference it ought to make a difference regardless of the country. If it is country dependent then there must be other factors involved.

Dan

======================

In something as convoluted and arcane as economics and
society there are always other factors involved. However
across time and a number of countries, where accurate data
is available, high GINI indices highly correlate with low
quality of life metrics. I am including reasonable economic
stability and level as an important QoL metric.

One branch of statistics called multiple regression can
estimate the [relative] size of the effect each independent
variable has on the dependent variable. It can determine
correlation but *NOT* causality, i.e. which is the cause and
which is the effect, or if a third unidentified factor,
which is actually the causal factor, is effecting both.
This is where subject matter expertise, critical analysis
and plausible models are essential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_multiple_regression

As far as not extrapolating from smaller countries, and
implicitly assuming the US is immune from the socio-economic
and fiscal/financial factors that effect others, this is
called exceptionalism, as in "the rules/trends/correlations
don't apply to me and mine," which is a time proven recipe
for disaster at the individual, corporate [e.g. GM, Bear
Sterns, Lehman Brothers] and national [e.g. Rome, Spain,
France, Netherlands, Germany, UK] levels.

The difference between a large and small country, where an
actual socio-economic/fiscal relationship exists
between/among factors is the magnitude of the causal
factor(s) [which may depend on how it is measured/expressed
i.e. absolute v relative/percent] required to trigger an
effect, how quickly an effect becomes apparent, and how
quickly (and if) the country can recover.

FYI
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/inte...ewsrelease.htm
snip
In July, the goods deficit increased $4.5 billion from June
to $58.6 billion, and the services
surplus decreased $0.1 billion from June to $19.4 billion.
Exports of goods decreased $1.1 billion
to $132.7 billion, and imports of goods increased $3.4
billion to $191.3 billion. Exports of
services were virtually unchanged at $56.7 billion, and
imports of services increased $0.1 billion
to $37.3 billion.
snip

Do the math and this is an annualized rate of (58.6-19.4)*12
= 39.2*12 or 470.4 BILLION$. This is on top of the national
budget deficit. The cumulative trade deficit [dating back
some 35 years] dwarfs the official national debt. We are
playing with fire, everyone is about to get burned...

On 9/5/2013 3:12 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 4:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote


And his other stupid example is Albania, which has 1/8 the per-capita

income of the USA.



Ed Huntress

You assert that Albania is a stupid example, but do not give any reason why other than that their per capita income is much lower than that of the United States. WHy do you think that is relevant? It seems to me that if an uneven distribution of income is good or bad , it would be true regardless of what the per capita income is. Sounds as if you want to cherry pick what is relevant.

Dan

Over 50% of Albania's employment is in agriculture -- small family
farms. Foreign investment and domestic investment are very low.

The dynamics of Albania's economy have virtually no relationship to
that of the United States.

If you read Birnbaum's blog post, which is what I'm referring to, the
false dichotomy that he made was between living in the USA or living
with a GINI coefficient of 0.27 -- Albania's.

But he made no effort to show any causative relationship. So it's a
silly example.

It's not a silly example, you ****wit. It proves the entire point:
*MOST* of the strident shrieking about "income inequality" - for
example, *ALL* of the shrieking about it by the Occutards - has as its
basis a belief that the inequality is "unfair" or "immoral" or in some
other way "bad" in and of itself. And even the more serious scholarship
on the topic has not identified even a *potential* causative link
between income inequality and lowered growth. Only some degree of
correlation has been found, and the direction of causation might just as
plausibly be in the other direction - the lowered growth in an economy
that otherwise would grow is what causes the income inequality. In
fact, this is a much more plausible explanation.

The Occutard shriekers - your side - aren't concerned about growth in
the least. They're just angry and bitchy that they don't have as much
as they think they "ought" to have. They think the inequality is bad
/per se/, and that's the only thing they're saying. They're wrong.

Birnbaum's point, and it's an excellent one because the debate is
dominated by the Occutard shriekers rather than the scholars, is that
simply looking at Gini coefficients - either their absolute levels or
changes in them - tells you nothing meaningful. But the shriekers, and
you, think they do. You're wrong - as usual.

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 18:38:48 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 9/5/2013 3:12 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 4:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote


And his other stupid example is Albania, which has 1/8 the per-capita

income of the USA.



Ed Huntress

You assert that Albania is a stupid example, but do not give any reason why other than that their per capita income is much lower than that of the United States. WHy do you think that is relevant? It seems to me that if an uneven distribution of income is good or bad , it would be true regardless of what the per capita income is. Sounds as if you want to cherry pick what is relevant.

Dan

Over 50% of Albania's employment is in agriculture -- small family
farms. Foreign investment and domestic investment are very low.

The dynamics of Albania's economy have virtually no relationship to
that of the United States.

If you read Birnbaum's blog post, which is what I'm referring to, the
false dichotomy that he made was between living in the USA or living
with a GINI coefficient of 0.27 -- Albania's.

But he made no effort to show any causative relationship. So it's a
silly example.

It's not a silly example, you ****wit. It proves the entire point:
*MOST* of the strident shrieking about "income inequality" - for
example, *ALL* of the shrieking about it by the Occutards - has as its
basis a belief that the inequality is "unfair" or "immoral" or in some
other way "bad" in and of itself.

No it doesn't. Birnbaum neither said that, nor supported it in the
least. So it doesn't "prove" anything.

Why are you hanging your hat on some blogger's opinions when you know
there is real research out there? Could it be that the research makes
hash of your position?

--
Ed Huntress