Hi Bruno Marchal 

I really have called the gini coefficient the "unfairness index"
 instead of the "fairness index", as the larger it is, the more inequality.
I might not have gotten it backwards.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/20/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-19, 13:45:13
Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index




On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:41, Roger Clough wrote:


To try to clear up my mistaken interpretation of the gini coefficient,
namely that USA inequality is not decreasing, it is actually increasing,
I  find that the per capita wealth is also increasing, so
let's see what effect that will have.

Although the fairness index (gini coefficient) has
grown linearly with time in the USA,
:
<USA gini_index.jpg>


The real per capital wealth has also increased, but exponentially:
(Real means inflation-adjusted)
:
<USA-per-capita-gdp-1790-2005.png>

By eyeball, it looks as though the real per person income GDP increased over 
the range 
of the time duration of the gini coefficient growth by about 5/1.5 ~ 3.3 .. The 
gini 
coefficient only increased from  .4 to .47 or is about  1.17 times larger, or 
is essentially 
constant in comparison with the growth in real GDP by a factor of 3.3. So I 
would say that 
everybody- the poor as well as the wealthy--  is getting appreciably richer, 
even 
though there has been a minimal increase in wealth inequality. 

The growth rate is not within our control. The questiion then is whether or
not the gini coefficient is in control of the growth rate. If not, then
the debate on taxation ends there. 

But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, artificially 
lowering 
the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the 
income) 
hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer.  Actually, a lot poorer.
The data above shows that decreasing the gini coefficient a small
amount will produce a much larger decrease in the per capita GDP, 
because the latter decreases exponentially with a linear decrease in 
the gini coefficient.

So, in either case, taxing the wealthy can do no good.


I think you are right. But we have to defend the individuals against 
corporatism, clubism, clientelism, special interest, etc.


Money should not been used to make money based on lies. Press should be more 
diverse, and banks better regulated, etc. The powers should be better 
separated, and some domain should be out of the political, like religion and 
health, food, sports, etc.


As long as drugs are not legal, I will not trust a politician (unless he says 
so). 
Being against drugs means being brainwashing, or being brainwashed, or both.


Bruno











  










-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to