This century has known a stunning decrease in global income inequality, bringing it down to levels not seen in well over a century. That's the conclusion that Branko Milanovic, one of the world's foremost inequality researchers, comes to in an important essay for Foreign Affairs.
pull down to refresh
related posts
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinAbhi 14 Jul
I don't think this chart is a real. Inflation rate is increasing everywhere, so how is this possible?
reply
63 sats \ 8 replies \ @SpaceHodler 13 Jul
Inequality is not bad, poverty is.
If the wealthy become 10x wealthier and the poor become 2x wealthier, that's a great outcome, even though inequality has increased.
But some people will be angered by it as they'd rather have everyone be equally miserable.
reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko OP 14 Jul
I agree.
The gini-coefficient measures inequality between the poor and the richest. It can fall because of two reasons:
- The rich get poorer, which makes the gini coefficient fall and look like inequality falls. This happened e.g. in 2008, 2009 when the stock market fell.
- The poor get richer, which makes the gini coefficient fall. This is the desired outcome
The gini coefficient is currently falling. Given the S&P00 is currently at all time highs in combination of what I posted here points to the second bullet point being the case
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @037447d9ca 14 Jul
Wealth is a zero-sum game. if the wealthy become 10x wealthier and the poor become 2x wealthier, then some other entity have become 20x poorer, usually mother nature, animal species or indigenous tribes.
reply
113 sats \ 3 replies \ @zuspotirko OP 14 Jul
Wealth is not a zero sum game. That's so nonsensical if you think about it.
reply
18 sats \ 2 replies \ @SpaceHodler 14 Jul
Yeah, if it were, then blowing up your house, i.e. the destruction of your own wealth, would return that wealth to someone else, another species, or mother nature. But it doesn't.
Wealth creation may involve the extraction of raw materials, but most of the wealth comes from what you do with those materials. Fixing a bicycle creates wealth, and who loses from that?
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @037447d9ca 14 Jul
Blowing up your house would transfer the wealth to the mold and plants that would colonize it after its destruction.
A "fixed" bicycle is a subjective appreciation of wealth, someone can consider that you ruined it with your fix and value it more in what you consider a broken state.
Resources have a more objective and consistent value, that's where the zero sum applies.
reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 14 Jul
What someone else's subjective valuation of the fix is is irrelevant. It's not their bike.
Mold and plants? There is plenty of them, feeding an additional kilo of mold is not going to increase productivity.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Jul
This should be downzapped 1 billion sats
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Jul
It’s about raising the floor or lifting people out of the so called poverty line
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @Kontext 14 Jul
That chart is absolutely worthless if it is not inflation-adjusted...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Jul
a limitation or weakness but not absolutely worthless
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 13 Jul
Real or nominal?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Jul
looks nominal usually we see an asterisk for adjusted for inflation and PPP or purchasing power parity
The currency is dollars... the abject poor make one dollar per day, 5 bucks per day?
reply