As long as it means taking it away from the super rich, and not gutting small business owners.

Its called propaganda and false research. The Nazi's were famous for it especially with regards to the so called "master race". There are scientists that will say what ever someone wants if theres a big enough grant for it.

Presumably the USA comes out poorly in terms of "social mobility" which makes me ask what IS "social mobility" if Oprah ain't got it.  I suppose it is true that Senator Kennedy's grandchildren will not be forced to harvest wheat alongside fatherless black children on a state collective.  Does that indicate a lack of "social mobility"?

Mental illness is NOT a sociological trait, nor is substance abuse a mental illness.

As trillions of dollars vanishes into the maw of depression, we become "more equal". And just like the last time wealth disparity was NOT a problem, life sucks for the common folk.

As proved by other content of this thread it is hard to make intelligent comment on this without looking closer at the methods.

I would like to know how he numerically defines "income inequality" and calculates his index of social problems. It would also be important to carefully think about what other factors there may be.

Not sure it really matters either way. People have strong ideological views on matters such as this and will never accept a good argument contra to their own view or refute a bad one in favour.

V.Kemp, the word proof hasn't appeared until your post. Not sure who you're arguing with.

"Where would you be then? You'd all be 'equal', just equally poor" - and equally rich.

[]

Neither was "support," "prove," or "refute." But my point was to highlight his misuse of the word "proves" and not to offer citations in my post. Additionally, "support" and "refute" I quoted because...

Did you seriously expect to have a conversation on the use of quotation marks? How do you propose that anyone "proves" anything without "proof"? Oh look, they're in quotation marks because we're discussing the words themselves. Welcome to English 101. Let's spam the politics forum with it!

Let's not.

[]

I haven't seen anyone say "proves" either, except you. And yes, the use of quotation marks was significant.

In reply to Abe (because Imperial clearly isn't commenting) you may not let someone who is houseless pull down the house of another, but that won't necessarily stop him.

Chris Balsz, if everyone had equal opportunity to become wealthy then I am in no doubt that the gap between the richest and the poorest would lessen. And if this guy is to be believed then that would help avoid many social problems.

Now time for me to post.

Allow some examples to change the equation

Bahrain
N. Korea
S. Korea
Taiwan
Zimbabwe
Mexico

Each is an interesting case. N. Korea has 'social equality' and everyone is equal there, but how many millions died due to the leadership wanting nukes?

Mexico has laws making social equality a near certainty. Yet how many die there due to circumstances of drug lords? They out lawed guns there entirely, but their murder rate per capita exceeds the United States.

Taiwan where the rich keep getting richer, and everyone has opportunity. A neighbor wants to destroy them and they spend more per capita on weapons than the United States.

S. Korea... who can argue that they are not a successful nation with the most internet per capita of the world? They make mad money, they have no super rich there, everyone has their own chances.

Bahrain a nation of ultra rich and ultra poor. The only hotel on Earth to put real gold sprinkles on their coffee, and immigrant workers paid extremely meager wages even by third world standards.

And let us not forget Zimbabwe the shining example of modern day fairness and equality. Where all were issued a fair share of land. Zimbabwe the bread basket of Africa. Oh wait the Former bread basket of Africa. The nation where idiots and the unskilled were let loose in the name of equality and where in flation is 100,000,000,000,000%.

Yes I wrote that number correct as of 2 years ago, much more by now for sure.

What we have here is an incomplete picture.

For instance where were the rich Euros at the end of WWII? Rich Chinese? Rich Russians (I made a silly, rich Russians, lol!)... ok ok how about the rich in America... oh we found some?

And so what was is... Europe was a start of smaller businesses mostly, with a few exceptions like Volkswagon. America was already running forward with large businesses finding new competitors popping up frequently.

This is an example of a missed data point in your mans studies.

But I digress.

Let us talk of prisons and such. How about China and its killing of civilians even though they claim equality? Sweat shops? Religious freedom?

A tyranny needs less prisons for one big reason, all are afraid to get stepped upon.

How does this play in his statistical model, or did he forget this to? What? I cannot hear you.

Then let us cover upwards mobility. In the United States the vast number of billionaires and millionaires were not born to their money. They made it themselves. Gates, Soros, that silly mayor of New York (Bloomberg), Oprah (hats tip to Chris), Rush Limbaugh, and so forth.

So how does America prevent opprotunity if a homeless man can become a billionaire here (true story)? How can we say no ability to grow exists for people?

Therefore we find a flaw in your mans model, a pretty bad one.

Now the drive home the sledgehammer

A unique understanding of statistics helps me here. If the average is 3% needing major health help for the working class (assumption, its a very low number though) and the average person misses less than a week over a year (easily taken by work place sick policys) then lack of significant healthcare is not an issue for employers. Since the total time lost is less than the total for unemployment the net benefit of healthcare is a big null.

Yes it is heartless, yes it is cruel (I understand your emotional over the topic so I am giving you a bone) but statistically speaking healthcare does not help industry much except in a single manner. That manner is happiness. Now a larger paycheck makes me happier but I won't get that thanks to mandates. So it is an imperfect method for generating happiness as well.

Your proffessssssor lacks a working model, his methods leave much to be desired and his work is suitable for only providing heat via a fireplace.

Ok fair enough on the quotation marks issue, I looked a few times and didn't spot the word. I wouldn't exactly say I was embarassed by that though.

I don't know what you mean about law enforcement. Are you claiming that law enforcement has eradicated crime? As far as I am aware it hasn't. The point being discussed is whether a more equal wealth distribution would reduce social problems including crime. I would assume that variation between the levels of law enforcement between the countries listed would be relatively small.

I didn't say that everyone would make equal use of opportunities. But if opportunities were equally available to everyone then I don't think there would be as much inequality, and if some people still were poor then it would be by their own choices.

Flint, I'm not really sure what to make of your post because I can't really see that it makes much sense. The comparison in the original post is between western nations with similar cultures, levels of development and similar levels of wealth per capita with the difference being the distribution of that wealth amongst the people so Mexico, Zimbabwe and N.Korea don't really belong here nor does China. There are quite obviously other factors at work in these nations.

Opportunities for upward mobility are admirable but stories of men going from the streets to billions are very rare. You certainly do have a "unique understanding of statistics" but you should realise that if you have enough men out on the streets each with a low probability of making themselves rich then you will end up with a substantial probability that one of them will make it.

I'm not sure what your "sledgehammer" is really talking about. Who mentioned health care? As far as the working model and methods go, they are not described here so we are all in the dark about that. Any comment on the validity of a method must be based on a knowledge of the method, otherwise it is completely meaningless.

I don't think we have similar cultures to "western" nations like Japan