Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I congratulate our new Chinese overlords

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    ...and that can only be a Good Thing. People rising out of true poverty
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

    Comment


    • #47
      I'm really disappointed the whole coal plants and Hoover Dam comment didn't generate any responses. I thought this was a Civ site.
      “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

      ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

      Comment


      • #48
        Hoover Dam is so Civ2.
        No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
          Rising middle class, lots of rich people.
          Rising income inequality.
          “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
          "Capitalism ho!"

          Comment


          • #50
            So cynical. At least one economist says that rapid growth decreases income inequality. It is when growth slows down that income inequality increases.
            “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

            ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

            Comment


            • #51
              Did the economist give a reason why he expects that?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by pchang View Post
                So cynical. At least one economist says that rapid growth decreases income inequality. It is when growth slows down that income inequality increases.
                Probably only one. Check out China's.

                I'm not saying that a lot of people haven't risen out of poverty during China's economic growth over the last two decades, but the wealthy have benefited far more.


                Click image for larger version

Name:	charts-14.png
Views:	1
Size:	10.7 KB
ID:	9100676
                “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                "Capitalism ho!"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Dinner View Post
                  Sure, it can. They're still just making a tiny percentage of what western, Japanese, or even Korean people are making so there is a ton of upside still possible. They've only just begun to modernize the inland areas.
                  Thing is there are diminishing returns to everything. Yes, growth is possible. They can diversify and modernize. That's just not going to create the same rate of growth. It's the same with Japan. It's just an export economy on a larger scale.
                  I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                  - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by pchang View Post
                    So cynical. At least one economist says that rapid growth decreases income inequality. It is when growth slows down that income inequality increases.
                    It seems like it would rise in both but less quickly during rapid growth as "average workers" (if such a thing exists) have more bargaining power or at least more options as there are more openings and employers are more willing to increase wages. The owner's pay check is still going up faster but since the other people's are also going up the delta might be smaller.
                    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by DaShi View Post
                      Probably only one. Check out China's.

                      I'm not saying that a lot of people haven't risen out of poverty during China's economic growth over the last two decades, but the wealthy have benefited far more.


                      [ATTACH=CONFIG]175949[/ATTACH]
                      Thomas Piketty is the Economist. He wrote about it in a best selling book, but it is over 600 pages long. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674430006
                      “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

                      ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I want to buy that book by that French economist... Capital in the 21st century but Amazon is on back order.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The basic argument is that when the return on capital is larger than the growth rate of the economy, wealth will naturally accumulate in the hands of the few (the ones with the capital). During times of rapid economic growth, the growth rate of the economy can be greater than the return on capital. When this happens, wealth inequality will decrease.

                          He claims that the world's rapid growth after the 2 world wars is a temporary thing and that we are returning to the normal pattern where return on capital is larger than the growth rate of the economy. He thinks the way to stop this is a progressive tax on wealth (and not income). Obviously, there are a lot of obstacles to getting something like this passed by our Government. It is also very difficult to measure wealth accurately (as opposed to income).
                          “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

                          ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by pchang View Post
                            The basic argument is that when the return on capital is larger than the growth rate of the economy, wealth will naturally accumulate in the hands of the few (the ones with the capital). During times of rapid economic growth, the growth rate of the economy can be greater than the return on capital. When this happens, wealth inequality will decrease.
                            That makes sense... if you assume 100% of the returns on capital are reinvested. And people live forever, never dying and having their assets divided up among their children and the state.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              All you need is to spend less than the rate of return for your capital to grow forever. Also, people don't have to live forever. Only their trusts do. My family trust will outlive me by a long shot.
                              “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

                              ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I cannot believe that pchang and Dinner have been conversing in this thread, without spewing personal insults back and forth.
                                A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X