Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on September 27, 2011, 11:30:47 am
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/when-business-talks-about-inequality-its-time-to-worry/article2181391/
The IMF devoted the latest edition of its in-house publication to income inequality. In it, economists Andrew Berg and Jonathan Ostry tackled a long-standing debate in the economics biz: the trade-off between equality and efficiency. “Do societies inevitably face an invidious choice between efficient production and equitable wealth and income distribution?” they ask. “In a word, no.” Their findings from data covering the period 1950 to 2006 show greater equality is linked to longer spells of sustained economic growth (a topic they develop more fully here). Conversely, more inequality breeds more volatility.
The article is pretty Canada-centric, but there are lessons for all advanced countries.
The IMF report can be found here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf
-
how do they prove a causal link, it seems like it could be quite easy for periods of strong economic growth to result in less economic disparity.
-
If you have a large lead factor then it's more obviously a causal link. If the economy is improving but economic disparity increases for some reason and then shortly afterwards the economy tanks then it would show that it doesn't work the way you said it might.
-
This whole inequality thing is just a distraction. What the sheeple really need to be asking is, what is truth on penis size and economic growth? (https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/27239/maleorga.pdf)
-
That post was probably the worst case of spam I've ever seen.
-
That post was probably the worst case of spam I've ever seen.
Skimming past it this morning, I passed it off as a forum-regular trolling. I think that makes it arguably the best spam attempt ever. ;)
-
I don't think that post should be deleted as, even if it is spam, it's hilarious spam.
YOUR small penis caused the recession!
-
No, it was George Bush's small penis that caused the recession. :lol:
-
Yeah, it's really funny that about 10 million people who are looking for work can't find it, companies won't hire people who haven't had a job in the last 6 months, anyway, and the number of underemployed people is at record highs. Not to mention the fact that third world countries are hurt worse by our recession than we are.
And it was all caused by George Bush's penis. Come on, guys. There's more to life than laughing at insipid penis jokes.
-
Well, considering that I lost my job because of the recession and have been unemployed for longer than I've ever been in my life, I think how I cope with that is really up to me. If I choose to laugh to keep from crying it really doesn't concern you.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
The more equality, the more the economy is built around consumer consumption instead of investment, as the savings that are used for investment come mostly from the class that saves the most of their income (ie, the wealthy). And consumption is a much more reliable engine for an economy than investment; investment is made based on inherently unknowable future prospects, so it is vulnerable to herd-style decision making and violent swings between bubbles and crashes (something that anyone following the past four years would know already). While consumer behavior during a recession can be self-defeating (people want to save during a recession, but that will just destroy sales and take income with it), consumers in general make much more rational and predictable decisions. They're never the ones who cause the crashes. It's simple.