Voted Tory or Libdem? Dont moan about the cuts...

[amanda277]

It makes me laugh when people seem shocked at the Condems and their cuts. What did people expect when they voted Tory? The mega rich don?t care about the working class and I can only see it getting worse. My Local Sure Start Centre has just shut and there rest are sure to follow, I think it will soon be similar to the ?Thatcher? years again and im sure David Cameron and his cronies dont give a damn about the NHS....

' one of the highest levels of equality in the world.'

Really? How so?

moondog - now that Finland appear to have voted into power an anti-immigration 'family values' UKIP type party - the progressives need to scrabble around for an alternate socialist nirvana to bang on about .

Japan has one of the highest levels of income equality, and one of the healthiest societies, with low unemployment (until recent events at least).
They achieve this through higher wage equality.

Scandinavian countries also have high levels of income equality, and are some of the healthiest societies - they achieve this through redistributive taxes.

These are two very systems, both of which achieve excellent outcomes. With our society, redistributive taxes are the easiest way to achieve greater prosperity.

Jackstarb - your comment only highlights your ignorance.

I very much doubt that Japanese societies are more healthy as a result of their wage equality and tax system.

You will probably find that it's down to diet & exercise. Both countries have much better diets than we do. Both have less smokers. Exercise? Well I'm not sure about the Japanese but it's unusual to see a fat Japanese person so guess they're doing something right. Ditto with Scandinavian countries. One of the things I love over there is the abundance of people cycling places instead of driving so I guess they are getting more exercise too. Having spent time over there, there are a few fat people but by and large the UK have way more lardy arses than anywhere else bar our US friends.

here is the CIA's Gini Index; the index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country.

A score of 0 would be perfect equality, and a score of 100 would be perfect inequality.

earthworm

Thanks for the link.

If Osbourn hit his targets we may catch up with Brazil

Interesting link earthworm. So Japan is actually has less income equality than the UK. So Niceguy could be right - Japanese relative health is due to diet and exercise.

Yes, it does look that way jackstarb... the UK scored 34 in 2005 (on CIA's Gini Index) and again in 2008 (according to the ONS) whilst Japan scored 37.

Of course, things might have changed since then but I can't find any more recent figures.

It is interesting to see facts rather than anecdote and media spin I think.

Its very interesting that the USA chose to measure inequality by family income.

What an odd and difficult thing to measure. Did they just count everyone with the same surname as the same family?

Or perhaps measuring inequality between individuals shows the USA in a bad light, and they didnt like that chart?

It is household income HHLimbo, which is usual with such data I believe.

There are several measures of national inequality - the household income Gini coefficient is the most used and preferred by economists.

Another method sometimes used is to measure the share of wealth held by the top 1% of the population. But, by this measure Norway and Denmark have lower equality than the US.

Niceguy2 - I would recommend reading 'The Spirit Level' by Wilkinson and Picket. It explains your questions very well.

Niceguy - I would suggest that The Spirit Level Delusion is more to your taste .

The Spirit Level is do-gooding claptrap.

Relative poverty is absolutely fine. I thoroughly encourage it if it tends to lead to less absolute poverty. We should welcome the extreme rich to Britain with open arms. They bring jobs and wealth. If that increases "inequality", then that is most certainly a price worth paying.

If you prefer facts then you'd be better off with the spirit level

From the Spirit Level Delusion Blog:

"John Goldthorpe, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Oxford University, said: ?As I read through the book, I have to say that my reaction was one of increasing dismay.? ....a left-winger, Goldthorpe?s review of The Spirit Level...

"Wilkinson and Pickett [WP] have no time for nicely balanced judgements. They believe that the evidence they present shows beyond doubt that more equal societies ?do better?, and they are also confident that they have the right explanation for why this is so... Their case is by no means so securely established as they try to make out... it has been called into question by other leading figures in the field?a fact that WP might have more fully acknowledged... WP?s inadequate, one-dimensional understanding of social stratification leads to major problems in their account of how the contextual effect is produced.""

HH - The Spirit Level might chime with your ideology and personal philosophy - good for you. But that is not the same as it being undisputed 'fact'.

Jackstarb - I think it is a very interesting idea. They propose an explanation for a great many ills in society, and the explanation is plausible across this variety of factors - You can see how the problems can develop from inequality.

It answers many of the things niceguy has observed - they are more healthy - because they have a better diet and excercise more and smoke less - because etc etc.

The aim is to address the root cause, and this provides a good idea of what the root cause could be.

jackstarb - I am trained as a scientist. I am sceptical about everything! - until someone shows me some credible evidence. I then test it from all angles and pick out any cracks. Only when I am satisfied that it is reasonably sound will I accept it as part of my world view. If someone shows me evidence to the contrary I will again examine and adapt.

How about you, how do you form your world view and your opinions?

Stalin's Russia was an equal society; most people were equally poor. But that didn't lead to a prosperous society and people still had to queue around the corner for a joint of meat.

HH - I haven't said I don't believe that equality is a good thing. I just don't think Wilkinson and Picket have proved that inequality is the direct cause of many of the ills they investigated.

As a scientist you should be sceptical of any researchers who propose a hypotheses to explain a phenomena and then find data which fits their hypothesis and reject (or explain away) any data which contradicts it. This is what Wilkinson and Picket are critised for doing.

Anyway, correlation isn't 'evidence' of causation. At best it 'suggestive' of it.

But how do you form your world view and opinions? Or do you just moan about everything?

I am certainly not foolish enough to think that economics or sociology can be classified as science - or even that scientists are rational, let alone predict the consequences of complex phenomena. Models are always skewed by assumptions.

To take an example from science itself rather than sociology: I am convinced that global warming is real, and that there is significant evidence that is caused by man. But not one of the IPCC scientists seems to have even paused to consider the positive aspects of global warming (such as being able to farm Siberia), before this was pointed out by critics. Not one. This is a prime example of scientific groupthink. Falsifiability is a purely philosophical construct, and pretty alien to the way real scientists work.

When it comes to the fuzzier disciplines, all bets are off - even if the authors use a false patina of statistics to try to browbeat those without a basic understanding of probability.

I find it very sad when otherwise intelligent people delude themselves into believing Epicurean fantasies.

Opinions on politics and the economy have nothing to do with science or the scientific method whatsoever - any more than law does. The fact that many, if not most, scientists are left-leaning (in common with academics of all disciplines), does not change that.

That analogy is like saying 'why dont people who's house burns down look on the bright side - they can go camping'

Science is the most rational system we've got, and has proved itself incomparably useful.

I agree with the OP - the mega rich dont care about anyone else - because they dont have to. That causes big problems throughout society, for everyone.

'But not one of the IPCC scientists seems to have even paused to consider the positive aspects of global warming (such as being able to farm Siberia), before this was pointed out by critics. Not one'

Might it be because they don't believe it either?