[mike777]

Mbodell, on Aug 22 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 22 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

On the other hand, The World Bank World Development Report 2000/2001[3] shows, that inequality and growth are not related. Inequality neither drives growth nor does it impair growth. Other Research (W.Kitterer[4]) also shows, that in perfect markets inequality does not influence growth. In real markets redistribution contributes to growth.

In other words the question of would you rather have a bigger pie or a more fairly divided pie is a false dichotomy. The answer is you can have both a bigger pie and a more fairly divided pie.

Also, as pointed out, income inequality is only a proxy. Wealth inequality is even more pronounced then income inequality. Also social mobility is a reasonable consideration. Of course social mobility is also less in the US than in most other developed countries.

Social mobility is less?


I thought Obama is proof it is much much more?

As for a bigger pie and more fairly divided pie I am all for that...now if we can just agree on what fair is, but then I am the guy who posts about the Singularity coming in 2050 when others say it will never come or is tens of thousands of years away so.....


btw I note Krugman has been writing column after column advocating for a return to 70-80% top tax bracket and says it would not hurt wealth creation or productivity. Another issue is how happy Denmark is with their economic policies..

[Lobowolf]

Mbodell, on Aug 22 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 22 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

On the other hand, The World Bank World Development Report 2000/2001[3] shows, that inequality and growth are not related. Inequality neither drives growth nor does it impair growth. Other Research (W.Kitterer[4]) also shows, that in perfect markets inequality does not influence growth. In real markets redistribution contributes to growth.

In other words the question of would you rather have a bigger pie or a more fairly divided pie is a false dichotomy. The answer is you can have both a bigger pie and a more fairly divided pie.

Also, as pointed out, income inequality is only a proxy. Wealth inequality is even more pronounced then income inequality. Also social mobility is a reasonable consideration. Of course social mobility is also less in the US than in most other developed countries.

"evenly divided" isn't a great proxy for "fairly divided."

[NickRW]

Gerben42, on Aug 22 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

My guess is that "regular Americans" wouldn't run for president. And because of the astronomical cost of a campaign, they wouldn't be able to either.

What worries me most that to win the election, the candidates must simplify very complicated situations to something black and white, i.e. they cannot really say what's really important without losing votes.

Ya_humph. It strikes me that most elections in most countries seem to have more in common with a beauty contest than a serious political debate. Unfortunately, from afar anyway, in the case of the US this seems to be particularly so.

Some things make me feel old. Yuck.

Nick

[Winstonm]

Quote

It strikes me that most elections in most countries seem to have more in common with a beauty contest than a serious political debate. 

Great minds supposedly think alike

Quote

and no voters want to hear the truth, anyway, so we have by default a beauty pageant presidential election

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Aug 22 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

When AIPAC stops supplying all the presidential candidates perhaps then there will be real change. I wouldn't hold my breath....

You really think Obama was picked by AIPAC?

AIPAC is run by Orthodox Sephardic Jews. Obama is run (Axelrod/Plouffe) by Reformed Ashkenazic Jews. It would be like saying that Romney was being run by the Vatican. It shows no understanding of Jewish sects or politics.

Unless you just thought that saying "Jews" would sound anti-Semitic.

[mike777]

Joe Biden

attack.......attack attack is Biden?

[luke warm]

i'd prefer clinton/biden or biden/clinton or maybe even biden/obama ... i think it's a good choice, though

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Aug 22 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 22 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

When AIPAC stops supplying all the presidential candidates perhaps then there will be real change.  I wouldn't hold my breath....

You really think Obama was picked by AIPAC?

AIPAC is run by Orthodox Sephardic Jews. Obama is run (Axelrod/Plouffe) by Reformed Ashkenazic Jews. It would be like saying that Romney was being run by the Vatican. It shows no understanding of Jewish sects or politics.

Unless you just thought that saying "Jews" would sound anti-Semitic.

I would suggest that any politician who does not receive the support of AIPAC has little chance of winning the election.

Quote

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
In his speech to AIPAC, Barack Obama laid out a very hard line position that was music to the ears of the pro-Israel lobby -- attempting to counteract McCain's (and Clinton's) suggestions that he would be too willing to negotiate with Iran.

Using the anti-semite claim is lame.

[helene_t]

Mbodell, on Aug 22 2008, 11:35 PM, said:

Generally first world countries are more equal and third world countries are less equal. The US is the one exception

This is partly (but without doubt not only) because the US is the largest developed country. Suppose each of the 50 states had a Gini index comparable to that of a smaller developed country like e.g. Austria. Then the US as a whole would still have a larger Gini index than Austria because the disparity between the states adds to that within the states.

Thanks, Arend, for posting this interesting like to the Wiki article about the Gini index. It seems that Mexico, France and Norway are the clearest cases of countries that have had diminishing disparity. Maybe interesting that Bulgaria's Gini index suddenly fell drastically after the fall of the communists, after having been rising for some time. (Or maybe not so interesting: I can imagine some problems with making those statisticis during the turbulent 90s in Eastern Europe, as well as under the communists).

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Aug 23 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

I would suggest that any politician who does not receive the support of AIPAC has little chance of winning the election.

And you believe this because a little angel came down and told you this while you were sleeping?

This is just, well, stupid. You believe that if a person is a politician who has a chance of winning then he must be supported by AIPAC, and now you're waiting for a politician who has a chance of winning who isn't supported by AIPAC. Except that, when one shows up right in front of you, you don't recognize him because you assume that any politician who has a chance of winning etc etc.

Trust me on this one. Obama isn't supported by AIPAC. There are very different, opposed factions in Israel. The faction that supports Obama is not the faction that runs AIPAC.

EDITED TO ADD: Now, Biden, on the other hand, he's AIPAC. So maybe Obama picked him in part to keep the Zionists from getting too upset.

[Mbodell]

mike777, on Aug 22 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Aug 22 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 22 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

On the other hand, The World Bank World Development Report 2000/2001[3] shows, that inequality and growth are not related. Inequality neither drives growth nor does it impair growth. Other Research (W.Kitterer[4]) also shows, that in perfect markets inequality does not influence growth. In real markets redistribution contributes to growth.

In other words the question of would you rather have a bigger pie or a more fairly divided pie is a false dichotomy. The answer is you can have both a bigger pie and a more fairly divided pie.

Also, as pointed out, income inequality is only a proxy. Wealth inequality is even more pronounced then income inequality. Also social mobility is a reasonable consideration. Of course social mobility is also less in the US than in most other developed countries.

Social mobility is less?
I thought Obama is proof it is much much more?

My humor detector is never sure if you are joking or not, but:

Quote

Using the ratio of an individual’s current income to that of their parent’s, the United States has much less relative mobility than other industrialized nations. The income of our parents is a great deal more predictive of our own incomes in the United States than other countries. France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark all have more relative mobility than the US, while only the United Kingdom is shown to have less mobility. According to this study done by Miles Corak, The United States ratio of relative mobility is 1, whereas the other countries mentioned with more mobility have a range of 1.25 (France) to over 3 (Denmark).

from wikipedia

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE (Winstonm @ Aug 23 2008, 08:34 AM)
I would suggest that any politician who does not receive the support of AIPAC has little chance of winning the election. 

And you believe this because a little angel came down and told you this while you were sleeping?

No, but perhaps I worded this incorrectly so let me rephrase: I do not think any presidential candidate has much chance being elected in the U.S. if AIPAC is stongly opposed.

Quote

This is just, well, stupid.

Perhaps you mean ignorant rather than stupid. Stupid means unable to learn or adapt. So surely you did not mean that word, as when you combine the meanings of your two posts, you seem to imply that a lack of knowledge about politics and the underlying religious beliefs of opposing Jewish lobbies is the root of my misunderstanding - thus a lack of knowledge would be ignorance. Maybe you are simply ignorant of the differences in the meanings of the two words.

Then again, I could be giving you too much credit - you might simply be too stupid to understand the differences.

Quote

Trust me on this one. Obama isn't supported by AIPAC. There are very different, opposed factions in Israel. The faction that supports Obama is not the faction that runs AIPAC.

We aren't talking about Israeli factions, but organized U.S. lobbyists. AIPAC is the Zionist ogranization with political strength within the U.S. IMO, if AIPAC is strongly opposed to a candidate, that candidate has little chance of winning.

Quote

EDITED TO ADD: Now, Biden, on the other hand, he's AIPAC. So maybe Obama picked him in part to keep the Zionists from getting too upset.

And why would he be concerned about upsetting the Zionists if the Zionist lobby wasn't critical, especially if his own non-AIPAC support is slighted at the same time?

[Mbodell]

helene_t, on Aug 23 2008, 06:04 AM, said:

Mbodell, on Aug 22 2008, 11:35 PM, said:

Generally first world countries are more equal and third world countries are less equal.  The US is the one exception

This is partly (but without doubt not only) because the US is the largest developed country. Suppose each of the 50 states had a Gini index comparable to that of a smaller developed country like e.g. Austria. Then the US as a whole would still have a larger Gini index than Austria because the disparity between the states adds to that within the states.

While it is true that you can get higher numbers than the individual countries by grouping larger dissimilar countries together (I.e., like all of Europe including non-EU countries), I'm not sure that is fair since there isn't an apples to apples comparison either when there isn't a gov't with a tax policy and many other laws on contracts, workers rights, etc. that can shape the tradeoffs.

More importantly, if you break the US down into its component states - making the comparison very fair (if anything favoring the US as the 50 states in the US are smaller than European countries), then the US still has much, much higher numbers. In fact the Gini coefficients inside each state is very similar to the Gini coefficients of the country as a whole. The high numbers are really a factor of the way the US is and works, not the fact the US is a big country. Out of all 50 states and the district of Columbia Alaska is the lowest Gini and even it is over 40 for household income.

See us census data of Gini by state.

[helene_t]

Thanx, Mbodell. I kinda surprised me that many states have higher Gini index than the country as a whole. Apparently disparity between the states is a minor issue.

[kenberg]

After a few good hikes iin the Shenandoah I came back to find the thread has a life of its own. No one seems to have had the same reaction to the "How many houses.." that I did: Hilarity first, analysis later if at all. I read the question and answer, I laughed out loud, refilled my coffee cup and laughed some more, read it to my wife and we both laughed. This was essentially the reaction I had to Dukakis in a tank, "Show that clip again, it's hilarious", hence my question. Whatever Dukakis' qualifications for being Commander in Chief, the clip was devastating. A voter walking into the booth and reaching for the Dukakis lever could not help but remember it.

I am a professor and, worse, a mathematician. I have never known anyone, no matter how absent minded, who cannot answer the question "How many houses do you own?" Of course if you ask a real estate speculator he may not know his current total but no one would understand the question in that sense. I sat there visualizing a scene in the McCain household: "Cindy, the MasterCard bill is a bit high this month. There is something about a castle in Scotland, do you know anything about that?".

This has no real bearing on McCain's abilities, neither did the shot of Dukakis in a tank relate to his abilities. But it has an effect. And as for the immediate politics, the next time McCain's forces call him an elitist I imagine the response to be "Uh huh. Well, I do know how many houses I own."

As mentioned before, I don't care if he owns ten houses. I expect a guy to be able to say how many kids he has, what their names are, and how many houses he owns.

[DrTodd13]

Perhaps it is better to have someone who is "filthy rich" as President rather than someone relatively much poorer. I don't believe for a second that either of these jokers are in it for the good of the country. At least the filthy rich person may just be in it for the power. Whereas you can't tell me the poor guy isn't going to make sure he rubs the right elbows to enrich himself after he's done. Maybe the country would be better if run by childless pensioners expected to die before their terms are up. That way you take away a lot of the motive for self/familial enrichment

[mike777]

kenberg, on Aug 24 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

After a few good hikes iin the Shenandoah I came back to find the thread has a life of its own. No one seems to have had the same reaction to the "How many houses.." that I did: Hilarity first, analysis later if at all. I read the question and answer, I laughed out loud, refilled my coffee cup and laughed some more, read it to my wife and we both laughed. This was essentially the reaction I had to Dukakis in a tank, "Show that clip again, it's hilarious",  hence my question. Whatever Dukakis' qualifications for being Commander in Chief, the clip was devastating. A voter walking into the booth and reaching for the Dukakis lever could not help but remember it.

I am a professor and, worse, a mathematician. I have never known anyone, no matter how absent minded, who cannot answer the question "How many houses do you own?" Of course if you ask a real estate speculator he may not know his current total but no one would understand the question in that sense. I sat there visualizing a scene in the McCain household: "Cindy, the MasterCard bill is a bit high this month. There is something about a castle in Scotland, do you know anything about that?".

This has no real bearing on McCain's abilities, neither did the shot of Dukakis in a tank relate to his abilities. But it has an effect. And as for the immediate politics, the next time McCain's forces call him an elitist I imagine the response to be "Uh huh. Well, I do know how many houses I own."

As mentioned before, I don't care if he owns ten houses. I expect a guy to be able to say how many kids he has, what their names are, and how many houses he owns.

The truly rich are truly different from you and me.

There are reports there may be as many as 6 houses on one piece of property.
Granted upon reflection he could answer better but when asked a thousand questions a day we all would answer some of them silly and not politically correct.
At the very least I think it reinforces he has no idea just how much money Cindy has and where it is at. We already knew he is not an economic policy wonk or has that much interest beyond the tag lines, cut taxes...veto spending......

[Al_U_Card]

At least his writers could have supplied him with:

"I have one home and that is wherever Cindy and I lay our heads at night."

Food for thought...

[jtfanclub]

Quote

No, but perhaps I worded this incorrectly so let me rephrase: I do not think any presidential candidate has much chance being elected in the U.S. if AIPAC is stongly opposed.

Well, that makes more sense, at lease. It's actually the reverse. If a politician has a strong chance of winning AIPAC won't strongly oppose them, because AIPAC will lose a lot of power if they try and fail.

The same goes for the Vatican, for example. Everybody knows who the Vatican supports in the election, but the Vatican won't 'strongly oppose' anybody who has a decent chance of winning. They may not like Obama, but if they directly opposed him, and he won, the Vatican would lose a great deal of power, not to mention their tax-exempt status. Did you know that outside of the U.S. and state governments, the Vatican owns the most property in the U.S.?

Quote

Perhaps you mean ignorant rather than stupid.

No, what I'm referring to is not ignorance. Most people are ignorant of the inner workings of AIPAC. I'm only on the margins myself.

What is stupid is to say "If a politician is successful, then he must be approved by AIPAC", and then say "I'm waiting for a successful politician not approved by AIPAC".

See where the problem is here? It's not ignorance, except maybe an ignorance of logic. It's your definition. You say Barack must be approved by AIPAC because he's successful. But by this definition, any candidate X, if they were successful, must be approved by AIPAC. So you're waiting for something that you've defined as impossible.

Earlier this year, Obama went to an advocacy group primarily based on religion, and phrased answers to their questions in ways that he thought the group would approve of, when possible. Although the group still opposes him, the group won't do so outwardly, in part because they were mollified by his willingness to come to them, and mostly because if they did oppose them and he won, there would be serious repercussions for the group.

Obama has shown a willingness to go to groups that oppose him and declare his willingness to work with them and show that he isn't such a bad guy after all. He did it with the evangelicals at Saddleback, and he did so with conservative Jews at AIPAC. But I don't think anybody's going to come here and claim that evangelicals approve of Barack Obama.

Quote

Quote

EDITED TO ADD: Now, Biden, on the other hand, he's AIPAC. So maybe Obama picked him in part to keep the Zionists from getting too upset.

And why would he be concerned about upsetting the Zionists if the Zionist lobby wasn't critical, especially if his own non-AIPAC support is slighted at the same time?

Biden is also Catholic, and was picked in part because he was concerned about upsetting Catholics. Biden is also from a working class family from Pennsylvania, and was picked in part because Obama was worried that working class families from the Midwest would oppose him. There's lots of lobbies in the U.S. you don't particularly want to piss off. AIPAC is certainly one of them, but it's not even the most powerful one. That would be the AARP. Did I mention that Biden is 65 and well known for passing pro-AARP legislation?

The magazine The Nation is a good indicator of Jewish support outside of AIPAC. They're very upset by the Biden pick.

[TimG]

mike777, on Aug 24 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

There are reports there may be as many as 6 houses on one piece of property.

Does the pool house count as a home?