PDA

View Full Version : US has fifth-most unequal wealth distribution



Qtec
10-17-2011, 07:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"According to Wikipedia, there are only five countries in the entire planet that are more unequal than the United States in the distribution of our wealth."

Alan Grayson on Monday, October 10th, </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The peer-reviewed data backs up Grayson’s claim that "there are only five countries in the entire planet that are more unequal than the United States in the distribution of our wealth." Had Grayson used "income" rather than "wealth," the answer would have been much more mixed.

But Grayson was admirably careful in his phrasing. So we rate this claim True. </div></div>

link (http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/14/alan-grayson/alan-grayson-says-united-states-has-fifth-most-une/)

Q

eg8r
10-17-2011, 08:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We should note here that we’re glad that Grayson cited his sources -- in the midst of a national TV interview no less! -- but we’re also disappointed that his source was Wikipedia, which is open to editing by anyone.</div></div>LOL, this was the most important part of that entire link and you skipped right on by.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are a few technical caveats to note.

First, international comparisons such as these are always a bit dicey, because the statistics available for each country are not always perfectly aligned.

Second, most of the figures are about a decade old. These are the most recent comparisons available -- and as a result, we don’t fault Grayson for using them -- but they do represent a snapshot of time before the recession that began in late 2007, a recession notable for the implosion of the U.S. real estate market as well as the values of many other financial holdings. (To be fair, it’s unclear whether current numbers would show a higher or lower Gini coefficient for the United States, since many Americans of modest incomes lost significant wealth when home prices tanked. It’s also unclear what new data would show for other nations.)

Third and most important, these figures refer to wealth (that is, accumulated holdings) rather than income (the funds earned on an annual basis). To his credit, Grayson described the statistics correctly -- he very clearly said "wealth," not income.

However, to understand the full picture, it’s worth a look at income figures as well. A paper by the United Nations Development Program -- the Human Development Report 2010 -- shows that the Gini measurement for income places the U.S. more in the middle of the international pack. (Wikipedia has its own page for international income inequality, as well.)
</div></div>Why didn't you highlight this section, especially the last paragraph?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Indeed, one reason that U.S. wealth is so highly concentrated among relatively few compared to the rest of the world is because so much wealth has been accumulated in America. If you’re a poor country, you’re not going to have much wealth to begin with, so there’s a mathematical limit on how narrowly it can be distributed within your population.</div></div>I know you skipped by this paragraph, your level of education would not allow you to comprehend it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This doesn’t mean that the pattern of wealth distribution in the United States is either fair or inevitable, but it does provide some important context. Wealth distribution in the United States may be unequal compared to the rest of the world, but its income inequality is not nearly as unequal.</div></div>LOL, it is people like you that don't know the difference between wealth and income. You think because a person makes $250/year they are wealthy. It is good to see the author of this article make the distinction since your ineptitude would never lead you down that path.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When we asked Grayson about the question of income vs. wealth, he said, "I get to choose what I want to talk about in my infrequent moments in the spotlight</div></div>LOL, now you can understand why this idiot's moments in the spotlight are dwindling to less and less. He knows people like qtip are ignorant and don't know the difference between income and wealth so he chooses to narrow his subject down to the point that he might have a chance swaying people into believing his rhetoric. No chance, the author here saw through the idiot's smoke and mirrors and called him out on it.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-17-2011, 04:51 PM
It's gauche of the fact checkers to complain that he didn't say something that was false, and instead said something that was true.

They could have left off the part 'IF he'd said THIS, then HE'D BE WRONG!' Because he did NOT say that, and wasn't wrong.

It seems churlish to even bring up the different thing, unless the fact checkers wanted to save America's reputation or forestall attacks on them by misguided patriots who think any criticism of America is evil.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Indeed, one reason that U.S. wealth is so highly concentrated among relatively few compared to the rest of the world is because so much wealth has been accumulated in America. If you’re a poor country, you’re not going to have much wealth to begin with, so there’s a mathematical limit on how narrowly it can be distributed within your population.</div></div>

I think that claim is nonsense. Some of the biggest stratification of wealth occurs in the third world, exactly where there is relatively little wealth (and the same top 1% or fewer grab the lion's share).

What is the mathematical limit to which they refer? The amount of wealth is immaterial to its distribution. You can have 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95%, regardless of how much total wealth we're talking about.

llotter
10-17-2011, 05:37 PM
It is always the case that when political power is concentrated, those with the most money will call the tune and that translates to enriching themselves even more. That is why conservatives always default to the least government is the best government.

Gayle in MD
10-17-2011, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is always the case that when political power is concentrated, those with the most money will call the tune and that translates to enriching themselves even more. That is why conservatives always default to the least government is the best government. </div></div>

Yet they always grow government, and spend like dunken sailors.

G.

llotter
10-17-2011, 06:28 PM
You can say that about most Republicans but not about conservatives. Often Republicans claim to be conservative but all too often their actions speak louder that their claim.

On the other hand, Democrats most always want more government, more power in Washington and therefore directly contribute to a larger disparity in wealth.

eg8r
10-17-2011, 08:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's gauche of the fact checkers to complain that he didn't say something that was false, and instead said something that was true.</div></div>Basically he was pandering to the stupid who don't understand the difference between wealth and income. qtip is on of those people. The author was on the money pointing out the fact that Grayson was ignoring income on purpose. The reason is that it did not sell the message as well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that claim is nonsense. Some of the biggest stratification of wealth occurs in the third world, exactly where there is relatively little wealth (and the same top 1% or fewer grab the lion's share).</div></div>I think disagree when referring to any country that does not have some type of export like oil.

I think it is funny that qtip misunderstood the article and used it to prove something so benign which is exactly what the author caught on to.

eg8r

eg8r
10-17-2011, 08:27 PM
She will never get it. She has a problem accepting reality. Here is her elementary logic...Gayle logic: If a person calls themselves Conservative and then acts like a liberal spending freak they must certainly be conservative.

eg8r

Qtec
10-18-2011, 12:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We should note here that we’re glad that Grayson cited his sources -- in the midst of a national TV interview no less! -- but we’re also disappointed that his source was Wikipedia, which is open to editing by anyone. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, this was the most important part of that entire link and you skipped right on by.
</div></div>

You quoted almost the whole article and left out what is says next.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We should note here that we’re glad that Grayson cited his sources -- in the midst of a national TV interview no less! -- but we’re also disappointed that his source was Wikipedia, which is open to editing by anyone.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Luckily for Grayson, BS. What luck got to do with it? <u>the Wikipedia page he cited had sourced its numbers to a peer-reviewed paper. The paper was coauthored by four academics, James B. Davies, Susanna Sandstrom, Anthony Shorrocks and Edward N. Wolff and published in The Economic Journal in 2010.

Grayson was correct that the United States had the fifth-highest Gini coefficient for wealth in the world, trailing only Denmark, Namibia, Switzerland and Zimbabwe. In other words, the U.S. distribution of wealth was more unequal than all but four other nations.</u></span> </div></div>

Q

Qtec
10-18-2011, 01:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Quote:
When we asked Grayson about the question of income vs. wealth, he said, "I get to choose what I want to talk about in my infrequent moments in the spotlight

LOL, now you can understand why this idiot's moments in the spotlight are dwindling to less and less. He knows people like qtip are ignorant and don't know the difference between income and wealth so he chooses to narrow his subject down to the point that he might have a chance swaying people into believing his rhetoric. No chance, the author here saw through the idiot's smoke and mirrors and called him out on it.

eg8r </div></div>

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4e9460a6ecad04797a00000a-547/in-fact-income-inequality-has-gotten-so-extreme-here-that-the-us-now-ranks-93rd-in-the-world-in-income-equality-chinas-ahead-of-us-so-is-india-so-is-iran.jpg

You shouldn't blab your mouth off when you are clueless.


Q

eg8r
10-18-2011, 08:38 AM
Grayson played you for the fool you are. Haha. This is hilarious.

eg8r

eg8r
10-18-2011, 08:39 AM
LOL, he is still playing your for a fool. It doesn't matter that the page cites that source. Anyone can go in and change the wording. Wiki is always a poor source to use. On top of that, no one is saying Grayson was wrong, what we are saying is that he is playing you for the ignorant fool you are.

eg8r

Qtec
10-19-2011, 12:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, he is still playing your for a fool.</div></div>

How so?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It doesn't matter that the page cites that source. Anyone can go in and change the wording. </div></div>

You are a moron sometimes. Wiki pages CAN be edited but NOT the peer reviewed article it links to.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Wiki is always a poor source to use.</div></div>

Not always.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On top of that, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>no one is saying Grayson was wrong</span>, what we are saying is that he is playing you for the ignorant fool you are.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL.

You admit he is right, that he is telling the truth but he is 'playing me'???????

Great logic.

Q

eg8r
10-19-2011, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are a moron sometimes. Wiki pages CAN be edited but NOT the peer reviewed article it links to.</div></div>You are such a dillhole. LOL, you are an even bigger fool than Grayson thought. I crack up every time the hole in your face opens up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not always.</div></div>Wiki is always a poor source. Take your article for example. Don't you think it would have made more sense to mention the "cited article" and ignored the mention of Wiki? No one could attack your source at that point. Nope, you are too stupid to figure it out.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You admit he is right, that he is telling the truth but he is 'playing me'???????
</div></div>Absolutely. The reason is that you don't understand what "wealth" is so you don't understand the minimal impact Grayson's point makes. Grayson knew his point was minimal and so did the author of the article which is why the author of the article asked Grayson a more relevant question. Grayson shot it down and said he will talk about what he wants. The reason for that is because he knows there are stupid people like you that don't really understand what he is talking about and why he is mentioning it. You were played like the fool you live to be.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-19-2011, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, he is still playing your for a fool.</div></div>

How so?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It doesn't matter that the page cites that source. Anyone can go in and change the wording. </div></div>

You are a moron sometimes. Wiki pages CAN be edited but NOT the peer reviewed article it links to.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Wiki is always a poor source to use.</div></div>

Not always.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On top of that, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>no one is saying Grayson was wrong</span>, what we are saying is that he is playing you for the ignorant fool you are.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL.

You admit he is right, that he is telling the truth but he is 'playing me'???????

Great logic.

Q </div></div>

Chubby Checker has nothing on Ed....get ready for the twist, Ed's special dance away from reality.

Round and round and round and round we go.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif and do the twist.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif