carepov

So what - I can find a whole bunch of smokers that outlive non-smokers.

GDP is increasing due to population growth, real US GDP growth per capita is steadily declining.

Figure 7 on page 23 of the IMF report (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf) sheds light on this distinction: Gini of Market income: not including all sources Gini of Net income: including all sources

IMF: "the combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution—including the growth effects of the resulting lower inequality—are on average pro-growth." It is not income redistribution that is directly pro-growth it income equality. US data since the 1960's does support this. As you've posted earlier, inequality has been rising (gini), while growth is falling: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-GDP-Per-Capita.php The relationship between inequality and growth makes sense. Imagine the government reaching into the wallets of citizens and stealing their money. Which scenario would have the most negative impact on the GDP? a) stealing $1000 form a rich person? stealing $100 from 10 poor/middle class people?

No, this is not a strawman - earlier I wrote: "Yes probably, but in Canada and most other OECD countries the lot of the poor has improved much faster and has surpased the standard of living of the poor in the US." Thanks to BC's links I learned that the bolded part of my statement was probably wrong. Poverty is a serious issue and for that reason we should all have facts straight. The poor in the US are worse off than those in Canada, Sweden and Australia, but better off than those in all other OECD countries. Here another fact, in Canada the (real) incomes for the middle class and poor have been steadily growing and never been higher than it is today. This does not mean we should ignore the issue but neither should we making false statements like, "the declining/hollowing out of the middle class" or "all the economic benefits are going to the rich"...

Thank you for the links and graphs. IMO, you are right, the plight of the poor in the US is not as bad as most countries and is overhyped in the media. However, there are poor people suffering in the US including poor children. And it looks like both the severity of their poverty and the number of poor people has not improved in at least 15 years. This is not the case in Canada where the bottom 10% have a significantly higher socioeconomic status http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex Poor people cost money and generate little revenue. It seems obvious that reducing poverty is a clear win-win for the poor and for the overall economy including debt reduction. It also seems obvious that reducing poverty is best done through increased economic growth. Now the IMF is saying that reducing inequality will help economic growth. It also seems obvious that government policies and their annalists should be targeting results 5-10+ years out - not the next budget crisis or election...

Despite your very real concerns Canadians are still better off today than 30-40 years ago. The increase in housing costs is more than offset by decreases in food and clothing: Average share of household spending on major items 1969Food - 18.7 per cent Shelter - 15.2 per cent Clothing - 8.1 per cent Transportation - 13.1 per cent Personal taxes - 13.5 per cent 2009Food - 10.2 per cent Shelter - 19.8 per cent Clothing - four per cent Transportation - 13.7 per cent Personal taxes - 20.2 per cent http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/food-eats-up-less-of-our-spending-but-costs-us-more-1.1054574

Yes, all good points, however, historically the USA that outperformed many others, was a much more equal than the USA today and had significantly higher tax rates. Perhaps the Bush tax cuts went too far?

Some places are divisible and some are not, some are in-between. Every place has it's unique reasons. Quebec is divisible from Canada as per the clarity act. No US state is divisible from the Union, as per the Civil War. The island of Montreal is indivisible from Quebec. It looks like the Crimea is divisible from the Ukraine.

Do you agree that, if a society, such as the USA, would reduce inequality by increasing taxes on the rich with a revenue neutral tax cut for the poor, growth would increase?

For starters, compare the incomes, and more importantly the trends over time, of the bottom 20% in Canada and US in the above graphs provided by Stats Can and the US Census.

Fine let's debate. How about we compile a list of attributes that quantify the "stadard of living of the poor"? Then we can try to compare these metrics for different countries over time. We can also compare different states. In what states do the poor enjoy the highest standard of living? Why? There was another key point in the paper: "First, more unequal societies tend to redistribute more." Again you have it backwards, the more equal the society, the less the government needs to spend on entitlements.

Yes, this would be condemned, Montreal has always been a part of Quebec. Here's a better analogy: Let's say in the 1950's for some reason, Labrador was made part of Quebec. In 1995 Quebec separated, what happens to Labrador?

Yes probably, but in Canada and most other OECD countries the lot of the poor has improved much faster and has surpased the standard of living of the poor in the US. I am not sure that this is the main reason, but there are certainly also other reasons for the improvement. Again, you are falsely equating reduction of inequality to an increase in debt, according to the IMF the opposite is true. Reduced inequality = increased economic growth = reduced long term debt Yes it is both.

No, we are not talking about increased spending, we are talking about re-distribution. For example, increase taxes for the rich and lower taxes for the poor. In the long term, the best way to fight the debt is faster and more durable growth, therefore narrowing inequality helps slay the debt.

Thanks, I am familiar with Doug Short's excellent graphs. True, for the most part, life has been steadily improving and we need to keep this in mind. Nevertheless, improvements in the quality of life in some countries/regions has clearly outperformed others. Why? One answer is in the IMF report: "On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme. And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth, apart from ethical, political, or broader social considerations." http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf In other words: "Tax the rich (moderately more than we are now)" As an aside, it is wonderful to see all the "progressive" organizations trumpeting an IMF report. Is the IMF now a progressive institution? Or is it (still) an imorral-neoliberal-loan-shark? http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wbimf/oppose

Interesting graph. My take is that, since 1967, the rich have doubled their income, upper-middle class inomes have had minuscule growth while the incomes of the working class and poor have been stagnant. All incomes have declined since 2000 - why is that? How does a household in the US survive on on $11,490 per year - $1000 per month, or less?

I was talking about Canada. You may be right about the US, I will look into it. If (big if) the top graph is real $ (adjusted for inflation) then the last 30 years have been good for the middle class. By the way I agree with Buffett, increase taxes on the rich. I agree that the rich have unfairly avoided taxation. I am also convinced however that the Canadian middle class and poor are better off today than ever in history.

That would be nice. I would not expect a big change, given that the middle class survived the Great Recession and other economic downturns. Sure, that's too bad for them. There are people that move from middle class to lower class but there an equal ammount of people that move from the lower class to the middle class. On average, the real incomes of the middle class are steadily increasing.

You of all people should know that in these matters there is no such thing as "certainty" or "zero risk". By this logic all violent criminals and drunk drivers should be locked up forever, right? My understanding is that doctors and others on the parole board determine if the NCR person's odds of re-offending are less that that of the general population. If yes, then they are released.

The data is adjusted for inflation, that is what 2011 constant dollars means.

What/where/when is this disappearing middle class? To me it is clear that incomes for the middle class (middle 60 percentile) has been steadily growing in Canada. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=22

IMO, if anything was "bureaucratic" it was the original DCSD finding (which was completely annulled). In any case, I am more interested in discussing actual arguments and supporting data rather than the people making the arguments.

What could be more effective and more sustainable than people eating the same thing that they currently eat (rice) at no extra cost that includes beta carotene? Greenpeace's position reminds me of some religious organizations that say, "We are against condoms and other birth control. We promote a more effective and sustainable solution to STDs and unwanted pregnancy: abstinence"

I like this forum and think that Charles and Greg are doing a great job. The lines defining "trolling", "flaming" and "thread drift" are fuzzy and they seem to have the right approach by just ignoring most of these violations. This was a good intervention by Charles: Personal attacks must stop. If you don't have anything nice to say about someone - don't say anything at all. -I like how BC2004 consistently avoids personal attacks despite often being the target. -I admire waldo's passion in all his posts. -I respect Dog on Porch's historical knowledge. -I learned a lot about our military thanks to Derek and SignalsCpl. -Has anyone seen segnosaur and Wayward Son? I miss them. Perhaps it would be nice to have a few more members but in most threads, a discussion with 4-6 people seems to be optimal. I would like a feature where we can store/save some of our personal favourite posts, and perhaps there could also be a public list where we can vote on the best ever posts: -I loved when dre said "nationalism is a mild form of mental retardation" -My favourite posts by far are Rue's, I practically fell out of my chair after reading the one about counties diddling other countries and his rap songs