Re: Two Types of Distributions Found In Nature

That would be a neat trick!

Ummm...yes. This whole ridiculous discussion.

Either way, mean or median, the income - and the standard of living it provides - is fantastic in this country by any objective, absolute, historical standard. The middle class in this country - and for that matter in most of the industrial world - lives in many respects better than the aristocracy of a mere 100 or so years ago.

PBS has done a number of fascinating programs where people volunteer to go back and try and duplicate living in certain periods in history

- the pioneers, Victorian England, etc. Everyone thinks the idea so romantic...until they have to endure what people in those eras had to. The romanticism quickly vanishes in the face of the hardships that even the moderately well-off experienced.

Your argument rests on the fallacious Marxist assumption that the rich are exploiting the rest of us. In fact we are the ones who *choose* of our own free will to make them rich by purchasing the products/ services they provide. Most honest people realize that they do not create the wealth at the level of the rich because they are probably unable to. In other cases they just may not want to. It does in fact take a lot of hard work, perseverance, creativity, and most especially a willingness to take risks to achieve great wealth. Relatively few of us have either the intelligence or drive to do it. Fortunately there are those who do.

Instead of looting from them, we should be grateful for their efforts. Without them our standard of living would be significantly lower than it is. The communists thought that if they got rid of the rich that it would create a worker's paradise. All that exploitation would be gone and the wealth would go to the supposedly true producers - the workers. Well, we saw what actually happened. Clearly there are a lot of you still engaged in a kind of self-induced blindness in regard to the issue.

Fred Weiss

Delusions would be more accurate - and you aren't any better.

Offhand I can't think of a single example where the "media" does this. In fact it is far more commonly the exact opposite. The rich are typically presented as greedy, insensitive, ruthless bastards

Huh? How is Paris Hilton "killing the poor"? In fact, her "lifestyle" probably comfortably supports 100's, if not 1,000's, of people - some of them no doubt who otherwise would be "poor" by your standards.

Incidentally, Paris may be a ditz - or creates the persona of a ditz - when in fact she is a very shrewd businesswoman and she actually

*earns* millions of dollars a year through her TV and movie performances and her product brands.

You wonder then why about a million people have fled - or tried to flee - Cuba, many risking their lives in the process and many in fact losing their lives. Maybe living a long life in "comparative poverty" isn't exactly most people's ideal. Cuba in fact has one of the lowest GDPs per capita in the Western Hemisphere, even lower than most of the well-recognized poverty stricken countries in Central and S. America.

Not that I want to disturb your delusions, Jerry "I am not a Marxist" Kraus.

Fred Weiss

Indeed, his comment only makes sense if he means "mean." But math is hard -- especially when your IQ is not within striking distance of having three digits.

-- Roy L

Now, hang on a minute. What flavor?

-- Roy L

Except when they are published.

-- Roy L

No, they are not. The distribution of wealth is far more unequal, and goes into negative numbers at the low end.

The Pareto distribution is much more equal than the current distribution of wealth in the USA.

-- Roy L

In our last episode, , the lovely and talented Fred Weiss broadcast on alt.politics:

No fallacy about it. Rich people contribute nothing and maintain their useless existence by armed force.

That, of course, is not how rich people get rich. Exploitation occurs at the punch-in clock, not at the cash register.

That's right. No individual can honestly produce the amounts that rich people rip off.

Nonsense. All it takes is the will to exploit others.

Relatively few of us are unscrupulous bastards.

No, it is not fortunate. It is tragic that the bloodsuckers manage to enrich themselves at the expense of those who do the real work and take the real risks.

Bullshit. The rich contribute nothing.

Nonsense. Without the bloodsuckers, most of us would live well.

There have never been any communists.

What we saw was that it is impossible to transform feudalism into industrial democracy in one generation.

LOL!

There are three classical factors of production: (1) Labor (2) Capital (3) Land

Labor doesn't stem from wealth, because the income potential in a human being cannot be capitalized.

Aside from the points the other posters made about the distributions on the whole, income and wealth certainly bear no relationship at the _bottom_; there are plenty of people with no wealth, indeed negative wealth, who earn income via labor. Something called "wages". You might have heard of that concept.

It matters, because the distribution is skewed right because of fundamental injustices. The most salient being the collection of economic rent in general and land rent in particular.

Funny, then, how government statistical bureaus in the US often "top code" their data so this information is hidden.

You really believe Americans find baseball stats meaningful but not income stats?

Don't beat around the bush. Just come right on out and tell us Americans aren't interested in money.

Bret Cahill

Everyone is necessarily interested in money, "those who have it and those who don't."

-- John Kenneth Galbraith

I don't know about the "lovely" part, but thanks for the thought.

Then, when they are eliminated in communist countries and their property is confiscated why do those countries immediately sink into poverty and millions try to escape? And that's not even counting the mass famine caused by Stalin and Mao by eliminating those "rich people (who) contribute nothing".

Now in contrast, why is it that when countries introduce incentives for people to get rich that their economies explode and the overall standard of living improves substantially? There are many recent examples of just that but there is no excuse in not knowing the history of the US in that regard. It's why 10's of millions of people came to the US - many to seek that very wealth which you condemn and in the process of seeking it transformed a wilderness into an industrial powerhouse (with millions still wanting to get in).

You mean of the workers whose standard of living is now greater in many respects than the aristocracy of 100-200 years ago? That exploitation? The "exploitation" which gave these workers abundant and inexpensive food, railroads, electricity, automobiles, air travel, an array of modern conveniences and entertainment? That exploitation?

Uh, huh. I got news for you, there will also never be any communists because every time it fails the communists will claim that it was not "true" communism. True communism, you see, is the delusional fantasy of communists which cannot be implemented in reality.

Fred Weiss

No no no Bret. If poor people would like to have more money for health care for their kids, that's ENVY. If hedge fund managers want another villa in Tuscany or some more bling then they are MORAL ACTORS.

When are you going to learn---you've read enough Fundatarian boilerplate. Consistency is for the reality-based community, not these superior beings. After all, they know what's best for everyone else. Got a toilet? That's enough for you, don't expect any more.

-tg

Huh? Care to explain how in the world you came up with that?

Why would I say that? In fact, the rest of my sentence, which you snipped, said "the mean, particularly in comparison to the median, provides some measure of income inequality." Why would I say that if I thought that Americans weren't interested in money? I'm not professionally qualified to diagnose paranoia, but something seems exceedingly strange here.

But there again, I have talked about income distributions; I hope the demons hounding you don't escape from your head and come after me now.

So what objective evidence would you use to support your claimed insight into the thoughts and feelings of wealthy people?

Also, you didn't answer my other question: what conclusions would you draw from the fact that wealth in the USA is unevenly distributed?

Can you get data to plot the distribution?

Bret Cahill

Sorry, your credibility just flew out the window with hyperbolic comments like this. Here is a short list of things that rich people contribute:

-- hospitals

-- schools

-- jobs

-- useful products

-- technological innovation

-- capital that allows for technological innovation

-- charitable contributions

-- etc. etc.

And all possessions, whether by rich or poor, are maintained by the threat of force.

So everyone is a victim, eh? The unfortunate thing is that the victim mentality does not good for the "victim".

(laugh) So everyone who has ever achieved wealth has done so by unscrupulous means? So unscrupulous behaviour is a necessary condition for obtaining wealth?

Wow, you have drunk the kool-aid and gone back for seconds and thirds.

This is the second time you've suggested that average mean income is less "meaningful" than other stats.

How does a stat get into the "less meaningful" category?

Bret Cahill