What Is Economic Fairness?

What inequality?

All Americans have the same access to opportunity.

 

The poster referred to culture, not race.

 

Why do you think the Americans have similar inequality rates as the class ridden limeys?

 

Restrictions on foreign and domestic businesses would provide reasonably fair economic policies and remove us from globalism's hold.

 

Americans all have the same access to opportunity. Equality of access to opportunity was secured decades ago. It's what allowed dirt poor and uneducated refugees from Indochina, in the 1970s, to make VERY good within a single generation. It's what has allowed Chinese and Indian Americans to rise above whites. Etc etc etc.

 

I didn't ask for repetition. I asked you to answer a simple question: Why do you think the Americans have similar inequality rates as the class ridden limeys?

 

Shove Adam Smith up your arse. He is overrated and wrote in such way that Socialists can use him to justify their idiocy.

Read this and close the thread: https://spears.okstate.edu/news/201...-and-how-entrepreneurship-affects-the-market/

 

Did the nasty economist come out with economics that disagrees with your ideology. Well boo bleedin hoo!

Check out the US's low self employment rate. Oops!

 

The earliest economists where priests in 1300's Spain and they agree with what I am saying. In fact, Adam Smith got lots of his ideas from these, but never cited them.

You didn't read the article, did you?

 

Economics originats from Philosophy. I can play "so what!" too

You didn't check the US's low self employment rate, did you?

 

Aristotle and Xenophon agrees with me too.

I take that as you did not read the aritcle which is shame since it is an academic paper thatt addresses exactly what we are discussing. You may not agree with its conclusion, but still it proves that there are voices within academia that share my view.

 

What vivid dreams you must have!

You're banging on about entrepreneurship despite the US having a pitifully low self-employment rate. Bit of a clue?

 

Well, yes, that was the point. However, some are trying to change that under a banner of "fairness".

 

I beg to differ.

Were you an economist you would understand that the Gini Coefficient is not the least bit "ambiguous" as regards the distribution of income within a given national population.

And, when measured as such, it gives us this reality: Gini in a bottle - that is, the US has the highest Income Disparity of any developed nation.

Economics is a science of measurement and "well being" is a highly inaccurate estimate of the how content a people may be. I doubt seriously there is any truly-international criteria that can be measured amongst nations that would generate a solid idea of how well a country is doing. National results (over a given set of criteria) would differ even more greatly variable amongst themselves more than subgroups within the same nation.

However, I do know French people (as I live in France) who have known pre-WW2 France, and there is no-way in hell they want to go back to it. The fundamental aspects of nation social-democracy is manifested mostly in two National Services: Healthcare and Tertiary Education - both of which are cornerstones to France's Societal Democracy.

The UK introduced a National Health Care service in 1948. That makes for eight decades that it has been running. And I have never met a Brit who complained. (Except for the excessively long wait-times.)

If interested in how the world's best National Healthcare Services are rated over multiple criterias, then this national ranking from the Commonwealth Fund should gives an idea.

 

let's see,
1) China was libcommie and 60 million starved to death; the living all lived at subsistance
2) China then switched to Republican capitalism, some became very inequal billionaires, some stayed at subsistence
3) 700 million became middle class thus eliminating 40% of the entire planets poverty

Imagine how many more millions would have slowly starved to death had Chinese libcommies gotten away with taxing and vilifying those who were unequally leading hundreds of millions away from starvation. Inequality in business success eliminates starvation and causes economic growth.

 

This exactly is my point! Free market capitalism makes life better for everyone; yes some become very rich and rise to the sky, but with them they take the poor. Up, up, to eternity and beyond.

Actually, the same applies for Sweden. The general belief is that Sweden is prosperous thanks to Socialist policies that redistribute wealth to help the poor get richer. However, reality is that Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe until the 1800's. Then the free market came along, entrepreneurs and hardworking citizens started generating wealth with their creativity and in the 1930's, the Social Democrats stole the credit. Slowly, after being re-elected election after election, things became worse and worse. Now, Sweden has a school that is in fre fall, the pension system has collapsed and the health care is on its knees.

Of course, what you said applies for Hong Kong, Singapore and India too.

 

I'm a Brit when I complained to you about the NHS you placed me on your ignore list. ROFL.
Keep your blinkers on mate.

 

There is no such thing as free market capitalism. Free markets do not exist, nor would we want them to exist (given assorted market failures).

You could refer to 'free market economics'. The history hasn't been impressive. Supply side economics was drivel; monetarism failed; and neoliberalism proved to be destructive.

 

Whatever you say, Comrade Lenin.

 

Wrong again, I'm not a Marxist

 

The same reason that any non-homogeneous group shows differences. They're different people, from different cultures, and with different attitudes to opportunity.

Why does any of that matter, though? Outcomes are determined individually and privately. Asking why outcomes differ is like asking 'why do some people like chocolate and some vanilla?'.

 

So Americans, on average, are less able to take advantage of opportunity?

Because such aggregated analysis allows us to understand the extent of opportunity. As that increases, there will necessarily be more mobility. The American Dream fails

 

I have no idea, not American. You ought best speak to one such, for better intel on that. I would submit that like every other multicultural society, they see a wide variety of attitudes to opportunity - from terrible, to outstanding. I do, however, know enough about that nation to know that the group which consistently ranks 'outstanding' in its attitude to opportunity, is neither white, nor 'privileged' - in the sense understood by middle class white Progressives and cafe Socialists.

The 'extent of opportunity' is the borders of America. Access to it has been precisely the same for every person therein, for decades. Some take it, some leave it. If the dream fails, it's because a tipping point of people not taking it (advantage of opportunity) has been reached.

 

You've said nothing here. I'm not Americansl, but it is bleedin obvious that we can't play supply side blame games when it comes to US immobility.

International inequalities, reflecting economic development and failures in multilateralism trade agreements, have little relevance to my point.

 

yes it might be called flood down economics. Jobs Gates Bezos Brin Musk etc invent great new stuff and make it it available to everyone! In fact, the more they can make products available for the middle and low class of the world (where most of the world's population is) the more $billions they can make.