-->
@Greyparrot
And there is no more heavily regulated market as the Chinese market.
do you personally think the united states should emulate the chinese hybrid economy ?
Taxing the rich fallacy.
Posts
Total:
49
-->
@Greyparrot
Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries
It’s an unfortunate truth that a person’s opportunities can be partially tethered to their socioeconomic status at birth.
Although winning or losing the “birth lottery” will continue to shape the lives of generations to come, climbing the socioeconomic ladder is possible. However, it boils down to what opportunities people are afforded in the country they live in.
Today’s chart pulls data from the inaugural Global Social Mobility report produced by the World Economic Forum. The report ranks 82 countries according to their performance across five key pillars: healthcare, education, technology access, working conditions, and social protection.
While most countries aim to create a level playing field, which places best live up to this lofty and challenging mission?
The Spectrum of Social Mobility
Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals either up or down the socioeconomic ladder relative to their current standing, such as a low-income family moving up to become a part of the middle class.
Countries with high levels of social mobility exhibit lower levels of income inequality and provide more equally shared opportunities for its citizens across each of the five pillars.
Here is how all 82 countries rank, according to the report:
#1
Denmark
85.2
#2
Norway
83.6
#3
Finland
83.6
#4
Sweden
83.5
#5
Iceland
82.7
#6
Netherlands
82.4
#7
Switzerland
82.1
#8
Belgium
80.1
#9
Austria
80.1
#10
Luxembourg
79.8
#11
Germany
78.8
#12
France
76.7
#13
Slovenia
76.4
#14
Canada
76.1
#15
Japan
76.1
#16
Australia
75.1
#17
Malta
75.0
#18
Ireland
75.0
#19
Czech Republic
74.7
#20
Singapore
74.6
#21
United Kingdom
74.4
#22
New Zealand
74.3
#23
Estonia
73.5
#24
Portugal
72.0
#25
Korean Republic
71.4
#26
Lithuania
70.5
#27
United States
70.4
#28
Spain
70.0
#29
Cyprus
69.4
#30
Poland
69.1
#31
Latvia
69.0
#32
Slovak Republic
68.5
#33
Israel
68.1
#34
Italy
67.4
#35
Uruguay
67.1
#36
Croatia
66.7
#37
Hungary
65.8
#38
Kazakhstan
64.8
#39
Russian Federation
64.7
#40
Bulgaria
63.8
#41
Serbia
63.8
#42
Romania
63.1
#43
Malaysia
62.0
#44
Costa Rica
61.6
#45
China
61.5
#46
Ukraine
61.2
#47
Chile
60.3
#48
Greece
59.8
#49
Moldova
59.6
#50
Vietnam
57.8
#51
Argentina
57.3
#52
Saudi Arabia
57.1
#53
Georgia
55.6
#54
Albania
55.6
#55
Thailand
55.4
#56
Armenia
53.9
#57
Ecuador
53.9
#58
Mexico
52.6
#59
Sri Lanka
52.3
#60
Brazil
52.1
#61
Philippines
51.7
#62
Tunisia
51.7
#63
Panama
51.4
#64
Turkey
51.3
#65
Colombia
50.3
#66
Peru
49.9
#67
Indonesia
49.3
#68
El Salvador
47.4
#69
Paraguay
46.8
#70
Ghana
45.5
#71
Egypt
44.8
#72
Laos
43.8
#73
Morocco
43.7
#74
Honduras
43.5
#75
Guatemala
43.5
#76
India
42.7
#77
South Africa
41.4
#78
Bangladesh
40.2
#79
Pakistan
36.7
#80
Cameroon
36
#81
Senegal
36.0
#82
Côte d’Ivoire
34.5
-->
@3RU7AL
In response to Nasa and Government Research
A technology that might revolutionize an entire industry in future may not have much value if there isn't a known technique to put it into mass production or if its not economically feasible under current conditions.
Response to Billionaires
On another note, Billionaires are probably necessary to take on excessive risks in their industries. The main difference is their innovations will be mostly be cost effective and practical. They don't need to invent things themselves, but they definitely need knowledge of how to apply things. If you can do both, then you become extremely wealthy.
-->
@3RU7AL
do you personally think the united states should emulate the chinese hybrid economy ?
It's the other way around though.
Singapore’s economic freedom score is 84.4, making its economy the freest in the 2022 Index. Singapore is ranked 1st among 39 countries in the Asia–Pacific region, and its overall score is above the regional and world averages.
Over the past five years, Singapore’s economy has grown slowly except in 2020, when it contracted. Economic freedom has been maintained at a very high level during that period, at or near the top of the Index. Singapore’s highly developed free-market economy owes its success in large measure to its remarkably open and corruption-free business environment, prudent monetary and fiscal policies, and a transparent legal framework. Trade freedom is strong, and well-secured property rights promote entrepreneurship and innovation effectively. The overall rule of law is undergirded by a high degree of transparency and government accountability.
"The basic institutions that protect the liberty of individuals to pursue their own economic interests result in greater prosperity for the larger society."
"Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself."
1) Higher economic freedom correlates strongly with higher self-reported happiness.
2) According to economists Tomi Ovaska and Ryo Takashima, economic freedom research suggests "that people unmistakably care about the degree to which the society where they live provides them opportunities and the freedom to undertake new projects, strongly with and make choices based on one's personal preferences."
3) Higher economic freedom promotes participation and collaboration.
4) Higher economic freedom is also extremely significant in preventing wars; according to their calculations, freedom is around 54 times more effective than democracy (as measured by Democracy Score) in diminishing violent conflict.
-->
@Greyparrot
and as a bonus,
The most widely spoken language in Singapore is English. It is spoken by a majority of the population and is a medium of instruction in schools and the official language of business and government. Being a former Crown Colony, the English used in Singapore is based on British English.
-->
@Greyparrot
Is all income used by the 1% reinvested back into the economy or spent productively? What about stock buybacks? From 2003 to 2012, over 100 major corporations expended 53% of their corporate profits, or $2.4 trillion USD, on repurchasing stock (HBR). Another 37% went to paying shareholders (HBR), so about 10% was spent on capital, wage hikes for employees, etc. The HBR article was published in 2014, but more recent data suggests that stock buybacks currently constitute a significant chunk of corporate expenditures, often to the tune of 100 billion dollars or more per quarter in 2020 and 2021 (CNBC). Even when firms do spend their money "productively," its often not all that beneficial for us in the long term. Abbot Laboratories destroyed hundreds of thousands if not millions of rapid Covid-19 tests during a "trough" in Covid-19 reporting and laid of 2 thousand workers. Then, when the delta variant emerged, the company surge-hired workers to produce more. Is this productive?
I'm sure industries do innovate. New medicines are being made all the time (though a large percentage of medical firm profits are spent on advertising, either directly to doctors or through TV ads). The medical industry also overspecializes, invests heavily in expensive healthcare tech, and pushes uneeded treatments into patients. Innovation occurs, then, but at the cost of the consumer who cannot afford the "best and newest" healthcare treatments. Patent abuse, too, allows for medical firms to forego innovation. If a firm can change one or two ingredients to a drug and prolong its patent, thereby preventing a generic version from being made, does this not affect companies' motive to innovate?
It may be the case that corporate wealth tax-hikes, by themselves (that is, with no other redistributive policy being passed after) may reduce innovation. However, a) tax revenues can be spent productively to reduce poverty, incentivize R and D through targeted tax credits, etc., thereby fostering long-term innovation and b) companies' quashed innovation under a higher corporate tax bracket may not serve a human need. Pogs, technically, were an innovation. Silly bands were an innovation. Musk's flamethrowers were an innovation. Are we to believe that the money used to create the above inventions could not be better spent elsewhere? For that matter, can we not think of better ways for "celebrities'" income to be spent?
I won't comment on the efficacy of the wealth tax. Suffice to say, billionaires are skilled at dodging regulations, and just because new tax revenue enters government coffers does not mean it will be spent on programs that I support either (although, it could mean a lesser tax burden for the middle and lower class if a tax on wealth is implemented). But, wealth is not always spent productively nor in the best interest of consumers. Furthermore, we have a graduated tax system, so (notwithstanding loopholes and legal folderal) those in higher tax brackets pay more income tax. If this system does not augur innovation, then how can it be that we've experienced a surge of tech developments over the past couple decades?
-->
@Benjamin
So Big Brother.
I've no idea what your comparisons achieved, other than to substantiate my claim that a hierarchical society is natural and essential and as always been so.
Wealth/money is simply the measure of success and status within a naturally hierarchical society.
So if everyone was exactly the same in terms of ability and wealth, how would anything ever get done?
You're really talking some sort of Utopian Clonal Society, where we are all programmed at birth and individualism has been eradicated.
Though have you stopped to consider..........Who or what will do the cloning and the programming?
-->
@Greyparrot
Society desperately needs those people, but they do not need people that accumulate wealth without producing anything.
Firstly, you have to be against landlords then. People should own their own homes and not need to spend their money paying down another person's debt.
Secondly, your argument is fundamentally flawed:
- We need INNOVATION.
- Rich people are capable of innovation.
- Therefore, we need a class of super-rich people who innovate.
Do you see the problem? From where does the notion come from, that rich people like Bezos and Gates are worth their fortunes. Are they doing the work pumping out new products every year, are they designing and constructing billions of dollars worth of commodities. Or perhaps they are in actuallylity simply benefiting from hundreds and thousands of underpaid workers and massive brands, companies and stocks. If Bezos went on vacation for a year, would Amazon be put on halt? Is a wealthy class of owners really necesary for the innovation, or should we do justice to the actual heroes, the working class, who barely get compensated by their supposed "superiors". Even if you support entrepeneurial work, know that entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money.
We should not be supporting inequality by pointing at the business successes of the privileged few. Equality would serve justice to the real drivers of innovation: people.
-->
@zedvictor4
You're commiting the nature fallacy. Just because oppression and domination is natural doesn't make it "essential" to society. We quit formal slavery centuries ago and haven't suffered because of it. Again, success is more a matter of privilege and opportunity than personal qualities (which are themselves influenced by privilege and opportunity). Moreover, its often quite random and chaotic. There is no way to tell if the ones who came out on top of the economy are the most naturally talented and hard working. Even if that was the case, don't you think its unethical to allow natural law free reign when its blatantly obivous that the law of the jungle is constantly being rewritten to suit the interests of the contemporary successfull, at the expense of everyone else?
People are so different in ability and wealth precisely because of inequality that perpetuates failures and successes from generation to generation, undermining equality.
-->
@Benjamin
I never mentioned oppression and domination per se. Just natural hierarchical order.
Oppression and domination is emotive human terminology, for sorting out the pecking order.
We fall into place relative to ability, and we are rewarded relative to place.
And money amongst other things, becomes the reward and a mark of status.
You're committing the social fallacy, that suggests that humans and human society have become separated from species reality.
And your final statement said exactly what I have been saying.
Though you refer to it as inequality and I refer to it as natural hierarchy.
We are all born to be slaves to something.
-->
@Benjamin
People should own their own homes and not need to spend their money paying down another person's debt.
There is a world of difference between "people should own their own homes" and "people should have the OPTION of owning their own homes.
The vast majority of people who believe owning a house is somehow a fundamental right today have no skills in actually building a home.
The people who own property in America are constantly paying debt in the form of mortgages, maintenance, security, legal fees, depreciation, and property taxes.
Taxes which are also a form of paying another person's debts.
Some people choose to not have this responsibility and risk, and that is their right as an American. In your dystopia of housing rights, no American has that option to avoid conscription into this role.
Pol Pot once envisioned a world where food was a fundamental right, and forced every person to work in the fields producing food on pain of death. You can read a history book to see how that turned out.
-->
@Greyparrot
In order to truly tax the rich, all income taxes, including capital gains, would have to be abolished and replaced with wealth taxes.
They do support that though, even though the results from other countries have made it clear that they are a bad idea. However it does grind my gears that there is in practice a substantial wealth tax on the middle class through property taxes.
Imo there should be somewhat higher taxes on high income earners but for the most part it should be used to reduce deficit spending and shore up some important programs like social security. Last I checked eliminating the earnings threshold where social security taxes are no longer taken out makes the program solvent again. Something like that seems like a no brainer to me.
-->
@zedvictor4
We are all born to be slaves to something.
True. The freed slaves in 1865 suffered without even a historical footnote as they were thrust into a world of accountability with few skills, education, or capital.
Many starved to death without a single mention.
-->
@thett3
Last I checked eliminating the earnings threshold where social security taxes are no longer taken out makes the program solvent again. Something like that seems like a no brainer to me.
100% THIS
-->
@zedvictor4
Oppression and domination is emotive human terminology, for sorting out the pecking order.
Murder is an emotive human terminology too, yet we humans shouldn't murder each other. I am not commiting a "human" fallacy by stating that humans have moral imperatives that we place upon ourselves, or that society itself ought to follow the ethical principles it enforces on its members. Oppression and domination, which you called "natural hierarchy", is unethical. That is to say, anyone with regard for morality (like a homo sapiens) should be against these injustices.
We are all born to be slaves to something.
I believe no human should be a SLAVE OWNER, people should not be coerced into working for a private man's interest.
-->
@blamonkey
What about stock buybacks? From 2003 to 2012, over 100 major corporations expended 53% of their corporate profits, or $2.4 trillion USD, on repurchasing stock (HBR).
great point
-->
@3RU7AL
Well especially when a billionare is going to develope robots to invent stuff. Amazon’s has been part of an opensource network that is developing ROS 2 or Robot Operating System 2, which will be commercial-grade, secure, hardened and peer reviewed in order to make it easier for developers to build robots.
-->
@Greyparrot
And now we are all slaves to technology.
What a difference 157 years makes.
That's progress for you.
-->
@Benjamin
Morality and ethics are variable concepts and not biologically inherent....Whereas variable natural ability is an inherent reality.
And murder currently happens for all sorts of reasons and is not particularly nice, and we know that. But murder is not directly relative to the topic.
But.....So no one works for someone.....Fine......But how the heck are you going to implement this philosophical pipedream?.....Especially when there will be no one to tell anyone what to do.....Or will there?
And who will do what when we are all equal?.....Or how will you motivate anyone to do anything, if you eradicate motivation and motivators from society?
As I stated, your ideal is some sort of reprogrammed human species, a clonal Utopia if you like.
And as I questioned previously, who or what is going to be creating and controlling this social Utopia?
So we can evolve conceptually, into a more caring, ethical and moral society, and I would suggest that this is happening, albeit very slowly. But as for eradicating natural hierarchy, I would suggest that this is still only a geneticists pipedream.....The geneticist who want's to change and control the species.
Hang on though!......Let's get ROBOTS to do everything for us and also leave them to control everything too......And we can just do........What?