SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Recently SoylentNews posted a story about an article written by Tyler Cowen on the apparent fall in global inequality.
Professor Daniel Little, Chancellor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn wrote a response to Cowen's article that I'd like to share with SoylentNews.
Cowen bases his case on what seems on its face paradoxical but is in fact correct: it is possible for a set of 100 countries to each experience increasing income inequality and yet the aggregate of those populations to experience falling inequality.
Incomes in (some of) the poorest countries are rising, and the gap between the top and the bottom has fallen. So the gap between the richest and the poorest citizens of planet Earth has declined.
But this isn't what most people are concerned about when they express criticisms of rising inequalities, either nationally or internationally. They are concerned about the fact that our economies have very systematically increased the percentage of income and wealth flowing to the top 1, 5, and 10 percent, while allowing the bottom 40% to stagnate. And this concentration of wealth and income is widespread across the globe.
The seeming paradox raised here can be easily clarified by separating two distinct issues. One is the issue of income distribution within an integrated national economy the United States, Denmark, Brazil, China. And the second is the issue of extreme inequalities of per capita GDP across national economies the poverty of nations like Nigeria, Honduras, and Bangladesh compared to rich countries like Sweden, Germany, or Canada. Both are important issues; but they are different issues that should not be conflated. It is misleading to judge that global inequality is falling by looking only at the rank-ordered distribution of income across the world's 7 billion citizens. This decline follows from the moderate success achieved in the past fifteen years in ameliorating global poverty a Millenium Development Goal (link). But it is at least as relevant to base our answer to the question about the trend of global inequalities by looking at the average trend across the world's domestic economies; and this trend is unambiguously upward.
The rest of the article is excellent.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:57AM
No. Sociopathy is a distinct psychological deficiency. There is nothing normal about it.
Sociopathic traits may allow you to maneuver yourself into a leadership position and may even keep you there as long as the winds are fair but it doesn't make you a good leader. Actually, it makes you a terrible leader.
Sociopathic officers in Vietnam were occasionally fragged by their own men. Does that sound like a good leader to you?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 09 2014, @09:21PM
A distinct psychological deficiency which all humans share to varying degree, let us note.
I just don't buy the pop psychology analysis of leadership. I think this is how people act when they're in positions of authority. Some learn how to curb the negative parts of these tendencies and others do not.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 09 2014, @10:43PM
Extraordinary claim! Evidence?
The 'pop psychologists' have presented their evidence.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 09 2014, @11:17PM
Well, first what is a "sociopath"? Googling around, I see the first thing [reference.com] is that the subject experiences "anti-social" behavior. Second, that the subject exhibits a lack of moral responsibility or social conscience.
"Anti-social" [reference.com] in turn means that " of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated." This is the psychological definition - not the various colloquial definitions which are irrelevant.
At this observe that many of the people in this thread state that the entire class of rich leaders exhibit the traits of sociopathy. That implies by definition (since we're speaking of the entire group and not just outlier members) that the traits in question are social norms and hence, on that basis not anti-social. Second, as to "rights" of others being "persistently violated", it's worth remembering that most such others are voluntary employees paid to subject themselves to the behaviors of the person in question. So I don't see that these traits are anti-social. Also, it's worth noting that running a large, successful business requires a considerable degree of social adeptness.
Moving on, the subjects should exhibit a lack of moral responsibility and social conscience. Here, we have several examples of rich people with such things. The AC who originally bandied around "psychopathy" mentioned specifically, the Koch brothers, Bill Gates, and Sheldon Adelson. All exhibit an awareness of moral responsibility. The Koch brothers are a notorious sponsor of a variety of libertarian and conservative causes, including being some of the prime sponsors of the climate "skeptic" movement. Bill Gates famously sponsors a variety of initiatives for improving the world (particularly, work to fight a number of third world diseases and parasites). Adelson sponsors a variety of Jewish and philanthropic causes. Sure, these causes directly or indirectly benefit them or further the ideologies they care about. But that's true in general. People are pretty lousy at separating personal benefit from morality. I see moral responsibility and social conscience exhibited which is another strike against sociopathy.
In other words, I don't see anything to indicate that a psychological definition of sociopath applies here.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 10 2014, @04:14AM
If it's just 1%, it's not exactly the norm, now is it? If you then consider that the term "1%" in this context more properly refers to 0.1% of the population, you are firmly outside of 'the norm'.
It is indeed very possible to be anti-social while being socially adept. That is a decent description of a con-man. Other things you see in such people include losing a game or two before they clean you out, doing conspicuous good deeds so they can rob you blind as you pat their back, etc. Big surprise, the Koch brothers spend money trying to silence people who demand that they behave more responsibly. Baby Doc paid people who were doing his bidding too, that certainly doesn't make him a philanthropist or in any way aware of social responsibility.
Bill Gates got his start stealing computer time from Harvard and failing to deliver his product in a timely manner. he then built Microsoft, a three time loser except he won anyway because of money. I don't know enough about Adelson to comment.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday August 10 2014, @06:33AM
The population wasn't chosen because of its psychological characteristics, but rather because they had a lot of wealth.
In other words, normal human stuff. And it worked for him. When what you consider is bad behavior is amply reworded, then it should be no surprise that you see normal people engage in bad behavior. And Gates is a great example here of why you shouldn't discount someone just because they failed in the past.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 10 2014, @08:50AM
And a suspiciously close correlation with traits associated with sociopathy.
Most normal humans don't commit serial felonies while hiding behind a pile of cash even when they see it amply rewarded. If you don't know that, you might should re-evaluate your circle of friends before one of them slips the knife in your back.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday August 10 2014, @11:28AM
Alleged correlation. Where's the control population of rich normal people which you're comparing them to?
I think that statement is just wrong. Corrupt societies are excellent counterexamples. And if you're never going to get caught, it's not a felony.