US Middle Class no longer worlds richest

[jem]

based on your marxism / socialism you would want everyone to have the same income after taxes. Correct?

a flat line going right across (with thin spike for the cronies)... would be the ideal lorenz curve for you marxists right. What type of gini would that be?
I think it would be very close to 1 right?

No, it would not. What you're describing would increase it.

 

[Ricter]

based on your marxism / socialism you would want everyone to have the same income after taxes. Correct?

Assuming there are not great differences in initial conditions, then, yes, I would expect incomes to not be wildly disparate, so, a low gini coefficient.

a flat line going right across (with thin spike for the cronies)... would be the ideal lorenz curve for you marxists right. What type of gini would that be?
I think it would be very close to 1 right?

It would be a high gini, yes, so in light of my answer to your first question, no, it would not be ideal for this Marxist.

So the argument that the cronies, who own the NYT, allow populist and leftist articles to be published, because those cronies want to "improve" the gini coefficient in a Marxist sense, i.e. lower it, by heavily taxing the masses and exempting themselves, does not make sense.

 

[jem]

but I did not say that... this is what I said below. when I said "you", I presumed you agreed with Marxist goals since you are self proclaimed marxist.
but, now we see clearly you did share in the marxist economic vision.

so what about marxism do you actually believe? you just want crushing centralized control and low liberty with a little pot thrown -- a la soros?

it could be. progressively tax everyone (but the cronies) into a very similar low standard of living would bring in a beautiful gini (to you) would it not.

Assuming there are not great differences in initial conditions, then, yes, I would expect incomes to not be wildly disparate, so, a low gini coefficient.



It would be a high gini, yes, so in light of my answer to your first question, no, it would not be ideal for this Marxist.

So the argument that the cronies, who own the NYT, allow populist and leftist articles to be published, because those cronies want to "improve" the gini coefficient in a Marxist sense, i.e. lower it, by heavily taxing the masses and exempting themselves, does not make sense.

 

[Ricter]

but I did not say that... this is what I said below. when I said "you", I presumed you agreed with Marxist goals since you are self proclaimed marxist.
but, now we see clearly you did share in the marxist economic vision.

so what about marxism do you actually believe? you just want crushing centralized control and low liberty with a little pot thrown -- a la soros?

"It could be. progressively tax everyone (but the cronies) into a very similar low standard of living," would create a high G.C., but what I would want, as a Marxist, is a low G.C.

 

[jem]

"It could be. progressively tax everyone (but the cronies) into a very similar low standard of living," would create a high G.C., but what I would want, as a Marxist, is a low G.C.

I read that before castros take over Cuba had a gini in the 50s... and that 4 years after Castro took over and private capital fled the Gini droped to a 26.

I woud not be a big fan a low gini and marxism.

 

[Lucrum]

I read that before castros take over Cuba had a gini in the 50s... and that 4 years after Castro took over and private capital fled the Gini droped to a 26.

I would not be a big fan a low gini and marxism.

Ricter like fraudcunts will not be swayed by the facts PERIOD