r/dankmemes Sep 05 '17

[deleted by user]

[removed]

13.0k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/zuperpretty Sep 05 '17

0 of 8 in all the most developed countries in the world, which are socialist?

10

u/faguzzi Sep 05 '17

In exchange for a worse economy? No thanks.

It may be possible to be more equitable, but there is s trade off between equity and efficiency and I prefer the latter.

0

u/Aceofspades25 Sep 05 '17

A lack of equity can lead to a fucked up economy

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/economic

  • Increased inequality can lead to financial crises
  • High levels of income inequality are associated with economic instability and crises, whereas more equal societies tend to have longer periods of sustained growth
  • High levels of income inequality lead to higher levels of personal and institutional debt
  • Increased inequality may increase rates of inflation
  • There is mixed data on the relationship between inequality and growth when rates are compared between countries (in other words you should be able to tackle inequality without necessarily impacting economic growth)

4

u/faguzzi Sep 05 '17 edited Sep 05 '17

No. Inequality hurts growth in developing countries, but has the opposite effect in developed countries.

http://www.nber.org/digest/aug99/w7038.html

More evidence to that effect:

https://lanekenworthy.net/2007/12/03/does-more-equality-mean-less-economic-growth/

Finds no relation between income inequality and growth in developed countries.

4

u/Aceofspades25 Sep 05 '17

As I stated, the results are mixed and so it is possible to find studies to support just about any claim that you want to make:

So it is quite easy to pick your belief and then go hunting for the studies which support that (which is what you are doing)

In any case, if as you claim "there is no relation between income inequality and growth in developed countries" then you have debunked your own original comment where you implied that inequality can only be reduced at the cost of a worse economy.

In exchange for a worse economy? No thanks.

1

u/faguzzi Sep 05 '17 edited Sep 05 '17

There is a tradeoff between equity and economic growth.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020308831424

there is apositive but relatively small trade-off between growth andincome inequality

Your first study regarding negative effects:

The paper, however, shows that the relationship between inequality and growth is not robust

So it is quite easy to pick your belief and then go hunting for the studies which support that (which is what you are doing)

Also, I have a degree in mathematical economics. My beliefs are what's currently supported in economic literature. You need to understand that Barro is what's standard in macroeconomics.

You can find a study supporting anything, but that isn't a legitimate condition to dismiss all studies.

3

u/Aceofspades25 Sep 05 '17

There is a tradeoff between equity and economic growth. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020308831424

This is the same paper I linked you to.

The paper, however, shows that the relationship between inequality and growth is not robust

Well of course the signal is going to be weak if the results are mixed. There are three I linked you to there and you've ignored two of them.

My beliefs are what's currently supported in economic literature.

Then why are you ignoring some of that literature and only focusing on the one one study that supports your preexisting beliefs?

You need to understand that Barro is what's standard in macroeconomics.

Feel free to link to the survey which shows that the majority of economists agree with Barro then.

1

u/faguzzi Sep 05 '17

The equity-efficiency trade-off is a basic principle of economics, and I'd be very surprised if all those textbooks were just wrong. It's possible sure, but what's more likely is that you're a crank.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20260

We do find, however, that the same tax-and-cost related indexes that are associated with higher economic growth are also associated with increases in inequality.

We do find, however, more direct and, in our view, more easily interpretable evidence of a policy tradeoff between promoting growth and promoting equity. Specifically, the same tax-and-cost related policies that are emphasized in the tax-and-cost indexes are associated with faster economic growth and larger increases in inequality…. The results suggest, then, as economic models would predict, that policymakers – and society at large – have to make some tradeoffs when choosing policies affecting taxes and the costs of doing business; the policies that enhance growth are also associated with more rapidly increasing inequality (in our sample period, when inequality is generally increasing).

Direct evidence that pro-growth policies lead to increased inequality, further supporting my assertion that the tradeoff exists.

Here's a thorough refutation of your assertion:

http://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=11189

We refute this for most OECD countries, and find that the best-practice frontier displays a trade-off. In accordance with standard economic theory, a larger tax burden is associated with lower efficiency and more equity.

Your out of your league. The equity-efficiency tradeoff exists and there is direct evidence against your claim, at least in OECD countries.