Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Incomes in America

Re: Incomes in America

danielkuehn — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:51:52 -0000

I'm going to refrain from ranting about you being stupid - as you did to me in the most recent post - and just post the relevant things the three of them said. First, me:

DK: "The only thing I did was point out that the word "distribution" in that phrase was a verb." [the noun being a distribution of datapoints, if you read earlier]

Brent: "If there's no need for scare quotation marks for "probability distribution", I see no need for scare quotation marks for "income-distribution"

richard66: "I think the term 'Distribution' is used for its mathematical meaning. Distribution as in frequency or probability density functions etc."

vikingvista: "No scare quotes necessary. Any property of a population has a distribution. It refers to an observation, not action."

Just get over it, vidyohs.

Re: Incomes in America

vidyohs — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:24:20 -0000

None of whom agreed with you. All of whom agreed with Don.

Re: Incomes in America

danielkuehn — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:52:38 -0000

Well yes - in your particular google search. I'm not talking about your google search.

Re: Incomes in America

SheetWise — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:31:34 -0000

"Of course it's used in a non-mathematical sense. But if the context is the distribution of income over time, you're talking about the distribution of datapoints."

I get it.

The fair and equitable distribution of data points -- over time.

Certainly I'm the one who is thinking in a fog.

Re: Incomes in America

nailheadtom — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:43:06 -0000

"Diana Furchtgott-Roth"

Hyphenated surnames are already becoming passe' with the increasing acceptance of triple hyphenated surnames, such as Teresa Jones-Hampton-Crawley. Pretty difficult to tell where it will all stop.

Re: Incomes in America

danielkuehn — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:01:55 -0000

Of course it's used in a non-mathematical sense. But if the context is the distribution of income over time, you're talking about the distribution of datapoints.

Re: Incomes in America

danielkuehn — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:00:11 -0000

Brent, vikingvista, and richard66. Sorry, vidyohs.

Re: Incomes in America

vidyohs — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:16:18 -0000

I gotta re-arrange my sock drawer, so one last comment.

I quickly scanned all responses below this level and did not see one single one that you could confidently point to as agreeing with you on any of your above posts.

Daniel agrees with Daniel, even though sometimes Daniel also can, for want of someone else to nitpick on, also argue with himself.

But, by God, you will reply, slipping and sliding in your disingenuousness, until your bones dissolve before you'll admit someone else might have a point. Wonderfully educated and brilliant Daniel knows best, and for such a young thing too! At least that is why your mother told you no doubt.

Re: Incomes in America

danielkuehn — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:28:34 -0000

"Strange one" was a reference to your weird Jesus statement, not Don's point.

You seem to have a different understanding of my fallibility than I do. I'm just sharing thoughts on here like everyone else. The weird thing is the thought I shared here that you just responded to was a pretty basic one that a lot of people agreed with me on.

Re: Incomes in America

vidyohs — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:16:54 -0000

Ahh, the little foreign Chihuahua wanna'b barks.

If brains were gunpowder, I could scrape your head and the muirduck's, and not get enough to blow my nose.

In reference to your comment above, good move. Keep your bark barks to one liners and you can, once in awhile, actually write something that is close to coherent; anything over one sentence and you're incapable of the English language.

Re: Incomes in America

vidyohs — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:13:12 -0000

Well of course Don started it all, I guess that makes him the really strange one eh? LOL.

Nothing strange at all, little one. I was taught about a perfect man named Jesus, who was always right, and never made a mistake or had an incorrect idea. Now I get to see you in action and to all intents and purposes you seem to be a reincarnation of Jesus. Always right, never an incorrect idea, and willing to take on all comers with your vast wisdom, and hammer and hammer until people just get plain tired of your disingenuous sliding away to find a new point to hammer.

Of course you have to use that disingenuous skill you have in order to slide past most opposition, but hey, perfection just is what it is, eh youngster?

Re: Incomes in America

D.G. Lesvic — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:49:55 -0000

Amazing how everyone here is so concerned about whether inequality is rising or falling, but not about the significance of it. and about whether or not there had been a prior distribution of redistributed income, but not about the consequences of the policy.

Prior distribution or not, and inequality rising or not, all that matters is that taking from the rich to give to the poor can not reduce but only increase inequality.

All the other talk is not just a waste of time and a distraction, but a capitulation.

Re: Incomes in America

danielkuehn — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:47:57 -0000

You're a strange one, vidyohs.

As for your fury at my use of "income redistribution" - tell it to Don. He brought it up. The only thing I did was point out that the word "distribution" in that phrase was a verb. That's hardly the sort of observation that deserves a rebuke from you.

Re: Incomes in America

SheetWise — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 07:57:24 -0000

To those who think there's no ambiguity in the meaning of "income-distribution", try a Google search. Here's what I got when I added the word 'fair' --

The Progress Report

Economist calls for fair income distribution in China

Income distribution, socioeconomic status, and self rated health in the United States: multilevel analysis

FAIR AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME

Is the income distribution in the United States fair? Why or why not?

The term 'distribution' is frequently used in a non-mathematical sense. Nobody is referring to a "fair" distribution of data points -- they're not talking about making an observation, they're talking about taking action. Even more disturbing -- check how often the word "economist" shows up in the articles.

Re: Incomes in America

D.G. Lesvic — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:59:26 -0000

I saw in my e mail that somewhere hereabouts Daniel is still babbling about mathematics in economics.

I cannot tell you how many times I have explained to him, without rebuttal, in the final analysis, that there is no such thing, but, apparently, you couldn't penetrate his skull with an atomic-powered harpoon.

Re: Incomes in America

Gil — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:04:04 -0000

Yeah it's not 'income redistribution' to Libertarians who have worked with the government.

Re: Incomes in America

richard66 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:05:23 -0000

Don,

I think the term 'Distribution' is used for its mathematical meaning. Distribution as in frequency or probability density functions etc.

Re: Incomes in America

vidyohs — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:01:27 -0000

Here I thought Jesus had died a little over 2000 years ago, but maybe you're just his reincarnation, DK.

Sure income has been distributed, but forceful and involuntary confiscation of any portion of that distributed income, to give to other people is not "income redistribution", it is distribution of stolen wealth.

So when you socialist talk about income redistribution it is that duplicitous thing you do, it is a lie.

Re: Incomes in America

Seth — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:16:13 -0000

I agree with Don. "Income distribution" is a classic example of passive equivocation. Statisticians know what they mean when they use the word. Non-statisticians don't always know. In exchanges on these subjects the conversation often goes toward a discussion of "fair" or "equitable" distribution of income, which conjures up the "allotment" meaning of the word, rather than the "arrangement of data" use.

Re: Incomes in America

Morgan — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:26:38 -0000

By my calculations, using US census figures from 2005, different numbers of earners per household is a major contributor to observed household inequality. In fact, even if all jobs paid exactly the same, and there were no other sources of income, the GINI in the US would be 38.8.

All other factors - those that inflate it (like actual differences in wages, investment returns, an observed association between earnings potential and number of earners in the household) and those that deflate it (transfer payments, substitution of investment income for earnings from work when possible) - combine to shift it from that baseline 38.8 to 40.8, according to the UN's human development report.

Make of it what you will.

Re: Incomes in America

martinbrock — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:33:46 -0000

Markets imply inequalities, but inequalities do not imply markets.

Re: Incomes in America

vikingvista — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:53:26 -0000

"incomes in market economies are not “distributed”"

No scare quotes necessary. Any property of a population has a distribution. It refers to an observation, not action. But the double meaning does provide a nice opportunity to clear a misconception about incomes, anyway.

Re: Incomes in America

D.G. Lesvic — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:38:49 -0000

What good does it do to deny greater inequality of incomes? If there was greater inequality, the Right would get the blame, and, if greater equality, the Left would take the credit. All that you do is tacitly admit that inequality per se was evil and communism good.

All you can say about inequality is that the market, always tending toward equilibirum, always tends towards the inequalities that would bring it about, and that any abitrary reductions of them will be like any other interventions in the market, completely counterproductive, bringing about the exact opposite result of what was intended, and not reducing but increasing inequality and "social injustice."

Re: Incomes in America

Randy — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:35:48 -0000

I figured :)

See above

Re: Incomes in America

Randy — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:33:38 -0000

"it's true insofar as "market economy" implies "produced income" and "earned income" by definition."

True, Don did say "Market" economy, while I was of course referring to the real economy.

"The question is: How am I supposed to know which income is "earned" or "produced", and thus which income is "market income"

Yes, that is the question. The answer is not easy, but its still the question, because the method is relevant and the quantity is not.