Kate Pickett, Richard Wilkinson, Peter Saunders and Christopher Snowdon debate the influential book The Spirit Level and ask whether the benefits of egalitarianism can be statistically proven?
I was disappointed that THEY'RE NOT SHOWN TALKING WITH EACH OTHER IN THIS VIDEO (they each give a statement and do not respond). The critics say: "the spirit level folks used statistics to support their argument rather than to meaningfully explore these issues." The Spirit Level folks rebut: "no we didn't.", fin. I'd prefer if we could move beyond right vs. wrong to critically exploring the complexity of the issues at hand.
8 data point and you have significance? 20 data points and you have a relationship? And even if you got a relationship do you got cause and result right?
"Also, the Kawachi paper actually finds that inequality affects the wealthier more, which is a rather perverse result and is not evidence for the psychosocial mechanism." They never say that, but nice try.
@atafto Uhh...Never even hinted at wanting to get rid of differences. I recommend learning to read before trying to engage someone. It's VERY simple. There are various levels of development which people pass through during maturation. There are specific thinking processes which are typical for each of these levels. Those types of thinking which Rand promotes are more or less the same as the psychological maturity level of a 5-7 year old. I also recommend studying a little psychology.
"As far as inequality, we are worse than Egypt." BULL SHIT! The U.S.still has some reisidual respect for the rule of law, and EQUALITY before the law. Eqypt, is based on the arbitrary rule of man.This was true under Mubarak, and its even worse now. Income inequality is a natural result of free markets,but what is unjust is the growth of corporativism, cronyism, and gov't interventonism, that exists worldwide that prevents the middle/lower classes from prospering in an inequitable,rigged, system.
Furthermore, removing the USA as an outlier, then saying that the original authors ignore culture and history seems a double standard. The USA is the leading cultural and monetary ideology of our times and it is broadcast worldwide. And even removing it the trends were in the right direction because (at least in the UK) we#re becoming more like the US all the time.
But again it would be wrong, in this instance, to remove that population imho. Firstly, as each data point is actually a person and the measurements are of general well being etc (as opposed to e.g. a specific behaviour) the popu excluded affect (in reality) the pop left in. So the points are too interrelated imo to be able to exclude any (i.e. excluding for afro data, doesn't control for ACTUAL afro behaviours in reality affecting the remaining pops rating indirectly) What do you think?
@Iamthenoi They analyze trends and they clearly go hand in hand. But yes, of course, but because of these civil inequalities they end up much lower on the payscale, which doesn't exactly help. If you want people to behave, give them a future. It takes a whole generation to fix things and that's why it's so important something is done as soon as possible.
The one thing people need to consider is this... You notice that countries who are "more equal" seem to have similar races than countries who have many races in one country..ex: The United States...
Anyone here seen Zeitgeist Moving Forward,they did use SPL and funny enough people make money on Wallstreet upon how many prison have prisoners.So money get generated upon how inequality effects people and where they get placed in, as on top still effecting the person in Wallstreet with some stress of security ie either for their lives in personal level or for what they think they own.Would suggest that documentary and do like the people input in this comment section peace.
Cause and result are confused as always. Example: Do the rich live more healthy and are therefore more likely to be rich and live longer? Health undoubtly is autocorrelated with wealth. Sustainable societies have to be winners in economic sense. Maximizing total wealth therefore should be the aim. A certain level of inequality is optimal. Social mobility is far more important.
It's always fascinating to see what lengths apologists for inequality will go to to try and make it seem that its the natural way, and that equality isn't when I'd surmise that most folks begin to understand that inequality is a deviation from what's more natural usually beginning around age 5-7. It's usually at about this level of intellectual development which folks like Ayn Rand, and the poor right-libertarian lemmings who look up to her, stop in their development.
Here in the U.S. , the top 1% owns more than 90% of us combined. 400 people have as much wealth as half of our population. The level of inequality is as bad as we've ever seen. As far as inequality, we are worse than Egypt, yet we are blind to anything but the myth created for us. Most citizens don't know how desperate the situation really is b/c of our extreme media consolidation. B/c when the wealthy control the means of information. The information can be whatever they want it to be.
In Denmark theres lowest Gini-level (UN estimate), highest tax rate in the world, lowest unemployment in EU and second highest capital gains tax (which is also progressive). If we look at old industrialized country a better example cannot be find.
Kate and Richard seem to attack Peter and Christopher on emotional grounds sometimes. The racist slur does nothing for their analysis, and nor does Kate's appeal to emotion at 38:00. Having said that, I think this was a good debate and quite well-rounded. In future, could the camera show all the graphs while they cite them?
@walkertongdee Niether of which are a form of negation. Also, equality in terms of society is quantifiable. You can measure the gap between the wealthiest and poorest citizens of a society. More equal means that there is a smaller gap between wealthiest and poorest citizens. If I were you I'd check the punctuation of your comments whenever making a statement about another persons intellect. Good day sir.
Had they measured alcohol consumption, crime rates, suicide rates, divorce rates, charitable contributions, volunteerism, and HIV, the results would have been decidedly different and that's exactly why they didn't measure them. And this whole concept of researchers trying to prove a theory as opposed to simply rejecting the null hypothesis is an absolute amateur hour.
@cakeatsnake68 They show trends. Trends are clear. Obviously culture plays a major role, but culture is something that you can't just catch and change. Alot of the problems in Finland come from our culture around violence and alcohol. I wasn't surprised to see Finland break the trend in homicide because i knew we are like that. We have to work right here, right now to build a better future for our children.
@mburger93 I feel sorry for America, reading the Spirit Level really opened my eyes to how appalling a country America is to 90%+ citizens, the attacks on it from Conservative right-wing think tanks are as shallow and empty as they are predictable and despicable, it should be handed out for free and read by all.
@kaupaxup Maybe the increased rates of homicide among afro-americans might be the tail end of behaviours occurring today, as a result of the CIVIL inequalities they suffered for so long. They have only looked and income inequality afterall. I can even imagine the uneven distribution of health problems could even feedback in: the inequality of health adding more pressure to exacerbate the whole set of circumstances. I'm just musing now really. Thanks for discussing with me.
@kaupaxup And secondly, and perhaps more arguable: Afro-americans will consist a large proportion of the lower end of the economic gradient. And the authors argue the greater the inequality the greater the dysfunction to both ends (rich and poor). As black people are *generally* (stress: not being racist) poorer they will be subject to greater dysfunctional pressure created by the inequality because it is more obvious to them.
Your kidding me right? You do realize that people in wheel chairs are there due to no fault of their own. It's usually either a physical disorder or an accident that they were that way and saying that this is because they are morons or that this is their fault is insulting on so many level's hard to comprehend. Also what the hell do you even mean by "people in wheel chairs with several helpers to enable them to do their job & the lazy & the weak?"
@Iamthenoi Yes I can imagine a lot of people are wondering this too, but it's still a fair critique. It is only if African-Americans made up the vast majority of one group or the other would it actually skew the relationship the authors are proposing. In fact, African-Americans only make up about 13% of the total american population, so that simply isn't even possible. Removing them should not skew the income-inequality to homicide rate, but it does, so the relationship they propose is'nt there.
So the answer to accusations that the statistics are wrong is to deflect and confuse. Every time I actually want someone to prove a "lefty" idea - they let me down. I'm loathe to dismiss their ideas entirely but the right undoubtedly have better, simpler and more coherent arguments.
They think they know statistics.... The critics are right. Kate and Richard fell in love with their believes that all the data were interpreted towards their conclusion.
@Iamthenoi No, I agree on that point, but it's still a fair critique of the presentation in TSL because one must face the fact that they only make up a very small percentage of all of the poor people in the US. What I qould critique both sides on though is that they don't discuss geography. Culture is tied mostly to geography, so *where* these people are poor is probably a substantially stronger indicator than either I-I or ethnicity. But culture is not well grasped in the positivist paradigm.
But people's level of income is very much determinant to where they will be living right? It just so happens to be that "poor people" will probably end neighborhoods where they can afford to pay for an apartment.
@kropotkinbeard1 How can you claim that you respect that people are different when you want to get rid of differences? Your claim about Ayn Rand fans mental capabilities is so stupid that no further commenting is necessary.
