Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
A smaller Gini coefficient?

Maybe this is better than 20% of the people generating 80% of the wealth?

Maybe it's better if more people own individually smaller amounts of capital?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 24th, 2006 at 03:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How does this imply a smaller Gini coefficient in the region?  Perhaps it does, if we're measuring only the distribution among co-op members, but this suggests that, regionally, the change is only skin-deep.  It suggests, also, that non-members are much wealthier.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Jun 24th, 2006 at 05:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Non-members probably include wealthy capitalists and the working poor.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 24th, 2006 at 07:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the middle class and soo on.  The article only states that the non-member one-third is nearly twice as wealthy as the co-op two-thirds.  It seems as though it hasn't change anything.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Jun 24th, 2006 at 07:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The article only states that the non-member one-third is nearly twice as wealthy as the co-op two-thirds

How so? First of all you (questionably) accept GDP as a measure of "wealth", secondly you miss the point that a person may be member of a coop and be engaged in other economic activity elsewhere.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 04:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series