US's gini coefficient is larger than Egypt's. Wealth distribution more unequal here!

[originalpckelly]

And if you listen to the coverage of Egypt's revolution, they're talking about how poorly their wealth is distributed. We may have a higher standard of living, but our rich people are SO RICH that it actually makes our whole wealth distribution more unfair than Egypt's.

[Hannah Bell]

1. kr

[originalpckelly]

2. Can you believe how badly we're getting fucked if it's worse than Egypt's?

It just boggles the mind.

And the rich get tax cuts, while the poor and middle class will have to deal with austerity.

[ladjf]

17. That is exactly why I faulted Obama for cooperating in the "heist".

The talk about having to save the unemployment checks is bogus. That money could have been acquired by other means that cutting taxes for the rich.

[Hydra]

3. Ya, I read a post by someone who was less that well-informed

Putting the "Rich" the the level of 300k per year average.

Most people have no IDEA how much more money the top 400 are holding. They can't even dream that large.

[Hannah Bell]

5. top 1% of tax returns starts at something like $450K adjusted gross income.

that's after some income is taken off.

[Hydra]

6. And you can do a lot of adjusting at that level

But that's still like starting at the base of Mt Kilimanjaro and saying you've seen the summit :evilgrin:

[Hannah Bell]

16. no doubt. top .1% starts at something over $1 million.

[Catherina]

4. But I've been assured it's all hunky dory here! n/t

[Kievan Rus]

7. As long as Dancing with the Stars and American Idle are still on, most Americans won't care

[howaboutme]

11. Exactly

I just typed a similar reply without reading yours. We've been set up.

[ladjf]

18. I think that most Americans are worried about the finances. They

just feel helpless to do anything about it.

[JVS]

8. In before you get told that that's a load of crap.

[Fumesucker]

9. You say that like it's a bad thing..

/SnowSnookie Quittypants

[howaboutme]

10. The difference in the USA vs Egypt

is that young people in the USA have no concept just how badly they are getting fucked. Our society has been set up to keep them foolishly occupied on BS instead of critical thinking. They are enamored with Hollywood ET, Dancing with the Stars, Xbox, Farmville and every possible electronic gadget that will distract them. It is a ruse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[originalpckelly]

12. That is precisely what's going on.

I wrote about this about a month or so ago. Maybe we can do something about this someday.

[Starry Messenger]

13. Shhh, you'll scare the rich people.

They'll leave and go someplace...where they can't be as rich...or something...

:sarcasm:

[Recursion]

14. Because the GINI coefficient is a pretty crude measurement

And extremely tail-heavy distributions like ours (eg, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) have a way of screwing it up.

[originalpckelly]

15. Yes, that's the point.

Our tail is a little too heavy these days. Someone at the top needs to lose a little weight.

[Hannah Bell]

21. um -- "tail-heavy"?

any capitalist wealth distribution will be "tail-heavy".

indeed, egypt's is "tail heavy" too.

that's why the ginis are similar.

[Recursion]

28. Yes, tail-heavy

If Warren Buffet and Bill Gates moved to Sweden, its Gini coefficient would change a lot despite the economy not being much different.

[Hannah Bell]

33. no, it would not be enough just to move to sweden. their wealth would have to legally move, too.

and because they have such an obscene amount of wealth & sweden is a small country with less total wealth than the us, it would change the statistics.

but the fact is, their wealth was made in america, under american laws, under american power.

it's the american distribution of wealth, not the swedish distribution. and it's similar to the distribution in a country like egypt, just at a higher level.

[NuclearDem]

19. Ugh, this again?

Look, the Gini coefficient is a good measure to show if inequality is increasing or decreasing, but it's overall a highly inaccurate system when comparing entirely different countries.

Where to start?

Well, for one, Gini doesn't quantify the benefits a population receives through government aid NOT in the form of money; i.e. people assisted through food stamps, free education, subsidized gas, or any other benefit that isn't taken into the Lorenz curve.

Countries with large economies tend to have larger coefficients because Gini takes an average of the country as a whole, rather than by its regions. The United States has a larger economy and a larger population than Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen combined, so trying to compare the ENTIRE United States to each country has its faults. If you took an area of the US with a similar urban or rural makeup to each of the countries, measured its Gini coefficient, and then compared it to the other country, then you might have a more apt comparison.

If a country has a more open policy towards poor immigrants, its Gini will naturally be higher than a similar country that doesn't have such a policy. If Egypt were able to accept as many Palestinian refugees as Hispanic immigrants come into the US, this would be a more fair assessment.

tl;dr version: Gini has its advantages when measuring inequality, but it also has significant disadvantages and shouldn't be used alone.

[Hannah Bell]

20. i don't know whether you're wrong or right, but i do note that the map clearly shows

differences between:

1) various countries in europe
2) european countries and canada
3) all of the above & the us

now since *all* those countries have some kind of safety net & since some of the european countries have the strongest safety net, & since so far as i can tell this map pretty much accords with that hierarchy, i'm not sure what the purpose of your op is.

it's well-known & widely acknowledged that the us is the most stratified western "developed" country, on a par with mexico & turkey.

it's well-known that stratification has increased significantly over the past 30 years, such that the top 1% now commands about double the share of national income that it did 30 years ago.

it's widely acknowledged that class mobility is lower than in europe, & lower than it historically has been in the us.

egypt's "super-rich" are not as rich as their us peers, & there are fewer of them. i have no difficulty in believing that stratification in egypt is about the same as in the us on a lower base.

americans basically don't see their own superrich. those people's lives are invisible to us.

[NuclearDem]

22. I'm not saying the situation isn't bad here in the US

But the Gini simply isn't meant to compare country to country, especially ones as different as the United States and Egypt.

Look, even comparing among members of the EU can be faulty. Bulgaria, widely considered one of the most economically-poor countries in the EU, has a higher Gini than France, one of the most powerful EU economies. The both have similar safety nets (both have universal health care and free education), but the Gini doesn't take those into account, so we'll toss that out.

Bulgaria is a relatively homogeneous country when compared to other members of the EU--about 85% of the country is ethnic Bulgarian. Its population is on the decline due to emigration and negative population growth. France, on the other hand, accepts hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually, mostly poor ones from North Africa. Factor in general attitudes some French have towards immigrants that keep many of them in poverty, and France's Gini will be higher than Bulgaria's.

Typically, the more homogeneous a country and the fewer immigrants it accepts, the lower its Gini. See: Germany (91% ethnic German), Norway (81% Norwegian), and Sweden (85% Swede, 5% Finn).

Europe and the US have vastly different policies and cultural makeups; it's fairly reckless to compare them based on the Gini.

[Hannah Bell]

23. the gini is commonly used to compare countries. the drawbacks you list are

drawbacks of every other comparative economic measure.

The Lorenz curve & the gini are both measures of income inequality. That can be money income; it can also be social income; or both. It just depends on which inputs you use.

your point about homogeneity is bull.

[NuclearDem]

25. They're both measures of inequality because the Gini coeffecient is a ratio of the Lorenz curve

The fact that the Gini coefficient is a measure of social inequality and income inequality only reinforces my point about homogeneity. Bear in mind, I'm not saying that homo/heterogeneity is the ONLY factor in determining the differences between countries, but it sure isn't coincidental that countries where:
A) rights and access to social safety nets are extended to more
B) racial/ethnic tensions are lower
Have lower Gini coefficients than countries that do have those problems.

And let me rephrase: the Gini is not intended to compare between countries with VASTLY different systems or makeups. It's simply faulty to compare the United States to Egypt. It's more fair to compare the US and Europe, and Egypt to other North African or Middle Eastern countries.

[Hannah Bell]

29. yes, i understood that. income inequality is not a function of ethnicity.

japan has become significantly more unequal than it was when i was there in the 80s, despite its supposed homogeneity.

india is highly divided by ethnicity, tribe, caste, class, color & religion, yet rates lower than the us. mexico is certainly not more multi-ethnic than india, yet is more unequal.

canada is quite multicultural; it is more equal than the us & the level of inequality hasn't increased over the same time period. france, also a multiethnic, multiracial society, has become more equal since the 70s.

sweden's rating has stayed about the same despite the admission of an increasing percentage of immigrants.

racial/ethnic tensions have nothing to do with inequality; they don't cause inequality, they are caused by it, or manipulated by it.

the gini index is commonly used to compare countries, communities, states, etc. the validity of those comparisons depends on the inputs to the measure, not the measure itself.

[NuclearDem]

31. Alright, fair enough, you have a point

Like I said, I'm not basing the entire Gini coefficiency rating solely on this, I'm just saying in two otherwise equal systems, it can show a difference.

Racial tensions are definitely manipulated by inequality...but I think income inequality causes it more than social. People in places hit hard by recession blame immigrants or minorities for their woes, allowing leaders to pass measures that increase social inequality. Manipulation of people's racial or ethnic hatreds can allow the ruling class to pass measures that increase income inequality too under the guise of attacking minorities or immigrants.

Your point's well taken though. Hadn't considered that.

[Hannah Bell]

35. people can blame whoever, but that false blame has nothing to do with inequality.

the us is not especially more unequal now than it was before the recession.

nor would deporting illegal immigrants make it more equal.

it's the preexisting social & power relationships of inequality that created the conditions that caused the deep recession. those levers of power & money are in the hands of a small class, & always have been. that class includes people of multiple ethnicities. for various reasons, that class has decided it need no longer legislate to keep income shares somewhat equal.

[NuclearDem]

37. Oh boy, how do I explain this...

Ever since the Gini coefficient was recorded in the United States in 1936, a rise in immigration from poorer countries has always coincided with the rise of the coefficient. At the same time, when immigration has been restricted, the coefficient has dropped.

And yes, actually, deporting poorer immigrants and people that are more socially unequal from the US would cause the coefficient to drop by definition. The ruling class may not need to legislate higher income inequality (though they do), but they still sure do legislate higher social inequality by fueling popular outrage in support of those measures. There may be some in the ruling class of different ethnicity, but by and large, Hispanic immigrants aren't the majority of the ruling class.

Let me clarify, because I think we're getting confused on what I'm saying: I'm NOT saying that social inequality caused the recession. Income inequality and a whole number of other financial factors brought it about. But with the recession came a rise in popular outrage against minorities, which led to de facto or de jure social inequality.

When the Irish and the Chinese were able to absorb into American society, they were more open to social mobility. Problem is, social mobility is becoming more difficult in the US, meaning Hispanic immigrants may be more socially unequal for longer than any other group of immigrants in our history. For that reason, the coefficient will continue to rise.

[Hannah Bell]

39. um, how do i explain this. immigration dropped coincident to the depression & stayed low until

the 70s, coincident with the attack on the new deal & labor from neo-cons & neo-libs.

LEGAL IMMIGRATION WAS RAISED SIGNIFICANTLY & THE KINDS OF IMMIGRANTS INVITED CHANGED.

Your mistake is in viewing immigration as causal, as if it happened in a vacuum with no human hands involved.

Immigration levels are the results of POLITICAL DECISIONS BY POLITICAL ACTORS.

There are two basic reasons: capital needs more labor, either because of actual shortage or to hold down wages.

The other is that the acts of capital -- war, destruction of economic spheres -- create jobless, landless people who have no choice but to move for their basic survival.

This is a result of inequality, not a cause.

[NuclearDem]

42. I never said immigration hasn't been manipulated

But still, the lowest index reported for the coefficient was during the 1960s, during the period when you said immigration was low.

Again: Income inequality first, decisions by ruling class, social inequality results. Just like you said: ruling class makes decisions that cause immigrants to swell into the US due to income inequality inside the US. Social inequality results from people already suffering from income inequality turning against the people they THINK are making it worse, not the ACTUAL ones that are making it worse.

[Hannah Bell]

52. Actually, income distribution was most equal circa 1970-73, at approximately

the same time legal immigration levels were ramped up & categories changed.

As we've already established that you are talking about social prejudice & I'm talking about income & wealth distributions & there's no necessary relationship between the two items, I have nothing to say about the rest of your post except that immigration need not result in a change in societal income distribution, and is not the cause of social inequality or income inequality. Nor is prejudice, caste, or ethnic, racial or religious difference.

[pampango]

65. Canada has more immigration and more income equality by far than we do. Safety nets,

health care, progressive taxes, strong unions, etc. have much more to do with decreased income inequality in the modern world than levels of immigration. European countries have percentages of foreign-born residents that are similar to ours (Canada's level is much higher of course) and yet their Gini coefficients are much better than ours - indeed the best in the world.

[NuclearDem]

36. But you're also ignoring cultural differences in causes for inequality

European countries as well as the US are more unequal because of judgments based on race, religion, and ethnicity.

Other nations that may be homogeneous but judge more on family lineage may be socially unequal because of the inheritance of that inequality. In nations with rigid caste systems, or countries where the sins of one's parents are passed down through generations, social inequality can result purely from being born into the wrong family.

The US doesn't have this problem to the extent India or Japan does; Andrew Carnegie was born to poor immigrants, but social mobility allowed him to move up. This would be extremely difficult to do in countries like India that DO have a fairly rigid caste system.

[Hannah Bell]

41. i don't understand this sentence: European countries as well as the US are more unequal...ethnicity

As for the rest of your post, you talk about different historical periods as if the same situation obtained in each, & then compare countries. Hence, your post is impossible to discuss. The America of Andrew Carnegie's day isn't the america of today, & neither is the india of carnegie's day the india of today, or the japan of his day the japan of today.

all these countries have had significant changes in their respective "caste" systems over the period as well as the levels of social mobility, and based on current research, it's not the case that it's easier to advance in the us today than in say japan.

also, carnegie wasn't so poor as all that, & he had some very good connections...the scottish "mafia," you know. high school histories are the bunk.

[NuclearDem]

43. Sure, I actually pointed out in another post that social mobility in the US is MUCH more difficult

Than in Carnegie's day. I'm not making any effort to compare historical US to modern US.

But if you compare, say, the America of Carnegie's day versus the India of Carnegie's day...India still had a very rigid caste system, enforced and utilized by the British to keep the population subdued. Social mobility was extremely difficult, if not impossible. On the other hand, social mobility, while maybe difficult in the US due to ethnic tensions, wasn't restricted by a caste system.

And yeah, the caste system has certainly gone through reform, but like racism in the United States, it's still prevalent in rural India, despite being Constitutionally-outlawed.

And to clarify that sentence: the US and Europe base inequality in society more on racial or ethnic backgrounds, while others base it on which family you were born in.

[Hannah Bell]

44. the india of carnegie's day was, as you say, run by the british, for the british,

as a colonial venture for wealth extraction.

that's the number 1 reason why "mobility was difficult".

india experienced numerous severe famines with deaths in the hundreds of thousands to millions under the british.

after independence there were basically none. this has nothing to do with caste.

[NuclearDem]

45. Wait, there was no caste system after the British?

There's still a caste system to this day, with the negative discrimination outlawed in 1950.

The British colonization sure used the caste system for their own gains, but it would not have been possible (or at least, much less likely) for the British to exploit India's resources were it not for the caste system that existed prior to colonization that already restricted social mobility. It's basically the social/income inequality pattern reversed: instead of income inequality leading to greater social inequality, existing social inequality was used by the British to better enforce greater economic inequality between castes and between the Indians and the British ruling class.

[Hannah Bell]

48. India was one of the richest countries in the world before the British took power there.

And, at least according to early travelers' accounts, it didn't have a conspicuously large & ubiquitous beggar class.

After the British took power, it was still one of the richest countries in the world; however, the lion's share of that wealth went to Britain and British capitalists.

After the British left, the government did approximately what the US government did re slavery; declared it illegal & offered various remediations at various times & places to a greater or lesser degree.

Indians didn't starve in famines anymore (because of grain subsidies) & India became a more equal society in terms of income distribution than British India was.

That caste prejudice survives & even some manifestations of institutionalized caste survive is no different from the case in the US. It is not the cause of economic inequality. Caste has a long history in India; inequality has varied widely.

Let me add that as neither you nor I are scholars of Indian history over a 500-year period, this discussion verges on the ridiculous.

I am reasonably well-versed on the less developed Japanese caste-like system, which also included a caste of "untouchables". Something of that survives there as well, as in India & the US.

But it had nothing to do with Japan's income distribution becoming more equal in the post-war period & becoming less equal from the 90s to present.

[NuclearDem]

51. Alright, fair enough, good points all.

It's 1:30 my time and I think I'm going to need some rest. Appreciate the debate though! Always fun having a civil discussion with someone who obviously knows what they're talking about :hi:

[NuclearDem]

26. If anything, I'm reinforcing your point

Countries with high racial or ethnic tensions (see: the US) tend to blame their economic troubles on people who may not necessarily be the problem, but are of different ethnic or racial background (the Mexicans TOOK OUR JURBS), rather than blaming it on the banks and rich (who actually DID take our jobs and send them overseas).

Blaming people for the collapse of an economy based on their race leads to greater social inequality, and therefore leads to a higher Gini coefficient.

[Hannah Bell]

30. no, "blaming" in & of itself leads to nothing. there is no such inevitable relationship as you

posit, not between blaming & inequality, not between ethnicity or race or anything else & inequality.

[NuclearDem]

40. Yes, there is a relationship

1) Nazi Party in Germany blames Jews for German economic woes.
2) Nazi Party feeds the flames for thousands of Germans to turn against the Jews
3) Ordinary German turns a blind eye to Nazi Party turning Jews into second-class citizens
4) Jews seen as unequal in German society
5) Social inequality rises

1) American conservatives blame homosexuals for destroying marriage
2) Americans turn a blind eye to gay marriage bans and DOMA
3) Homosexuals seen as socially unequal because of denial to social privileges (marriage)
4) Social inequality rises

[Hannah Bell]

46. I think we'd better clarify the term "social inequality". I 've been talking about the distri-

bution of wealth & income: that's what gini & lorenz measure.

You appear to be talking about something much more amorphous, something that may sometimes include wealth & income, but also may not, & may include things like individual prejudice & institutional prejudice.

As what you are talking about seems to morph from post to post, it is difficult to have a discussion.

There is no straight-line relationship between social prejudice & wealth distribution. There is no straight-line relationship between social prejudice & institutional prejudice. Institutional prejudice typically creates a scapegoated group that is impoverished in relation to the minority -- by force & law -- however, the existence of such a group doesn't inevitably = a steeply unequal income distribution in the country AS A WHOLE.

Pre-nazi germany was already a highly unequal (& unstable) country -- for various reasons.

It was that inequality that contributed to the rise of the nazis, as they were backed by a fraction of the german capitalist class in their fight against foreign capital -- & german jewish-owned capital. It was the already-existent degree of inequality & instability that made germans seek a *reason* for their situation & made "jews" a convenient scapegoat.

By at least the measure of jobs and surplus productivity the rise of the nazis made germany more equal economically -- in the beginning.

Yes, *Jews* became a scapegoated group -- and jewish wealth was expropriated or fled -- but that doesn't mean the country as a whole became more unequal in terms of wealth or distribution of income.

The existence of a scapegoat group does not necessarily correspond to the distribution of income & wealth in the society as a whole; e.g. for much of its history the US was considered to have a more equal income/wealth distribution than much of Europe, despite the fact that most countries in Europe had no equivalent to Native or African Americans circa 1865-1965.

[NuclearDem]

47. Oh, okay, I see what's wrong now

I think you're talking about INCOME or WEALTH inequality...which is one of the factors used in analyzing the Gini coefficient.

I've been talking about SOCIAL inequality, which is different, but still linked to income/wealth inequality.

[Hannah Bell]

49. yes. there's a relationship typically, but not any straight-line predictable relationship.

and social prejudice isn't the cause of wealth inequality.

[NuclearDem]

50. Switch the two around, and you'll get what I'm saying

Wealth inequality has a habit of being a cause of social prejudice.

[Hannah Bell]

53. Really? For most of the discussion it seemed to me you were saying exactly the opposite.

I agree, then.

[NuclearDem]

56. Two DUers agree on something?!

I'm shocked! :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

57. i also appreciated your civility, so there's two things we agree on.

[boppers]

32. In a nutshell: The gini for California and Idaho are different.

Comparing Egypt to Idaho is one measure, comparing Egypt to California is another. Comparing all of the US (as a single entity) to almost any other nation doesn't make much sense, as there aren't other nations that are put together quite the same way.

[NuclearDem]

38. DING DING DING! We have a winner!

[Hannah Bell]

55. no, a loser.

[boppers]

63. I missed your argument, there.

Perhaps you could explain how California is similar to Idaho? Same education, resources, land mass, population, waterways, immigration, health care, etc?

[boppers]

64. To be fair (see thread)

I missed your argument as well.

[Hannah Bell]

54. As, I'm sure, are the ginis for any two provinces in egypt.

By your logic, nothing can be compared to anything.

Yet you don't hesitate to compare school tests scores by country.

states can of course be compared as to their income/wealth distribution.

[NuclearDem]

58. Egypt is about three times the size of New Mexico

Egypt is mostly desert, with the exception of the coastal cities and the Nile River. What you have is an economy based on tourism, natural gas, and the water. If you tried to compare Egypt with, say, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California combined to compare economic fields and relatively similar geography, you'd have a fair comparison.

But comparing it to the whole US is faulty because Egypt doesn't have an equivalent of New England or the Rust Belt.

[Hannah Bell]

60. we are not comparing rivers or geographical features. we are comparing income distribution.

income distribution occurs in every geographical location: ice, snow, rivers, mountains. it occurs in agricultural countries and industrial countries. it occurs where there are rust belts and where there are not rust belts.

egypt's income distribution can be compared to the us; to new mexico; to the world average.

yours & the other poster's insistence that it can only be compared to states which mirror it in size, geography, & economic features is idiotic. go check google books and you'll find that economists disagree with you.

[boppers]

62. If you compare apple and oranges, well, the comparison has issues.

I can also compare brain size in "google books" and come to other flawed conclusions. As has been done. Or IQ, as has been done.

Science is not without flaws.

[Hannah Bell]

67. we are comparing income distributions, not apples & oranges.

you'd better tell the economists they are doing it wrong.

[boppers]

61. *I* don't hesitate?

Let's not make this personal, especially without proof.

Is Egypt better, or worse, than Idaho?

[alittlelark]

24. Here in Silicon Valley I GET IT.

Carly Fiorina lives a few miles away .... I am surrounded by billionaires and know one (along w many MULTI millionaires).

The level of RICH that we have, and the # of them is astounding.

What's sad is that I know of a few that were great in the '80's, but have somehow been twisted by their need to 'keep' or expand their newfound wealth...

One, a guy I've known for 20+ years - very cool in every other way - tried to tell us that McCains' health care plan actually made sense.
I laughed at him - no one else did. I thought he was kidding.

[JCMach1]

27. yeah, but it's the per capita income that is the problem... our poor are not on less than $2 per day

trying to survive.

[Igel]

34. Sometimes the absolute numbers are more important.

If I'm making $100,000/yr, I really don't care if somebody else is making $1,000,000,000, 10,000 times more. My life would be fairly cushy in most places; that his life is cushier doesn't cause me heart-rending bouts of envy.

If I'm making $1000, I really do care if somebody else is making $100,000, 100 times more. I'm starving, and his life is fairly cushy. The envy isn't how new my cell phone is, how big my house or tv, but whether I get to eat this week while he goes to a gym to burn off excess fat.

Which is more of a problem, the first or second scenario? Clearly the second.

Which has greater inequality, the first or second scenario? Clearly the first.

The prediction that inequality is the primary, or even the dominant, factor has a problem. Keep the number of people living in penury low and inequality is much less of a problem.

[Hannah Bell]

59. it's not about envy. it's about power. really sick of people talking about the issue

as if it were just a matter of being jealous because someone had a big house & i didn't.

it's not about "someone else" making $100K while i'm starving, it's about a small class of people controlling the majority of the world's wealth & controlling political power. and that class makes a hell of a lot more than $100K.

and that class runs the countries where people are starving and the countries where people like yourself are cozy and not starving, but where about 20% of the population is on the verge of homelessness.

[CTyankee]

68. Yes, and it's as simple as this: without a middle class, democracy cannot survive.

And here in the U.S. the middle class is being devastated. If we value democracy as we say we do then we MUST be mindful of income disparity and do whatever it takes to make it fairer. A lot of Americans could understand it better if seen in those terms. I have acquaintances that are on the verge of poverty but they would not accept a definition of them as "starving." It's that unreality that so many Americans have that keep them from seeing what this end game in going to look like...and it won't be good for them...

[girl gone mad]

66. Many top economists would disagree with you..

The wealth gap was a primary driver, if not the main culprit, behind the great depression and also our recent financial crisis.

From a recent interview Robert Schiller gave:

"That’s been a trend in recent years in most nations of the world. Inequality has been getting worse, particularly in the US, but also in Europe and Asia and many other places. One thing that this has done is it has encouraged governments, who are aware of the resentment caused by the rising inequality, to try to take some kind of steps to make it more politically acceptable... historically, that has often taken the form of stimulating credit: instead of fixing the problems of the poor, lending money to them...

The US in particular has stimulated the housing market, it has subsidised lending to people, which drove up home prices in an unsustainable way. And there wasn’t that much concern about, or understanding of, the sustainability of this. That’s his first fault line..... I think inequality is a huge emerging problem, and that our society has to think about dealing with it in a constructive and real way – not through ‘Let them eat credit,’ not through wishful thinking. We have to understand how we get inequality and what we can do about it."