Which great country drives global inequality?
He said Winston Churchill (And this quote is correct) that “the vice inherent in capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity; and that the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal distribution of misery” (quoted from “Winston Churchill’s Wicked Intelligence,” p. 26). My understanding is that the great British writer and politician meant that it is not enough to analyze equality or inequality, but also to analyze rent per person. Thus, a very poor society such as Jamaica at that time could be more egalitarian than that of the United Kingdom, and another very poor society such as India in the 1940s could be, in addition to being poor, unequal. However, the migratory flows They do not move from the unequal country (UK and India) to the more equal country (Jamaica) but generated by the greater prosperity of the individual (UK) despite its increasing disparity.
If we look at the twenty-first century, we can make similar parallels. Cuba stopped reporting inequality statistics in 1990. Let us assume for a moment that today this country maintains “thanks to” communist inequality levels much lower than those in the United States. Are North Americans swimming toward Cuba or is the flow in the opposite direction? The answer, again, lies in rent per capita, about 60 thousand dollars in the United States, compared to about 9 thousand in Cuba.
Opinion Ignatius the tower
Displays the measure of inequality different methodologies. One of the most famous is the indicator Jenny, which parses inequality from 0 to 1 (or 0% to 100%), where 0 represents the total equality and 1 is the total inequality. the inequality can be measured by Revenues (1 means that the family generates all the income of the country, the rest of the families generate none, and the value 0 means that all families generate the same income), for Wealth (In this case the income does not matter, you are looking at who has the assets of a country, the number 1 indicates that the family owns all the assets of the country etc…) or due to other factors like consumption.
In general, inequality indicators are In wealth greater than income, but since much of it is inherited, economists tend to focus their analysis on the distribution of income inequality. The methodology always tends to focus on income after taxes and social transfers, in order to reflect the redistributive effect that the tax system can represent. For example, France has a much higher level of inequality before taxes than after taxes, since the country collects about 50% of its GDP as taxes that it recycles through its social system.
Well, if we analyze Four major global economiesOr, the United States, with a GDP of $21 trillion (of global GDP of $85 trillion in 2020), China at 15, the eurozone with 13, and Japan, at about 5, and applying Gini coefficients for income after taxes and transfers we get the following result : United States of America 0.39, China 0,4, Japan 0,33, Euro-zone 0.30 (data from Consolidated database of global income inequality and Eurostat):
And therefore, China leads income inequality among the major economies.
These results may be surprising, since one can intuitively say that according to Churchill, a country has followed a communist system since 1949 You should get lower Gini coefficients These are from A capitalist country par excellence like the United States. There can always be solace to GDP per capita, but if we analyze it, we get that the US gives the above $60,000, the Eurozone and Japan, about 40,000 each, and China, about 10,000 (it is true that the data can offer a softening slightly if subjective purchase parities are always computed).
As we have revealed in many articles, the . file Fourth Industrial Revolution I was born dispersion of wages Which explains part of the increase in inequality, especially in the United States, but that greater inequality must be related to the generation of greater or smaller prosperity in the form of per capita income.
Carlos Santamaria *
If we make a file dynamic analysis, and is not static, it can be argued that communist policy must at least go in the “right” direction to create more equality. Well, if we look at another way of parsing inequality, in this case the ‘ methodWealthComparing the percentage of wealth in the hands of the richest 10% of a country versus the percentage in the hands of the poorest 50%, in both the United States and China, the richest 10% own two-thirds of the country’s total wealth. state, the “poorest” 50% own 1.5% of the wealth in the United States and 6% in China. In 2000 this data was 1.8% and 14%. in another meaning: wealth disparity It has only gotten worse in China over the past 20 years. If we look per capita share of wealthChina provides about 86 thousand US dollars, about 272 thousand dollars1.
Fourth quarter of this year Chinese Communist Party She will hold her XX conference. their leader, Xi JinpingLast year, he emphasized the concept of “common prosperity”, claiming that his country It should not go in the direction of inequality in the United States. However, the facts present an entirely different reality, and the troubling question is whether “shared prosperity” will succeed in increasing equality at the expense of decreasing prosperity. With the real estate bubble bursting And the concept of “one country, two systems” that has paradoxically generated so much prosperity (and inequality) since the era of Deng Xiaoping is being overturned.
in a way, Churchill was wrong.
1Data for this paragraph was obtained from Mc Kinsey, “The Rise of the Global Balance Sheet”, 2021.
He said Winston Churchill (And this quote is correct) that “the vice inherent in capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity; and that the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal distribution of misery” (quoted from “Winston Churchill’s Wicked Intelligence,” p. 26). My understanding is that the great British writer and politician meant that it is not enough to analyze equality or inequality, but also to analyze rent per person. Thus, a very poor society such as Jamaica at that time could be more egalitarian than that of the United Kingdom, and another very poor society such as India in the 1940s could be, in addition to being poor, unequal. However, the migratory flows They do not move from the unequal country (UK and India) to the more equal country (Jamaica) but generated by the greater prosperity of the individual (UK) despite its increasing disparity.
“Future teen idol. Hardcore twitter trailblazer. Infuriatingly humble travel evangelist.”
