We need EQUITY

Post Reply New Topic

Originally "equity" was an financial term that meant "that portion of what you 'own' that you...really DO own...that cant be claimed by creditors".

As every business owner knows the accounting profession is based upon the equation "assets minus liabilities equals owner's equity".

As you pay down your 30 year mortgage you "build up equity" in your home.

The term later got applied to the political realm. And when so applied it often gets paired with the similar sounding word "equality" in the same sentences, but doesnt mean exactly the same thing. But its not obvious how the original financial equity relates to the later sociopolitical use of "equity". I suppose that the metaphor is that minority groups that were once left out gain ownership (and therefore also a stake) in society if they gain equity.

In terms of economics, for me my fair point would be between 0.3 and 0.35 (Gini Index). A too low Gini index would result in lack of competition and too high Gini would result in a violent class war. Too low gini index would spoil the working class and turn them into the bourgeois while too high gini index would result in the ruling rich class being ever more dominant and more oppressive. This is called the "Optimum" for it needs a moderate and fair balance for it should neither be more equal or more unequal. This optimum for me acts like equity for it is fair that neither the rich or the poor are spoiled and that both rich and poor can get what they need but at the same time, both cannot abuse the equality as long as there is the balance of the optimum as shown in this graph.



Why is this a thing? Because in this graph, the curve indicates that maintaining the optimal Gini of between 0.3 to 0.35 can result in adequate equity but also economic growth. The UN has a warning level set at 0.4 which is ironic since an estimate in 2013 laid out that the Gini index of the world was at 0.65. Clearly, there is a persistent issue of income inequality.

Having studied it a bit more now, it seems to me that it's different from "Positive Discrimination" and "Affirmative Action." I'm glad it is. I'm wary of PD and AA.

To me it looks like giving extra, specific help to the specific individual people who need it - the picture the OP put in the thread shows a tall person who doesn't need a pile of boxes to stand on, so doesn't get any boxes, a medium-sized person who needs one box, and a short person who needs and gets 2 boxes. Much like the Socialist principle of each receiving according to their need. I've always liked that.

One problem is that with something as big as a country, everybody pretends to be short and then sells their extra boxes, the system is too big to efficiently check who's telling the truth, so it takes the easy way out and just rations the boxes, at best using an extremely cheap, useless instrument to test people's heights. Of course height can easily be measured, so my idea doesn't fit the analogy very well, but the kind of real needs people have can't so easily be determined objectively and accurately. Still, I like the principle.

So far it's difficult for me to imagine that the Gini coefficient could be too low, probably because it's always been so high that the only good direction for it is down. I don't suppose any government has tried an absolutely equal distribution of wealth. If all people should receive what they need, I don't see that the rich need to be any richer than anybody else needs to be.

Yes. The average global Gini index is rather high so it should be lowered to at least below 0.4 as per the UN estimate. However, at the same time, we need to have something that is simultaneously adequate for equality but also adequate for economic growth which is why the Gini index is from 0.3 to 0.4 is usually considered optimal for maintaining economic growth and low inequality (though I prefer no higher than 0.35) and what we know from the graph. Both extremely low and extremely high scores will yield economic issues.

Am sorry but , in much of my experience .. You really need to have a grasp of the Large picture ..And Yugoslavian concepts , might not be easily translatable to USA concept of equality ..And Gas Lighting is still gaslighting.
And am now seeing repeated ideas , that would conceptually result in some sort of revolution..Now It is easy to understand that having corporations run our economy here .might encourage that....But the OP does sound as if another sort of international anxiety mongering,Geared towards larger scale dissent , Appears to be the goal here . And there is a huge tendency to sway
people this way or that.... News, Utubes, etc, most media, ( If It bleeds, It leads) concept of briadcasting news ..
Heard of all the Russian and everybody elses propaganda campaigns. Geared towards concepts of dissatifaction .
( Possibly causing oeople , " en masse" to push for changes .. Not allways a bad thing . But the pushing concepts that could suggest , violent revolution. Are popping up regularily in the sphere of influences that are being presented into my external Life . Even a crazy movie getting released , Revolution , conceptualizing a Second American Revolution ?
How is this sort of stuff getting to the big screen , is amazing to me. Am in midwest seeing very quiet , almost underground movements to get Trump back into office and his concepts, based on much extreme Right Wing (Crazyness.With Radical religious but familiar Christian ideations. And doing so using methods that would have a new local gov. to have people in place to replace , current People in office .. That the Military would respond to .
those same people Very well worded speeches , If your a Psychotically religiously . inclined . To the extend of dissolving some basic unalienable civil rights .Quoted at this meeting " there Will be No 2024 election" Group claims same org, assoc. with in a many many States now. ( Not All Religious movements fit in this description). For people , whom have not been or involved in the side effects of Real Life War.. Might consider any ways ,other than instigating violence in another persons country...( Shades of Russian involvement in Elections supposably) .Possibly.
And who knows maybe this Semi-Christian group is doing the fear mongering too.
[But I could be mistaken and all this maynot be revolent,if the OP is strictly making reference to his own
countries past ] / potential future?

Economic growth in moderation may be an overall good thing for some in a capitalist society, but may be less important under strong socialism. Perhaps one problem is that ordinary people may be too accustomed to lifestyle improvements coming from the outside because most ordinary folks are so powerless. But it's complicated.

I pretty much advocate for a Market Socialist economy which for me is a viable alternative to both capitalism and pure socialism. It functions as a market economy where the production is driven by market prices but the ownership is in the hands of the workers and worker councils. The reason why we should specifically go for market socialism is that under capitalism, the increase in capital income will increase the income of the upper class, thereby increasing the income inequality while in market socialism this is to be avoided by redistributing the income to the upper and lower classes in order to maintain the optimal gap and avoid going beyond the 0.35 Gini score.

It appears the OP maybe a bit of a optimist about these types of changes in Society in general . You have people in more ginancial beneficial pisitions. Whom simply will not tolerate such changes, not to mention gov.s and any kind of Ogliarch, threatening their social / financial status. And will. stop at nothing . To kerp this from happening ..
Then you have people/ families whom might be alittle better off then their nextdoor neighbour . And jeolousy ensues.
And those peoples only difference maybe they have only worked much harder. And earned more money .
And With whatever methods that are used to change their Gini scores in their country might be unjust to hard workers .
Maybe simple as those folks working two jobs. Sometimes just to survive their own financial Woes
So pragmatically , these attempts to change the status quo, can be , unjust all by itself .
One has to wonder , what might be the intent of this thread ???? Other than pointing out the obvious ??.
Hope for the OP he can create the type of change he seeks in his own country ?

Note: The following article was compiled from the writings of Mark Stanley, creator of the Freefall webcomic.

• • •

ECONOMICS & LABOR

Sometimes it's hard to put the obvious into words, so bear with me.

For most of history, there have been the rich and the poor.  Unions fought long and hard so that the common man can get a fair shot at life.  I understand that the economy is in trouble.  There's got to be another answer other than not paying the workers.  And then there's precedent.  If there's one thing history has taught us, it's a lot easier to lose rights and protections than it is to get them back.

Industrialization made slavery uneconomical.  When capital investment costs millions of dollars, you want people who will take care of it.  "Hearts and Minds" sounds good.  But if you really want change, you have to get wallets involved.  How much of your own wealth are you willing to invest in your ideas?

Basically, economics is the system we've come up with for trying to handle unlimited wants with limited resources.  We are finite beings.  How can anyone have unlimited wants? To discuss why humans are like that would require unlimited time.  We don't have unlimited time.

For most of human existence, we lived at a subsistence level.  Our economy was based on getting enough calories to live and reproduce.  Then humans changed.  We're not sure why.  We got smarter.  We learned that we could store seeds.  Farming and agriculture began.  We built cities.  We began the accumulation of wealth.  And with the accumulation of wealth, there came differences of opinion over how that wealth should be distributed.

Stored wealth can be transferred.  Human society began to specialize.  Tradesmen were able to add value without being farmers.  As life became more complex, chiefs, kings, and priests arose to direct the society.  In short, management.  Though the base question of how wealth should be distributed still had not gone away.

There are many thoughts on wealth and society.  Broadly put, they can be called equal and unequal distribution.  Neither works in pure form.  The most benevolent parents will not share wealth equally with toddlers.  The most brutal dictator will ensure those close to him are well paid.  If a society can not be run without inequality, the question becomes "How much inequality is fair?" And the answer often is "Far less than what those on the top want."

The economics of production consist of capital, land, and labor.  People who controlled the capital and land often had significant power over those who labored.  Unions were formed to balance this.  A united workforce was able to gain concessions in pay and working conditions.  These gains improved the lives of both union and non-union workers.  It's called "Making life better for the next generation." Societies that fail in this tend not to last very long.

When the balance of power is equal, things tend to be fair.  When the balance of power is unequal, things rapidly become less fair.  There are those who want power so they may command the wealth of others.  Then there are those who want power so their wealth can not be commanded by others.

An unintended consequence of balancing power.  Abuses are less likely to occur.  The same can be said for progress.

Nor will they pay for those changes.  People in power want to remain in power, so they will spend more money, time, and effort into maintaining the status quo than in improving living conditions for everybody.

The OP is not just being optimistic, not just being overly optimistic, but he is being pie-in-the-sky idealistic.

His is merely a dream, and dreams do not become reality for free.

Yugo-nostalgia
A conservative in a former Communist country, his solution, after seeing the imperfections of real life, was to go back to the past.

Unlike conservatives in the Western world, conservatives in former Communist countries tend to think that the radicals are not radical enough.

"Back to the good old days" is a common thought.So here, you can understand the intention of op.

It would be unfair if dreams were free. One has to work hard and fight hard to achieve it.

True. I am Yugo-nostalgic despite being born after Yugoslavia fell apart. I have indeed seen imperfections and I have witnessed betrayal and dishonor much at my own expense undeservingly and unjustly. Seeing that neither the liberals nor nationalists are of any use to this country's rump "democracy", it would be more useful if Bosnia rolled back to the socialist glory it had under Yugoslavia and brought the Yugoslavs of Bosnia together and show the Balkans that Brotherhood and Unity is not dead and that nationalism and liberalism will be crushed once more and we will be free from the bootlicking liberals of the West and the nationalists of the East.

We have suffered long enough under the imperialist boots of America and Russia. I don't care if NATO comes knocking down. They can kill me for I don't care no more. I want to bring people and have us all fellow Yugoslavs of Bosnia reform this nation and transform it into the glorious socialist state that it was under Yugoslavia for Bosnia is the true Yugoslavia. For the Balkans are too hostile for a functional democracy, a tough iron fist is needed to crush down the anti-Yugoslav and anti-communist rhetoric from the nationalists and liberals.

That is because the bourgeois elites are power-hungry. They wont be able to profit from sh***y culture wars between the liberals and nationalists that are created solely for the purpose of polarizing lower classes and making them fight in a huge boxing ring as a form of entertainment that these rich fools can gamble their money onto. America and Russia seem to do this fine with Yugoslav states by gambling their resources in maintaining their spheres over Yugoslav states with Russia controlling Serbia and America having the rest. Bosnia is the last stand for we are yet to be part of major Western groups such as the EU or NATO. Bosnia is rather aligned with the West but there is still potential to try and resist the West and fight also against the East (the Serbian nationalism and Russian imperialism).

To achieve equity in Bosnia, a necessary action would be to abolish the Dayton and purge all nationalist and liberal elements to secure the multi-ethnic tolerance and the Brotherhood and Unity of all Yugoslavs in Bosnia and once again establish the vanguard of the Balkan socialism and Yugoslav socialism. Has Bosnia changed in 30 years? Barely any change. Just a growing economy but the rest still seems rump. It needs better change than this right now. The liberals and nationalists are too slow and too much focused with their own narcissistic behavior. Better start spreading the message to the people and then see if the government is gonna get any better once we round up the masses against the bourgeois liberal nationalism in Bosnia.

Always distrust anyone who throws around words like "bourgeois".

Before you "distrust". Learn what the word "bourgeois" means. Bourgeois originally referred to the middle class (also known as burghers) between the peasantry and aristocracy in late medieval times.

According to Marxist philosophy, the bourgeois were progressive around the 17th and 18th centuries with their liberal ideology. Prominent examples included English Civil War, the American War of Independence, and the French Revolution. It was that in the 19th century, they peaked and it was then that their liberal ideology was pretty much waning away from progress and would then turn to reaction as soon as they became the new ruling class of the capitalist society.