Matthew Yglesias » Social Spending and Inequality

May 17th, 2009 at 8:31 am

Social Spending and Inequality

This is material I’ve covered before in a somewhat different form, but let it be said again—you can reduce inequality by having your government spend more on social services:

socialspending-1

I think the links between taxation, spending, and inequality are the most plausible explanation of the fact that the highest-taxed countries are the happiest. It can’t be that paying taxes makes Danes happy. But plausibly, living in a relatively egalitarian society makes people happy.

Comments
52

Filed under: Economics, Inequality,

52 Responses to “Social Spending and Inequality”

Sam M Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Is “egalitarianism” the only thing that sets Denmark apart from the US? I think there are other plausible causes for this difference. Immigration hawks, for instance, might point out that Denmark is less diverse than the US. They might also argue that less diversity probably makes them more likely to support well funded social programs. Not that these arguments are necessarily correct. But I don’t think you can just select two data points like “happiness” and “equality” and declare them causally linked.
Ape Man Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Certainly whenever anyone suggests that we make a comparison between the US and other countries, it is easy enough to argue that the US is a special case.

“Less diverse” is sort of a weak term – what you mean, I assume, is that Denmark lacks a large permanent social underclass.

It is indeed true that most industrialized countries lack a large permanent social underclass made up primarily of the descendants of slaves. It is probably also true that we (the overclass) therefore have a peculiar reluctance to spend money on social programs that primarily (at least in our perception) advantage the underclass at the expense of the overclass.

None of this really speaks to the point of whether we GET anything out of our parsimonious attitude. You’re right that you can’t just pick two variables and assume they are correlated. But at the very least it seems that we aren’t making ourselves HAPPIER by refusing to spend money on improving the standard of living of poor black people.
Noah Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I’m not sure this post makes sense.

The Gini coefficient, I believe, measures pre-tax income, so it doesn’t take govt. services into account. There is no obvious reason why either more social spending or higher taxes should have an impact on pre-tax income.

Remember that correlation doesn’t imply causation. It might be that the same thing that causes high spending on social services – for example, a society that places a high value on equality – also happens to cause equality in pre-tax income. That doesn’t mean social spending lowers the Gini coefficient.
Ape Man Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:13 am
This has nothing to do with this thread, but yesterday I was in Richmond’s southside ghetto and it was kind of embarrassing the degree to which an apparently thriving business area was receiving no city services whatsoever.

I was able to get some hot crabs, a hot dog and a soda for like four bucks, though, which did in fact make me happy.
stan Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:15 am
If I find the time and brainpower to learn finance, and figure out a way to LEGALLY fleece a bunch of financially ignorant drones, doesn’t that earn me the right to live like a prince? Without guys like me, who would lead?
JH Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Alternatively, we could just cut $500 billion off the defense budget (which would still leave us spending head, shoulders, and torso more than anyone else), combine that with the Medicare/Medicaid/HHS budget, and have excellent nationalized health care for everyone without raising anyone’s taxes at all.
Ted Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:21 am
There are very good prima facie reasons for suspecting that a more egalitarian society will have higher levels of (self-reported) happiness — since it turns out that people estimate happiness by assessing where they stand relative to others. Happiness (at least the sort that social scientists can measure) is a relative effect, not an absolute.

But this might be less useful as a political argument than as an interesting philosophical problem for utilitarians. If self-reported happiness is so dependent on a perceived context, can “happiness” really be the same thing as “well-being”? And if not, which of them are we supposed to be maximizing?
superdestroyer Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Once again Matt decides that the best places to live are small all white countries with limited immigration, little diversity, and zero population growth. I wonder when Matt will propose government policies that will make the U.S. whiters, smaller, lower immigration, and less diverse.
Matt Weiner Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:31 am
There is no obvious reason why either more social spending or higher taxes should have an impact on pre-tax income.

Social spending could put people in a better position to take advantage of their opportunities and thus to increase their pre-tax income. For example, higher and more uniform spending on education could mean that children were educated more equally and were able to get more equal jobs, whereas an educational system like ours in which poor areas often have less money to spend on education is likely to perpetuate inequality. Or a system in which subsidized childcare is available to everyone could allow more people to get work without regard to the availability of childcare, as opposed to a system in which only people who can afford childcare (or have no children) can keep on at jobs that might call for unpredictable hours. Or national health care might enable someone to spend longer in their job search and get a better job rather than needing to jump at the first available job in order to get insurance. I have no idea whether any of these work, but there are any number of mechanisms by which social spending could lead to greater pre-tax equality.

Note also that if the Gini coefficient doesn’t take account of taxes and social benefits, then higher-tax countries are probably even more egalitarian than this graph makes it look.
Ape Man Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Noah:

The term “Gini coefficient” refers to a way of presenting data about inequality, not to any specific thing being measured.

You could do a pre-tax income Gini, or a wealth Gini (that’s what I think this chart is presenting), or a How-Many-Pounds-of-Beans-Do-People-Eat Gini.

For statistics nerds, calculating Gini indices of weird stuff (like how many pairs of socks a person buys in a year) is a common dorky timewaster. If I recall correctly, in Trinidad the Socks Purchased Gini is much, much higher than on the nearby island of Tobago, where a relatively small percentage of islanders account for the lion’s share of sock purchases.
Ape Man Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I should say Trinidad’s Sock Gini is lower. Or, perhaps, I should not have gotten into this at all.
Nylund Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Numerous studies have shown that happiness is relative. It is often determined by what you get vs. what you think you deserve (and if you think others get what they deserve). When you toil away and still struggle with bills and you see Britney Spears on TV flaunting her millions, it tends to make people unhappy if they feel that wealth is undeserved (or they too deserve it).

When you are raised to think everyone will be pretty much equal and everyone ends up being pretty much equal, then happiness is not a surprising outcome.

In short, happiness comes not from absolutes, but from a relative sense of due reward. What American hasn’t thought in their life that they might just possibly end up obscenely wealthy? Few make it. Even people in the poorest of countries who have no hope of even matching what we consider poverty here in the US can be much happier for their standards of living meet their expectations.

I know I am not where I dreamed I would be when I was a little kid. I am fairly happy with where I am, but I do still have that bit of a kid in me that used to see the super-rich on TV and think, “maybe one day that will be me.”

In short, the egalitarian / happiness connection Matt mentions is not unrealistic at all, and in fact has been researched quite a bit.

Humans, it turns out, really do have a strong sense of “fairness”. Those who are rich think its unfair to take money form them, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who are poor, who think its “unfair” that someone can make such vastly higher sums, disproportionate to the talent, intelligence, or work effort they exhibit.

There have been numerous behavioral studies that show people will even fail to do the rational thing that is in their best interest if they feel the outcome lacks “fairness” (the famous one being the 2 stage game of how to split the dollar).
Rottin' in Denmark Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Ummmm, I’ve lived in Copenhagen for almost 4 years now, and trust me, Danes are *not* the happiest people on earth. The methodology of that British Medical Journal article was all over the place.

Danish national culture prioritizes and encourages a lot of behaviour that makes happiness very difficult, especially for those living outside the rigidly enforced mainstream.

But none of that has anything to do with Denmark’s tax policy or low levels of inequality. On the policy level, Denmark is worth emulating. It’s the social level, in the appreciation of diversity and general live-and-let-live-ness of America, that the Danes could learn a bit from America.

On the tax/policy side, the most admirable quality of life here is the comprehensive safety nets. You get hit by a bus? State takes care of all costs, including salary compensation. It’s illegal for your job to fire you for medical conditions. Unemployed? The state will pay you 80% of your salary for up to 4 years. Want to go back to school? Not only is college free, but the state pays you about $1,000 per month to be a student.

I’m much happier here because I never have to worry about some act of God derailing one aspect of my life (health, job, etc) and having that domino out to the rest of it. That’s what America can learn from Denmark. Leave the happiness stuff out of it.
Noah Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I have no idea whether any of these work, but there are any number of mechanisms by which social spending could lead to greater pre-tax equality.

Right. That’s why I said “no obvious reason.”

The fact is, the graph Matt shows doesn’t imply that any such reason need exist at all, since correlation doesn’t imply causation.

Note also that if the Gini coefficient doesn’t take account of taxes and social benefits, then higher-tax countries are probably even more egalitarian than this graph makes it look.

Absolutely.
JT Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:02 am
You know Matty, for quite a few years there most Germans were really quite happy under National Socialism even (or in many cases especially) as they saw social and business competitors disappearing before their very eyes.
And of course Hitler was a huge fan of massive government spending especially on infrastructure and social organization.
Now there’s the model for us, right?
DMonteith Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Yeah, and those Danish concentration camps really suck too. If only Pelosi hadn’t appeased the Danes they would never have invaded Finland!

JT stands for Jonah T Goldberg? Who knew?
Mattyoung Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:12 am
It is not social spending it is Malthus. The correlation is declining populations release developed resources as they reduce people. It is a well known effect. If you do the regression studies then the correlation between money available for social spending is highly correlated with fertility declines. Malthus, do the homework.
Matt Weiner Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Fair enough, Noah; I thought you might be making a stronger claim. Agreed that these data alone don’t show causation, though I think they’re worth looking into.

FWIW, from the statistics linked at the NYT blog post:

Measures of income inequality are based on data on people’s household disposable income. Disposable income is gross household income following deduction of direct taxes and payment of social security contributions. It excludes in-kind services provided to households by governments and private entities, consumption taxes, and imputed income flows due to home ownership and other real assets.

So that’s after some taxes but not counting transfers, I think.
John Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Looking at it, Canada manages to be much more equal while only spending slightly more on social services. Portugal and Italy are about the same equal as the US, but spend way more on social services.
latts Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
but plausibly, living in a relatively egalitarian society makes people happy.

Maybe 70% or so, but it doesn’t make conservatives happy IME– they seem to prefer knowing exactly who they need to brownnose and who they’re allowed to kick in the teeth.
linus (ninny) Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 11:21 am
“…makes Danes happy.”

legos
Shmoe Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Not to rain on your parade, because I basically agree with you, but when I look at the countries on this graph I see another factor besides social spending: homogeneity. This is not a deal breaker IMO, but it should give serious pause. “Localism” might be the key. The data seems to indicate, to me at least, that one “size fits all” federal solutions may be problematic; and that the final form of a given program might be best left to states and/or cities. Federally funded? yes, mostly, federally regulated? definitely; but locally determined.
soullite Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Shmoe, locals tend to be extremely corrupt. Anyone can tell you, the more local an official, the more easily they are bought. Most of them don’t take their duties even remotely seriously.

You get traffic court judges who don’t even have law degrees. You get road supervisor’s who are in the job for a free pick-up. You have local football hero council-men who are in it to fuck interns and pocket bribes.

Even outside of the personal corruption, you have massive amounts of ethical corruption. Local bigotries will likely mean that the people who most need assistance will not get it. In America, ‘local control’ has always be slang for ‘none of that shit goes to black people’.
LFC Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Ape Man said… The term “Gini coefficient” refers to a way of presenting data about inequality, not to any specific thing being measured.

You could do a pre-tax income Gini, or a wealth Gini (that’s what I think this chart is presenting), or a How-Many-Pounds-of-Beans-Do-People-Eat Gini.

My wife and I supplied a Diaper Genie to our best friends when they had their first child.

Within days, they told us it was full of s***.
Tom Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The people talking about homogeneity aren’t making any sense to me.

Okay, Denmark and Sweden seem to have the very lowest Gini coefficients, but many countries with significant levels of diversity have Gini coefficients that are still much lower than that of the US: Canada, Israel, Australia, and France, for instance. What the chart shows is that a whole lot of countries have substantially lower inequality and higher social spending than the US. That can’t be explained on the basis of diversity.
Myles SG Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Well, I don’t see the point of subsidising mediocrity, collective mediocrity, with high taxes and high social spending, at the expense of excellence and the triumph of the strong.

Scandinavia has been willfully creating social mediocrity with their policies. It is shameful. Nietzsche would not have been proud.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Shorter pooperdestroyer: blame the swarthy hordes! I wonder when poops will start wearing his white hood and bedsheet in public?

(Can be re-used whenever he jumps into a thread.)
John Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Can anyone explain what the hell Myles is talking about? Is that really Myles, or an impostor? Because, really, “Nietzsche would not have been proud”?
linus (ninny) Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“I’ve lived in Copenhagen for almost 4 years now…”

Is it true that the country is built almost entirely of legos?
pseudonymous in nc Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Is that really Myles, or an impostor?

It’s really him. Unfortunately, the braying fop fancies himself as an ubermensch, something that will last till the first day of his graduate trainee career at Fraud, Badger and Swindle.
superdestroyer Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
There should be a rule of thumb that any progressive that compares the U.S. to another country needs to limited countries that have over a population of at least 100 million and has a population that is less than 70% white. Trying to claim that the U.S. can adopt the politices of small, homogeneous countries is insane.
Myles SG Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Let me put it this way: what is the point of equality, of egalitarianism? What good does leveling do for human civilisation? What greatness has ever been committed by the leveling, instead of the excelling, instinct?

Human beings are made unequal. Let’s live with it, and celebrate those who are greater than others.
JonF Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Re: It’s illegal for your job to fire you for medical conditions.

Ditto in the US (unless a medical condition makes it impossible for you to do your job). Of course such laws may or may not be enforced. I’m not sure how well the ÁDA is enforced but our age discrimination laws are manly honored in the breach.
Steve Sailer Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Matt’s infatuation with blue-eyed utopias continues.

As Matt knows, Denmark has cracked down relatively hard on immigration since the 2001 election, allowing it to preserve its blue-eyed utopianianess — its welfare state and economic egalitarianism — from being inundated by poor people from other countries.
Why oh why Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Shorter conservatives: Europe is overrun by Arab Muslims, but you can’t compare any European stats to American ones because European countries are nearly 100% white.
Shmoe Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
locals tend to be extremely corrupt.

This is a valid point soullite, thus my point about federal regulations, as well as standards; strong ones. But that is all meaningless unless we deal with the structural corruption at the Federal legislative level.
(Sorry, if it seems unrelated, but it’s sorta my pet issue; thus I see it everywhere.)
nolaboyd Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“Let me put it this way: what is the point of equality, of egalitarianism?”

Equality of dignity is a pretty basic value that goes back a long way. Justice would then demand that each be given their due (not the SAME thing, but what would enable them to best flourish within the society).

But the hell with pragmatism…the real action is in the pragmatism of it. A sense of equality in a society is the only way to maintain individual freedom while avoiding violent revolution.

I’d like to see you actually get your wish for a society, Myles, and be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
nolaboyd Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
The hell with JUSTICE, that should say.
pete from baltimore Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
When people bring up the issue of the lack of diversity , i think they are misunderstood. It is not a case of saying “well they are all white over there , no wonder everything is great “.

It is more about how different countries have strenghts and weaknesses. The fact that Scandanavia is a humogeneous place and has a small population is a strenght for them. The fact that we have a large and diverse population is our greatest strenght.

We are not just racially diverse. I am white. But my lifestyle is more like my black next door neighbors than it is like a white guy living in the desert in New Mexico.

Laws that make sense in Balltimore may not make sense in New Mexico.

The debate on gun control is not between liberal and conservative as much as between rural and urban.Democratic cogressmen from rural areas [even black districts] tend to be pro gun.
It would be impossible to have the kind of centalisation in America that you would find in Denmark.

We are not better , or worse than Denmark. Just different

It is a reality that social democratic policies are hard to enforce in a diverse population.

As i have said before we should be careful of putting countries [including our own] on a pedestal. It does neither us, nor them any favors.

And for the record ,you can make many arguements in favor of higher taxes. The fact that we have a huge debt is one of them. But to suggest that people in Denmark are happy BECAUSE they pay more taxes is kind of silly.

I make $15,000 a year. If they raise taxes on people who make $250,000 a year it would not make me angry, but it would not make me overjoyed and want to break out in song.
nolaboyd Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I make $15,000 a year. If they raise taxes on people who make $250,000 a year it would not make me angry, but it would not make me overjoyed and want to break out in song.

If because of that taxation you could get sick without going bankrupt, you or your spouse could choose to actually raise your baby for the first year, and said baby would have access to a quality education, I think you would indeed be inspired to at least hum a little.

Oh and Sailer, even the yahoos at Cato know you’re full of shit on this.
Shmoe Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Oh, and for the record, when I talk about homogeneity I’m not talking so much about ethnic diversity or lack be it thereof; though such factors shouldn’t be ignored. I am referring more to the differences of custom and culture that exist around geography. After all, there is not one European model of social welfare, but many with similar standards of performance. Such as the difference between Norway and Denmark, or Belgium and Holland, or for something more extreme Germany and Switzerland. One could say that in some ways Europe is actually more diverse than the US, even while it’s individual states and cities are more homogeneous. All I’m really trying to say is: a certain amount of devolution of the decision-making to a more local level shouldn’t be an anathema to the Left or a strong Federal government.
Ruckus Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Maybe it’s just a lot simpler than we try to make it.
Mom was right about sitting up straight, maybe she was right that money doesn’t solve all your problems, nor buy happiness. Maybe if so many of us weren’t greedy aholes and played life like a zero sum game (if I don’t get yours there won’t be more than enough for me!), maybe then our culture would be more like some of the places that Matt talks about.
harold Says:
May 17th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
I read somewhere that Scandinavia never had land enclosure and that is why it doesn’t have a large permanent underclass.
pete from baltimore Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:00 am
REGARDING HAROLD’ S COMMENT # 43

MR HAROLD

I googled the words scandanavia and land enclosure, and found that there WAS enclosure in Scandanavia.

But apparently it had a completly different affect on Scandanavia than it did on Britain.

The sum of it was that since Scandanavia had a small popultion , and that there was hardly any industry to draw the peasants off the land, enclosure led to the family farm becoming the basic economic unit in Scandanavia.

In other words ,enclosure HELPED the peasants get their own land.

As you well know, that is why the family farms in much of the midwest were created by Scandanavian immagrants.Since the family farm required both the husband and wife to work on the farm. It is no wonder women traditionally had more rights in Scandanavia.

Believe it or not , the first state to give women the right to vote was Wyoming.The midwest and west was actually a pretty progressive place back in the old days.

I think much of this had to do with the role women played on the family farm.They certainly did not spend all their time in the kitchen.These were tough women.

This certainly contradicts the myth of rural patriarchy.

While you were slightly wrong on the fact of enclosure MR HAROLD ,you had the basic premise right. And if you had not posted your comment i would never had looked up enclosures in Scandanavia.

Thank you MR HAROLD for enlightening ne on this subject.Your comment was defintly appreciated by me.
Myles SG Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Believe it or not , the first state to give women the right to vote was Wyoming.

How clever of you! My dear fellow, you clearly haven’t yet reached the part of the first-year US History textbook where it talks about how Wyoming first gave women the vote, so as have to have a large enough electorate to qualify for statehood.

Thank god for incomplete American history education! You have wonderful fellows like pete spouting off about how Wyoming was progressive, instead of cynical! Delightful!
pete from baltimore Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 8:24 am
REGARDING MR MYLES SG COMMENT # 45

MR MYLESS SG I do not claim to be an expert on Wyoming.But if you read about the state you will find out that it also elected the first elected female state official [estelle reel and the first female governor [Nellie ross in 1925].And was the first state to have women on the jury. Montana was the first state to have a female member of congress [Jeanette Rankin}.

This does not mean that the west was a feminist paridise back then. Only that it does seem to have been more progressive than one might think. I still think that this had something to do with women's role in the family farm, and the fact that many of the immagrants were from Scandanavia.

Minnessota and Wisconsin have many Scandanavian immagrants and their descandants .And both have a history of progressive politics. The west and midwest was much more different than it is today.

Once again thanks to MR HAROLD for bringing this up.I thought that the enclosure issue raised some interesting questions about income eqaulity.

MR Myles you completly ignored my main point about enclosure and whether it was right or not. If you had claimed i was wrong about my main point i would have thanked you for correcting my mistake.

you probably are more smarter than myself [not too hard to be, im no genious] but you are not very open minded. Nor do you seem to have the ability to disagree without trying to put someone down.

Maybe you did not mean to be sarcastic. and if so i apoligise for taking it that way .But that tone seems to dominate the comment section. Some people here seem not to have good social skills

Despite our minor disagreement i wish you the best sir.
jmo Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Myles SG,

God you’re a douche. In order to get +50% of the voters to support something you may have to use any number of different arguments. For example, some % of the Wyoming electorate may have been swayed by arguments that women, contributing as they do to the community, should have a say in how things are run. Another group would have been swayed by the arguement that giving women the vote will make the electorate large enough for statehood.

Is that really such a hard concept for you to understand?
Mr. Econotarian Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
It is interesting that some of the Scandinavian countries can appear to do OK in terms of economics and life satisfaction despite fairly high personal tax rates.

On the other hand, it should also be noted that France and Germany have a much lower life satisfaction level than Denmark, Sweden, Finland, or the US.

Perhaps you have to be a pretty happy person to begin with to deal with all the cold and snow they get up there

But it should be noted that despite the high personal tax rates, there still is a lot of “Economic Freedom” in those northern countries – from the Economic Freedom of the World index,

Sweden:

“Sweden benefits from extremely high levels of business freedom, property rights, and freedom from corruption. With its economy open to global trade and investment, Sweden also scores well in trade freedom, investment freedom, monetary freedom, and financial freedom. The overall regulatory environment is simple and transparent, facilitating robust entrepreneurial activity. The financial sector is highly developed, and monetary stability is well maintained. The judiciary, independent and free of corruption, has demonstrated an exemplary ability to protect property rights.”

Finland:

“Despite small reductions in six of the 10 economic freedoms, Finland is still a world leader in business freedom, trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights, and freedom from corruption. Private enterprise continues to blossom in a minimally regulated, business-friendly environment. Finland is one of the least corrupt countries in the world, and the result is a business environment that is free from political influence. Property is protected by transparent laws and even-handed enforcement, and foreign investors enjoy excellent market access. ”

Denmark:
“Denmark performs well on eight of the 10 components of economic freedom. It has a strong tradition of openness to foreign investment and trade, and transparent and efficient regulations are applied evenly in most cases. Denmark also boasts an efficient, independent judiciary that protects property rights effectively, and the level of corruption is extraordinarily low… the corporate tax rate is one of the lowest among members of the European Union…”
Myles SG Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
God you’re a douche. In order to get +50% of the voters to support something you may have to use any number of different arguments. For example, some % of the Wyoming electorate may have been swayed by arguments that women, contributing as they do to the community, should have a say in how things are run. Another group would have been swayed by the arguement that giving women the vote will make the electorate large enough for statehood.

No. It’s called I am properly educated about American History. Do you actually read the history books? Do you actually know which was the dominant factor in female suffrage in Wyoming? Do you actually believe, that in that period of time, that your former argument would have been stronger than the latter?

Put it another way, which one would be a bigger electoral calculus for the Wyoming voter? Statehood, or female suffrage? The history books indicate it’s statehood.

Learn some history. This is almost as comical as people claiming that Framers wanted maximum democracy, when they were afraid of maximum democracy. Believe or not, the Progressives of the early 20th century actually tried to justify their measures on these grounds.

Fucking idiots.
Myles SG Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
MR Myles you completly ignored my main point about enclosure and whether it was right or not. If you had claimed i was wrong about my main point i would have thanked you for correcting my mistake.

You are, on a purely legal level, absolutely right about Scandinavian enclosure. Let’s make that clear.

However, in practical terms, it matters very, very little. Most of Sweden’s modern population are no more than 3 or 4 generations removed form subsistence agriculture. Subsistence agriculture, as you might be aware, equals poverty. These are people who lived from hand to mouth.

So when you talk about the family farm, it strikes me a bit bizarre. Sure, no great social inequalities there, in the case of Scandinavia. But what you did not know, was that it’s because just about everybody in Sweden, before industrialisation, was poor as piss. Because of the poor land, the average Scandinavian farmer was doomed to be far poorer than the average English farmer, before or after enclosure. Even today, a good chunk of the country is owned by only one family, the Wallenburgs.

So, when you have just about everybody living from hand to mouth, only a few generations away, of course the artifices and the vanities that characterise a wealthier, more hierarchical society, doesn’t exist. Olaf Palme, an assassinated former PM, rode in the subway without a guard.

In this manner then, the social egalitarianism of Scandinavian society is essentially a function of past dire poverty. It is poverty, rather than past agricultural organisation forms, that account for the social milieu of Scandinavia.
pete from baltimore Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
MYLES SG
You raise some interesting points.I actually had never considered the enclosure issue until HAROLD brought it up. But you add an interesting twist to it. You claim that enclosure and the widespread ownership of land kept people poor .[ i believe that is your point]

My great grandfather was a Norwegian sailor who jumped ship and stayed in America.Many Scandanavians came to America.I was never under the assumption that they left a rich country behind to enjoy the warm and balmy winters of Minnesota.Obviousely something drove them here.

You do raise a good point.That one reason many European countries embrace socialism may be because of pre war poverty that was far worse than anything in America.

Thank you for your comment .It is defintly informative and food for thought.I would only ask that in the future ,please do not assume that i am a complete moron because I write something you disagree with or do not include an important fact.

I am not an expert on history.But i do know that pre war Europe was poor especially Scandanavia.These facts do not contradict my theory about enclosure affecting eqaulity.They just added an interesting twist.

Both HAROLD and myself were
suggesting theories about Scandanavia.We certainly were not “spouting off” as you said.

I always like to have my veiws challenged MYLES SG.I just wish you could have done so in a slightly less sarcastic way. Once again. I may have misinterpeted your tone.The bottom line is that your comment and HAROLD’S comment made me examine Scandanavian history more than i normally would have on a sick day.I am grateful to both of you for that.

Thank you and best regards.
TheTradingReport » Blog Archive » Happiness Is Keeping Poor People Away Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 2:43 am
[...] Yglesias posts a pretty picture showing a negative correlation between income inequality and income redistribution. This [...]

Matt Yglesias

Social Spending and Inequality

52 Responses to “Social Spending and Inequality”

Blogroll