Re: equation to describe the economy

On 6 Jun 2005 11:29:31 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 3 Jun 2005 03:29:27 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> >As Petr Kroptokin Argues in his classic work, "Mutual Aid: A Factor in
>> >Evolution", the propensity of a species to mutual aid is among the
>> >strongest indicators of its likelyhood of survival.
>
>> Few species are social.
>
>The only species that is relevant to this discusion are Humans, which
>are social, and therefore their evolutionary logic is as MIT Cognative
>Sciences and Kropotkin have stated.

If you're only talking about humans, the inter-species comparison is
irrelevant.

>> >These effects stem from disparity of income, more that absolute
>> >poverty.
>
>> ?? How does other people having higher incomes make poor people
>> behave irresponsibly?
>
>Because inequality breeds discontent.

Then why don't people do drugs because of inequality in intelligence,
beauty, athletic and artistic gifts, height, etc.?

>> >Yet what goes to interest does not go to wages. The higher level of
>> >wages indicated by Japan's must come from somewhere, if it is not from
>> >the share of land, and it is not entirely explainable by flatter wage
>> >structure (which I admit is also possible), then it must be comming
>> >from Interests.
>
>> Wages are much flatter in Japan, and _much_ more tied to seniority.
>> IIRC, CEOs average only 20 or 30 times the average wages of their
>> employees.
>
>This to me means Japan is a richer country than America,

If you don't mind living in 10m^2 of floor space...

>In terms of places I consider to have a high general standard of
>living, no other indicator produces a more accurate list.

Any measure that puts the USA little better than Cuba is junk.

>If you think that HDI is accurate, and that the US is really among the
>top 10 countries in the world, I suggest you visit south Philly, or
>east LA, or the Bronx, any poor southern region, or, well, pretty much
>most of the country.

The USA is clearly much better off than the UK, but the UK has lower
infant mortality.

>I've lived in many countries, including the US, it is obvious to me
>that poverty is a huge problem in the US, any indicator that does not
>reflect that is simply not accurate. Infant Mortality, which ranks the
>US at #25 among OECD countries seems about right.

It also ignores the effect of the USA's higher birth rate.

>> >Depends on how you count poverty, these poorer where able to keep their
>> >infants alive, thus in at least one way, where wealthier.
>
>> You are confusing being able to keep infants alive with actually doing
>> so. There is a difference.
>
>By and large any parents in wealthy communities with the ability to
>keep their infant alive, will do so.

But I've already explained that in most of the countries with low
infant mortality rates, parents often _don't_ have the ability to keep
their infants alive, because severely underweight, premature, etc.
infants are considered fetal deaths even while their hearts are still
beating, and thus do not show up in the infant mortality stats.

>> >A larger number of birth defects should be seen in a larger number of
>> >recipients,
>
>> No, those disabilities are usually the result of injuries.
>
>Yet birth defects are reflected as well.

Are they? I don't know that that is the case.

>> >this is the basis of your theory that the infants that die
>> >would e a burden on their society. If the burden is not visible, your
>> >theory is not valid.
>
>> That's just not _where_ it's visible.
>
>Where _is_ it visible?

I don't know of a statistic that isolates expenditures on the
congenitally disabled.

>> >First of all, drug abuse is also an economic outcome,
>
>> ?? Huh?
>
>Drug abuse is an economic outcome.

Then why is drug abuse less of an issue in Mexico, which its huge Gini
ratio and poverty, than in the USA?

>Drug _use_ is pretty even among
>classes, however this use has negative consequences among poorer people
>far more than richer people.

Partly because they can't afford it.

>IMO, this results from two issues, one, that poorer people are likely
>to feel they have less to live for, being more socially excluded, two,
>drug use among the poor is far more likely to be criminalized,
>worsening their situation.

I agree prohibition makes it far worse.

>> >- Age of mother: rates are higher in mothers under 20 and over 40 1
>
>> 20% of 20-year-old American females have given birth, vs. 3% of
>> Japanese 20-year-olds.
>
>And young motherhood correlates well to the the economic and
>educational opportunities of women.

It correlates to literacy. No one can claim that American women lack
opportunities to learn how to read. Yet they often don't.

>> Again, births out of wedlock are an order of magnitude more frequent
>> in the USA.
>
>But certainly not more frequent than they are in European and
>Scandinavian countries.

But the overall birth rate there is also substantially lower.

>> USA, because American doctors will try to keep them alive while
>> doctors elsewhere usually do not.
>
>And since the US has a high Infant Mortality rate, the above proves my
>point and disproves yours.

?? No, it doesn't. It means the basis for calculating the statistics
is different.

>A low Infant mortality rate does not mean that more "incurably
>disabled" babies are kept alive, it means that the general health and
>hygiene in the communities in which babies are born is better.

It may also (and apparently does) mean that infants who are very
likely to die are not counted as having been born, or born alive.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT ~ Bulllet Points
    ... many more survive the initial 24 hours and then become infant mortality. ... varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live ... outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT ~ Bulllet Points
    ... many more survive the initial 24 hours and then become infant mortality. ... But the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth and how many premature infants are born in the country. ... All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,which are used throughout the European Union.However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: He opens his mouth...
    ... I am very disappointed in the Democrats for not forcing some of the ... We rank 180 in a field of 243 countries; ... deaths of babies less than 30 cm because they are not considered live ... over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: European Infant Mortality Rates Are Bogus
    ... "Official World Health Organization statistics show the U.S. lagging behind ... Halderman notes that in the U.S., any infant born that shows any ... Different countries count differently. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: (OT) SCOX Files Chapter 11 (Reorg)
    ... Those statistics are not necessarily an indication of a problem. ... their potential negativeimpact on infant morality statistics: ... mortality in "developed countries". ... infant mortality rate is not worse than the "poor ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)