http://www.thenation.com/blog/178708/how-economic-ine******y-k**ls?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20-%2020140306&newsletter=email_nation_thursday#

Here is an excerpt:
"First, let’s deal with the “what do we mean by ine******y?” question. Therborn finds the definition of e******y developed by economist Amartya Sen to be most helpful. E******y, according to Sen, is “e******y of capability to function fully as a human being. Such a capability clearly entails survival, health (and aids for disability), freedom and knowledge (education) to choose one’s life-path, and resources to pursue it.”

"Inequalities, then, are “multidimensional barriers to human functioning in the world” which are “violations of human rights.” According to Therborn, there are three main types of ine******y: vital ine******y, which refers to inequalities regarding health outcomes and life expectancies; resource ine******y, which refers to economic inequalities of various sorts; and a concept he calls he calls existential ine******y, which he defines as “the unequal allocation of personhood, i.e., of autonomy, dignity, degrees of freedom, and of rights to respect and self-development.”

"The most eye-opening, and disturbing, passages of the book are those that concern “vital ine******y,” or the impact of ine******y on life and health. This is where the “k*****g fields” of the title comes in. “Ine******y k**ls,” states Therborn in the book’s first sentence. Consider these statistics:

§ Between 1990 and 2008, life expectancy of w***e A******n men declined by three years, and low-educated w***e A******n women saw their life expectancy decline by five years.

§ The life expectancy between the richest and poorest neighborhoods in Glasgow, a difference of twenty-eight years, is the same as that between the UK and Haiti.

§ The UK’s famous Whitehall studies indicate that the odds of poor health and premature death increased as the employee’s status in the civil service bureaucracy decreased—even controlling for use of alcohol, tobacco and other factors.

§ The restoration of capitalism to the former Soviet Union is associated with a stunning 4 million excess deaths there.

§ A number of studies show that unemployment is associated with a significant number of excess deaths, even when controlling for other health indicators.

"Those examples and many others that Therborn cites, which make “the correlation between hierarchy and death” all too clear, are harrowing. (Therborn wields a masterful command of an array of fascinating statistcs). Yet high ine******y societies are far from inevitable. Therborn argues that “capitalism and capitalists can, under certain circumstances, be taught how to behave.” Income ine******y in the Nordic countries in the early 1980s was about the same as it was in the C*******t bloc. Egalitarianism, he claims, continues to hold a powerful appeal, and there are at least three major reasons why high levels of economic ine******y tend to be deeply troubling to many people.

Rumitoid,
This post is a perfect example of a biased opinion piece using statistics to claim a result that the author is pushing for political reasons. Make it eloquent and confusing enough you can draw any conclusion the author wants using "statistics".
(Example: shoes must cause death, everyone who wears them eventually die!)

The goal is first, deflect v**ers from thinking about the effects of Obamacare during the next e******n cycle, second, If you buy this garbage it will result in government control of all wages, "comparable worth" wages set by bureaucrats in the federal government instead of by the free market based on supply and demand. This would be disastrous to the labor force and production in the United States economy.

Do you really want the Federal government to have this much power over your life? Can a bureaucrat, or committee, really be fair and unbiased? Gradual socialism goes unnoticed????
1oldgeezer :-(

Rumitoid,
This post is a perfect example of a biased opinion piece using statistics to claim a result that the author is pushing for political reasons. Make it eloquent and confusing enough you can draw any conclusion the author wants using "statistics".
(Example: shoes must cause death, everyone who wears them eventually die!)

The goal is first, deflect v**ers from thinking about the effects of Obamacare during the next e******n cycle, second, If you buy this garbage it will result in government control of all wages, "comparable worth" wages set by bureaucrats in the federal government instead of by the free market based on supply and demand. This would be disastrous to the labor force and production in the United States economy.

Do you really want the Federal government to have this much power over your life? Can a bureaucrat, or committee, really be fair and unbiased? Gradual socialism goes unnoticed????
1oldgeezer :-(

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178708/how-economic-ine******y-k**ls?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20-%2020140306&newsletter=email_nation_thursday#

Here is an excerpt:
"First, let’s deal with the “what do we mean by ine******y?” question. Therborn finds the definition of e******y developed by economist Amartya Sen to be most helpful. E******y, according to Sen, is “e******y of capability to function fully as a human being. Such a capability clearly entails survival, health (and aids for disability), freedom and knowledge (education) to choose one’s life-path, and resources to pursue it.”

"Inequalities, then, are “multidimensional barriers to human functioning in the world” which are “violations of human rights.” According to Therborn, there are three main types of ine******y: vital ine******y, which refers to inequalities regarding health outcomes and life expectancies; resource ine******y, which refers to economic inequalities of various sorts; and a concept he calls he calls existential ine******y, which he defines as “the unequal allocation of personhood, i.e., of autonomy, dignity, degrees of freedom, and of rights to respect and self-development.”

"The most eye-opening, and disturbing, passages of the book are those that concern “vital ine******y,” or the impact of ine******y on life and health. This is where the “k*****g fields” of the title comes in. “Ine******y k**ls,” states Therborn in the book’s first sentence. Consider these statistics:

§ Between 1990 and 2008, life expectancy of w***e A******n men declined by three years, and low-educated w***e A******n women saw their life expectancy decline by five years.

§ The life expectancy between the richest and poorest neighborhoods in Glasgow, a difference of twenty-eight years, is the same as that between the UK and Haiti.

§ The UK’s famous Whitehall studies indicate that the odds of poor health and premature death increased as the employee’s status in the civil service bureaucracy decreased—even controlling for use of alcohol, tobacco and other factors.

§ The restoration of capitalism to the former Soviet Union is associated with a stunning 4 million excess deaths there.

§ A number of studies show that unemployment is associated with a significant number of excess deaths, even when controlling for other health indicators.

"Those examples and many others that Therborn cites, which make “the correlation between hierarchy and death” all too clear, are harrowing. (Therborn wields a masterful command of an array of fascinating statistcs). Yet high ine******y societies are far from inevitable. Therborn argues that “capitalism and capitalists can, under certain circumstances, be taught how to behave.” Income ine******y in the Nordic countries in the early 1980s was about the same as it was in the C*******t bloc. Egalitarianism, he claims, continues to hold a powerful appeal, and there are at least three major reasons why high levels of economic ine******y tend to be deeply troubling to many people.

And do you want "free" market forces like ungoverned banks, corporations, insurance companies, having control over your life? Can they really be fair and unbiased? Gradual erosian of the middle class goes unnoticed?
The nature of a free society economy requires inclusive standards of wages and jobs that allow the circulation of wealth. Funneling money to the coffers of companies does not circulate wealth. Anyone who says or thinks it will somehow trickle down on everybody is not facing reality.
Keeping people in poverty because we don't want libral ideas or c*******m is about as i***tic rationale I've ever heard. Yet, there are "real" patriotic Americans who preach that stupidity as if they read a book and know what they're talking about.

Tthere will be no " free market" or freedom for that matter, until we get ourselves untethered from the private-bankers currency-exchange, which has been the dominant system for the last hundred years ( see Federal Reseve Act 1913). This fractional-reserve institutionalized usury is about control, of which average citizens will have none until they wake up to how the monetary-system works.who do you the government owes the "national debt" to? Itself? No. Private international bankers. Hence an ever-growing principal impossible to pay down.

catpaw,
Your true nature is showing;
You said, "Keeping people in poverty because we don't want libral ideas or c*******m is about as i***tic rationale I've ever heard".
I say, "Trying to get people out of poverty with c*******m is about the most i***tic rationale I ever heard", did you really say that you favor t***sformation to c*******m?

Companies and industries that have true competition in the market are under your (and my) control, we put the bad ones out of business as long as the government does not subsidize them. The government's job is to enforce anti-trust laws (ensure market place competition), not pick winners or losers for us using tax money. In a free market we the people do the choosing on what we want by what we buy. When the federal government gets too involved that is when we lose control.

Why not be honest about it and just come out and say you are supporting Obama's t***sformation of the US to socialism, Oh, that's right, you just did (maybe you didn't mean to ?)!

Now go back and look at the countries that have already tried that and see where they are compared to where the US was with a free enterprise competitive system for the last hundred years, then look at where we are headed now with the government running the economy.

You don't need to listen to me, just open your eyes, and also maybe study a little history.
1oldgeezer

Rumitoid,
This post is a perfect example of a biased opinion piece using statistics to claim a result that the author is pushing for political reasons. Make it eloquent and confusing enough you can draw any conclusion the author wants using "statistics".
(Example: shoes must cause death, everyone who wears them eventually die!)

The goal is first, deflect v**ers from thinking about the effects of Obamacare during the next e******n cycle, second, If you buy this garbage it will result in government control of all wages, "comparable worth" wages set by bureaucrats in the federal government instead of by the free market based on supply and demand. This would be disastrous to the labor force and production in the United States economy.

Do you really want the Federal government to have this much power over your life? Can a bureaucrat, or committee, really be fair and unbiased? Gradual socialism goes unnoticed????
1oldgeezer :-(

catpaw,
Your true nature is showing;
You said, "Keeping people in poverty because we don't want libral ideas or c*******m is about as i***tic rationale I've ever heard".
I say, "Trying to get people out of poverty with c*******m is about the most i***tic rationale I ever heard", did you really say that you favor t***sformation to c*******m?

Companies and industries that have true competition in the market are under your (and my) control, we put the bad ones out of business as long as the government does not subsidize them. The government's job is to enforce anti-trust laws (ensure market place competition), not pick winners or losers for us using tax money. In a free market we the people do the choosing on what we want by what we buy. When the federal government gets too involved that is when we lose control.

Why not be honest about it and just come out and say you are supporting Obama's t***sformation of the US to socialism, Oh, that's right, you just did (maybe you didn't mean to ?)!

Now go back and look at the countries that have already tried that and see where they are compared to where the US was with a free enterprise competitive system for the last hundred years, then look at where we are headed now with the government running the economy.

You don't need to listen to me, just open your eyes, and also maybe study a little history.
1oldgeezer