Of interest to your lists. Metmom, homeschoolers may be very interested in studying the Gini coefficient as well as the history of political systems and revolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrado_Gini
Keep in mind: “Gini was also a leading fascist theorist and ideologue who wrote The Scientific Basis of Fascism in 1927. Gini was a proponent of the concept of organicism and applied it to nations.”
It isn’t unusual for our modern fascists - liberals - to be using the ideas of fascists to promote liberalism. They’re one and the same.
If the USA is like Rome, then we have another 1000 years to go before the fall.
Maybe like Rome, this “Kingdom” will have an eastern and western ( Southern and Northern?) capital...
Conflation of wealth and income.
In Ancient Rome, the curiales (from co + viria, ‘gathering of men’) were initially the leading members of a gentes (clan) of the city of Rome. Their roles were both civil and sacred. Each gens curiales had a leader, called a curio. The whole arrangement of assemblies was presided over by the curio maximus.
The Roman civic form was replicated in the towns and cities of the empire as they came under Roman control. By the Late Empire Period, curiales referred to the merchants, businessmen, and medium-sized landowners who served in their local Curia as local magistrates and Decurions. Curiales were expected to procure funds for public building projects, temples, festivities, games, and local welfare systems. They would often pay for these expenses out of their own pocket (undoubtedly mentioning their generosity) as a means to increase their personal prestige.
The Curiales were also responsible for the collection of Imperial taxes, provided food and board for the army, and supported the imperial post (cursus publicus).
As the Empire declined and the economy floundered, membership among the curial class became financially ruinous to all but the most wealthy (who in many cases were able to purchase exemptions from their obligations). Because of this, many tried to escape by enrolling in positions that cancelled curial responsibilities, such as the army, the Imperial government, or the Church.
Fast forward a few years. There was a 1,500% inflation due to currence debasement in the Third Century A.D. Thereafter Diocletian collected taxes in the form of goods needed to provision a soldier because there was no effective currency. He imposed wage and proce controls backed by a death penalty.
The currency was somewhat restored under Constantine, but in following years, when it was debased, they blamed inflation on “speculators.” The tax burden got so bad that Emperor Valens declared it illegal in 368 A.D. to place yourself into slavery - slaves didn’t pay taxes. As things went, the slaves simply opened the gates of Rome to let Alaric in in 410.
So the better academic inquiry would be to examine wealth distribution temporally as taxes rose, regulation increased and the currency was debased. What you will see is that the wealthy use the state to protect themselves. They were the last Romans to fall.
Note tagline.
Note tagline.
Note tagline.
Some commies set out to “prove” that “income inequality” in the US today is greater than in any country at any time in world history. Not unsurprisingly this statistical analysis cum manipulation takes place at a time when a certain political party, under fire for the near-ruination of the US economy, is attempting a Soviet-style diversionary attack on the “wealthy US plutocrats”. So much for the “scientific method”, but since we’re all living in the real world, how many millions of people around globe would still rather be living in “poverty” in the US of A, even in the midst of Obamanomics and our horrible income inequality, than the crap-holes in which they find themselves. When the Mexican illegals go home voluntarily and the Russian/Asian/Latin American women stop looking for US mates, maybe then we can worry about income inequality.
the real question to be asked is. So what? The distribution of wealth or products and services tells us nothing of the prosperity of a society or the standard of living. Could it be that a prosperous society with a higher standard of living could also have an unequal distribution of wealth? What good is equality when all are peasants and starving?