"jupiterean" wrote in message news:...

> Thank you for the clarification. I was just challenging Mr TCK's claim that
> from the GINI it can be concluded that "the myth that the economic growth
> has only benefited the VCP members is simply baseless and untrue. In
> general, it has benefited a VCP member as much as a poor peasant or a rich
> merchant, percentage-wise." Now I'm not well versed in economics, and I
> don't know what methodology is used in calculating the GINI. But I am sure
> that whatever that methodology is, it certainly doesn't take into account
> the "VCP membership" factor. Therefore if VCP members have indeed benefited
> from the growth more than other classes, the GINI cannot possibly reflect
> that fact. Therefore Mr TCK's conclusion is invalid.
>
> JoJ


If the Gini coefficient figure is accurate, his point is valid. If
the VCP and friends were capturing a large share of national income,
it would be reflected in a higher Gini coefficient. The only way that
could not be the case is if the number of VCP members, relatives of
VCP members, and friends of VCP members was so small that their income
or wealth (the GC can measure the distribution of anything) would not
impact the total.

The GC measures what share of something each percentile has, and
translates that into a single figure for comparative purposes. It
goes from 0-1. 0 means perfect equality, or everyone has identical
amounts; 1 means perfect inequality, or one person has everything.
The highest I've ever heard of is Brazil, who was once around 0.65
(don't know if they still are or not). I think that's for wealth.