A bit more data: the GINI index of countries from the CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html. The US is about a third of the way down (with earlier entries having a higher GINI index, implying greater inequality).

What I’d like to see next would be the graphs, particularly those in Figs. 1 and 6, for a mix of other countries. Mark Reynolds mentions some, and I’d definitely like to see them included. I’d particularly like to see the graphs for a representative mix of 3rd world countries as well, because I have a feeling that in many ways, the U.S. is more like a 3rd world country today than like other OECD countries.

Finally, another relevant quote: “We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy. But we cannot have both.” — Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

I didn’t fight in Viet Nam but I did fight in Korea. The highest casualty rates were among company grade officers, i.e. lieutenants and captains. They were the platoon leaders, the helicopter pilots, the forward observers, and patrol leaders. To apply for Army officer training required a college degree, a clean record, and no less than a category II on the mental tests among other qualifications. Very few from poor ghettos qualified. There were only two blacks in my OCS class (Company). One became a good friend, a farmer from Virginia. (It is very costly to train a soldier and even more costly to then send him on to OCS. The Army is very good at predicting what kind of candidate will succeed.)

Before I get jumped on, there are exceptions, as: A holder of the Congressional Medal of Honor can select his duty in the Army. So if he chooses OCS he can go to OCS. An OCS classmate in his 30’s had the DSC which I presume got him a waiver. It is interesting to note that the Army would not grant a physical waiver for John Kennedy in WWII - imagine the pressure resisted! He did get a wavier from the Navy.

As for the poor being cannon fodder, that’s nonsense. Those testing the best went to the combat services: infantry, artillery and armor. A large percentage of the ghetto poor went to truck driving school, cook and baker school, and served in the Quartermasters, a low casualty service. I have read that a black soldier in Viet Nam was less likely to be shot than if he had stayed home. (Joe Kennedy Jr. got killed, George Bush I got shot down, Bob Dole got horribly wounded, John McCain got shot down, John Kerrey got wounded and on and on – examples of poor cannon fodder?)

Alas, war selectively kills the best DNA. This is demonstrated by Selective Service records of many millions in WWII. At that time the migration from the south to the north had not been completed. The mental scores (IQ’s) were in descending order: Northern whites, northern blacks, southern whites, southern blacks. The effect of this selectivity from the Civil War was still clear in 1940.

Social equity and the distribution of wealth seem to be a lot more out of whack in the USA than in other OECD countries. Living in Australia as I do I have only visited the USA half a dozen times over 20 years but every day we in Australia are immersed in news about US events and issues, which have been rather tumultuous this last 12 months. One of the striking features of US society to a distant spectator and occasional visitor is the way that large differences in wealth, income and access seem to be taken for granted as “the way things are”.

Australia is hardly perfect and we have a terrible record with our aboriginals but our institutions manage to pay a living wage to the lowest level of workers – often $15 to $20 an hour compared with much less in the USA. The consequences are twofold – the low-paid feel they have a stake in society and society is given levers it can pull to manage equity issues. These levers include minimum wage rates, taxes (because the poor do pay some tax), and social security payments of which Australia has quite a variety. None of this has much effect on the wealth of the top 1% but it sure is sustaining and civilising for the bottom 20 - 30%.

The European countries and particularly Scandinavia have even stronger redistributive arrangements than Australia so perhaps the model here is worth a look as some sort of middle ground. We even have a national taxation enquiry going on at the moment which includes examining how well the tax system supports social equity goals so the mechanisms are out in the open for discussion. And yes, the wealthy and powerful do keep arguing for a bigger slice of the cake, opposed by well-supported groups arguing the other way. Australia is no golden ideal but like Scandinavia we seem to have found a method to minimise the extent of abject poverty and misery at the bottom of society.

What does it take for a nation to do this? Two big things I think – a community that expects everyone to get a fair go, and legal structures that actively support the weaker members of society to everyone’s benefit. For example most of us in other countries find the passionate opposition to universal healthcare in the US to be quite extraordinary. It is obvious to the onlooker how certain groups of Americans benefit from the enormous sums of money swilling through your current health arrangements, and we find it amazing that the interests of the insiders seem to outweigh the lives of millions who lack access to basic care or can be made bankrupt by illness or accident. On this equity issue and so many others, what on earth is going on in your great nation?

Finally, forgive me for butting in to the concerns of others. I just can’t let this topic pass.

Mark