Talk:Kuznets curve
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the importance scale |
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Graphics
This thing desperately needs a picture of the curve. I'm going to try to find one. 203.199.50.16 07:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done.
- Jkerwin 07:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Need a better picture of the curve, it's not good at all, it shouldn't be symmetrical Lukeitfc 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pronounciation
Okay this is a pretty trivial matter but I'm writing an essay on KC's for a scholarship I found on the internet, and I would like to know how to pronounce KUZNET. Is it kooze-net? Or CUZ(as in because)-NET? I would like to know so I don't sound like an idiot when I talk about our KC's.
I pronounce it like Cuz-nets but faster, so like KznetsLukeitfc 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On cross sectional
Actually, I believe the Kuznet also appears for data of England and Wales. Weil's book on page 370 has it. Brusegadi 00:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question
I have a question: what is the cause and what is the consequence in the Picture (U curve). Try to redraw the curve but now with exchanging the axis making the x axis to y (just rotate the Picture clockwise and flip it) and try the same argumentation as in the article (early stages of devlopements etc....)==> it dont work since the curve is not a function anymore. So arguing that per capita income increases and then decreases (or growth or what else) is non sens since for every inequality value on the x coordinate there exsist 2 corresponding points on the income axis so which one to choose????
- It does not matter that the curve is no longer a function as you say (if I understand correctly.) What this says is two things:
- As a country develops it will first become more unequal. Eventually, it will reach a maximum inequality, and then it will become more equal. The classic example is England. It reaches its highest point of inequality probably at around the industrial revolution (not sure thought.) This means that developing countries today may experience such trends.
- The other meaning is that if you plot countries income versus their inequality; inequality rises with income until you reach a maximum inequality. Then, after that "critical' income, inequality decreases as you raise the income.
Thus, for given the income of a country X, you can use this relationship to estimate X's level of inequality. I recommend you get a user page so that answers to these type of questions can be posted on your user page. Also, sign your posts. I do thank you for your comment because it might be indicative of deficiencies in the article. Brusegadi 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kuznet's Ratio
The definition was both self-contradictory and completely incorrect; it has been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.40.164 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
