Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The velocity of money provides another perspective on money demand.Given the nominal flow of transactions using money, if the interest rate on alternative financial assets is high, people will not want to hold much money relative to the quantity of their transactions—they try to exchange it fast for goods or other financial assets, and money is said to "burn a hole in their pocket" and ...
The "Great Gatsby Curve" is the term given to the positive empirical relationship between cross-sectional income inequality and persistence of income across generations. [1] The scatter plot shows a correlation between income inequality in a country and intergenerational income mobility (the potential for its citizens to achieve upward mobility).
M3 (the broad concept of money supply): M1 plus time deposits with the banking system, made up of net bank credit to the government plus bank credit to the commercial sector, plus the net foreign exchange assets of the banking sector and the government's currency liabilities to the public, less the net non-monetary liabilities of the banking ...
Further, variation in income inequality across developed countries indicate that policy has a significant influence on inequality; Japan, Sweden and France have income inequality around 1960 levels. [ clarification needed ] [ 81 ] The US was an early adopter of neoliberalism , which shifted the distribution of income from labor to capital, [ 82 ...
The inequality income metric should be independent of the aggregate level of income. This may be stated as: = where α is a positive real number. Population independence Similarly, the income inequality metric should not depend on whether an economy has a large or small population.
While pre-tax income is the primary driver of income inequality, the less progressive tax code further increased the share of after-tax income going to the highest income groups. For example, had these tax changes not occurred, the after-tax income share of the top 0.1% would have been approximately 4.5% in 2000 instead of the 7.3% actual figure.
For =, (no aversion to inequality), the marginal social welfare from income is invariant to income, i.e. marginal increases in income produce as much social welfare whether they go to a poor or rich individual. In this case, the welfare equivalent equally distributed income is equal to mean income, and the Atkinson index is zero.
The MLD of household income has been defined as [1] = = ¯ where N is the number of households, is the income of household i, and ¯ is the mean of . Naturally the same formula can be used for positive variables other than income and for units of observation other than households.