| Rath said: @tarheel. There are so many confounding factors in that.
Edit: To clarify, I'm saying that there is a correlation but that does not imply causation. |
Is it really that hard to imagine? Take what you learned from Econ 101 and apply it to this. When is a market the most efficient? When it's entirely free (taxes result in an unavoidable loss) and can operate at natural market equilibrium. Logically, the more money there is to go around, the more money there will be for everyone. Any argument based upon the benefits of the redistribution of wealth ignores the inherent issues in any even semi-socialized economy. Corruption becomes easier; governments are poorer (read: less efficient) managers of a market than the "invisible hand," and people themselves become less efficient when their income is less dependent on their performance (just look at the large amount of people satisfied to sit around, eeking out a living on unemployment checks in the US).
If you want, also consider that the overall trend in the graph holds true for any individual geographic region as well. With geographic region held constant, many of those confounding variables are held constant (and, thus, become irrelevant), and a relationship becomes much more easy to believe.
Edit: I'm not arguing for pure free market, just for something tilted more in that direction. Mostly free market with minor regulation.
