ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax



I thought that the chart looked strangely linear, so I entered the numbers in Excel and plotted an XY chart rather than a bar chart.
It is highly non-linear. A power regression fits the data the best. (y=1E-108*x^32.57, R^2=.9809)
Interestingly enough, you can get an almost perfect fit if you only plot the years 1820, 1913, 1950, and 2005. (R^2=.9985, y=5E-114*x^34.25)
1980 is a huge outlier. That's the damage socialism caused, especially Maoism and Indian style socialism.
I thought the middle class was shrinking ;)
MISPRINT
"...54 percent in 2005 to a projected 79 percent in 2005."
But a fascinating snippet - thanks.
Dear AK, please could you give some indication of the oprational definition of Middle Class used in this book?
Do a exponential regression on the data for 1820, 1913, and 1950. Extrapolate to 2025.
Had socialism never occured, 96.7% of the world's population would be middle class in 2025 vs. the 79% now projected (I get 76.5%).
66% of the pop would be middle class in 2005, instead of the 54% we now have.
Socialism/ Maoism did that much damage. And it isn't like 1950 was a good year or anything. It was only 5 years after WWII, after all. Imagine where the world would be if, say, WWI had never happened and the positive trends of the 19th century had continued.
A couple of typos: "23 percent in 1850" should be changed to the much-less-shocking "1950"; and as pointed out above, "79 percent in 2005" should be "2025".