Gini Coefficient by Country 2022

Botswana

Gini % - World Bank: 53.3

Data Year (World Bank): 2015

Gini % - CIA World Factbook: 53.3

Data Year (CIA): 2015

The Gini coefficient, also called the Gini index or Gini ratio, is the most commonly used measure of income distribution—simply put, the higher the Gini coefficient, the greater the gap between the incomes of a country's richest and poorest people. A country's Gini coefficient is important because it helps identify high levels of income inequality, which can have several undesirable political and economic impacts. These include slower GDP growth, reduced income mobility, greater household debt, political polarization, and higher poverty rates.

Explaining the Gini coefficient

Developed by Italian statistician Corrado Gini in 1912, the Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, but is often written as a percentage. To offer two hypothetical examples, if a nation were to have absolute income equality, with every person earning the same amount, its Gini score would be 0 (0%). On the other hand, if one person earned all the income in a nation and the rest earned zero, the Gini coefficient would be 1 (100%). Mathematically, the Gini coefficient is defined based on the Lorenz curve. The Lorenz curve plots the percentiles of the population on the graph's horizontal axis according to income or wealth, whichever is being measured. The cumulative income or wealth of the population is plotted on the vertical axis.

Limitations of the Gini coefficient

While the Gini coefficient is a useful tool for analyzing the wealth or income distribution in a country, it does not indicate that country's overall wealth or income. Some of the world's poorest countries, such as the Central African Republic, have some of the highest Gini coefficients (61.3 in this case). A high-income country and a low-income country can have the same Gini coefficients. Additionally, due to limitations such as reliable GDP and income data, the Gini index may overstate income inequality and be inaccurate.

Countries with the highest and lowest Gini coefficients

South Africa ranks as the country with the lowest level of income equality in the world, thanks to a Gini coefficient of 63.0 when last measured in 2014. That said, in 2005, the Gini coefficient was even higher, at 65.0. In South Africa, the richest 10% hold 71% of the wealth, while the poorest 60% hold just 7% of the wealth. Additionally, more than half of South Africa's population lives in poverty.

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Gini Coefficients (%) - World Bank:

1. South Africa - 2014 - 63.0
2. Namibia - 2015 - 59.1
3. Suriname - 1999 - 57.9
4. Zambia - 2015 - 57.1
5. Sao Tome and Principe - 2017 - 56.3
6. Central African Republic - 2008 - 56.2
7. Eswatini - 2016 - 54.6
8. Mozambique - 2014 - 54.0
9. Brazil - 2019 - 53.4
10. Belize - 1999 - 53.3

Now for the good news:

Top 10 Countries with the Lowest Gini Coefficients (%) - World Bank:

1. Slovenia - 2018 - 24.6
2. Czech Republic - 2018 - 25.0 (tie)
3. Slovakia - 2018 - 25.0 (tie)
4. Belarus - 2019 - 25.3
5. Moldova - 2018 - 25.7
6. United Arab Emirates - 2018 - 26.0
7. Iceland - 2017 - 26.1
8. Azerbaijan - 2005 - 26.6 (tie)
9. Ukraine - 2019 - 26.6 (tie)
10. Belgium - 2018 - 27.2
    

Toxic Joe Biden - Making America's Bad Guy Status Unmistakable For Half A Century...,

unz |  Out of 195 countries, only 30 have honored the US sanctions on Russia. That means about 165 countries in the world have refused to join the sanctions. Those countries represent by far the majority of the world’s population. Most of Africa, Latin America (including Mexico and Brazil), East Asia (excepting Japan, South Korea, both occupied by U.S. troops and hence not sovereign, Singapore and the renegade Chinese Province of Taiwan) have refused. (India and China alone represent 35% of humanity.)

Add to that fact that 40 different countries are now the targets of US sanctions and there is a powerful constituency to oppose the thuggish economic tactics of the U.S.

Finally, at the recent G-20 Summit a walkout led by the US when the Russia delegate spoke was joined by the representatives of only 3 other G-20 countries, with 80% of these leading financial nations refusing to join! Similarly, a US attempt to bar a Russian delegate from a G-20 meeting later in the year in Bali was rebuffed by Indonesia which currently holds the G-20 Presidency.

Nations Taking Russia’s side are no longer poor as in Cold War 1.0.

These dissenting countries of the Global South are no longer as poor as they were during the Cold War. Of the top 10 countries in PPP-GDP, 5 do not support the sanctions. And these include China (number one) and India (number 3). So the first and third most powerful economies stand against the US on this matter. (Russia is number 6 on that list about equal to Germany, number 5, the two being close to equal, belying the idea that Russia’s economy is negligible.)

These stands are vastly more significant than any UN vote. Such votes can be coerced by a great power and little attention is paid to them in the world. But the economic interests of a nation and its view of the main danger in the world are important determinants of how it reacts economically – for example to sanctions. A “no” to US sanctions is putting one’s money where one’s mouth is.

We in the West hear that Russia is “isolated in the world” as a result of the crisis in Ukraine. If one is speaking about the Eurovassal states and the Anglosphere, that is true. But considering humanity as a whole and among the rising economies of the world, it is the US that stands isolated. And even in Europe, cracks are emerging. Hungary and Serbia have not joined the sanctions regime and of course most European countries will not and indeed cannot turn away from Russian energy imports crucial to their economies. It appears that the grand scheme of U.S. global hegemony to be brought about by the US move to WWII Redux, both Cold and Hot, has hit a mighty snag.

For those who look forward to a multipolar world, this is a welcome turn of events emerging out of the cruel tragedy of the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. The possibility of a saner, more prosperous multipolar world lies ahead – if we can get there.

When It Comes To Boot Licking Brandon, JUST BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES!!!

 

 

My Money's On Zakharova Vs. Kirby In the Octagon

dailymail  |  Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova slammed Pentagon press secretary John Kirby and said he's 'losing his nerve' in his comments over Putin's invasion of Ukraine. 

Kirby delivered an emotional condemnation of Vladimir Putin's 'depravity' in Ukraine on Friday, and came close to tears as he described the horror of looking at images coming from the war-torn country.

Zakharova, who has served as Moscow's foreign ministry spokesperson since 2015, called Kirby's statement 'rude, insulting and troublesome' in a post on Telegram. 

She added that Kirby 'said some nonsense' about Russian President Putin. 

'Among other gibberish, he said it was 'hard to look at what Russian forces are doing in Ukraine.' Really? How hard can it be for an American rear admiral to look at anything?' she asked. 

The Pentagon press secretary has won rave reviews for his unflappable manner and dry sense of humor during briefings, delivering grim news with the minimum of fuss.

But on Friday, the toll of 65 days of war in Ukraine caught up with him when he was asked about President Putin's state of mind. 

'I'm not going to go into the psychology of Vladimir Putin,' he began.

'It's hard to look at what he's doing in Ukraine, what his forces are doing in Ukraine and think that any ethical, moral individual could justify that. 

'It's difficult to look at the...'

He tailed off, apparently choking up and battling to regain his composure.

After a few seconds, he resumed his train of thought and delivered one of his most powerful condemnations yet of the Russian president. 

'Sorry,' he said.

'It's difficult to look at some of the images and imagine that any well-thinking, serious mature leader would do that. 

'So I can't talk to his psychology. But I think we can all speak to his depravity.'