there's no such thing as "more equal". There can be varying degrees of inequality, but "equal" is an absolute, much like "perfect."

Re: these B.S. statistical comparisons -- didn't PJ O'Rourke (where is he, btw?) demonstrate that Bombay has the same population density as Fresno, CA, or some such?

And now, I shall STFU and GFM. Good night.

Aeschylus,

Well, the way economists use "equal," there can be a "more equal" and "less equal." Just as in some cases it makes sense to speak of "more" and "less" perfect, as when, y'know, a bunch of people set out to form a "more perfect union."

MG

it's not a paragon of grammatical correctness. Or punctuation, for that matter. What's with all those commas in the Second Amendment?

No such thing as "more perfect" or "more equal", and all the bad writers in the world can't make it otherwise.

Right, because you personally are the arbiter of the English language.

I just follow them. From collegeboard.com:

The following words, among others, cannot be modified by adjectives of degree (such as "more," "less," or "very"): equal, fatal, omnipotent, opposite, parallel, perfect, unanimous, unique, and universal. These are all presented in full or not at all. Instead, use the following options: similar, deadly, powerful, opposed, congruent, good, agreed, unusual, and widespread. Something can't be more unique than something else, but it can be more unusual.

The College Board's half-right on equal: we're talking about a term of art in economics. Under ordinary circumstances, "more equal" makes no sense. Here it does, but it's a limited case.

They're wrong on perfect, though. No time to get into it now, but in some cases (mathematical cases in which it is a term of art, for instance, or "a perfect flower") perfect is used as a superlative, and there cannot be a "a more perfect." But there is another sense of perfect, reflected in the verb "perfectible," in which there's a long tradition of using the form "more perfect."

There, I've pretty much given you most of what you wanted, right?

MG

"Perfectible" is an adjective (as I'm sure you realize) that means "capable of being made (to be) perfect." Moreover, perfect comes from a Latin root meaning "finished, complete." Once something's complete, that's it. There's no such thing as "more complete." I know "more perfect" has a long and illustrious past, but I'm trying to hold the barbarians at the gate. I fear that "should have went" and "should have did" (etc.) will also become standard in a decade or so. It just makes me want to vomit.

aeschylus:

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Animal Farm George Orwell

or maybe this one

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . ." Preamble, Gouverneur Morris

You are nit-picking. There are degrees of equality the same as there are degrees of perfection and I think I will take my stance with those barbarians in determining degrees of either.

Anywho, the scattering of people in India may be closer to the mean than what exists in the US in terms of income and wealth. The US would find a smaller group holding more of the wealth and/or income than the norm as detailed by the Gini ratio. For example with the 2001/2003 tax breaks, 1% of the population received 31% of the tax breaks in those two years. To answer the question of how many people in the US may be classified as poor an/or living in poverty, we can use President Bush's own classification for SCHIP/CHIP or 250% of Poverty. If you look that percentage up in the US Census, I believe you would find an ~120 million people of the population classified as poor and/or living in poverty ubder that scenario.

If we are determined to make a society "more equal" in terms of wealth and/or income; than we are attempting to bring the population closer to the mean. Hence, India may indeed be more equal when it comes to wealth and/or income when compared to the US. Mark's use of "more equal" is proper and acceptable in economical discussions.

As I have pointed out also, the terminology has a historical significance of persective when used to detail degrees or differences.

Mark:

I would call it an "approximation" as in more or less equal to a standard of sorts. Besides the point of the article, this deviation is a distraction to your intent. We understood the point and someone is nit-picking in an attempt to detract from it.

Uhh, yeah, umm, "perfectible" is ... yeah, an adjective. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt with your generous "as I'm sure you realize." Not everyone in the Fray would put it as kindly. Serves me right for trying to jump into a debate on word usage far outside any expertise I can reasonably claim to have.