I expect more than this kind of crap response. While Jamie Galbraith would be of the catholic left, I've no idea what his specific views on Cuba or China might be. Do you?
Further, are his views on Cuba or China driving his effort in regard of measuring income inequality? It seems to me that what's driving him is a valid dissatisfaction with the usual data sets, as also what's been done with them for one argument or another.
In any case, using pay to estimate income would have the same effect on China, i.e., if one were to take account of informal sector activities, then it's likely that income Gini's in China would be lower than reported. And it wouldn't make any difference to the trend towards greater inequality there.
As for Cuba, I don't think anyone reports income Gini's, not Jamie Galbraith, not the World Bank. But it would be low -- but they don't enjoy the mass of low-priced goods which even the Indian poor get to enjoy to some degree.
So what is the point? That the left -- not just the US left -- generally thinks of inequality, esp gross inequality, as a "bad"? Is that value contingent upon whether they hold China and/or Cuba as sacred cows? More to the point, who, outside of some fringe groups, holds China as a sacred cow today? Even more to the point, is it only the left that thinks of inequality as a "bad"? If so, why all the energy into trying to show that the world has gotten more equal over the past fifty years, or that inequality is not harmful? Surely the left can't be so dominant that all this energy has gone into trying to show it wrong, suggesting that this value is, in fact, part of the social dna of the contemporary world, even if people happily live with actually-existing levels of considerable inequality, albeit with constant reminders to the losers that it's really all their own fault -- bad governments, bad policies, bad cultures, bad attitudes, even bad dna.
So, the real sacred cow is anti-inequality, hopefully seen as multi-dimensional and not only income or wealth inequality. But to start with, if you wish to debunk the US, or any left, then the argument to be made is that income or wealth inequality is harmless, at least neutral in relation to any number of matters, whether processual or desirable end states; hence there's really no point all this energy spent on tracking inequality trends, whether it's inter- or intra-country/personal, type I/type II, etc. inequality. No need to lash out at alleged country sacred cows.
kj khoo